Quote from: Opaopajr;1050953That's Spotlight Expectation[/U].

That's a very different, and metagame focused, table dynamic.

Thanks - yes, you're right. I'm not objecting to players writing backstories that inform how they play their character. It's usually cool when a PC says "I must do X because Y". It's not cool when the player looks at me expecting to be 'fed' spotlight.

Quote from: Ratman_tf;1050927Found it.

https://www.therpgsite.com/showthread.php?39198-Stuff-They-Taught-You-Wrong-About-D-amp-D-quot-You-Must-use-PC-Backstories-in-Your-Game-quot

Not that there's a limit on thread topics.

Thanks - I could apologise, but at the time that thread ended a few weeks ago it hadn't come up as an issue for me since the guy with the 80 page, 135 year nightmare backstory several years ago. And that campaign was one about aristocrats in Karameikos where a certain amount of backstory was appropriate, it was a question of type and degree, and (IMO) the player weaponising backstory for in game advantage - "So as I'm the True Heir of Kerendas, when do I become Duchess?"

This time I'm explicitly running an old school megadungeon 'Alice in Wonderland' campaign where the PCs' past lives outside the dungeon are of essentially zero relevance. And I was taken aback when a good player asked me about the mysterious locket on his character sheet that he must have put there in chargen, I'm guessing maybe from a PHB Background table. It felt weird to me, that there was clearly a clash of legitimate expectations.

Quote from: Christopher Brady;1050959I remember a time when Role Playing Games were thought to be cooperative.  But it sounds to me that the DM wants it to be about him.  How times change.

It's so because it is meant to oppress you. Enjoy!

Quote from: Opaopajr;1050975It's so because it is meant to oppress you. Enjoy!

GMs who run open world sandboxes where the PCs can do anything the player wants are the MOST OPPRESSIVE GMS OF ALL.

I don't tend to "allow" backstories when I'm running games, instead I go with a trick I picked up a while ago (mgf maybe?):
 
Each player says 3 things that anyone would know about their character after being with them for a couple of days.
Each player says 3 things that someone would know about their character after being with them for a couple of months.
Each players chooses 3 things that only their character knows about themselves.

Then I can riff of those answers if I need to, and ignore them if I feel like it. And the players can being them into play as and when they want without me having to worry about creating a specially-crafted encounter or plot or what-have-you. If players want to create a backstory, they're welcome to. But I feel no compunction to use it.

Quote from: spon;1050981I don't tend to "allow" backstories when I'm running games, instead I go with a trick I picked up a while ago (mgf maybe?):
 
Each player says 3 things that anyone would know about their character after being with them for a couple of days.
Each player says 3 things that someone would know about their character after being with them for a couple of months.
Each players chooses 3 things that only their character knows about themselves.

Then I can riff of those answers if I need to, and ignore them if I feel like it. And the players can being them into play as and when they want without me having to worry about creating a specially-crafted encounter or plot or what-have-you. If players want to create a backstory, they're welcome to. But I feel no compunction to use it.

Nice!

Quote from: Christopher Brady;1050959I remember a time when Role Playing Games were thought to be cooperative.  But it sounds to me that the DM wants it to be about him.  How times change.

Everyone has non-negotiables.  Even in the most cooperative games.

Quote from: S'mon;1050830I've noticed running my strongly exploration-oriented, old school Stonehell Dungeon campaign in 5e D&D as an open table game, that most players really enjoy it, but a minority find it very frustrating that their lovingly crafted backstories are irrelevant & ignored. They seem to me to be playing for something different from the 'three pillars' of Social Interaction, Exploration & Combat. They want to experience a story centred on their character and that character's internal aspect - the 'traits bonds & flaws' stuff in the 5e PHB that I largely ignore. Looking around a bit, I see some GMing advice heavily centred on PC Backstory. To me it feels a bit grubby, the GM giving players 'intimate service' by focusing on their Backstory stuff, making them feel special without any action in-game to warrant this. For D&D I like Backstory on the level "He is Conan - Cimmerian" not "She is Buffy, the Chosen One" - but I can see the other approach working fine in eg Star Wars.

What do you think? Do you hate Backstory focus, or do you make it the centrepiece of your games?

I like backstory. I run open-world sandboxes, so there are caveats to what backstories I'll allow.

1) I tell my players where we're starting, the general setup. What is commonly known. etc. Then I'll give a brief demographics makeup so they know what's commonly/uncommonly represented in the starting area.

2) Players decide what they want to make. If it falls within the stuff I've elaborated on in #1, we discuss what kind of background they want, and I plug it into the campaign using NPC's I've already established, or if appropriate I'll make something up specific and plug that into the campaign.

3) If someone is wanting some kind of snowflake character. I decide if it's really feasible. If I can think of some angle with them that works - I'll consider the ramifications. If I agree to it, I'll always have some reason for them to be there and it's usually no small thing. This also assumes I think the player can handle it. If none of things pass the sniff-test - I say no.

4) If a player doesn't want a detailed backstory, I just simply plug them in, easy-peasy into the starting area, give them a basic history of why they're there, what they've been doing and we're off and rolling.

I don't suffer from people having these overly long backstories, because I (as the GM) am part of that process. I have no problem people writing up a backstory idea, because invariably I'll do a back-and-forth to pare it down to fit the campaign. Depends on the idea. There are times when players suggest an idea for a background that would invite a WHOLE lot of potential content for the campaign, and it will incite me to change a few things to allow it in (without telling them the how's and why's).

I find on occasion players will take the campaign concept and eke out an interesting angle that would make for a possible ingredient into the stew. I have a caveat to all my players - no one is an island in my games. You are not some itinerant wanderer that is the last of their tribe (and if you are - there is a damn good reason you're the last of your tribe and that reason is probably hunting you down). I always give PC's a list of contacts, and associates germane to the campaign - and it might not be relevant at first, but you can bet your last two coppers we will engage your background in-game. Whether you're just a humble blacksmith that turned adventurer, or you're secretly a Changeling from the Underdark spying on the surface-world. Your background *will* be part of the game at some point.

This lets players feel they have made what they want and get to explore that - even if it doesn't necessarily turn out as they wished.

It seems another case of dissonant expectations to me. Be upfront about your game style and what the players are supposed to do in it, and this kind of problem will be reduced significantly.

There's nothing wrong with snowflakerism or TPKism or PvPism or railroadism or whatever as long as everybody is on the same wavelength.

Quote from: Itachi;1051042It seems another case of dissonant expectations to me. Be upfront about your game style and what the players are supposed to do in it, and this kind of problem will be reduced significantly.

There's nothing wrong with snowflakerism or TPKism or PvPism or railroadism or whatever as long as everybody is on the same wavelength.

TRUTH!

Setting expectations goes a loooooooooooong way towards preventing Campaign implosion.

Quote from: tenbones;1051039*snip*

Oh, wow, one of my favorite posts so far. I'm a big fan of "session 0," which I use to bounce ideas; get feedback; establish backgrounds, setting details, and NPCs that the PCs would be familiar with already; figure out if the PCs already know each other, and if so, how; get everyone on the same page; stuff like that. I don't really have a formal process, though. But it's understood when I GM that I have the right to approve or veto anything, though I try to be fair about it. And that no matter how much I allow my players to establish in session 0, any setting bits or NPCs, once approved by me, belong to me; and I'll use them(or not use them) as I see fit.

That's for games I expect to last a while, of course. I'm not going to go through that much work for a one-shot or mini campaign.

Quote from: S'mon;1050983Nice!

Thanks! As I said, it's not mine, I stole (borrowed? Plagiarised?) it from an article titled "Maximum Game Fun". It really works for me. :-)

Quote from: GeekEclectic;1051048Oh, wow, one of my favorite posts so far. I'm a big fan of "session 0," which I use to bounce ideas; get feedback; [snipped]

I think the concept of the "Session 0" is one of the more important things to come to the fore in terms of RPG concepts; particularly given that the number of playstyles and expectations based on a multitude of different systems and editions has only expanded over the decades. Even what D&D (in the sense of "we're going to play D&D") means between one player and another can vary greatly depending on the edition they got started with and what types of groups they've played with before.

Session 0's get everyone on the same page in terms of expectations and concepts. While that session could simply be a GM saying "this is how it is; take it or leave it", in actual experience I've found it immensely useful as a GM to get feedback from the players (particularly if they're players I've not gamed with before) and what their interests and expectations are so that everyone can enjoy it as much as possible -or- if its going to be something where I or one or more of the players just aren't going to enjoy ourselves because of incompatible expectations (ex. the players all want to play evil PCs while I only run heroic campaigns is not one where anyone is going to enjoy the game for long).

They also let people go over character concepts and how they might play off each other; one of my favorites in this regard was when a group spontaneously decided they'd all play 5e bards (each with a different college) who traveled together in a troupe. Not at all what was expected, but if you're playing in a sandbox (which is how I tend to GM) and the PCs all want to be associated with each other from the start I'm in the "more power to you" school of thought because they just made my life as a GM a lot easier.

It also helps me to smooth over trickier concepts; like wanting to play an atypical race for where I wanted to start the campaign out. Frankly, since I usually sandbox, I generally don't even decide a 'home base/starting point' until I know what sort of PCs are going to be in the campaign. If half or more of the PCs all work if they're from the same region, there's no sense in starting the PCs out on the other side of the continent. I'll just make THAT the starting point and the ones who don't fit are just visiting for reasons to be determined.

Short version; Session 0's are awesome and I recommend them to every game group.

Yeah, it really does help. It gets everyone into having a risk-free taste of what the game is going to be like (or it even sets up risks for what they'll be dealing with personally in the game).

From a GM perspective, especially if you're doing something intentionally different than your normal fare, which has been common for me in the last few years as I've been really exploring new uses to put the Savage Worlds system to use. It's a great way to set the table for the players in how your're going to set up the starting area/region and lets the players get primed and absorb your angle.

It also lets you do a lot of focusing for yourself when you let them do Q/A ESPECIALLY if it's a new setting. Because often if let players consider long enough all the options you present, they will invariably ask you a good question you didn't quite consider, but then forces you to pin that down, which can have downstream ramifications about your sandbox. It also can introduce a LOT of interesting new possibilities.

When Session Zero is over- ideally everyone is walking away with meat to chew on - so when the first adventure kicks off, you should be off and running.

Let me ask this--to what extent do the game masters here supply items of back story for their players, rather than simply letting them choose it.  Going back to the example of the locket, it may be of no use to the game master if player 1 says, "I have the locket that shows I am the heir to the Kingdom of Lower Revolta."  On the other hand, if the locket unlocks the Dingus of Doom, I may well furnish it myself with a cryptic clue as to what it is.