And GM.
I’m sat here listening to Aliens (again), and am reminded of just how much unstated backstory the Characters have.
Obviously Ripley was seen in the previous movie, so we know her story. But it is also made clear that this is not the Marines’ first rodeo.
There are many references to previous missions, that leaves us with unanswered questions:
- Why is there a new Lieutenant? Why is he so inexperienced? What happened to the last one?
- What exactly happened on Arcturus, and why doesn’t it matter?
- What happened when the dispersal wasn’t nice and clean?
- What is it with Drake and Vasquez?
- and many, many more …
Am I the only one who doesn’t actually want these questions answered?
They make for a very characterful movie. The Marines are Individuals, with History. But that does not mean I want a whole series of prequels and prologues, just to explain why those snippets were included!
And I often feel the same way in RPGs.
As a GM I have learned the hard way that making any random, off-the-cuff comment about an NPC will be taken as an invitation to investigate to the utmost (and probably expect a reward for “solving” the situation). (On the other hand, subtly hinting at Quests the NPC may be offering is ignored. I now use these signs, highlighted in neon: )
As a player, I often take these things too far the other way. I will brush off obvious Plot-lines as “flavour” and ignore the GM’s finely-crafted introduction of new adventures based upon my back-story as “colour”.
I hope we all recognise these behaviours. Players who listen to your (GM) monologue, seemingly intent on jumping on anything they see as a CLUE and jumping in:
“He’s wearing RED shoes? Like the incidental guy we met 6 sessions ago? AND he has a hat on?!? C’MON guys! We have to follow this up!”
And also:
He has the same name as my estranged father. I’m sure several people do. I need to buy some reloads, can we move on? He also has an accent and dialect that can only be from our small provincial town? Interesting, but I really need those reloads!
In one way, this does cause me to lament the move from Pen’n’Paper to Digital. As a player, when asking the name of an NPC, does the GM roll their eyes, and say “Oh, … erm … let’s say ‘Brian'” or do they reach for their copious stack of notes: “One moment, It’s here somewhere!”. Clicking on a hidden screen could just as easily be locating the correct Evernote page, or a random-name-app. While this obviously has its advantages, it also removes some of the subtle clues that we used to take for granted.
Do you prefer a wide-open sandbox, free to explore any direction, as the whim takes you? Or do you present your players with a few limited options, and say the rest is Side-Action? How do you feel about players taking 2-3 sessions to dig into the reason that the Blacksmith can afford THREE apprentices? New, interesting development, or tedious sidetracking?
Me? I am quite split on the matter. As GM, I like to be able to make interesting NPCs, with quirks and foibles. This does not mean I want players delving deeply into their situations, when there is ADVENTURE to be had! As a player (especially in our last Exalted game), I like to get involved in the plight of the “little people”: the blacksmiths, the shoe-shine boys, the servants and lackeys.
Does this make me a bad person? Probably not. Does it make me a bad Player/GM? maybe …