|
11 months ago ::
Jul 25, 2012 - 6:43PM
#1
|
|
|
A lot of good DM advocates letting the players contribute to the story. Have them suggest bits and pieces, or throw in some "maybe this happened, then this", or "while I was away, I....", etc.
Except with my current group, this approach simply doesn't work. All but two of them (one, really) have no interest in creating backgrounds, story elements or the like. They are very tactical players, and while they will roleplay a tiny bit, they are generally quiet during non-combat encounters.
As someone who runs almost all homemade adventures, I've always felt it important that a DM write for group he has. Thus, I put in fewer role-playing encounters, and have most of them be of the combat or trap varieties.
I do what I can to encourage roleplaying, but with very limited success. I'm almost always DM but have been a player a few times and laid on the roleplaying very thick, to try to spark more. Ah, well.
Two questions:
Do you think it's ok if one of the players does most of the roleplaying/speaking for the party? The rest are happy to throw their opinions in on tactics, but generally have little or nothing to say outside of combat unless I ask them pointed questions directly.
Would you, as a DM, be content with creating almost all the story yourself, with little to no creative input from the group? They always seem to enjoy what I come up with, and I've tried forcing them to create backstories, and building a campaign around them, but received mildly enthusiastic reactions at best.
|
|
|
|
11 months ago ::
Jul 25, 2012 - 7:39PM
#2
|
|
|
I've actually faced something almost identical to what you're describing. Personally here's how I handled it/what I think.
For your first question, I think it's fine that one PC does the majority, because everyone seems to be happy with it. If everyone is enjoying it and having fun (yourself included of course), then it's okay. Maybe try throwing a few things that you think may excite the other PCs just to see if you can interest them, but if they don't bite, that's fine too.
Regarding the story creation, I've enjoyed times when my players have helped develop the story or world, because I really enjoy the collaboration and the effort of all telling a story together. But I've also played in a game where my players were not that interested in developing and just wanted to be told a story and interact with it. In that case I just work with what they've given and instead of relying on backgrounds that they have created, I use past events in the game (maybe they attacked someone important and as a result X, Y, and Z happens). That way it's still interesting and still involves the PC and the character's life...even if they didn't write it per se.
|
|
|
|
11 months ago ::
Jul 25, 2012 - 7:55PM
#3
|
Date Joined:
Jul 21, 2004
|
I might have been, once, but not anymore.
Actually, I still do a lot of creation on my own, but I know that if I get stuck on something it's ok, and actually a very good idea to ask my players what is happening around them, or what something means, or other details.
"Forcing" the players to do anything is not a good approach. If one wants to roleplay, nothing can stop them. If they don't want to roleplay, nothing can make them. I'll roleplay a boardgame without even thinking about it, but if someone tells me to write a backstory I'll shut down.
The key to engagement is to ask questions leading. There's a notice on the door: what does it say? You've seen this person before: where? Something he just said piques your interest: what was it? From the responses, not only do you get hooks for taking the game in a direction even you weren't intending, but you're guaranteed that the players who answered those questions will be interested to see what their answers lead to.
By the way, "roleplaying" is not just "speaking." Tactical combat is full of roleplaying opportunities, in (if nothing else) the ways in which the characters choose and pursue goals. This can be hard to see if the only goals are "stay alive" and "kill all the opponents," so try interspersing some other goals. What if one of the monsters has a task to complete and if it completes in then the players suffer a setback both in the combat and in the larger quest? They'll have to decide if it's worth trying to kill that creature in the round or so they have, or if they had better take care of the larger threats first. Yes, this can be handled tactically, but you have a chance to see the players considering story consequences instead of just player consequences.
[N]o difference is less easily overcome than the difference of opinion about semi-abstract questions. - L. Tolstoy
|
|
|
|
11 months ago ::
Jul 25, 2012 - 9:50PM
#4
|
|
|
As someone who runs almost all homemade adventures, I've always felt it important that a DM write for group he has.
Yes, that's a good idea.
I do what I can to encourage roleplaying, but with very limited success. I'm almost always DM but have been a player a few times and laid on the roleplaying very thick, to try to spark more. Ah, well.
Could you define what you refer to as "roleplaying?" It has a lot of different meanings to people.
Do you think it's ok if one of the players does most of the roleplaying/speaking for the party?
Sure. But not all of the conversation of the game is a given player interacting with an NPC or making a decision at a plot point. Sometimes it's just what a character thinks about something or what they think is going to happen next. Or what the source of that weird smell and clicking sound really is.
The rest are happy to throw their opinions in on tactics, but generally have little or nothing to say outside of combat unless I ask them pointed questions directly.
In the style being advocated, you should ask them questions, by being genuinely curious about what they're doing, why it matters to them, and what their characters think about things or other characters. I try to make my games a flowing conversation. It's a skill like any other GMing skill - it requires practice. Once you've done it enough, it's perfectly natural and every player I've seen at my table, online or otherwise, gets right into it. Before you know it, there is a ton of fiction being created as everyone bounces off each other's ideas. All of these ideas are very useful to the GM.
Would you, as a DM, be content with creating almost all the story yourself, with little to no creative input from the group?
I have done it. I probably won't do it again. Certain issues crop up in this style of play and often one of them is lack of player engagement. If I see players that are solely focused on the combat or are not interested in what's going on, I take that as a symptom of bad design or delivery on my part by and large.
They always seem to enjoy what I come up with, and I've tried forcing them to create backstories, and building a campaign around them, but received mildly enthusiastic reactions at best.
Backstories are best when they come about through character to character interaction or through Q&A as part of the conversation. Bob throws down a power card and declares several enemies around him dead as disco. "Wow, that was a great move and all around you spurts the gore of your foes. Where did Ragnar learn such a powerful maneuver?" Bob can say anything he wants right now and *poof*, it now exists in the world, provided it builds on established fiction. His answer might raise one or two follow-up questions from the GM. Within just a short interaction, you know that Ragnar was actually raised by monks and that the monastery was burned down by orcs some time ago. You as GM have some new story to work with, as do the other players who might build upon that when asked questions next. And you're sure Bob's going to be interested in it because he made it up, so you use it... orcs are in the next adventure, or monks, or an NPC survivor of the attack on the monastery with important news.
Long story short, backstories written beforehand are okay for creative constraint and to bring the motivations of a character into focus, but they can also be a way to paint yourself into some very uninteresting corners. If you just establish that stuff in play organically, as it happens, after a few sessions, you will have some really fleshed out characters and a story that involves elements that the players really enjoy - because they came up with them together.
|
|
|
|
11 months ago ::
Jul 26, 2012 - 9:39AM
#5
|
Date Joined:
Jun 16, 2004
|
One of the things I've done (which I consider the single best thing I've ever done as a DM) is to ask for what I call Threes.
Three Virtues and Three Vices
Three Friends and Three Enemies
Three Past Defining Events and Three Future Goals.
Its nowhere near as extensive as a backstory (you can probably do them all on one page). Yet, for a DM, it provides all sorts of wonderful stuff, and helps the player grasp their own character.
Gold is for the mistress, silver for the maid Copper for the craftsman, cunning at his trade." "Good!" said the Baron, sitting in his hall, "But Iron -- Cold Iron -- is master of them all." -Kipling Defenders: We ARE the wall! I've replaced the previous Edition Warring line in my sig with this one, because honestly, everybody needs to work together to make the D&D they like without trampling on somebody else's D&D. Miss d20 Modern? Take a look at Dias Ex Machina Game's UltraModern 4e! I am a hero, not a chump.
|
|
|
|
11 months ago ::
Jul 26, 2012 - 9:41AM
#6
|
Date Joined:
Oct 11, 2010
|
@Ogiwan That is pretty much full of win. Stolen.
Wizards of the Coast can suck it.
|
|
|
|
11 months ago ::
Jul 26, 2012 - 10:02AM
#7
|
Date Joined:
Jul 21, 2004
|
One of the things I've done (which I consider the single best thing I've ever done as a DM) is to ask for what I call Threes.
Three Virtues and Three Vices
Three Friends and Three Enemies
Three Past Defining Events and Three Future Goals.
Its nowhere near as extensive as a backstory (you can probably do them all on one page). Yet, for a DM, it provides all sorts of wonderful stuff, and helps the player grasp their own character.
Yes, that's very cool, but if it's forced on a player, it's not going to get much of anywhere.
[N]o difference is less easily overcome than the difference of opinion about semi-abstract questions. - L. Tolstoy
|
|
|
|
11 months ago ::
Jul 26, 2012 - 11:05AM
#8
|
|
|
One of the things I've done (which I consider the single best thing I've ever done as a DM) is to ask for what I call Threes.
Three Virtues and Three Vices
Three Friends and Three Enemies
Three Past Defining Events and Three Future Goals.
Its nowhere near as extensive as a backstory (you can probably do them all on one page). Yet, for a DM, it provides all sorts of wonderful stuff, and helps the player grasp their own character.
Yes, that's very cool, but if it's forced on a player, it's not going to get much of anywhere.
This. Ogiwan, it's great advice. But honestly, for some of my players it's a struggle getting them to come up with anything more than a character name. "Three Past Defining Events and Three Future Goals" would seem like a massively unfun homework assignment to most of them, and my group is all aged mid 30's and up.
|
|
|
|
11 months ago ::
Jul 26, 2012 - 11:11AM
#9
|
Date Joined:
May 14, 2010
|
Bah. Remember, it's not just about the players. If you aren't having fun, that is not alright either.
Throw some stuff at those players and force the issue. Say there's this big negotiation going on. Your one player who deals with everything has been doing his job. Well, the ones he is talking to notice that the others don't say anything. "And what about them? Are they here for decoration, or do they do whatever you say?"
It may be that they don't feel stimulated during these times.
|
|
|
|
11 months ago ::
Jul 26, 2012 - 11:15AM
#10
|
Date Joined:
Feb 20, 2011
|
Yes, that's very cool, but if it's forced on a player, it's not going to get much of anywhere.
This is key. It's good practice to ask for things like this, but don't demand it. Personally, I'd be happy with one of each, two would be awesome. I'm also more interested in what a character wants than what he did before the game excepting only how it relates to his/her current goals.
Regarding original question: in the broadest sense, I want to do the setting and let the players do the story. I like setting up situations and introducing NPCs with their own motives and see what the players do with that. This is something at which I've grown more adept as the campaign advances. I do throw out hooks now and then, but carefully as my group WILL take a hook.
Iserith's idea of dynamically filling in the past is not only effective, but fun. Some of the more memorable backstory tidbits have come from that. Usually along the lines of: "You've seen something like this before, tell us about that." Frequently I get not only fun information but "world-changing" ideas.
|
|
|
