You're doing what? Surprising the DM

[JamesonCourage]

Now, in my group, this is how this works. When we sit down to make our characters, Bob announces to the group that he wants his character to be on the run from some cult. At least two of the other characters, by the end of character generation, will have some connection either directly to Bob or to the cult.

So, when the cultists show up to capture Bob, the entire group is already engaged. Three of the players (at least) at the table are invested in this plot.

So, to clarify, you'd make at least one other player be connected to the cult, and not just to Bob, correct? Because, I can probably assume that both groups have PCs that are connected to Bob (they're traveling with him, helping protect him, etc.). I think you'd have to make them connected to the cult for me to follow this logic, but I wanted to check. As always, play what you like

 

[N'raac]

Right. Stuff that happens before play isn't a restriction on agency during play. It's in the same general category as deciding what sort of genre or setting to play.

To many players, I believe it is very different. Genre and setting are "the group", and "the setting" - the same "the setting" that @Hussar doesn't really care much about. But it's MY character, not the group's. You are now restricting MY character.

The characters can have deep, dark secrets. But the players are sharing.

And it's not really a restriction on player agency. It doesn't contrain what a player can do in play. But you are correct that it changes the aesthetics of play.

It does constrain what a player can do in play. He cannot maintain a secret. Let's say that a new secret arises in play. Bob's character (since Hussar and I both seem to like Bob) is tired of that Cult (since we've established that as a reasonable example), so Bob cuts a deal with the High Priest. It's an unsavoury deal, and maybe one that some of the other PC's (or players) would not be happy about. Now, I am assuming that Bob is not permitted to restrict the other players' access to this information. His characters' interactions with the High Priest cannot be kept from the other players. That is a constraint on what the player can do in play. And it is no different from that secret deal being part of the backstory. If Bob wants to take his character (or a riff on that character) to a different group, it IS part of the backstory he brings in.

I'm a little less confident now in speaking for @Hussar, because I don't use his style of "group template".

Fair enough.

But in my preferred approach, what comes out in play is not background, but new developments and responses to past background. So the reveals in play are about character transformations, not character histories. This has actually become a topic of discussion in the current "So what's wrong with restrictions for paladins?" thread.

There is no reveal if everything is open book as it happens. There can be no mystery as to why the change. If my character is secretive because of that cult chasing him, I'm required to lay that on the table in character generation. If he falls in love, changes religion or what have you, am I not required to also lay that on the table? And if not, why is something that would be background (full disclosure required) if we started the game now no longer "full disclosure required" in game?

I think "if not" is not an issue, as it would allow the same issues you are concerned with to appear simply by bringing my character in as a cipher and having him "find himself" over the course of the first few sessions (converting religions; falling in love; changing his attitudes), so I haven't gone any deeper into that possibility.

The GM's role in dispensing information is interesting and important. It was discussed quite a bit upthread, particularly by @chaochou. My own approach is to reveal enough backstory to allow the playes to integrate their PCs and to make significant choices, but also to leave room for reveals.

So you get to have off the table secrets, but no one else does. To be clear, my issue is with the latter, not the former, but much of the criticism levied against GM's on this thread has been about their insistence on maintaining, and exerting, a power over the game which the players lack. I find this a "similar but different" issue.

Let me try this example. We'll keep Bob, because we like Bob.

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

Now, the other players have no investment in this. They have no idea why this is happening. They try to find out, but, because Bob isn't telling, and because they aren't willing to hold Bob's toes over the coals, the rest of the group has to contend with these attacks.

Maybe they have no idea why the cult is attacking them. @pemerton, above, notes that the GM may not dole out all the background information. I am uncertain, @Hussar, whether you take the same position, or whether you would level the playing field and the GM must also make full disclosure. Assuming the former (and this is relevant to Pemerton even if Hussar takes the latter approach), how do the players know the cult is attacking them because of Bob, or because of some other background element of which they are unaware? Clearly they are aware of the actions of the cult, which take place in play.

Bob's character (BobPC) might decide he needs to disclose, even if only because his secret is putting his friends in danger. Or he might not. It's Bob's character, so Bob gets to decide.

It might start to come out in play subtly - funny, the cult sometimes acts against us in our entirety, sometimes against smaller groups, but never against a subset that excludes Bob; or maybe they always seem to target BobPC. Or maybe, by protecting BobPC (purposefully or just by being in the way), the rest of the group also attracts the Cult's enmity. Gosh, very much like they might if no one were connected to the cult, but their investigations and play lead them to a plot connected to an evil cult and they interfered with it. Or they might start questioning BobPC - imagine that, some actual intraparty role play!

Or it might come out very blatantly. Maybe a cultist, or a cult leader, makes it CRYSTAL CLEAR they are after BobPC. "We have no quarrel with the rest of you. Turn over BobPC, and I swear you will be allowed to go free. I wonder, how much has he told you? If you knew what he had done, what he truly is, would you be so eager to lay down your lives in his defense?" That's not much of a reveal if the players already know all about BobPC.

[Hugh's boring reminiscence]I recall a campaign a long time back where one player had the idea his character was pretty bright, but played stupid as a defense mechanism. His initial thought was that, after an adventure or three, he'd come to trust his teammates and let them in on the secret. But a combination of issues, mainly the player schedule becoming erratic and the player coming to like his little secret (not always a good thing, I agree) lead to the secret getting kept a lot longer (and the issue becoming something of a running joke for the players - but none of them knew the character was a lot smarter than he pretended).

Until we came to a scenario that incorporated magical evil twins (great scenario; old 1e one whose name escapes me - the PC's were aged into dotage by the process, which was also entertaining as one PC had been designed as a crotchety old man rather than a young wet behind the ears whippersnapper who didn't even know HOW to adventure yet - RESPECT YOUR ELDERS! - but I digress). It was a mouth dropping event for the players when this character duplicate, from a rampart, said something like "Well done, my doppelganger - our pretense of idiocy has tricked them all and lead them to their doom!" Several jaws on the table from the reveal (and the lack of certainty just how much of the reveal was true) and one because the player never dreamed his secret might come out like this - challenging intraparty role play ahead - assuming we survive this trap![/boring reminiscence]

Why would any of the other players possibly care here? What's in it for them?

Because the GM (alone or with the player) works to make the cult an interesting opposing force even if the players don't have a pre-existing connection? Because by the time the issue arises in serious depth, BobPC is more than just a travelling companion with some useful skills, but a fleshed out interesting character who the other PC's count as a friend? I'll ask the reverse question momentarily.

Now, in my group, this is how this works. When we sit down to make our characters, Bob announces to the group that he wants his character to be on the run from some cult. At least two of the other characters, by the end of character generation, will have some connection either directly to Bob or to the cult. If you've ever looked at the FATE chargen rules, you'll see how that works. I use a somewhat different mini-game, but, the end result is largely the same. At least two other players will have direct connections to Bob and/or Bob's problem.

So how does that transform the cult from a boring waste of time to an intriguing force to be reckoned with? My character has been forced into a religion that opposes this cult because SOMEONE had to have a direct connection to Bob's problem, and Ted's character isn't permitted to rethink his relationship with Bob when he discovers Bob's secret past because SOMEONE had to havea past that lead to a loyalty to BobPC. But we're still sick of this boring cult, Mr. GM.

So, when the cultists show up to capture Bob, the entire group is already engaged. Three of the players (at least) at the table are invested in this plot. And, the other players will be tangentially invested because the other players will be connected to at least two of the three directly engaged characters. ((It might only be one of the three, but, typically it will be two))

Or we're not engaged. "ho hum, here comes that same old boring cult to attack BobPC one more time. Maybe if we just let them HAVE BobPC, the GM might consider coming up with a different plot for a change." The fact that the PC's don't have either BobPC or the Cult written into their background in no way prevents them becoming loyal to their friend and companion BobPC (you know, the guy who broke the Charge of the Orcish Shaman and saved all our lives, THAT BobPC, who now needs our help?) and/or finding the Dark Cult has earned their enmity ("thine actions show thee to be vile and without honour - have at thee, evil Cultists"). The events of the campaign need not be inextricably tied to the backstory elements.

[boring aside]Remember the first Michael Keaton Batman movie? Why did Jack Nicholson's Joker have to be the Joe Chill figure who killed Bruce Wayne's parents? Just so everything ties oh so neatly together for the moviegoing audience? Would Bats not have been motivated to go after a psychopathic killer in a clown suit without that personal connection? Will he lack the will and motivation to go after the rest of his rogues' gallery as they get introduced in later movies? It was cute, but unnecessary, and detracted from the movie for those familiar with the source material.[/boring aside]

So, there is no disconnect. When the cultists show up, everyone gets their game face on because the cultists are important to the table. Everyone is already invested in this. Which speaks to your point about Bob being engaged while I'm not. It won't happen at my table. Well, it won't happen unless I, the DM, have seriously screwed up and totally botched the scenario. But, barring catastrophe, everyone will be invested in the action before the action shows up.

Or they won't. "I'm sick of evil cults." I'm really not THAT attached to my friend from childhood." "Hey, I'm Player 4 - this doesn't even link to my backstory!" "Gee, wouldn't it be refreshing to actually have a NEW enemy once in a while?"

I think that, if the players don't become invested in the game, that indicates the GM has seriously screwed up and totally botched the scenario regardless, or that the players don't really bring much to the table.

Now maybe this deep dark cult will be the centerpiece to the entire campaign, so having each PC have some link to the Cult would add to the game. I'm OK with that. But that still doesn't mean I want my character to have no background, personality, goals or objectives not directly linked to this cult, nor that I want those to be ignored. Neither does it mean that I need to know every, or even any, other PC's connection to the Cult, nor they mine, nor even that we all have a connection, at the outset of the game.

 

[Hussar]

So, to clarify, you'd make at least one other player be connected to the cult, and not just to Bob, correct? Because, I can probably assume that both groups have PCs that are connected to Bob (they're traveling with him, helping protect him, etc.). I think you'd have to make them connected to the cult for me to follow this logic, but I wanted to check. As always, play what you like

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

Or it might come out very blatantly. Maybe a cultist, or a cult leader, makes it CRYSTAL CLEAR they are after BobPC. "We have no quarrel with the rest of you. Turn over BobPC, and I swear you will be allowed to go free. I wonder, how much has he told you? If you knew what he had done, what he truly is, would you be so eager to lay down your lives in his defense?" That's not much of a reveal if the players already know all about BobPC.

So, it's perfectly okay for the DM to make the big reveal of your character's secret, but, it's not okay to simply have things in the open in the first place? You make a character who has this deep, dark secret, and the DM drops it into the open in the very first scene and you'd have no problems with that?

It does constrain what a player can do in play. He cannot maintain a secret. Let's say that a new secret arises in play. Bob's character (since Hussar and I both seem to like Bob) is tired of that Cult (since we've established that as a reasonable example), so Bob cuts a deal with the High Priest. It's an unsavoury deal, and maybe one that some of the other PC's (or players) would not be happy about. Now, I am assuming that Bob is not permitted to restrict the other players' access to this information. His characters' interactions with the High Priest cannot be kept from the other players. That is a constraint on what the player can do in play. And it is no different from that secret deal being part of the backstory. If Bob wants to take his character (or a riff on that character) to a different group, it IS part of the backstory he brings in.

How would this be kept from the rest of the group? The DM and the player do a bit of one on one play outside the regular game? Keeping it away from the rest of the PC's, sure, no problem. But, again, if you've made secrets from the rest of the group and the rest of the group has no vested interest in these secrets, don't expect the group to ever care about these secrets.

Sorry, I really don't like it when players decide to hijack games. As a DM, I simply don't do this sort of thing. You want to keep secrets from the group? Great. That means that the thing that you keep secret never, ever comes up in play. You want your character's story to matter, it's your job, at my table, to make it matter.

Which means you have to tell the other players stuff to engage them.

how do the players know the cult is attacking them because of Bob, or because of some other background element of which they are unaware? Clearly they are aware of the actions of the cult, which take place in play.

They don't, and that's the problem. All they know is that these random bad guys keep showing up for some reason that is never brought to light because Bob doesn't reveal, and presumably the DM respects that enough not to either. Why would they care? They can't do anything because Bob wants to save his big reveal. The players just get more and more frustrated because they cannot act without information and the guy holding the information isn't talking.

Again, the game gets hijacked by one player who expects his secret to enter into play but wants to keep it mysterious. No thanks. Not for me.

So how does that transform the cult from a boring waste of time to an intriguing force to be reckoned with? My character has been forced into a religion that opposes this cult because SOMEONE had to have a direct connection to Bob's problem, and Ted's character isn't permitted to rethink his relationship with Bob when he discovers Bob's secret past because SOMEONE had to havea past that lead to a loyalty to BobPC. But we're still sick of this boring cult, Mr. GM.

I take it you've never done any collaborative creative writing. If Bob brings up the cult idea at chargen and no one buys into it, then Bob's cult idea goes circling down the drain. The whole point of collective chargen is that every idea is put to the test before the campaign starts. If you want something to matter, then you better fight for your concept idea at chargen, otherwise, it's not going to happen.

Once the process is finished, I'm guaranteed to have hooks and backstories that everyone at the table wants to engage in. Can you say the same?

 

[N'raac]

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

See, I'm considerably more free form than this. My basic pemise is that the player has a responsibility for creating an engaging, interesting and valuable character to bring to the party, so that, regardless of any shared backstory, the rest of the team perceives him as a "net positive" to the team. That has the added meaning that, the more negatives you want that character to bring (he's an unhygenic anti-social jackass?), the more plusses he nees to bring to the table (ie the adventuring team, not the gaming table) for the other PCs to have any interest in a continued working relationship! That comes out in play, not in backstory.

My barbarian character isn't a supporter of Glarn, the Wild Mage (despite his spells sometimes failing or even blowing up in his face) because we wrote down somewhere that we grew up together and we're buddies (so no matter how unhygenic, anti-social, incompetent, disruptive, dangerous, etc. his character gets, mine will suport him through thick and thin). At first, he simply viewed him as a mystery - a worker of arcane arts - that brings something I cannot bring, so of course he should join us. Then, he viewed him as a dangerous incompetent - "Och, laddie, ye need tae go back tae Spell Skuil and get it right!", but by then we're knee deep in dangerous territory, so there's nothing to be done until we're back in safety - then we can punt him (assuming we and he survive, that is) and recruit someone closer to the top of the class.

But when, in the middle of the adventure, as the rest of us (mired in debate on how we're going to get past a pair of guard towers full of Bugbears) notice Glarn's not here - just in time for him to come tearing back in, half a dozen Bugbear guards hot on his tail. What happened? He had slipped out, webbed up one guard tower of Bugbear guards and taunted the others into chasing him back here - outside their fortified tower. "The wee wizard tied up half the guards for easy killing and tempted the rest out where they can be easier dealt with? While the warriors TALKED! Ye have a problem wi' Glarn, then ye've a problem with ME! His magicks may not always be reliable, but he's got courage and heart - he's part o' this team!"

By the same token, some PC's that mae a much better first impression didn't impress him nearly as much over the course of the adventure.

So, it's perfectly okay for the DM to make the big reveal of your character's secret, but, it's not okay to simply have things in the open in the first place? You make a character who has this deep, dark secret, and the DM drops it into the open in the very first scene and you'd have no problems with that?

Again, we come back to trust in the GM. Does he drop it in the first scene? I'd hope not. Seems to me that offer from the Cult doesn't come because the PC's haven't already proven themselves a credible threat. And DID the cultist drop that big reveal? Do you trust every word the evil cultist says? Maybe he's telling the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth. Maybe he's embellishing a harsh reality for greater effect. Maybe he's twisting the truth to suit his own ends. And maybe it's just a bald faced lie to split our loyalties to the end of slitting our throats. And, whichever it is, we layers need to decide what our PC's believe and how they react.

And we have to do so rapidly - the cultists won't just stand around while we deliberate for a few hours. We don't get to decide after several months of considering "how will my character react if/when the big reveal comes out?" - the bombshell just got dropped, and we have to deal with it now! We don't get the benefit of knowing the extent to which the cultist is twisting the truth because we know which elements of his claims actually are in Bob's background and which aren't - we have to assess the likely veractity of the claims without the benefit of omniscience.

To me, at least, that makes for much greater rama and excitement than replying "HA! We have seen BobPC's background, and we know it to be truth! You cannot bluff us, Evil Cultist, for we know with certainty that which we have never seen, experienced or even had BobPC claim!"

How would this be kept from the rest of the group? The DM and the player do a bit of one on one play outside the regular game?

Email, phone calls and note passing can accomplish quite a bit, actually. We didn't play out my purchase of a new sword and suit of armor, so why would we expect to play out everthing else that happens on our down time?

Keeping it away from the rest of the PC's, sure, no problem. But, again, if you've made secrets from the rest of the group and the rest of the group has no vested interest in these secrets, don't expect the group to ever care about these secrets.

Do you know everything about your family and friends? I suspect you do not. Yet I suspect you would very much care when/if certain secrets came out. Make them as dramatic as the typical gaming secrets and I suspect you would care quite a bit. "YOU are the Dread Pirate Roberts?!?"

Sorry, I really don't like it when players decide to hijack games.

You mean like when pretty much everyone is enjying a scene, situation or scenario until one guy pipes up "Hey, this isn't doing it for me - can we fast forward over it to something I might like better?" To me, that's just as much "hijacking the game" as a player advancing his character's agenda outside the knowledge of the other players. At least he's not asking me to skip over the rest of the group's fun just for him. Ideally, he's dealing with anything that takes more than a few minutes during a break (whether a dinner break at the game or the days that pass between Game Days), and not interfering with the actual group game play.

As a DM, I simply don't do this sort of thing. You want to keep secrets from the group? Great. That means that the thing that you keep secret never, ever comes up in play. You want your character's story to matter, it's your job, at my table, to make it matter.

So I should decide when the cultists show up, what their exact objectives are today, and how they act to implement them? Or is it the GM's job to take all these elements of PC, setting, etc. and mix them to create an exciting and enjoyable game? I suggest the latter.

Which means you have to tell the other players stuff to engage them.

Or you have to engage them in the mystery. I've never seen this "it's not all about my backstory so I'll just tune out now" attitude you seem to seem to not only expect, but take as a given.

They don't, and that's the problem. All they know is that these random bad guys keep showing up for some reason that is never brought to light because Bob doesn't reveal, and presumably the DM respects that enough not to either. Why would they care? They can't do anything because Bob wants to save his big reveal. The players just get more and more frustrated because they cannot act without information and the guy holding the information isn't talking.

Again, the game gets hijacked by one player who expects his secret to enter into play but wants to keep it mysterious. No thanks. Not for me.

What would they do if it weren't part of Bob's backstory? That's pretty much what should happen here - especially as they don't KNOW it's part of Bob's backstory. Rather than say "OK, I the player know this cult is part of Bob's backstory, even though my character has no idea, and just sees these random bad guys keep showing up for some reason that is never brought to light because BobPC doesn't reveal, so my character certainly won't take any action on his own to discover what's really going on here. Let Bob rule the game!" That's certainly not a player hijacking the game, is it?

I would expect the PC's to investigate why these cultists keep targeting them. And Bob/BobPC needs to weigh the desire to keep his sordid past a secret against the consequences if it comes to light by some other means. The cultists have information which they will use if they believe it will serve their interests - just as BobPC is not immune to being eaten by a Bulette, his secrets are not immune to discovery or revelation by others in the game, PC or NPC.

I take it you've never done any collaborative creative writing. If Bob brings up the cult idea at chargen and no one buys into it, then Bob's cult idea goes circling down the drain. The whole point of collective chargen is that every idea is put to the test before the campaign starts. If you want something to matter, then you better fight for your concept idea at chargen, otherwise, it's not going to happen.

Once the process is finished, I'm guaranteed to have hooks and backstories that everyone at the table wants to engage in. Can you say the same?

Or we have the hooks and backstories that the loudest, most insensitive player in the group wanted to engage in, because he shuts down less vocal, more reasonable players. I'm not sure why I would believe that a player whose goal is to "hijack the game" will be deterred from doing so in pre-play rather than in actual play. If one or more players are selfish twits, then that will play out regardless of the model you put in place to prevent it. The answer is not to play with selfish twits whose definition of "win" is hijacking the game to the detriment of the other players' enjoyment, not to try to design systems that will frustrate the selfish twit's objectives. It is impossible to design a foolproof system - fools are much too ingenious an creative for that. Better to just weed out the fools!

I see no guarantee, nor have I seen non-collaborative character creation result in games where the players are disengaged because it's not their PC who happens to be in the spotlight today, whether because someone else's hooks are the focus of today's adventure, or because (heaven forfend!) NO ONE'S hooks are front and center today! I can say we don't spend (waste) a gaming session or three debating what our characters can and cannot be. We bring our characters to Game Night and let the action begin. STORY NOW? STORY NOW!!

 

[Hussar]

I would expect the PC's to investigate why these cultists keep targeting them. And Bob/BobPC needs to weigh the desire to keep his sordid past a secret against the consequences if it comes to light by some other means. The cultists have information which they will use if they believe it will serve their interests - just as BobPC is not immune to being eaten by a Bulette, his secrets are not immune to discovery or revelation by others in the game, PC or NPC.

Why? Why would the player's investigate? They have zero investment in this. All they know is that the DM is bombing random encounters on them for no reason. They're off pursuing their agreed upon goals and, for no apparent reason, they get jumped by these cultists. Then it happens again. It's completely out of left field, totally unlooked for by the group and, in no way, actually related to whatever it is they are pursuing at the time.

My response is generally a rather pointed WTF moment with the DM, because, at that point in time, it looks a lot like the DM wants to railroad us into some specific plot. And, hey, guess what? He is trying to railroad us into a specific plot. But, instead of it being his plot, it's Bob's. It's not like we went looking for the cultists. As far as the group knows, they have no reason for the cultists to be even interested in them.

But, for some reason, they keep popping up. Oh, goodie, we get to hop on the railroad and follow the plot wagon because Bob wants to hijack the game and make sure that the game is about him without bothering to actually ask the rest of the players if they would be interested in playing this.

Again, it's the wizard hijacking the game to force the rest of the group to do what he wants, rather than any sort of consensus.

No thank you. I do not want to play in this game. I've been there before and it blows. Half the group is wandering around blind because they never have enough information to actually do anything, someone in the group is off playing with his Playstation because it sure beats the hell out of playing this, and one guy is sitting there, all happy because he gets to be the center of attention.

Not how I want to play. Thanks.

I see no guarantee, nor have I seen non-collaborative character creation result in games where the players are disengaged because it's not their PC who happens to be in the spotlight today, whether because someone else's hooks are the focus of today's adventure, or because (heaven forfend!) NO ONE'S hooks are front and center today! I can say we don't spend (waste) a gaming session or three debating what our characters can and cannot be. We bring our characters to Game Night and let the action begin. STORY NOW? STORY NOW!!

Yup, so long as the players are perfectly willing to passively let the DM roll up the plotwagon and dole out that nice breadcrumb trail for them to follow, this works fantastically. No one's hooks are front and center today? Why on earth would you bother showing up then? Hrm, let's play a game that in no way actually directly relates to any of the characters you are playing.

 

[sheadunne]

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

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

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

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

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

Cheers.

 

[N'raac]

Why? Why would the player's investigate? They have zero investment in this. All they know is that the DM is bombing random encounters on them for no reason. They're off pursuing their agreed upon goals and, for no apparent reason, they get jumped by these cultists. Then it happens again. It's completely out of left field, totally unlooked for by the group and, in no way, actually related to whatever it is they are pursuing at the time.

So the reaction you would expect from these adventurers, when set upon, not once but twice, by an unknown foe is to say "well, surely it will not happen a third time - back to what we were doing." I can tell you that ny character would be investigating this cult, and encouraging his fellow adventurers to do the same. THEY ARE TRYING TO KILL US - that would make finding out who they are, and a means of stopping them from TRYING TO KILL US before they succeed, a pretty significant priority to my character. Perhaps your character is so bullheaded stubborn, or brain dead stupid, than he will just keep walking straight ahead as he is peppered by missiles from all sides. If so, my character will wish to get as far away from him as rapidly as possible and locate some more useful teammates.

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

My response is generally a rather pointed WTF moment with the DM, because, at that point in time, it looks a lot like the DM wants to railroad us into some specific plot. And, hey, guess what? He is trying to railroad us into a specific plot. But, instead of it being his plot, it's Bob's. It's not like we went looking for the cultists. As far as the group knows, they have no reason for the cultists to be even interested in them.

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

But, for some reason, they keep popping up. Oh, goodie, we get to hop on the railroad and follow the plot wagon because Bob wants to hijack the game and make sure that the game is about him without bothering to actually ask the rest of the players if they would be interested in playing this.

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

Again, it's the wizard hijacking the game to force the rest of the group to do what he wants, rather than any sort of consensus.

No thank you. I do not want to play in this game. I've been there before and it blows. Half the group is wandering around blind because they never have enough information to actually do anything, someone in the group is off playing with his Playstation because it sure beats the hell out of playing this, and one guy is sitting there, all happy because he gets to be the center of attention.

And there is where we disagree. I think it is just as easy for one player to hijack the game in that campaign setting stage as at any other point in the game. It may look like "consensus", but it is not "consensus" when one player is simply exercising a veto power until what he wants is suggested and everyone else goes along for the sake of getting the game rolling. Now we have all the group marching in a straight line along the Plot Rails because "that was what we all agreed the game would be about" (ie that is what the rest of us finally acquiesced in the hope we could end the campaign planning meetings and actually PLAY for a while). Sadly, the guy who just went along is off playing with his Playstation because it sure beats the hell of playing Player 1's game - again - while other players follow along with varying degrees of disinterest, having constructed their characters to hook into whatever was left after Player #1 shouted down any ideas that did not fit his vison for the game.Player #1, meanwhile, is sitting there, all happy because he gets to be the center of attention and blissfully unaware that he has watered down or removed all of the elements the other players would have liked to have incorporated in the game so that they, too, could enjoy the game.

An extreme interpretation? To be sure, it is. But, in my view no more extreme than your interpretation of a game without rails constructed at the outset to ensure that "we all agreed" which plot wagon we would board (ie that you could veto any suggestions not to your immediate liking). Or, to use your phrasing:

Yup, so long as the players are perfectly willing to passively let the DM roll up the plotwagon and dole out that nice breadcrumb trail for them to follow, this works fantastically. No one's hooks are front and center today? Why on earth would you bother showing up then? Hrm, let's play a game that in no way actually directly relates to any of the characters you are playing.

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

 

[Campbell]

Not every player belongs in every game. [MENTION=6681948]N'raac[/MENTION], I'm not sure what exactly you are trying to prove except that we would not play well with each other. I'm an adamant believer in transparency - when a new player joins the group we explicitly lay out the sort of play we prefer. If you are not interested in cooperative story creation our group is probably not for you.

Key Conceits

• Every player has an obligation to the group. We need to be able to trust that every player (including the GM) is interested in everyone else's play experience.
• If you are taking up game time at least share with the rest of the class. We're engaged in a group activity in which everyone invests quality time. Respect that. Sometimes (often in my games) not everyone will be directly involved. At least let those not present in character be entertained.
• Don't be a jerk. If you want to engage in actions that directly effect another player's character see if it syncs up with the direction they want to take. This is my character is not a good excuse. Next time make a better character.
• You are not special. You do not deserve inordinate attention paid to you.

 

[Aenghus]

I used to be a passive player much of the time, but have grown out of it, (mostly because I have to referee nowadays to get a game). Perhaps because of my refereeing influence, I am nowadays much more willing to exchange out-of-character information and trust the players to roleplay and not misuse this information.

I've successfully kept secrets in campaigns, and you know what, I now think the games might have been better if the secrets were exposed at an appropriate time. It's true that the likelihood of exposure can constrain appropriate secrets for PCs, but I never liked secrets that remove a PC from the game if exposed, anyway.

Personally I find games with little or collaboration more likely to devolve to "survival of the fittest" with passive players excluded. Lots of note passing, side conferences and private communications with the DM are more exclusionary of passive players IMO, not less. I want the game to be about the group, not a loose association of individual PCs who meet occasionally(not that a game like this can't work, it's just not to my taste most of the time).

Conversely collaborative character generation IMO is more likely to give passive players reliable hooks into the game, and is more likely to expose jerks or personality incompatibilities early on, where joining or leaving a game is easier.

 

[pemerton]

in my group, this is how this works. When we sit down to make our characters, Bob announces to the group that he wants his character to be on the run from some cult. At least two of the other characters, by the end of character generation, will have some connection either directly to Bob or to the cult. If you've ever looked at the FATE chargen rules, you'll see how that works. I use a somewhat different mini-game, but, the end result is largely the same.

My group doesn't use anything as formal as this, but we use informal techniques - tossing around PC ideas, background ideas, etc - to try and get similar sorts of results: PCs who are connected to one another, or to similar goals/themes.

To many players, I believe it is very different. Genre and setting are "the group", and "the setting"

<snip>

But it's MY character, not the group's. You are now restricting MY character.



It does constrain what a player can do in play. He cannot maintain a secret.

There seems to be some running together here of ingame and metagame. Within the fiction, the PC can have secrets. That is not impeded by the fact that, at the table, many things are open.

Let's say that a new secret arises in play. Bob's character (since Hussar and I both seem to like Bob) is tired of that Cult (since we've established that as a reasonable example), so Bob cuts a deal with the High Priest. It's an unsavoury deal, and maybe one that some of the other PC's (or players) would not be happy about. Now, I am assuming that Bob is not permitted to restrict the other players' access to this information.

The idea of "restriction" won't come up - this will be an episode of play, in which the other players are aware of what Bob's PC has done because they will be sitting around the table when it happens. Depending on the ingame situation, the other PCs may or may not know.

There is no reveal if everything is open book as it happens.

That's not true, though. A player can declare an action for his/her PC that is unexpected. In your own example, Bob has his PC go and make a deal with the high priest of the cult. That's an unexpected turnaround to the rest of the table, that reveals a new direction for Bob's PC, and for the game more generally.

There can be no mystery as to why the change.

But that's not true, either. Within the fiction, the other PCs may not know that a deal has been cut. At the table, the other players may not know why Bob has had his PC cut a deal, until it happens and they start asking him about it.

His characters' interactions with the High Priest cannot be kept from the other players. That is a constraint on what the player can do in play.

It's not a constraint on what Bob's PC can do. As I said, it matters to the aesthetics, the interaction between game and metagame.

So you get to have off the table secrets, but no one else does.

Yes. The GM also has more authority over backstory than the other players do. It's part of the structure of the game I prefer. I've linked several times upthread to the Eero Tuovinen blog that sets this out in more detail.

So the reaction you would expect from these adventurers, when set upon, not once but twice, by an unknown foe is to say "well, surely it will not happen a third time - back to what we were doing."

Hussar is not talking about reactions from adventurers - he's talking about reactions from players. If the players have their own goals that they are invested in in the game, they are likely to find (what is from their point of view) the GM's random cult unengaging. In terms of the structure of the game, it becomes analogous to the desert - a roadblock or obstacle that, from the players' point of view, does not connect to their goals and is (in that sense) an arbitrary interjection of material by the GM.

I don't want to spend the first few sessions of the game BUILDING the railroad so we can all hop aboard the plot wagon as soon as play begins. It is no less a railroad simply because we built the rails more collaboratively. If I want to engage in collaborative creating writing, then I will do so. Here, I want to GAME, not write a joint story.

Determination of story elements - a cult, Bob's PC's childhood trauma, whatever - is not determination of the plot. It is framing situations, not resolving them.

It's also not about writing a joint story in the literal sense. The Tuovinen blog explains this also. The whole point of the playstyle that Hussar, I, Campbell etc are describing is to generate, in play, in real time, engaging play and engaging fiction without anyone having to set out to do so. The players play their PCs; the GM frames situations; plot is the output, not the input.

Perhaps your character is so bullheaded stubborn, or brain dead stupid, than he will just keep walking straight ahead as he is peppered by missiles from all sides. If so, my character will wish to get as far away from him as rapidly as possible and locate some more useful teammates.

You are presenting all this from the in-character point of view. Hussar is talking about things from the player's point of view.

Within the context of a typical D&D game, there are a million-and-one ways the GM can have NPCs turn up and try to kill the PCs. From Hussar's point of view, the question is why would the GM use a random cult, when s/he can pick up on something that the players have already flagged they want to engage with.

I see no guarantee, nor have I seen non-collaborative character creation result in games where the players are disengaged because it's not their PC who happens to be in the spotlight today, whether because someone else's hooks are the focus of today's adventure, or because (heaven forfend!) NO ONE'S hooks are front and center today! I can say we don't spend (waste) a gaming session or three debating what our characters can and cannot be. We bring our characters to Game Night and let the action begin. STORY NOW? STORY NOW!!

What you're describing here, as far as I can see, is a GM-driven game - the players turn up and wait for the GM to throw some action at them. Obviously that's fairly different from what Hussar and I are describing.

Like [MENTION=16586]Campbell[/MENTION], I'm not entirely sure whaty you're trying to show. Upthread, you expressed puzzlement at Hussar's criteria for a good game. You (and other posters) professed not to be able to see why Hussar would have a different outlook on the siege, or the city, compared to the desert and the nomads. Hussar (and a different group of other posters) have tried to explain this. Are you saying:

• that you still don't understand the explanation?
  
  
• that you regard the explanation as unsatisfactory (ie you still think Hussar's distinction of preferences is irrational)?
  
  
• that that is not how you would want to run a game?

If the latter, that's not contentious. If the first, you're not making it clear (to me, at least) what further information you want. If the middle, though, then I don't quite follow. I get that you wouldn't like Hussar's playstyle. But I don't get why you think it isn't feasible as a playstyle.