I am using the subplots as well. At the moment I am DM-ing Savage Tide and try to include a mini adventure for each PC in each chapter of the Savage Tide. So far this has paid off wonderfully. Everybody feels involved, and I try to link the subplots to the main plot so as to keep the PC's interested in the main plot. It has created a very lively campaign so far.
If players are interested in prestige classes, specific skills and feats and specific weapons, I try to insert them in the storyline as well.
In this light I would like to suggest the value of sub-stories. Before I start a new campaign each player has the option of developing a detailed history for his character....
[emphasis mine]
I think you've hit on a very important point here, that being the option of making such a history. I went through a DMing phase recently where I really tried to get every player to make a relatively complicated background for their PC. This ran into several problems. First, not every player wanted that kind of history. They didn't want to get shoehorned into something at character creation which would limit their ability to develop over the course of the campaign (or, more basically for some, they just couldn't think of anything). Second, I found myself having trouble getting all the main-arc adventures I wanted to coincide well with all the backstory-related adventures which I had found myself obliged to create by requesting so many backstories. This may have taken the form of the players coming up with a story which I didn't have any ideas for, a story which didn't really work well with the overall plot of the campaign, or a story which made little sense for the other PCs to get involved in (which is a problem since I don't like separating the party). So, I've sense backed off of that requirement.
I still want a reason for any given PC to be heading into the dungeon, or wherever their initial adventure takes them. I detest peasant farmer boys who suddenly got an urge to go see the world, somehow found both martial training and the equipment with which to implement it, and are now ready for fortune and glory with no other explanation. That being said, if one doesn't wish it, one doesn't have to have more than a paragraph explaining what particular circumstances separate the PC from more common folk and has led them to a life of adventure.
The important part is the word option.
Second, I found myself having trouble getting all the main-arc adventures I wanted to coincide well with all the backstory-related adventures which I had found myself obliged to create by requesting so many backstories.
That's why I create no "main arc" of my own, instead I take all the PCs' backstories together and weave them into what's going to be the world's metaplot (so rather than "backstories", the PCs' stories become the -main- story.
Of course, this requires that the PCs have all concepts which are at least remotely compatible, but as a GM that's a requirement I ask of all my players: All character concepts must be compatible with the kind of adventure we're going to run AND must be compatible also with each other (no giant robots/girls-from-outer-space/supervillains in my urban crime-fighters game and that's final).
|
I am using the subplots as well. At the moment I am DM-ing Savage Tide and try to include a mini adventure for each PC in each chapter of the Savage Tide. So far this has paid off wonderfully. Everybody feels involved, and I try to link the subplots to the main plot so as to keep the PC's interested in the main plot. It has created a very lively campaign so far.
If players are interested in prestige classes, specific skills and feats and specific weapons, I try to insert them in the storyline as well.
I try to do this.
My prob is keeping it all organized. I'm a mess.
Second, I found myself having trouble getting all the main-arc adventures I wanted to coincide well with all the backstory-related adventures which I had found myself obliged to create by requesting so many backstories.That's why I create no "main arc" of my own, instead I take all the PCs' backstories together and weave them into what's going to be the world's metaplot (so rather than "backstories", the PCs' stories become the -main- story.
Of course, this requires that the PCs have all concepts which are at least remotely compatible, but as a GM that's a requirement I ask of all my players: All character concepts must be compatible with the kind of adventure we're going to run AND must be compatible also with each other (no giant robots/girls-from-outer-space/supervillains in my urban crime-fighters game and that's final).
You know, for some reason, I'd never thought of this. As one of the "whippersnappers" of the boards, I've come up during the days of computer and video games, and Paizo AP. To me, it's always seemed like the options were "random adventures" with little connecting plot, perhaps one evolving as the campaign progresses; or "adventure path" style, where everything is more or less scripted and written out beforehand, and the PCs just need to figure out how to fit themselves into it. My players are of the same age and thus have come to the table with the same expectations. Next time I start a new campaign, I'll use this approach! Thanks.
I have a questionairae (101 questions) that my players fill out at the start of a campaign.
I used to do histories but I would hit the wall of the non writers, If we needed to make a change to a backstory we have allowed that to adapt to.
The questionaire fleshes things out, without boxing them in. I designed it around the idea of running a sandbox style campaigns game and basing the plot outline around those characters.
What I usually do is give the players one clue to base their back story on. I use clues like this:
"You are in the capital city and for some reason you want to leave there urgently and not via legal channels."
For the rest I leave the players free to write whatever they want, as long as they use this one fact. The nice thing is that their backstory is then mostly compatible with the campaign, and that the players get inspired and are not at a loss where to begin.
The second thing I do is that I do not write the whole PC adventures at the start of the campaign. Instead, I try to add an incident per player per adventure and see how the players react to that incident. Depending on their reaction I adapt the story and add a new incident in the next adventure.
One advantage of this is that the backstory can more easily be adapted to the main story, because since the main story is already happening around them, the players do their own combining (e.g. by involving NPCs from the main plot into their own background plot).
Another advantage is that I can easily see whether a player is interested in the backstory at all. If a player does not do anything with the backstory, I know that I do not need to work it out further and I do not get frustrated because I have written a plotline I cannot use. Moreover the player does not get frustrated because he is forced to follow a story he does not like.
I am still experimenting with this, but so far it seems to work well. The nice thing is that player actions inspire me, and my little plot fragments inspire the players. This really creates a feeling that we are creating the story together.
|
I've seen this done and played and DMed this way a couple of times. My thoughts are that it is a completely viable and great way to bring people into the plot. It's one of the hardest to run, but can be one of the most rewarding to a group of creative people. It helps build everyone's creativity, and gets the players more involved in the game.
That being said, I'd like to add in some downsides I've seen to this method.
1) After you've done this method once or twice, it becomes quite hard to get people to play any other way. If anyone ever wants to run a game with a large story arc and does not wish to include every players stories, you end up with bitter players. A DM needs to be upfront on how much background they'll take for their campaign, and be ready to dismiss characters that may have larger or divergent "mini" stories than the adventure itself. Many times DM's have mishandled this part, sometimes changing entires campaigns in some awkward way, and other times just dropping their campaign's alltogether (which solves the problem, but isn't so fun for the DM every time).
2) The "Way too epic" background. Example: "I was a god who was punished by being trapped in an elf and losing all my powers, until they accidentally manifested at the perfect moment (AKA almost every fight at 2nd level)". There's usually one player who wants to be Thor, and they'll write some gigantic background, and the whole game you'll have to reign them in. If you turn them down, they're discouraged. I had to do this with some of my players, and the best solution is to ask for a Willie Loman (Death of a Salesman) type background of the common person (if you are starting at low levels, of course). That way everyone's on the same playing field, and you don't have to worry about Epic spells at level 3.
3) The simple fact some people are better at writing than others. The sad truth is that we're not all Ernest Hemingway or R.A. Salvatore. Someone always writes the best story, or the closest to the DM's style, and they end up the "hero". The game is spent with more time on their plot, more centered on them, and they get more "air" time. Some players don't mind, others will get bored and quit. This is the hardest part to fix, as it's human nature.
4) Finally, RPG's don't run like books. In a book, it's okay to centre on one person and have the action revolve around him. In RPG's, you're a spotlight hog if you do so. Backgrounds are usually written as the person being the hero, and when you have 4 different heroes all with intrinsic backgrounds, it can be tough to get it all done. This is made worse if one players writes a more realistic, albeit subdued background next to the "I am a deposed prince dragon hunter" character. The DM has to be mindful that everyone gets their time to shine in this case, and be able to turn even the lowliest out there into someone grand.
That's what I've seen in these types of games. Good luck to anyone who tries it, just be ready for a tougher game to run than a normal, one story arc game.
The sad truth is that we're not all ... R.A. Salvatore.
Thank god. What's so sad about that? :)
We have to fill out a fairly detailed character history form at the start of each new campaign, and it drives me totally mental. I keep grumbling about how it's asking the wrong questions. Plus, most of that stuff never gets used, or gets tossed in favor of something that makes more sense once we actually start playing and really get a feel for the characters. History is one thing. I see the value in having at least a vague idea of where you came from. But most of the best character quirks happen as a result of play and I find it very constricting having to assign those kind of things ahead of time. And I recently ended up complaining about how they never get used anyways. Which is just frustrating when you're working with a sandbox game rather than an adventure path. Basically I think that using character histories can be a great tool, but if it's making the players crazy, then it's time to back off a bit.
|
Its always good to throw in that perky History as it happens bit like: 'The Swords of Yellow Rose all perished when a dragon attacked their castle last year.' That way when Jamulat the last of the Yellow Rose Swordsmen shows up riding the Dragon they will think maybe he was behind the destruction of his fellows.
Frankly I'm surprised we dont start up an Almanac of Yearly Events like the nifty one for the Mystaran setting.
1) After you've done this method once or twice, it becomes quite hard to get people to play any other way.
lol indeed, I can no longer play or GM any other way. Guilty as charged. Fortunately, so does my gaming table, so we're all ok with it. :)
2) The "Way too epic" background. Example: "I was a god who was punished by being trapped in an elf and losing all my powers, until they accidentally manifested at the perfect moment (AKA almost every fight at 2nd level)".
...and a blessing of cherripicking the people we invite to our table, we have no muchkings that would pester us with such kind of obnoxious "backgrounds". o_o;
3) The simple fact some people are better at writing than others. The sad truth is that we're not all Ernest Hemingway or R.A. Salvatore.
True that, and even those who can write use to get writers' block now and then. What I do is hand my players a questionarie, and then give them from 1 to 2 weeks to answer before we move to rolling the dice for character creation. I don't ask for much, I just want PCs to have friends (and enemies if possible), family, and goals.
Someone always writes the best story, or the closest to the DM's style, and they end up the "hero". The game is spent with more time on their plot, more centered on them, and they get more "air" time.
If a particular player comforms the best to the GM's style, he'll end up hogging the spotlight, that's inevitable, all GMs are meritocrats, no ifs ands or buts (and the ones who tell you "there's room for everyone in my game" are the worst of the bunch, they combine being the most biased GMs with a perpetual state of denial). And that's why, as a GM, it's your duty to inform your players of your preferences and what's the game going to be about, that way they can chose whether they want in the game or not.
<clipped out lots of good stuff to get to the really nice closer>
....And that's why, as a GM, it's your duty to inform your players of your preferences and what's the game going to be about, that way they can chose whether they want in the game or not.
Really good advice. It curbs alot of arguements and disagreements on the outset.
wasgreg
Modera, you have mentioned a number of interesting points about this method of playing.
1) After you've done this method once or twice, it becomes quite hard to get people to play any other way. If anyone ever wants to run a game with a large story arc and does not wish to include every players stories, you end up with bitter players. A DM needs to be upfront on how much background they'll take for their campaign, and be ready to dismiss characters that may have larger or divergent "mini" stories than the adventure itself. Many times DM's have mishandled this part, sometimes changing entires campaigns in some awkward way, and other times just dropping their campaign's alltogether (which solves the problem, but isn't so fun for the DM every time).
True. I am very lucky that I like to DM in this way, and my players like to play in this way. We have become used to each other's style.
2) The "Way too epic" background. Example: "I was a god who was punished by being trapped in an elf and losing all my powers, until they accidentally manifested at the perfect moment (AKA almost every fight at 2nd level)". There's usually one player who wants to be Thor, and they'll write some gigantic background, and the whole game you'll have to reign them in. If you turn them down, they're discouraged. I had to do this with some of my players, and the best solution is to ask for a Willie Loman (Death of a Salesman) type background of the common person (if you are starting at low levels, of course). That way everyone's on the same playing field, and you don't have to worry about Epic spells at level 3.
I think this can be prevented. I always tell my players that the background has to be "approved" by me. However, I try to get along with their ideas as much as possible, barring extremes. The adaptations I usually have to make are things like "an elf coming out of a region where there are no elves in my campaign world". Usually I still try to write around this problem. Perhaps the elf was adopted, etc. All of this in consultation with the player.
So far none of my players has written a story about being a god. Not even a prince. I am lucky that my PCs like the grittier backgrounds and the problematic histories. Most of them have shady background stories, or enemies from the past. But I can imagine that this happens, and this is indeed a problem.But then again, as a DM you know your PCs. And as DM you would probably be able to judge whether this method is feasible for your group. It is not the kind of thing I would do with a group of new players. I would first like to see how they play.
3) The simple fact some people are better at writing than others. The sad truth is that we're not all Ernest Hemingway or R.A. Salvatore. Someone always writes the best story, or the closest to the DM's style, and they end up the "hero". The game is spent with more time on their plot, more centered on them, and they get more "air" time. Some players don't mind, others will get bored and quit. This is the hardest part to fix, as it's human nature.
True. I have one player who always writes 8 to 9 pages of background story, another who writes half a page. Yet sometimes this half a page has more information I can work with than the 9 pages. If players cannot write at all, I would consult with that player about his or her past, and probably make some suggestions.
The other problem (a PC ending up as the hero) was to a certain extent present in my previous campaign. Two characters were clearly the "heroes". I try to prevent this in my new campaign by consistently adding one plot element per character per adventure. So in every adventure every character gets one subplot. This means that for some characters I have to invent extra subplots, since they have a limited background story. It also means that for other characters I have to scrap scenes, because they have too much background.There is also this possible problem: some players react to the story elements, other do not. Some want to be confronted with their past, some do not want this at all. Some want risky incidents to happen to their charactes, others feel uncomfortable with that. I have discovered that as the DM I continually have to be aware of these differences, and to adapt my plotlines accordingly. This can mean that one PC is stalked by an assassin, while another is just receiving an inheritance or has to help a relative, depending on the PC.
4) Finally, RPG's don't run like books. In a book, it's okay to centre on one person and have the action revolve around him. In RPG's, you're a spotlight hog if you do so. Backgrounds are usually written as the person being the hero, and when you have 4 different heroes all with intrinsic backgrounds, it can be tough to get it all done. This is made worse if one players writes a more realistic, albeit subdued background next to the "I am a deposed prince dragon hunter" character. The DM has to be mindful that everyone gets their time to shine in this case, and be able to turn even the lowliest out there into someone grand.
That is absolutely true. Sometimes I am timing scenes with my watch, in order to see that everybody roughly gets as much screen time. I also tend to switch a lot between players, so that one player does not hog the limelight. It is not an easy way to DM. However, I have found out it is a lot of fun. I have also noticed that it brings the characters together. They have to be more open with each other, since when one of them gets into trouble because of his background story, he sometimes needs help. The group has become very creative in helping to solve each others problems.
And do not forget that the "lowly" plotlines are sometimes much more interesting than the "I am a deposed prince dragon hunter" plots.That's what I've seen in these types of games. Good luck to anyone who tries it, just be ready for a tougher game to run than a normal, one story arc game.
It indeed is a tougher game, and it takes a lot of time! I have to keep up with about 7 plot lines, i.e. the main plot and the six subplots about the characters. I have to take notes in order to keep them consistent. But as long as it is fun and everybody is having a good time, I will keep doing it.
And one of the great advantages is that my players are never at a loss what to do. And there are always adventure hooks available.