TheRPGSite

So as a rule I much prefer a an open gameworld with a light touch of structure and sequenced events to give the players (not the characters) focus. And that works well for my group, however I was chatting with this chap and he was saying that every time he ran a sandbox game his group floundered and became aimless and the game fizzled.

Now I was trying to think what I did that made mine work but I've been gaming with the same group for 20 odd years so it's kind of hard coded.

What advice would you give this guy? Personally if his group is happy running through structured (lightly railroaded) adventures I'd say leave well enough alone, fun is fun after all, but he seems keen to expand his skill set so any clever tips, sage advice or handy hints?

Quote from: HorusArisen;967545What advice would you give this guy?

Throw away your character backstory and write a list of three goals, with a couple of bullet points for each on how you plan for your character to achieve them.

Quote from: Black Vulmea;967552Throw away your character backstory and write a list of three goals, with a couple of bullet points for each on how you plan for your character to achieve them.

Getting the players involved, always a firm start, and I like the goals idea reminds me of the beliefs from Burning Wheel in a way.

GMs who are used to having a structured plot driving what will happen may not get how to run a playstyle where PCs can do what they want and do something interesting. I would say maybe try starting by doing what they already do, but start letting go of more and more of the predetermined parts, and start adding thinking about what else might happen that they hadn't considered, and start leaving more and more openings and prompts for the players to choose their own interests and ways of doing things. Ask the players (either directly and/or via appropriate NPCs and/or getting the PCs to discuss it themselves) what their immediate interests and goals and plans are and then prepare that between sessions. But prepare things not so much in terms of a tree of expected events, but in terms of what and who that's relevant is where the PCs are going, what they are doing, so that the GM can determine during play what happens, as a natural result of what the PCs (and other agents present doing things nearby) do.

Sandbox games don't suit every group.

If there are players struggling then the GM has to find something for them to do. So, they can have their sandbox, but if it's slowing down or not working then the GM can bring in his light railroad game to get the game back on track. Then, when it's done let them off again. The other thing is to sprinkle some seeds aout the place - even just bullshit rumours that will nudge the players in a direction. So they will want actually want to investigate places using their own intiative. This can get them moving into a new area and things can happen organically (in theroy anyway).

Much like a good TV show, I think a good sandbox need an overall arc that can be brought in as needed. But not forced down your throat...

B.V. is right about having character goals. Vampire (Sabbat preferably) is great for this! As soon as the GM stops the players have their own ends to sort out, so the game is never static. I find it quite odd that some players just 'cease motion' when the GM gives them a bit breathing space.

Quote from: Black Vulmea;967552Throw away your character backstory and write a list of three goals, with a couple of bullet points for each on how you plan for your character to achieve them.

This. But be prepared to adjust as events unfold (I'm speaking of the player, here).

Also: the evolving world has forces in it who have goals as well, and where these goals intersect with the players/PCs, you gain additional directions to choose from.

Quote from: HorusArisen;967545So as a rule I much prefer a an open gameworld with a light touch of structure and sequenced events to give the players (not the characters) focus. And that works well for my group, however I was chatting with this chap and he was saying that every time he ran a sandbox game his group floundered and became aimless and the game fizzled.

Now I was trying to think what I did that made mine work but I've been gaming with the same group for 20 odd years so it's kind of hard coded.

What advice would you give this guy? Personally if his group is happy running through structured (lightly railroaded) adventures I'd say leave well enough alone, fun is fun after all, but he seems keen to expand his skill set so any clever tips, sage advice or handy hints?

Motivation is everything.

A "structured" adventure, at it's best and when it works, is structured according to, or is at least compatible with, the motives that appeal to the player characters. When a "structured" adventure flops, it's because the structure is over has no regard for the motives that appeal to the player characters.

Sandbox adventures, at their best, work because when given full freedom of choice, players are always playing according to their motives. When sandbox adventures flop, it's because either players don't bring enough motivation to the table themselves, or the GM hasn't presented enough information or a nuanced enough world so that the players can see clear a best course of action (or at least one that seems best to the player or players at the time) right from the word "go" to get the ball rolling.

My advice: be aware of motivations. Don't run a structured adventure that isn't appropriate for the group. When designing your sandbox, be sure to include details that almost demand action. And in order to be best prepared with those details where you need them, you have to get good at anticipating the direction players will take in a sandbox and plan accordingly.

Get a copy of Tony Bath's "Ancient Wargaming."
http://www.lulu.com/us/en/shop/society-of-ancients-and-tony-bath-and-john-curry/tony-baths-ancient-wargaming/paperback/product-15463540.html

Read "Setting Up a Wargames Campaign," and do that with your world.  Then, run your world at the kingdom level using his rules for five years (game time, this should take about an evening.)

His rules include things like wars starting, assassinations, natural disasters, etc.  After five years all sorts of shit will be happening in your world.

Now turn your players loose.

For a new campaign with unknown players I usually start with a railroaded first adventure (*just goto the fucking local dungeon eh*) and then gradually open the world up. An NPC patron can also act as a sandbox midwife offering quests and tasks and hooks etc.

Once players are somewhat immersed, events and adventures usually start taking a life of their own. A good campaign has momentum, so it's easy to run, especially if you develop some decent improv skills and robust prep habits

I've never seen a 'structured' adventure that didn't make me what to drive an electric drill into my head to stop the voices from driving me mad.

Seriously, I think anything remotely 'railroady' in a table top rpg adventure just ruins the whole thing. It's like siting down to play chess only to find you are only allowed to re-enact bobby fischer's greatest game, complete with the voices, and if you screw up someone will roll their eyes and put the piece where it was supposed to go.

Lots of good responses here, Black Vulmea had the best advice which is give the PCs goals and relationships that will drive the adventures.

BtW has scenerio playbooks that create dynamic randomized structures for adventures and even a campaign that are worth checking out, close to a 'structured sandbox' in feel.

Another approach is it have a sandbox with adventure seeds for mini and major adventures spread throughout it, via actually engaging NPCs and/or a central McGuffin. Night's Dark Terror and even recent 5e adventures like Lost Mines of Phandelver and Curse of Strahd all take this approach and it can work very well. The trick is to make the NPCs and sidequests actually engaging enough that they function as more than Skyrim automatons handing out fetchquests. One of the key ways of doing that is to really tie them into the setting and PCs in ways more interesting than 'this guy is yer cousin.'

A lot of people have said it, and Alexander coined a phrase for it, Don't create Polots, create Situations.  Once you stop trying to be a Master of Ceremonies, and be more of a Worldbuilder and Rules Referee, then you come up with a World in Motion where the NPCs all have their own goals and motivations and are going to be working for those goals, possibly against other NPCs, all without the players doing anything.

Give them a world, and it will be much easier to get them to think like their character and come up with goals in this world.

That's nice, but it's easy to say, and they've probably been playing a different way, so what can the GM do?

• Come up with some major situations that are happening in the area, perhaps related to hooks the players may have in the world through their history/backstory.
• When the players are presented with these situations, encourage them to react, through in-game support.  NPCs are looking to hire them, rewards are given, etc.  Make some things seem like normal Plot Hooks.  The key is make enough of them that the players have to choose what they are going to focus on.
• When they go "off track", let them.  Let things stall for a session, let them be responsible for the flow of what happens.  If they think outside the box and catch you unawares, let them do the same to the NPC, reward non-linear thinking.

You do these three things, you'll start moving them towards advancing their character goals as characters as opposed to dealing with "campaign plots" as players.

Now, this type of playstyle isn't for everyone.  Players will prefer certain levels of structure, and different levels of IC/OOC, and different levels of anything else.  But, it's kind of hard to knock it until you try it, especially if you have nothing but incorrect preassumptions about it to begin with.

My thoughts on running sandboxes:

1) If you don't want characters scattering to the 4 winds, ensure they have reasons to stay together -- ideally pre-existing relationships & shared goals

2) Develop character goals iteratively. The characters live in and grew up in the world. The players didn't. If you're not in a familiar setting, getting good goals that work with the world may take some doing -- you want goals that are likely to generate engaging game-play in the world.

Note: One of the reasons, "We're adventurers who go into dangerous places and return with treasure" is such a classic is that it is exciting and suitable for any setting where there are dangerous places with treasure.

3) Have NPCs and external factors doing interesting things that will be visible to the characters. If the world is dynamic, it will provide threats and opportunities, if the PC's just sit still long enough.

4) Provide a map -- of some kind. Give the PC's a bunch of stuff to engage with. Give them a star-chart and say, "You're here, there are 6 other planets in the system, and you understand these two are full of dangerous ruins and treasure. That one is run by an evil cyberlitch who people say has designs on conquering everything."

If you don't have a world with frontiers to explorer and places to go, it's hard to engage.

5) Provide useful NPCs -- Ideally a short list of them. These should include Patrons, antagonists, people who need help, power-brokers. Maybe an underworld contact or two. This is really another kind of map. If you're not sure what to do, go talk to Fred The Merchant who always needs caravan guards, or talk to the Scheming Executive who always needs mercenary operatives, or whatever.

Cheers,
-E.

Quote from: HorusArisen;967545So as a rule I much prefer a an open gameworld with a light touch of structure and sequenced events to give the players (not the characters) focus. And that works well for my group, however I was chatting with this chap and he was saying that every time he ran a sandbox game his group floundered and became aimless and the game fizzled.

Now I was trying to think what I did that made mine work but I've been gaming with the same group for 20 odd years so it's kind of hard coded.

What advice would you give this guy? Personally if his group is happy running through structured (lightly railroaded) adventures I'd say leave well enough alone, fun is fun after all, but he seems keen to expand his skill set so any clever tips, sage advice or handy hints?

I'm big towards the Sandbox end, but I have seen some Sandbox Taliban who say things like "It's only a Sandbox if everything is pre-created before the game starts & runs mechanically from there - otherwise it's a Railroad" - I think this is generally not a good model to emulate, the GM is almost always going to need to add content during play, including adventure sites & 'hooks' - as long as PCs can ignore those hooks it's not railroady IMO.
The most important thing is that the PCs need to be motivated. They may be treasure seeking adventurers, brave knights, starship crew on an exploration mission, secret agents fighting Nazi Cthulu. Motivations don't create a railroad. A railroad (soft version) is when the GM creates a linear series of adventures the PCs have to play through, and the world/setting is just a facade for the Adventure Path. (Hard Railroad is when the GM does this by scene, and players have to play through each pre-determined scene, often with little or no meaningful choice).

I've been looking at how to make a non-railroad Achtung! Cthulu game, when it is clearly set up for do-this-mission play. I think the key is to focus on environment creation first - the PCs' home base (this is vital IMO, pace West Marches), enemy bases, neutral areas, all full of lots of NPCs with their own motivations. THEN start dropping in potential adventures/missions. The campaign probably does need to start with a "do this" mission, but everything after that can develop on from the results of the initial play.

Quote from: Larsdangly;967612I think anything remotely 'railroady' in a table top rpg adventure just ruins the whole thing. It's like siting down to play chess only to find you are only allowed to re-enact bobby fischer's greatest game, complete with the voices, and if you screw up someone will roll their eyes and put the piece where it was supposed to go.

That's ... sig-worthy.

Quote from: Black Vulmea;967552Throw away your character backstory and write a list of three goals, with a couple of bullet points for each on how you plan for your character to achieve them.

Quote from: Gronan of Simmerya;967582Get a copy of Tony Bath's "Ancient Wargaming."
http://www.lulu.com/us/en/shop/society-of-ancients-and-tony-bath-and-john-curry/tony-baths-ancient-wargaming/paperback/product-15463540.html

Read "Setting Up a Wargames Campaign," and do that with your world.  Then, run your world at the kingdom level using his rules for five years (game time, this should take about an evening.)

His rules include things like wars starting, assassinations, natural disasters, etc.  After five years all sorts of shit will be happening in your world.

Now turn your players loose.

What these two said.
There's a reason why I purchased Tony Bath's book for use with RPGs;).

Quote from: Larsdangly;967612I've never seen a 'structured' adventure that didn't make me what to drive an electric drill into my head to stop the voices from driving me mad.

Seriously, I think anything remotely 'railroady' in a table top rpg adventure just ruins the whole thing. It's like siting down to play chess only to find you are only allowed to re-enact bobby fischer's greatest game, complete with the voices, and if you screw up someone will roll their eyes and put the piece where it was supposed to go.

That's funny because it's so true:D!

Some nice advice, I forwarded a link to Chris to read so maybe he'll sign up to ask a few specific questions if he has them :D

Quote from: Skarg;967560But prepare things not so much in terms of a tree of expected events, but in terms of what and who that's relevant is where the PCs are going, what they are doing, so that the GM can determine during play what happens, as a natural result of what the PCs (and other agents present doing things nearby) do.

Yes, that is very good advice.

Quote from: saskganesh;967588For a new campaign with unknown players I usually start with a railroaded first adventure (*just goto the fucking local dungeon eh*) and then gradually open the world up. An NPC patron can also act as a sandbox midwife offering quests and tasks and hooks etc.

Once players are somewhat immersed, events and adventures usually start taking a life of their own. A good campaign has momentum, so it's easy to run, especially if you develop some decent improv skills and robust prep habits

I think this is a good compromise approach that works well. Eg in my Nentir Vale game the Vale has enough detail thanks to Threats To the Nentir Vale to be a viable sandbox, but the PCs have a patron, Lord Markelhay of Fallcrest, and a default activity of embarking on missions to protect Fallcrest, serve their lord, and get loot and xp. One thing I do is try to offer a variety of rumours including potential hooks to adventure sites, for starting out and whenever the PCs are less proactive.

But it's a good idea to frequently sit back and let the players run with their own ideas, don't let your mission-hooks get in the way of letting players follow up on their own ideas and interests.

Quote from: Voros;967616The trick is to make the NPCs and sidequests actually engaging enough that they function as more than Skyrim automatons handing out fetchquests.

Lost Mine of Phandelver failed really hard there. Frankly some of Skyrim's NPCs are a lot better. The town NPCs are just quest hubs, one reason I don't really recommend it unless the GM is going to put a lot of effort into fleshing out Phandalin properly.

Quote from: -E.;9676444) Provide a map -- of some kind. Give the PC's a bunch of stuff to engage with. Give them a star-chart and say, "You're here, there are 6 other planets in the system, and you understand these two are full of dangerous ruins and treasure. That one is run by an evil cyberlitch who people say has designs on conquering everything."

If you don't have a world with frontiers to explorer and places to go, it's hard to engage.

5) Provide useful NPCs -- Ideally a short list of them. These should include Patrons, antagonists, people who need help, power-brokers. Maybe an underworld contact or two. This is really another kind of map. If you're not sure what to do, go talk to Fred The Merchant who always needs caravan guards, or talk to the Scheming Executive who always needs mercenary operatives, or whatever.

More really good advice. Lots of sandbox GMs fail hard at providing adequate information to the players, especially out-of-world stuff like maps & NPC lists that parrallels in-world info the PCs should know.

The DM should have a discussion with the players before putting any work into the campaign. There is no sense in preparing a great sandbox environment then staring across the table at a herd of cows milling around waiting to be milked.

Make sure the players are into seeking opportunity and adventure. If the group cannot see its way to to do anything without being attacked or spoon fed a quest indicating the world is about to end then shitcan them and find a better group or abandon the sandbox. This will save a load of work and heartache.

Assuming you do find suitable players, start with a small piece of a world and expand as you go. A starting town & enough surrounding area with adventure opportunities is enough to start. Having an idea about what is beyond this is fine but there isn't really a need to finely detail all of it unless you really feel like it. If there is enough interesting stuff happing locally then you won't need anything else for a while anyway.

With a starting area fleshed out in some detail, there will be places to explore and people/monsters to meet. All of these monsters & people want something. Many of these desires result in action being taken and thus we have plots. Plots are not antithetical to a sandbox environment if used properly. While the players plot to achieve their own goals, the NPCs in the area will be doing the same. It is where these plots come into contact with one another that make for interesting game play. Some will become conflicts,and others may align together. As long as these plots originate from an entity within the game world they do not affect the structure of play.

Once the area is detailed and the inhabitants are brought to life and their plots set in motion it is time to introduce the PCs to mix and let them explore. Information, especially information that everyone in the region knows, should be be freely shared. There should also be opportunities to learn no so common information if the effort is made to do so. Besides a lack of proactive players, not being generous enough with initial information is probably high on the list of causes for sandbox campaign failure. Once the players have sense of what is in the area and somewhat of an idea about some things that are going on, they can decide what to do and where to go to best further their own goals.

From there it is all about following the PCs activities, and seeing what effect they have on the current status quo, and how the other inhabitants of the area react and modify their activities in response to everything.

Amazing advice here! I'll complement citing some RPGs that come ready with campaigns/advice/techniques/built-in systems from the get-go for sandbox style play:

- Beyond the Wall (with Further Afield)
- Mutant Year Zero
- Apocalypse World
- Blades in the Dark

They are worth a read if you're interested in the style, even if you don't intend to play them.

Quote from: CRKrueger;967640That's nice, but it's easy to say, and they've probably been playing a different way, so what can the GM do?

• Come up with some major situations that are happening in the area, perhaps related to hooks the players may have in the world through their history/backstory.
• When the players are presented with these situations, encourage them to react, through in-game support.  NPCs are looking to hire them, rewards are given, etc.  Make some things seem like normal Plot Hooks.  The key is make enough of them that the players have to choose what they are going to focus on.
• When they go "off track", let them.  Let things stall for a session, let them be responsible for the flow of what happens.  If they think outside the box and catch you unawares, let them do the same to the NPC, reward non-linear thinking.

You do these three things, you'll start moving them towards advancing their character goals as characters as opposed to dealing with "campaign plots" as players.

I would add to that list:

Make information easier to get than you might think.

People making nefarious plans are realistically going to keep them secret, but information is the currency of motion in a sandbox game. With no information, nothing is likely to happen -- the PCs have nothing to react to and no clear way to pursue their own goals.

At the same time, you don't want to overly-privilege one set of direction over another. If the only thing you know is that the Duke of Schemes is potting to shoot the Archbishop, it's less a sandbox than a linear plot: you could ignore it, but what then?

I think giving the PC's an unusually privileged source of info is a good idea and explains how they know things (even at their relatively low level of experience) that other (far more important and embedded) people don't.

Something like
- Rumors overheard in a bar are the traditional go-to, but 1) that's a bit cliche 2) rumors about ancient ruins are fine, but rumors about plots and conspiracies raise questions that if the PCs know about it, doesn't everyone know?
- A privately commissioned map showing multiple ruins and other places of interest
- A collection of intelligence files about "who's doing what"
- A network of informants who work for someone else but are personal friends with the PCs and leak to them the same thing could be access to police records or well-connected, streetwise PCs who hear what's going on before others do
- A black-market cyber-clearinghouse for wetwork operatives. Craig's List for freelance spies could at least give the PC's some idea of who's hiring and if it's secure / elite enough that sort of/kind-of answers the "how does everyone not know about this?!" issue

I would avoid making the source of info a patron -- if their source of information is a powerful friend who expects them to act on what's been told, then it's less of a sandbox and more of an agent/mission type game, which is fine but not the same freedom you're going for.

Note that sandbox games can easily and productively evolve into an agent-type game: that's fine. But if you start out that way you're kind of stacking the deck.

One other note on information: After giving it some thought, I've decided that in at least some cases NPCs are worse liars, easier to break, and way more lose with key info than they might be in real life. This is a personal judgment call but
1) I don't want to force the PCs to face "do we torture this guy or get nothing" a lot of the time. In many cases, forceful questioning is enough to scare someone into talking
2) I want dealing with NPCs -- in general -- be productive and interesting. Having everyone always lawyer up is dull and just forces escalation, possibly past the boundaries of good sense (see below)
3) Characters who are experienced interrogators would know how to get people talking. I've had formal military training in interrogation and have role-played profession training scenarios where I'm being interrogated and had to force the trainee to find my weak-point. Most of the people in my games do not have that experience. If I force them to roleplay it... we're never getting anywhere.
4) As I said above, information is the currency of motion. To the extent that I withhold information, the game stalls. Getting info can be fun and exciting, but I find the game is always better when the PC's know what's going on (to a reasonable extent) and move from collecting intelligence into action

Cheers,
-E.

Quote from: -E.;967644If you don't want characters scattering to the 4 winds, ensure they have reasons to stay together -- ideally pre-existing relationships & shared goals

No. Just fucking no.

Stop "giving" the players anything beyond information about the game-world. It's up to them to decide why to stay together, to negotiate with one another to make that happen, and for fuck's sake stop relying on character 'backgrounds' to tie them together.

Just fucking play, and sort it out as you go.

Quote from: -E.;967644My thoughts on running sandboxes:

1) If you don't want characters scattering to the 4 winds, ensure they have reasons to stay together -- ideally pre-existing relationships & shared goals

Yep I prefer to have something that ties the PCs together, esp in a sandbox. Personally I like to have them roll on a party bonds table. I think this is more important than a detailed "backstory" in fact. I like to see a one or two sentence history, plus party bonds to the other PCs, and off they go. Then play to find out more details about their history - via insta/improv history - as the game unfolds.

Quote from: Black Vulmea;967720No. Just fucking no.

Stop "giving" the players anything beyond information about the game-world. It's up to them to decide why to stay together, to negotiate with one another to make that happen, and for fuck's sake stop relying on character 'backgrounds' to tie them together.

Just fucking play, and sort it out as you go.

Oh, please.
For someone who's group meets six times a year (http://www.therpgsite.com/showthread.php?29618-How-Many-are-Non-Gamers&p=748685&viewfull=1#post748685), you have awfully fucking strong ideas about how those of us who play every week ought to do things. You'd discover your impractical idealism is ivory-tower crap, and that people who actually game have figured out how to make it work.

If you come down off your high horse, you might find that

1) If the people in the game want to scatter, fine -- I explicitly addressed in the post you quoted -- but if you don't want that, then work with everyone to ensure that there's alignment. This is basic stuff.
2) The GM -- the traditional RPG model -- is the elected group leader. Show some fucking leadership.

Cheers!
-E.

Quote from: Black Vulmea;967720Stop "giving" the players anything beyond information about the game-world. It's up to them to decide why to stay together, to negotiate with one another to make that happen, and for fuck's sake stop relying on character 'backgrounds' to tie them together.
.

I do it both ways depending on my campaign, but I definitely don't see anything wrong with having players get on the same page with background stuff or motivation so the campaign functions smoothly. Both have their upsides and downsides. A campaign can definitely get difficult to manage if players are both not in congress enough with one another and not enjoying having people going after different things. I think the latter is really important to determine though. I have some groups who love that kind of freedom and are fine with the group not being on the same page, but I also have groups that get annoyed with that. There is also the GM factor, the less on the same page the party is, the more work you might potentially have in terms of prep between sessions. I think is a very individual thing based on the players present.

Even in a sandbox game you've got to have the players stick together even if the reason is fairly obtuse. It's fine for them to pursue their own goals, but it'd be better with the assistance of the other players (in turn). Well, more interesting for the whole gaming group. Using a spotlight from time to time is great of course and gives the characters their own time to further their agendas.

Having a commonality works very well in a game like 'Beyond the Wall' and the mechanics reflect this in interesting ways that really help the GM to build on the game from the ground up.

Personally, I'd prefer a more WFRP approach. Such as greed/money keeping the group together. Or fighting some common enemy out of revenge. I'm not all that enamored at playing 'good guy' heroes per se.

Being bonded to the players through their backgrounds can be a double-edged sword because it can be restrictive if not done correctly. If you can lump them together initially (which is easy enough), then a bond will form naturally and you should be good to go from there. Unless you players are being deliberate dicks or somthing.

I'm withE here, a starting bond and common goals between players tend to help. Beyond the Wall and the other games I've cited does this to great effect.

But if the group prefer otherwise, just go with it!

Quote from: The Exploited.;967739Even in a sandbox game you've got to have the players stick together even if the reason is fairly obtuse. It's fine for them to pursue their own goals, but it'd be better with the assistance of the other players (in turn). Well, more interesting for the whole gaming group. Using a spotlight from time to time is great of course and gives the characters their own time to further their agendas.

Having a commonality works very well in a game like 'Beyond the Wall' and the mechanics reflect this in interesting ways that really help the GM to build on the game from the ground up.

Personally, I'd prefer a more WFRP approach. Such as greed/money keeping the group together. Or fighting some common enemy out of revenge. I'm not all that enamored at playing 'good guy' heroes per se.

Being bonded to the players through their backgrounds can be a double-edged sword because it can be restrictive if not done correctly. If you can lump them together initially (which is easy enough), then a bond will form naturally and you should be good to go from there. Unless you players are being deliberate dicks or somthing.

Keeping the same group together assumes that the same people playing the same characters consistently are the only participants of the campaign. What about an open table sandbox run in a FLGS where you have about 15 people who play but only about 6 or 7 of them play each session and the group mix is different each time? Trying to "keep the party together" is an exercise in futility. No one needs to be a dick or refuse to cooperate with anyone for the entire unified party theory to just fall apart.

In this type of campaign each player has individual goals and works with whomever is available to help achieve them. Sometimes players in the same group can be working at cross purposes. Playing this out is part of the fun of the game.

The band of heroes joined at the hip for life is only one particular type of campaign.

Quote from: Exploderwizard;967748Keeping the same group together assumes that the same people playing the same characters consistently are the only participants of the campaign. What about an open table sandbox run in a FLGS where you have about 15 people who play but only about 6 or 7 of them play each session and the group mix is different each time? Trying to "keep the party together" is an exercise in futility. No one needs to be a dick or refuse to cooperate with anyone for the entire unified party theory to just fall apart.

In this type of campaign each player has individual goals and works with whomever is available to help achieve them. Sometimes players in the same group can be working at cross purposes. Playing this out is part of the fun of the game.

The band of heroes joined at the hip for life is only one particular type of campaign.

Yeah, but I'm not talking about having a group at my FLGS. So that's not applicable... I'm talking about the average game with a long term group. If you're not, then just change your game strategy to one that suits.

Personally, I'd rather gouge my own eyeballs out than GM at a table with 15 players.

Quote from: Black Vulmea;967720No. Just fucking no.

Stop "giving" the players anything beyond information about the game-world. It's up to them to decide why to stay together, to negotiate with one another to make that happen, and for fuck's sake stop relying on character 'backgrounds' to tie them together.

Just fucking play, and sort it out as you go.

If you're not going to play out the process of the group coming together, there's nothing wrong with asking, "How did you guys meet?" Paths intersecting is a contrivance to begin with, and a story about what came before is just as organic as a story that comes out in play. Doesn't have to be some elaborate description. Could be as simple as "Jake and worked in the same caravan guard last year," or "I used to date her sister."

Likely not up everyone's alley, but Dungeon World had an option for players to describe their early adventures, which we went ahead and used. I pulled some random adventure titles, then asked the players to describe what happened. Out of that, we got a recurring nemesis, and some political threads to weave into the campaign tapestry. Again, not everyone's cup o tf tea, but I liked unleashing the player's creativity in this manner, mainly because I had a group of players who were really good at that sort of thing. Saved me some work, and created investment on their part.

I guess I have been lucky so far as I've never needed to motivate my players. They show up because they want to have a fun adventure so I've never had to get them to "buy in." Are there really a lot of players showing up for games and then don't know what to do when the session starts?

I've also been lucky as I haven't experienced the "lone wolf" player who thinks he gets to go off on a separate adventure.

As others have noted there's ton of wisdom flowing through this thread. I want to build off this general point...

Quote from: S'mon;967707More really good advice. Lots of sandbox GMs fail hard at providing adequate information to the players, especially out-of-world stuff like maps & NPC lists that parrallels in-world info the PCs should know.

One approach I use is through in-world-stuff. That is, I love Rumor Tables. I like building them and I like handing the rumors out to the Players.

When I build a Rumor Table it forces me to make sure that I can sort out all my many ideas into concrete, bullet points that I know I can pass onto to my Players (via their PCs) so that the Players can choose to pursue them, interact with them, do more research, whatever.

When I pass on Rumors to my Players I am telling them about the world -- but not doing it through an info dump. I am doing it by offering up concrete, specific details of interest via the world itself. "These are the exceptional things; these are the kinds of things that stand out; these are the things the people of the world whisper about and take note of." A group of rumors helps define a world in little snippets. "What is going on of interest in this world?" A list of rumors will tell you.

When I began my LotFP campaign I handed out each PC one rumor from the table (https://talestoastound.wordpress.com/2015/11/05/rumor-tables-for-my-lamentations-of-the-flame-princess-campaign/). Each time a new PC joined the game he or she also received a rumor.

By handing out rumors the group had a list of options that helped them focus what their choices might be. They had options, discussed them, and went off to look for one or the other. (They could have gone of to do something else not connected to the rumors as well, I should add.)

Rumor tables, to me, are a terrific conduit for letting the game world, the PCs, and the Players meet with information in discreet units.

Rumor has it...

Always a great way to get a game started.

Quote from: Voros;967616Another approach is it have a sandbox with adventure seeds for mini and major adventures spread throughout it, via actually engaging NPCs and/or a central McGuffin. Night's Dark Terror and even recent 5e adventures like Lost Mines of Phandelver and Curse of Strahd all take this approach and it can work very well. The trick is to make the NPCs and sidequests actually engaging enough that they function as more than Skyrim automatons handing out fetchquests. One of the key ways of doing that is to really tie them into the setting and PCs in ways more interesting than 'this guy is yer cousin.'

Another thing to do is to think about what happens with unfollowed plot hooks. At the start of a sandbox campaign, you might give the group a few rumors, patron, and/or problems they have the option to follow up on. if they decide to go with one, you don't need to leave the others in all stasis waiting for the players to come back like in a video game. That patron will hire someone else who will attempt to carry out the job with consequences in the setting. The consequences might be bad for the PCs sometimes, but you don't want to go too heavy with that, or it feels like you are punishing the players for not obediently following the hook.

It is fine to let some hooks lie around for later. If the players are handed a secret map to a lost dungeon and don't there right away, it's reasonable it might stay lost until the players decided to get to it. Just use common sense.

Quote from: ChristopherKubasik;967775By handing out rumors the group had a list of options that helped them focus what their choices might be. They had options, discussed them, and went off to look for one or the other. (They could have gone of to do something else not connected to the rumors as well, I should add.)

I like how this allows a campaign to start with an in-character conversation between the players. They all have information they can share (or hold back) from one another, and they use it in deciding what to do. The character dynamics begin right there.

Quote from: saskganesh;967588For a new campaign with unknown players I usually start with a railroaded first adventure (*just goto the fucking local dungeon eh*) and then gradually open the world up. An NPC patron can also act as a sandbox midwife offering quests and tasks and hooks etc.

Once players are somewhat immersed, events and adventures usually start taking a life of their own. A good campaign has momentum, so it's easy to run, especially if you develop some decent improv skills and robust prep habits

This is virtually the way you start EVERY RPG adventure ever. Seriously, don't even dare not do this. You just fucked up your game if you did.

Quote from: The Exploited.;967561Sandbox games don't suit every group.

If there are players struggling then the GM has to find something for them to do. So, they can have their sandbox, but if it's slowing down or not working then the GM can bring in his light railroad game to get the game back on track. Then, when it's done let them off again. The other thing is to sprinkle some seeds aout the place - even just bullshit rumours that will nudge the players in a direction. So they will want actually want to investigate places using their own intiative. This can get them moving into a new area and things can happen organically (in theroy anyway).

Much like a good TV show, I think a good sandbox need an overall arc that can be brought in as needed. But not forced down your throat...

B.V. is right about having character goals. Vampire (Sabbat preferably) is great for this! As soon as the GM stops the players have their own ends to sort out, so the game is never static. I find it quite odd that some players just 'cease motion' when the GM gives them a bit breathing space.

Having GM'd most of the NWOD games at this point, that bit about Vampire doesn't hold water. Not that you are *wrong*, so much as you're putting too much faith in the players there. I'm am ambitious person by nature: this is a good thing. Being that kind of person when playing dungeon dwellers *ALWAYS* ends badly -- I have ample experience of that. The worst was actually in playing VTR (that's a saga for another time...) and I was your archtypal hotshot on the come up making face and playing fresh to the point I was the defacto main character and had the most interesting scenes (I was on the verge of becoming a sort of "street boss" in terms of authority and as an Unaligned). It was grating any time anyone else had a scene because the GM had to grind through it to get anything out of the other players -- and that's all too common. Players like me are very rare that push gameplay autonomously so you always have to lead your players, even if by "so you can do this or this or...".

Quote from: Black Vulmea;967552Throw away your character backstory and write a list of three goals, with a couple of bullet points for each on how you plan for your character to achieve them.

This is too basic. Even for veterans, this ain't enough, there is always extrapolation from here.

Quote from: Voros;967616Lots of good responses here, Black Vulmea had the best advice which is give the PCs goals and relationships that will drive the adventures.

BtW has scenerio playbooks that create dynamic randomized structures for adventures and even a campaign that are worth checking out, close to a 'structured sandbox' in feel.

Another approach is it have a sandbox with adventure seeds for mini and major adventures spread throughout it, via actually engaging NPCs and/or a central McGuffin. Night's Dark Terror and even recent 5e adventures like Lost Mines of Phandelver and Curse of Strahd all take this approach and it can work very well. The trick is to make the NPCs and sidequests actually engaging enough that they function as more than Skyrim automatons handing out fetchquests. One of the key ways of doing that is to really tie them into the setting and PCs in ways more interesting than 'this guy is yer cousin.'

That's not good advice, not in the form he gave it.

Quote from: -E.;967644My thoughts on running sandboxes:

1) If you don't want characters scattering to the 4 winds, ensure they have reasons to stay together -- ideally pre-existing relationships & shared goals

2) Develop character goals iteratively. The characters live in and grew up in the world. The players didn't. If you're not in a familiar setting, getting good goals that work with the world may take some doing -- you want goals that are likely to generate engaging game-play in the world.

Note: One of the reasons, "We're adventurers who go into dangerous places and return with treasure" is such a classic is that it is exciting and suitable for any setting where there are dangerous places with treasure.

3) Have NPCs and external factors doing interesting things that will be visible to the characters. If the world is dynamic, it will provide threats and opportunities, if the PC's just sit still long enough.

4) Provide a map -- of some kind. Give the PC's a bunch of stuff to engage with. Give them a star-chart and say, "You're here, there are 6 other planets in the system, and you understand these two are full of dangerous ruins and treasure. That one is run by an evil cyberlitch who people say has designs on conquering everything."

If you don't have a world with frontiers to explorer and places to go, it's hard to engage.

5) Provide useful NPCs -- Ideally a short list of them. These should include Patrons, antagonists, people who need help, power-brokers. Maybe an underworld contact or two. This is really another kind of map. If you're not sure what to do, go talk to Fred The Merchant who always needs caravan guards, or talk to the Scheming Executive who always needs mercenary operatives, or whatever.

Cheers,
-E.

Now this is a better list of things you can do to provide PCs with the illusion of freedom, at least. And you may very well be able to improv well enough that each marker really is just something that you're making up via reacting to the PCs.

That's the key: improv. You need to be *fucking* good at it, it should be a top three skils minimum to get good at GM'ing (and no, using random tables doesn't count, this is a total mental thing).

Quote from: Black Vulmea;967720No. Just fucking no.

Stop "giving" the players anything beyond information about the game-world. It's up to them to decide why to stay together, to negotiate with one another to make that happen, and for fuck's sake stop relying on character 'backgrounds' to tie them together.

Just fucking play, and sort it out as you go.

This is bullshit. Above was too basic but this is just silly. Your argument seems to be literally "don't do what should happen in the first session for prep, just let it play out". And while that's great 'n' all, it's going to lead to a shit first session every single time. PCs need to be together or in close proximity for a reason, ANY reason. This means whether their escaped slaves or newly recruited mercenaries in the same squad, there's a fucking reason they're together and why they'd be glued for the immediate future at least.

Quote from: The Exploited.;967739Even in a sandbox game you've got to have the players stick together even if the reason is fairly obtuse. It's fine for them to pursue their own goals, but it'd be better with the assistance of the other players (in turn). Well, more interesting for the whole gaming group. Using a spotlight from time to time is great of course and gives the characters their own time to further their agendas.

Having a commonality works very well in a game like 'Beyond the Wall' and the mechanics reflect this in interesting ways that really help the GM to build on the game from the ground up.

Personally, I'd prefer a more WFRP approach. Such as greed/money keeping the group together. Or fighting some common enemy out of revenge. I'm not all that enamored at playing 'good guy' heroes per se.

Being bonded to the players through their backgrounds can be a double-edged sword because it can be restrictive if not done correctly. If you can lump them together initially (which is easy enough), then a bond will form naturally and you should be good to go from there. Unless you players are being deliberate dicks or somthing.

Greed's good 'n' all but unless your players are naturally ambitious like I state above or Gordon Gecko-ish, it's a pretty shit way of tying them together. You need something deeper and realistically, we have to start at that "deeper" level because anything else is superficial. It could be a tight study group, a military unit, a crew of gangsters (a la Omar's regular crew from The Wire). They have to be *invested* in each other's futures at some level.

Quote from: The Exploited.;967751Yeah, but I'm not talking about having a group at my FLGS. So that's not applicable... I'm talking about the average game with a long term group. If you're not, then just change your game strategy to one that suits.

Personally, I'd rather gouge my own eyeballs out than GM at a table with 15 players.

I regularly GM for 9-11 players: I love[/] it. Best way to play a NWOD game, especially more political ones like Vampire (or really any of them, even Promethean if you're open to higher tiers in that game)

Quote from: Dumarest;967779Rumor has it...

Always a great way to get a game started.

That is an old standby and it really does never get old.

Always like it that in Baldur's Gate there's a rumours tab when interacting with a tavernkeeper, even if you'll end up walking across the subject yourself just by exploring, hah hah.

@Promethian.

But I'm not talking about NWOD here (I'm not a fan of it - especially Requiem). But playing in the Sabbat will always gel the players together as they are bound together through the Vaulderie. In fact, 6(ish) months down the line (in gameplay) they will probably be willing to die for each other (if they play the mechanics correctly). So, for Vampire (Sabbat) it works very well.

Having too much faith in the players? You guys must be playing with some right oddballs... As I've already mentioned earlier (to Explodingwizard). I'm referring to people who you've been gaming with and presumably don't want to sabotage your game. But want to have fun. If you have a different set of gaming criteria then just change your stategy (again as I've already mentioned to Explodingwizard).

Nah. I don't agree... Playing with 9-11 players would just piss me off. And would make any such political games a pain in the ass. While I've GM'd for big groups in the past the max I'll have now at my table is 4.

That said, as this is just all personal opinion your experiences may vary.

The way I usually run a game is what a call "a jungle gym".

A jungle gym is not rail roading, but it's not a sandbox either. As needed I tilt it towards one side or the other depending on how events unfold and the players react to them. This way it's flexible enough that I can pivot to plot points that interest them rather than force them to something they might not want to do. It requires a bit more winging it on occasion then some GMs would like, but done well it works.

Add in some carrot and stick too.

I've found that for my group that seems to work best.

Another novel approach when the group split and couldn't agree to goals/adventures was to let the group split and everyone rolled a second set of characters. From there one week focused on one group of PCs then the other. It worked quite well too.

EDIT 2: another tactic is to listen to what your players are discussing or guessing in terms of the plot. There are times where I've diverted from what I was planning due to their speculation. If you do this very rarely it works as it draws them in tighter I've found.

Quote from: ChristopherKubasik;967775One approach I use is through in-world-stuff. That is, I love Rumor Tables. I like building them and I like handing the rumors out to the Players.

I do a slightly meta thing in my big sandbox Wilderlands game where I have a Campaign web page that details the known campaign area at the kind of detail level PCs would know. Then now and then I add rumours to the page. Some of these concern past PC deeds, but some are new. Players who read the page get to 'overhear' these rumours! :D But I can also use it myself as an aide memoire for NPCs talking about stuff.

Just been updating a Dungeons section for the area around one village, Bratanis - wonder if anyone will read it...

Local Dungeons
This area has been inhabited for thousands of years, and  there are many ruins and dungeons in the hills around Bratanis. Adventurers often use the Bratanis Inn as a base for their expeditions.
2 miles north of Bratanis lies Goblin Gulley, with its ancient Demonbrood slave pits.
4.5 miles south-east of Bratanis, the Ruins of the Gorgon lie on a north-facing wooded hillside, about half a mile south from the meadowlands along the river. The ruins are said to have once been a temple of Midor, the orc god, and are the lair of feral redcap gnomes.
4 miles west of Bratanis in a dry gorge are the Nerath Caves, which bear signs of that fallen empire. Once the lair of terrible Gaunt Hounds, said to have been defeated in 4444 by the heroic Captain Lance Harcourt, the caves are now believed safe, and recent treasure hunters have returned empty-handed.
An old ruin called the Sunless Citadel is said to lie buried in a deep crevasse 3 miles due south of town, across the Thrace river. Goblins live there, and grow apples from a magical tree.
24 miles west along the Pilgrims' Trail is the Tomb of Belaras, Temple-Crypt of this Ghinoran Saint of Apollo-Mitra, which serves as a testing ground for would-be Mitra priests and holy warriors, still tended by a small cadre of priests.

And here are the rumours from that village for the past 13 game-months, about 2 real years - some other hub villages like Thusia & Selatine have a similar amount of detail:

Bratanis Rumours:
M1 4446: Aeschela is secretly paying tribute to Warlord Yusan, who holds her sister Thuvia, in defiance of the Lords' Alliance to oppose him!
M2 4446: Bratanis has been troubled by hobgoblin raiders. The barbarian Eardvulf slew a dozen of them in hill ruins four miles east of Bratanis.
6/2/4446: Ruggio has overthrown Aeschela and made himself Lord of Bratanis! He keeps her naked and chained at his feet! He plans to join the Lords' Alliance.
6/2/4446: Bjornalf the Warlock has persuaded Ruggio to marry Lady Aeschela!
M5/4446: Ruggio murdered Aeschela, betrayed the Lords' Alliance, and joined with Yusan!
12/6/4446: Ruggio not found among the dead after the disastrous Battle of Yusan's Fall, 4.5 hours march south of Krens' Cairn.
1/2/4447: Ruggio found & killed by Hakeem in the Vale, Hakeem rescuing Priestess Octavia from his brigands.
M2 4447: Shelos was kidnapped by cultists from beneath Sky God Idol, but rescued by adventurers and the slave Misha - the Lady Thuvia gave Misha her freedom.
M2 4447: Two miles north of town, in the woods a mile past Erhurr Farm, lies Goblin Gulley. Archermos slew the Goblins, but beware the ancient abomination that lurks in the depths of the Demonbrood slave pits!

Quote from: Baulderstone;967791Another thing to do is to think about what happens with unfollowed plot hooks. At the start of a sandbox campaign, you might give the group a few rumors, patron, and/or problems they have the option to follow up on. if they decide to go with one, you don't need to leave the others in all stasis waiting for the players to come back like in a video game. That patron will hire someone else who will attempt to carry out the job with consequences in the setting. The consequences might be bad for the PCs sometimes, but you don't want to go too heavy with that, or it feels like you are punishing the players for not obediently following the hook.

It is fine to let some hooks lie around for later. If the players are handed a secret map to a lost dungeon and don't there right away, it's reasonable it might stay lost until the players decided to get to it. Just use common sense.

I like to roll a d6 for 'unfollowed' stuff, typically the higher roll, the better for PCs (so 1= very bad, 3/4 = neutral, 6 = very good). That avoids the temptation to have all villain plots succeed, all NPC allies of the PCs be incompetent losers, etc. Maybe Lord Redshirt faces the Witch King Zhengyi at the Battle of Fordyford, gets a 6, drives off the Witch King's forces and is acclaimed Hero of Damara.

Re PC reasons to be together - yes this is obviously true. Even in an Open Table game the PCs whose players are at the table must have a good reason to stick together for the session, such as going into Castle Greyhawk Level X to get loot. In a closed-table game that means good reason for pretty much the same 4-6 characters to stick together long term.

I once ran a short 'Game of Thrones' style game using BX rules, set in Rob Conley's Southland setting, where the PCs had competing goals. They started together in a princess's retinue on the way to a baron's castle for her wedding. First session went great, but by session 2, with all the betrayals & backstabbing they had shattered apart and were now all over the map, with good reason never to join up again - just like in GoT. For long term play this would be unworkable.

Quote from: -E.;967733Oh, please.
For someone who's group meets six times a year (http://www.therpgsite.com/showthread.php?29618-How-Many-are-Non-Gamers&p=748685&viewfull=1#post748685), you have awfully fucking strong ideas about how those of us who play every week ought to do things. You'd discover your impractical idealism is ivory-tower crap, and that people who actually game have figured out how to make it work.

If you come down off your high horse, you might find that

1) If the people in the game want to scatter, fine -- I explicitly addressed in the post you quoted -- but if you don't want that, then work with everyone to ensure that there's alignment. This is basic stuff.
2) The GM -- the traditional RPG model -- is the elected group leader. Show some fucking leadership.

Cheers!
-E.

Yep. I generally GM several sessions a week (4 this week, 2 tabletop & 2 online, about 12.5 hours GMing, but I do up to around 6 sometimes) both sandbox and more linear games, and I definitely find that while players are keen to find reasons for their PCs to work together, a GM who facilitates that is a big help. "You are all musketeers in service to Cardinal Richelieu" or "You're pirates" or "You're wandering adventurers" or "You're in service to Lord Markelhay". In a sandbox you don't stop the PCs betraying Richelieu, shivving Markelhay, or (perhaps) giving up their wandering life to found a Keep or (possibly even) a dockside tavern. But some kind of starting theme is very helpful to get everyone together.

Quote from: HorusArisen;967545I was chatting with this chap and he was saying that every time he ran a sandbox game his group floundered and became aimless and the game fizzled.

Sounds like he invited Bingo players to his game (that were only there to fill in their character sheets, while being told a great story about how their characters win at everything), instead of inviting role-players.

Quote from: S'mon;967808I do a slightly meta thing in my big sandbox Wilderlands game where I have a Campaign web page that details the known campaign area at the kind of detail level PCs would know. Then now and then I add rumours to the page. Some of these concern past PC deeds, but some are new. Players who read the page get to 'overhear' these rumours! :D But I can also use it myself as an aide memoire for NPCs talking about stuff.

Just been updating a Dungeons section for the area around one village, Bratanis - wonder if anyone will read it...

Local Dungeons
This area has been inhabited for thousands of years, and  there are many ruins and dungeons in the hills around Bratanis. Adventurers often use the Bratanis Inn as a base for their expeditions.
2 miles north of Bratanis lies Goblin Gulley, with its ancient Demonbrood slave pits.
4.5 miles south-east of Bratanis, the Ruins of the Gorgon lie on a north-facing wooded hillside, about half a mile south from the meadowlands along the river. The ruins are said to have once been a temple of Midor, the orc god, and are the lair of feral redcap gnomes.
4 miles west of Bratanis in a dry gorge are the Nerath Caves, which bear signs of that fallen empire. Once the lair of terrible Gaunt Hounds, said to have been defeated in 4444 by the heroic Captain Lance Harcourt, the caves are now believed safe, and recent treasure hunters have returned empty-handed.
An old ruin called the Sunless Citadel is said to lie buried in a deep crevasse 3 miles due south of town, across the Thrace river. Goblins live there, and grow apples from a magical tree.
24 miles west along the Pilgrims' Trail is the Tomb of Belaras, Temple-Crypt of this Ghinoran Saint of Apollo-Mitra, which serves as a testing ground for would-be Mitra priests and holy warriors, still tended by a small cadre of priests.

And here are the rumours from that village for the past 13 game-months, about 2 real years - some other hub villages like Thusia & Selatine have a similar amount of detail:

Bratanis Rumours:
M1 4446: Aeschela is secretly paying tribute to Warlord Yusan, who holds her sister Thuvia, in defiance of the Lords' Alliance to oppose him!
M2 4446: Bratanis has been troubled by hobgoblin raiders. The barbarian Eardvulf slew a dozen of them in hill ruins four miles east of Bratanis.
6/2/4446: Ruggio has overthrown Aeschela and made himself Lord of Bratanis! He keeps her naked and chained at his feet! He plans to join the Lords' Alliance.
6/2/4446: Bjornalf the Warlock has persuaded Ruggio to marry Lady Aeschela!
M5/4446: Ruggio murdered Aeschela, betrayed the Lords' Alliance, and joined with Yusan!
12/6/4446: Ruggio not found among the dead after the disastrous Battle of Yusan's Fall, 4.5 hours march south of Krens' Cairn.
1/2/4447: Ruggio found & killed by Hakeem in the Vale, Hakeem rescuing Priestess Octavia from his brigands.
M2 4447: Shelos was kidnapped by cultists from beneath Sky God Idol, but rescued by adventurers and the slave Misha - the Lady Thuvia gave Misha her freedom.
M2 4447: Two miles north of town, in the woods a mile past Erhurr Farm, lies Goblin Gulley. Archermos slew the Goblins, but beware the ancient abomination that lurks in the depths of the Demonbrood slave pits!

Man, whose idea was it to start a town in the middle of all that danger? Is there some special ore that can only be found there? Why would anyone live two miles from demonic slave pits and four miles from feral gnomes? :eek:

Quote from: Dumarest;967826Man, whose idea was it to start a town in the middle of all that danger? Is there some special ore that can only be found there? Why would anyone live two miles from demonic slave pits and four miles from feral gnomes? :eek:

Are you familiar with the Wilderlands? :D The whole planet is like that!

The villages in this campaign are all fortified, with their own Lord, who normally has his own Warband. And being the Wilderlands, a Badass Planet, everyone can fight.

Basically a human village is much the same as a large orc or goblin lair in terms of resources; probably the main difference is that humans are more likely to have friendly neighbours who can help them out.

As for the demonic slave pits (Dyson Logos' Goblin Gulley) - they were built by demonbrood/tieflings thousands of years ago. Following yesterday's game, when the place was cleared of recent-arrived goblin immigrantss, the only monsters there now are safely locked away. Some of the other areas are currently void of monsters.

Quote from: S'mon;967810I like to roll a d6 for 'unfollowed' stuff, typically the higher roll, the better for PCs (so 1= very bad, 3/4 = neutral, 6 = very good). That avoids the temptation to have all villain plots succeed, all NPC allies of the PCs be incompetent losers, etc. Maybe Lord Redshirt faces the Witch King Zhengyi at the Battle of Fordyford, gets a 6, drives off the Witch King's forces and is acclaimed Hero of Damara.

That's not a bad idea. I am building a new campaign at the moment. so that might go right in my house rule document.

Quote from: Dumarest;967826Man, whose idea was it to start a town in the middle of all that danger? Is there some special ore that can only be found there? Why would anyone live two miles from demonic slave pits and four miles from feral gnomes? :eek:

Hey, I live in New Jersey, within ten miles of a nuclear reactor of the same design as the one at Fukishima and right in the Jersey Devil-Haunted Pine Barrens. I'll take feral gnomes over Piney methheads any day.

In any case, I bet the demonic slave pits can provide reasonable, affordable manufacturing for businesses in nearby villages.

No, I don't know the Wilderlands...wasn't that a Judges Guild thing from way back when? I've never owned any settings...Greyhawk, Invincible Overlord, Forgotten Realms, they're all outside my wheelhouse. Or is that your own creation?

Oh wait, I do have a copy of Dark Albion, I guess that counts as a setting even if I don't use it for that.

Quote from: Dumarest;967852No, I don't know the Wilderlands...wasn't that a Judges Guild thing from way back when? I've never owned any settings...Greyhawk, Invincible Overlord, Forgotten Realms, they're all outside my wheelhouse. Or is that your own creation?

Wilderlands is the Judges Guild setting, my campaign is set in the Ghinarian Hills (sort-of Greek) in Barbarian Altanis, the Conan-meets-Dejah Thoris part of the setting. I use the 3e Necromancer Games version (Altanis developed by Rob Conley) but make the scale 15 miles/hex instead of 5 miles/hex and add a lot of my own stuff to fill the extra space.

Bratanis does have an unusally high number of local dungeons but per setting canon the whole of Altanis is littered with ruins from many previous human, abhuman and semi-human civilisations.
(https://4.bp.blogspot.com/-CpUMXR4qIps/WP8OKHoxIdI/AAAAAAAAGWU/G49Dp8y2b9cMkzbebJXoN8dcsQwXZAhTgCLcB/s640/Ghinarian%252BHills.jpg)

Sounds pretty cool. Pretty map, too!

Quote from: cranebump;967562This. But be prepared to adjust as events unfold (I'm speaking of the player, here).

Also: the evolving world has forces in it who have goals as well, and where these goals intersect with the players/PCs, you gain additional directions to choose from.

"Throw away your backstory" seems harsh. I find backstories help shape an interesting character to role play and generate goals and hooks for the GM to use.

Quote from: Nexus;968004"Throw away your backstory" seems harsh. I find backstories help shape an interesting character to role play and generate goals and hooks for the GM to use.

I get that. But I think Black Vulmea's advice to generate three goals accomplishes about the same thing, in shorthand. I also think system has a say, sometimes, in how to approach this, as I detailed in the post about Dungeon World "past adventures" that players generate in the "prequel" to play.  A game with a professions or background list also does some of the relevant work for you, for example, if I list my Barbarians of Lemuria character's careers as "Slave, Thief, Mercenary, Sky Pilot," I've already got the makings of back story, which I can expand upon before, or after play begins.  

I think if back stories work for you, then, by all means, go for it. You can, as you say, mine some goals and hooks from the get go. In the main, though, I'd rather get to the adventure as soon as possible, so brevity is the soul of "let's just get to it, eh?"

(P.S. That DW campaign I ran had me conducting sort of lengthy character interviews to gather hooks and two of the four characters died 1/4 into the campaign. Back story ain't much use if you're dead.)

Quote from: Nexus;968004"Throw away your backstory" seems harsh. I find backstories help shape an interesting character to role play and generate goals and hooks for the GM to use.

Personally I think backstories are essential. You don't need pages of backstory for every NPC, but a little depth of background can be great in play (especially if it produces conflict between characters and groups).

With any GM advice, I think there is always the danger of throwing the baby out with the bath water.

I prefer a (mostly) sandbox with a fallback option, whether ignorable hooks or whatever, for those times when the entire group turns up in less than optimal form, and then explicitly volunteers their noses to be led around a little. I suppose I could instead run a different game on those sessions, but it isn't always obvious at first.

Quote from: BedrockBrendan;968011Personally I think backstories are essential. You don't need pages of backstory for every NPC, but a little depth of background can be great in play (especially if it produces conflict between characters and groups).

With any GM advice, I think there is always the danger of throwing the baby out with the bath water.

That's why I like Lifepath chargen whenever possible.  It adds depth and history to the character, helps the player discover who the character is while rolling him up, and can add hooks into the setting and party.  It might curtail the people who like to show up with three pages single-spaced, but it's awesome for everyone else.

Quote from: CRKrueger;968096That's why I like Lifepath chargen whenever possible.  It adds depth and history to the character, helps the player discover who the character is while rolling him up, and can add hooks into the setting and party.  It might curtail the people who like to show up with three pages single-spaced, but it's awesome for everyone else.

Well, I don't usually show up with "three pages single spaced" but I don't care for "life path" character generation (or random character generation in general) except as a change of pace for a one shot or short game. Its a matter of wanting to play the character I want and am invested in not what random chance hands me.

Quote from: BedrockBrendan;968011Personally I think backstories are essential. You don't need pages of backstory for every NPC, but a little depth of background can be great in play (especially if it produces conflict between characters and groups).

With any GM advice, I think there is always the danger of throwing the baby out with the bath water.

For me, a backstory is definitely an essential aspect of the character. As a gm I try to have at least a little for any major NPCs. Of course, players generally aren't interested n those but want to know the life story of Eddy (who didn't have a name until they asked) the hot dog vendor they just met. :)

Quote from: Nexus;968106For me, a backstory is definitely an essential aspect of the character. As a gm I try to have at least a little for any major NPCs. Of course, players generally aren't interested n those but want to know the life story of Eddy (who didn't have a name until they asked) the hot dog vendor they just met. :)

With NPCs, I find backstory pays dividends down the road. I don't have the NPC tell their sad tale of woe when the players meet them, but usually backstory comes up in play either when players are asking them questions (say "who is your father anyways?") or if something occurs that makes an NPC's background relevant (for example if there is a group of people after the NPC for something they did and they ambush the party-----and again, questions from the PCs are usually how the backstory comes out---"Why did those people want to kill you?").

Quote from: Nexus;968105Well, I don't usually show up with "three pages single spaced" but I don't care for "life path" character generation (or random character generation in general) except as a change of pace for a one shot or short game. Its a matter of wanting to play the character I want and am invested in not what random chance hands me.

Yeah but you're a story guy. :D

Any good lifepath system in my opinion is one that gives plenty of choice as well as setting appropriate randomness (not everyone is The Last Noldor).  If you can't become invested in a character unless he exists whole cloth in your head before you sit down, well, YMMV.

Quote from: BedrockBrendan;968107With NPCs, I find backstory pays dividends down the road. I don't have the NPC tell their sad tale of woe when the players meet them, but usually backstory comes up in play either when players are asking them questions (say "who is your father anyways?") or if something occurs that makes an NPC's background relevant (for example if there is a group of people after the NPC for something they did and they ambush the party-----and again, questions from the PCs are usually how the backstory comes out---"Why did those people want to kill you?").

Oh, I agree. (I was being a little tongue in cheek). Backstories help make a character feel more "real", gives them a reason to exist aside from "what can they do for/to the PCs" and can drive their actions in a way that makes the role playing more interesting.

Quote from: CRKrueger;968108Yeah but you're a story guy. :D

Any good lifepath system in my opinion is one that gives plenty of choice as well as setting appropriate randomness (not everyone is The Last Noldor).  If you can't become invested in a character unless he exists whole cloth in your head before you sit down, well, YMMV.

Indeed. If I'm going to play a character for a length of time in an rpg I want to shape it out of my imagination to a large degree. I care more about something I made than something I rolled up on some tables or was handed to me. Playing a character like just feel more detached like an actor playing a role he was assigned. There can be "investment" of type and degree but its not as deep or enjoyable but more like getting invested in a fictional character in novel or movie. Like there are different sorts of immersion. Its not objectively superior or inferior as I'm concerned just a matter of personal taste.

You won't be surprised, but for me it's the complete opposite.  I don't know about you, but I personally had absolutely no say as to what my race, color, genetic makeup is, were my parents rich or poor, what were their belief systems or religion, did I have any brothers or sisters.  All pretty much completely outside my control, like every real person ever.

Choosing that stuff for myself, THAT'S the made up character in a movie or film, that's the character that's been meticulously authored.  That's the one that's not real.  For me, a good lifepath chargen is where the roleplaying begins as my character chooses his way through life based on what life has dealt him, like every real person ever.

Edit: I'll add in YMMV again before someone calls me the "Lifepath Stalin" :D

A relevant thread (http://www.therpgsite.com/showthread.php?35920-GM-Advice-insufficient-steps).

The person running this website is a racist who publicly advocates genocidal practices.

I am deleting my content.

I recommend you do the same.

Quote from: CRKrueger;968113Edit: I'll add in YMMV again before someone calls me the "Lifepath Stalin" :D

I was going to call you a 'Lifepath Czar' but then we'd have to pull Doc Sammy away from sucking your royal balls. :eek:

Quote from: CRKrueger;968113You won't be surprised, but for me it's the complete opposite.  I don't know about you, but I personally had absolutely no say as to what my race, color, genetic makeup is, were my parents rich or poor, what were their belief systems or religion, did I have any brothers or sisters.  All pretty much completely outside my control, like every real person ever.

Choosing that stuff for myself, THAT'S the made up character in a movie or film, that's the character that's been meticulously authored.  That's the one that's not real.  For me, a good lifepath chargen is where the roleplaying begins as my character chooses his way through life based on what life has dealt him, like every real person ever.

Edit: I'll add in YMMV again before someone calls me the "Lifepath Stalin" :D

So, why did you add the YMMV, tavarishch;)?

I think a player can write a lot of backstory if they want, especially if it helps to get into the character.  Just don't volunteer any of it unless someone asks.  When I'm the GM, know that the chances of me asking are tiny. :)

Quote from: Steven Mitchell;968212I think a player can write a lot of backstory if they want, especially if it helps to get into the character.  Just don't volunteer any of it unless someone asks.  When I'm the GM, know that the chances of me asking are tiny. :)

I recently had a player explain to me that their 20 (60?) page, 135 year backstory, which I hadn't read, made their PC Heir to the Duchy of Kerandas. :rolleyes: I told them after the final session that they indeed became Duchess, about 10 years after the end of the campaign.
I'm not planning to GM that player in that campaign again, and for the next campaign any backstory had damn well better fit on 1 single-sided page.

Quote from: CRKrueger;968113You won't be surprised, but for me it's the complete opposite.  I don't know about you, but I personally had absolutely no say as to what my race, color, genetic makeup is, were my parents rich or poor, what were their belief systems or religion, did I have any brothers or sisters.  All pretty much completely outside my control, like every real person ever.

Choosing that stuff for myself, THAT'S the made up character in a movie or film, that's the character that's been meticulously authored.  That's the one that's not real.  For me, a good lifepath chargen is where the roleplaying begins as my character chooses his way through life based on what life has dealt him, like every real person ever.

Edit: I'll add in YMMV again before someone calls me the "Lifepath Stalin" :D

On the player side, I've been using a really simplified approach to this in my campaigns. Mainly I use it to determine family stuff (how many siblings you have, if your parents are alive, any unusual events or situations, whether you are really a bastard, etc). I think it does work well on the player end because creates character backgrounds they might not otherwise consider or use, and it can lead to surprising connections. I still let the players do some basic background, but typically the campaigns begin early in their life so it is usually limited.

Quote from: BedrockBrendan;968227On the player side, I've been using a really simplified approach to this in my campaigns. Mainly I use it to determine family stuff (how many siblings you have, if your parents are alive, any unusual events or situations, whether you are really a bastard, etc). I think it does work well on the player end because creates character backgrounds they might not otherwise consider or use, and it can lead to surprising connections. I still let the players do some basic background, but typically the campaigns begin early in their life so it is usually limited.

I think much of a person's preference in character generation probably stems from their outlook on rogs. While I don't consider myself a "story guy" in the somewhat pejorative manner its often used om this board my outlook does appear to be significantly different than the more vocal lot on the rpg.site.

Quote from: Nexus;968236I think much of a person's preference in character generation probably stems from their outlook on rogs. While I don't consider myself a "story guy" in the somewhat pejorative manner its often used om this board my outlook does appear to be significantly different than the more vocal lot on the rpg.site.

The longer I play, the less attention I pay to online outlooks and the more I just focus on what is working or not working at my own table. So as long as you are running campaigns and enjoying yourself, that is all that matters in my view.

On character creation, I think people have wildly different preferences in general. The background generation thing has worked well with some players in my games, but I also have players who prefer to make their own background. I am fine with either as a GM and do what works with the group. The reason I brought the family background thing in this case was because family is more important in this campaign than in others, and I didn't want anyone hand picking advantages for themselves in that respect.

Really on this stuff, I am fine with whatever the GM wants to do. If the GM wants character backgrounds, I am fine making one. If the GM wants life paths I am fine with that. Usually I find the GM makes these calls for a reason that benefits the game (even if it is just bringing things in line with what he or she is comfortable running).

Quote from: Justin Alexander;9681451. Sandbox IS structure.

Also, I just thought that this bears repeating.

Quote from: BedrockBrendan;968241The longer I play, the less attention I pay to online outlooks and the more I just focus on what is working or not working at my own table.

Of course, but we're not playing (I imagine several of the people playing together would result in brawls) just hanging out on a forum so some degree od navel gazing is okay. :) Besides I like thinking about what motivates people and their opinions even they're completely wrong. :D

Quote from: BedrockBrendan;968227I still let the players do some basic background, but typically the campaigns begin early in their life so it is usually limited.

That's always something to consider. Is began playing RPG with D&D, so it was also the first place I encountered someone who had three pages of backstory. It often felt jarring for this delicate, fledgling 1st-level character to have a whole life's worth of outsized deeds behind him.

I'm playing in one of Brendan's Wandering Heroes of Ogre Gate games, and there is a little more room for believable past exploits in that. My character can mop the floor with back alley pickpockets, but I'm not fooling myself about my ability to take on the heavy hitters in the setting in a fair fight. My character isn't overly concerned with fairness though.

Quote from: Nexus;968250(I imagine several of the people playing together would result in brawls)

There would be a few, but I imagine most of the crap people argue about here in the abstract wouldn't matter if we were sitting around a table. Most of my strongly held opinions are about how I like to run a game. If I am playing in a game with another GM, I can let all my gaming principles slide if the company is good and the game moves at a reasonable pace.

People just tend to be a lot more friendly and polite in person than they are on the Internet anyway.

Quote from: Baulderstone;968257There would be a few, but I imagine most of the crap people argue about here in the abstract wouldn't matter if we were sitting around a table. Most of my strongly held opinions are about how I like to run a game. If I am playing in a game with another GM, I can let all my gaming principles slide if the company is good and the game moves at a reasonable pace.

People just tend to be a lot more friendly and polite in person than they are on the Internet anyway.

I forgot  the ':D'  I don't think I'd enjoy the games from some members very much as their way different from my preferences but I don't seriously think they would be fight about them. So back to lurking. My apologies for the derail.

Quote from: Baulderstone;968256That's always something to consider. Is began playing RPG with D&D, so it was also the first place I encountered someone who had three pages of backstory. It often felt jarring for this delicate, fledgling 1st-level character to have a whole life's worth of outsized deeds behind him.

Yes, but (at least in older editions) a 1st level fighter is a "veteran", and so not the fresh-faced farmboy that's never seen action. That alone built into the game some assumptions of a certain level of experience and competence that seem to have vanished from later editions (and other games with a level progression).

For my part, it's fine by me for players to have a sense of who their character is, where they're from, etc., if that makes them feel more attached to their character, but I really don't care what someone makes up in their head before the game begins: the "real" stuff is happening at the table.

So, sure, you can tell me that your character is the heir to the Duchy of Powerstania, but unless you've taken some in-game steps to be a noble of that standing, don't expect me or any NPCs to care or treat you unlike the people on the street I've met who claim to be Jesus or Napoleon. Trying to powergame your way up in backstory is silliness.

Fortunately, that's not generally an issue with my players. I did, however, once had to decline participating in a 3.5e campaign some friends were doing. The DM had created pre-gen characters for everyone, with lovingly-crafted 10-15 page backstories for each. It became clear very quickly that he was going to Dragonlance the campaign, with a heavily-scripted path for each player. He had put a ton of time and effort into it, but it was definitely going to be more of a play than an RPG, and I had no interest in playing out his storyline.

Quote from: Justin Alexander;9681451. Sandbox IS structure.

Quote from: AsenRG;968243Also, I just thought that this bears repeating.

Yeah, I was going to post something like "But the real question is what Structures are used to make good Sandboxes?" last night. Justin nailed it.

Create a manageable sized setting. Make it big enough that the PCs can't wander off the map by walking for a day and a half. But there's no point in creating a whole world or continent. That's one of the biggest mistakes DMG's make - encouraging DMs to make up histories and political organizations that span vast distances and periods of time. Unless you group plays for years and years, you will not use more than a fraction of that content. At the outset, the sandbox game should be about what is happening in a locality now. An area three days travel by three days travel is plenty big enough for months and months of play.

As for reasons for the party to be together, don't worry about PC backgrounds  unless that's stuff your players are really keen on. What the party needs is common goals, not a shared background. Maybe they sign on as mercenaries for a fledgling barony. Or they join a guild that's tasked with mapping the elder wilds and its ancient ruins. One thing Paizo got right with Pathfinder is the Pathfinder Society. Nobody cares what you're PC did 10 years ago, or who his parents are. Right now you're going to work together in a delve into the ruins of Bagradol because you all share a desire to uncover ancient artifacts.

I don't want backstory, I want "This is what the character wants."

I don't mind a bit of backstory if it's indicative of where the character is heading or what drives him.

It's annoying when it's an essay.

I've read most of the replies since my post, but I have neither the time nor the interest in responding to them all, so I'll just issue a general 'fuck y'all' here, and if you think it applies to you, it probably does.

Quote from: -E.;967733For someone who's group meets six times a year (http://www.therpgsite.com/showthread.php?29618-How-Many-are-Non-Gamers&p=748685&viewfull=1#post748685) . . .

Wallowing in the same 'more gamer than thou' manure pile as Pundejo?

Quote from: -E.;967733[ . . . you have awfully fucking strong ideas about how those of us who play every week ought to do things.

I have awfully strong ideas about what I like. I don't give a shit what you do.

Quote from: -E.;967733If the people in the game want to scatter . . .

I said exactly zero about scattering. You're replying to the voices in your head, not what I wrote.

Quote from: -E.;967733[The GM -- the traditional RPG model -- is the elected group leader.

Of the many stupid things I've read about roleplaying games, this is one of them.

No one elects me to anything. I wear the Viking hat, and I bring fire, and the sword.

Quote from: Nexus;968004I find backstories help shape an interesting character to role play and generate goals and hooks for the GM to use.

Fuck "hooks" for the referee "to use." I give you a world. What you do with it is up to you. If you want to be spoonfed, go find a babysitter.

Quote from: Gronan of Simmerya;968370I don't want backstory, I want "This is what the character wants."

Bingo.

The person running this website is a racist who publicly advocates genocidal practices.

I am deleting my content.

I recommend you do the same.

Quote from: Justin Alexander;968432The problem with this attitude is that it kind of wipes out the majority of actual human experience.

Black Vulmea is a good reminder of the truth of Aristotle's Golden Mean. There are two vices for every virtue, and even a very good thing (like sandbox campaigns!) can be turned bad when taken too far.

QuoteView Post
I find backstories help shape an interesting character to role play and generate goals and hooks for the GM to use.

Different strokes. What you call "spoonfeeding" I've found creates entertaining games where the players feel involved and like their input matters and they're playing in the type of setting I pitched versus generally poor experiences with the simulation style. Tastes are going to vary and everyone isn't going to fit every table. Every playstyle isn't going to fit type of game or genre, for that matter.

Quote from: Gronan of Simmerya;968370I don't want backstory, I want "This is what the character wants."

But these things are not mutually exclusive and can often feed into each other. A good backstory generates motivation as well as other positive things like connecting the character to the setting and the world. Even if the GM isn't actively using backstories to guide the game the player may find it easier to determine what a person with some grounding 'wants to do'. I know I do.

Can it be overdone? Yeah, anything can be taken too far and done poorly. But the hostile binary, throw the baby out with the bathwater reaction some people are having seems extreme.

Based on the vitriol, I assume you guys are being forced to play together at the same table. Otherwise why on earth do you care how someone else conducts a game? :confused:

Quote from: Haffrung;968276Create a manageable sized setting. Make it big enough that the PCs can't wander off the map by walking for a day and a half. But there's no point in creating a whole world or continent. That's one of the biggest mistakes DMG's make - encouraging DMs to make up histories and political organizations that span vast distances and periods of time. Unless you group plays for years and years, you will not use more than a fraction of that content. At the outset, the sandbox game should be about what is happening in a locality now. An area three days travel by three days travel is plenty big enough for months and months of play.

Giant setting often end up feeling smaller in the long run. For example, Eberron's core book covered the whole damn planet. There is no "edge of the map" for the players to wander off to. There are no empires that only exist as legends. It's all there, and it is all an inch deep. it is also almost above the level of PC interaction.

A well-detailed county gives a PC group all the room they need to start out, and you can easily make it all detail that they can immediately interact with.

Switching topics, it seems weird to consider all hook to "spoonfeeeding". A lot of hooks are simply the result of the sandbox being an active place. If Faction A wants to hire the players to attack Faction B, sure it is a blatant hook, but it also is a case of Faction A doing something. And the players are always welcome to use the hook as they like. Maybe rather than work for Faction A, they decide to go talk to Faction B about it. A simple "Patron Job" hook can set the world in motion in unexpected ways.

Quote from: Justin Alexander;968432The problem with this attitude is that it kind of wipes out the majority of actual human experience. This can work fine if your assumed campaign mode is "wandering adventurer disconnected from the world around them and far from home". Outside of that fairly narrow conceptual band...

Is there any evidence most people who play RPGs are especially interested in moving outside that narrow conceptual band? I know lot of DMs and game designers are eager to explore that space. But we know that DMs and game designers aren't representative of players as a whole.

At the outset of our latest campaign, our DM asked us to submit some background about our characters. Of the six of us players, myself (who is also a DM) and one other gave him a background. The other four couldn't be bothered. Their interest in devoting any time, energy, or imagination to the game beyond what happens organically at the table over beer and pizza is nil. They just want to explore a fantasy world, clobber monsters, and have some laughs.

Quote from: Justin Alexander;968432...however, most people/characters have a network of family and friends; they have a career and responsibilities; they have groups they belong to or enemies which have sworn vengeance upon them -- all of which are elements of the game world that will impinge themselves upon the character; which means that the GM (who controls the game world) needs to use those elements.

The GM only needs to use those elements if most players want them. He shouldn't foist them on the players in an effort to improve the game.

Quote from: Haffrung;968556Is there any evidence most people who play RPGs are especially interested in moving outside that narrow conceptual band? I know lot of DMs and game designers are eager to explore that space. But we know that DMs and game designers aren't representative of players as a whole.

At the outset of our latest campaign, our DM asked us to submit some background about our characters. Of the six of us players, myself (who is also a DM) and one other gave him a background. The other four couldn't be bothered. Their interest in devoting any time, energy, or imagination to the game beyond what happens organically at the table over beer and pizza is nil. They just want to explore a fantasy world, clobber monsters, and have some laughs.

Speaking from my own experience there's plenty of players that desire something else. But I don't play D and D fantasy so maybe its a preferred genre issue that makes a difference. But if that's what yout group is looking for its cool and its fair to say, IMO, that it is what a significant number, perhaps the majority of gamers seem to be looking for.

The person running this website is a racist who publicly advocates genocidal practices.

I am deleting my content.

I recommend you do the same.

Quote from: Haffrung;968556Is there any evidence most people who play RPGs are especially interested in moving outside that narrow conceptual band? I know lot of DMs and game designers are eager to explore that space. But we know that DMs and game designers aren't representative of players as a whole.

In D&D you're an adventurer, often wandering, but in a lot of popular games you're playing a guy who's a much more integrated part of society with a stable place you're operating from and enough history and connections to make sense.

Superhero characters often have a secret identity and usually have an "origin" story -- they also have various aunts and girlfriends who need saving and enemies hunting them and so-on around.  A lot of games encourage the players to flesh that stuff out by giving points for it.

Investigators in Call of Cthulhu games have jobs and live in (usually) communities, academic or otherwise with significant connections to people, places, things, and enough of a history to define those things. Same is true, to one degree or another for a lot of fundamentally investigative games.

I'm not a fan of extensive back-ground stories, and I think a lot of this stuff can be invented during-play, as the situation warrants it (i.e. as it becomes relevant to in-game action), but the idea that popular games don't care about the PC's backgrounds or connections seems to be excluding a huge swath of games and play styles that are manifestly popular.

Cheers,
-E.

Quote from: Nexus;968456But these things are not mutually exclusive and can often feed into each other. A good backstory generates motivation as well as other positive things like connecting the character to the setting and the world. Even if the GM isn't actively using backstories to guide the game the player may find it easier to determine what a person with some grounding 'wants to do'. I know I do.

A player can write as much backstory as they want, but as referee, I will not read more than 25 words.

Maybe it's because in Minneapolis, a lot of the RPG players came from the science fiction fandom community, which really is full of frustrated authors.  Through sad experience, "backstory" to me means "15 single spaced pages that the player will expect the referee to memorize and care deeply about and get highly indignant if he doesn't."

Also, and more harmful, people who write long backstories in my experience wind up with a backstory where their character has already been the Chosen One, become the world's greatest everthing, and saved the universe.  And then they complain when the game doesn't spotlight their character's awesomeness as well as their fanfiction does.

Yes, I still have the farting awfuls over this.  Other people may have had different experiences, and I envy them.

Quote from: Gronan of Simmerya;968780...as referee, I will not read more than 25 words.

If you can't describe your character to me in one sentence, you haven't sanded it down enough for me to care to listen. It will emerge in play anyway, I hope.

Quote from: Gronan of Simmerya;968780...people who write long backstories in my experience wind up with a backstory where their character has already been the Chosen One, become the world's greatest everthing, and saved the universe. And then they complain when the game doesn't spotlight their character's awesomeness as well as their fanfiction does.

Beware the player whose PC has a secret past or prophesied future, I always say.

Quote from: Gronan of Simmerya;968780A player can write as much backstory as they want, but as referee, I will not read more than 25 words.

My most recent Traveller character has more than 25 words of back story, but it's a few paragraphs interpretive writeup of his 5 terms of merchant service. But it's also nothing that is necessary for play. If the GM chooses to draw on it fine, if not, well, I just spent a few minutes writing it up.

QuoteMaybe it's because in Minneapolis, a lot of the RPG players came from the science fiction fandom community, which really is full of frustrated authors.  Through sad experience, "backstory" to me means "15 single spaced pages that the player will expect the referee to memorize and care deeply about and get highly indignant if he doesn't."

Also, and more harmful, people who write long backstories in my experience wind up with a backstory where their character has already been the Chosen One, become the world's greatest everthing, and saved the universe.  And then they complain when the game doesn't spotlight their character's awesomeness as well as their fanfiction does.

Yes, I still have the farting awfuls over this.  Other people may have had different experiences, and I envy them.

Yea, I've seen that kind of stuff. Like you say, the worst is the back stories that "finish" the character before play. Some of this comes from players encountering jerk GMs who have their story to tell and will shove the players around to achieve their story, totally not allowing the player to have their story. But some you're right, is just frustrated authors. Or players who see the volumes of background for the setting and think that all that verbiage is what role play is all about.

And of course those players would be horrified to have their PC done in by a random wandering monster 30' into the dungeon...

But if someone wants to play that way and they don't force me to play that way, all the more power to them... Just don't ram your 15 page backstory down my throat...

Frank

Quote from: -E.;968734In D&D you're an adventurer, often wandering, but in a lot of popular games you're playing a guy who's a much more integrated part of society with a stable place you're operating from and enough history and connections to make sense.

Sure. I assumed we were still talking about sandbox play -adventurers wandering around interacting with the setting.

Quote from: Gronan of Simmerya;968780Yes, I still have the farting awfuls over this.  Other people may have had different experiences, and I envy them.

I'm sorry you've had such bad experiences with backstories. I can see how that will shape your opinions quite strongly. I've had the same type of experience with "sandbox" and D and D in general so I won't touch them either. I guess it also partially comes down to difference of system choice too. In the ones I use if a player expects to be the "chosen one" wealthy influential, etc they have to invest character resources in it so it tends to keep things more grounded unless the game is intentionally high end (but there are exceptions, people being people). I've had players some submit bad backstories over 30 yrs. But the good have outweighed the bad. And even its come to the bad its mostly been a matter of talking to the player in question.

Quote from: ffilz;968812My most recent Traveller character has more than 25 words of back story, but it's a few paragraphs interpretive writeup of his 5 terms of merchant service. But it's also nothing that is necessary for play. If the GM chooses to draw on it fine, if not, well, I just spent a few minutes writing it up.


Yea, I've seen that kind of stuff. Like you say, the worst is the back stories that "finish" the character before play. Some of this comes from players encountering jerk GMs who have their story to tell and will shove the players around to achieve their story, totally not allowing the player to have their story. But some you're right, is just frustrated authors. Or players who see the volumes of background for the setting and think that all that verbiage is what role play is all about.

And of course those players would be horrified to have their PC done in by a random wandering monster 30' into the dungeon...

But if someone wants to play that way and they don't force me to play that way, all the more power to them... Just don't ram your 15 page backstory down my throat...

Frank

I specifically tell my players not to write long backstories because it's too frustrating to spend hours and hours writing up a story just to end it with, "And then a goblin critically hit him and rolled boxcars on the third round of his first combat when he had only 2 hp left, and he died. THE END."

Quote from: fearsomepirate;968835I specifically tell my players not to write long backstories because it's too frustrating to spend hours and hours writing up a story just to end it with, "And then a goblin critically hit him and rolled boxcars on the third round of his first combat when he had only 2 hp left, and he died. THE END."

Campaign style definitely impacts on the validity of detailed backgrounds just like anything else really,

Going to start a separate thread about character backstories:)

Quote from: Haffrung;968815Sure. I assumed we were still talking about sandbox play -adventurers wandering around interacting with the setting.

Sandbox PCs can be integrated with the setting. A Babylon 5/Deep Space 9/Deadwood type setup works fine for sandbox, better than wandering hobos IME. For one thing it means the sandbox can be a lot smaller. The Western sandbox I played then ran was basically one town, with PCs its inhabitants (I was the schoolteacher!). That worked great.

Quote from: Gronan of Simmerya;968780A player can write as much backstory as they want, but as referee, I will not read more than 25 words.

Maybe it's because in Minneapolis, a lot of the RPG players came from the science fiction fandom community, which really is full of frustrated authors.  Through sad experience, "backstory" to me means "15 single spaced pages that the player will expect the referee to memorize and care deeply about and get highly indignant if he doesn't."

Also, and more harmful, people who write long backstories in my experience wind up with a backstory where their character has already been the Chosen One, become the world's greatest everthing, and saved the universe.  And then they complain when the game doesn't spotlight their character's awesomeness as well as their fanfiction does.

This is a major major problem for me when it happens. I don't handle it very well. I had a player, a young English teacher, last year submit a backstory for a PC he'd already been playing for a year or so. It started 135 years in the past, and I think the whole thing was 60 pages - I read the first few pages then gave up.
Player: "Is that ok?"
Me: "Eh, yes?"
Turns out I'd just agreed that his PC was the true heir to a major Duchy... For the rest of the game he then kept asking me when she'd become Duchess.... It really drained my desire to keep running that campaign. I ended it last month after several years, the backstory thing still leaves a sour note.

Of course I should really have manned up and demanded a 1-page version of the backstory before I'd consider it. But he had this puppy dog devotion to his character and his work, I didn't have the heart to do what I should have.

Quote from: Haffrung;968815Sure. I assumed we were still talking about sandbox play -adventurers wandering around interacting with the setting.

... what about sandbox specifies that it has to be adventurers?

In the last supers game I gave the characters a map and various crimes and super bad-guys.

I ran an investigative horror game with a similar map (and encounters off the map).

Sandbox is a mode of gaming, not a genre, I think

Cheers,
-E.

Quote from: Justin Alexander;968432The problem with this attitude is that it kind of wipes out the majority of actual human experience.

But we're not talking about "actual human experience" - we're talking about playing a game, and in my (actual human) experience, interacting with npcs to develop resources and achieve goals in actual play is more fun than, 'oh, my character knows this guy I totally made up full-cloth before the game started who can help us.'


Aaaaand start to the clock for the half-wit who replies, 'But having Contact: Whatever doesn't preclude roleplaying!'

The person running this website is a racist who publicly advocates genocidal practices.

I am deleting my content.

I recommend you do the same.

Quote from: Baulderstone;968257There would be a few, but I imagine most of the crap people argue about here in the abstract wouldn't matter if we were sitting around a table. Most of my strongly held opinions are about how I like to run a game. If I am playing in a game with another GM, I can let all my gaming principles slide if the company is good and the game moves at a reasonable pace.

People just tend to be a lot more friendly and polite in person than they are on the Internet anyway.

Internet can't punch you in the face:).

Quote from: S'mon;968434Black Vulmea is a good reminder of the truth of Aristotle's Golden Mean. There are two vices for every virtue, and even a very good thing (like sandbox campaigns!) can be turned bad when taken too far.

Except what Black Vulmea is doing isn't taking the sandbox too far. I've seen "sandbox taken too far", and it's not that;).

Quote from: Dumarest;968547Based on the vitriol, I assume you guys are being forced to play together at the same table. Otherwise why on earth do you care how someone else conducts a game? :confused:

No, they're just upset that someone on Internet is wrong:D!

Quote from: S'mon;968859This is a major major problem for me when it happens. I don't handle it very well. I had a player, a young English teacher, last year submit a backstory for a PC he'd already been playing for a year or so. It started 135 years in the past, and I think the whole thing was 60 pages - I read the first few pages then gave up.
Player: "Is that ok?"
Me: "Eh, yes?"
Turns out I'd just agreed that his PC was the true heir to a major Duchy... For the rest of the game he then kept asking me when she'd become Duchess.... It really drained my desire to keep running that campaign. I ended it last month after several years, the backstory thing still leaves a sour note.

Of course I should really have manned up and demanded a 1-page version of the backstory before I'd consider it. But he had this puppy dog devotion to his character and his work, I didn't have the heart to do what I should have.

You should have asked the 1-page version, but do so very politely and explaining that you want an abridged version instead;).

Quote from: AsenRG;968974Except what Black Vulmea is doing isn't taking the sandbox too far. I've seen "sandbox taken too far", and it's not that;).

So, there are lots of good notions for sandboxing:

PCs should be proactive, with goals. Outward looking, not introspective. Gigantic backstories are a bad thing. PCs should be active, making contacts in-game, not (generally) relying on meta-resources like 'Contact Points'. It's what the PCs do in-game that counts, not what they did before play started. Don't railroad - it's not really a sandbox if the mysterious stranger's quest is compulsory (do this or no game tonight) or effectively compulsory (do this or world ends).

Black Vulmea kinda takes all the good advice a good sandbox GM could give, and (reading him literally) turns it into a horrible pile of steaming crap, the kind of shit that has caused huge numbers of GMs to run failed sandbox games and then blame the sandbox, not the shitty advice.

Never provide adventure hooks. Never have any PC backstory or pre-existing connections to the world. People actually read this shit & think it's how a Real True Sandbox has to be. Then wonder why their game fails.

Quote from: Black Vulmea;968924But we're not talking about "actual human experience" - we're talking about playing a game, and in my (actual human) experience, interacting with npcs to develop resources and achieve goals in actual play is more fun than, 'oh, my character knows this guy I totally made up full-cloth before the game started who can help us.'


Aaaaand start to the clock for the half-wit who replies, 'But having Contact: Whatever doesn't preclude roleplaying!'

I just don't see why both can't be fun. Not everyone's cup of tea, which is fine. I like having players meet characters in game, but I also think it can add to the session if one of the players has a pre-existing connection to someone in the world and they draw on that person in a time of need. I do think it presents potential balance issues, so letting them make up a contact on the spot is usually inadvisable (and you might want to set some constraints or randomizing factors if you do include contacts). I think it particularly works on connections you would expect players to have (parents, uncles, cousins, friends, etc). And if you do give the players the ability to make contacts prior to play, the GM definitely needs to have a hand in saying what is permissible and what isn't (the old, "I just happen to be a good friend of the king" is a perennial issue).

On that point, what I find can help is a general rule of "the more useful the NPC the more trouble that comes with it" can help. So if you do want to allow your player to be the brother of the king, well maybe his wing of the family is in trouble with the crown and on the run.

Quote from: BedrockBrendan;969000I just don't see why both can't be fun. Not everyone's cup of tea, which is fine. I like having players meet characters in game, but I also think it can add to the session if one of the players has a pre-existing connection to someone in the world and they draw on that person in a time of need. I do think it presents potential balance issues, so letting them make up a contact on the spot is usually inadvisable (and you might want to set some constraints or randomizing factors if you do include contacts). I think it particularly works on connections you would expect players to have (parents, uncles, cousins, friends, etc). And if you do give the players the ability to make contacts prior to play, the GM definitely needs to have a hand in saying what is permissible and what isn't (the old, "I just happen to be a good friend of the king" is a perennial issue).

On that point, what I find can help is a general rule of "the more useful the NPC the more trouble that comes with it" can help. So if you do want to allow your player to be the brother of the king, well maybe his wing of the family is in trouble with the crown and on the run.

I think I'm definitely more in favour of "I spend a Contact Point to know this guy" (per eg Twilight: 2000) than "There's a guy in my 60 page Backstory who..."

But I think Contact Point type meta-resources are best used in more storygamer cooperative-building type RPGs, rather than when sandboxing. They can potentially hurt the sense of immersion in a virtual world that sandboxing does so well.

What I did in my new 4e Nentir Vale sandbox was have the PCs by default be relatives or retainers of the Markelhays, the biggest noble house in the campaign area. So players can have as much status as they want for their PCs short of being Markelhay & his wife; I can't be blindsided by backstories unless they invent new Feywild kingdoms etc whole-cloth for them to be the Lost Heir of.

Quote from: BedrockBrendan;969000I just don't see why both can't be fun. Not everyone's cup of tea, which is fine.

This is where I'm puzzled: the intensity of the aversion. Someone likes short punchy backgrounds or none at all. That's fine, even extremely reasonable with some play styles. But people that like something different aren't the enemy that are going to come to your game and put a gun to you head until you produce more than 2 page of background for every character. This thread and the other have mostly been "I like..." rather "Everyone must...!" but it still seems to be getting people's boxers in a wad.

Quote from: Nexus;969007But people that like something different aren't the enemy that are going to come to your game and put a gun to you head until you produce more than 2 page of background for every character.

No? Then why did I spend on this money on airline tickets to track you guys down?

Dangit.

Quote from: darthfozzywig;969023No? Then why did I spend on this money on airline tickets to track you guys down?

Dangit.

All that ninja training wasted! Sad. :D

* dismisses archers *
* puts out torch *

Quote from: Nexus;969007This is where I'm puzzled: the intensity of the aversion. Someone likes short punchy backgrounds or none at all. That's fine, even extremely reasonable with some play styles. But people that like something different aren't the enemy that are going to come to your game and put a gun to you head until you produce more than 2 page of background for every character. This thread and the other have mostly been "I like..." rather "Everyone must...!" but it still seems to be getting people's boxers in a wad.

I suspect the folks who are getting their boxers in a wad have been burned by players producing back stories that have conflicted with the GM's ideas and then expected the GM to honor their back story over the ideas the GM had. Worst is when those back stories are so long the GM doesn't really take the time to read them.

I have been burned by such back stories, and one thing I observe that can happen with them is that the player is trying to write the success or position of their character into the back story rather than finding out in play (or supporting background that is bought with points in chargen).

Although it wasn't that long, we just had a Traveller player storm off because the GM wanted him to roll up a character in front of the GM, rather than take the character he carefully crafted (by re-rolling when the dice gave him something that wasn't part of his conception for the character).

Creating a character with back story is fine if that's part of the game the GM is offering to run and the players are choosing to play, but when a player tries to bring that into a game that has a different attitude, it's a problem, and people react strongly to it.

Frank

It doesn't seem worth the effort to go track down all the things to er, offer constructive counterpoints about, on this thread, but ...

* Why has the "Sandbox vs. Structured" thread become the "short vs. long backstory" thread?

* Seems to me like meaningful character history would actually tend to be more useful in a dynamic "sandbox" campaign than in a "structured" campaign, in the sense that it could have logical effects rather than just be an explanation/excuse why the "structure" of the pre-planned adventures are what they are (and would be anyway without the history, the way many such structures seem to really be designed not based on logical developments of history).

* Even if you start a campaign with no character description and only give characters names after they survive some combat, that play itself creates a history for them, that the players will know and understand from having experienced it. That's the most effective sort of history.

* Even when the GM and the player actually read and know the invented history of a new PC, that can tend to be pretty flat when they haven't really any experience with it and it has little to do with the game situation.

* A world's history being detailed is not a bad thing, if the GM doesn't go about dumping excessive irrelevant details of it on the players.

* Oh, and although I often don't use the point system for it much, in case some of you are really wondering what to do about PC backstories that have valuable effects, GURPS is one RPG that has a well-thought-out system for such things. Any element of a character's situation which results in positive or negative effects can be assigned a value in balance points. They've thought of various ways to categorize these: Patrons, Allies, Reputation, Social Status, Dependents, Enemies, etc., and in a point-based system like GURPS (or as a way to add on to another system to balance such things out), there can be balancing impacts. So sure you can be friends with the king, but being around kings can have lots of disadvantages, too. You could assess the type and frequency of advantage the relationship with the king has, and if the other PCs don't have anything comparable, you can assign some balancing related (or unrelated) drawbacks. For one simple example, Dumas' Three Musketeers were friends with the king, sort of, but that also lead to them having many enemies.

Quote from: Justin Alexander;968962That's so far away from what literally anyone in this thread has said, I have to assume it's a deliberate strawman.

Did I misquote you?

It's the argument I hear in pretty near every thread on this topic, actually, and I'm even willing to concede that it's valid to the extent that a 'real' person has family, friends, colleagues, rivals, et al, and it's a reasonable inference that player characters could be the same. It's certainly the way I create NON-player characters - I recall a conversation with one of my Flashing Blades players years ago, when he asked how I came up with so many intrigues and kept them all straight: it was insanely easy I replied, because every time I added a non-player character to the campaign, I asked myself, who is his uncle? his brother? his sister? his in-laws? his best friend? his romantic rival? and from those kinds of questions connections simply radiated outward into the setting (http://black-vulmea.blogspot.com/2012/02/swashbucklers-sandbox-part-4.html) through personal and professional connections. It's second nature to how I build a setting.

So why do I approach player characters so differently? For me, the most fundamental aspect of playing the game is exploring the setting. That isn't by any means restricted to crawling hex maps - mostly, it's sussing out the relationships between characters, and figuring out ways to use those to my advantage in furthering my in-character goals. Creating a shell of character relationships before we've so much as rolled a die is boring as shit to me - it's playing tennis with the net down.

In our Boot Hill campaign. my character arrived in Promise City not knowing a soul. In the year since, he's punched cows for a local rancher, served as a deputy sheriff a couple of times, gambled in a local saloon in exchange for a cut of the profits with the owner, married the cantina owner's daughter, bought two businesses and established his own land and livestock company. None of that started with Contact: Saloon Keeper or a background call-out to a 'family friend who owns a ranch in El Dorado County.'

As a player, relationships made through actual play are far more interesting and meaningful than shit dreamed up in a 'background' which no one, not even me, actually experienced.

Quote from: Skarg;969034Even if you start a campaign with no character description and only give characters names after they survive some combat, that play itself creates a history for them, that the players will know and understand from having experienced it. That's the most effective sort of history.

Exactly.

Quote from: ffilz;969033I suspect the folks who are getting their boxers in a wad have been burned by players producing back stories that have conflicted with the GM's ideas and then expected the GM to honor their back story over the ideas the GM had. Worst is when those back stories are so long the GM doesn't really take the time to read them.

I have been burned by such back stories, and one thing I observe that can happen with them is that the player is trying to write the success or position of their character into the back story rather than finding out in play (or supporting background that is bought with points in chargen).

Although it wasn't that long, we just had a Traveller player storm off because the GM wanted him to roll up a character in front of the GM, rather than take the character he carefully crafted (by re-rolling when the dice gave him something that wasn't part of his conception for the character).

Creating a character with back story is fine if that's part of the game the GM is offering to run and the players are choosing to play, but when a player tries to bring that into a game that has a different attitude, it's a problem, and people react strongly to it.

Frank

But that is what the word "No" is for. If the GM is just allowing everything, sure that will be a problem. And there are all kinds of ways to go about this, from randomized methods, to point buy, to letting players come up with their own background. But there is always the GM there who can step in and say 'no'.

Quote from: Skarg;969034It doesn't seem worth the effort to go track down all the things to er, offer constructive counterpoints about, on this thread, but ...

* Why has the "Sandbox vs. Structured" thread become the "short vs. long backstory" thread?

* Seems to me like meaningful character history would actually tend to be more useful in a dynamic "sandbox" campaign than in a "structured" campaign, in the sense that it could have logical effects rather than just be an explanation/excuse why the "structure" of the pre-planned adventures are what they are (and would be anyway without the history, the way many such structures seem to really be designed not based on logical developments of history).

The thing is sandbox play is about discovering what's out there or what will happen rather than having lots of "this has already happened" or "this is predestined to happen" stuff. A detailed character back story almost always has lots of the "already happened" stuff and sometimes has "predestined to happen" stuff.

Too much setting detail can also create similar problems.

Quote* Oh, and although I often don't use the point system for it much, in case some of you are really wondering what to do about PC backstories that have valuable effects, GURPS is one RPG that has a well-thought-out system for such things. Any element of a character's situation which results in positive or negative effects can be assigned a value in balance points. They've thought of various ways to categorize these: Patrons, Allies, Reputation, Social Status, Dependents, Enemies, etc., and in a point-based system like GURPS (or as a way to add on to another system to balance such things out), there can be balancing impacts. So sure you can be friends with the king, but being around kings can have lots of disadvantages, too. You could assess the type and frequency of advantage the relationship with the king has, and if the other PCs don't have anything comparable, you can assign some balancing related (or unrelated) drawbacks. For one simple example, Dumas' Three Musketeers were friends with the king, sort of, but that also lead to them having many enemies.

In a system that provides this kind of stuff, then as long as a player doesn't take a background that conflicts with the general idea for the game I have (if all the PCs are going to be peasants, then buying certain advantages is not going to fly, and we'd better all be in agreement before we introduce a PC who is a bastard who will end up inheriting). And then yes, you should give some color to the background items you have taken/been granted by the mechanics of the game. On the other hand, the background ideally is also written in a way as to allow more possibility in play rather than less possibility in play.

Frank

Quote from: BedrockBrendan;969041But that is what the word "No" is for. If the GM is just allowing everything, sure that will be a problem. And there are all kinds of ways to go about this, from randomized methods, to point buy, to letting players come up with their own background. But there is always the GM there who can step in and say 'no'.

Sure, but I've had players be really resistant to my saying no to their long back story... Or I've been put in a trap, I had an idea that I wanted to reveal in play, but you just wrote your back story to contradict my idea, so I either spoil the mystery, or I will invalidate your back story as the mystery is exposed. Even in a sandbox, or especially in a sandbox, the GM should be able to have some ideas of how things MIGHT play out, the key is that the players should be able to disrupt those ideas through play, not because they wrote some backstory that contradicts the idea before dice have even hit the table.

I may be a bit hot about this because the last time I had a pages long back story (that I couldn't make myself read in detail), the player did just that. In the end, the campaign really didn't last that much longer...

Frank

Quote from: ffilz;969045Sure, but I've had players be really resistant to my saying no to their long back story... Or I've been put in a trap, I had an idea that I wanted to reveal in play, but you just wrote your back story to contradict my idea, so I either spoil the mystery, or I will invalidate your back story as the mystery is exposed. Even in a sandbox, or especially in a sandbox, the GM should be able to have some ideas of how things MIGHT play out, the key is that the players should be able to disrupt those ideas through play, not because they wrote some backstory that contradicts the idea before dice have even hit the table.

I may be a bit hot about this because the last time I had a pages long back story (that I couldn't make myself read in detail), the player did just that. In the end, the campaign really didn't last that much longer...

Frank

If you are going to allow pages long backstory, you have to read the thing.

If you and your players disagree on what should be permissible in terms of background, that is an issue between you guys. I can't say what you should do in your own group, but that sounds like either a lack of flexibility on the part of you or them, or a lack of compatibility if flexibility is out of the question. It isn't something that gets resolved because people on a forum said "no backgrounds".

Quote from: BedrockBrendan;969048If you are going to allow pages long backstory, you have to read the thing.

And that's part of why I don't allow them.

QuoteIf you and your players disagree on what should be permissible in terms of background, that is an issue between you guys. I can't say what you should do in your own group, but that sounds like either a lack of flexibility on the part of you or them, or a lack of compatibility if flexibility is out of the question. It isn't something that gets resolved because people on a forum said "no backgrounds".

All I've ever maintained here in this discussion is my preference for short concise backgrounds that are easy for us to reach consensus on, and shared my experience when folks have tried to dump a long back story on me. I don't have the patience to read a long back story. And yes, I am prepared to have a discussion about background, but it needs to be a discussion, not a drop of 10 pages of back story on me and expecting me to accept it because that's what the player wants. And the player needs to be ready for me to say "I'd prefer that be something that is discovered in play not written into your background." But that's hard to do when presented with an already written 10 page back story.

See the thing is, a pre-written 10 page back story is NOT a collaborative effort. Sure, we can edit it, but it's much better to develop all that material in a collaborative way. The back story that comes out of a collaborative effort will be much more interesting, and will prepare us for play, leaving questions open to be determined in play.

Frank

Something that's important, and is relevant to the sandbox vs structured debate (which really back stories are part of):

As GM I get to offer the game I want to run. As player, you get to decide if you're interested. There is room for us to discuss, but at some point I get to say "that isn't a game I'm interested in running". And the players get to say "and that isn't a game I'm willing to play." I've said goodbye to players. I've decided not to run a game after all.

Frank

Quote from: Black Vulmea;969038I recall a conversation with one of my Flashing Blades players years ago, when he asked how I came up with so many intrigues and kept them all straight: it was insanely easy I replied, because every time I added a non-player character to the campaign, I asked myself, who is his uncle? his brother? his sister? his in-laws? his best friend? his romantic rival? and from those kinds of questions connections simply radiated outward into the setting (http://black-vulmea.blogspot.com/2012/02/swashbucklers-sandbox-part-4.html) through personal and professional connections.

Well that's good advice. I do it in my Wilderlands game to a large extent, and it works great.

Quote from: ffilz;969042Too much setting detail can also create similar problems.

For example?

Quote from: Black Vulmea;969068

QuoteToo much setting detail can also create similar problems.

For example?

For example, take many commercial settings. There is so much stuff there no one can keep it straight, and sometimes the history and stuff in there can feel like all the exciting stuff has already been done.

So that's one danger, the GM's cool setting detail instead of laying out a setting ready for the players to come along and trash, there is all this stuff the players are expected to conform to and the most exciting stuff has already happened.

Then there's any setting that is still actively published. Some of those settings have an ongoing "story" which now either the GM has to force on the players, or the new setting materials quickly become useless. Even if the setting doesn't have too much story, the GM is left with a decision when a new setting book comes out that contradicts stuff detailed during play.

The biggest danger though to too much setting detail is just the sheer weight of it. I've tried to run RuneQuest using the post-3e Glorantha materials (HeroQuest and various fan materials) and it was very frustrating trying to find things and how to interpret all the detail, and how to make it relevant to the players.

Settings I've followed and used in play that I have had various issues with: Harn, Mystara, Glorantha, even Wilderlands of High Fantasy to some extent.

Now those settings (other than maybe Mystara) I can use today, but there are ways I would use them:

Harn: If I ever decided I wanted to use Harn again, I'd pick up the original Harn module (or modern equivalent) and MAYBE some of the country modules, but really I think I'd just stick with the original.

Mystara: I'd probably just use the map and any details available in the BX modules.

Glorantha: I'll stick to Chaosium 2e materials, supplemented by Avalon Hill 3e materials, and gee, if something really grabs me from something else, cool. But be careful of what of that material actually holds, if I have a cool idea that contradicts something in that material, I'll go with it (with sufficient warning to the players).

Wilderlands: I use the original materials, I'll look into the D20 stuff if something is too vague to see if the D20 stuff provides inspiration.

Other settings I have that I would use:

Blackmoor: Really just the map, I use the maps from the TSR modules. First Fantasy Campaign as a source of a bit of information.

Talislanta: Some day I might run something using the Talislanta system. I've tried with other systems, but if I revisit, I'd stick with one of the house system editions (probably 1e, 2e, or 3e).

Tekumel: Some day I might run EPT. I would make judicious use of the material I have and ignore anything else.

For my own settings, background is pretty minimal and developed in play.

Frank

Quote from: ffilz;969033I suspect the folks who are getting their boxers in a wad have been burned by players producing back stories that have conflicted with the GM's ideas and then expected the GM to honor their back story over the ideas the GM had. Worst is when those back stories are so long the GM doesn't really take the time to read them.

I have been burned by such back stories, and one thing I observe that can happen with them is that the player is trying to write the success or position of their character into the back story rather than finding out in play (or supporting background that is bought with points in chargen).

Although it wasn't that long, we just had a Traveller player storm off because the GM wanted him to roll up a character in front of the GM, rather than take the character he carefully crafted (by re-rolling when the dice gave him something that wasn't part of his conception for the character).

Creating a character with back story is fine if that's part of the game the GM is offering to run and the players are choosing to play, but when a player tries to bring that into a game that has a different attitude, it's a problem, and people react strongly to it.

Frank

I get that some people have had bad experiences that have shaped their opinions. We all have; mostly our attitudes aren't formed in a vacuum.  The difference is that its coming across less "I don't care for backstories and don't use them" and more "Backstories are Badwrongfun and no one should use them." Its not the idea people dislike something I like but the intensity and degree that seems a little much for the subject.

Quote from: Nexus;969083I get that some people have had bad experiences that have shaped their opinions. We all have; mostly our attitudes aren't formed in a vacuum.  The difference is that its coming across less "I don't care for backstories and don't use them" and more "Backstories are Badwrongfun and no one should use them." Its not the idea people dislike something I like but the intensity and degree that seems a little much for the subject.

Sorry if I'm emoting "badwrongfun"... If back stories work for you and the folks you play with, cool!

I'm just sharing why they aren't something that is of interest to me, and the issues I've had when people have written them.

I guess something I haven't expressed from a player point of view is how much I would dislike playing in a game where the GM expected more than a few paragraphs of back story...

Frank

Quote from: Nexus;969083The difference is that its coming across less "I don't care for backstories and don't use them" and more "Backstories are Badwrongfun and no one should use them." Its not the idea people dislike something I like but the intensity and degree that seems a little much for the subject.

There is also always that tendency to throw the baby out with the bathwater with gaming advice. That is how you end up with the stupid storytelling advice we got in the 90s (we threw out the dungeons and hexcrawls with the bathwater). It is like when people take some sound writing suggestions and it becomes this thing you always have to do (like "Don't ever use the passive voice"). It makes sense to think about why you are using a particular voice, and it makes sense to consider the downsides of character backgrounds. But no character backgrounds, ever, can become a rule people cleave to without considering the upsides of using them.

Quote from: BedrockBrendan;969086There is also always that tendency to throw the baby out with the bathwater with gaming advice. That is how you end up with the stupid storytelling advice we got in the 90s (we threw out the dungeons and hexcrawls with the bathwater). It is like when people take some sound writing suggestions and it becomes this thing you always have to do (like "Don't ever use the passive voice"). It makes sense to think about why you are using a particular voice, and it makes sense to consider the downsides of character backgrounds. But no character backgrounds, ever, can become a rule people cleave to without considering the upsides of using them.

Well, I certainly can't get on a high horse about this. I've chucked a few damp infants out the window in my time.

Backstories are Badwrongfun and no one should use them.  :D

Quote from: BedrockBrendan;969086There is also always that tendency to throw the baby out with the bathwater with gaming advice. That is how you end up with the stupid storytelling advice we got in the 90s (we threw out the dungeons and hexcrawls with the bathwater). It is like when people take some sound writing suggestions and it becomes this thing you always have to do (like "Don't ever use the passive voice"). It makes sense to think about why you are using a particular voice, and it makes sense to consider the downsides of character backgrounds. But no character backgrounds, ever, can become a rule people cleave to without considering the upsides of using them.

I'm not advocating no background. I'm happy with a concise background that provides color, personality, and informs the game we are about to play. What I dislike is dense background that either will get ignored in play, or attempts to resolve the game before we play it. Now given what I like to see out of a back story, it's hard for me to see how a 10 page back story would ever be applicable to the type of game I like to play. It sounds like a lot of stuff that will get ignored, or an attempt by the player to resolve things before we play. On the other hand, if someone showed up with a 10 page back story that I was able to read through, and was open to feedback from me, and that back story left me with tons of adventure ideas and somehow didn't shut down anything I already had in mind for the setting, I guess that would be cool.

Frank

Quote from: ffilz;969090I'm not advocating no background. I'm happy with a concise background that provides color, personality, and informs the game we are about to play. What I dislike is dense background that either will get ignored in play, or attempts to resolve the game before we play it. Now given what I like to see out of a back story, it's hard for me to see how a 10 page back story would ever be applicable to the type of game I like to play. It sounds like a lot of stuff that will get ignored, or an attempt by the player to resolve things before we play. On the other hand, if someone showed up with a 10 page back story that I was able to read through, and was open to feedback from me, and that back story left me with tons of adventure ideas and somehow didn't shut down anything I already had in mind for the setting, I guess that would be cool.

Frank

Its probably a key point to our difference in preference. I usually don't make major choices about what might happen in a game until I get at least some idea of what sorts of PCs the players are considering and often work from their backgrounds when deciding about what may occur.

Re: character backstories-

Our system of choice is ACKS. Lately I've been having players just roll those dice, in order, and build their character as they choose from there.  I haven't yet had a player who didn't or couldn't think of something fun which hooked them into the setting in the ten minutes that character creation takes in that system.

I suppose that says something for building a rapport between players and GM. Also for easy character generation systems.

Seems to me there is a big separate problem when someone other than the GM is writing the backgrounds for the world and characters, and the GM isn't reading or tracking it all, unless the GM defines what exist as only what he says and the stuff others wrote is just suggestions.

As GM my approach has been to allow background suggestions but let players know that I may overrule/change any of it (only letting them know of changes their PCs would know about) including also letting them know I haven't read it all yet. I almost always do read it all, and don't hesitate to  edit or veto anything I don't like for whatever reason. Generally I will have a world background and if they mention various characters/places/situations, I'll have some idea whether they make sense or not. Often I've found them pretty interesting and useful to give context for use in the game. In many games, I and other GM friends have asked players to list their PCs' relevant relatives and friends so that the game can start with an established community in place. It doesn't have to be pages of prose.

Another approach is to do almost no PC background until a PC survives long enough that the player starts to become interested in their family and background, and/or it comes up during play and gets established.

After all, if it's needed for play, or if the players want to know, then it's relevant and interesting to at least one player. It's when the detail has nothing to do with play, players don't care and/or can't even muster the attention to remember it or read it in the first place that it's clearly overmuch.

Personally, I almost very rarely used published or historical settings partly because ya I don't want to buy and read and memorize it all. I can much more easily remember and manage gameworld details when I made them up myself and I know there are no other sources.

Also, as much as I love detailing campaign worlds, in play I stick to what the PCs are doing and seeing at the moment, and a big part of play is them exploring and discovering things and having to do it by investigating whatever they're interested in. My players do tend to get quite interested in discovering stuff, and it'd be a bit tempting and silly if they could go buy or browse some published book rather than having to learn in-character.

Quote from: Nexus;969106Its probably a key point to our difference in preference. I usually don't make major choices about what might happen in a game until I get at least some idea of what sorts of PCs the players are considering and often work from their backgrounds when deciding about what may occur.

Within certain constraints, my campaigns are very open to what kinds of characters the players want to play and what kind of goals they will set for themselves (that is what a sandbox is), however, I hesitate to use the term "wide open" because in fact, the constraints for any given campaign actually do narrow things down. We've already started to narrow it down by picking a game system (ok, I've heard of at least convention scenarios where the players are told to bring a character generated for their favorite game system - though I'd be amazed if very much of what's on the character sheet is relevant then to the game, at least in the way the player expected). Then on top of choosing a game system, in my experience most of the time the GM comes to the table with at least some idea of what to play. My current Traveller campaign: I generated a little more than two sub-sectors, they are set at the edge of an undefined "Imperium" (specifically NOT GDW's Third Imperium), the characters will mostly be ex-military (standard 1977 Classic Traveller chargen) though other careers are available (Supplement 4 - Citizens if the Empire), and specifically the characters are not from the sub-sectors of play. And out of two groups to start, one started with a ship and the other didn't (single player rolled a Navy character). My Play by Post OD&D campaign was specified as a Wilderlands/City State of the Invincible Overlord with the 3 LBB as the primary source of characters with option on the Thief and Paladin (and other options open if someone asks about them). In neither campaign would a 10 page back story be particularly appropriate, but even in the OD&D campaign, a player could have written a short back story, and as long as they were open to negotiation, I would have worked with it. On the other hand, the effort put into that could easily be wasted when the PC died 30' into the dungeon...

But the other point I have about 10 page back stories, not only can the be non-collaborative with the GM, but they also leave out the other players. I would much rather we ALL sat down as a group and decided given the constraints of what the GM has brought to the table who the PCs will be and create them together. Then folks could take what was developed in the collaborative session and go back and write a back story. And that would be totally different. On the other hand, if the player then showed up with his back story making his character the heir to the throne when that was not discussed at all in the collaborative session there's a problem (and I have had this happen to me, don't remember details, but I'm pretty sure it's happened to me). Now my recent OD&D and Traveller gaming has not had the luxury of a collaborative character creation system, but then the players have all just rolled up a character (for the OD&D PbP I actually do the rolling... hey, it IS actually in the rules...) maybe written a sentence or two, and jumped on the bandwagon of what was going on. The CSIO campaign started with them entering the city and within an hour they had a lead on an adventure. The PbP Traveller campaign started with a list of rumors, the PCs are chasing one of them. The Hangouts Traveller campaign started with that Navy character choosing between two patrons, recruiting an NPC, and making a delivery. But the Traveller characters could have dismissed the rumors/patrons I handed them and looked deeper or tried to cause trouble.

Frank

BV, some players have an easier time getting in character if they treat the PCs the same way you treat your NPCs. They don't want punchy backgrounds, because then they would spend the first few sessions getting in character. What do you do if you have such a player in your group?

Speaking from experience, some of the best players I've seen don't want a long background, but the rest of the best players I've seen want to write one, even if I don't read it after that:).

Quote from: Nexus;969007This is where I'm puzzled: the intensity of the aversion.

But won't anyone think of all the children that might be mislead about the Right Way (TM) to Play Pretend With Rules, by all those people that are Wrong On Internet;)?

Quote from: Dumarest;969089Backstories are Badwrongfun and no one should use them.  :D

And now I think I want to play "Backstories and Badwrongfun: The Dorkness Rising RPG":D!

Quote from: Nexus;969083I get that some people have had bad experiences that have shaped their opinions. We all have; mostly our attitudes aren't formed in a vacuum.  The difference is that its coming across less "I don't care for backstories and don't use them" and more "Backstories are Badwrongfun and no one should use them." Its not the idea people dislike something I like but the intensity and degree that seems a little much for the subject.

I'm pretty intense about not wanting much of a backstory in a game I'm involved in.  It would be a major impediment to me joining a game that otherwise sounded interesting, a hurdle I'd need to clear to get to the presumably good stuff.  If I'm running the game, it's at best a major waste of my time.  If I'm not involved?  I don't care what people do.  It's exactly the same as with any food to which I have a major aversion. You can eat it all day long, but you ain't talking me into taking a bite.  Tried it, didn't like it, got the T-shirt.

Honestly, I don't mind a very brief backstory as long as nothing in it actually affects the game. That is, you can write that you are the long lost prince of Galicia and your long-term goal is to restore your noble heritage, as long as you understand that you don't get a castle or any extra money or servants or even a mule to ride and either no one recognizes your title or defers to your rank when you start the game. At best, I might draw a couple of ideas out of that for the game; at worst, it's fluffy bellybutton lint that gives you an idea of your PC's outlook and desires but doesn't give you ant advantages in the actual game. Just make it snappy. I mean, the soul of wit being what it is and all.

The only backstories I really dislike are (1) those where the player thinks he gets to make his PC the protagonist of a story which will then revolve around that PC for the campaign's duration, (2) those where  the player thinks giving his PC a title gives the PC special privileges and/or access to more money/equipment/underlings than any other starting PC, and (3) those that are just too prolix for me to bother reading.

Quote from: Steven Mitchell;969147I'm pretty intense about not wanting much of a backstory in a game I'm involved in.  It would be a major impediment to me joining a game that otherwise sounded interesting, a hurdle I'd need to clear to get to the presumably good stuff.  If I'm running the game, it's at best a major waste of my time.  If I'm not involved?  I don't care what people do.  It's exactly the same as with any food to which I have a major aversion. You can eat it all day long, but you ain't talking me into taking a bite.  Tried it, didn't like it, got the T-shirt.

I was talking about how some people seem to be getting upset because others don't share their preference.

Quote from: Nexus;969156I was talking about how some people seem to be getting upset because others don't share their preference.

Isn't that what RPG forums are for? :D

Quote from: Dumarest;969158Isn't that what RPG forums are for? :D

good point!

Quote from: Nexus;969156I was talking about how some people seem to be getting upset because others don't share their preference.

Oh look, more "some people" bullshit.

Who's upset because others don't share their preferences?

Quote from: Black Vulmea;969172Oh look, more "some people" bullshit.

Who's upset because others don't share their preferences?

The entire Democratic and Republican parties, to name two examples. Or 99.9% of people on the Internet. :D

Quote from: Dumarest;969278The entire Democratic and Republican parties, to name two examples. Or 99.9% of people on the Internet. :D

Good examples!

Edit: and brings up how the everyone's combativeness seems amped up about three notches over the last couple of years.

Quote from: Black Vulmea;969172Who's upset because others don't share their preferences?

To name one... you sure seem to be.

Edit: but you seem to be pissed off about something all the time...

And yes, its some people in this discussion, as opposed to all or none of this people in this discussion neither of which is true and I wasn't addressing any specific individual. Surprised I had to explain that. Besides I'm not calling anyone to pick a fight with them over a game.

Quote from: ffilz;969042The thing is sandbox play is about discovering what's out there or what will happen rather than having lots of "this has already happened" or "this is predestined to happen" stuff. A detailed character back story almost always has lots of the "already happened" stuff and sometimes has "predestined to happen" stuff.
...

I agree that "this is predestined to happen" is generally not what I want in my sandbox, but I do want history, at least to the degree that there is some reason or context for things to be as they are.

As a GM, I have never accepted anyone trying to insert a predestiny into their backstory. I even go balancing something when a backstory has convenient/useful stuff, but predestiny is an automatic "that doesn't exist in my game universe". PCs aren't even predestined to not get randomly killed by any lucky weapon attack, so all such predictions are off. Of course, I may just convert it to a PC/player _delusion_ without telling the player it's a delusion until he finds out when it doesn't happen.

Quote from: Dumarest;969148...
The only backstories I really dislike are (1) those where the player thinks he gets to make his PC the protagonist of a story which will then revolve around that PC for the campaign's duration, (2) those where  the player thinks giving his PC a title gives the PC special privileges and/or access to more money/equipment/underlings than any other starting PC, and (3) those that are just too prolix for me to bother reading.

Your view seems entirely reasonable to me. GURPS has built-in systems for people who want extra status and wealth and special starting equipment - they all cost balance points just like every other advantage.

Quote from: Skarg;969297Your view seems entirely reasonable to me. GURPS has built-in systems for people who want extra status and wealth and special starting equipment - they all cost balance points just like every other advantage.

Yes, GURPS does that well. Plus I can always veto certain advantages if they are not suitable for the game in question.

Quote from: Nexus;969282Good examples!

Edit: and brings up how the everyone's combativeness seems amped up about three notches over the last couple of years.

Sometimes I think it's a direct result of anonymous communication via the internet. People are dehumanized when you don't actually have to see or hear them and it makes it much easier to leap to vitriolic extremes you'd be unlikely to say in a tête-a-tête across a table.

Edit: ...and then add people who are already kooky into the mix...

Quote from: Dumarest;969278The entire Democratic and Republican parties, to name two examples. Or 99.9% of people on the Internet. :D

No politics in the main forum guys.

Quote from: BedrockBrendan;969389No politics in the main forum guys.

I'm gonna start a pool, see which dumbfuck catches the first ban on this.

Quote from: BedrockBrendan;969389No politics in the main forum guys.

Is it politics to bash both main parties of a country, or is it a sign of being disgusted with politics?

Quote from: BedrockBrendan;969389No politics in the main forum guys.

Noted. Sorry for bringing it up.

Quote from: Dumarest;969337Sometimes I think it's a direct result of anonymous communication via the internet. People are dehumanized when you don't actually have to see or hear them and it makes it much easier to leap to vitriolic extremes you'd be unlikely to say in a tête-a-tête across a table.

Edit: ...and then add people who are already kooky into the mix...

Its an anonymous clumsy medium of communication. There's no non verbal or much other context at all. That's mostly supplied by the reader who can be charitable or not as they want. Plus its immediate and as you noted anonymous. You're dealing with words on a screen and also safe from repercussions (or at least feels that way). Then there's feeling like you're arguing in public and no wanting to figuratively lose face or look like a 'coward' by backing down, admitting you're wrong or even compromising or agreeing to disagree. I've gotten into allot of arguments that were pretty pointless myself. And I've misread things in the past.

Quote from: ffilz;969045Sure, but I've had players be really resistant to my saying no to their long back story... Or I've been put in a trap, I had an idea that I wanted to reveal in play, but you just wrote your back story to contradict my idea, so I either spoil the mystery, or I will invalidate your back story as the mystery is exposed.

Referee creates the world.  Referee's word is law.

Period.  Peri fucking od.

That's why I say "25 words or less".  Write what you want, but all that's "real" is those 25 words or less.  Because I really don't care what the name of your great grandmother's cousin's baby duck was, and I bet none of the other players do either.

Quote from: Gronan of Simmerya;969519Referee creates the world.  Referee's word is law.

Period.  Peri fucking od.

That's why I say "25 words or less".  Write what you want, but all that's "real" is those 25 words or less.  Because I really don't care what the name of your great grandmother's cousin's baby duck was, and I bet none of the other players do either.

And that's an important part that is often overlooked.
Write whatever helps you. Then, if the Referee isn't interested, just present the Referee with the bulletpoints version!

Good point. It's not like a director has to know all the background an actor has worked out in their head for a part.

The person running this website is a racist who publicly advocates genocidal practices.

I am deleting my content.

I recommend you do the same.

Quote from: Voros;969524Good point. It's not like a director has to know all the background an actor has worked out in their head for a part.

Exactly;).

Quote from: Justin Alexander;969537He was given a ring of infinite wishes, that he still possesses today and which can never be taken from him; yo, fuck your rule.

(Had second thoughts about this. Then realized I'd nailed exactly 25 words on my first try, so fuck it. I'm posting it.)

Great job! How do you feel about the fact that every time you wish for anything someone close to you, or at least associated with you, is bound to die in a most unpleasant manner:D?

Quote from: ffilzSure, but I've had players be really resistant to my saying no to their long back story... Or I've been put in a trap, I had an idea that I wanted to reveal in play, but you just wrote your back story to contradict my idea, so I either spoil the mystery, or I will invalidate your back story as the mystery is exposed.

Quote from: Gronan of Simmerya;969519Referee creates the world.  Referee's word is law.

Period.  Peri fucking od.

That's why I say "25 words or less".  Write what you want, but all that's "real" is those 25 words or less.  Because I really don't care what the name of your great grandmother's cousin's baby duck was, and I bet none of the other players do either.

Sure, GM gets ultimate veto in any game I would run, but depending on the game, the players may have more latitude to create background in the world (and I note that in ANY RPG players do get to create setting detail, even if it's absolutely just the name of their character). It's also worth noting that the games these issues occurred in for me were NOT old school D&D, and it was in an era where I had a different attitude that I do now. Now, I would give players latitude to come up with stuff, but I will also put forth to keep my vision, and yea, if ultimately something a player comes up with doesn't work for me, I can say NO.

Frank

The person running this website is a racist who publicly advocates genocidal practices.

I am deleting my content.

I recommend you do the same.

Quote from: Justin Alexander;969744I invoke the "yo, fuck your rule" clause of my character background.

Then I'd invoke the "fuck off and find another game" GM tool;).

Quote from: AsenRG;969538Great job! How do you feel about the fact that every time you wish for anything someone close to you, or at least associated with you, is bound to die in a most unpleasant manner:D?

I believe in the strategy of keeping my friends close and my enemies closer, so that works for me.

Quote from: Justin Alexander;969537He was given a ring of infinite wishes, that he still possesses today and which can never be taken from him; yo, fuck your rule.

(Had second thoughts about this. Then realized I'd nailed exactly 25 words on my first try, so fuck it. I'm posting it.)

I have read The Monkey's Paw.  Fuck your ring of infinite wishes.

12 words.

Or, less assholish, "No, you do not start my campaign in possession of a ring of infinite wishes,  Please try to be more reasonable."

Quote from: Justin Alexander;969537He was given a ring of infinite wishes, that he still possesses today and which can never be taken from him; yo, fuck your rule.

(Had second thoughts about this. Then realized I'd nailed exactly 25 words on my first try, so fuck it. I'm posting it.)

Quote from: AsenRG;969538Great job! How do you feel about the fact that every time you wish for anything someone close to you, or at least associated with you, is bound to die in a most unpleasant manner:D?

Quote from: Justin Alexander;969744I invoke the "yo, fuck your rule" clause of my character background.

Quote from: AsenRG;969819Then I'd invoke the "fuck off and find another game" GM tool;).

Jeebus, people, do you guys actually behave that way around the table?

Dungeons & Assholes

The PC description that starts with magical wishes, can be secretly replaced by the GM as a delusion that they have magical wishes.

Quote from: darthfozzywig;969920Jeebus, people, do you guys actually behave that way around the table?

You're assuming they actually play these games instead of just theorizing online.

Quote from: Dumarest;969930You're assuming they actually play these games instead of just theorizing online.

(https://media.giphy.com/media/abVR8d7TEUkPS/giphy.gif)

Quote from: Dumarest;969930You're assuming they actually play these games instead of just theorizing online.

It's entirely possible they're just joking.

Quote from: Kyle Aaron;969990It's entirely possible they're just joking.

It's entirely possible I am too.

On the other hand, if somebody said their first level character in my game had a ring of infinite wishes, I would most certainly say "no," and I am not joking.

The person running this website is a racist who publicly advocates genocidal practices.

I am deleting my content.

I recommend you do the same.

Quote from: Gronan of Simmerya;970003On the other hand, if somebody said their first level character in my game had a ring of infinite wishes, I would most certainly say "no," and I am not joking.

Of course. And this is why we're not interested in seeing character backgrounds. You're first level. This adventure is your background!

Quote from: darthfozzywig;969920Jeebus, people, do you guys actually behave that way around the table?

Dungeons & Assholes

I don'tknow yet:).
I mean, never in the last 18 years has anyone come to my table and tried anything as blatantly unfun as the "ring of infinite wishes at 1st level" shit. Had anyone tried it, I might have applied the solution I presented. But in practice, I don't know if I'd show that much restraint.

Quote from: Dumarest;969930You're assuming they actually play these games instead of just theorizing online.

Yeah, haven't played in 3 days now. I'm obviously a theoretic:D!

Quote from: Kyle Aaron;970014Of course. And this is why we're not interested in seeing character backgrounds. You're first level. This adventure is your background!

OTOH a 1st level Fighter is a Veteran, and I find memoirs of veterans highly entertaining and educational for Refereeing;).

Quote from: AsenRG;970065OTOH s 1st level Fighter is a Veteran, and I find memoirs of veterans highly entertaining and educational for Refereeing;).

Well, and even "1st Level Fighters" didn't sprout fully formed from the earth. They've had some kind of life experiences before the game (In most games anyway). The assumption that "background" means "short story" regardless of the games premise and assumptions isn't universal and that is means mastubatory abusive power grab less so.

Quote from: Nexus;970066Well, and even "1st Level Fighters" didn't sprout fully formed from the earth. They've had some kind of life experiences before the game (In most games anyway). The assumption that "background" means "short story" regardless of the games premise and assumptions isn't universal and that is means mastubatory abusive power grab less so.

I don't think anyone has said a 1st level fighter comes from nowhere and couldn't have a background (though many old school D&D players wouldn't bother with any background at all). However, in the context of some games, more than a few sentences of background would be overkill. I have no issue with a longer background in a game where a starting character has more to them, though I would balk at a 10 page background in any game I could imagine myself running, but there's plenty of room between none and 10 pages...

As to players making power grabs, I have had D&D players ask for an heirloom sword to start with, and I've pointed out that at most they would get a +1 weapon (in the times when I would start new PCs into an existing group with a bit of something and maybe not even 1st level), and that heirloom it might be, but eventually it will be discarded for a better magic weapon.

On the other hand, I have had at least one player write a multi-page backrgound without consulting with me that conflicted with my ideas for the setting and the player wasn't really receptive to adjusting their background.

Really I think people are trying to create a bigger debate here than the actuality of what happens at real tables warrants.

The player who shows up with a long background and expects the GM to read it all and accept it without discussion is a jerk. Should a player be brazen enough to write a ring of wishes into his 1st level PCs background is a jerk. These players MAY be reacting based on having GMs who were jerks such that the only way to have a competent character is for that to be part of the character's past.

A player who would like to write more than 25 words of background for a 1st level OD&D character should talk to the GM about expectations for the game. Even 25 words may be a lot of work for a PC who could die with the first die roll of the game session.

Frank

Quote from: ffilz;970164I don't think anyone has said a 1st level fighter comes from nowhere and couldn't have a background (though many old school D&D players wouldn't bother with any background at all). However, in the context of some games, more than a few sentences of background would be overkill. I have no issue with a longer background in a game where a starting character has more to them, though I would balk at a 10 page background in any game I could imagine myself running, but there's plenty of room between none and 10 pages...


As to players making power grabs, I have had D&D players ask for an heirloom sword to start with, and I've pointed out that at most they would get a +1 weapon (in the times when I would start new PCs into an existing group with a bit of something and maybe not even 1st level), and that heirloom it might be, but eventually it will be discarded for a better magic weapon.

On the other hand, I have had at least one player write a multi-page backrgound without consulting with me that conflicted with my ideas for the setting and the player wasn't really receptive to adjusting their background.

Really I think people are trying to create a bigger debate here than the actuality of what happens at real tables warrants.

The player who shows up with a long background and expects the GM to read it all and accept it without discussion is a jerk. Should a player be brazen enough to write a ring of wishes into his 1st level PCs background is a jerk. These players MAY be reacting based on having GMs who were jerks such that the only way to have a competent character is for that to be part of the character's past.

A player who would like to write more than 25 words of background for a 1st level OD&D character should talk to the GM about expectations for the game. Even 25 words may be a lot of work for a PC who could die with the first die roll of the game session.

Frank

I didn't claim anyone literally said 1st level characters spring up from nowhere. I was making a counterpoint to the earlier statement their first adventure was the character's background if they were a 1st level characters. Everyone comes from somewhere. One group may not care, others do. Different strokes but its not objectively wrong headed in either case. As some with more D and D experience than I have have pointed "1st level" hasn't always meant your character is so fresh off the farm they still smell like hay. A background doesn't have to be particularly adventure laden or an excuse to give the PC hoards of loot, contacts, rank, etc. but just a means to round them out a person, give them some grounding in the setting. Some like to set that up beforehand, others like to ad lib it up during the game, some gives no damns either way.

Quote from: Nexus;969083Its not the idea people dislike something I like but the intensity and degree that seems a little much for the subject.

The effete thread nanny has spoken.

Quote from: Nexus;969283To name one... you sure seem to be.

Wait for it.

Quote from: Nexus;969283. . . but you seem to be pissed off about something all the time...

I don't suffer fools gladly, no.

That said, I can see how this post (http://www.therpgsite.com/showthread.php?37076-Sandbox-vs-Structured&p=967720#post967720) could be taken as, 'ur dwng it wrng.' That wasn't my intent, because unless you and I are sitting at the same table, I honestly don't give a bloody squirt how you play. I was simply arguing there is another way to skin the feline, offered in my warmly engaging style.

Quote from: Nexus;970187I didn't claim anyone literally said 1st level characters spring up from nowhere. I was making a counterpoint to the earlier statement their first adventure was the character's background if they were a 1st level characters. Everyone comes from somewhere. One group may not care, others do. Different strokes but its not objectively wrong headed in either case. As some with more D and D experience than I have have pointed "1st level" hasn't always meant your character is so fresh off the farm they still smell like hay. A background doesn't have to be particularly adventure laden or an excuse to give the PC hoards of loot, contacts, rank, etc. but just a means to round them out a person, give them some grounding in the setting. Some like to set that up beforehand, others like to ad lib it up during the game, some gives no damns either way.

Good point on your response being to the 1st level PCs first adventure being the background. Sure, the character came from somewhere, and if someone wants to get that down before they enter their first dungeon, that's fine.

I think we're mostly in agreement...

Nowadays, you're technically a "veteran" if you were in a warzone once. This applies even if you weren't in a combat. You may have been in a firefight or two, or arrived as backup to someone towards the end of their firefight. Or maybe you just went out on patrol every day and had some locals give you the evil eye. But you're not Sergeant York.

Likewise, a 1st level fighter. You have 0xp. You have no experience in game terms. But they weren't just a town guard, that's a 0-level man-at-arms. They marched towards the sound of clash of sword on shield once, and they were perhaps in a shield wall. "I stabbed, but I don't know if my blade struck man, shield, or armour, among the din and clatter of the line of battle I couldn't tell. And then they broke and ran and many of the lads chased and cut them down. Afterwards we looted the dead. And this is how I got my 50-200gp of starting gear."

This doesn't need to be stated, really. And it's senseless to write up a background for someone who might fall in a ten foot pit and die. Nobody makes a film about the poor bastard who stepped off the boat on Omaha Beach and was machinegunned in the first three steps, or drowned in the water under the weight of his gear.

If you survive long enough to actually do something, then we're interested in your story. Don't be precious, if he dies you can roll up another one straight away and be playing again in ten minutes. The first adventure is your background.

Quote from: Kyle Aaron;970231Nowadays, you're technically a "veteran" if you were in a warzone once. This applies even if you weren't in a combat. You may have been in a firefight or two, or arrived as backup to someone towards the end of their firefight. Or maybe you just went out on patrol every day and had some locals give you the evil eye. But you're not Sergeant York.

Likewise, a 1st level fighter. You have 0xp. You have no experience in game terms. But they weren't just a town guard, that's a 0-level man-at-arms. They marched towards the sound of clash of sword on shield once, and they were perhaps in a shield wall. "I stabbed, but I don't know if my blade struck man, shield, or armour, among the din and clatter of the line of battle I couldn't tell. And then they broke and ran and many of the lads chased and cut them down. Afterwards we looted the dead. And this is how I got my 50-200gp of starting gear."

This doesn't need to be stated, really. And it's senseless to write up a background for someone who might fall in a ten foot pit and die. Nobody makes a film about the poor bastard who stepped off the boat on Omaha Beach and was machinegunned in the first three steps, or drowned in the water under the weight of his gear.

If you survive long enough to actually do something, then we're interested in your story. Don't be precious, if he dies you can roll up another one straight away and be playing again in ten minutes. The first adventure is your background.

Marry me.

Quote from: Kyle Aaron;970231And it's senseless to write up a background for someone who might fall in a ten foot pit and die. Nobody makes a film about the poor bastard who stepped off the boat on Omaha Beach and was machinegunned in the first three steps, or drowned in the water under the weight of his gear.

There are actually lots of films about the guy who gets gunned down the first time he's in combat - My Boy Jack and Gallipoli are two that come to mind.

Not a big American genre though. Americans like winners, but you're an Ozzie so you should recall Gallipoli. :p

Quote from: Kyle Aaron;970231This doesn't need to be stated, really. And it's senseless to write up a background for someone who might fall in a ten foot pit and die.  
 

This is the difference between someone who has come to play a game and someone who has come to share stories about their special little snowflake.

Thre is no legalistic, statutory way to prevent someone from being a jerk. In fact, such efforts just provide a framework to empower them. Without GM judgment to preview and permit beforehand, it's just another tool to exploit.

... and then we get into the next issue of drowning the reader in irrelevance. Further, people came to play, not watch the GM read or reference a novel. Adult Supervision makes all the difference.

This is why many old school players want to return to these highly empowered GMs. There's a desire to wave away all these "best practices calcified into tripwires" into some leader with guts to say the magical word, "No." If your table can handle more advanced play, to share and share alike, fantastic -- but it's still great to reserve a shepherd's crook to pull someone off the stage as necessary.

Quote from: Opaopajr;970329but it's still great to reserve a shepherd's crook to pull someone off the stage as necessary.

I now have an irrational desire to go to a large gaming convention carrying a shepherd's crook wearing a T-shirt that says on the front "Can't Say No?" and on the back "Crook for Rent".  Thanks, I guess. :)

Quote from: Steven Mitchell;970332I now have an irrational desire to go to a large gaming convention carrying a shepherd's crook wearing a T-shirt that says on the front "Can't Say No?" and on the back "Crook for Rent".  Thanks, I guess. :)

If you start making Convention money, can we creat a franchise? :p

Quote from: S'mon;970283There are actually lots of films about the guy who gets gunned down the first time he's in combat - My Boy Jack and Gallipoli are two that come to mind.

Are they really about those guys or actually about everybody around them dealing with the situation?

Quote from: Opaopajr;970329Thre is no legalistic, statutory way to prevent someone from being a jerk.

"The rules can't fix stupid, and the rules can't fix asshole."

And most of the last forty years of bad D&D rules writing is the result of trying to break those two laws.

Quote from: S'mon;970283There are actually lots of films about the guy who gets gunned down the first time he's in combat - My Boy Jack and Gallipoli are two that come to mind.

Not a big American genre though. Americans like winners, but you're an Ozzie so you should recall Gallipoli. :p

Creating a simple background is equivalent to "making a movie" or thinking the character deserves one? Okay.

Quote from: Dumarest;970341Are they really about those guys or actually about everybody around them dealing with the situation?

Gallipoli is about those guys. The movie ends with the main character being cut down by a machine gun in a futile charge. It's like Black Adder with less jokes.

Quote from: Baulderstone;970382Gallipoli is about those guys. The movie ends with the main character being cut down by a machine gun in a futile charge. It's like Black Adder with less jokes.

Well, I like Blackadder seasons 2-4...

Quote from: Dumarest;970402Well, I like Blackadder seasons 2-4...

What right-thinking person doesn't?

I actually like the first season as well. It's not as sharp, but it is still fun.

Quote from: Gronan of Simmerya;970358"The rules can't fix stupid, and the rules can't fix asshole."

And most of the last forty years of bad D&D rules writing is the result of trying to break those two laws.

At this point it might as well be labeled a Law of Social Physics, like Boyle's Law of Gasses for a gathering of pedants. I'm sure we can find social analogs to Time, Pressure, & Volume. Someone else can cook up the equation analogy.

Quote from: S'mon;970283There are actually lots of films about the guy who gets gunned down the first time he's in combat - My Boy Jack and Gallipoli are two that come to mind.p

I've not seen My Boy Jack, but Gallipoli had lots of combat before the end. Of course, another way to look at it is that Gallipoli represents one of those campaigns that fizzled because there was a TPK in the first session.

It was less story than propaganda, anyway. "Our gallant Aussie boys died, and it's all the fault of those English brewing tea on the beach." Fuck you, Charles Bean.

Quote from: Kyle Aaron;970510It was less story than propaganda, anyway. "Our gallant Aussie boys died, and it's all the fault of those English brewing tea on the beach."

Sure - I liked how all the officers had their Australian accents surgically removed and replaced with English accents, in case the message wasn't clear enough that Australians were innocent victims of colonial exploitation.

I just watched that movie last Sunday on the MGM or Sony channel (I can't remember and get the two confused anyway) and I didn't catch any of this anti-British sentiment. The "diggers" weren't sent to their deaths by the British, but by their own nitwit officers trying to impress the British and an Australian spotter who fucked up and claimed he saw "markers" in the Turkish trenches, encouraging the dipshit senior officer (who sounded pretty Australian to me) to assume the charge went well and to press the attack. Did I miss something?

It makes more sense in the context of Australian culture. Gallipoli as a military campaign is presented as our first campaign as a federation (federated in 1901, individual colonies contributed soldiers before then), and as a "coming of age." And part of "coming of age" for an adolescent is rejecting their parents in some way. The movie has fictional characters based on the work of the historian Charles Bean, who was all about "Aussie larrikins and gallant soldiers being betrayed by British stupidity."

There are all sorts of myths about it. For example, that they were all good Aussie country boys - most were urban, and 30-40% were born overseas. The number is uncertain because for example some Aboriginals signed up, which legally they couldn't, so they got written in as being from Vanuatu or something. But at least 25% were born in the UK - the film, along with the various other tellings, absolutely never presents a common soldier of the ANZACs with a British accent, at best there might be a rebellious Irishman who hates the English like poison.

In Australia we tend to have three accents, not regional but social. There's a nasal one we'd call "ocker", a general one probably 80% of people have, and a faux-English accent associated with higher educations. To American or British ears all three accents would sound about the same, to Australian ears the educated Aussie sounds English. This was used to deliberate effect in the film, to perpetuate the myth that "we landed on the wrong beach" and that British officers were indifferent to casualties, and so on.

The Gallipoli campaign was also the brainchild of Churchill, then Lord of the Admiralty, and in WWII Churchill as PM basically abandoned Australia to the Japanese once Singapore fell - to his mind, the main war was in Europe, Asia could wait. It's notable that the US once it came in concurred in this view, but still there's a sense of betrayal, "our boys were fucking about in North Africa while the Japs were coming," etc. Aussie historians are wont to portray Churchill as an incompetent idiot, and again Aussies as gallant larrikins, blah blah.

And there's the fact that the ANZACs weren't exactly alone there, but there were British, French and Indian soldiers, all of whom vastly outnumbered the ANZAC force. But according to Australian history Gallipoli was invaded by 6 Aussies and their donkey.

And so on and so forth. There's a lot of context to it, so that Aussies will get the message even if foreigners don't.

It's the usual self-serving nonsense most countries engage in. And to take it back to roleplaying, well every group has the guy who keeps fucking up but blames everyone else... :)

Quote from: Gronan of Simmerya;970358"The rules can't fix stupid, and the rules can't fix asshole."

And most of the last forty years of bad D&D rules writing is the result of trying to break those two laws.

Insightful!

A lot of the indie game movement seemed to me to be a function of this, too.

Cheers,
-E.

Quote from: Kyle Aaron;970850...to his mind, the main war was in Europe, Asia could wait. It's notable that the US once it came in concurred in this view...

How do you figure that? I seem to recall a bitterly fought Pacific Theater.

Quote from: Dumarest;970926How do you figure that? I seem to recall a bitterly fought Pacific Theater.

The Allies didn't focus on the Pacific Theater until after the war was won in Europe.

Quote from: Baulderstone;970943The Allies didn't focus on the Pacific Theater until after the war was won in Europe.

Huh? The USA seemed to devote quite a bit to it, and by the time the war was won in Europe, it was also pretty much won in the Pacific.

Yes, but the official strategy was "germany first", and Europe had priority for weapons and men.

Lots of fleet battles in the pacific (by 1942 the german navy was effectively reduced to submarines) and some island storming, but IIRC the allocation of men and material was divided roughly 2/3 and 1/3.

Quote from: EOTB;970948Yes, but the official strategy was "germany first", and Europe had priority for weapons and men.

Lots of fleet battles in the pacific (by 1942 the german navy was effectively reduced to submarines) and some island storming, but IIRC the allocation of men and material was divided roughly 2/3 and 1/3.

Probably so, though that pretty much matches the situation faced on each front. The Pacific needed the fleet, naval air, marines and not a whole lot of ground troops because of the situation and what they faced from the Japanese, and Europe didn't require the aircraft carriers.

Quote from: EOTB;970948Yes, but the official strategy was "germany first", and Europe had priority for weapons and men.

Lots of fleet battles in the pacific (by 1942 the german navy was effectively reduced to submarines) and some island storming, but IIRC the allocation of men and material was divided roughly 2/3 and 1/3.

Exactly. I said "focus". I wasn't suggesting the Allies completely ignored the Pacific.

Ok, right, never mind,. :)

Quote from: Baulderstone;970943The Allies didn't focus on the Pacific Theater until after the war was won in Europe.

That's just utterly incorrect.

Edit: Never mind, saw your follow-up clarification.

Quote from: Kyle Aaron;970850It makes more sense in the context of Australian culture. Gallipoli as a military campaign is presented as our first campaign as a federation (federated in 1901, individual colonies contributed soldiers before then), and as a "coming of age." And part of "coming of age" for an adolescent is rejecting their parents in some way. The movie has fictional characters based on the work of the historian Charles Bean, who was all about "Aussie larrikins and gallant soldiers being betrayed by British stupidity."

There are all sorts of myths about it. For example, that they were all good Aussie country boys - most were urban, and 30-40% were born overseas. The number is uncertain because for example some Aboriginals signed up, which legally they couldn't, so they got written in as being from Vanuatu or something. But at least 25% were born in the UK - the film, along with the various other tellings, absolutely never presents a common soldier of the ANZACs with a British accent, at best there might be a rebellious Irishman who hates the English like poison.

OK, that makes sense. It also explains how an Australian like Simon Wincer can do a movie like Quigley Down Under where the villain is British (the late great Alan Rickman).

QuoteIn Australia we tend to have three accents, not regional but social. There's a nasal one we'd call "ocker", a general one probably 80% of people have, and a faux-English accent associated with higher educations. To American or British ears all three accents would sound about the same, to Australian ears the educated Aussie sounds English. This was used to deliberate effect in the film, to perpetuate the myth that "we landed on the wrong beach" and that British officers were indifferent to casualties, and so on.

Yeah, white southerners are often perplexed when foreigners think we sound "black" and vice versa -like both groups pronouncing all four Es in the word shit. We think we sound very different but from outside, not so much.

QuoteThe Gallipoli campaign was also the brainchild of Churchill, then Lord of the Admiralty, and in WWII Churchill as PM basically abandoned Australia to the Japanese once Singapore fell - to his mind, the main war was in Europe, Asia could wait. It's notable that the US once it came in concurred in this view, but still there's a sense of betrayal, "our boys were fucking about in North Africa while the Japs were coming," etc. Aussie historians are wont to portray Churchill as an incompetent idiot, and again Aussies as gallant larrikins, blah blah.

Churchill was an incompetent idiot. The Gallipoli campaign was a pooch-screw, as was Churchill's decision 25 years later to ship Wavell and his forces off to Greece to prop up the monarchy instead of finishing off the Axis in North Africa and so on and so forth. His brilliant decision to try to hit at Germany through the Alps was another dick-fumble. Finally, when he proposed an Allied invasion of Rhodes, George Marshall had to tell him "I'm not sending a single GI to die for that goddamned rock".

As for the Australians feeling abandoned by the British in WW2, I guess that explains why they were so nice to the US Marines (like my late grandfather) after Guadalcanal. He said the 1st Marines got a more enthusiastic welcome in Melbourne than they ever got back home.

QuoteAnd there's the fact that the ANZACs weren't exactly alone there, but there were British, French and Indian soldiers, all of whom vastly outnumbered the ANZAC force. But according to Australian history Gallipoli was invaded by 6 Aussies and their donkey.

And so on and so forth. There's a lot of context to it, so that Aussies will get the message even if foreigners don't.

It's the usual self-serving nonsense most countries engage in. And to take it back to roleplaying, well every group has the guy who keeps fucking up but blames everyone else... :)

That kinda sailed so far over my head that I didn't notice at all..