Comments on: Drifting White Wolf Preludes into Other RPGs

By: Martin

Martin — Fri, 05 Jan 2007 00:28:26 +0000

Good points all around! I can see why preludes would be a problem in an online (PbP, PbEM, etc.) game, or with groups or game styles that just don’t gel around that kind of background development.

And I love the term “interactive backstory” — it’d be perfect for explaining what a prelude is to a gamer who hasn’t heard of them before.

By: VV_GM

VV_GM — Wed, 03 Jan 2007 22:29:00 +0000

I’ve been doing “preludes” for non-WW games for years now, and I agree with Rick that they are just an interactive backstory. I can’t think a single game that wouldn’t benefit from this character development tool, but I can see how it might not work for some groups. If your group is into roleplaying it works great. If your group would rather hack soemthing up don’t bother with it.

By: Rick the Wonder Algae

Rick the Wonder Algae — Wed, 03 Jan 2007 21:01:58 +0000

Preludes are nothing but interactive backstory. The neat thing about them is they give the player time to solidify their concept and stretch their legs a bit before they have group dynamic concerns to worry about. The neat thing from the DM’s prospective is that you have more creative control over your character’s backstories w/o railroading of blatantly changing around things that they’ve engineered.

P.S. while White wolf does it and apparently have come up with a pretentious little name for it, it’s actually a pretty old concept.

By: tsuyoshikentsu

tsuyoshikentsu — Wed, 03 Jan 2007 19:03:37 +0000

There is a medium in which this is a problem: PbP, or play-by-post, games.

See, PbP takes a long time. A loooooong time. We’re talking a week for a single encounter. And the problem with a prelude like this is that it can take a whole month if not done right. And that there just kills the game.

By: Telas

Telas — Wed, 03 Jan 2007 18:02:34 +0000

I like this idea for a few reasons.

1. Adding a new player to the group. This lets the the DM and player “feel each other out”, and maybe point out some failings in the PC build or incompatibilities in gaming style. (“Wow, that 6 Charisma really makes some things difficult in your campaign!” or “How the hell was I supposed to know she was an assassin?!”)

2. Defining what the player wants from the game by giving him or her alone a menu of options. This beats the crap out of “You know… whatever.”

3. Defining assumptions. Everyone’s got different definitions for roleplaying, power gaming, outright twinking, and drama jockeying. This lays it out on the table (‘scuse the pun).

4. Setting expectations for both parties to adjust to. Hopefully the gaming styles will be laid out, but both the player’s and DM’s goals for the game should be somewhat visible to the other party, who can adjust as needed.

By: Stephen W.

Stephen W. — Wed, 03 Jan 2007 16:56:28 +0000

In an ideal world where everyone in the game had the time to pull this off, I think it’d be a great idea. Realistically, almost every game I’ve played in has had to deal with logistical issues. Distance and competing schedules are often too limiting to allow for more than a single group getogether.

My word of warning would be to avoid this tactic if you can’t ensure that everyone will get a chance to have a prelude. Otherwise, you may have some players feel as if they were left out and start the game off on a bad foot.

By: Jag Dell

Jag Dell — Wed, 03 Jan 2007 16:51:22 +0000

One similar thing I have done successfully is to have ‘cut-scenes’ right in the middle of the campaign. A single character would participate in a Mini-adventure (1 or 2 hour) where significant plot elements about him would be brought into play. The other players would contribute by playing out NPCs or their own characters in secondary roles.

I’ve successfully played a Political Marriage, a game of Craps with a god of Chance as Dealer, a resurrection scene where a dead character had to prove to a God he was worthy of re-life… etc. And my players were of the’kick-down-the-door’ school back then.

Making it interesting to the main character was easy, but making it fun (and interactive) for the rest was quite a challenge. Well worth it.

Cheers

By: ScottM

ScottM — Wed, 03 Jan 2007 16:40:46 +0000

It is an interesting element you can adapt to a lot of games. In my experience, preludes do a good job of grounding you in your character– getting a chance to try out different ways to characterize your PC. It can also be a good chance to learn what system-specific issues your character is going to have; if your character has a good computer skill, what does the GM think you can do with it?

The primary drawback, that I can see, is that you might drift your characterization in a direction that doesn’t work as well for group play. The GM just needs to keep an eye out for that, making sure hooks to other characters are clear and present by the end of the prelude.

By: John Arcadian

John Arcadian — Wed, 03 Jan 2007 16:36:10 +0000

I’ve actually been doing introductory sessions with players from when I first ran DND games way back when. I like the idea of running introductory, or character background sessions, whenever the players are up for it. When I play DND, or other atypical fantasy games like that, I find that players don’t often put as much emphasis on their characters background details. In those types of settings I’ve noticed people tending to play towards archetypes more. “Here is my version of a ranger, or my version of the gentleman theif, etc.” Some of that can be attributed to DND use of classes. Games like White-Wolf tend to reward and encourage deep characterization and heavy role playing. I think it is easy to drift the concept to other games that do the same. However, when I’ve asked some players about doing a background session they just don’t care that much.