#2: The Pitfall of Forcing the Backstory [Archive]

Something Else

07-19-2006, 07:44 AM

Nice article. However, I'm afraid that I disagree, at least as far as my playstyle is concerned. I don't believe it's railroading to not change the plot based upon the opinions of the players. Now, I think it would be great if the players decided "it's not entropy cultists, it's pirates" and then went to fight pirates for a while. But, in my opinion, they should still learn eventually that entropy cultists were responsible.

My reason for this is that my playstyle is one where I like the world to be more real - less of a "backless maiden", so to speak. In other words, the world as conceived by the GM exists and is not changed by the mere opinions of the PCs.

Now, I'm not a one-true-way-ist, and I know that some playstyles, especially more narrative ones, may work better if backstories are changed to fit the assumptions and/or conclusions of the players. However, I believe that even narrative goals can be fit by a solid backstory. Often, in ongoing TV series (for example) I am annoyed when major continuity changes or retcons are made.

pawsplay

07-19-2006, 11:50 AM

Semerkhet

07-19-2006, 11:54 AM

First, to the author of the column. Nicely put. Your column puts into plain language some of the jargon-laden principles of the Forge's Narrativist gamestyle. The only idea I would take issue with is that the mutability of the narrative be kept secret from the players. I think that the players should be well aware that they have creative input as regards the story that you all are cooperatively creating. This is my opinion after running a three year, 80 session game in which I followed your column's principles nearly exactly. The problem I ended up having was that as I moved toward a more cooperative narrative, I didn't make it clear that I expected the players to step up to the plate, so to speak. The result was a good deal of muddling in search of the GM's "main plot," when there wasn't really one anymore. I plan on taking the approach next time of informing the players at the outset of their creative responsibilities and see how that goes. I'll be using Burning Wheel for the experiment.

My reason for this is that my playstyle is one where I like the world to be more real - less of a "backless maiden", so to speak. In other words, the world as conceived by the GM exists and is not changed by the mere opinions of the PCs.

It's your phrase "mere opinions of the PCs" that bothers me here. I'm not condemning your style, but just pointing out how foreign and disturbing that attitude has become for me. That sort of strict authorial control on the part of the GM is something that I've come to truly dislike. I think it can lead to feelings of helplessness that the Mr. Gunning spoke of in his column. My current example is the game I'm playing in right now. The GM's world is intricately detailed and his overarching plot is complex, mysterious, and multi-faceted. Yet the players all feel like we're merely providing dialogue for the playing out of his pre-determined narrative. I'm torn because the events themselve are interesting, but I feel no sense of control over my character's fate and the goals of the main campaign plot are not those of my character.

That said, I don't think a GM should always change every preconceived notion to fit the players' whims. If, unlike Mr. Gunning's example, the players really have made some glaring mistake in their interpretation of events, it is usually a fairly easy thing to nudge them with some passing comment of a contact or ally. If, however, the players come to some compelling conclusion different from my own, I won't hesitate to change the narrative to incorporate their ideas in some way; though usually not precisely what the players had in mind.

Now, I'm not a one-true-way-ist, and I know that some playstyles, especially more narrative ones, may work better if backstories are changed to fit the assumptions and/or conclusions of the players. However, I believe that even narrative goals can be fit by a solid backstory. Often, in ongoing TV series (for example) I am annoyed when major continuity changes or retcons are made.

I think that the problem you mention above is fairly easily avoided. If you take the five minute breather mentioned in the column, you can probably make sure that no glaring continuity errors are made. Since the players don't know the "big picture" anyway, any retconning is known only to the GM.

Semerkhet

07-19-2006, 12:03 PM

I disagree entirely with the article. My approach would have been to let them investigate the pirates, discover they were wrong, and get on with the story. If necessary, I might plant clues that would lead them from the pirates to the real culprits.

In my experience, this kind of improvisation is likely to lead to continuity errors, and if the PCs are clever enough to piece together an alternate explanation for the events, they are clever enough to want to know why some things don't add up.

I agree inasmuch as it would be boring if every harebrained idea the players come up with turned out to be the literal truth of the plot. It's a good story if the characters are occasionally barking up the wrong tree. Figuring out that they're wrong and getting on the right track can be quite fun on it's own. The cases I'm talking about are when the players come up with a compelling explanation that is equally valid to your own preconceived notions and, in some cases, may be more fun, interesting, and dramatic than what you previously had in mind for the resolution of the conflict. As Mr. Gunning stated, the players will, during the course of their deliberations over the development of the story, insert their own wished for scenarios into their explanation of events. Incorporating these ideas in some fashion, if not completely, will increase the likelihood that the resulting conflict resolution will be much more compelling for the players.

cfarrell

07-19-2006, 01:07 PM

To me, this whole concept sounds good, but how often does it really crop up? How often does it really happen that you have a detailed backstory that you've developed and fed out clues to, and that the players manage to interpret in a totally valid, internally consistant, but completely different way than what you had in mind? I've gotta think that this is incredibly infrequent. I think that when it crops up, staying flexible is a good idea, but I have to think that for me anyway, this is just not the sort of problem I'm dealing with a lot.

It seems that this problem is more likely traceable to issues with the underlying backstory and with how you've told the story, and the solution (reinterpreting the backstory) is solving the underlying problems at the last moment and with the highest possible risk - that is to say, when they've finally gotten seriously out of hand. It would be far better to get them earlier. If your plotline hasn't been interactive enough and has been a railroad more or less from the get-go, it seems like these massive disconnects are far more likely, because you haven't introduced enough points for the players to make real decisions along the way (and for them to experiment and get feedback). If you haven't thought through the PC motivations and what they are going to be interested in, you can ultimately get this problem. If you haven't properly judged what the players themselves expect from the campaign, you can ultimately get this problem. If you haven't really given them enough information, you can ultimately get this problem. These are more the sort of issues I cope with regularly. While reinterpreting things in light of PC decisions is a perfectly valuable tool, I think, and can be usefully applied to minor plot arcs, using it in this way to change entire backstories seems like a risky, undesireable fix to significant underlying problems, problems that one could better focus one's energy on avoiding in the first place.

Semerkhet

07-19-2006, 01:19 PM

I mentioned major campaign plot arcs in my argument, but what Mr. Gunning was using as an example was a minor plot arc. I agree that changing the long running major campaign plot just because of a session's worth of speculation on the part of the players is not a good idea. My most frequent application of this principle is when I set up a conflict for the characters and have a general idea for the resolution of said conflict. I never flesh out many details of this resolution, but instead stay aware of the goals/motivations of involved NPCs and environmental setting considerations, and then wing it in a wild ride of give and take with the players. It almost never turns out exactly as the players or I initially planned it, but they do have a measure of input into how the conflict resolution plays out, and I get to keep internal consistency by keeping the constraints I mentioned in mind. All this can fit into the general framework of a set of overarching "campaign plots." The trick is to make sure at the very beginning that the players and their characters are invested in the conflicts and goals of the "big story."

Edit: As an addendum, I think it is possible, and sometimes advisable, to gradually shift the emphasis of the long term campaign plot, based on player feedback and changing interests. Abrupt change can be problematic.

ShannonA

07-19-2006, 01:31 PM

This was the article that really won me over to the series, because I think it's almost entirely correct.

It's really a question of ego. Are you the sole arbiter of what's right and wrong in your universe, or do you accept that your players may have creative ideas that are better than your own?

I've had the players come up with a "solution" that was considerably better than my own, and fit better into the game's worldview, so *of course* I used it, generally to the game's benefit.

No, you don't want to use every hare-brained idea, nor do you want the players to always be right. But if their answer is better than yours, or maybe even just as good, you should consider it very seriously.

Something Else

07-19-2006, 01:45 PM

Semerkhet

07-19-2006, 01:58 PM

As I said above, I'm against railroading, but I also don't enjoy the style that is colloquially referred to as "narrativism". (I'm not sure if the current Forge jargon considers this to be a correct use of the term.) I like the world, as I said, to have a kind of truth behind it, and for the players to be able to imagine themselves as individuals in the world, heros driving it, but still individuals. In other words, I prefer immersive roleplay.

I've found myself, in games where the GM makes things up as he/she goes along, feeling a bit cheated, because the world isn't "real" even to the extent of existing fully in the GM's mind. I can't imagine myself as a character in a fictional world, because the world barely exists. It's much less immersive of an illusion.

Now, as the GM in the article, there's a slight difference - he/she didn't let the players know that the story was changed to fit their ideas. In my opinion, this is fine. I might or might not do it, but I would never allow the players to know that they changed the plot. This isn't a "GM-superiority" thing - it's both to allow them to feel they are really smart, and to continue their immersion.

I definitely see where you're coming from, and I see the value of immersion. I would not, personally, want to go so far in the narrativism direction as to have everyone have equal narrative control and have the whole setting made up as you go along. I concur with you that would end up feeling kind of fake. I'm currently interested in the Burning Wheel system that encourages what I see as a middle ground between the GM as sole author and GM as coequal creative partner ways of doing things. My ideal would be to have a premise/setting/themes agreed upon between the all the participants before play begins, and have the GM still do all the heavy lifting regarding creating the setting. With a GM created framework, there is still plenty of flexibility in the way obstacles to the characters' goals are structured and resolved. That way you get the immersion and internal consistency that is important to you and still allow the players some creative control during the course of actual play. You don't notify the players every time you change something about the story to fit what the players are coming up with, but you do allow channels for them to directly insert content into the setting. I believe Burning Wheel has a good system for this in terms of Contacts and Resources.

twhitten

07-19-2006, 02:01 PM

http://www.rpg.net/columns/nextlevel/nextlevel2.phtml

When the players figure out a different solution to a problem than the Gamemaster.

Go to the column (http://www.rpg.net/columns/nextlevel/nextlevel2.phtml) for more information.

They are wrong and should be punished! :D

The way you describe working with the characters to adapt the back-story seems to fall into the group-think trap which leads to insubstantial satisfaction. My players have as much input into my back-story as I have input into how the real world works. I'd never change the back-story to give my players a false sense of accomplishment. Though if they do deviate from the back-story, I don't try and force them back.

As per your example, had my players gone after the pirates it would have been a dead end no matter how cleaver their thinking. And, most likely, the cultist back-story would have been resolved in away not favorable to characters.

I'm not sure if this is true, but the article seems to be based on the false premise that that characters have to succeed to have fun. I'd worry about the Pitfall of forcing success on the players. I say adapting the back-story to fit the players views is just as much a pitfall as railroading. Let the characters fail. In my opinion, this will lead richer, more interesting games.

Semerkhet

07-19-2006, 02:20 PM

I'm not sure if this is true, but the article seems to be based on the false premise that that characters have to succeed to have fun. I'd worry about the Pitfall of forcing success on the players. I say adapting the back-story to fit the players views is just as much a pitfall as railroading. Let the characters fail. In my opinion, this will lead richer, more interesting games.

This sounds really good in theory, but I have two problems with it. In the fiction comparison, how often do the protagonist(s) in an adventure story ever meet with complete failure in a major plot line? Almost never. That doesn't mean that they succeed in everything they do along the way. Failure in some of the steps along the way increases the tension and sets the story up for a more satisfying conclusion when the hero(es) ultimately prevail in the end. Most RPG stories follow the same model. My second issue is that, in my experience, players never like to have their characters fail, and they certainly don't think that a string of failures makes for a richer, more interesting game. It's all a balancing act, you don't want to spoon feed the characters success, but you don't want to stymie them with too many failures, especially if they begin to sense that the reason they failed was because they weren't exactly following your plot. If you strike that balance, players seem to easily be able keep knowledge of their ultimate success from dampening their fun. Again, it's analgous to not letting the sure knowledge that the protagonist in most fantasy/adventure fiction will prevail in the end impinge on your enjoyment of the book.

Something Else

07-19-2006, 02:22 PM

They are wrong and should be punished! :D

The way you describe working with the characters to adapt the back-story seems to fall into the group-think trap which leads to insubstantial satisfaction. My players have as much input into my back-story as I have input into how the real world works. I'd never change the back-story to give my players a false sense of accomplishment. Though if they do deviate from the back-story, I don't try and force them back.

As per your example, had my players gone after the pirates it would have been a dead end no matter how cleaver their thinking. And, most likely, the cultist back-story would have been resolved in away not favorable to characters.

I'm not sure if this is true, but the article seems to be based on the false premise that that characters have to succeed to have fun. I'd worry about the Pitfall of forcing success on the players. I say adapting the back-story to fit the players views is just as much a pitfall as railroading. Let the characters fail. In my opinion, this will lead richer, more interesting games.
While I don't think I'd go as far as punishing the players for not getting the right idea, I would certainly allow them to do the pirate thing. Why wouldn't it be fun? They get to the end, fight the pirate captain, and are like "Darn you, you dastardly pirate! How dare you initiate some random conspiracy against us?" and then he's like "What conspiracy?" and they're like "Oh shit!"

I personally think that would be fun, and agree with most of what you said, twhitten. Oh, and welcome to RPGnet!

Something Else

07-19-2006, 02:23 PM

This sounds really good in theory, but I have two problems with it. In the fiction comparison, how often do the protagonist(s) in an adventure story ever meet with complete failure in a major plot line? Almost never. That doesn't mean that they succeed in everything they do along the way. Failure in some of the steps along the way increases the tension and sets the story up for a more satisfying conclusion when the hero(es) ultimately prevail in the end. Most RPG stories follow the same model. My second issue is that, in my experience, players never like to have their characters fail, and they certainly don't think that a string of failures makes for a richer, more interesting game. It's all a balancing act, you don't want to spoon feed the characters success, but you don't want to stymie them with too many failures, especially if they begin to sense that the reason they failed was because they weren't exactly following your plot. If you strike that balance, players seem to easily be able keep knowledge of their ultimate success from dampening their fun. Again, it's analgous to not letting the sure knowledge that the protagonist in most fantasy/adventure fiction will prevail in the end impinge on your enjoyment of the book.
Again, how is failing to investigate the cult "failing utterly"? They get to fight pirates. And then the cult, later.

twhitten

07-19-2006, 02:30 PM

To give an example, I'll cite the D&D Drow campaign we just finished up. Our party was part of an up-and-coming house in Drow society. Our rise was causing us to gain the enmity of other higher level houses and we as a house were staring to have some problems. Well our group decided these problems were due to a certain higher level house. So we came up with some solutions to our problems. Some of our solutions didn’t work but some did surprisingly well. We developed some very cleaver ideas. Yet we were still having problems. Finally, we figured it out. The trouble was coming from within our house and the clues were there from the beginning. Had we been a little more cleaver we could have saved ourselves a lot of grief. We went off on quite a tangent with our ‘idea’ of who was causing use trouble. Sure, the DM could have adapted the game to go along with our idea. He could have done it easily without our knowledge but the game ended up being much more memorable because he stuck to his back-story. It is great fun to look back at our mistakes, appreciate the subtly of a well crafted back-story, and take satisfaction in eventually coming to the correct solution. Had the DM just went along with our solution, the game would not be so memorable.

Praetorian

07-19-2006, 02:31 PM

I'm not sure if this is true, but the article seems to be based on the false premise that that characters have to succeed to have fun. I'd worry about the Pitfall of forcing success on the players. I say adapting the back-story to fit the players views is just as much a pitfall as railroading. Let the characters fail. In my opinion, this will lead richer, more interesting games.

No false premise here.

Make no mistake... when my players fail to get the clues together or miss something badly... then they fail. No questions asked. Same as if they rush into a siutation they are woefully unprepared for. I am a big believer in "just rewards" and if the players play stupid- then the result is according to their play (honest mistakes, however, are easily forgiven)

On the other hand, if, as a player, we get all the clues, do all that we can, wrack our brains for creative answers and still come up empty. Well then, that is just frustarting and no one is going to have fun. They key, then, is for the GM to think on the fly. Inevitably the players are going to have an idea of how the clues work together- if they are spinning their wheels but also seem to have a conclsuion that entirely works considering the information at hand... I have no qualms about changing the backstory so that the game can move forward.

There is a time and place for failure in any game. But if that failure comes about as a result of an overly complicated backstory or just some random bad luck... then changing the backstory on the fly might be a damned fine idea.

...and there is the unspoken assumption I make in the article: GMs tend to make backstories too complicated.

I say let the players push the plot, not the backstory. But, of course, each group and GM is different, YMMV and all that...

Praetorian

07-19-2006, 02:34 PM

Nice article. However, I'm afraid that I disagree, at least as far as my playstyle is concerned. I don't believe it's railroading to not change the plot based upon the opinions of the players. Now, I think it would be great if the players decided "it's not entropy cultists, it's pirates" and then went to fight pirates for a while. But, in my opinion, they should still learn eventually that entropy cultists were responsible.

Fair enough... and very reqasonable from a GM point of view. I really dig that you are willing to be flexible enough to let them go fight the pirates... and I am sure your players appreciate it more. I can easily envision a whole slew of new clues while they fight the pirates getting them back on track.

Glad you like the article. I don't expect everyone to agree, of course. But if we get some good discussion out of them and one or two Gms get a couple new ideas from the art. or the discussion- then I will be very happy.

Praetorian

07-19-2006, 02:36 PM

In my experience, this kind of improvisation is likely to lead to continuity errors, and if the PCs are clever enough to piece together an alternate explanation for the events, they are clever enough to want to know why some things don't add up.

Thats a very real possibility. At that point you need to figure out which is more important... feeding them even more clues to get them to the background the GM expected, or you sit down with them and have to come clean and see if they are good with the way things are going.

Your call. Probably not a bad decision either way.

Praetorian

07-19-2006, 02:37 PM

This was the article that really won me over to the series, because I think it's almost entirely correct.

...

No, you don't want to use every hare-brained idea, nor do you want the players to always be right. But if their answer is better than yours, or maybe even just as good, you should consider it very seriously.

Thanks Sandy. My sentiments exactly.

Something Else

07-19-2006, 02:47 PM

Fair enough... and very reqasonable from a GM point of view. I really dig that you are willing to be flexible enough to let them go fight the pirates... and I am sure your players appreciate it more. I can easily envision a whole slew of new clues while they fight the pirates getting them back on track.

Glad you like the article. I don't expect everyone to agree, of course. But if we get some good discussion out of them and one or two Gms get a couple new ideas from the art. or the discussion- then I will be very happy.
Now, having understood what you were saying a little more clearly - in some cases, I think I would have done what you did. If their plan really was TOTALLY more interesting and TOTALLY better, I would probably improvise. Like you, though, I'd make sure they didn't know...

Kudos on a great article.

twhitten

07-19-2006, 03:00 PM

Hey Something Else,

Thanks for the welcome.

To Semerkhet,

Our group likes to play with the knowledge that we can fail. But I didn't mean to say not following the plot means failure - just increases the chances of it. With the Cultist/Pirate example, depending on my mood, while the characters were off with the Pirates I'd either have Cultists defeated by some rival adventures or have the Cultists succeed in the ploy. This would either have the characters subject to scorn/ridicule (NPCs might not react so favorable to them for a short time) or have the characters have to face some greater evil down the road. I think it could lead to a poignant campaign when in the future, the characters have to face up to a failure of the past. The stuff of good stories IMO.

To Praetorian,
GMs tend to make backstories too complicated.

I've never done that. ;)

twhitten

07-19-2006, 03:18 PM

Following Something Else's lead, I did go back and reread the Column and the replies. I have to admit, this idea is one I'll throw in my GM toolbox. Sorta the break-glass incase of emergency.

Now to this quote:
No, you don't want to use every hare-brained idea, nor do you want the players to always be right. But if their answer is better than yours, or maybe even just as good, you should consider it very seriously.

I think it would make for a great Paranoia game for experienced Paranoia players where every hare-brained idea the players came up with was right with the exception of the last one. :D I think players reactions through out the game would be:

We are correct?
Hey, we are on a roll. WOOT!
Uh-OH :eek:

pawsplay

07-19-2006, 05:36 PM

I think the version of the premise articulated by Shannon is quite reasonable. However, I think the original article was making a different, more forceful position, that leads to some of the same kind of decision making.

I don't think a game should be set in stone, but neither should it have the mutability of an improv comedy skit.

Likewise, the story, to me, is not "what is entertaining to my players," but rather, a dialectic between the players and the GM. In some sense, the GM is "pushing" a story on the PCs, but hopefully not a coercive way, just as the players "push" back with their interpretations and choices.

The article was titled "forcing the backstory." The idea being that a backstory is an intrusion. Whereas I think the positive version ("use the players ideas when they are better") is different than the negative version ("don't stick to your ideas when the players provide good ideas"). My point is not that the GM should be an authoritarian, but that the game, as a whole, is their "character" and should be imagined as complex, expressive, and essential in its own way.

Whereas the analogy I would draw, based on the article, is a player suddenly deciding, a few months into a campaign, that he isn't a NG sorcerer studying the armies of the Abyss in order to defeat them after all, but actually an academic who has become obsessed with magical power and has been fronting his conviction the whole time to cover his interest in magical widgets and places of magical power.

I would draw a line between "taking the campaign in a new direction, sweeping aside backstory that is not useful and will not influence the game from here on forward" to an active retcon for the sake of making the readership happy.

Do not, I repeat, do not resurrect Magneto even if the audience says it's what they want.

Phill Calle

07-19-2006, 05:40 PM

Brothers and sisters, I apologize for the shouting, but I am a painful convert to the lesson that Brother Gunning taught us today.

You see, I once had a thriving D&D campaign, orc mercenaries teleported to the bottom of Undermountain, bereft of their equipment and allies, forced to fight their way to the top to gain revenge on the bastard mage who had dumped them there.

Oh, my players hailed me as brilliant! Each week, their characters scrabbled and scraped for food and equipment and sometimes even for one more breath.

And what a brilliant backstory I had, but to get to it, I had to get them out of the dungeon.

What a mistake I made! I listened to their praise, but not to what they enjoyed. Pride deafened me.

I let them find a way out too early, and then I hit them with the backstory as if exposition, what others had done, was so much more important than the what the characters had done or what the players wanted.

Yancy, Justin, Sam, John...forgive me!

All of you, pray for the soul of this wayward GM, that he might be healed!

Praetorian

07-19-2006, 07:34 PM

Brothers and sisters, I apologize for the shouting, but I am a painful convert to the lesson that Brother Gunning taught us today.

:eek:

I'm not quite sure what to think of this.

:)

Praetorian

07-19-2006, 07:37 PM

Kudos on a great article.

I really appreciate it. Its not perfect... but it is a reasonable start.

red_bee

07-20-2006, 12:37 AM

... but neither should it have the mutability of an improv comedy skit.

Hmm...perhaps I should be hoping you aren't also reading my column here :)

Great column - I really like the way it is going!

Dan Hemmens

07-20-2006, 09:46 AM

I think the advice in this article is sound, but I think it deliberately overstates itself.

I am sure that, in the D&D game in question, the players did not say "hmm, we're not sure, perhaps we should investigate the pirates". If they had, switching the backplot would have been pointless.

What the article warns against is the all-too-common situation where GMs bewail the "stupidity" of players who have actually drawn perfectly sensible in-character conclusions.

"Forcing the Backstory" could, perhaps, be considered a subcategory of "pixelbitching" (as I understand some people call it). The game can't continue until the players guess what they're supposed to have worked out. Actually *changing* a backstory to avoid this problem is an extreme but non-ludicrous way of solving the problem.

Another way of solving the problem is just to have players and GM accept that the players are never going to work out what's "really" going on, and move on to something less frustrating.

pawsplay

07-20-2006, 12:56 PM

I think the advice in this article is sound, but I think it deliberately overstates itself.

Indeed. Maybe more than anything else, my beef with the article is simply that it wasn't written with me as the intended audience. In any case, the article was written from some excellent insights, but the formulation of the lesson learned is not what I would have come up with.

Praetorian

07-20-2006, 01:48 PM

...but the formulation of the lesson learned is not what I would have come up with.

Fair enough. As we all know, there are rarely clear-cut answers to GMing dillemas.

jdagna

07-20-2006, 05:17 PM

I have to admit, I'm really surprised to see the reactions to this column.

As I was reading, I just kept nodding and yawning thinking "Isn't this just GMing 101? Isn't there going to be something useful here?" But apparently it is untried (if not new) for a lot readers.

Let's put aside arguments about whether the game world or the GM's backstory is real. Let's ignore the issue of who has power of authorship and authority to change events. Let's just look at the bottom line: in what GMing style do players have more fun?

In the end, I've never seen a player say "Wow, I'm so glad you showed me how totally wrong I was. You were right to waste three weeks of our gaming by sending me after pirates to show me that I was too stupid to understand your subtle hints. Your story is just so cool, I want to take it home and read it!"

Maybe that's a little exaggerated, but the bottom line is still the same. Players get a thrill by contributing to a story that interests them, by solving problems, and by achieving their goals. Showing them how wrong they are, letting them pursue tangents and sticking to your original backstory without any flexibility will never satisfy the players.

That doesn't mean the players are always right and that you always do what the players come up. (Go back to what I just said players like - if whatever they say goes, then they haven't solved problems or achieved a goal).

Someone else asked how often this comes up. In my experience the majority of campaigns where backstory is important eventually have a crisis point where the players are either confused or wrong and the GM has to choose whether to modify the backstory or show the players the "right" answer. It happens so often that I no longer plan out elaborate campaigns and backstories until partway through the campaign. I always start campaigns off with two or three fairly random missions. I introduce lots of interesting NPCs, factions and conflicts in those three. I watch which ones the players seem most interested in... and THEN I create a story that connects the three together. So far, none of my players have figured out that I do this. They just think I'm really good at creating interesting stories.

And here's the interesting parts: I always get more compliments on my "great backstory" when there was no backstory to start with! The more of an idea I start a campaign with, the less the players enjoy it. Most of my players' top-10 moments in role-playing involve situations that I completely ad-libbed because they jumped the shark and I ran with it... but they don't know it happened that way. They still think I had this masterful plan all along. Several of them refuse to believe otherwise, even when I told them the truth.

So, anyway, to make a long post longer: Anyone who has tried this technique in their campaign needs to give it a try. You'll know if it was the right decision.

Something Else

07-20-2006, 09:56 PM

jdagna, the important part with your idea is that the players can never know. For an immersive player such as myself, when the GM is ad-libbing and I know it, gaming is no fun.

Asklepios

07-21-2006, 04:22 AM

jdagna, the important part with your idea is that the players can never know. For an immersive player such as myself, when the GM is ad-libbing and I know it, gaming is no fun.

I don't know about that. Every time my players come round I let them know I have made absolutely no preparation and have no idea what the story is going to be about, and that everything will be ad-libbed.

The thing is, I don't think they believe me. :)

We've all got great stories of when a player comes up with an idea thats better than the plot. One of my formative GMing experiences was playing Wraith back at school... (enter flashback mode)

---

1997 and the Hierarchy are pulling out of Hong Kong to give it over to the Jade Empire. But the game also has a crazy subplot about a malfean rising, with the idea that all factions join together in happy peace-love joy to team up against the greater evil.

Hierarch NPC: Ally with the Chinese? I'd rather die!
Player Character: What? You think we haven't figured out what's really going on?
Hierarch NPC: Uh...
Player Character: Its painfully obvious that the Hierarchy is in collusion with this malfean - that you summoned him here. Its a case of burning your bridges isn't it? "If I can't have Hong Kong then no-one will", right? You're like spoilt children.

I pause in my GMing. Actually the malfean thing was just a malfean thing - an evil god rising from the depths just because that's what evil gods do. But my player had just come up with a storyline that was much much better than my own one.

Hierarch NPC: I'm impressed you've seen through my plan. But now you die!

---

So I figure... let the players write the game. If the players decide its pirates not cultists, then let it be pirates and pretend that you planned it to be the pirates all along. A lazy GM who lets the players write the stories for him will soon get a reputation as a hard-working GM who comes up with fantastic story ideas. Worked for me. :)

smascrns

07-21-2006, 05:42 AM

In the end, I've never seen a player say "Wow, I'm so glad you showed me how totally wrong I was. You were right to waste three weeks of our gaming by sending me after pirates to show me that I was too stupid to understand your subtle hints. Your story is just so cool, I want to take it home and read it!"

Maybe that's a little exaggerated, but the bottom line is still the same. Players get a thrill by contributing to a story that interests them, by solving problems, and by achieving their goals. Showing them how wrong they are, letting them pursue tangents and sticking to your original backstory without any flexibility will never satisfy the players.
Let me start by saying that I'm one of those that thinks the right thing to do is to let the PCs go after the pirates. I also think that there is a premise in your reasoning that needs some attention:

"Showing them how wrong they are, letting them pursue tangents and sticking to your original backstory without any flexibility will never satisfy the players." Of course not. Roleplaying is not storytelling (in the proper, pre-rpg sense). If the GM does this he has it all wrong. But that's not what has been suggested by those that don't agree with the column.

You see, if the players decide to have their characters going after the pirates for the wrong reasons and the GM allows it, he is incorporating into the game the inputs of the players. This means that he will have to develop a new plotline, one that is centered on the pirates, not the cultists. The catch is, he should not define an hierarchy among the plotlines. He should attempt to ensure that the next plotline is as interesting as the original one. That when and if the story goes back to the original plotline the players will not feel that they wasted 3 weeks. And that they will understand why things did not turn out how they expected. He must also be ready to have the original plotline completely sidelined, despite all the effort that he put into it.

A good game master will do this and by doing this he will be giving the players what they want: A consistent game world where what their characters do matters, wether it is right or wrong.

Of course, this is not a hard line of thought. There may be occasions where the ideas of the players are so good that it would be a pitty to forget about them. But if this happens too often... there's something wrong with the GM. I would lead to think that he is ratter mediocre or not putting the effort.

(I was a professional trainer in the past. A situation where a GM is always working from the players' inputs reminds me of a type of trainers that keep asking questions and all the training session revolves around the inputs of the trainees. My experience tells me that usually this is because the trainer was lazy and did not do his homework. An experienced trainer can keep people buzzy without providing substantial inputs himself. This can happen in gamemastering too.)

I am sure that this not what you have in mind:

I no longer plan out elaborate campaigns and backstories until partway through the campaign. I always start campaigns off with two or three fairly random missions. I introduce lots of interesting NPCs, factions and conflicts in those three. I watch which ones the players seem most interested in... and THEN I create a story that connects the three together.
From my perspective the problem is with the way we deal with game world time. Plotlines and backstories are fine as long as they project to the past. They should not be projected to the future. It just makes no sense and is not fair to the players to write the future of the game world in advance, and enforcing that script on their characters. The history of the setting should develop at the same pace as the game progresses. The GM should look at the future of the game world exactly in the same terms as the players: In terms of possible developments based on the present and the past.

As always the key are the characters. The effort the GM puts into developing the story of the gameworld should be focuzed on the impact that story has on the characters. Why write extensive pasts about distant lands the characters are not going to cross? Or that they are not going to know about?

In the end I think that most people in this thread agree on this issue, the difference is just in defining where to establish that fine line between players and GM contribution. Usually that's something that each gaming group has to find for himself.

red_bee

07-21-2006, 11:33 AM

jdagna, the important part with your idea is that the players can never know. For an immersive player such as myself, when the GM is ad-libbing and I know it, gaming is no fun.

Ya know, from my experience, this isn't always true.

My players know that I'm writing a column on free-form, make-it-up-on-the-spot GM'ing, and that I'm using their game as the test bench for my ideas, and they still get totally sucked into the perceived reality of the game.

In fact, I've never had a game where the players will sit around discussing the plot amongst themselves so much, in character, like it all means something.

True, it might be the type of players that I have, and some other players wouldn't get into a game like this nearly so much. I'm just tellin' ya my current experience :)

twhitten

07-21-2006, 11:34 AM

Let's put aside arguments about whether the game world or the GM's backstory is real. Let's ignore the issue of who has power of authorship and authority to change events. Let's just look at the bottom line: in what GMing style do players have more fun?

For seasoned gamers, games are more fun and memorable when the gamers can make mistakes, even campaign ending ones. Otherwise, the tabletop RPG has no more lasting value then a computer RPG.

Maybe that's a little exaggerated, [overly exaggerated and weakens yoru argument] but the bottom line is still the same. Players get a thrill by contributing to a story that interests them, by solving problems, and by achieving their goals.

In order to gain satisfaction from solving problems and achieving goals, there has to be a challenge. For there to be a challenge, there has to be the possibility to make mistakes. And a simple truth, it is much more rewarding to overcome things one had failed at in the past then to simple overcome them the first time.

Showing them how wrong they are, letting them pursue tangents and sticking to your original backstory without any flexibility will never satisfy the players.

To allow players to pursue tangents is being flexible. Players finding they were wrong and then having to deal with the consequences of being wrong always leads to much better role-playing opportunities then just changing the back-story so the players can be correct.

Changing the back-story to fit the players incorrect interpretation of campaign events is equivalent to allowing them to win a combat where they are obviously over powered and the strategy should be to run. Yes, they are different situations but they are equivalent concessions to the players mistakes.

pawsplay

07-21-2006, 11:44 AM

pawsplay

07-21-2006, 11:45 AM

To allow players to pursue tangents is being flexible. Players finding they were wrong and then having to deal with the consequences of being wrong always leads to much better role-playing opportunities then just changing the back-story so the players can be correct.

Indeed, why should the GM bend over backwards, when the players don't even account for basic contingencies?

Eternal Knot Games

07-21-2006, 12:01 PM

Sometimes the players see things that you did not see, much like the evil god in Hong Kong story--mine was a dimension teleporter that an advanced space race moved to their ship and the players worked out their current trouble (being moved to that dimension) was to do with this incident, sadly the game ended at the end of that session.

I think I can take from this:
1) Be flexible,
2) Listen to the players,
3) The players can be wrong...

GoodGame

07-21-2006, 06:00 PM

:)
I think you're basically right, and good analysis of what your players probably wanted. I agree that the GM facilitates the game, provides the basic setting (adventure), but shouldn't absolutely direct the setting and game-path like a movie. But I kind of agree with some other opinions---the players can be wrong. Let them be wrong, but let them figure out after a while they're probably wrong also, and that there are consequences to being wrong too. And like you write, don't railroad them clues to be right, but I wouldn't always reward their wrongness with what they expect. On the other hand, being flexible and letting them romp like you did might have kept the group together and having fun.

A third alternative is to have a grab-bag of locales/situations to throw at them when they steer far off course, and offer them a sub-plot through that. If they take the bait of the sub-plot, have it reward them with a strong clue or direction towards the original plot. If they get there and still don't want to finish the adventure, let them travelogue until a new adventure seed sprouts.

Nice explained article!

http://www.rpg.net/columns/nextlevel/nextlevel2.phtml

Summary:

When the players figure out a different solution to a problem than the Gamemaster.

Go to the column (http://www.rpg.net/columns/nextlevel/nextlevel2.phtml) for more information.

Pinkster3000

07-22-2006, 12:59 PM

I must say I like the idea of this article for the most part. I have had PBeM games that got derailed almost before I wrote them because of overcomplicating the backstory and sticking too closely to the plot. I will certainly use this notion when developing future plots, and leave them more open-ended.

This being said, I would probably handle this situation just a bit differently. Instead of changing the whole campaign because the players had a different idea, I'd merely incorporate it. The pirates of the example WERE doing the kidnapping, but the evil entropy cultists were controlling the pirates. Either they had been all along, or they took over the pirates after the players' earlier predations left them weak and vulnerable.

I think it allows you the best of both worlds, while adding another layer of depth (complexity?:confused: ) to your storyline. I think it would give the players an even greater sense that their actions impact the world around them if you use the latter rationale, and lends a more epic feel to the campaign.

This is, of course, an Illuminated way of looking at things... :D

deadmerc

07-23-2006, 09:45 PM

This being said, I would probably handle this situation just a bit differently. Instead of changing the whole campaign because the players had a different idea, I'd merely incorporate it. The pirates of the example WERE doing the kidnapping, but the evil entropy cultists were controlling the pirates. Either they had been all along, or they took over the pirates after the players' earlier predations left them weak and vulnerable.

I agree with this method. I wouldn't change the backstory for PC error; however, being flexible and rolling with the decisions of PCs is often more fun for the players than railroading their decisions. Player don't usually like to have their actions dictated. A complex plot revealed slowly over time I think adds richness to the world as well as mistakes made in search of it, such as mistakenly going after pirates.

I recall one campaign where my first action as a player was to mistake the "hero" (whom we were supposed to help) for a villain. I promptly killed this hero in an epic battle. This should have rendered the campaign completely unplayable, but the GM neither altered the story for my benefit nor cancelled the campaign. Instead, my character had to complete the mission while carrying the guilt for that mistake.