You're doing what? Surprising the DM

[pemerton]

What if the player is unhappy with the mother being killed? Does he get veto power over her being removed from his backstory? While it should not matter much, let's assume she was alive in the backstory, and perhaps that he was searching for her.

If that was the backstory, I would have resolved it very differently. (As it is I'm not sure I handled it all that well, but had rescue of the mother been an overt player goal fro the get-go I would have been taking more care with it as a GM.)

 

[pemerton]

See, I like the idea that NPC's also have goals, and that PC's are not clearly labelled as such, marked for treatment different than the common herd.

That's fine, but it's not the sort of game I or Hussar is interested in playing or GMing.

Which means if you want to understand what is motivating Hussar's ranking of the siege higher than the desert, you have to bracket your own preference for the sort of game you describe, and put yourself into the mindset of an RPGer playing a "PCs as protagonist" game.

 

[Hussar]

Exploring the deset is not essential. But you are rejecting my explicit statement that I do not want to discuss "exploring the desert", aren't you? You must cross the desert. You don't have to interact with it? Maybe, maybe not. If your car breaks down (a complication) you must now walk - you interact with the desert. If the highway is unergoing repairs, you must take another route - an interaction with the desert. Now, it is more reasonable to say you interact with things in the desert, just as it is more reasonable to say you interact with things in the city.

And, right there, is the DM roadblocking. The DM is forcing the players into a complication that they have no interest in, and have flat out stated that they don't want. Why is the car breaking down? Why is the highway undergoing repairs?

The players are invested in going to Las Vegas. They have ZERO investment in anything in the desert. The DM is now forcing complications on the players against the player's express interest. I have no wish to play in this game. "You must now walk" is only because the DM has forced this on the players.

 

[Hussar]

That's fine, but it's not the sort of game I or Hussar is interested in playing or GMing.

Which means if you want to understand what is motivating Hussar's ranking of the siege higher than the desert, you have to bracket your own preference for the sort of game you describe, and put yourself into the mindset of an RPGer playing a "PCs as protagonist" game.

This. Thus the whole "different playstyle" thing that we've been banging on.

 

[JamesonCourage]

That seems like it’s not truly messing with the player’s backstory. It is leveraging it.

This isn't on the main thrust of the "relevant" conversation, so I'll chime in. The player had used the reasoning that his father leaving him set him up for a hard childhood, in which he resorted to shady activities, much as his father had, to help provide for his mother and younger brother, but ultimately left, just like his dad did, leaving his brother behind (his mother had married to a semi-wealthy ship merchant when he left).

Without permission, I "clarified" this late into the campaign (we started at level 2, and it was level 12 when I changed things). He found out from his mother the she sent his father away (and when he had finally met his father for the first time a few levels before, his father had not told him). By this point, the PC has transitioned from Rogue into Sorcerer (the story allowed a class change as magic crept back into the world), and he had shifted from Lawful Neutral to Lawful Good. I thought it was appropriate to make his father and mother's background's a little hazier. He quite enjoyed that, as a player. As did the other players.

However, it definitely is changing PC backstory, in my mind, even if it's just twisting the details. And I know that's not something all players would enjoy.

The PC knew Dad wasn’t there when he was growing up, and he knew what his character had been told in that regard. He did not know, nor could he know, the veracity of the stories he was told. Just like SPOILER FOR ANYONE NOT REMOTELY FAMILIAR WITH STAR WARS AHEAD: Luke Skywalker was told his father was a Jedi, then later told his father was killed by Darth Vader, only to later learn that his father BECAME Darth Vader. So was that leveraging the player’s backstory, or making an “absolutely not kosher” change?

If the backstory simply said he grew up with no father, as he abandoned them when he was very young”, I’d say the player left Dad’s story an open canvas. But I can see several possibilities the player is saying:

• I do not want Dad to figure in the game at all;
• I want my search for Dad to be a central character theme;
  • Dad was a bad guy and abandoned us;
  • Dad was a good guy caught in bad circumstances;
  • Dad was a hero and forced to abandon us;
  • Dad was/was not powerful and influential
  • I want the GM to define Dad in a manner which will fit with, and add to, the game

I don’t know which permutations or combinations the player has in mind. In my games, I think many, if not all, of the above would be fair game. The character’s assumptions were wrong. That happens, in both fiction and reality. The question is how good a game it ultimately makes.

I agree, for the most part, with the caveat that I know it's not for all groups. I'm totally okay with GMs using my backstory, building on it, changing details that I got wrong in-character, etc., to enhance the game experience. I trust them to do this, and it certainly worked in Star Wars to great effect. No problem with it, personally, since it can be good for story and "more realistic" (in that it can enhance my immersion and investment in the campaign), but I definitely understand that it's not for everyone. As always, play what you like

Well, fair enough. I would never, ever pull a Darth Vader moment on a player without clearing it with him or her first. There's just no way. Heck, I'd walk away from a table where the DM did that to another player.

And, this is why I see players who come from tables like this who's character backstories are iron clad with no ambiguity. Their families are all reliably dead, the character is a drifter with no connections to anyone or anything and the PC comes to the table largely a cypher. It's because DM's cannot keep their hands off of their player's characters. So, players respond by making sure that their characters have absolutely nothing the DM can leverage.

I've seen this way, way too many times to think that it's a fluke. Player after player that comes to my table acts this way. And, after a brief conversation, the reason is almost always the same - to keep the DM from screwing around with the player's character without the player's explicit permission.

I have very few absolutes at my table. Very, very few. But, this one is iron clad. I will not, under any circumstance, make any changes to a player's character in any way, shape or form, without clearing with that player first.

Honestly, if I player ever told me, "here's what I want for backstory, here's what I want my PC to know about, and please don't mess with it," I'd say "as long as it fits the campaign setting, then no problem. Let's work out the details. You know what's okay for the most part, and anything else you want I'll help you incorporate it in." If they expressed, after I changed it, that they didn't like it, as a player, then I'd lean towards withdrawing it.

But, like pemerton said, my group of players are living, breathing people, and I can use many cues to judge their wants from the game. I've left more PC backstories the same than I've modified, and I'm careful when I do change it. Of course, my players are all friends that I've known for over half of my life, so we're relatively on the same page with RPGs for the most part (since we mostly all started playing together). So, I'm sure that helps.

But, overall, I'd definitely respect a player if they left their backstory ambiguous and asked me not to expand on it. As long as it fits the campaign setting, no problem. Just as long as you set yourself up in a way that people would've successfully looked into it, I'm totally okay with that. I don't change backstory on the rare occasion to flex some form of GM muscle, but to enhance the game. And, if I feel like it won't enhance the game, then I won't do it. And, to that end, I've never had a player be anything other than happy with what they've discovered in-game that contradicts their backstory (though more often than not it builds on it, not contradicts it).

Again, though, I totally get that this isn't for everyone. So, I have no problem accepting that it'd be very upsetting to you. It's purely a play style thing. As always, play what you like

But for a group looking for "narrativism," in the sense of really exploring a moral "premise," then as a player you almost HAVE to cede some control of your character fiction to the GM. In so saying, I'm not advocating that this should be heavy-handed, punitive control. But the GM naturally has a better idea of the entirety of "the fiction" than the player, and may understand interesting ways to juxtapose the character's assumed fiction into the world's fiction that the player simply has no conception of. I think FATE's concept of "tagging" is very much a back-and-forth of this nature--who has control of what elements of the fiction at any given moment? It actively moves between player and GM.

The emphasized bit is why I don't mind changing backstory, on the rare occasion, as the GM. I do, however, often build on it without permission.

You asked, "does the mere act of inserting elements into the fiction regarding a character's backstory, necessarily alter that backstory?" I think this is a very good question. My default answer to this was "no", but, upon actively thinking on it (when I read it), I think it might be a "yes." Which is interesting.

For "simulationist" play, it can go either way---If the player and GM agree on basic character backstory, then "natural consequences" are bound to arise in play, based on character actions / reactions, and NPC actions / reactions, and I think most players are okay, and regularly enjoy it when it happens.

Yeah, take that PC whose father I mentioned. In his backstory, he left his younger brother behind, without warning, to fend for himself. He ended up becoming a constant antagonist in the game for a long time, as he was extremely resentful that his brother had left him, just like their father had. And, on top of that, he resented being overshadowed by the PC. This was all due to the PCs backstory, and I felt no hesitation to use it as a "natural consequence" of his backstory. The brother NPC did change over time, and worked with his brother, but he kept his distance. He eventually died, and had a note for after he died (his death had been foretold) saying that he forgave his brother, and asking not to be brought back (the PCs were around 14th level, and one PC was a cleric of Pelor).

In this, I had no inkling of "changing backstory", but merely building on it. Which, I suppose, many players would dislike. Which is very much not my style; my RPG has optional mechanics to help flesh out your backstory, and has mechanical consequences if you do so. These mechanical consequences mainly result in mechanical Relationships (friends, enemies, former teachers, lovers, etc.), which I will then flesh out with the player, and often work into the game after play begins.

That said, you run into the danger of a GM saying, "No, that backstory's not possible because it doesn't fit the 'authenticity' of the fiction." But if that's what the player's interested in exploring, the GM should find ways to work with the player to make that possible.

Yes, this is how it works with me. If the player said "my PC is the son of the Moon Goddess, and, when he was born, the second moon faded away and disappeared," I'd say "no, he's not; it doesn't fit the setting." ("Outrageous" example used on purpose.)

Bottom line: it's about GM trust.

I agree with this. As always, play what you like

 

[Jacob Marley]

That's fine, but it's not the sort of game I or Hussar is interested in playing or GMing.

Which means if you want to understand what is motivating Hussar's ranking of the siege higher than the desert, you have to bracket your own preference for the sort of game you describe, and put yourself into the mindset of an RPGer playing a "PCs as protagonist" game.

This. Thus the whole "different playstyle" thing that we've been banging on.

I am not sure that I see the conflict between NPCs having goals, and acting upon them, and players being the protagonists of the game. My experience tells me both can exist simultaneously.

To use the siege as an example:
Player goes to the city.
Player discovers the city is under siege.
Player leverages the siege to his/her advantage.
Player achieves goal within the city.

The siege cannot exist without some NPC having a goal, conflicting with the PC's or otherwise, involving said city.

 

[Hussar]

I am not sure that I see the conflict between NPCs having goals, and acting upon them, and players being the protagonists of the game. My experience tells me both can exist simultaneously.

To use the siege as an example:
Player goes to the city.
Player discovers the city is under siege.
Player leverages the siege to his/her advantage.
Player achieves goal within the city.

The siege cannot exist without some NPC having a goal, conflicting with the PC's or otherwise, involving said city.

The difference is, as N'raac claims, the PC's are in no way special. Events in the game progress according to the DM's view of how the simulation of that world works. In my view, the NPC's goals are largely only there if they in some way impact what the PC's are doing. Otherwise, the NPC's don't even come into the game at all. So, the leaders of the siege want to go into the city, of course. But, the progress of the siege will be tied to the PC's goals within the city.

It's similar to the old quote by JM Straczynski (Creator of Babylon 5) who said that the spaceships fly at the speed of plot.

The siege of the city will proceed in accordance to the player's progress in achieving their goals. IOW, the siege exists only as an element for the players to play with. It has no function outside of that.

Which is different from the desert. The desert can't actually do anything. It's just there. It has to be crossed because, well, it's a city in a desert - I'm not completely blind to the need of some degree of plausibility. But, the desert has no goals. It can't. At best, the desert acts as a roadblock or as a source of side-trek adventures only tenuously linked to the goals within the city because the desert can be skipped with impunity.

And the desert can be skipped because one of the players wants to skip it. At least, AFAIC, that's all it takes. The players have no investment in the desert in and of itself. So, the desert is largely a big time sink with getting to the city at the end of it. I'd rather skip the time sink and just get to the city, which is where our group's goals are.

 

[pemerton]

I am not sure that I see the conflict between NPCs having goals, and acting upon them, and players being the protagonists of the game.

<snip>

The siege cannot exist without some NPC having a goal, conflicting with the PC's or otherwise, involving said city.

You are presenting this from an ingame perspective. And of course, ingame, sieges (and many other things) don't take place unless someone (often an NPC) has a goal.

But I'm talking about the metagame perspective. From the metagame perspective, the siege exists because it will be fun for the players. Because a siege needs soldiers, and leaders, some NPCs are now introduced into the fiction (or some old NPCs repurposed) to have the requisite goals. So the GM, in running the game, did not reason "NPCs, with goals, therefore siege"; rather, s/he reasoned "Need siege, therefore there are these NPCs with these goals to drive it."

This is a pretty longstanding GM technique - for instance, how many classic D&D GMs have reasoned, "I need a dungeon for the players (and their PCs) to explore; and it has to have lots of whacky stuff in it. I wonder who built it? I know, a crazy wizard!"? This is perhaps the most traditional example in which an NPC and the NPC's goals are created purely to serve a metagame purpose, rather than already existing as elements of the fiction and being used to generate new fictional elements by verisimilitudinous infererence.

The utlimate statement of this metagame attitude towards NPCs that I'm aware of is this, from Paul Czege:

[W]hen I'm framing scenes . . . I'm turning a freakin' firehose of adversity and situation on the character. It is not an objective outgrowth of prior events. It's intentional as all get out. . . I frame the character into the middle of conflicts I think will push and pull in ways that are interesting to me and to the player. I keep NPC personalities somewhat unfixed in my mind, allowing me to retroactively justify their behaviors in support of this.​

This method is just like the GM who invents a crazy wizard to be the dungeon builder, except bringing the same technique to bear on a much more moment-by-moment level within the game - not just for dungeon design, but for establishing the flow of events from moment to moment within the adjudication of the game. NPCs and their goals are introduced into the fiction intentionally, to push and pull the players in interesting ways (like giving them a siege to engage with); the fiction is not extrapolated from pregiven NPCs and their pregiven goals.

Whereas I'm pretty sure it's that latter thing - treating NPCs and their goals as established elements of the fiction, and then extrapolating to new fictional occurences via "objective" inferences from those NPCs' known goals and opportunities - that [MENTION=6681948]N'raac[/MENTION] means in saying that "I like the idea that NPC's also have goals, and that PC's are not clearly labelled as such, marked for treatment different than the common herd." And that would be utterly consistent with all the other preferences N'raac has expressed in this thread, which on every point where it's come up incline strongly towards simulationist play preferences.

 

[N'raac]

Now, by "suitable marketplace" do I have to play out buying the armor? Do I have to search it out? Or, is being in a town good enough to simply write down the changed armor and scratch off the gold?

Like most questions, the answer is "it depends". In most games, I'd say the transaction is relegated to the mundane and we convert funds into goods. The more exotic the good, the more likely that it is not treated as a mundane transaction (some games may look to Masterwork, Enchanted or some level of enchantment and some will commoditize all weapons and armor). In most games (leaving aside Dark Sun corner cases), it would be reasonable, IMO, to expect the armor purchase is a mundane transaction. Purchasing a war elephant in a temperate forest? Maybe not so much. The line would be drawn somewhere.

But let's get specific. Let's return to our city in the desert. Is this a mundane purchase now? Metal has to be imported through the desert, which would seem to mean it is more scarce, and more expensive, than in other areas. Metal armor is hot and bulky so likely not in much demand (whereas scimitars seem pretty easy to find), so is plate armor available on the rack? Does the demand motivate armorsmiths with the knowledge and skills to make it? I would have no objections to a GM saying "it's not available" or "it costs way more than Book". Nor would I have an objection to a PC playing out a search for someone who can provide and/or work the metal into the desired armor. But then, the player has set "obtain plate mail" as a goal, hasn't he? If he just brushes the scarcity off with "fine, I can wait until we are back on familiar territory", then he hasn't invested in the armor and we can turn our attention elsewhere.

Now, that's the desert region coloring the town. Assuming an objection to the GM not just letting me trade gold for an AC bonus at the expected ratio, how would that objection change if we add in the siege? Metal is even tougher to import, demand would be pretty high, and maybe all the skilled workers have been pressed into service - restricted to manufacture of arms and armor for defenders of the city, and no side trade with adventurers/mercenaries. Even if the city under siege is not in the desert, seems reasonable that access to that armor may be restricted and/or expensive. Maybe we can play out the search for a black market. Or maybe the player just accepts that he can't engage in that mundane transaction at this non-mundane time. After all, that siege would impact every activity in the city, right?

So, I'm coming to "it depends", with a strong leaning to "there needs to be an in-game reason why this would not be a mundane transaction".

Well, considering that the siege was never part of the original hypothetical, it's not too far out there to get sidetracked. But, once the siege was posited, I didn't have a huge problem with it because it offers too many pro-active options for the group.

The desert, in and of itself, offers absolutely nothing. Nomads or refugees or whatever, aren't actually part of the desert. They are things that are being added in after the fact to try to "prove" that there are interesting things in the desert.

The desert is where the siege was located, so we have established that at least one complication arising between "we set out to traverse the desert" and "we enter the city" is acceptable. That there may be other complications which may be interesting between "here" and "there" seems much less unlikely to me that it seems to you. I also note you described the siege as at least a bit contrived, so it appears some level of contrivance is acceptable, provided the results are interesting enough.

When the siege was first mentioned, I predicted that, given Hussar's goal was the city, he would not object to the siege as complication. That predication turned out to be correct.

Within limits. I recall him referring to "contrived", and all previous uses of the word "contrived" dismissed the suggested encounter or complication. Had the original scenario featured an extended argument between Hussar and the GM over the effectiveness of the centipede (we'll say 5 minutes - not 106+ pages!), followed by "Fine - the Centipede Express zooms through the wasteland, with the PC's miraculously holding on around sharp twists and up vertical inclines, with none of the beasts within daring to challenge it. Ahead, you see the city - but it is surrounded by a force of armed men", I question whether Hussar would have been as accepting of that development then as he indicates he is now.

Which means if you want to understand what is motivating Hussar's ranking of the siege higher than the desert, you have to bracket your own preference for the sort of game you describe, and put yourself into the mindset of an RPGer playing a "PCs as protagonist" game.

And, right there, is the DM roadblocking.

You mean, like wrapping the city they want to enter in a siege? Any complication can be roadblocking. That does not mean every complication, or any given complication, is roadblocking.

The DM is forcing the players into a complication that they have no interest in, and have flat out stated that they don't want. Why is the car breaking down? Why is the highway undergoing repairs?

Why is the city they want to enter under siege? Why is it in a desert, instead of conveniently accessible, in the first place?

I am not sure that I see the conflict between NPCs having goals, and acting upon them, and players being the protagonists of the game. My experience tells me both can exist simultaneously.

Agreed. A lot of weight has been placed on the ability to leverage the fiction. To me, establishing goals and personalities for the NPC's provides the PCs with something to leverage. Changing those goals and personalities on a whim denies the players the ability to leverage the fiction - it is a roadblocking mechanism, not a means of PC empowerment. More on this later.

This is a pretty longstanding GM technique - for instance, how many classic D&D GMs have reasoned, "I need a dungeon for the players (and their PCs) to explore; and it has to have lots of whacky stuff in it. I wonder who built it? I know, a crazy wizard!"? This is perhaps the most traditional example in which an NPC and the NPC's goals are created purely to serve a metagame purpose, rather than already existing as elements of the fiction and being used to generate new fictional elements by verisimilitudinous infererence.

It is also one that most annoys many players. Why are there all these crazy wizards running around creating bizarre dungeons with wierd puzzles? Are there any "not crazy" wizards? Are there any ungeons which possess some rational design that I, as a player, can actually interact with, rather than hop from one bizarre encounter to the next?

The utlimate statement of this metagame attitude towards NPCs that I'm aware of is this, from Paul Czege:

[W]hen I'm framing scenes . . . I'm turning a freakin' firehose of adversity and situation on the character. It is not an objective outgrowth of prior events. It's intentional as all get out. . . I frame the character into the middle of conflicts I think will push and pull in ways that are interesting to me and to the player. I keep NPC personalities somewhat unfixed in my mind, allowing me to retroactively justify their behaviors in support of this.​

This method is just like the GM who invents a crazy wizard to be the dungeon builder, except bringing the same technique to bear on a much more moment-by-moment level within the game - not just for dungeon design, but for establishing the flow of events from moment to moment within the adjudication of the game. NPCs and their goals are introduced into the fiction intentionally, to push and pull the players in interesting ways (like giving them a siege to engage with); the fiction is not extrapolated from pregiven NPCs and their pregiven goals.

What I see is that, rather than the players being able to learn about the NPC's - what motivates them, perhaps their weaknesses in that regard, how they might be leveraged - that can all be swept away in favour of "allowing me to retroactively justify their behaviors" in the interests of " turning a freakin' firehose of adversity and situation on the character". Sure, last month, you gained the Baron's trust and gratitude by rescuing his niece, the light of his life and his reason for living, and learned that nothing matters more to him than honour. But this month, he slits her throat as a sacrifice to dark daemonic powers which he pits against you, because that will be more exciting. No reason that Baron's love for his niece, or his gratitude, or his honour, should be in any way consistent from game to game, right?

For myself, villains who have actual personalities, not just "He's crazy so he does random things - always in the interests of making you lives more difficult" are far more engaging.

"PC's are not clearly labelled as such, marked for treatment different than the common herd."

What I really hate? PC Halo. "Oh, my character would never accept the Baron slitting his niece's throat or making a pact with Dark Powers - it violates his sense of all that is good and righteous. But if Fred's wizard burns down the orphanage with the orphans inside as a sacrifice to the Dark Ones to gain a new 3rd level spell? Hey, that's totally OK 'cause he's a PC." "My character has great pride, and the Baron has insulted him - the Baron must die! But it's OK for Charlie's rogue to make my character look like a laughingstock to the entire town, 'cause he's a PC". If that behaviour would make an NPC "the enemy", it is not acceptable from a PC either. My character does not know yours is a PC. He knows him by his actions in-game.

That does not mean PC's are not the protagonists. It means their status as protagonists does not reduce all around them to cardboard cutouts.

 

[Jackinthegreen]

Why is the city they want to enter under siege? Why is it in a desert, instead of conveniently accessible, in the first place?

The first, on a metagame level, would likely be because it creates an interesting complication to things and does it in such a way that the players can use it and feel it's relevant to their goal. Not only that, it's close enough to the city/their goals that it doesn't feel disconcerting. A desert encounter dealing with the city would be more likely to not work because of the distance away from their goal. I'd liken it to the MacGuffin summoning a creature in his own dungeon while the party is there versus randomly summoning the creature to the party while the party is on the road to said dungeon. It's a "WTF?" moment in the latter case, but totally acceptable and even expected in the former. People are far more likely to be okay with complications at or near their goal than farther out.

The siege is part of the city though. Well, rather the siege is happening because of the city. It's about as much a part of the desert as the city is part of the desert. So a little bit, but not likely enough that the desert not being there will mean the siege isn't there too. It'll have a bit of an influence and that might be notable, but in the grand scheme of things the city (and thus siege) being in the desert was really more of a side note that would only interest a few. Should it have been more interesting? Probably. But to make it interesting one would have had to do more foreshadowing and such than simply plop the party in the middle of nowhere in a desert without a clue which way to go towards the city.

On the story level it has never been established why the city was under siege. But that's something for the players to find out, if they're so inclined. Why it exists, from a story perspective, will likely depend on how the players have done things and what their interests are.

As to why the city was in the desert: Because the module said so. And if there's one thing everyone has pretty well agreed on, it's that the module needed to be reworked because it was crap.