|
Post by malifer on Apr 25, 2013 16:44:50 GMT -8
Player back story/family.
Once again I'm going to bat for a game I have read, but haven't played.
Mongoose's RuneQuest II/Legend
Most of character creation is by choice. You can point buy stats, and choose a profession for back story and skills.
However there are a few random tables near the end of character creation.
First there is the background event table that is very similar to the one in Mongoose's Traveller. It's a random event that can be shared by more than one player adds a little background.
Then comes the Family tables.
First you roll just put a number on your family although it is possible to roll your parents are dead, you will still end up with siblings and aunts/uncles.
Then you roll for you Family's reputation, connections, allies and enemies in the community.
I really dig the family tables because you could use them for any game and there is no bad roll it's just a quick way to flesh things out. Sure some people might be able to write pages about a character right away, but they will still do that after these rolls. This is definite bonus to meek or apathetic players.
But wait there's more!
Character's need to join groups in order to improve for instance guilds hold secrets to craftsmanship, magical orders covet their spells, and martial orders hold power and fighting techniques. Each with beliefs and such.
Sure someone could still make up a cult of non-belief, but the difference is the world is populated with people full of conviction and even if they're not punching you in the face for your belief, they'll be knocking on your door at 8am on a Saturday to see if you'll change your mind.
A really neat game the Legend core is still only a $1 on Drivethrurpg. Design Mechanism also put up a few of Mongoose's RQII pdfs up for a $1 as well.
Now that I'm into G+ gaming I might try and run it some time.
|
|
|
Post by ayslyn on Apr 25, 2013 21:22:06 GMT -8
There's always the old Central Casting books for generating a background.
|
|
|
Post by Kainguru on Apr 27, 2013 9:01:25 GMT -8
There's always the old Central Casting books for generating a background. I used them to fill out more background details for the players to 'run with'. Plus they gave me a few family 'secrets' that I can reveal to the players later eg: one players father has a problem: he's the official court 'spymaster' but he's also a 'peeping tom' . . . gotta love those tables, it seems weird but it does fit with a bit of creativity(ie: the nature of the PC's fathers job has resulted in him developing an affectation for 'spying for kicks' vis-a-vis 'peeping tom'. On backgrounds generally it depends: I usually prefer to start with a basic set of details, ask the players to fill in blanks as we go along and eventually after a few sessions something substantive results. Even the player can who opts out can be an advantage . . . I had one player whose background wasn't that of an orphan but that he'd been taken at the age of 5 and enrolled in the druidic bard college for training (1e edition bard, not the nerfed minstrel of later editions). I saw this as similar to the likes of the Judge Dredd Academy of Law . . . 'you are ours now, we are your family from here on in'. I told him he knew who his family was upto 5 years and explained that he was free to expand on his time in training or his family. Several sessions later: he asked if he could delve into his family background as everyone else was producing well rounded backgrounds etc - 'OK' methinks you've abdicated the responsibility to me so I'll run with it but he might not like it . . . They're in Hommlet, they've done the moathouse and foolishly disposed of their booty in an 'car boot sale' type affair at the inn (because they needed hard cash for training expenses). The Cult agents in Hommlet are aware of what they've done at the moathouse and so the infamous 10th level assassin is dispatched as per the closing module guidelines of T1 (if the players are not discreet the Cult will retaliate). I had already created a Cult related NPC to link Hommlet to Nulb and the Temple as part of a side quest to give the players more info and, more importantly, experience. This mid-level cleric, and agent for the Cult, becomes this PC's estranged older sister . . . she knows who the PC is but not vice versa. She is attending Hommlet with the disguised assassin to identify the contracted 'marks' . . . I describe these persons sat in the Inn and drop a hint by linking her description to that of the PC (similar build, hair colour and eye colour etc). Rather than wonder why the player leaps in with "she's attractive I'm going to seduce her for the night!!!" . . . 'OK' I think lets see where this goes - she's chaotic evil so morality isn't a problem for her. So the PC has a night of passion with a passing traveler . . . who disappears the morning after before he wakes . . . So far, so good . . . then I'm watching Excalibur and there's the bit where Morgan Le Fay seduces Arthur and Mordred is the result. Total douche GM gold. Suddenly I have a whole background for him to discover . . . why he was sent away to study with the druids, why his older sister has gone rogue and joined an evil Cult, what happened to his father and mother. During the side-quest the PC gets to confront his sister . . . during the confrontation she reveals who she is, the fact that she's pregnant with his child and hints at what happened to his family ("mother was weak when she sent you away . . . she deserved to die she couldn't accept what father had become was something better") . . . at this point she effects her escape and recurring villain is born. Behind the scenes she has dogged and harried the party ever since . . . the players just wants to kill her now with a vengeance and wants to know more about his father and an entire adventure subplot is born that invests the player/PC in the world beyond the adventure. Plus the moral ambiguity of the child she carries . . . can/should he kill her while she's still pregnant? (my opinion - no, if he does that'll be a huge alignment hit even for a chaotic neutral) she's his sister shouldn't he try and 'save her' instead? etc . . . Backgrounds are important, but don't despair if a player is less interested in doing it him/herself . . . because the evil GM can get to play. But then I'm a douche and like dicking players around a bit (a lot) . . . no clean cut whiter than white heroes of destiny in my campaigns or simple good vs evil dialectics. Moral/ethical conundrums are the standard . . . and PC backgrounds provide the tools . . . Aaron
|
|
|
Post by kaitoujuliet on Apr 28, 2013 18:00:13 GMT -8
"Oh shit. forresst just said her PC has a crush on Tyler because he's 'too normal'. OK, so he's the normal kid. How's he going to react in this specific situation? Now scubasteve said his PC cheated with Tyler. Was it a one-time thing? No? Then there's obviously something between those characters. Whoa. Now D.T.Pints said Tyler knows about his PC's monstrous nature, but is being blackmailed into keeping quiet." The NPCs personalities, motivations, and abilities are all created organically out of a combination of the fiction the players create and what's needed for the story. I've never played Monsterhearts, so I'm a bit confused by this example. Is "Tyler" being run by the GM in this case? Anyway, I don't think a character can be a GMPC if all of the other players get to decide such major things about him/her, even if the GM is running that character. Once the topic of GMPCs came up, I immediately stared yelling at the air (I wear headphones). The line Stu was trying to find is as easy as this. Are you trying to control your players? If so then a GMPC would be detrimental. If its only to support the players then its not a GMPC, it's an NPC. Lestew, I think there's a third option beyond support/control. Have you checked out the GMPC thread? The example I gave, "Sparky," neither controls nor purely supports the PCs. He is a PC, just run by the GM. * * * Speaking of yelling at the air ... okay, I didn't do it, but I wanted to when JiB said that he didn't want to use players' backstories to mess with them--just to "make the stories more personal." The problem there is, how do you make a story personal? You threaten something the PC cares about. And that's exactly what some players are afraid of: that if they create anyone/anything the character is attached to, the GM is going to threaten if not outright destroy it. JiB pretty much admitted that he does this on a regular basis, and that is (IMHO) the very definition of messing with a character.
|
|
|
Post by jazzisblues on Apr 29, 2013 5:13:06 GMT -8
"Oh shit. forresst just said her PC has a crush on Tyler because he's 'too normal'. OK, so he's the normal kid. How's he going to react in this specific situation? Now scubasteve said his PC cheated with Tyler. Was it a one-time thing? No? Then there's obviously something between those characters. Whoa. Now D.T.Pints said Tyler knows about his PC's monstrous nature, but is being blackmailed into keeping quiet." The NPCs personalities, motivations, and abilities are all created organically out of a combination of the fiction the players create and what's needed for the story. I've never played Monsterhearts, so I'm a bit confused by this example. Is "Tyler" being run by the GM in this case? Anyway, I don't think a character can be a GMPC if all of the other players get to decide such major things about him/her, even if the GM is running that character. Once the topic of GMPCs came up, I immediately stared yelling at the air (I wear headphones). The line Stu was trying to find is as easy as this. Are you trying to control your players? If so then a GMPC would be detrimental. If its only to support the players then its not a GMPC, it's an NPC. Lestew, I think there's a third option beyond support/control. Have you checked out the GMPC thread? The example I gave, "Sparky," neither controls nor purely supports the PCs. He is a PC, just run by the GM. * * * Speaking of yelling at the air ... okay, I didn't do it, but I wanted to when JiB said that he didn't want to use players' backstories to mess with them--just to "make the stories more personal." The problem there is, how do you make a story personal? You threaten something the PC cares about. And that's exactly what some players are afraid of: that if they create anyone/anything the character is attached to, the GM is going to threaten if not outright destroy it. JiB pretty much admitted that he does this on a regular basis, and that is (IMHO) the very definition of messing with a character. You misunderstand my intent I did not say I didn't want to mess with the character. I said I didn't want to mess with "them" (the player). I use every opportunity to mess with the character. My intent was, I do not use this information against the PLAYER. By which I mean I don't use any information to cause the PLAYER grief. I cause the character grief all the time. JiB
|
|
|
Post by kaitoujuliet on Apr 29, 2013 7:20:59 GMT -8
You misunderstand my intent I did not say I didn't want to mess with the character. I said I didn't want to mess with "them" (the player). I use every opportunity to mess with the character. My intent was, I do not use this information against the PLAYER. By which I mean I don't use any information to cause the PLAYER grief. I cause the character grief all the time. With all due respect, I don't think I do misunderstand you. The missing link, as I see it, is that for some people (particularly those who aren't used to playing this way), grief for the character will cause stress for the player. Rightly or wrongly. I'm just not convinced that causing grief to the PCs of those players is going to win them over to the joys of "personal storylines." And even for those players who can make the separation ... haven't I heard you say before that getting an emotional response from the player (not the character) is the best way to get them immersed in the game??
|
|
|
Post by Stu Venable on Apr 29, 2013 10:36:21 GMT -8
I think you get a lot of clues from players as to the kind of game they're interested in playing by the background they give you.
We all personalize things differently, and we all have different comfort levels.
If someone gives you lots of dependents and enemies and a sordid personal history, they're giving you plenty of grist to personalize the story and I think it's safe to assume they're expecting that sort of story.
If they are not giving you any of that stuff -- or if they're giving you a very "safe" personal history, you're getting a clue that they're interested in a different sort of story.
The good news is that these different types of players can happily work together (unlike the dramatist and the munchkin, which can cause difficulty). Very often the players looking for the adventures where they fight monsters, unravel clues and save princesses don't particularly care if those adventures are tied to an NPC's background or a PC's.
It all depends where they stand on the Beer-and-Pretzel/Dustin Hoffman dichotomy.
|
|
|
Post by Stu Venable on Apr 29, 2013 10:39:47 GMT -8
This is assuming the players give you backgrounds in an open-ended manner, without any specific, leading questions or guidelines from the GM.
|
|
|
Post by Kainguru on Apr 29, 2013 14:11:15 GMT -8
Or, as happened in my group, abdicating the responsibility to the GM. I figure when this is done all bets are off . . . I'll construct your background and get as much mileage as I can out of it. The player, in the example I gave earlier, has decided to put pen to paper and fill in the details of his time under Druidic tutorage . . . He's also gone and throughly detailed his other siblings (one being his back character) . . . So a win all round. Aaron
|
|
D.T. Pints
Instigator
JACKERCON 2018: WITH GREAT POWER COMES GREAT RESPONSIBILITY June 22-July 1st
Posts: 2,857
Currently Playing: D&D 5e, Pathfinder, DUNGEONWORLD, Star Wars Edge of the Empire
Currently Running: DUNGEONWORLD, PATHFINDER
|
Post by D.T. Pints on Apr 29, 2013 14:46:20 GMT -8
I really wanted various details of the story to come from my PC's. Like Stu said by seeing what players decide to focus on gives me a good direction to take the game. Do they give me a looong loot list of artifacts they hope to obtain or interesting protagonist/antagonist NPC's. Do they want epic fantasy or street level grittiness? So far in Pathfinder its been a fairly healthy mix of both. However, PF by its design rapidly turns into Epic levels of PC badassery that make any sort of street level grit extremely difficult to maintain.
The in between session bennies questions I offer have lead to some pretty remarkable pushing for rich, engaging characters with all kinds of strings and ties. This has lead me to happily fuck with their heroic abilities and connections. The world is in flux therefore certain environments cause expected abilities to behave in an unexpected fashion. This has come from players wanting to be surprised by a shadow out of their past or an aspect of the world they might have hinted at in their backstory.
I think the key to get past the adversarial player vs GM relationship is to seek some balance from player input affecting them in positive as well as negative ways.
Example:
Our resident elemental sorcerer has created a character with deep connections to the elemental plane of earth. He has sent hints to me of elemental powers tainting his family bloodline, mental connections to earth forces beyond the prime plane. Weird social quirks like always being a bit dirty/muddy, putting sand in his food, collecting unusual rocks/gems and then as he gains in power he actually assimilates these stones into his skin.
Its been some pretty brilliant character development. Finally, after several sessions of ability discovery and increased connection to the plane of earth (where his backstory ideas lead to a more powerful more intricate character) the crisis hit. A substance has been discovered called *Voidstone* that will cause all extra planar connections to slam shut which would mean the end of this characters link to arcane power. He in fact did come into contact with just a few grains and lost one of his newly acquired powers.
I didn't just say this IS HAPPENING. But, the tension is building for something that COULD happen. We as a player group are fully aware that PC contributions to the story could/probably will be used at some point to ramp up dramatic tension. But, we also can tell pretty quickly if something is being used to such a degree that it feels just downright mean.
|
|
|
Post by Kainguru on Apr 29, 2013 15:29:38 GMT -8
I don't think fucking with PC's is necessarily adversarial. It's part of providing a challenge . . . And the challenge should be - in a rich well rounded milieu - on many different levels. There is a mindset (encouraged by certain games - IMHO unintentionally) where the players perceive the anticipated combats and complexes to explore as the only challenges that will be faced rather the world in which these conflicts occur or where these dark dungeons exist. Aaron
|
|
D.T. Pints
Instigator
JACKERCON 2018: WITH GREAT POWER COMES GREAT RESPONSIBILITY June 22-July 1st
Posts: 2,857
Currently Playing: D&D 5e, Pathfinder, DUNGEONWORLD, Star Wars Edge of the Empire
Currently Running: DUNGEONWORLD, PATHFINDER
|
Post by D.T. Pints on Apr 29, 2013 17:03:32 GMT -8
I don't think fucking with PC's is necessarily adversarial. It's part of providing a challenge . . . Agreed! But when a player hands you a backstory with some family and allies and the other player gives you nothing and the very next session has the info providing player getting raked over the coals...that's fuckin lame. I prefer a slow burn with brief rewarding moments of respite for active, participating players.
|
|
|
Post by Kainguru on Apr 29, 2013 18:07:27 GMT -8
I don't think fucking with PC's is necessarily adversarial. It's part of providing a challenge . . . Agreed! But when a player hands you a backstory with some family and allies and the other player gives you nothing and the very next session has the info providing player getting raked over the coals...that's fuckin lame. I prefer a slow burn with brief rewarding moments of respite for active, participating players. Totally agree . . . Aaron
|
|
|
Post by CreativeCowboy on Apr 30, 2013 0:56:53 GMT -8
I don't think fucking with PC's is necessarily adversarial. It's part of providing a challenge . . . Agreed! But when a player hands you a backstory with some family and allies and the other player gives you nothing and the very next session has the info providing player getting raked over the coals...that's fuckin lame. I prefer a slow burn with brief rewarding moments of respite for active, participating players. I will chime in my agreement here too. This lame treatment contributes to a cycle. I interview players for character generation and open the gates for starting equipment. If they want a 1000 gp telescope, they get it. The only price is the telescope's back-story. Hey! It's a 1000 gp. One player, from Italy, wanted really good shoes. ..like Italian shoes, maybe? So I sat down with my map of Greyhawk and decided where Italian shoes come from. If a player wants a Baghdad battery to power their lantern mini arch light... the same process, although that level of technology will only come from one advanced race in my world. Maybe the player/character knows this and maybe not but the advanced technology fact will be made known to the player by the GM at the interview. There will be comments on this piece of equipment from NPCs in the game long before the owners show up to collect it.... what happens is decided at the interview when the player tells me how they came to own this equipment. I always start out players with a task. Here is your character sheet, you initial motivation (find a job, seek a mentor, look for a friend) and you're on the path to achieving that (the Blue Book game) when suddenly you're in the game (the larger campaign). Nothing special. Nothing anyone who has read Little Red Ridding Hood is unfamiliar with. But just enough to give players some context to the game, and make it less foreign. (That and allowing player skill and player references to Bram Stoker and Homer into my world.) I always ask for character birthdays, and use the Julian Calendar and our seasons so players have a place to start. We're currently on 17th September I will tell new players. I had one player play a noble son. Our interview included historical references concerning his area. I placed him on the map. As he played, his 21st birthday was coming up. So I asked him in eMail about how he was smuggled out from the war that displaced his family (stuff from the interview I -now- followed up on). He told me about a few characters and who taught him his 1st level as a Fighter to weild a sword etc.. When he returned from the dungeon, after his 21st birthday, there was a letter waiting for him..... I think giving players context to the world is the key here. I had one Paladin travel with his Order's Master to do a task. They had to hire a Ranger for guide. (This was a Blue Book.) They determined that Gnolls were the problem and vanquished them. Then their Ogre handler arrived. Okay. It's a Blue Book so the Order Master saved their lives.... And yes, the final blows were played out, as the NPC was given to the players. I do not save characters and the fight was close. But the Paladin NPC had enough hit points. They found a magic artifact, which sent my Mary Sue home but not before advising his young charge to see the world and, if the Ranger were amenable to it, travel with "real men" of the world. The interview (with a gamer) had the character tested as Chaotic Good. So I ruled, that's fine. But your master wants you to learn Lawful tendencies and not just discipline. This was also the gist of the parting advice: bring order to the wild (Ranger). Of course, with a Gamer you have to speak Meta Game: you must prove yourself consistently Lawful before the 3rd level. Bringing players into the world in this small way also lets the players have a taste of agency in world creation. The Italian shoes come from Italy in my world (OnnWal) and, so, the player decided one of her languages was Onnwal-ish. What is the connection between her and Onnwal? As her training time passes, during that cutscene of NPC interaction where I impart more player knowledge about my world and they level up, I will ask her. One player is a world traveller. He will describe the cities for me, which he has visited if the party travels there. And I will be the note taker then. Listening is such an active integral part of players' tabletop experience that really there is no reason not to have some string to pull on the players without resorting to the old clichés of "your auntie is tied to the railroad tracks by the mustache twirler." "What's your auntie's name" kind of gets the cart backwards. Onnwal... I wouldn't mind to introduce the Slavers to my game. I wonder what the player's description of all these cities he has visited with his parent traders will sound like and what secrets hit him (or unpaid debts). I do not sweat back-stories. In the case of the noble, he never got to read the letter waiitng for him at the Inn before returning to Canada; but I read his multiple pages of personal history. I try not to do that.
|
|
|
Post by kaitoujuliet on Apr 30, 2013 7:07:46 GMT -8
Agreed! But when a player hands you a backstory with some family and allies and the other player gives you nothing and the very next session has the info providing player getting raked over the coals...that's fuckin lame. Well, unless the GM knows that the info-providing player is an angstbunny. The flip side of my comment above about people who get stressed out by in-character drama is that other people eat in-character drama up with a spoon. (The "Dustin Hoffmans," as Stu says a couple posts back.) The trick, as GM, is knowing which players fall into which categories!
|
|