Pet peeve: Character options that impose setting assumptions

[Shipyard Locked]

So, I was reading Monster of the Week, a "Powered by the Apocalypse" game that I was really digging for the most part. It's basically for running Buffy/Supernatural style campaigns and seems to give the GM a lot of leeway for coming up with their own monster mythology. However, I start reading the playbooks (PbtA-speak for character sheet + character rules + character option trees) and there are in-built player-facing options like:

- Choose one of these monsters that you've had a run in with the past: troll, vampire, werewolf, etc.
- You've made a deal with the devil for wealth and power, but he will collect in about a year, etc.

So unfortunately due to things like this scattered all over the player-facing portion of the game a GM has to make some choices. You either:

A) Make sure your campaign world and mythology includes the whole pu pu platter of trolls, vampires, werewolves and satanic deal makers whether you like it or not so that you don't invalidate any character options the players are excited about. Oh, and expect to be taken by surprise when a character option you didn't remember suddenly throws your setting assumptions for a loop mid-session.

B) Stick to your vision, but then have to go through the book line by line, deleting or altering things that don't fit that vision, THEN explain to the disappointed or skeptical player that the thing they really wanted right there on the official character option page isn't on the menu or has been replaced with what looks like a smeerp* for reasons that are going to come off as artsy-fartsy at the outset.

Now, this isn't the worst problem in the world, but it is a pet peeve, and I'm sure I'm not the only one who has it. I wish some games wouldn't impose on the GM's ability to craft a world by building too many setting assumptions right into the stuff the players see first and get excited about.

* https://allthetropes.org/wiki/Call_a_Rabbit_a_Smeerp

 

[Sosthenes]

Isn't that part and parcel for games like this (PbtA, Fate, SR Anarchy), i.e. that the world building isn't just in the hand of the GM? It's not like this overstepped the boundary, it's pretty much doing what it's supposed to do. Given the setup of the "playbooks", it's quite hard to have it work in both ways. IIRC FATE is a bit easier there, it just tells you to define aspects, in some sessions this might define the background, but it's not pre-written in the character creation.

Also, to a lesser degree, this can happen with many games, where the player options are often more generic than the setting subset the GM envisions. I mean, my bog standard fantasy world might not include paladins…

 

[soltakss]

Powered by the Apocalypse is a very fun game, but its chargen is far too structured for me.
If you play a PbtA game that includes Monsters, then you should have Monsters in the game. What is the point of playing that particular game if you don't?
Of course, you can always say "Yes, we have monsters, but not that kind of monsters" and adjust chargen accordingly.

 

[Shipyard Locked]

Isn't that part and parcel for games like this (PbtA, Fate, SR Anarchy), i.e. that the world building isn't just in the hand of the GM? It's not like this overstepped the boundary, it's pretty much doing what it's supposed to do.

I guess you're right, I should have expected that from PbtA's general sales pitch. I had no problem with the game's mechanics, I just enjoy blanker slates for settings.

Also, to a lesser degree, this can happen with many games, where the player options are often more generic than the setting subset the GM envisions. I mean, my bog standard fantasy world might not include paladins…

Absolutely, which is why it's a pet peeve rather than a beef with one particular system.
D&D in particular keeps accumulating baggage of this sort edition after edition, and it can really trip you up when you realize a player picked a character option you forgot about and your setting wasn't accounting for. As I said on another site, they really ought to provide a list of all the easy-to-miss setting assumptions your campaign needs for all the basic player options to function.

If you play a PbtA game that includes Monsters, then you should have Monsters in the game. What is the point of playing that particular game if you don't?

I'm not retarded. o_O
Obviously your next line is what I was getting at:

Of course, you can always say "Yes, we have monsters,m but not that kind of monsters" and adjust chargen accordingly.

Which leads to this:

B) Stick to your vision, but then have to go through the book line by line, deleting or altering things that don't fit that vision, THEN explain to the disappointed or skeptical player that the thing they really wanted right there on the official character option page isn't on the menu or has been replaced with what looks like a smeerp* for reasons that are going to come off as artsy-fartsy at the outset.

It's especially galling for Monster of the Week, where surprise is an important part of the genre it is going for.

 

[Baulderstone]

It's especially galling for Monster of the Week, where surprise is an important part of the genre it is going for.

Surprise is part of the genre, but so is characters having pre-existing baggage/relationships with certain "monsters". You can still keep every other monster a secret.

And as far as playbooks go, if you want to customize the setting, you absolutely should be customizing the playbooks line-by-line. That is practically Step One of customizing this kind of game. Just like if you want to make your own D&D setting, you lay out the available race/classes for people to pick from.

 

[Voros]

If you're not going to use the default setting/assumptions of the game of course you'll have to tweak the playbooks as they are part of the game's worldbuilding.

 

[The Butcher]

I used to be hardcore about themes and worldbuilding back in the day.

This would mean a lot of option-pruning for my D&D games. This class isn't available, this other one is only available for members of a certain culture, etc.

Nowadays I try to adjust my worldbuilding to player demands. Player wants to play a samurai in our Norse-inspired fantasy game? Sure, why not. Let's cook up a distant fantasy Japan, contrive a justification and roll with it just so your Sanjuro knock-off can sail with everyone else's Ragnar Lodhbrok knock-offs.

Once we’re past these minor hurdles, the impact on the campaign can be non-existent. Or you can take the odd PC’s background and run with it (e.g. a not-Viking ship makes port at their home town with an old relative/ally/rival/etc. of the PC at the helm and whatever adventure hook(s) you deem appropriate).

As a player, though, I am generally happy to roll with most limitations imposed by GMs. Same philosophy: most of the times it’s not a big deal and still leaves me a whole lot of room to play several types of fun characters.

If it's important to you that your game has no trolls, all it takes is an observation. If anything, collaborative setting creation is more efficient at avoiding these clashes of expectations.

 

[K_Peterson]

and there are in-built player-facing options

Is that also PbtA-speak for predefined character backgrounds or something else? Are they selected or is this a random table of options? How many options are provided in each playbook?

Sorry, I generally play traditional Rpgs so I'm totally in the dark when it comes to new design terminology. (It'd be nice to have some kind of translation-guide so I could relate the terms to something I understand).

Personally, I'm a fan of systems that uses lifepath and background generators. And it sounds like it might be entertaining to take these player-facing options and mold them to the specific campaign, even generate some of my own if that wasn't considered taboo to the game engine. That would depend, though, on the amount of work required - how many options need to be revised. But, I generally like to draft up my own character creation documents for the campaigns I run. So that it's clear what is "allowed" and expected with the campaign. I'd rather provide player-facing options to the player myself than point them at a purchase or existing doc.

 

[Shipyard Locked]

Is that also PbtA-speak for predefined character backgrounds or something else? Are they selected or is this a random table of options? How many options are provided in each playbook?

Sorry, I generally play traditional Rpgs so I'm totally in the dark when it comes to new design terminology. (It'd be nice to have some kind of translation-guide so I could relate the terms to something I understand).

No, I'm sorry for the confusion, I use player-facing to mean anything in a system that is presented as 'for' the players as opposed to stuff that is more of the GM's concern. For instance, in D&D terms, classes, feats, spells and playable races are 'for' the players while monsters, magic items, and dungeon layouts are 'for' the GM (in the sense that they decide what shows up).

 

[Ladybird]

Isn't that part and parcel for games like this (PbtA, Fate, SR Anarchy), i.e. that the world building isn't just in the hand of the GM? It's not like this overstepped the boundary, it's pretty much doing what it's supposed to do. Given the setup of the "playbooks", it's quite hard to have it work in both ways. IIRC FATE is a bit easier there, it just tells you to define aspects, in some sessions this might define the background, but it's not pre-written in the character creation.

Indeed, Apocalypse Engine games are very strongly focussed on the classes/archetypes that fit the game worlds they're trying to simulate, and every choice is about that or encouraging the sorts of situations and conflicts you'd expect to see in that game world.

If your game world isn't like the one in the book, well, that's what the usual chapter on hacking the system is for!

 

[Tommy Brownell]

Nowadays I try to adjust my worldbuilding to player demands. Player wants to play a samurai in our Norse-inspired fantasy game? Sure, why not. Let's cook up a distant fantasy Japan, contrive a justification and roll with it just so your Sanjuro knock-off can sail with everyone else's Ragnar Lodhbrok knock-offs.

Yup.

So long as I feel like the player is coming from a place of genuine enthusiasm and interest, I can probably work with it.

 

[Tarot70]

I like the flavour baked into the rules. Otherwise, if I wanted to build everything from scratch I'd just use [current favourite generic system].

At the same time, I take the stance that only the things that the players actually select are real. Those are the established facts. If nobody was interested enough in vampires to circle that item on their playbook, then I can have the first NPC they talk to say, "Don't be ridiculous! Of course there's no such thing as vampires!" and then that becomes the truth.

(I would also reserve the right to later say, "Well, of course there are demons that drink blood! Where do you think all those ridiculous vampire stories come from?)

 

[Vargold]

The hard, crunchy center of the PbtA-verse is definitely like this: the setting doesn't really exist until the players make their characters, and the GM responds to their choices.

Things get looser on the fringe: Uncharted Worlds doesn't have playbooks, instead letting characters combine Origins with Careers to determine one's skills. (Even here, though, the setting chapter assumes that players will be involved in setting creation. There just isn't a mechanical connection between the characters and the setting.)

 

[Baeraad]

I don't mind the rules being integrated with the setting - I kind of prefer it, actually - but it's true that I wish that a lot of games would make up their minds and not present themselves as loosy-goosy anything-goes general sets of guidelines and then sneak a bunch of setting assumptions in through the back door.

In this case, I think the book should either list up front what critters and powers are assumed to exist within the game world or make the rules more general (exchange "the devil" with "a dark power," "vampires, werewolves or trolls" for "one distinct kind of supernatural creature," etc).

 

[Baulderstone]

In this case, I think the book should either list up front what critters and powers are assumed to exist within the game world or make the rules more general (exchange "the devil" with "a dark power," "vampires, werewolves or trolls" for "one distinct kind of supernatural creature," etc).

I, on the other hand, think that direction is completely wrong for this kind of game. A list of exactly what kind monsters exist defeats the point of a game where character creation involves shared setting creation. I think they took the right approach by providing a few concrete examples of monsters but leaving it open for the player to include others. The concrete examples are there for players that want to pick off a list, and others can add anything they want.

As for the devil, as GM, I can think of at least a dozen ways to interpret that for varying cosmologies. I wouldn't feel limited by that at all as a GM. And if a player picks it, it means that player really likes the idea of the devil being in the setting and having made a deal with him. That is is GM gold. Just run with it.

 

[CRKrueger]

Man, if a pet peeve of yours is character facts changing settings assumptions, why in the name of all that's Holy are you messing around with narrative games where the whole point is the players are co-GMing at times, especially a PbtA hack, where most of the time, having an actual defined setting with assumptions kind of defeats the purpose?

 

[Shipyard Locked]

Man, if a pet peeve of yours is character facts changing settings assumptions, why in the name of all that's Holy are you messing around with narrative games where the whole point is the players are co-GMing at times, especially a PbtA hack, where most of the time, having an actual defined setting with assumptions kind of defeats the purpose?

Because I like to explore new things and see to what extent they might work for me before passing judgement. As I said, I was digging a lot of it, and this was my first full-blown exposure to PbtA.

 

[CRKrueger]

Heh, fair enough, but if you're not a big Mango fan, not liking someone's Mango Surprise Smoothie isn't exactly a surprise. If you really don't like Dice Pools, Shadowrun probably won't be to your liking. Neither of those is "Passing Judgment". If you don't like classes and levels, but try the latest OSR game and it bugs you - what did you think was gonna happen?

 

[Baulderstone]

If you don't like classes and levels, but try the latest OSR game and it bugs you - what did you think was gonna happen?

You might find the elements of the game that you do like more than balance your dislike of classes and level, or you might find your tastes have changed over time.

 

[CRKrueger]

You might find the elements of the game that you do like more than balance your dislike of classes and level, or you might find your tastes have changed over time.

Yeah maybe. It just strikes me as so bizarre that if "Pet peeve: Character options that impose setting assumptions" is a thing, that you're delving into a system where "The hard, crunchy center of the PbtA-verse is definitely like this: the setting doesn't really exist until the players make their characters, and the GM responds to their choices."

I mean, of all the systems possible. Ah whatever, it just seemed odd, like hating supers and being surprised that Champions wasn't your thing.

Just for sake of interest Shipyard, were you actually unfamiliar with how classic PbtA games treat the setting before you dove in?

 

[Shipyard Locked]

Just for sake of interest Shipyard, were you actually unfamiliar with how classic PbtA games treat the setting before you dove in?

Yes.
I had assumed from the recommendation I'd received that Monster of the Week allowed you to make up your own monsters and setting assumptions. I would have benefited from the clarification that you make up the monsters and setting assumptions between the parameters of very specific genre standbys and player input.

 

[CRKrueger]

Yes.
I had assumed from the recommendation I'd received that Monster of the Week allowed you to make up your own monsters and setting assumptions. I would have benefited from the clarification that you make up the monsters and setting assumptions between the parameters of very specific genre standbys and player input.

Ah ok, that explains it then. Any game you have to watch out for the proselytizers, but I've found with narrative games, there's usually a lot of difference between what is touted and what the reality is: "this game is totally traditional", "there's no metagame" etc... This site so far has been pretty amazing in that the discussions here when it gets to talking about narrative games have been remarkably free of the standard obfuscatory bullshit you see on other sites.

 

[Vargold]

Wow, I'm shocked and pleased that you .sigged me!