|
Post by badger2305 on Jan 21, 2008 11:09:21 GMT -6
So how do you all present the background for your campaign? I don't want to burden my players with fifty pages of intricate background they won't read, but I abhor the "okay, so you are in a tavern, and a barfight breaks out..." (and you then all become the best of friends...)
This isn't the same as house rules or rules modifications, but the actual background - kingdoms, religions, where the bad guys are, etc. Have any of you had success with stuff that's written? What did you do and how did it work?
|
|
|
Post by carjack on Jan 21, 2008 12:33:37 GMT -6
In my personal experience, the games that worked best had the least amount of "required reading". I am famous for typing up long explanations of cultures and adding reams of maps and history, but those documents really ended up being superfluous in the end. Plus it seemed to give the message to the players "Here's the world, please don't mess with it" and they seemed actually less engaged than if I had done bare-bones background and let them help explain things.
I would keep these sort of handouts short: one or two pages at best. But, that's just been my experience. Your mileage may vary.
|
|
|
Post by ffilz on Jan 21, 2008 12:45:15 GMT -6
For quite some time, I've been using commercial settings. I've made material available to my players and some read it and some don't.
Ultimately, I am starting to feel that more that a little bit of information to set the tone for a campaign, and inform character creation is not worthwhile. Ultimately, the relevant setting information has to be emergent in play, and probably even developed as needed.
Interestingly, the discussion of mega-dungeons has been what has solified this opinon for me. Everaux (and others) have reccomended that a mega-dungeon be something that is created as part of a live campaign, not be a masterpiece perfected before showing it to the world. The reasons why this makes sense apply just as much to any other campaign setting.
What it comes down to is that campaign detail that is not relevant to the active players and their interests is just deadwood. If you happen to be using someone else's setting, you can use the source material as a source, and different players will read different amounts of it, but ultimately, unless a detail is relevant to an active player character, it's just a piece of trivia. The problem with this can be seen when players (and GMs) bandy about their knowedge of the trivia instead of actively playing. At the worst example are play groups who celebrate an ongoing meta-story from the publisher and really aren't playing a campaign.
So write up a page (or maybe two) to share with your players. Feel free to have additional information worked up and available, but don't spend ages preparing it (and most certainly don't delay starting a campaign because you haven't written up the last 5000 years of campaign history or some other such detail).
Also, make sure that what you do write up presents a situation to the players demaning their action. This will let you skip the worn out bar fight that never really works to bring the players together. For my upcomming mega-dungeon campaign, I plan to simply introduce a few concepts of the mega-dungeon, and then tell the players to roll up characters that are part of an expedition to enter the dungeon. Why did they choose to be on such an expedition? That's a question for them to answer, but they don't get to create a character who isn't going to engage the situation at hand. Whatever your campaign is going to be initially about, explain that to the players, present them with an initial situation, and tell them to create characters who are part of that situation.
I think this lesson is the biggest thing I've learned from my explorations of the "indie games" movement. Dogs in the Vinyard doesn't tell you to create a character in 1850s Mormon Utah. It tells you to create a watchdog of the faith who has just graduated from religious training and will become a member of a small group of watchdogs who travel a circuit delivering mail and helping communities resolve their issues.
Back when I started playing D&D, we created characters who were going to plunder the dungeons. No time wasted playing out a meeting in the bar and some mysterious stranger telling the PCs what was up AFTER character creation (at which point someone's character inevitably doesn't care one whit about the situation, or is mortally offended by another PC).
Frank
|
|
|
Post by ffilz on Jan 21, 2008 12:46:32 GMT -6
Carjack - good point about too much background material making players feel like they shouldn't touch it. Worse is the GM who is overly protective of his material (which is an easy slip to make).
Frank
|
|
|
Post by badger2305 on Jan 21, 2008 13:03:01 GMT -6
Carjack - good point about too much background material making players feel like they shouldn't touch it. Worse is the GM who is overly protective of his material (which is an easy slip to make). Frank This is an interesting point. If you don't spend a lot of time on it, you don't get as attached to it as you created it. In other words, you leave room for others to encounter it and then you can collectively figure it out. More fun for the players and more fun for you (if you can trust that things will work out). I'm definitely leaning towards the 1-2 page handout, probably with a half-page sketch map of "the world" included - and have a more detailed map to show players the immediate surroundings of where their characters are. Even with this in mind, what else would you include in that handout?
|
|
|
Post by carjack on Jan 21, 2008 13:12:09 GMT -6
Carjack - good point about too much background material making players feel like they shouldn't touch it. Worse is the GM who is overly protective of his material (which is an easy slip to make). Frank Yes, this is a slip I have made in the past; much to the detriment of everyone's fun.
|
|
|
Post by Finarvyn on Jan 21, 2008 21:59:58 GMT -6
One of my former friends tried to spring a 30-page background book on our group. They rebelled and he never got to run his game.
I tend to hand out information on a "need to know" basis, with a short handout at the onset and little updates as they need them.
I also have this habit of stealing names for my homebrew games from other sources. (1) This allows for me to know what something is without having to memorize lots of notes, and (2) this gives the players the feeling that they actually grew up in the world since they already have background knowledge.
For example, I've never been to Paris, France but have a decent idea what I might find there. If I use a name from literature, say Moria, the players already conjure up a mental image of what they have heard about the place. Of course, it's possible that what they think they know might be wrong, but I might be wrong about Paris, too. :-)
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 22, 2008 16:20:47 GMT -6
When it comes to campaign background, I tend to go very minimal in regards to info aimed at my players. When I start a new campaign, I hand out a small ( very small) map of the immediate area so they can familiarize themselves with the layout & terrain, & that's really about it. In addition, every player has a copy of my House Rules document (which is 1 page) to go by. If I'm doing something peculiar in regards to class or standard game play, I'll hand out an additional sheet, but that really never happens. For my upcomming mega-dungeon campaign, I plan to simply introduce a few concepts of the mega-dungeon, and then tell the players to roll up characters that are part of an expedition to enter the dungeon. Why did they choose to be on such an expedition? That's a question for them to answer, but they don't get to create a character who isn't going to engage the situation at hand. Whatever your campaign is going to be initially about, explain that to the players, present them with an initial situation, and tell them to create characters who are part of that situation. That's the route I alway go when I start a new campaign. I tend to think of a group of PC's less as "Fast-Friends" & more as a group of business partners engaged in a mutual venture. Sure, they may become friends later on, but one of the most improtant driving forces behind any adventuring group is $$$ (IMO, anyway). A good rule of business is protecting your assests: this keeps the other members of the group alive. ;D As for MY notes, I have tons of spirals filled with things I've jotted down over the years. This stuff is for my eyes only, so my players never see it. I've ran games in the same campaign world for almost 16 years now, so you can imagine how much stuff I have. I enjoy the process of designing & developing religions, countries, political intrigue, history, etc. What bearing does all this have on my players: next to none. It's something for my benefit & pleasure, & it ALWAYS changes depending on what my players do in the game. That's where I glean a great deal of my enjoyment as a DM--letting the players figure it all out on their own. And then destroy it...
|
|
|
Post by doc on Jan 22, 2008 16:44:27 GMT -6
before a campaign, I write up a brief overview of the world, including anything that is common knowledge or universally accepted. I discuss the different kingdoms, societies, and races, and how they view each other. I make this a VERY brief overview, the whole thing generally coming in at three pages. Short enough for it to be read in a couple of minutes, but with enough info so that players can get a sense of where countries are in relation to each other and so that they can say, "Okay, I want to play a character from THIS area," or "I grew up HERE, so I believe THIS." If a player already has a certain type of character in mind (fighter, cleric, etc) I include a small paragraph on how that class is seen by most non-adventurers and what is expected of them within society.
Doc
|
|
casey777
Level 4 Theurgist
Herder of Chlen
Posts: 102
|
Post by casey777 on Jan 24, 2008 4:49:29 GMT -6
So how do you all present the background for your campaign? A short pitch document, either a text onesheet or the same with illustrations and perhaps a short cheat sheet style summary and maps. Be enthused, be focused yet flexible & make sure to include simple but powerful hooks for both character generation and adventure. Then mostly in game in character as needed and expanded by character action. If I wanted much more I'd read or write a novel, though to be fair I do tend to either run off-the-cuff settings or complex detailed ones. I have been known to suggest gaming sources, movies, novels and graphic novels as suggestions to get a feel of a setting/campaign but that's always purely optional. If it helps a player understand what we're aiming for in a game cool.
|
|
|
Post by dwayanu on Jan 24, 2008 17:01:03 GMT -6
I like to stick with what's immediately relevant. If the adventurers are in the village of Cutthroat Pass, then a quick briefing on why they are there is in order. That's presumably either the lure of fortune or the slings and arrows of misfortune (which might include being born there and wanting to get out ...).
They can discover more for themselves. Even a brief history of the Linguican Empire can wait until they get to Linguica.
A good rule of thumb IMO is to front-load no more backstory than R.E. Howard does in one of his Conan tales.
|
|
|
Post by driver on Jul 8, 2008 13:42:39 GMT -6
I keep information sparse so if I want to change things, no one's the wiser.
|
|
|
Post by coffee on Jul 8, 2008 13:51:49 GMT -6
I keep information sparse so if I want to change things, no one's the wiser. Good plan!
|
|
|
Post by blackbarn on Jul 8, 2008 19:15:49 GMT -6
These days I tend to start the PCs at the entrance to the dungeon and just build from there...
|
|
|
Post by pjork on Jul 9, 2008 21:23:30 GMT -6
These days I tend to start the PCs at the entrance to the dungeon and just build from there... Exaltworthy!
|
|
|
Post by badger2305 on Jul 9, 2008 21:57:49 GMT -6
These days I tend to start the PCs at the entrance to the dungeon and just build from there... ...unfortunately, judging by another thread underway here, that's probably what John Wick thinks of when he says that dungeon crawls are railroading. Not sayin' it's wrong, mind you - just that there's more than one way to skin a dragon here.
|
|
|
Post by codeman123 on Jul 10, 2008 17:37:56 GMT -6
what i usually do is give a rough layout of cultures surrounding the starting location then i let the players develop their own kingdoms and lands etc.
|
|
|
Post by blackbarn on Jul 10, 2008 21:59:57 GMT -6
These days I tend to start the PCs at the entrance to the dungeon and just build from there... ...unfortunately, judging by another thread underway here, that's probably what John Wick thinks of when he says that dungeon crawls are railroading. Not sayin' it's wrong, mind you - just that there's more than one way to skin a dragon here. I never said there wasn't. But I think I'd quit the game if I had to plot out a ton of setting backstory and character histories before playing. That stuff always seems to develop more easily and have more actual meaning to players when it comes out as a result of events that happen during play. I don't think world details should be absent, but I don't think they should all be planned and set in stone before the game even starts. Letting them develop naturally, as needed, provides the richer experience, in my opinion.
|
|
|
Post by coffee on Jul 11, 2008 9:06:09 GMT -6
I never said there wasn't. But I think I'd quit the game if I had to plot out a ton of setting backstory and character histories before playing. That stuff always seems to develop more easily and have more actual meaning to players when it comes out as a result of events that happen during play. I don't think world details should be absent, but I don't think they should all be planned and set in stone before the game even starts. Letting them develop naturally, as needed, provides the richer experience, in my opinion. I totally agree. I've never had a character background (that I dreamed up in advance) ever actually have any effect on game play. I have, however, come up with things in play that added depth and richness both to my character and to the world in which he lived. But again, it depends on the preference of the group.
|
|
|
Post by badger2305 on Jul 11, 2008 10:57:39 GMT -6
It seems to me (and I may be wrong) that you are both thinking about this from the perspective of players. As a referee, I want to make sure there's enough of a world so that the players aren't creating characters in a vacuum. In a very real sense, there is a dynamic tension and an implicit partnership going on here: too much world, and the players can feel overwhelmed by it all. Not enough world, and the players create characters that bounce off of blank walls and fantasy cliches. Just for a moment, think of all of the distinctive fantasy worlds in swords and sorcery literature: Hyboria, Nehwon, the worlds of Poul Anderson's The Broken Sword and Three Hearts and Three Lions - they are distinct creations, with grand sweeping elements in the background that enrich characters in those stories. If you look at campaign worlds such as Greyhawk or Blackmoor or Tekumel, you find lots of background detail. To be sure, not all of that was there in the beginning of those games - but there was some. There's nothing wrong with that. What I also see is a certain kind of fear on the part of the players that the background is going to take over their character, and they will lose control. And I will acknowledge that that can happen, but it does not have to. Yet another way of thinking about these things is to consider: as a referee, you've put hours into creating a dungeon, with tricks, traps, and denizens. You don't intend it to guide the story but to be a backdrop in which the story unfolds. Why can't your larger world operate in the same way? Create a kingdom or two, have some NPCs to interact with (just like some of the ones in your dungeon), have some sort of hook for players to hang their character conceptions on. Generating a larger world isn't the same as railroading - it's just a larger frame for adventure. I guess my experience in all of this is pretty different from other people. All of the campaigns I played in originally had highly detailed backgrounds before play even began: - My first campaign as a player was created by my friend Paul; there were three distinct and separate civilizations on a large continent, and I started play in the middle one around an inland sea. We didn't even know the other two civilizations were out there - and never did, despite a couple of years of regular play.
- Then there was Merry Old England, run by Oldgeezer. Set during the reign of Edward III, we were free folk in Sherwood Forest, with a dungeon discreetly in the middle. At the time, Oldgeezer was working on a degree in Medieval History, and he folded that right into the game. My easy familiarity with the English pre-decimalisation monetary system came from playing in that game.
- Then there was Tekumel, first encountered through a campaign run by one of Prof. Barker's players, and then later with Prof. Barker himself. This is the be-all and end-all of highly developed worlds - there were 30-40 years of development put into it before we even started gaming. Sure, we were American tourists in an alien world, but it was just fascinating to encounter someplace truly different.
To me, saying that you start in front of the dungeon and let it develop "naturally" sounds pretty generic. Using that "D&D as cooking" metaphor, it's like no-name mac'n'cheese. Sure, you might be able to spice it up - but what was the cook thinking of in the first place? I know there are people out there who are just fine with all of that, but I'd like there to be some distinctive cuisine - and that starts with the referee. If he or she wants a three-star rating, they'd better serve up something memorable, or so it seems to me. In the end, I'm just expressing a preference. I know some people feel differently. But don't diss the idea of background completely just because it isn't your cup of tea - some of us actually like it.
|
|
|
Post by blackbarn on Jul 12, 2008 0:34:29 GMT -6
I'm not saying it's bad to make up a world beforehand, in fact that can be enjoyable. I am just not doing it that way right now, partly because of time available, but largely because it will develop through play, without even trying, you just have to let it. If the players also like this method, you have no problems. I don't see anything wrong with beginning the game with no sense of the campaign world or character backgrounds beyond the fact that it's a D&D game. I leave it vague and nebulous until players and DM need it to develop more, to ensure that the details fit what's going on in the game sessions. I just like to facilitate play immediately, since for my group that is the whole point. If an interesting setting or characters develop, great, but it's not the primary objective.
To continue with the REH/Hyborian Age analogy... take a look at Howard's essay on the races and nations of the Hyborian Age. It's got a lot of background info, but (in my opinion) it's dry and hard to read. I think it served the purpose of letting him get the world straight in his head, so he could write stories. But the reader is informed of Conan and his world through the stories themselves. In D&D, this could be seen as DM notes (for himself) vs. the game play experienced by the players. My point being, just like a reader need not read the Hyborian Age essay to understand and enjoy Conan tales, D&D players need not read a campaign world primer to have fun playing the game.
But again, I'm not condemning anyone for developing worlds and backgrounds before play... I have done that myself in the past. If that fits your DMing and playing style, there's obviously nothing wrong with it. I'm just not at that point in my own gaming right now.
|
|
|
Post by coffee on Jul 12, 2008 15:34:45 GMT -6
I want to boil this down to one line: In a very real sense, there is a dynamic tension and an implicit partnership going on here: too much world, and the players can feel overwhelmed by it all. Not enough world, and the players create characters that bounce off of blank walls and fantasy cliches. This is it exactly. I've been the one bouncing around off blank walls before, and it wasn't fun. But just as often, I've been the one who's first three or four "character concepts" were shot down because "they won't fit in well" -- and this with a grand total of zero pages of background material or house rules ("Oh, you'll pick it up as you go along...") So, yeah, I am kind of looking at it from the point of view of a player, because I haven't had a whole lot of good DM's as inspiration thus far, at least as far as setting up new campaigns go. And as a DM, I don't want to put a whole elaborate world out there that the players will (understandably, I feel) not want to spend an entire weekend boning up on. But that's just my preference. It's that happy medium between too much and too little that I'm seeking.
|
|
|
Post by badger2305 on Jul 12, 2008 16:30:44 GMT -6
But just as often, I've been the one who's first three or four "character concepts" were shot down because "they won't fit in well" -- and this with a grand total of zero pages of background material or house rules ("Oh, you'll pick it up as you go along...") You've put your finger on something. That moment of being told your character concept wouldn't work. There's at least one thing going on here that makes me think twice, and maybe another. It may even boil down to excessive detail on the part of both the player and the referee. If a world gets so detailed before game play starts such that you get told "your concept wouldn't work here" then maybe the referee has too much detail. Similarly, if a player comes in with a lengthy character profile right down to shoe size and preferred wardrobe colors, they might not be ready for the spiky pit trap of doom and it's time to roll up a new character. What I am getting out of this is that prior background is okay, either in a world or in a character, so long as it does unduly constrain the other person (player or referee). There has to be room for these things to grow into one another. What do you think?
|
|
|
Post by driver on Jul 12, 2008 17:30:28 GMT -6
I used to worry about whether people's characters would fit in with my setting. Now I try to accommodate them if it's possible. There are plenty of respected settings, even some widely perceived as very immersive and strongly concerned with setting fidelity (e.g., Harn, Tekumel) that feature some instances of characters crossing over to and from other settings or Earth history. If someone really wants to play something, we can probably figure something out unless it's just stupid.
|
|
|
Post by dwayanu on Jul 12, 2008 18:41:05 GMT -6
In D&D or the like (far-out fantasy), I'm pretty easy about accommodating "oddball" characters. The Big Question that sometimes arises is whether it's going to be a forced comedy game (which tends to have a short, if sometimes spectacular, life). I did the "totally gonzo" thing in D&D years ago, and now prefer to leave it to other games -- Encounter Critical and Mutant Future come to mind.
(Somewhere, someone wants to play a spidergoat!)
One way to go about creating a world is to let players' character concepts shape it. If someone wants to play a Viking type, then there's a Scandinavian kind of place somewhere.
|
|
|
Post by blackbarn on Jul 12, 2008 19:27:13 GMT -6
I agree completely about the character concept assessment. If a player wants to play something, I don't tell them no. Rather, we work together to find a way to fit it in.
|
|
|
Post by robertsconley on Jul 12, 2008 21:20:25 GMT -6
Harn has a good section on a pre-game. I adapted it for my own use. I ask the player what they want to play. I tell them just use standard fantasy tropes and don't worry about my game's background.
Then I take what they give (usually amounts to a paragraph equivalent) and make a list of possibilities (about a page worth) and then present it to them. Then we talk about it and from that is usually their final background, again around a page worth.
Now I do this not because enamored I foisting up an elaborate background on a unsuspecting audience. The idea is to develop
1) Resources for the players. 2) Conflict to generate adventure
I don't use the background a club to pummel my players with.
I also have a rule that players can change (within reason) any aspect within 1 to 3 game sessions. This because sometimes what seems to be a good idea fails in actual play. Usually what happens is that something else is found more interesting and that become the central focus of the character's background.
The primary reason that all this developed in my games is that in OD&D (and AD&D) is that there are several areas for focus. The ones with the most rules are Dungeons, and Baronies.
While many DMs focused on the Dungeons . My games always focused on the Barony building. Part of this is because I played Wargames a lot prior to discovering D&D.
|
|
|
Post by dwayanu on Jul 13, 2008 13:01:36 GMT -6
On character concepts: Sometimes it helps to sort out which aspects of the idea are most important. In Tekumel, someone who likes playing Hobbits or Gnomes might find a Tinaliya appealing; a Pe Choi might suit one who prefers Elves; an Ahoggya might be good as a badass lacking in social skills.
|
|
|
Post by coffee on Jul 13, 2008 20:00:11 GMT -6
I also have a rule that players can change (within reason) any aspect within 1 to 3 game sessions. This because sometimes what seems to be a good idea fails in actual play. Usually what happens is that something else is found more interesting and that become the central focus of the character's background. Yes! Absolutely! This is something I've done for a long time, and not just in D&D.
|
|
|
Post by coffee on Jul 13, 2008 20:03:02 GMT -6
What I am getting out of this is that prior background is okay, either in a world or in a character, so long as it does unduly constrain the other person (player or referee). There has to be room for these things to grow into one another. What do you think? Exactly. Too much background can oppress the players. It can make the DM seek to avoid characters that don't "fit". Whereas allowing for some give and take, on both side, the entire group can come up with a game they'll all enjoy.
|
|