My first encounter with someone who played into the game was a human thief, named Skye. For Skye, everything was negotiable. A great role-player, Skye’s player made an effort to bite every adventure hook that it seemed remotely likely the rest of the party would go along with. Usually, he did so (in-character) grumbling about how the price wasn’t right, and that everyone around him was going to owe him “big time”. He had a full character history, but didn’t rely entirely on that history for making future decisions. At the time, he was the most flexible gamer I have ever played with. I never had to write plotlines targeted directly at getting his character involved, because he made a conscious effort to fit in to every adventure in his own greedy-overconfident-intimidating way.
I have had so many encounters from behind the DM screen with gamers who didn’t play into the game, that it always warms my heart when I see one who does. Some people do it naturally. I played in a session once with a human mage in krynn, who had never played D&D in his life. He was refreshing to sit at the table with. A more experienced player (5+ years of gaming, and 2 years as DM) nearly drove the evening to a standstill, because nothing going on the entire evening was motivational.
What follows is a brief summary of what it means to play into the game (PITG). While it is not entirely helpful for DM’s, I have seen it work wonders with players. With some simple coaching, I have seen miraculous changes in my gaming groups.
1. PITG does not mean you have to give up your character’s original vision. It is simply recognizing that you (the players) and the DM are all there to have a good time. The world does not revolve around you, and not everything that happens is going to happen to you. But, when it does, you will enjoy it that much more if you aren’t alone.
2. PITG does mean that it is up to the player to motivate the character, not a list of interests in the PC’s history, not a Role description in a 2ed Kit, not the Prestige Class, and definitely not some vague description from the PHB about what that Race/Class/Alignment is like.
3. PITG does not mean jumping on every adventure hook. It does, however mean jumping from time to time on a hook that isn’t the perfect hook for your character. From my experience as a DM, trust me when I say if the guy behind the screen throws out a tasty morsel, it is going to be more enjoyable for the party as a whole than the random encounter he has to roll because the party is still standing around waiting for a better adventure to come along.
4. PITG is not letting yourself be railroaded. It is taking positive actions that encourage party involvement such that the DM does not feel the need to lead players around with a leash. A person who plays into the game takes the DM’s planned adventures, and makes them his own, by instilling his character’s own unique perspective into the session.
5. PITG is something you can teach other players by example. Look around your gaming table, and if there is someone who is not involved in the session, who seems bored or feels like they are not part of the group. Play your character into involve them.
Of course, all of this may seem like basic role-playing for more experienced gamers. However, you may find that people who are adamant that they are excellent players still benefit from this. Examples to each of my above explanations follow, all are actual game experiences that I have had with people who either did or didn’t embrace the PITG philosophy. Names have been changed to protect the innocent and the ignorant.
1. “Thagar” was a dwarven warrior from Krynn. His original character idea was that he set out to find his son, who had left home during the Stormblade incident, and now the father had decided that enough was enough. The party he fell in with was Solamnic Knights attempting to find a magical sword dedicated to Palidine (sp?). Thagar’s player decided he had absolutely nothing in common with this party, but he became involved with them because he could get a cheaper ship fare on a Solamnic vessel. To get the discount he needed a recommendation from the knights, and thus decided to give his “underground expertise” to their dungeon crawl.
2. “Falahan” was a thief from Hillsfar, who described himself as a self-proclaimed bringer of vigilante justice. He would often spend an entire session wandering away from the party, having nothing to do with the other players. Several times, he was given adventure hooks that could involve the rest of the party. Most of the time he chose to go it alone, and wound up re-rolling characters. He often complained that his character didn’t fit in with the rest of the group.
3. “Alexander” was a half-elven Bard/Priest from Evereska. He had set for Berdusk to study under the Twilight Hall. Instead he fell in with a group of Paladins and Priests of the Lawful Gods. When given the opportunity, he passed up a profitable mercenary career. Instead, he convinced the Knights to help him track down a ruined temple from clues he deciphered from a farmer’s letter to his brother.
4. “Rothleed” was a dwarven Cleric. His party was dead set on exploring an abandoned City, but several players were absent. The DM had prepared an alternate adventure, to stall for time until all of the players could be present. One character was insisting on going in without the rest of the party, and could not be swayed by the DM’s side plots. Rothleed, however was able to reason with the other character that “A rock in a cave is still just a rock in a cave.” In the end, the side plot won out, and the full group was able to enjoy the DM’s glorious lost city at a later date.
5. Thagar (again) was shipwrecked on Kendermore. His party was scattered, and the DM was trying to introduce a new player, who was playing a kender. Most of the party was (wisely?) avoiding the kender like the plague. Thagar’s player however, latched onto one of the little vermin, conveniently the new player’s kender, and declared her to be his guide. Having another person besides the DM involve her directly, she blossomed into a very successful gamer.
My hope is that these ideas will not be dismissed as the ramblings of an aged sage, or even a foolish drunk, but considered the next time you sit down at a table on either side of the screen. It is probably better advice for players than DM’s. While it may seem simple, it can help bring good game to the table.
"It is entirely realistic that an adventurer would only be interested in one specific goal, one that doesn't mesh with those of others. We just don't tell stories about those adventurers here."
The other DM in our group coined this in response to a troublesome druid. The druid was interested only in adventures that related to protecting the forest. She had no interest in the kidnapping of the lord's son, despite the fact that the druid could have used the gratitude of the lord as leverage at a future point to protect the forest (an the DM blatantly stated this fact during the negotiations). In the end, the druid wandered off to hunt poachers, and tried to split the DM's time between herself and the rest of the party. It didn't work out in the end, obviously.
Originally posted by Giant in the Playground
"It is entirely realistic that an adventurer would only be interested in one specific goal, one that doesn't mesh with those of others. We just don't tell stories about those adventurers here."
This is an incredible comment with incredible insight. Thank you very much for posting it.
Good gaming.
After a discussion with my sounding board, I began to have the Monarchy press upon the adventures to 'do things' for the crown or possibly lose their land, citizenship and other birthrights. I am totally against this heavy-handed style of running a game, preferring to let my players choose, but these players strive upon the Kingly commands (giving me kudos during clean up). So as they enjoy the power-that-be telling them what to do, I am not enjoying the decision-making by the group. However, now that I know what drives them, running the game for them has become easier and with the realization that I enjoy gaming with people who play into the game, I will be more selective with whom I choose to play with in the future. Until I read your post, I did not understand why I was floundering, attempting to come up with storyline after storyline that would peek their interest.
I have to say that your article was very insightful. So much in fact, that I am going to point potential players of games that I run in the future to it before beginning a new campaign. This way, the likelihood of me getting an entire group of passive players not playing into the game will hopefully be zero.
Thank you for sharing the PitG concept. The onus is not solely on the players to swallow the adventure hook. Part of it is on the DM to provide an adventure hook that either the majority of them can swallow, or that one can swallow hook, line and sinker and persuade the others to help with. I will grant that in many cases too much emphasis is placed on the DM to feed the plothooks, but it shouldn't be taken entirely off either of them.
If you've got a set of characters who won't swallow hooks, the other option is to catch them with a net. Whereas a hook is something that the characters have to actively take, a net is something that will catch the characters unless they actively try to escape. Good simple examples of a net are the Orc invasion and the Rampaging Dragon (based upon level)- if either of them are not stopped, then the characters are going to have their homes burned, their gold stolen etc. The net does lend itself more easily to railroading, but this need not be the case (I can think of several obvious solutions to the Orcan army). Also give them a few magnetic hooks- a turf war between the thieves and the assassins’ guild is going to cause a lot of collateral damage unless it is stopped. One character at random early on in the fight gets his house burned by the fallout. Later, an assassin comes to assassinate a thief and aims at a PC by mistake (or the thief happens to be someone the PC is chatting up in a bar...) He kills the assassin and has now been marked by the Assassins Guild for killing one of their own. Steadily escalate this until the PCs have to take action in self-interest.
My DM forwarded the link to me, it's definitely something everyone should read and take into account (wouldn't that make for a different gaming experience?)
PITG should be the aspiration of all, for the sake of the players and especially the poor DM trying time after time to for the party.
(Plus I always love hearing RP stories. :D)
Originally posted by Ranthanas
You are only putting one side of the story there. Also PITG is a form of metagaming (a generally good form of metagaming, granted), and metagaming is not something to be encouraged.
The onus is not solely on the players to swallow the adventure hook. Part of it is on the DM to provide an adventure hook that either the majority of them can swallow, or that one can swallow hook, line and sinker and persuade the others to help with. I will grant that in many cases too much emphasis is placed on the DM to feed the plothooks, but it shouldn't be taken entirely off either of them.
If you've got a set of characters who won't swallow hooks, the other option is to catch them with a net. Whereas a hook is something that the characters have to actively take, a net is something that will catch the characters unless they actively try to escape. Good simple examples of a net are the Orc invasion and the Rampaging Dragon (based upon level)- if either of them are not stopped, then the characters are going to have their homes burned, their gold stolen etc. The net does lend itself more easily to railroading, but this need not be the case (I can think of several obvious solutions to the Orcan army). Also give them a few magnetic hooks- a turf war between the thieves and the assassins’ guild is going to cause a lot of collateral damage unless it is stopped. One character at random early on in the fight gets his house burned by the fallout. Later, an assassin comes to assassinate a thief and aims at a PC by mistake (or the thief happens to be someone the PC is chatting up in a bar...) He kills the assassin and has now been marked by the Assassins Guild for killing one of their own. Steadily escalate this until the PCs have to take action in self-interest.
Rathanas, you have a good point. Metagaming is a foul means of getting a group together. However... "Whoever tries, wins!" (Metal Gear Solid 2: Sons of Liberty excerpt.) In other words, whatever works, works. Period.
You are only putting one side of the story there. Also PITG is a form of metagaming (a generally good form of metagaming, granted), and metagaming is not something to be encouraged.
The onus is not solely on the players to swallow the adventure hook. Part of it is on the DM to provide an adventure hook that either the majority of them can swallow, or that one can swallow hook, line and sinker and persuade the others to help with. I will grant that in many cases too much emphasis is placed on the DM to feed the plothooks, but it shouldn't be taken entirely off either of them.
Let me ask you a question, and bear with the example. When you get up in the morning, do you say to yourself, "I am a student. Today, I am only going to do things directly related to being a student. I will not watch Pinky & The Brain, or go out to eat with my friends. If a purse snatcher runs past me and grabs my girlfriend's purse, I won't chase him, because I am a True Neutral student."? Or, (as I suppose is the case) do you wake up and move through your day, not completely dedicated to pushing your self-image (your "studentness" if you will) onto the world around you, but instead do a few things that you would likely do every day, and then proceed to do things outside of the world of being a TN student?
What PITG is about is realizing that your character is much less "locked into" than just statistics on a sheet of paper, that the character is (again, excuse the example) "real" and would behave as such. PITG is not telling players to metagame being interested in every plot hook, and as such is not encouraging metagaming. PITG is about realizing that from time to time, the most hardened Bounty Hunter might just try to stop that purse snatcher, in his own overbearing and deadly way.
It is not my expectation that PITG is going to create a super-conformist party which dives immediately on every lame side-story that is thrown their way. However, when they do stumble/find/get-hit-on-the-head-by a plot hook that interests them, that they will ROLEPLAY their way through the adventure, adding new facets not just to their characters, but also to party dynamics and the DM's storyline (often unexpected dynamics) that makes the entire session more interesting. PITG is about creating characters that are more "alive" to the players every session because they get involved with the game.
Disclaimer: This is not to infer that you are a TN student, as such, since I have no idea what your occupation or alignment would be in real life, it is merely an example for purposes of the question.
The net does lend itself more easily to railroading, but this need not be the case (I can think of several obvious solutions to the Orcan army).
The 'net' is railroading, so to speak, regardless of the number of obvious solutions readily available. Unless one of your solutions is "leave the country to fend for itself" you are still forcing a hoop in the party's path and expecting them to jump through it. However, since I do wish to discuss railroading in a later thread, I will leave this out. Be on the lookout for railroading discussions to come.
Metagaming is a foul means of getting a group together.
Metagaming is a fine means of getting a group together. It is a foul means of keeping them that way.
Example: A group of characters are created to start a new campaign. They have absolutely nothing in common. However, if the players "metagame" two or three of them to have the same hometown, now you have created at least a common bond for the players to start with. What they do with that knowledge is entirely up to them as PC's.
Metagaming is a fine means of getting a group together. It is a foul means of keeping them that way.
That's what I meant to say. I just put it in wrong. And I did mention some of the merits of your system.
In response to a few other posts, I think there is often an unmotivated hostility toward metagaming. Think about it: A campaign with absolutely no metagaming is an impossibility, since the players have to get together, roll up their characters and connect some of their characters' backgrounds in different ways. Many kinds of metagaming, including Soto's PITG concept, are very often beneficial to the game. Sadly, metagaming as a word has received a very bad reputation. That's the topic for another thread, though.
Dungeons and Dragons is a game of collaborative storytelling.
Not. Collectively experiencing stories, yes, but not of creating them. D&D is not narrativist in the least. Task resolution systems are bad for narrativism. Fudging die rolls is bad for it. Railroading, no matter how well disguised, is poison for narrativism. So, D&D is about experiencing and influencing a story created by the GM.
One of the five players had another way of thinking and it didn't work out for him (he has now left our group), one reason being that he wanted to pursue his character's personal goals much more than the other PCs that were more inclined towards making a group story.
Ranthanas: your point is well taken. I do not think that Lord_Soto's point is that players should be eating in the DM's hand all the time. It is simply to recognize that as a player of a D&D game, you have a responsibility towards the group (i.e. your team) to conjugate your efforts with them to obtain a fun game as a result. If you decide to play a PC that is continuously trying to remain inert as opposed to following subtle plot lines, or to accomplish personal goals instead of putting the accent on group goals, or other such activities, then I believe that the end result is that all other players and the DM will become aggravated in the long run. It is OK to occasionally do things alone on your side or to refuse the occasional plot that is being offered, but doing so on a regular basis does not promote a fertile gaming environment.
Sky
Heh, for years now I've made a habit of asking my players what they'd like to do next, completely out of character. I then craft a few plot hooks for them to choose from when the time is right. Sure there are those sessions where it's not obviously one of their choices, but most are. Giving the players (not the characters) some input can't be that unique of an idea?
A great thing to do, indeed! That is how interesting (to everyone) games are born. I strongly suggest using this technique.