TheRPGSite

My latest video:

[video=youtube_share;3sglQ94v6Es]https://youtu.be/3sglQ94v6Es[/youtube]

I never read backstories anyway.

You should have titled this video "Why GM's should learn how and when to say NO."

Quote from: tenbones;1046445You should have titled this video "Why GM's should learn how and when to say NO."

Seconded. This ain't improv class, guys. "Yes, and" is irrelevant.

To use hipster speak: "For your world to remain en flique you, the GM, must be able to curate contributions according to your desired primary lens, lest the audience is disconnected from the material's resonance... plus 'paradigm' for the triple word score." :D

Bullshit.  If players want to give me things to use against them, the less work it is for me and added bonus of players knowing they added a little something to the game, which invariably makes them happy.  And if your players are happy, they play along with you, than against you.  (and don't start on 'coddling' players, that's boring.  Give them a challenge, but don't TPK them because you feel the need to swing the e-peen around.)

If this is 'Doing it wrong' (But, but, but I thought we didn't do that here...) then fuck you, and I'll keep having my 'BadWrongFun'.

Quote from: Opaopajr;1046460For your world to remain en flique you, the GM, must be able to curate contributions according to your desired primary lens, lest the audience is disconnected from the material's resonance... plus 'paradigm' for the triple word score.

:eek:

Quote from: Opaopajr;1046460To use hipster speak: "For your world to remain en flique you, the GM, must be able to curate contributions according to your desired primary lens, lest the audience is disconnected from the material's resonance... plus 'paradigm' for the triple word score." :D

:mad::mad::mad:

Yes, I mad doggone it, even parody newspeak makes me fume.

I like it if the players give me plot seeds that involve their characters. My current campaign for 5ed dnd has a character who was a member of a "robin hood"-style thief gang and it will come back to haunt him.

One of the reasons you get in game texts from games that require player input for world-building (whether before session zero like in Dresden Files Accelerated or Unknown Armies 3e) or during (PBTA games where you "ask questions") is that it reduces the work for GMs. I'm not 100% sure it really does that, because none of those games require the players to spend an hour detailing thing they just made up, so the work for using and integrating that newly made up element on the GM.

However, I do get the concern for gm workload. The amount of effort required to build a usable sandbox game seems prohibitive and require a very high level of GM skill.

Quote from: PencilBoy99;1046494The amount of effort required to build a usable sandbox game seems prohibitive and require a very high level of GM skill.

Not really.  But I will say that for those who wish to have every "i" dotted and "t" crossed before players start poking around somewhere it can be prohibitive, yes.  But that's based on the comfort level of the DM regarding running games on a basic framework of information as opposed to something they could publish the next day if they wanted to.

Quote from: Christopher Brady;1046464Bullshit.  If players want to give me things to use against them, the less work it is for me and added bonus of players knowing they added a little something to the game, which invariably makes them happy.  And if your players are happy, they play along with you, than against you.  (and don't start on 'coddling' players, that's boring.  Give them a challenge, but don't TPK them because you feel the need to swing the e-peen around.)

If this is 'Doing it wrong' (But, but, but I thought we didn't do that here...) then fuck you, and I'll keep having my 'BadWrongFun'.

For a long time, I tried to let my players run rampant with backstories. I seriously would get things of 25+ pages. Then after three or four campaigns ground to a halt because I couldn't tie all the threads together, I told my players I wouldn't accept backstories longer than 100 words. That was still a pain in the ass.

The last campaign I ran, I told the players essentially that "your backstory is your race and class. Give me -one- reason why you're adventuring." and we ran with it. Best campaign I ever ran (lasted 4 years before life intervened and we had to put it on hold).

Quote from: Herne's Son;1046519For a long time, I tried to let my players run rampant with backstories. I seriously would get things of 25+ pages. Then after three or four campaigns ground to a halt because I couldn't tie all the threads together, I told my players I wouldn't accept backstories longer than 100 words. That was still a pain in the ass.

The last campaign I ran, I told the players essentially that "your backstory is your race and class. Give me -one- reason why you're adventuring." and we ran with it. Best campaign I ever ran (lasted 4 years before life intervened and we had to put it on hold).

So?  I can give you a background that's less than a hundred words and gives both hooks and reasons for adventuring.  And this is off the top of my head.

Son of a 'heroic' bandit, who's entire clan/family got wiped out save him by a power robber baron.  Looking for allies and power (whether that be in items or more allies) to take the villain down.  The Baron wants my character dead and has the money to send bounty hunters and other miscreants after me.

Not even fifty words and I've left the DM enough openings to use.  Doesn't mean backstories are bad.  It just means that the DM didn't specify what they wanted.  COMMUNICATION is key!

Quote from: Christopher Brady;1046464Bullshit.  If players want to give me things to use against them, the less work it is for me and added bonus of players knowing they added a little something to the game, which invariably makes them happy.  And if your players are happy, they play along with you, than against you.  (and don't start on 'coddling' players, that's boring.  Give them a challenge, but don't TPK them because you feel the need to swing the e-peen around.)

If this is 'Doing it wrong' (But, but, but I thought we didn't do that here...) then fuck you, and I'll keep having my 'BadWrongFun'.

Agreed here. A little backstory is perfectly fine. The PC was a farmers kid trained by the militia captain. The PCs mom was once a famous thief and they taught their kid. The PC just wanted a cool starship and so learned to pilot and astrogate. etc.

Where you may run into issues is when the backstory either grants the PC stuff they shouldnt have access too. "The PC has a small army of skilled retainers they dont need to pay."
Or that none of the other PCs have access to, "The PCs father is the king and gave her a +5 Holy Avenger sword.". Or the backstory is somehow actually altering the setting. "The PC is the only survivor of Greyhawk when it was destroyed by a huge meteor that devastated the country." etc... Or all of the above.

Also what about RPGs with lifepaths? Are those bad? Those are backstories. Sometimes simple, sometimes more convoluted and overwrought than anything a player jots down.
Dragon Storm for example has background cards that the player can apply to their character during chargen. Stuff like Peasant, or Remorseful Apprentice and a sentence or two explaining what that was. You are a peasant. You are a necros apprentice who learned the truth and quit. And so on. Another would be Mekton Zeta.

Or Adventures in Tekumel which has a large lifepath section, moreso if you include the pick-your-path books that are part of the PCs backstory. Or games like Traveller and Universe.

Best campaign I ever ran (most popular anyway) was in Earthdawn 1.0. I had the players write in a notebook between sessions, and put down some bit of character info, backstory, etc. With the stipulation that it should be something I can use when setting up adventures. I didn't use everything, but if I had a situation where I could slot in a background NPC, or a bit of lore, I'd do it.

I'm happy for players to write any amount of back story they want.  But I'm not reading any of it. :)  Whatever the players puts down for their backstory is between them and the document.  It's what they think about the way things are, not necessarily how they are in the game.

If the player wants to know something particular about the world to make their backstory work for them, let's talk.  Can I be from over there?  Can I be related to person X?  We'll work it out.  If the player wants to do something in the game that is informed by their backstory--THAT I can work with.  The character does something meaningful at the table, with everyone there, and the world reacts.  Of course, that's the same as if it wasn't in their backstory, too.

Quote from: Omega;1046527Also what about RPGs with lifepaths? Are those bad? Those are backstories. Sometimes simple, sometimes more convoluted and overwrought than anything a player jots down.
Dragon Storm for example has background cards that the player can apply to their character during chargen. Stuff like Peasant, or Remorseful Apprentice and a sentence or two explaining what that was. You are a peasant. You are a necros apprentice who learned the truth and quit. And so on. Another would be Mekton Zeta.

Or Adventures in Tekumel which has a large lifepath section, moreso if you include the pick-your-path books that are part of the PCs backstory. Or games like Traveller and Universe.

Which brings up a good point:  So Traveler has been doing it wrong all these years?

I think, after having watched the video, that what stuck me most was the dichotomy between an emergent story and a prescribed one, If five players have all written backstories that contain NPCS, enemies, hooks and themes on which to base the campaign the best a GM can do is blend those things together, with perhaps a little room for his/her own input. It doesn't leave a lot of room for any surprises IME and can get predictable, contrived and bland.

Add a little chaos to the mix and roll your characters, roll their background and remember that less is more in some cases, because it leaves more to be discovered about your PC. Imagine the face of the player of Luke Skywalker finding out that his PC is the son of Vader, rather than writing it in a three page backstory and waiting for it to turn up.

Quote from: Christopher Brady;1046534Which brings up a good point:  So Traveler has been doing it wrong all these years?

No, because Traveller, like other randomly rolled life-paths are an emergent story. Your PC is "the Belter who Lived" and in CT that fkn means something. Or "crikey I'm the heir to a star-system, well fugg me" cos you rolled that, and not wrote it up like a kid writing a list to Santa and hopiing Dungeon Master Clause will green light it.

Oh and there is no badwrongfun, just as there is no goodrightfun. And that means backstories are not part of goodrightfun.

Players want to be GMs nowadays. Just check out Fate's "your tropes are your stats" design; or the pretzels EX3 twists itself into in the name of "preserving character agency".

"I wrote the backstory so I'm the GM for this character, which is mine and only does what I want"

The worst PCs are always GMPCs. That's every character to these people.

There are good reasons we draw lines in the sand between our hobby and whatever the hell these story-circle games are doing. It's not territorial pissing or gatekeeping: it's a matter of definition. I've lost count of the number of times "Well let's not play semantic games, we're all in the same hobby friends!" has become "Well ALL RPGs are about  TELLING a STORY and you're not TELLING A STORY well when you do things YOUR way...".

No, asshole, they're not stories; they don't adhere to act structure, they don't have to follow a hero's journey, they don't have the same pacing or characterization or anything like that. Good roleplaying games resist the structure we use to tell good stories because they're something different than a pure narrative. They're different then your garbage storygames. "Hard to precisely define" does not mean "whatever your heart wants it to be!" and it doesn't give you license to declare what I'm doing in my hobby, doubly so since you clearly don't comprehend it.

(This is the rhetorical "you", Pundit clearly understands how this shit works)

...

To the actual topic: There needs to be some connect between the player's character as a game piece and avatar and their existence in the setting. Yes, this is true. Backstories are a method for establishing this link.

But, and this is important, nobody is going to read your fiction. No frustrated novelists, no "main characters". You need to take good writing advice and kill your darlings. (Hell, I've done it for somebody; they handed me a novella of a backstory with a character and I accepted it, flipped through the fiction, then matter-of-factly told them that this character lived and died well in a more heroic age. They rolled their 3d6 in order, just like everybody else, and made one of his descendants as their PC. The game was much better for it)

A backstory needs to be brief, and like stats, best delivered by an agency outside of pure player choice.

"Fighter eh? Well roll on the background chart. Military veteran? Cool, that means you get to roll on the Spoils of War chart and maybe get a magic sword..." That sort of thing.

If you're opposed to the "gamey" nature of that (I pity you) and you just MUST weave them in to the setting yourself, there's a broadly acceptable and broadly idiotic way of starting that talk:

ACCEPTABLE: "What can my guy be" is acceptable to me; I can give the player a few options ("Well you might be a noble from house Manticore, or maybe you're a serf who got drafted and carved a little name for yourself in the Elf war...") and then off we go. It's only fair my stuff is brief too; I hold myself to that frustrated novelist threshold of "Don't bore them, get to the fucking dungeon"; if I have more than 30 seconds of backstory I just cut it. Bullet points man, bullet points.

YOU'RE AN ASSHOLE: "YOU tell ME what your character's backstory is!" is inviting trouble. They don't fucking know what's acceptable, or even what options exist. That's like training a spotlight on them and daring them to guess the plot of your shitty novel on stage. It's like that movie WarGames; the only winning move is to flip off the GM and find a better use for your evening.

Quote from: Azraele;1046554Players want to be GMs nowadays.

No, no they don't.

If the GM is doing a game with character backstories correctly (IMHO), then the GM is working with the Players as an Editor and not letting them run amok with the concept. Yes, a big part of a GM's job is cat-herding.

Quote from: jeff37923;1046561If the GM is doing a game with character backstories correctly (IMHO), then the GM is working with the Players as an Editor and not letting them run amok with the concept. Yes, a big part of a GM's job is cat-herding.

Yeap, and communication is key at all times.

Quote from: Herne's Son;1046519For a long time, I tried to let my players run rampant with backstories. I seriously would get things of 25+ pages. Then after three or four campaigns ground to a halt because I couldn't tie all the threads together, I told my players I wouldn't accept backstories longer than 100 words. That was still a pain in the ass.

The last campaign I ran, I told the players essentially that "your backstory is your race and class. Give me -one- reason why you're adventuring." and we ran with it. Best campaign I ever ran (lasted 4 years before life intervened and we had to put it on hold).

This certainly fits my experience. Randomly rolled lifepath systems can work ok, but the best default is definitely 'no backstory'. Which is to say, nothing written down by the player prior to starting play. The GM can certainly set start conditions - "You are all members of House Martigan" or "You are all wandering adventurers", and it's fine to discuss ideas - "Can I be an exiled member of House Martigan?" - but I've grown sceptical of even single-paragraph backstories; multi-pagers tend to be disastrous.

Quote from: S'mon;1046565This certainly fits my experience. Randomly rolled lifepath systems can work ok, but the best default is definitely 'no backstory'. Which is to say, nothing written down by the player prior to starting play. The GM can certainly set start conditions - "You are all members of House Martigan" or "You are all wandering adventurers", and it's fine to discuss ideas - "Can I be an exiled member of House Martigan?" - but I've grown sceptical of even single-paragraph backstories; multi-pagers tend to be disastrous.

So you want monopoly pieces?  Single dimensional 'characters' that only have one thing in mind:  LOOT!  It's a valid play style, especially given how some of the old timers talk about 'the old days'.  Not my thing, but I have no say in anyone else's fun but my own.

Then again, that's how I play most Diablo style Action RPGs on my PC.  So who am I to talk?

Quote from: Herne's Son;1046519For a long time, I tried to let my players run rampant with backstories. I seriously would get things of 25+ pages. Then after three or four campaigns ground to a halt because I couldn't tie all the threads together, I told my players I wouldn't accept backstories longer than 100 words. That was still a pain in the ass.

The last campaign I ran, I told the players essentially that "your backstory is your race and class. Give me -one- reason why you're adventuring." and we ran with it. Best campaign I ever ran (lasted 4 years before life intervened and we had to put it on hold).

You got it in one.

Also, I get the feeling certain people are commenting here without having actually watched the video.

Quote from: RPGPundit;1046576Also, I get the feeling certain people are commenting here without having actually watched the video.

I totally watched it. I'm just a bad writer.

Quote from: RPGPundit;1046576Also, I get the feeling certain people are commenting here without having actually watched the video.

Were your cats in it? :D

Quote from: RPGPundit;1046576Also, I get the feeling certain people are commenting here without having actually watched the video.

Probably got scared a inute and a half in when they saw your big ass pipe.:D

I forbid them entirely. They're irrelevant. Your man is there; deal with it. Why he's there is irrelevant and doesn't mean shit once the campaign is underway.

Quote from: Opaopajr;1046460Seconded. This ain't improv class, guys. "Yes, and" is irrelevant.

To use hipster speak: "For your world to remain en flique you, the GM, must be able to curate contributions according to your desired primary lens, lest the audience is disconnected from the material's resonance... plus 'paradigm' for the triple word score." :D

Quote from: Antiquation!;1046466:eek:

Quote from: ThatChrisGuy;1046469:mad::mad::mad:

Yes, I mad doggone it, even parody newspeak makes me fume.

"Oh stewardess! I speak jive..." :p

Quote from: Christopher Brady;1046464Bullshit.  If players want to give me things to use against them, the less work it is for me and added bonus of players knowing they added a little something to the game, which invariably makes them happy.  And if your players are happy, they play along with you, than against you.  (and don't start on 'coddling' players, that's boring.  Give them a challenge, but don't TPK them because you feel the need to swing the e-peen around.)

OK boo-boo, you showed that mean strawman the excluded middle. ;)

See, there's a difference between the presumption of "must use PC background content" vs. "when to say 'no,'" vs. "always say 'no' to PC background content." It's pretty easy: always v. judicious v. never. They operate in different spheres.

And 'to curate' means to be selective, such as knowing 'when to say no'. This is also known as part of the process of editing, which is crucial for managing competing desires into a functioning coherency. It is about managing people, power, and expectations so things don't rapidly fall apart.

This is an 'adulting' goodrightfun thing. :)

Quote from: Christopher Brady;1046464If this is 'Doing it wrong' (But, but, but I thought we didn't do that here...) then fuck you, and I'll keep having my 'BadWrongFun'.

So... you are committed to using *everything* your players dream up for their PC without editorial control? Sounds like a strange abdication of Master of Ceremonies responsibilities, being a doormat people pleaser at your table for the sake of 'showing those grognards' online. But if that's the hill you want your campaigns to die on... :rolleyes:

Using judgment seems like a better use of one's time. :)

Quote from: jeff37923;1046579Were your cats in it? :D

Not this time. I didn't put them in on purpose before, they just came over. Anyways, if they were always in it, there wouldn't be the element of surprise.

Quote from: Christopher Brady;1046569So you want monopoly pieces?  Single dimensional 'characters' that only have one thing in mind:  LOOT!  

Nope. Seen lots of cool well characterised PCs developed in play without a prewritten backstory.

Edit: Possibly unfair, but your "So you want monopoly pieces?" line did remind me of this...

(https://i.ytimg.com/vi/JkcXRC4HZqc/maxresdefault.jpg)

"I'm going to use the character's backstory if I feel like it. I'm not going to use it if I don't feel like it."

There, done, now where did I leave that beer:D?

Quote from: S'mon;1046598Nope. Seen lots of cool well characterised PCs developed in play without a prewritten backstory.

Edit: Possibly unfair, but your "So you want monopoly pieces?" line did remind me of this...

(https://i.ytimg.com/vi/JkcXRC4HZqc/maxresdefault.jpg)

LOBSTERS! :D

Thing is, your 'reason' to adventure IS a backstory.  Because motivations are informed by personal, previous life experience.

'Why are you adventuring?'

Possible Answers:

'It's all I know.'  Possible histories, mercenary soldier, street thief, wandering squire (former or otherwise.)

'I want power.' Do I really need to spell this one out?  And there are very valid reasons that don't involve megalomania.

'I have X goal and need to get X.' Another back story!  And another, and another.

And here's the thing, the DM IS using their player's backstory when they run a game and asking that very question.

One more thing!  /Uncle  What about those games that aren't your simple monster mash dungeon crawls?

This November I'm running a City Watch campaign, where players will be playing medieval 'cops'.  Are backstories and histories bad here too?

No back story works in nothing but a dungeon crawl where the most interaction with NPC's is the barkeep or shopkeep where you sell your loot.  But in a Hex Crawl, where there are villages and kingdoms interspersed with places to explore, where plausibly there would be NPC's to deal with...

So in the middle of a country, in the middle of a map, a bunch or random adventuring types, whom have apparently, sprouted from the earth like soldiers from the hair of Son Goku/Son Wukong, are expected to be treated with respect in a world that doesn't know them?  What if a player walks into a village on your map, decides this is where he came from, is he now ejected from the game because he had the temerity to actually create a hook (even if he just wanted a free place to sleep and eat for a night) that the DM can use to give hints at adventure?

And I've come up against an issue with the 'Adventure Coupon' maligning I've been seeing about.  Let's say the DM decides to let player X suddenly claim this village as home.  So the Adventurers are S&S types who want to adventure on their own, seek it out, but as they don't know what exactly is in the hex, they ask around at the local inn, or even locals.  And a bunch of them mention undead barrows, a ruined castle and some goblin warrens, but NOT ONE OF THEM asks for help, letting the players decide what to do.

Are those Adventure Coupons?  If yes, then every single D&D game with a Hex Crawl gives them out.  If no, is it because players have a choice to go and pick one from many?

Quote from: Christopher Brady;1046677No back story works in nothing but a dungeon crawl where the most interaction with NPC's is the barkeep or shopkeep where you sell your loot.  But in a Hex Crawl, where there are villages and kingdoms interspersed with places to explore, where plausibly there would be NPC's to deal with...

So in the middle of a country, in the middle of a map, a bunch or random adventuring types, whom have apparently, sprouted from the earth like soldiers from the hair of Son Goku/Son Wukong, are expected to be treated with respect in a world that doesn't know them?  What if a player walks into a village on your map, decides this is where he came from, is he now ejected from the game because he had the temerity to actually create a hook (even if he just wanted a free place to sleep and eat for a night) that the DM can use to give hints at adventure?

For my newest campaign (a play by chat on Dragonsfoot) I'm currently running 'Morgansfort & Beyond', which has lots of NPCs, set in the Wilderlands of High Fantasy near the City State. PCs are a Skandik from Sea Rune, a medieval Englishman, and an Elf - that's their total backstories. They are adventurers, looking for adventure, exactly what is up to them. They decided not to take the princess of Modron they rescued in their first adventure to her unwanted arranged marriage - they made a moral decision to let her stay with them incognito (plus her 1st level Cleric skills are handy). In Morgansfort They get the typical amount of respect due wandering adventurer types who kill unwanted goblins and don't rape the barmaids.

It's not rocket science. :p

I am cool with PC backstories...but you get 100 words.

That's PLENTY of words to give the GM ideas and create a strong roleplaying framework for the player.

My players have been very happy with it. 100 words forces players to focus on whats important, tighten their ideas and revise their concept. Or just write less.

From my side as GM, I'm getting better material and more usable material...and its easy to read, digest and remember.

Quote from: S'mon;1046682For my newest campaign (a play by chat on Dragonsfoot) I'm currently running 'Morgansfort & Beyond', which has lots of NPCs, set in the Wilderlands of High Fantasy near the City State. PCs are a Skandik from Sea Rune, a medieval Englishman, and an Elf - that's their total backstories. They are adventurers, looking for adventure, exactly what is up to them. They decided not to take the princess of Modron they rescued in their first adventure to her unwanted arranged marriage - they made a moral decision to let her stay with them incognito (plus her 1st level Cleric skills are handy). In Morgansfort They get the typical amount of respect due wandering adventurer types who kill unwanted goblins and don't rape the barmaids.

It's not rocket science. :p

So why did they betray their employer?  Why are they OK with being untrustworthy hires by anyone who knows of them?  What in their history made them decide that sort of action is OK?  (Not a moral judgement, but rather what informed their personal choice?)  Because if they suddenly do the exact opposite in an other situation, there goes consistency and NPC reactions go more or less out the window.

A back story is NECESSARY, if you want to make sure your players don't suddenly switch 'alignments' (Whether or not you use them, or the system has them) and suddenly they do something incredibly evil/scummy for anything other than, "Meh, felt like it."

Quote from: Christopher Brady;1046464Bullshit.  If players want to give me things to use against them, the less work it is for me and added bonus of players knowing they added a little something to the game, which invariably makes them happy.  And if your players are happy, they play along with you, than against you.  (and don't start on 'coddling' players, that's boring.  Give them a challenge, but don't TPK them because you feel the need to swing the e-peen around.).

Expletives aside, this!  Whatever invests the player in the game is a win-win for me.  And if they want to give me stuff to use, great.  Now, one character is still one of many, and no one gets to monopolize the spotlight.  But its really their story in the end.  I'm just the executive producer.

Quote from: Herne's Son;1046519For a long time, I tried to let my players run rampant with backstories. I seriously would get things of 25+ pages. Then after three or four campaigns ground to a halt because I couldn't tie all the threads together, I told my players I wouldn't accept backstories longer than 100 words. That was still a pain in the ass.

The last campaign I ran, I told the players essentially that "your backstory is your race and class. Give me -one- reason why you're adventuring." and we ran with it. Best campaign I ever ran (lasted 4 years before life intervened and we had to put it on hold).

Yeah, I don't do that either -- mostly because I won't read a 25 page backstory and my players know it.

These days, the only homework I ask for is the 3x3x3 (http://www.dragonlairdgaming.com/personal/RFTS/WRESerenity-3x3x3.pdf).  And I don't even ask for all that.  Just give me 1x1x1 and I'm happy.  I also ask for a single location that the hero likes to go to in town and why.  Think about it, when you go visit your home, or relatives, don't you have at least 1 place you like to drop in on?  A bar?  A FLGS?  A restaurant?  I figure the characters are no different.  So tell me what it is and why.  I find that between these two things, I don't really need a backstory.  And if you give me one, it's gotta be short.  One paragraph.  If its more than a page, I'm not gonna read it.  But if you give it to me, I'm going to try and use it.

Tom

Caveat: When I ran B/X d&d, I told my players explicitly NOT to get too attached to their characters.  Because old school d&d is ugly.  And if that's what you're playing, you don't want a player handing over a page of hard wrought backstory only to get sacrificed to Orcus in the first 30 minutes of play.  That's just going to leave a bad taste in their mouth.  So set expectations accordingly.

Quote from: Mike the Mage;1046551I think, after having watched the video, that what stuck me most was the dichotomy between an emergent story and a prescribed one, If five players have all written backstories that contain NPCS, enemies, hooks and themes on which to base the campaign the best a GM can do is blend those things together, with perhaps a little room for his/her own input. It doesn't leave a lot of room for any surprises IME and can get predictable, contrived and bland.

Add a little chaos to the mix and roll your characters, roll their background and remember that less is more in some cases, because it leaves more to be discovered about your PC. Imagine the face of the player of Luke Skywalker finding out that his PC is the son of Vader, rather than writing it in a three page backstory and waiting for it to turn up.



No, because Traveller, like other randomly rolled life-paths are an emergent story. Your PC is "the Belter who Lived" and in CT that fkn means something. Or "crikey I'm the heir to a star-system, well fugg me" cos you rolled that, and not wrote it up like a kid writing a list to Santa and hopiing Dungeon Master Clause will green light it.

Oh and there is no badwrongfun, just as there is no goodrightfun. And that means backstories are not part of goodrightfun.

Agree, and I think the main point was not to allow highly detailed backgrounds to overwhelm the game, not to exclude back stories entirely.

In Star Wars Luke's father had been killed in the past, and it develops into he was a Jedi killed by Vader (according to Obi Wan). In Empire it turns out Luke's father WAS Vader. Leaving gaps and vagueness in a background leaves room for the GM to create these kinds of developments.

It is like some want to play the game before it even starts.

Quote from: Blusponge;1046701Caveat: When I ran B/X d&d, I told my players explicitly NOT to get too attached to their characters.  Because old school d&d is ugly.

The vulnerability of 1st level characters factors unti this a lot. If your player has written a five A4 sheet of backstory, the DM could feel that he/she has to fudge it if the character dies in the first adventure.

Fug that. If i thought I had a whinger in the group that had written a backstory and therefore felt he/she deserved impunity, I would make every die roll in front of the players (I usually do, amyaway) and watch the twat get his PC killed.

IME a defining charactersitic in OSR is that you must never over-estimate your PCs ability. Especially starting out.

I suspect somebody thinking their PC is the central protagonist in the groups "story" is likely to do that.

Quote from: Toadmaster;1046713Agree, and I think the main point was not to allow highly detailed backgrounds to overwhelm the game, not to exclude back stories entirely.

Agreed, absolutley. But then, some folks love a false dichotomy and a straw man to go with it.

Quote from: Toadmaster;1046713It is like some want to play the game before it even starts.

Indeed the emergent story is one you witness over the course of several sessions. The prescribed backstory is one that is brought by one indivual player as a script for them to act out. This has parralells with the GM railroadiing and writing out a story for the players to act out.

Quote from: Christopher Brady;1046697So why did they betray their employer?  

It was a reward offered, they weren't employed per se. As for why - I don't have to care, that's up to them. I just present the consequences.

Why are they OK with being untrustworthy hires by anyone who knows of them? What in their history made them decide that sort of action is OK? (Not a moral judgement, but rather what informed their personal choice?) Because if they suddenly do the exact opposite in an other situation, there goes consistency and NPC reactions go more or less out the window.

A back story is NECESSARY, if you want to make sure your players don't suddenly switch 'alignments' (Whether or not you use them, or the system has them) and suddenly they do something incredibly evil/scummy for anything other than, "Meh, felt like it."


I completely disagree with you, this doesn't match my experience at all. Players who develop their PCs in play tend to play much better than the ones who create long backstories.

Quote from: Toadmaster;1046713Agree, and I think the main point was not to allow highly detailed backgrounds to overwhelm the game, not to exclude back stories entirely.

In Star Wars Luke's father had been killed in the past, and it develops into he was a Jedi killed by Vader (according to Obi Wan). In Empire it turns out Luke's father WAS Vader. Leaving gaps and vagueness in a background leaves room for the GM to create these kinds of developments.

It is like some want to play the game before it even starts.

Yes. This! George Lucas GMing FTW!

I've been thinking about this a lot since I started running Stars Without Number games over the past few years. The switch from characters with backstory to characters who have up front goals and very little backstory has been refreshing, but it has taken some getting used to as a GM. I always had final say over backstory ideas, but I liked having them around so I could mine them for adventure ideas. Now, having the players state their character goals gives me better adventure ideas. And if they have some bit of backstory that they really want, well, we can throw that in too, because it's just going to end up being a source of trouble for them anyways, right?

My players who have made the switch to backstory-light characters took some time to come around, but I think it's working out well.

The most interesting thing about the video, however, is the discussion of emergent-vs-prescribed narratives.  This too is something that I've changed drastically about my GMing. I encourage the players to build narratives and make their characters the big heroes in their stories.  Except I tell them to do it AFTER the adventure is finished. Because that is exactly what we do in real life when we process our experiences: each individual fits everything into a narrative that has himself/herself at the center of the drama. That's both a strength and failing of humans. We do it as individuals, we do it as society. History is still a narrative that has a beginning, a middle, an end, and lessons learned in the conclusion of the drama.

When the PCs are finished their absolute nonsense shenanigans that, at the time, was totally weird and made no sense, they will sit around the table at the tavern, and swap stories about the events. The same process should occur at the game table as the players and GM make sense of whatever madness occurred. Sometimes, it'll be easy to figure out a story, sometimes it will be more challenging. And just like in real life, the participants in those events will actually know that they're making history as they carry out some monumental task. We've all had those gaming moments where you know in the thick of it, that something huge is going down.  And sometimes you'll have no clue until after the fact, even if your companions are much more aware of the moment than you are.  That's cool too!

What if you just gave all the PC's the same backstory?

Quote from: Christopher Brady;1046560No, no they don't.

More and more do though due to the antics of the Forge and other storytelling groups trying to co-opt just about every freaking thing. And there are more than a few RPGs out there specifically designed to either shackle the DM or make everyone a mini-DM. For muh storeyh!

Quote from: Christopher Brady;1046562Yeap, and communication is key at all times.

Very much so. I usually ask for the players to provide a sentence or two on who their character was or is within the setting. So I have a basic idea ahead of time where they are coming from. Only time I've had someone get really out of hand was in a big Rifts session.

When I was DMing Gamma World some of the backgrounds were as Id asked everyone to look ofer the setting background and then present a brief character background.
"Likes to collect old tech, has a walkman powered off his electrical mutation."
"Comes from a neighboring town and has some weapon training."
"Hunts. Good with a bow."
"plant monster. Doesnt quite understand mammals. Conceals stuff in its foliage."
"Alien from another dimension sent by elders to explore the land."
and so on. Some were about a paragraph long. Others were about a sentence.

Why not make up backstories on the fly to tie them into the current adventure? (Assuming GM and PC collaboration beforehand?) That is what television writers do all the time. If there are any inconsistencies, you can chalk it up to time travel or something.

Meanwhile we had that one player. Bob the Fighter. Bob the Fighter II. Bob the Samurai. When his character died, he'd pretty much just erase the name and write in a new one. And the heck with RP, roll the dice and move your mice. Those goblins aren't gonna murderhobo themselves. :D

Kill Bob and Kill Bob 2

with Katanas

Quote from: Mike the Mage;1046884Kill Bob and Kill Bob 2

with Katanas

I mean I have got the background story that was pages long. Most of them boil down to wagsty tweenage edgelord who secretly wants to be the villain. Yawn.

Sorry, my silly joke about the Bobs.

Back on topic: I think that "backstory" can easily become "foreshadowing" to the point that it becomes a laundry list for the GM and the other players too. Multiply that by five and you've got a whole heap of washing.

I mean there's nothing wrong with "her goal is to get revenge on Bargle and set up the keep New Haven". That's not badwrongfun by any means, but obviously, it might not gel with

PC number 2:"his goal is to reach Glantri and find out why he was destined to discover the secret of the Radiance as was prophesised"

and

PC number 3: "her goal is to return Rockhome to its former glory and rule wisely"

and

PC number 4:"his goal is to take his rightful inheritance as captain of the skyship Princess Ark that was stolen from his family long ago"

and

PC number 5: "his goal is to get unite the Merchant Guilds of Darokin and Minrothrad and establish a trade route across the sea to the Savage Coast"

I mean, that might be fun and all that, but you kinda written yourselves spoilers. Moreover, Colombus , Thorin, Raistlin and Prince Haldemar  might not make the best companions in one group.

Back story can end up being constipatory to the emergent story that has yet to be discovered.

I suggest keeping the PC's goals mid to short term at level one.

How about, your character always wanted to SEE a skyship? Maybe, just maybe, ride in one. And then see where things go from there.

Quote from: Omega;1046842More and more do though due to the antics of the Forge and other storytelling groups trying to co-opt just about every freaking thing. And there are more than a few RPGs out there specifically designed to either shackle the DM or make everyone a mini-DM. For muh storeyh!

Am I the only one who feels completely unthreatened by these guys? In the 1 1/2-2 decades this has been a thing, I have seen a grand total of... I'm not even sure if it has been one single person come into a group I've run or been in and make any demands that tried to shackle a DM or make everyone else into DMs. Even if they had, I'm sure the response would be somewhere between a flat "no" to a "if you want to make a background for your character, go ahead, but it isn't going to change the game world."

Now, most all of us post-initial-wave-of-gamers started as kids. And therefore we went through our teens gaming. And thus we have, at one point or another, done just about every foolhardy thing with RPGs possible. So I can't say, "I don't think this really exists in any real amount" because I've seen it. Lots of people have made super special background characters that fulfilled some internal need for uniqueness and wanted for that character special treatment... and then we turned 14. Out in the wild, as adults, I just don't see this come up and am surprised by how much hand-wringing it creates.

Quote from: Toadmaster;1046713Agree, and I think the main point was not to allow highly detailed backgrounds to overwhelm the game, not to exclude back stories entirely.

In Star Wars Luke's father had been killed in the past, and it develops into he was a Jedi killed by Vader (according to Obi Wan). In Empire it turns out Luke's father WAS Vader. Leaving gaps and vagueness in a background leaves room for the GM to create these kinds of developments.

It is like some want to play the game before it even starts.

This is really my only real argument against or reason to dislike backstory. I prefer things to arise organically from gameplay with just the bare bones of background. Not because background is inherently bad, but just to leave space for developments like these.

Quote from: Christopher Brady;1046569So you want monopoly pieces?  Single dimensional 'characters' that only have one thing in mind:  LOOT!  It's a valid play style, especially given how some of the old timers talk about 'the old days'.  Not my thing, but I have no say in anyone else's fun but my own.

You've made statements like this before. And it is one of the reasons why I feel you really want a cartoon boogeyman version of old-school gaming as a perpetual personal nemesis, rather than the one that really exists. And the thing is, this only benefits you helping re-convince you. Everyone of us who have played these games can think back, and realize that that wasn't what our games were like at all, and that isn't what went down, and the argument falls flat. So I am still unclear on why repeating this benefits you. It never moves the needle.

Characters from 'the old days' weren't one dimensional, they were simply forward looking -- their most exciting traits are those developed once the adventure begins. It makes sense in a game as lethal as early D&D and the like since you only know retroactively if a character is going to make it to the more survivable plateau. I am not going to say that it is a preferable system, only one of many valid ones. And every time you call it things like one dimensional or monopoly pieces, you hurt your own argument that it is you and your preferred playstyle that is being badmouthed.

Quote from: RPGPundit;1046576Also, I get the feeling certain people are commenting here without having actually watched the video.

Yes, and/or they're just going off on weird side-arguments as they usually do.

Pundit, I have to say that you come across to me as rather reasonable and having opinions much like my own in this and the other videos of yours I've chosen to watch, which is surprising to me given how often I get a different impression from some of your forum comments... I expect it's both the topics I'm choosing, and that you take the time in the videos to present a whole coherent and qualified presentation, whereas in the forum comments something else much more curt/snarky/exaggerated is often going on (as I do, too), as well as side-argument focus.

Anyway, I really appreciated this one.

I liked your point about how a campaign tends to become something more real in a unique way after a year or so of play.

It was at about a year of one PC having survived my first campaign that the player offered me some background, which was 2 pages or so listing 1-3 sentences about each of his relatives, where they lived, profession, etc. Up till then, the PC's written backstory was "from Bendwyn" and written personality description was like: "Friendly towards dwarves. Likes to build things. Likes hot food." (which I thought meant warm, not spicy) and a few similar sentences that were later declared wrong by the player. The player had been playing the PC as a person to everyone's satisfaction and amusement with no problem even with nothing written down about them, just by natural intuition & make-believe play powers - we did have many years of non-RPG make-believe play experience at that point.

Even then, the background he offered has some issues. I was concerned about the fairness of a player being able to specify relatives with social positions, wealth, skills, spells, etc., (as well as the player then knowing the stats and details of NPC relatives in more detail than the PC probably would) even though I think he was mainly trying to be fair, detailed and interesting. I had to invent/learn the skill of revising player-submitted content at that point. I think it works to review such things for appropriateness and fairness and what the PC would know, and then tell the player which parts (of the parts their PC would know) I'm revising (keeping them guessing as to why exactly so as not to reveal what conflicts their suggestions might have with things the player doesn't know about), and revising but not telling them about changes to things their PC wouldn't know about (so if they show up to take advantage of some details of an NPC they suggested, they may find out those details aren't actually accurate).


Re: cats

Quote from: RPGPundit;1046595Not this time. I didn't put them in on purpose before, they just came over. Anyways, if they were always in it, there wouldn't be the element of surprise.

Yes I find natural cat appearances (or not) adds to the immersion quality. Railroad cat videos are no good...

Quote from: Christopher Brady;1046534Which brings up a good point:  So Traveler has been doing it wrong all these years?

I'm not sure if you guys were talking about the video or a side-topic at this point, but Pundit does mention in the video that random background stories can be nice, and are sort of the opposite of what he's arguing against in the video.

Quote from: PencilBoy99;1046494One of the reasons you get in game texts from games that require player input for world-building (whether before session zero like in Dresden Files Accelerated or Unknown Armies 3e) or during (PBTA games where you "ask questions") is that it reduces the work for GMs. I'm not 100% sure it really does that, because none of those games require the players to spend an hour detailing thing they just made up, so the work for using and integrating that newly made up element on the GM.

However, I do get the concern for gm workload. The amount of effort required to build a usable sandbox game seems prohibitive and require a very high level of GM skill.

I started at age 11 with zero experience and the two pages of notes and two maps included with TFT's In The Labyrinth. It did grow to more like 100 pages of maps and a chest-full of paper over the years, and there were some potential continuity issues and weirdness and later some retcons, but it was quite playable right off the bat. A bit like PCs with no backstory...

Quote from: Cave Bear;1046837What if you just gave all the PC's the same backstory?

Giving them at least partly the same backstory really helps them all have a reason to be around each other and/or be in a "group".

Quote from: Krimson;1046887I mean I have got the background story that was pages long. Most of them boil down to wagsty tweenage edgelord who secretly wants to be the villain. Yawn.

I tend to play with people who if/when they write a long background story, it's actually rather nice and they're even capable of playing it well.

I have had some awful and/or overdone backstories and character concepts submitted (which is part of why I and many GMs I know prepare setting-intro packets for their players that explain/limit where their characters can have come from). I have either rejected these outright, or edited/hacked/rewritten them to be something workable for the campaign. The times I haven't done that, it has tended to lead to issues.

I've also always played games with decent levels of actual danger, especially for inexperienced starting characters... (Whoops! Looks like you failed to dodge that battleaxe! I guess that 25-page backstory is a bit less relevant now..." ;-)

Quote from: Willie the Duck;1046898Am I the only one who feels completely unthreatened by these guys? In the 1 1/2-2 decades this has been a thing, I have seen a grand total of... I'm not even sure if it has been one single person come into a group I've run or been in and make any demands that tried to shackle a DM or make everyone else into DMs. Even if they had, I'm sure the response would be somewhere between a flat "no" to a "if you want to make a background for your character, go ahead, but it isn't going to change the game world."

They were never a thing.  I think I know of one person who doesn't frequent forums who picked a Forge game, and he's never run it.  Other than that, I don't think anyone who wasn't on a forum back in the day, actually did anything with it.  Hence why most people Roleplay, they PLAY.  They don't care about rewriting a setting mid-game, even when given the option to.  There's a reason D&D and it's ilk are still the most popular game of its type in the world.

Quote from: Willie the Duck;1046898You've made statements like this before.

Yes, I have.  Because of stories of how fragile characters were, how players should NEVER get attached to their characters because they can die at ANY moment.  How a lot of adventures tested the player's ingenuity, where most of the stats don't generally mean anything beyond some mechanical bonus, like spell casting/resistance, system shock, XP Bonus in favoured class...  That doesn't foster attachment to any character, no real impetus to create anything other and a sheet of paper with number values on it.

Very similar to a playing piece in Chess or Checkers.  I just use Monopoly because it's the only one I remember easily off the top of my head.  And like I said, nothing wrong with that sort of game style.  But it also doesn't promote any investment, even if you get lucky and survive to level 2+ with said original character sheet.

Quote from: Willie the Duck;1046898Characters from 'the old days' weren't one dimensional, they were simply forward looking -- their most exciting traits are those developed once the adventure begins. It makes sense in a game as lethal as early D&D and the like since you only know retroactively if a character is going to make it to the more survivable plateau. I am not going to say that it is a preferable system, only one of many valid ones. And every time you call it things like one dimensional or monopoly pieces, you hurt your own argument that it is you and your preferred playstyle that is being badmouthed.

You just validated my very argument.  Because very early D&D was very lethal, no one cared about their characters beyond what happened at the table.  Why bother with even a single sentence of a character's history when Bargle could be around the corner?  And let's not forget that this originally based off a War Game, with miniatures and terrain, and small bands of skirmishers with Hero units.  Again, playing pieces like Chess or Monopoly.  I probably should use Chess more, because like in Chess D&D characters all have specific 'moves' that only they can do (typically) like Combat, Magic, Healing and Traps.  At least since the 80's.

Again, it's not a bad way to play.  It's just not MY way.

I know this triggers CRKruger from some odd reason, but MY way was 'New School' back in the mid-80's, because my original two DMs were a pair of 12 year old girls (I was 10?  11?  I forget, it's been 30 years) and they were using D&D to re-enact 'stories' or more accurately the style of roleplay from the novels they liked, mostly what's been termed Romantic Fantasy from authors like Mercedes Lackey and Tanith Lee among many others.  So to ME (and this is a personal anecdote) what people are terming 'old school' isn't, and frankly, I think that all the play styles we have now have probably existed for a lot longer than the Old/New School war that this site sometimes seems to promote.

It's all D&D, play it as you want.  There's no BadWrongFun, no matter what some people want to promote.  If I'm railing at something, it's the stupid tribalistic division that some MUST have, that their game is superiour because it was around longer and they played it X way, thus making it even more superiour.

If you think I'm attacking a play style, I'm sorry, but I'm not.

Oh, as for not commenting on Pundit's mention of Traveler, I won't because I know what he's trying to go for, but the Lifepath system completely invalidates his argument.  Making the Video a waste of time.

Quote from: Christopher Brady;1046905Yes, I have.  Because of stories of how fragile characters were, how players should NEVER get attached to their characters because they can die at ANY moment.  How a lot of adventures tested the player's ingenuity, where most of the stats don't generally mean anything beyond some mechanical bonus, like spell casting/resistance, system shock, XP Bonus in favoured class...  That doesn't foster attachment to any character, no real impetus to create anything other and a sheet of paper with number values on it.

Very similar to a playing piece in Chess or Checkers.  I just use Monopoly because it's the only one I remember easily off the top of my head.  And like I said, nothing wrong with that sort of game style.  But it also doesn't promote any investment, even if you get lucky and survive to level 2+ with said original character sheet.



You just validated my very argument.  Because very early D&D was very lethal, no one cared about their characters beyond what happened at the table.  Why bother with even a single sentence of a character's history when Bargle could be around the corner?  And let's not forget that this originally based off a War Game, with miniatures and terrain, and small bands of skirmishers with Hero units.  Again, playing pieces like Chess or Monopoly.  I probably should use Chess more, because like in Chess D&D characters all have specific 'moves' that only they can do (typically) like Combat, Magic, Healing and Traps.  At least since the 80's.

Again, it's not a bad way to play.  It's just not MY way.

But this really isn't how it was, sure many PCs started the game off after materializing in the back corner of a smokey bar, but the back story developed as the game went along. If a PC died in the first session, yeah they were pretty insignificant just like the dozens of redshirts in Star Trek. If they survived for a bit they usually developed, as the player got a feel for the character, or the GM wanted to use something from their background (made up in the present) to provide a way to introduce the PCs to something important.

I want to use my Ranger bonus against Ogres, because my PC's family was killed by ogres.

Sir Cannonfodder, your father served in the Badger Wars with the Duke of Nowheresville. The Duke recognized your family name and is now asking for your help.

This is much how it works in fiction as well. Robert E Howard didn't provide a resume for Conan at the beginning of his writing, Conan's life story was revealed through the tales.


It doesn't matter how long you play Monopoly, or Chess I don't know anybody that starts to give the Thimble or a Bishop a life story.

Quote from: Christopher Brady;1046905Oh, as for not commenting on Pundit's mention of Traveler, I won't because I know what he's trying to go for, but the Lifepath system completely invalidates his argument.  Making the Video a waste of time.

Pundit uses lifepath systems in the games he has written. Seems odd that he would argue against something he uses himself.

Lifepaths that players don't control are great and are THE COMPLETE OPPOSITE OF PLAYER-WRITTEN BACKSTORY.

Quote from: Toadmaster;1046927This is much how it works in fiction as well. Robert E Howard didn't provide a resume for Conan at the beginning of his writing, Conan's life story was revealed through the tales.

The first story The Phoenix On The Sword pretty much laid out his background, a Barbarian from the land of Cimmeria who took the crown of Aquillonia by force.

That's his backstory.  That's it.  But he has one.  And a GOOD writer has a backstory for their character before they start writing because it allows them to make choices based on a set 'rules'.  Conan is a killer because his society survives by killing, he was raised to be chivalrous (because it was the 1930's and women have always been respected) and he has a blunt honest because the hills of Cimmeria and his religion demand it.  All that inform his choices in all his adventures, his unwillingness to play the 'civilized' game, the inability to understand why civilization works the way it does.

Every character needs a back story, or else it's flat, one dimensional and boring.  Maybe the DM doesn't ask for them, but often, players will have a backstory in their heads.  And sometimes, no one ever hears of them, because said character died too quickly, or did something cooler and is remember more for that.

Quote from: Toadmaster;1046927Pundit uses lifepath systems in the games he has written. Seems odd that he would argue against something he uses himself.

Almost like he has an agenda to push...

Chris, mate. You're all over the shop. I don't know where you're comimg from.

D&D 5e gives us Backgrounds. Mostly they exist for a pair of skills and a few other fairly minor mechanical bits, but they also guide the choice of a few characteristics (two personality traits, one ideal, one bond, and one flaw). This seems like just about the right depth to start a PC to me.

The 1e DMG had secondary skills, most of which were trades of some sort which were kind of backgrounds or at least implied stuff you did before becoming an adventurer.

I don't find background stories useful because I find a lack of symmetry between a player's attachment to a character, and the character's actual longevity in the campaign, to be a net negative.  

My game isn't about characters, it's about players - the choices made and actions taken in the course of play; not stuff that never "happened" outside of the pages of someone's backstory.

Plus, while not perfectly reliable, nixing backstories does weed out of a lot of people who take this shit way too seriously.

Quote from: jeff37923;1046579Were your cats in it? :D

It would be even better if he dressed the cats up as Henry Tudor and Richard III.

I have two players who will write 50-100 word backgrounds on the back of their sheets... even for one-shots.
Mostly it's notes about their quirks, personality or background on how they came to be with the other party members.
Both players enjoy acting out the character, even to their characters' detriment.
It's never "Mary Sue" crap, so I never have to worry about it.  
It actually does add to the other players fun as they never know what to expect from them.

Quote from: Krimson;1046945The 1e DMG had secondary skills, most of which were trades of some sort which were kind of backgrounds or at least implied stuff you did before becoming an adventurer.

As does DCC, in fact that and your ability scores is ALL you get and there is a strong chance that this potential PC won't make it through the first half of the first adventure.

So there you have "back story" at one end of the curve and at the other you have a 25 page novella which pretty much covers the first book if the PC were the main chatacyer in a trilogy as well as setting the themes and story arc for the next two.

I don't think that I have read anyone on this thread object to the former.

Quote from: S'mon;1046930Lifepaths that players don't control are great and are THE COMPLETE OPPOSITE OF PLAYER-WRITTEN BACKSTORY.

Again, exactly. There you're using prior history, out of your control, as a way to push you into new directions in roleplaying, not as some kind of mary-sue wish fulfillment or venting your energy as a frustrated fan-fiction writer.

Quote from: DocJones;1046950It would be even better if he dressed the cats up as Henry Tudor and Richard III.

I don't dress up my cats. People dress up their pets for their own sake, and cats especially don't tend to like it. I have too much respect for my cats to do that to them.

Note also that as I said in the video, in Lion & Dragon you roll for your social class (and it actually matters) and there's a table for some important earlier life-event. But these are random.

The difference between a system like Lion & Dragon or Traveller, which has some element of randomness to a greater or lesser extent, is that it places every player on a level playing field. Systems that use merits and flaws to build a character in chargen is an alternative but IME it is time consuming and can be mystifying to newcomers. Moreover, it never forces the player to explore new possibilities and I find there is a tendency to get set in your ways.

Then there is the whole "tell the GM who you are" which is favours pushy, attention-hogging prima-donnas that like to call their abrasiveness "being assertive".

I used to think the whole "yes, and" was a good thing until I played with such a person.

Now, I adopt "yes and" with non-pushy people, and the bullies get "no, fuck off".

And that's not just in gaming, either.

Quote from: RPGPundit;1046972Again, exactly. There you're using prior history, out of your control, as a way to push you into new directions in roleplaying, not as some kind of mary-sue wish fulfillment or venting your energy as a frustrated fan-fiction writer.

Yes. The biggest problem with extensive player-written backstory is that it's inward looking; IME it does not add to the enjoyment of the other players at the table. There are occasional exceptions for players with more of a GM's-eye view, who create their PC as if it were an NPC, but players internally focused on backstory are not adding to the enjoyment of others at the table. Very minimal backstory - "He is Conan, Cimmerian. He does not cry" - is different, it provides a jumping off point to develop the character in play, which does add to everyone's enjoyment.

Life Paths as in Traveller, Cyberpunk, White Star companion, are almost akin to playing the character; the player is rolling to see what happens; there is a strong element of exploration, just like in actual play. My new Monday group did our WS 'Serial' rolls at the table, start of first session - it worked really well and created a lot of positive energy at the table.

Quote from: RPGPundit;1046973I don't dress up my cats. People dress up their pets for their own sake, and cats especially don't tend to like it. I have too much respect for my cats to do that to them.

You dont know many cats then. :D

Let's say I'm playing a pickup game.  There is a certain level of randomness I'll accept.  I'll roll for my stats if I get to arrange them how I want.  I'll come up with some kind of background, and work with the GM to make sure we can make it work in his game.  If the GM replies that I must roll randomly for my character's background and traits in order to "force me out of my comfort zone," then I have better things to do with my time than play in his game.  This is a two way street.  If the GM says I don't get to play what I want to play, then I don't have to play his game.  

I don't find world simulation inherently interesting.  While I see the appeal of sandbox gaming, I don't find it engaging in the long term.  I never get immersed in a sandbox.  It's just a playpen, and the sandbox nature as well as the lack of focus on characters creates a situation where everything is merely a playing piece.  It becomes Boxxle.  I'm just moving my character around and pushing "boxes" into position to keep progressing.

For me, RPGs have only been immersive when there is a story being told.  It's only immersive when the focus is on the characters and the world is just the backdrop for their activities.  You say it about world simulation, but story and character immersion is at least as deep.  There comes a point after a while where the characters are so real and their story is so powerful.

I get the impression you prefer large groups of 6 or more players.  I think I've seen you say before that you don't even think RPGs should be played with fewer than 4 players.  I have a completely different preference.  The opinion I've reached is that RPGs are pointless to play if there are 4 or more people present (1 GM and 3 players).  I've reached the point where I strongly believe if you have that many people then do something else like a boardgame or a fighting game tournament.  I feel RPGs are only fun when they are one GM to one or two player activities.  That alone probably accounts for a large portion of such drastically different viewpoints.

I think having to deal with a large number of people and/or strangers is going to lead to different styles of play than two or three very close people having a private game.  There's the automatic element of catherding no matter what else.  Everyone at the table is going to have different motivations for play, and juggling all those may be impossible.   Meanwhile, in a small or very close knit group, the motivations will all be similar, and by definition should all be compatible, so the juggling would be easier.

Quote from: RPGPundit;1046973I don't dress up my cats. People dress up their pets for their own sake, and cats especially don't tend to like it. I have too much respect for my cats to do that to them.

I've had cats all my life and I've never seen the appeal of putting them in outfits. I'd rather not cause them stress. Certainly there are cats that are chill enough to not care, but that is not common.

Dressing cats is like rubbing their stomachs:  You may get away with it, and avoid a mauling, with some cats all of the time, and most cats some of the time, but keep it up and eventually there will be a reckoning.

I'm fairly indifferent to the random factor, unless there is the potential to gain  or lose. If a back story is going to provide any substantial benefit, money, power, social status then I can see where randomness can be a positive. I've played a lot of point buy systems so have always taken a gains / losses should be balanced approach to a back story, randomness eliminates this need, sometimes you get lucky, sometimes you get a one armed leper with a price on his head.

I've created some fairly detailed backgrounds (a paragraph or two) but am also fine playing a character with minimal past history (left the farm to go adventuring). It can be fun to reveal the PCs past through play discovering the character as you go.

Quote from: Steven Mitchell;1047063Dressing cats is like rubbing their stomachs:  You may get away with it, and avoid a mauling, with some cats all of the time, and most cats some of the time, but keep it up and eventually there will be a reckoning.

You shall pet me on the belly twice, three times and I will bite the shit out of you as per protocol. :)


My wife dressed up the dog and the cat for Halloween once, once. St George and the dragon (the dog was the dragon). The dog was just happy for the attention, the cat sat there glaring with a look of "I'm going to shit in your shoes when this is over".

Quote from: RPGPundit;1046576Also, I get the feeling certain people are commenting here without having actually watched the video.

Do you use a script you could post with it? I just don't do videos like, it seems, everyone else on the internet does.

Quote from: Gabriel2;1047025Stuff

Man you and I have had radically different sandbox experiences. There's a vast ignored middle between "Sandbox where it's a big playground, characters are temporary and nothing matters" and "There's no world, just characters with flavor in the background"

Like, the entirety of my career as a player, GM and game designer exists in that ignored middle: a living world where actions have consequences and quests outlive characters

The living campaign that Pundit describes in the video is a real phenomena. I'm sad that you seem to have experienced it only through this artificial, "story-warps-reality" approach.

Quote from: Gabriel2;1047025Let's say I'm playing a pickup game.  There is a certain level of randomness I'll accept.  I'll roll for my stats if I get to arrange them how I want.  I'll come up with some kind of background, and work with the GM to make sure we can make it work in his game.  If the GM replies that I must roll randomly for my character's background and traits in order to "force me out of my comfort zone," then I have better things to do with my time than play in his game.  This is a two way street.  If the GM says I don't get to play what I want to play, then I don't have to play his game.  

I don't find world simulation inherently interesting.  While I see the appeal of sandbox gaming, I don't find it engaging in the long term.  I never get immersed in a sandbox.  It's just a playpen, and the sandbox nature as well as the lack of focus on characters creates a situation where everything is merely a playing piece.  It becomes Boxxle.  I'm just moving my character around and pushing "boxes" into position to keep progressing.

For me, RPGs have only been immersive when there is a story being told.  It's only immersive when the focus is on the characters and the world is just the backdrop for their activities.  You say it about world simulation, but story and character immersion is at least as deep.  There comes a point after a while where the characters are so real and their story is so powerful.

I get the impression you prefer large groups of 6 or more players.  I think I've seen you say before that you don't even think RPGs should be played with fewer than 4 players.  I have a completely different preference.  The opinion I've reached is that RPGs are pointless to play if there are 4 or more people present (1 GM and 3 players).  I've reached the point where I strongly believe if you have that many people then do something else like a boardgame or a fighting game tournament.  I feel RPGs are only fun when they are one GM to one or two player activities.  That alone probably accounts for a large portion of such drastically different viewpoints.

I think having to deal with a large number of people and/or strangers is going to lead to different styles of play than two or three very close people having a private game.  There's the automatic element of catherding no matter what else.  Everyone at the table is going to have different motivations for play, and juggling all those may be impossible.   Meanwhile, in a small or very close knit group, the motivations will all be similar, and by definition should all be compatible, so the juggling would be easier.

This is why I say RPGs are not "a game" but a tool that is used in two fundamentally different ways.  

For many, unless exceeding a high frequency threshold where the characters and story are made the focus, "it's just a boardgame".  

Either I'm focusing/prioritizing on one aspect of play, or it's just Sorry! or Parcheesi.  

This is why I do screen for these players - I agree on that point; the two uses of the RPG tool are non-compatible, and hoping the two groups can be mashed together is giving everyone not what they really want.  Because I actively don't want that level of immersion.

Quote from: Mike the Mage;1046975The difference between a system like Lion & Dragon or Traveller, which has some element of randomness to a greater or lesser extent, is that it places every player on a level playing field.

Whoa hold on, full stop.  'Level playing field'?  Really?  Random Traveler Lifepath rolls can mean one Player gets a ship.  The second Player gets a missing leg.  This is fair?  This 'level playing field', which by the way means balanced?  And you know what?  You HAVE to use the results, because otherwise, why roll?  Why force this on your players if you're going to be a dick about it.

But in a made up back story (let's be nice, and keep it to a single paragraph, MAYBE half an 8x11 tops) doesn't have to be used, as long as you explain to your players (remember communicate!  This is a cooperative experience/game) what you want, the fact that a player is an exiled Elven Prince and the other is an escaped pirate cabin 'girl' don't really have any impact unless the DM wants it to.

It's beginning to sound like people just don't want to talk to players, but rather force their way onto them and screw the rest of the table.  It's beginning to sound like the 'mary sue' accusations are baseless excuses at this point.

Quote from: Christopher Brady;1047112Whoa hold on, full stop.  'Level playing field'?  Really?  Random Traveler Lifepath rolls can mean one Player gets a ship.  The second Player gets a missing leg.

Absolutely level.

Nothing but loaded dice would give one player and advantage over the other at the start of character creation. No lobbying the GM involved.

Quote from: Christopher Brady;1047112t's beginning to sound like people just don't want to talk to players, but rather force their way onto them and screw the rest of the table.  

Well, in Traveller that would be Mar Miller's way, actually.

Quote from: Christopher Brady;1047112But in a made up back story (let's be nice, and keep it to a single paragraph, MAYBE half an 8x11 tops) doesn't have to be used, as long as you explain to your players (remember communicate!  This is a cooperative experience/game) what you want, the fact that a player is an exiled Elven Prince and the other is an escaped pirate cabin 'girl' don't really have any impact unless the DM wants it to.

That's not my experience of extensive backstory PCs. What I see is a lot of "So, when do I get to be Duchess? Like it says on page 78, I'm the True Heir?"

Quote from: S'mon;1047130That's not my experience of extensive backstory PCs. What I see is a lot of "So, when do I get to be Duchess? Like it says on page 78, I'm the True Heir?"

And do you know how much adventure potential that brings up?  I can think up of betrayals, murders, intrigue in general!  Tools for me to ab-, er use on my players.  And in English Peerage, if I remember vaguely, a Ducal title still puts them under a Prince/Princess, so there's adventure potential there.  Or is the other way around?  I haven't looked that up in years.

Again it's beginning to sound like DMs having a preset path, a railroad if you will, for their players and don't want anything messy like players having a backstory that MIGHT be at odds with their little story they have already planned.  Hmm.

Nope, not for me.  I won't accept a hundred page history, but up to a single page and reason for adventuring is ALWAYS welcome at my table.

Quote from: Christopher Brady;1047138And do you know how much adventure potential that brings up?  I can think up of betrayals, murders, intrigue in general!  Tools for me to ab-, er use on my players.  And in English Peerage, if I remember vaguely, a Ducal title still puts them under a Prince/Princess, so there's adventure potential there.  Or is the other way around?  I haven't looked that up in years.

Again it's beginning to sound like DMs having a preset path, a railroad if you will, for their players and don't want anything messy like players having a backstory that MIGHT be at odds with their little story they have already planned.  Hmm.

Nope, not for me.  I won't accept a hundred page history, but up to a single page and reason for adventuring is ALWAYS welcome at my table.

From what I recall, my biggest objection was I was running a game about being adventurers and nobles in Karameikos, working their way up, and the player wanted to inherit a much bigger territory in Thyatis, the Duchess of Kerandas, which was outside the scope of the campaign and away from the other PCs. I didn't particularly want to give them an unearned Duchy just because it said so in their backstory, and I didn't want to move the campaign focus to their PC.

I did let players have a bunch of stuff like being a child of human elf or dwarf nobility, but it was '3rd child of the baron' level, they had to work up from there. This player's 80 page backstory felt like an end run around the campaign premise.

Quote from: Mike the Mage;1047127Absolutely level.

Nothing but loaded dice would give one player and advantage over the other at the start of character creation. No lobbying the GM involved.

Sure, there is equality in opportunity, but some players prefer a bit more equality in results, at least at the start of play and with things that have a large and/or long-lasting effect on play (like ability scores). Others don't care. As long as everyone at the table feels the same way, it's not likely to be a problem.

Quote from: HappyDaze;1047154Sure, there is equality in opportunity, but some players prefer a bit more equality in results, at least at the start of play and with things that have a large and/or long-lasting effect on play (like ability scores). Others don't care. As long as everyone at the table feels the same way, it's not likely to be a problem.

Agreed. I think the GM can always let a player try again if he/she thinks it best. I object to lobbying though. Mainly cos I don't like to see pushy people lord it over the rest of the group.

Quote from: Mike the Mage;1046975The difference between a system like Lion & Dragon or Traveller, which has some element of randomness to a greater or lesser extent, is that it places every player on a level playing field. Systems that use merits and flaws to build a character in chargen is an alternative but IME it is time consuming and can be mystifying to newcomers. Moreover, it never forces the player to explore new possibilities and I find there is a tendency to get set in your ways.

Then there is the whole "tell the GM who you are" which is favours pushy, attention-hogging prima-donnas that like to call their abrasiveness "being assertive".

I used to think the whole "yes, and" was a good thing until I played with such a person.

Now, I adopt "yes and" with non-pushy people, and the bullies get "no, fuck off".

And that's not just in gaming, either.

"Yes and" and "No but" are another godawful idea.

Quote from: Krimson;1047046I've had cats all my life and I've never seen the appeal of putting them in outfits. I'd rather not cause them stress. Certainly there are cats that are chill enough to not care, but that is not common.

Yeah. There do seem to be some dogs that really like it. But that's part of why I'm a cat person. Dogs are just wolves with no sense of self-respect.

Quote from: Christopher Brady;1047112Whoa hold on, full stop.  'Level playing field'?  Really?  Random Traveler Lifepath rolls can mean one Player gets a ship.  The second Player gets a missing leg.

It's Equality of Opportunity, the good sort of equality; and not Equality of Outcome, which is a terrible idea.

Quote from: RPGPundit;1047245It's Equality of Opportunity, the good sort of equality; and not Equality of Outcome, which is a terrible idea.

Yes, because someone with a couple of 18s in the right stats they wanted, is going to have EXACTLY the same amount of fun as someone whose highest stat is an 8, maybe 9, and in Charisma, in an edition with no Bard class.  Somehow, magically, they're both going to have the same amount of fun!  Because the Dice said so.

Really?  You honestly believe this?  In all my 33 years of gaming and with the small number of people I've gamed with (I've worked it out to about 57, but I may be off as I've forgotten a couple of games, I'm sure of it) they answer is no, they're not.  They might be slightly frustrated, or mildly annoyed, or just bored rather than the assumed 'railing at the stars and vitriol' that people will immediately assume, -because extremes are so much more fun to strawman- but someone with a better outcome ruled, not by choice but by happenstance, tends to enjoy the game more because they are often in better shape to do more.  They get to carry the rest of the team, because they can do more in the game.

It's like people haven't ever played with a badly chanced character before.  I have and I've seen lots of other people do to, and even if you're having fun, being second fiddle...  Well, for me, it's boredom.  'Oh, Bob's got this again.  Don't need to pick up the dice.'  I made a character to play it, not sit back and watch someone else dominate the game.  I'm sure it's fun for some people (I'd be bored if the game became so easy because I had the best stats.  It's that way in video games for me.  I like easy games when I want to de-stress, but after that, I want hard mode!) but that's not for me.

Dice removes player choice, and somehow, this is better?  What is this crazy moon people talk?

The main argument against character backstory seems to be that the players will be given the chance and then run amok with it giving their character ridiculous advantages through background in the game. Yes, this can be a problem, which is why I say again that for character backstory creation the GM must act as editor to make sure that the history doesn't overwhelm the game.

Quote from: Christopher Brady;1047260Dice removes player choice,  

Yeah, that's intentional. In fact it's their raison d'etre.

Next week: the wheel.

You don't want the possibility of an "all 8's" character, then just have a Shopkeeper Rule.  The PC you rolled up doesn't have a certain stat profile like at least one 13 and no stats below 5, then give them a name, profession and basic personality and hand them to the GM as an NPC extra then roll up another PC.

Or roll two stat lines and pick the best one.

The idea is, no matter what system you use, everyone uses the same one, so it's fair.  Someone rolls up The Rock, someone else Steve Buscemi.  Which would you want if you wanted a rogue?  Buscemi would make a much better Rogue/Thief, the Rock is going to attract way too much attention.  

System balance is a Fool's Errand, setting balance is what's important, that's why the GM makes the big bucks.

How about this?

Goblin Punch Career Path Fantasy.
https://drive.google.com/file/d/0BxVHEMMjLlZ4Wnl3YnVtZnRHTzg/edit

Bam! You have a life history and background framework. Use your imagination and make it work!

(https://vignette.wikia.nocookie.net/degrassi/images/f/f5/Tim-gunn-make-it-work.gif/revision/latest?cb=20150117024803)

Quote from: CRKrueger;1047314System balance is a Fool's Errand, setting balance is what's important, that's why the GM makes the big bucks.

Exactly this. And this is coming from someone who primarily uses point-buy systems.

Quote from: CRKrueger;1047314You don't want the possibility of an "all 8's" character, then just have a Shopkeeper Rule.  The PC you rolled up doesn't have a certain stat profile like at least one 13 and no stats below 5, then give them a name, profession and basic personality and hand them to the GM as an NPC extra then roll up another PC.

Or roll two stat lines and pick the best one.

Or Randomize Point Buy. That way you mathematically cannot get "unworkable character stats" AND you get randomized values so you're not bored or feel redundant.

In DnD 5e it's dirt easy: roll 1d8-1 per stat, add that value to base 8 stat, subtract the cost from your 27 points each time. Spend all your 27 points. Continue until you are out of points, or have nowhere else to skip spending them. Ta-dah, easy! :)

What was the first video in the series?

Quote from: Christopher Brady;1047260Yes, because someone with a couple of 18s in the right stats they wanted, is going to have EXACTLY the same amount of fun as someone whose highest stat is an 8, maybe 9, and in Charisma, in an edition with no Bard class.  Somehow, magically, they're both going to have the same amount of fun!  Because the Dice said so.

Really?  You honestly believe this?  In all my 33 years of gaming and with the small number of people I've gamed with (I've worked it out to about 57, but I may be off as I've forgotten a couple of games, I'm sure of it) they answer is no, they're not.  They might be slightly frustrated, or mildly annoyed, or just bored rather than the assumed 'railing at the stars and vitriol' that people will immediately assume, -because extremes are so much more fun to strawman- but someone with a better outcome ruled, not by choice but by happenstance, tends to enjoy the game more because they are often in better shape to do more.  They get to carry the rest of the team, because they can do more in the game.

It's like people haven't ever played with a badly chanced character before.  I have and I've seen lots of other people do to, and even if you're having fun, being second fiddle...  Well, for me, it's boredom.  'Oh, Bob's got this again.  Don't need to pick up the dice.'  I made a character to play it, not sit back and watch someone else dominate the game.  I'm sure it's fun for some people (I'd be bored if the game became so easy because I had the best stats.  It's that way in video games for me.  I like easy games when I want to de-stress, but after that, I want hard mode!) but that's not for me.

Dice removes player choice, and somehow, this is better?  What is this crazy moon people talk?

Its very divergent viewpoint from the people I game with but if its what the people playing want its fine. Not something I'm into but I don't make the rules for everyone.

My players and I prefer all of the randomness to come after play starts. We like balanced characters at character creation as this creates equality of opportunity in play by providing equality of results before play begins. We also know that not everyone goes with this, and we are even willing to forgo it for one-shots, but we all stick with it for any long-term (multiple months or longer) gaming venture.

For me what's far more valuable would be "what's a standard scene in this campaign going to be like? What would be a fun thing to do in that scene? OK, who would do that sort of thing?"

Focus on the small scale stuff rather than the big picture. No fun having a character with a great backstory if all you do each session is say "I hit the orc with my sword" over and over.

Usually it's enough to come up with a simple character quirk and then let the rest come up in play. For example "posh dwarf." Two words, all you need to know for a fun character.

Quote from: Christopher Brady;1047112Whoa hold on, full stop.  'Level playing field'?  Really?  Random Traveler Lifepath rolls can mean one Player gets a ship.  The second Player gets a missing leg.  This is fair?  This 'level playing field', which by the way means balanced?  And you know what?  You HAVE to use the results, because otherwise, why roll?  Why force this on your players if you're going to be a dick about it.

But in a made up back story (let's be nice, and keep it to a single paragraph, MAYBE half an 8x11 tops) doesn't have to be used, as long as you explain to your players (remember communicate!  This is a cooperative experience/game) what you want, the fact that a player is an exiled Elven Prince and the other is an escaped pirate cabin 'girl' don't really have any impact unless the DM wants it to.

It's beginning to sound like people just don't want to talk to players, but rather force their way onto them and screw the rest of the table.

It's beginning to sound like the 'mary sue' accusations are baseless excuses at this point.

1: Its a different definition of level playing field I think. Not one of characters being all one for one. But rather everyone has the same chances of getting good or bad results and making of it what they will. Similar to how say any RPG where you roll your stats. you are at the whims of the RMG gods. Its not my definition of a level playing field but at this point Im used to terms in gaming no longer having any meaning. "Rifts characters are created on a level playing field." :rolleyes:

2: Depends on the DM and especially the players. Some players expect or outright demand that whats in their background or on their character sheet MUST come into play. Ive lost track of people over on BGG bitching that because they took a PC who was a cleric that the DM MUST provide undead to turn. Or because they had their rangers foe race be Giants that there MUST be giants. ad nausium. Others are not. Its just a background that has potentially zero impact on gameplay. The example I gave prior of the gamma world PC who was an extradimensional being sent to earth had zero impact on the adventure other than those times the player roleplayed doing some scouting or research.

3: It does feel that way sometimes. There is a thread over on BGG with one nut adamant that punishing a (possibly disruptive or just not RPing the way the DM wants) player by doing bad stuff to their PC is the best way to make the player see the error of their ways. Yeah riiiiight.

3.5: Not really. Seen enough rants about this on fora and from DM recountings to know that yeah there really are players who make backgrounds that empower them and practically demand that power. Others are just rather in your face about their backgrounds, but not abusive about it.

As usual. Talk to the players for fucks sake! Explain the settings and lay down some guidelines or at least learn to say "NO" to something over the top and suggest more viable alternatives.

Quote from: RPGPundit;1047243"Yes and" and "No but" are another godawful idea.

Not really.

If someone comes to me with a character concept or backstory that doesnt work I will tell them "No. But if you change this and lower the power of this then it shouldn't be a problem."
Sometimes because the player simply misinterpreted what was allowed or got carried away. That could be as simple as telling someone No. Their 1st level PC can not start with a +3 sword. But a +1 sword might work. But it might have some... heh-heh... quirks.

The DM needs to learn to say "No" but also to work with the players where possible and suggest alternatives.

Example: One player wanted to start with effectively a mecha. I said "No you cant start with that. But there are equivalents in the setting. Have your PC start asking around and researching." same with a player who wanted to start with a spelljammer ship. What we worked out was that the player had a crashed spelljammer that was in dire need of repairs. Not to mention someone to man the helm. The PC was not any sort of caster and neither were any of the other party members. Made a great base od operations though.

Quote from: Christopher Brady;1047260Yes, because someone with a couple of 18s in the right stats they wanted, is going to have EXACTLY the same amount of fun as someone whose highest stat is an 8, maybe 9, and in Charisma, in an edition with no Bard class.  Somehow, magically, they're both going to have the same amount of fun!  Because the Dice said so.

Partially agree there. But must point out that CHA is useful to non bards. One of my longest lived Magic Users best stat was charisma and it was a real life saver.

Quote from: Omega;1047376Partially agree there. But must point out that CHA is useful to non bards. One of my longest lived Magic Users best stat was charisma and it was a real life saver.

Mechanically speaking it tends to be the least used stat, often being relegated to the Henchmen Generator stat.  I'm happy you got to use it effectively.

Quote from: Mike the Mage;1047265Yeah, that's intentional. In fact it's their raison d'etre.

You do realize that Cupcake would simply fudge the dice that removed too much choice, right?

Quote from: AsenRG;1047382You do realize that Cupcake would simply fudge the dice that removed too much choice, right?

The problem, Pumplin, that unlike you, my brain immediately assumes that each question is asked in good faith, so mine are too.  But unfortunately, you seem to already have made up your mind about me, so anything you say cannot be taken seriously, because preconceptions and prejudice colours it.

But whatever boats your float, sweetie.

Quote from: Omega;1047371"Rifts characters are created on a level playing field." :rolleyes:

1. AD&D "Everyone has the same chance to roll well"
2. 3e D&D "Everyone has the same opportunity to build a great PC"
3. 4e D&D "Everyone can make a character who contributes equally in combat"

I guess I want to see PCs who can all contribute meaningfully to whatever the game is about. I like OD&D rolling stats in order, but I want everyone to have a viable PC (which rolling in order usually accomplishes - roll-then-arrange creates big disparities though). Point buy or default array work too, but I'm probably least keen on build-a-bear systems like 3e/PF where success is primarily dependent on character optimisation before play begins. I also dislike 4e style efforts to iron out all differences. Currently I'm most liking OD&D-based Swords & Wizardry where the stat bonuses are pretty limited, I'm also happy with 5e using point buy/array, and 5e with roll-in-order swap-one also works if bad characters can be rerolled.

I'm all for randomization of starting characters, but only if it doesn't cause massive disparities in a player's ability to succeed. In D&D attribute generation terms, I'm fine with rolling 2d6+4, but not 3d6.

As far as backstories go, I used to be a big fan of well written, elaborate backgrounds, but now I'm more in agreement with the idea of 100 words or less. I do love well done lifepath systems, be they random like Traveller or chosen like Burning Wheel. Instead of requesting backgrounds, I've started instead asking the players to define one connection they have with another member of the party. Helps solve my biggest reoccuring issue with the PCs, namely, "why the hell are we sticking together instead of going our separate ways at the nearest convenient location?" Backstories are great, but they rarely provide that sort of connection. If anything, they frequently make it worse.

Quote from: Broken Twin;1047403I'm all for randomization of starting characters, but only if it doesn't cause massive disparities in a player's ability to succeed. In D&D attribute generation terms, I'm fine with rolling 2d6+4, but not 3d6.

As far as backstories go, I used to be a big fan of well written, elaborate backgrounds, but now I'm more in agreement with the idea of 100 words or less. I do love well done lifepath systems, be they random like Traveller or chosen like Burning Wheel. Instead of requesting backgrounds, I've started instead asking the players to define one connection they have with another member of the party. Helps solve my biggest reoccuring issue with the PCs, namely, "why the hell are we sticking together instead of going our separate ways at the nearest convenient location?" Backstories are great, but they rarely provide that sort of connection. If anything, they frequently make it worse.

This was a great innovation in Mongoose Traveller 1e.

Quote from: Heavy Josh;1047408This was a great innovation in Mongoose Traveller 1e.

And in Spirit of the Century before that;).

We seem to have tangented pretty thoroughly to random stats. I'll try to address both subjects a bit.

Quote from: HappyDaze;1047358My players and I prefer all of the randomness to come after play starts. We like balanced characters at character creation as this creates equality of opportunity in play by providing equality of results before play begins. We also know that not everyone goes with this, and we are even willing to forgo it for one-shots, but we all stick with it for any long-term (multiple months or longer) gaming venture.

Quote from: Broken Twin;1047403I'm all for randomization of starting characters, but only if it doesn't cause massive disparities in a player's ability to succeed. In D&D attribute generation terms, I'm fine with rolling 2d6+4, but not 3d6.

Well, in D&D attribute generation terms, it is going to depend on which D&D. oD&D (w/o GH) specifically, and B/X or BECMI to a significant degree, everyone rolling 3d6 in order tends to give a relatively decent character to everyone because the stats (or the stats you are likely to get in BX/BECMI with 3d6 and the given swap rules) just aren't going to be that important -- 75-90% of your character's power is determined by things other than your stats, and (barring a ridiculously improbably character with multiple 3-5s or 16-18s) your overall success rate is not going to be dictated by your stats.

On some level, though, I think the before/after play starts distinction is a somewhat arbitrary line. Your character success is going to be dictated by dice rolls (along with, of course, player decisions), regardless of whether initial stats are included in that list of random rolls. Sometimes, it will be the in-play roll that is more important (sure the difference between rolling an 8 and 13 for Con seems more important because you are aware of it every time your hp total becomes situation-relevant, but the save made while dangling over a lava pit in no-resurrection or needs-body-resurrection play is just as character-career-success determining). Again, depends how important stats are in a given edition.

Quote from: Omega;10473711: Its a different definition of level playing field I think. Not one of characters being all one for one. But rather everyone has the same chances of getting good or bad results and making of it what they will. Similar to how say any RPG where you roll your stats. you are at the whims of the RMG gods. Its not my definition of a level playing field but at this point Im used to terms in gaming no longer having any meaning. "Rifts characters are created on a level playing field." :rolleyes:

There are indeed multiple definitions or frameworks for terms like 'fair' or 'level playing field.' I agree that their in-gaming use can get pretty far afield of any other framework. I certainly don't like or dislike a specific stat generation or character creation model based on whether it fits my personally preferred definition of 'fair' -- frankly going more towards Chris's question of are the players at the table having fun (and being challenged, and getting to make meaningful decisions, etc.).

Quote from: Christopher Brady;1046905You just validated my very argument.  Because very early D&D was very lethal, no one cared about their characters beyond what happened at the table.  Why bother with even a single sentence of a character's history when Bargle could be around the corner?  And let's not forget that this originally based off a War Game, with miniatures and terrain, and small bands of skirmishers with Hero units.  Again, playing pieces like Chess or Monopoly.  I probably should use Chess more, because like in Chess D&D characters all have specific 'moves' that only they can do (typically) like Combat, Magic, Healing and Traps.  At least since the 80's.

Quote from: Toadmaster;1046927But this really isn't how it was, sure many PCs started the game off after materializing in the back corner of a smokey bar, but the back story developed as the game went along. If a PC died in the first session, yeah they were pretty insignificant just like the dozens of redshirts in Star Trek. If they survived for a bit they usually developed, as the player got a feel for the character, or the GM wanted to use something from their background (made up in the present) to provide a way to introduce the PCs to something important.

This is my point, and Toadmaster showcased it well. We all know that 'no one cared about their characters beyond what happened at the table' isn't the case because we were there, at our tables, when it was busy not going down like that. Thus no one is ever convinced by this. We know that what did happen was that we started with simple-to-no backgrounded characters, sent them into the meat-grinder (and yes, each of us had different preferred rules on how lethal we set the meat grinder, no argument that we didn't always use that full on lethal rules in the book), and those that came out at the more survivable levels 3-whatever we did care enough to care about their personalities, hopes, dreams, whatever quirks we gave them, etc.

I will not argue that it is a be all, end all, or a playstyle someone is supposed to want or anything. It is simply a style that is emergent from the ruleset of the first quarter century of the game (I guess one can argue if post-UA 1e and 2e fit the model, but I'd still include them) that has some interesting benefits and reasons to try it (two important ones being an emphasis on in-play developments and avoiding the 'I want to play an heir, where's my bennies?' issues). It's a valid, decent playstyle, superior or inferior to others only as a matter of taste, plus how much one values what each different style incentivizes.

Quote from: AsenRG;1047382You do realize that Cupcake would simply fudge the dice that removed too much choice, right?

Okay, here I'm going to say can we quit doing this? Not to speak ill of the gone-from-here, but that moniker was coined in a fit of curmudgeon-ly frustration, and should have died with the rant/tirade it was imbedded in. We're supposed to be better than that, and use coherent arguments to refute people, not pointless name-calling.

Quote from: Broken Twin;1047403As far as backstories go, I used to be a big fan of well written, elaborate backgrounds, but now I'm more in agreement with the idea of 100 words or less. I do love well done lifepath systems, be they random like Traveller or chosen like Burning Wheel. Instead of requesting backgrounds, I've started instead asking the players to define one connection they have with another member of the party. Helps solve my biggest reoccuring issue with the PCs, namely, "why the hell are we sticking together instead of going our separate ways at the nearest convenient location?" Backstories are great, but they rarely provide that sort of connection. If anything, they frequently make it worse.

And this is why I'm of two minds on backgrounds. Where the promote the ongoing, on-game-session play I like them. Knowing why Fighter Joe sticks with Rogue Jim even after he saw Jim that put everyone's life in jeopardy is useful. Knowing that Fighter Joe is heir to the throne of Flandor and anything the DM hooks to try adventure X from noble Y because they might get a knighthood out of the deal... that's the opposite of useful. Like everything else, there are good things and bad things about backgrounds, and I guess the most useful (useless?) advice is just be really competent in the use thereof.

Quote from: Willie the Duck;1047416And this is why I'm of two minds on backgrounds. Where the promote the ongoing, on-game-session play I like them. Knowing why Fighter Joe sticks with Rogue Jim even after he saw Jim that put everyone's life in jeopardy is useful. Knowing that Fighter Joe is heir to the throne of Flandor and anything the DM hooks to try adventure X from noble Y because they might get a knighthood out of the deal... that's the opposite of useful. Like everything else, there are good things and bad things about backgrounds, and I guess the most useful (useless?) advice is just be really competent in the use thereof.

And there's nothing wrong with combining the two. Rogue Jim could be Fighter Joe's trusted vassal. Or Fighter Joe could be Rogue Jim's double, and it's Jim who's the  actual heir to Flandor. The problem with Fighter Joe being the heir to Flandor in isolation is that the rest of the group has zero reason to care. Especially when they're all heirs/chosen-ones/whatever in their own backstories. I've got little problem with running a game for a cast of snowflakes, as long as there's a good reason they stick together.

Quote from: Christopher Brady;1046464If this is 'Doing it wrong' (But, but, but I thought we didn't do that here...) then fuck you, and I'll keep having my 'BadWrongFun'.

Right On! You are such an illiberal Bad Wrong Fun dude Pundy, back off..

That's why I think if you want people to play a game your way, cough up the cash and pay for their game materials. Sure, run your game how you want, but who cares what other groups decide to do? If people want to play story games that's their own business.

Quote from: Willie the Duck;1047416Okay, here I'm going to say can we quit doing this?

That would require a total change of forum culture, WtD:).
And until and unless I leave Rome for greener pastures, I'm going to do as the Romans;).

QuoteNot to speak ill of the gone-from-here, but that moniker was coined in a fit of curmudgeon-ly frustration, and should have died with the rant/tirade it was imbedded in. We're supposed to be better than that,

Really? Are we?
I haven't got the memo:D!

Quoteand use coherent arguments to refute people, not pointless name-calling.

The post I quoted had an argument, WtD. How I call Chris Brady is totally irrelevant to that, but as I happen to think that "Cupcake" fits him quite well, I plan to keep using it:p.
Of course, my argument is "Cupcake, a.k.a. Chris is playing the game in such a manner that contradicts most notions that most of us hold as natural and self-evident (or, in my case, the notions that I think would make your game better if you tried to incorporate them)". One of them is that dice are meant to limit the player's and Referee's freedom, or why the hell are you using them?
You know, the argument that I had quoted...
But Cupcake is probably just going to fudge things if they get too hard on the players. In fact, I seem to remember him saying that, but it might have been on TBP and frankly, I can't be bothered to search his post history:D!

So, if you want my full argument*, it is: there's no point bothering to argue with Cupcake. He starts from such a different group of basic notions, comparing your games to his games is like comparing Euclidean to Non-Euclidean Geometry.
Also, he's not going to stop trying to argue with you, because he seems to suffer from a chronic inability to see another approach to gaming as anything other than "inherently unfun", or possibly "morally deficient". Cue: Cupcake talking about Random Chargen/Death During Random Encounters.
Conclusion: unless you're playing in the same way as him, it's best just to treat anything he writes as "irrelevant to my gaming". Just let him try and prove his thesis that "Dragonlance-style Dramatist play is Old-School, too, 'cause we played that way":p!
But unless this argument provokes strong feelings within you, don't engage him;)!


*I admit it, I've started to shorten it, because I thought everyone already knows what I'm saying:D!

Quote from: AsenRG;1047439The post I quoted had an argument, WtD. How I call Chris Brady is totally irrelevant to that, but as I happen to think that "Cupcake" fits him quite well, I plan to keep using it:p.

Which is your right, as is mine to plead otherwise. I was asking, not demanding.

And you are right, you did have an argument. I wasn't referencing it because I found nothing objectionable in it.

Quote from: Christopher Brady;1047260Yes, because someone with a couple of 18s in the right stats they wanted, is going to have EXACTLY the same amount of fun as someone whose highest stat is an 8, maybe 9, and in Charisma, in an edition with no Bard class.  Somehow, magically, they're both going to have the same amount of fun!  Because the Dice said so.

Really?  You honestly believe this?  In all my 33 years of gaming and with the small number of people I've gamed with (I've worked it out to about 57, but I may be off as I've forgotten a couple of games, I'm sure of it) they answer is no, they're not.  

Really? Because in roughly the same number of years of gaming, it absolutely makes no fucking difference to fun.  Lots of characters with an 18 or two have died in stupid ways, and lots of characters with 1hp at level 1 have turned out to be long-running super-successful characters.

Maybe if you played Old School D&D you'd get that.

I recall arguments back in the day on how long it was ok for players to spend on the "Will" section of the character sheet.  I definitely recall it turning into a whole background, with as much as thirty minutes on just that.  Ha  Better to let the players that like full background to do their statistical character development first.  So, they have time to think about that part of their character, while those that spend less time on post statistical development in like order.  That's how I handle this type of thing in any game, really.  Everyone usually gets to spend time upon such things as they prefer.  The artists that make sketches usually go first, though, being the most in-depth of the background developers, but they are a rare breed. Some of this approach follows from players never having the game books, requiring player with ref guidance character development.

Quote from: RPGPundit;1047467Really? Because in roughly the same number of years of gaming, it absolutely makes no fucking difference to fun.

You don't strike me as someone self-aware enough actually see this.  It's what makes you an excellent game writer.  You don't care about what others say or think, you just do and successfully sell.

Quote from: RPGPundit;1047467Lots of characters with an 18 or two have died in stupid ways, and lots of characters with 1hp at level 1 have turned out to be long-running super-successful characters.

Random chance works, who knew?  I've seen it happen too, I've also seen players look at their stats and wonder why they bother, because another player gets to do it all, because random chance allows them to.  And the thing is, they're not angry at someone else, they're sad, frustrated, or just bored, because they don't get to do anything.  And looking back on the years of my gaming...  Boredom is the number one killers of random rolls for stats or backgrounds.  The fact that you're the odd man out, and sitting at the table, and flipping through the books because there's really nothing you can do to contribute, because the guy with the high stat is better and to choose someone else would just get the rest of the party killed.

You go to the best tool for the job, otherwise you might get hurt.

Quote from: RPGPundit;1047467Maybe if you played Old School D&D you'd get that.

Why?  Why should I limit myself to a single style of game, when I can buy more, and support the hobby and experience new things with it?

I've played a little of Rules Cyclopedia, I remember a game of White Box, my first DM's used AD&D 1e and my longest D&D campaign is a toss up between 2 and 3e.  I've even tried 4e and now I'm part of the 5e Adventure League.  And between those, I've had the immeasurable good luck to try FATE, Amber, Palladium Games, some White Wolf ones, Traveler and many, many others.

Why must I go with a supposed style that from what I can tell, never existed?  Tropes of it did, and a lot of stories, but 'The One True Way' doesn't.  No matter how much you seem to think it does.

I have a player that often loses his character sheets, but he never loses his sketch book (should just keep them together....).  As long as he has his character sketch, he isn't concerned.  So, we just write it up again based on the drawing, and his character is back gaming.  Too much worry over stats in your write-up above Chris. Just not that big of a deal.  Maybe look how you're reffing that brings players to approach games as you describe.

Quote from: Willie the Duck;1047466Which is your right, as is mine to plead otherwise. I was asking, not demanding.

Sure, and in different circumstances, I might have joined your call. I just don't see it working.

QuoteAnd you are right, you did have an argument. I wasn't referencing it because I found nothing objectionable in it.

Then why did you say outright that I am not "us[ing] coherent arguments to refute people, [but] pointless name-calling"?

Quote from: Kuroth;1047473I have a player that often loses his character sheets, but he never loses his sketch book (should just keep them together....).  As long as he has his character sketch, he isn't concerned.  So, we just write it up again based on the drawing, and his character is back gaming.  Too much worry over stats in your write-up above Chris. Just not that big of a deal.  Maybe look how you're reffing that brings players to approach games as you describe.

We need a "like" button;).
Also, I wondered briefly what kind of game he is playing that players with low stats can never hope to do anything the high-stat isn't going to do better. Then I pieced together an answer, and if I'm right...Cupcake is right, his style of game does work better with point-buy, IME:D!
But hey, it's not like he doesn't have other systems to do it with. Why he insists on inserting that argument in threads about old-school D&D is beyond me;).

Quote from: Christopher Brady;1047470Random chance works, who knew?  I've seen it happen too, I've also seen players look at their stats and wonder why they bother, because another player gets to do it all, because random chance allows them to.  

You're utterly ridiculous. The difference between a character with an 18 or two and a character with no stats above +0 is literally 3 points of difference. Which become less and less significant as characters go up in level.

There is no one short of a narcissistic self-absorbed idiot who would think their character is 'useless' compared to another character because of that difference.

Quote from: RPGPundit;1047477You're utterly ridiculous. The difference between a character with an 18 or two and a character with no stats above +0 is literally 3 points of difference. Which become less and less significant as characters go up in level.

Have you ever played an older edition?  Or only YOUR 'edition', cuz a 5% increase, especially 10-15% chance is a big jump in success.  Especially on a d20.

Quote from: RPGPundit;1047477There is no one short of a narcissistic self-absorbed idiot who would think their character is 'useless' compared to another character because of that difference.

If you have to resort to insults, rather than refuting my point with valid evidence...  I've proven my point.

Can I be Bundt Cake? :) Or Deathcake Luchador? :cool:

Quote from: AsenRG;1047476Then why did you say outright that I am not "us[ing] coherent arguments to refute people, [but] pointless name-calling"?

Because it was the name calling I was referencing. Yes, you had argumentation. I would prefer the name calling go away, if for no other reason than it seems to (in his own mind) validate him.

Quote from: Christopher Brady;1047478If you have to resort to insults, rather than refuting my point with valid evidence...  I've proven my point.

See? Like that. Although you know what, never mind. I don't know why I think being fairer to him about mean names will change anything.

Honestly, word to the wise, Chris -- and this is from exclusively a 'successfully convince anyone else' viewpoint--and opinion-- this is you doing you a disservice. Your audience decides if you have proven your point. Anyone I have ever seen who has declared it to be the case has been wrong. Usually very, very wrong.

Quote from: Christopher Brady;1047470Random chance works, who knew?  I've seen it happen too, I've also seen players look at their stats and wonder why they bother, because another player gets to do it all, because random chance allows them to.  And the thing is, they're not angry at someone else, they're sad, frustrated, or just bored, because they don't get to do anything.  And looking back on the years of my gaming...  Boredom is the number one killers of random rolls for stats or backgrounds.  The fact that you're the odd man out, and sitting at the table, and flipping through the books because there's really nothing you can do to contribute, because the guy with the high stat is better and to choose someone else would just get the rest of the party killed.

I've played a number of random generated stats games, and only one remotely has issues as you describe. That would be AD&D where only 15-18 really do anything, with 18/xx Strength being the primary culprit, followed by Con but those really only apply to fighters. Most games will say right up front that a player rolling up truly sad stats should be allowed to roll again. Even with AD&D where stats admittedly could be an issue, it really never seemed to be much of one.

I am a fan of several point buy systems, and the lack of randomization does not eliminate the problem of some PCs being more useful than others. Some people are just better at min / maxing and gaming the system whether randomly rolled or total control of the design. Players who are going to pout because they are not the best of the best of the best are always going to be an issue.  

Quote from: Opaopajr;1047517Can I be Bundt Cake? :) Or Deathcake Luchador? :cool:

I vote for Deathcake, that sounds pretty serious.

Quote from: Willie the Duck;1047522Honestly, word to the wise, Chris -- and this is from exclusively a 'successfully convince anyone else' viewpoint--and opinion-- this is you doing you a disservice. Your audience decides if you have proven your point. Anyone I have ever seen who has declared it to be the case has been wrong. Usually very, very wrong.

If someone has to resort to insults, rather than refuting a point, then they don't have anything left of say of value.

Quote from: Toadmaster;1047560I've played a number of random generated stats games, and only one remotely has issues as you describe. That would be AD&D where only 15-18 really do anything, with 18/xx Strength being the primary culprit, followed by Con but those really only apply to fighters. Most games will say right up front that a player rolling up truly sad stats should be allowed to roll again. Even with AD&D where stats admittedly could be an issue, it really never seemed to be much of one.

I am a fan of several point buy systems, and the lack of randomization does not eliminate the problem of some PCs being more useful than others. Some people are just better at min / maxing and gaming the system whether randomly rolled or total control of the design. Players who are going to pout because they are not the best of the best of the best are always going to be an issue.

I've seen it too many times, I've had it happen twice to myself in having the good stats, and once having the worst stats.  I found that my players and I were pretty bored when we didn't have a chance to participate because, logically, another player could do the same thing but much better chance to succeed.

Quote from: S'mon;10473981. AD&D "Everyone has the same chance to roll well"
2. 3e D&D "Everyone has the same opportunity to build a great PC"
3. 4e D&D "Everyone can make a character who contributes equally in combat"

I guess I want to see PCs who can all contribute meaningfully to whatever the game is about. I like OD&D rolling stats in order, but I want everyone to have a viable PC (which rolling in order usually accomplishes - roll-then-arrange creates big disparities though). Point buy or default array work too, but I'm probably least keen on build-a-bear systems like 3e/PF where success is primarily dependent on character optimisation before play begins. I also dislike 4e style efforts to iron out all differences. Currently I'm most liking OD&D-based Swords & Wizardry where the stat bonuses are pretty limited, I'm also happy with 5e using point buy/array, and 5e with roll-in-order swap-one also works if bad characters can be rerolled.

Wait, what's wrong with roll-then-arrange? Doesn't that give them a chance to smooth over issues?

Quote from: mAcular Chaotic;1047574Wait, what's wrong with roll-then-arrange? Doesn't that give them a chance to smooth over issues?

Because it's not 'old school' enough for those who gate keep the OSR title.

Old school is not giving a fuck when others decline to validate/support your opinions.

Quote from: mAcular Chaotic;1047574Wait, what's wrong with roll-then-arrange? Doesn't that give them a chance to smooth over issues?

It's just variable point buy - you get the samey PCs as with point buy, only some are much better than others.

Roll in order has much less of an issue with different rolls because the allocation is non-optimised, and you get IMO more interesting PCs with eg high STR + INT rather than high STR + CON.

Quote from: Christopher Brady;1047581Because it's not 'old school' enough for those who gate keep the OSR title.

I don't really consider myself proper OSR Taleban like EOTB here, but the image of S'mon as a gate-keeping ogre maintaining the Purity of Gygax is quite enjoyable. :D

Quote from: S'mon;1047603I don't really consider myself proper OSR Taleban like EOTB here, but the image of S'mon as a gate-keeping ogre maintaining the Purity of Gygax is quite enjoyable. :D

There is no OSR tally-ban.  Just some guys who have strong opinions/personal preferences - different story.  

I don't want everyone to use the same tool for different stuff, and for one, am glad for games that attract people out of TSR editions of D&D into games more suited to them, rather than agitating against what TSR D&D editions are because they wish them to be something else.

Where other people want the biggest tent possible, I'm all for smaller tents from sea to shining sea.

I can think something absolutely sucks and simultaneously thank the sweet lord it exists, so that I don't have some pouting player blowing tears over a level drain.

Likewise, certain gamers can be ever thankful that they won't get an asshole DM like me because I won't run the systems they like.

Win-win.

My Lion & Dragon group today had a really good laugh at this notion that characters without high stats or high hit points are just useless and can't be fun to play at all.

They were all playing tonight with their backup characters, all of which had between 1-3 hit points at level 0 when they started, and now have between 4-6 hp at level 2.  They were in an adventure today where they were going in blind against a significantly stronger group of opponents (frogmen) and yet they all got out alive and had a great time.

Quote from: Willie the Duck;1047522Because it was the name calling I was referencing. Yes, you had argumentation. I would prefer the name calling go away, if for no other reason than it seems to (in his own mind) validate him.

Man, there was a more innocent, calmer time when I'd have agreed with you...:)
Today? Today I just think if it's not the name-calling, he'd come up with another reason why he's right. It doesn't matter, so I'm fine giving Cupcake all the reasons an easy out...
Besides, if you think Cupcake equals name-calling, you've never heard me when I'm angry:D!

QuoteSee? Like that.

Yeah, now I see. Sorry, I'm not going to thank you for that:p!

QuoteAlthough you know what, never mind. I don't know why I think being fairer to him about mean names will change anything.

Precisely my thoughts.

Quote from: EOTB;1047592Old school is not giving a fuck when others decline to validate/support your opinions.

Wow, I'd never realised how old-school I really am:D!
And I don't mean just games, either...:p

Quote from: EOTB;1047611There is no OSR tally-ban.  Just some guys who have strong opinions/personal preferences - different story.  

I don't want everyone to use the same tool for different stuff, and for one, am glad for games that attract people out of TSR editions of D&D into games more suited to them, rather than agitating against what TSR D&D editions are because they wish them to be something else.

Where other people want the biggest tent possible, I'm all for smaller tents from sea to shining sea.

I can think something absolutely sucks and simultaneously thank the sweet lord it exists, so that I don't have some pouting player blowing tears over a level drain.

Likewise, certain gamers can be ever thankful that they won't get an asshole DM like me because I won't run the systems they like.

Win-win.

Likewise;).

Quote from: RPGPundit;1047652My Lion & Dragon group today had a really good laugh at this notion that characters without high stats or high hit points are just useless and can't be fun to play at all.

Yeah, my group also had a field day when I told them that. They also made some uncharitable assumptions about the kind of games the GM is running.
Then I told them the guy who said them was the GM.
I'm not going to repeat their conclusions, because that would name-calling;)!