DM "adding" to your PC's background?

[Jacob Marley]

I'd say no, bad idea. When I write a background -- and I seldom do anymore -- it is done so as a guide FOR ME to roleplay the character. I don't mind when DMs reference my character's background for flavor or color purposes, but I do mind when they use it for plot.

Edit: The exception to this is if I am pursuing something regarding my background, then the DM ought to make use of it. The point is, it needs to be player-initiated rather than DM-initiated.

 

[TerraDave]

Umbran gives a good example, and approach.

But to Marley and the others, are you saying you want to write a background and have it not be relevant in game?

 

[Jacob Marley]

But to Marley and the others, are you saying you want to write a background and have it not be relevant in game?

See my edit.

 

[pawsplay]

I think the GM is entitled to a "line of credit" with regard to my character, increasing in proportion to how well we know each other, the necessities of the game, and the degree to which the proposed elements jibe with the starting concept. I also feel I have the right to say, "No, you've overstepped. That's not my character."

With that in mind, I think there are certain areas where this usually works well. Long-lost brothers... as long as it's reasonable for my character to have a long-lost brother based on the background I've already provided, this seems almost more like a campaign event than a characterization, so that's okay. I'm playing a cyberpunk game and I find out I'm a clone/the product of fabricated memories/an android who thinks it's a person/a person in a simulation? Yeah, that's okay, too, I think. That would be as much as a surprise to my character as to me, so it doesn't retcon the authentic emotional experiences I have invested in my character. I'm adopted? Probably jarring in many cases, but probably okay, and perfectly in genre if I'm playing a historical WWII game, or a courtly intrigue game, or some game based on prophecies and whatnot.

Thigns that are not okay without my permission (short list): declaring my character is a comic book style mutant rather than a highly trained super-normal; stating I have a relationship with an NPC that would have required some kind of active involvement on the part of my PC (fiance', old mentor, estranged parent, etc); revealing something about my character that I should had knowledge of (not-so-long-lost brother, identified at an early age as a child of prophesy); rewriting my stated background, even to a small degree; any emotional reaction to anything not dictated by involuntary, mostly physiological processes, preferably ones codified in the rules. And naturally, anything I feel goes beyond your "line of credit" whether you agree or not; fix it or I start to lose interest in the game.

Correct: "Do you think your character might have trained with a master of the Northern School?"
Incorrect: "You recognize at once your old master, estranged ever since you refused to heed the edicts of his martial tradition."

Correct: "So you see, Joe. Everything you ever thought you were, that's just a story we made up so you would feel okay about yourself. You were always made for one purpose."
Incorrect: "You watch in horror as your small halfling arm transforms into a writhing tentacle. 'Now you know who your true father is, halfling,' roars the mad sorcerer. 'Yog-Sothoth! Yog-Sothoth!' Your loyal companion turns to you and cries out, 'No, Master Frodo! You mustn't believe him! He's lying. I know who you are! It's not this... this thing!' What have you done to him, you monster?' The sorcerer chuckles. 'Oh, come how, Samwise. It's time to drop such pretenses. I got to you a long time ago.' You recall, with increasing rage and sense of betrayal, that one night under the hill, when you were in each other's arms, and have not spoken of since. Suddenly, it all makes sense, and you barely restrain your urge to kill your once boon companion. Your strange, alien limb responds to your rage by writhing with almost lustful anticipation of the carnage you so desire."

 

[Kingreaper]

I tend to go with: If you're adding something the character would know about (ie. that their father vanished when they were 8) check with the player.

If you're adding something the character wouldn't know about (ie. that the father they stated vanished was killed by a ghoul, and still wonders around with the pack that killed him) that's a plot point. Be careful with it, as you would with any plot point directly impacting on a specific character, but you don't need to check with the player if the character wouldn't know.

 

[Tequila Sunrise]

It's about courtesy.

"Hey Joe, I have a great adventure idea. Mind if I fill in some of your PC's history?"

If he says yes, then you're good to go. If not, ask a different player. Or write another dungeon crawl, 'cause that's probably what your players want.

Me, I intentionally leave my PC histories short and vague so that I or the DM can fill in the blanks later. One of my players is the same; his current PC not only has amnesia but he flat out told me "Nothing I think I know is certain until you make it so in-game."

Another player doesn't even have a history. I think you can guess who I'm writing our next adventure around.

 

[Whizbang Dustyboots]

I'd say no, bad idea. When I write a background -- and I seldom do anymore -- it is done so as a guide FOR ME to roleplay the character. I don't mind when DMs reference my character's background for flavor or color purposes, but I do mind when they use it for plot.

Edit: The exception to this is if I am pursuing something regarding my background, then the DM ought to make use of it. The point is, it needs to be player-initiated rather than DM-initiated.

Requiring the DM to come up with endless compelling plots that have nothing to do with the characters themselves is just as much of a cliche as the evil general being a relative of the heroes.

"My character is a cipher unless I decide that I want to drive the plot based on my background write-up" is just as much of a deal-breaker to me, as a DM, as "DM changes my character's background for his plot" is for many players.

There has to be a happy medium: Characters need to create characters, not anonymous loners and those characters fit into a world where their identities might drive adventures, with player input as to what they're interested in -- and what they're explicitly NOT interested in.

To the OP: Ask your players. There's nothing inherently wrong about having the characters' backgrounds drive the game. They just need to understand that's what's going to happen and be involved in framing what's available for the DM to play with.

 

[Michael Silverbane]

As you say, it depends a lot on the individual player, and the level of trust between the player and DM.

Often, when I am starting a new campaign, I will ask my players to give me one (or more) background elements specifically for me to screw with. This way, the player gets to have some say in the gotcha that his character is going to suffer, as an incentive to buy into it.

 

[Dausuul]

Umbran gives a good example, and approach.

But to Marley and the others, are you saying you want to write a background and have it not be relevant in game?

I'm fine with it being relevant in-game. What I don't want is for it to change in-game. (This is a bit ambiguous in the OP.) In other words, let's say I establish that my PC's mother is a peasant living in the town of Roadkill...

DM: "The invading army of orcs has sent a warband through the valley of Highway. Roadkill is straight in their path; your mother will be slaughtered if you don't save her. But if you go to fight the orcs in Roadkill, you leave the main army to proceed unhindered through the Grand Duchy of Interstate." ---> This is totally cool. I mean, it's a rat bastard DM thing to do, but I approve of rat bastard DMing.

DM: "Your mother is an exiled noblewoman from the Kingdom of Ferrari. She never told you about it." ---> Not cool. Now my character has become a scion of Ferrari. If I wanted to play a peasant hero, this is an unwelcome surprise.

DM: "Your mother is an exiled noblewoman from the Kingdom of Ferrari. She always used to complain about how she was driven out." ---> EXTREMELY not cool. This is something that would have had a major effect on my character and I should have known about it.

Often, when I am starting a new campaign, I will ask my players to give me one (or more) background elements specifically for me to screw with. This way, the player gets to have some say in the gotcha that his character is going to suffer, as an incentive to buy into it.

This is an excellent solution.

 

[DrunkonDuty]

To an extent a GM always has to limit the player's background options. The fact of creating a setting limits them. No spacemen in a cavemen game. No lost scion of an otherwise extinct noble line. No you can't be the literal son of a god and set yourself up to head a crusade. (Actually had to do that last one once. Why he thought the other 5 players should all just be second fiddles to his character I don't know.)

Beyond that I think the GM should limit themself to making suggestions. Maybe very strong suggestions.

Ya know, reading back over the above it occurs to me the GM should limit themself to making negative suggestions. That is: things the PCs can't be. "Sorry dude, there's really no place for a pteradactyl man with a woolly mammoth companion in my LotR inspired epic." Although for a pteradactyl man I might make room.

Which is another point: the players' suggestions can indeed make a GM's setting more exciting. I mean I wouldn't mind running a game with a son of a god trying to start a crusade, but the other players would have to be keen on the idea of being apostles to the central messiah. Or Judas...

Back on track:
Recently in a Champions game I run I did alter a PCs back story. It was unintentional, as I mis-remembered some of the details and thus thought that the PC's father might still have been alive. Enter the evil doppleganger pretending to be her father... Yeah that didn't work so well.

cheers.