I thought the backgrounds in 5e were just making official what everyone already does anyway.

Quote from: Azraele;1024634A great thing about 5th is it's modularity; if I felt that was too "storygame-y" for my taste, it's really not hard to excise it.

Where 5th fails for me is where it bakes storygame and roleplaying elements into mechanics inextricably.

There's a lesson here.

Maybe the story game parts are baked into the mechanics so that it remains an"RPG". Isn't that the point of Jason Alexander's articles, the story part has to be related to the mechanics so that even though you have some more slack in character creation, the character can still only interact with the game in a prescribed manner according to the rules.

In other words... if they had done it any other way than baking them in; the rest of the grognard army on this website would have declared 5e complete story game shiite and marched on Seattle. (probably including me) but as it is 5e seems to be fairly well regarded for the way it was worked.

Otherwise, I'm naught but a humble pirate and you are going to have to explain your words further to me in order to comprehend.

Quote from: mAcular Chaotic;1024638I thought the backgrounds in 5e were just making official what everyone already does anyway.

I think for a lot of folks, yeah. I wouldn't call it universal though. To give a contrasting example, the character gen in my games begins by rolling 3d6 in order. this is followed by a discussion of available classes (we do a race-as-class version of D&D) and a brief discussion with the player about how their character fits into the gameworld. This entire process ideally takes between seven and fifteen minutes, is requires strong communication and cooperation between the player and myself as GM.

One of the responsibilities of old school style GMs is making certain to properly set expectations quickly and firmly. This allows people who don't even roleplay to pick up and sample the "good part" of the game, lowering the threshold for entry and getting them in the mindset of cooperative adventuring.

Quote from: mAcular Chaotic;1024638I thought the backgrounds in 5e were just making official what everyone already does anyway.

If there's any one lesson we can impart to you through all these threads you participate in where you ask about other people's opinions on gaming, I would have it be the knowledge that the is no such thing as something everyone already does, and never has been. Since the very beginning, there have been people who have done wildly divergent, wildly incompatible thing with the Lego set that is this hobby.

Ah, that's another thing. What do you like about 3d6 in order over point buy or swapping the numbers around after you roll? Is there something about it that's less "story gamey"?

As for myself, I pretty much just let my players loose and let them make a character and tell them to let me know when they're done. Then I review it and as long as the stuff they made up isn't ridiculous I will just incorporate it into my game world. A noble family, for instance.

I never had backgrounds in BECMI and we never used them in 3.5 (if they were on offer, can't remember). We may have given some sort of thought to background in 4e but we had to use a computer to generate those characters.  So no, that is not how I played.

We didn't even give our characters last names until after 1st level. And despite the "background" rules in DCC character generation, I still don't recommend my 0 levels last names.

Quote from: Willie the Duck;1024641If there's any one lesson we can impart to you through all these threads you participate in where you ask about other people's opinions on gaming, I would have it be the knowledge that the is no such thing as something everyone already does, and never has been. Since the very beginning, there have been people who have done wildly divergent, wildly incompatible thing with the Lego set that is this hobby.

Oh, I know. I just meant I thought it was taking the standard process of character creation -- "the player decides what's in their backstory and then the GM incorporates it into the game if it's not dumb" -- and just made it part of the rules. I figure most people do this, but not everyone naturally.

Quote from: MonsterSlayer;1024643I never had backgrounds in BECMI and we never used them in 3.5 (if they were on offer, can't remember). We may have given some sort of thought to background in 4e but we had to use a computer to generate those characters.  So no, that is not how I played.

We didn't even give our characters last names until after 1st level. And despite the "background" rules in DCC character generation, I still don't recommend my 0 levels last names.

See, I'm familiar with this kind of gameplay. But isn't this "improv" too? You're making up names after the fact, along with presumably whatever else you decide about the character later on.

Quote from: mAcular Chaotic;1024642Ah, that's another thing. What do you like about 3d6 in order over point buy or swapping the numbers around after you roll? Is there something about it that's less "story gamey"?

I don't think that is part of the "story game" issue so much as what type of challenge you like. To a lot of (particularly old school) gamers, part of the fun is the challenge of playing the hand you are dealt. Now, right from the start the official D&D (I have to remember this isn't a D&D specific thread), there have been swapping mechanisms, so there never really was a pure instance of that until OSR games. As I've always said, there's no such thing as hard or easy games, only DMs/GMs who go hard or soft on their players--since if you start with more favorable scores (or at least the option of making a more-favorable-for-you build), the GM/DM can just put you up against (/populate the sandbox with) stronger opposition. It is just a challenge, just like tracking encumbrance or any other challenge some groups like and others find annoying. One that seems to me to be completely orthogonal to storygaming issues.

Quote from: mAcular Chaotic;1024645See, I'm familiar with this kind of gameplay. But isn't this "improv" too? You're making up names after the fact, along with presumably whatever else you decide about the character later on.

Well sure. And let's be clear, there's a whole lot of mixed purity in all this. Lots of people do allow all sorts of backstory (we tend to decide on it around 3rd level when it looks like the characters might be around for a bit)--specifically so long as it doesn't really matter. Sure, you can be a minor noble... from somewhere far away and who don't have the funds to bail you out if you get in trouble. Sure, Joe and Tim's characters can retroactively been cousins this whole time... as long as it doesn't effect the game/constrain the GM.

Quote from: MonsterSlayer;1024639Maybe the story game parts are baked into the mechanics so that it remains an"RPG". Isn't that the point of Jason Alexander's articles, the story part has to be related to the mechanics so that even though you have some more slack in character creation, the character can still only interact with the game in a prescribed manner according to the rules.

In other words... if they had done it any other way than baking them in; the rest of the grognard army on this website would have declared 5e complete story game shiite and marched on Seattle. (probably including me) but as it is 5e seems to be fairly well regarded for the way it was worked.

Otherwise, I'm naught but a humble pirate and you are going to have to explain your words further to me in order to comprehend.

Hey my dood, carefully explaining stuff is my thing. No worries

My reading of Justin's articles was that he was growing frustrated with what was a simple category error that a lot of people refused to correct (or even recognize).

The error being that games which are designed for one to "play a role" (player-focused mechanics directed and limited to "piloting" said character through an imagined world) are somehow NOT distinct from games whose mechanics focus on "telling a story" (player-facing mechanics which directly altered the "narrative" dimension, usually meaning authorial control over the shared imagined universe). His argument was merely that they are meaningfully distinct.

That's also my only argument. For real; I can waste a novel's worth of words making that point, but that's really all I typically try to say.

There was an unfortunate perception (I can't speak for the degree of its veracity) that the term "storygame" was meant to denigrate or "no true scotsman" these games. I don't use the term that way, although I don't prefer storygames. I imagine that lingering negative connotation is why folks are hesitant to adopt the nomenclature. I find it extremely useful, as you can probably tell.

(Also, I don't know and don't assume your gender. Dood is my repurposing of Prinny-speak from Disgaea in an effort to make my current favorite meme phrase gender-inclusive)

Quote from: Willie the Duck;1024648Well sure. And let's be clear, there's a whole lot of mixed purity in all this. Lots of people do allow all sorts of backstory (we tend to decide on it around 3rd level when it looks like the characters might be around for a bit)--specifically so long as it doesn't really matter. Sure, you can be a minor noble... from somewhere far away and who don't have the funds to bail you out if you get in trouble. Sure, Joe and Tim's characters can retroactively been cousins this whole time... as long as it doesn't effect the game/constrain the GM.

Pretty much this.

I look at "Zero to Hero" campaigns as, the world wouldn't know anything about you until after you had made some sort of name for yourself anyhow.

And from a more practical point of view, it let's you jump right to the action of the campaign. And it gives the GM time to lay out their campaign and therefore the campaign is informing some of those future background decisions coming later on.

Quote from: Skarg;1024248

This.

Quote from: Sailing Scavenger;1024264It seems like your gripe with the system is that it usually operates at one level of abstraction above a classic system (and that it's not challenge based even though it can be challenging for the players).

At least for me (though I suspect also for Skarg) the gripe is not with the level of abstraction. The gripe is with having in game effects (encircled by warlord's troops) being driven by out of game causes (the players are quiet and the GM is bored right now).

Quote from: Gronan of Simmerya;1024404Making shit up is an entirely different experience from discovering shit somebody else made up.  I play because I want to discover fun shit somebody else made up.  I referee because I want other people to discover fun shit I made up.

This distinction really shouldn't be difficult to make. Yet it somehow seems to elude some folks. :rolleyes:

Quote from: mAcular Chaotic;1024642Ah, that's another thing. What do you like about 3d6 in order over point buy or swapping the numbers around after you roll? Is there something about it that's less "story gamey"?

As for myself, I pretty much just let my players loose and let them make a character and tell them to let me know when they're done. Then I review it and as long as the stuff they made up isn't ridiculous I will just incorporate it into my game world. A noble family, for instance.

The 3d6 thing for me is purely a matter of taste. It sets the tone that the game is "unfair" and rejects "balance", but that I am essentially an impartial arbiter, not a "storyteller". That's important stuff to establish, and it does so effectively and well.

My preference for establishing the facts of the setting before play begins stems from the fact that I want my players to be focused on interacting with the game world, not on authoring it. I wouldn't reject the request for this backstory revelation/addition/edit out of hand, even during play. I would, though, make certain that the role of GM and player isn't blurred when I approached it.

Quote from: Gronan of Simmerya;1024602Because after I've spent a year creating my game world, I am not going to have the Count of Faucigny be the great uncle of some peasant blacksmith just because some player said so.

People say dumb shit off the top of their head all the time.  Rarely is it actually a worthwhile idea.

Yes. Especially if they are just saying it for the first time during play, and expecting it to suddenly be true in the gameworld even though the GM just heard about it for the first time.

Quote from: Gronan of Simmerya;1024604It kind of depends on genre.  In Star Wars, "Force Points" hit me as a perfectly cromulent solution to the needs of a game.  In CHAMPIONS you could buy "luck," and that kind of fits in genre too (Hell, Donald Duck's cousin was notoriously lucky.)

Other places, yeah, I agree; not so much.  "Luck" is what happens when you roll the dice.

Yes. I agree Force Points seem cromulent (? not Crommulent?) for Star Wars, though how I'd make the mechanic work would be significant and could be interesting. Like Han Solo might have some Force points but not know he has them, and the GM applies them secretly. Meanwhile someone developing their conscious use of the Force might slowly develop awareness of their Force point status, and some control of when/how it gets used.