DM question: how much do you incorporate PC backgrounds into the campaign?

[hawkeyefan]

There's a difference between having the PC's known brother as a recurring NPC, because the character has reason to be where their brother is; and having an unknown NPC turn out to actually be the PC's long-lost brother, as a plot twist, because it would be dramatic.

So then there's no way to ever have the brother show up later in an unexpected way? Let's say there's a totally organic way for that to occur; do you not go through with it because it may be mistaken as a forced plot twist? Do you go through with it despite that?

What would you do in this situation? And how do you arrive at that decision considering only some kind of logical internal causality and not what's better for the sake of drama?

 

[Sacrosanct]

That is incorrect. In the real world, most events have multiple causes. Suggesting that there is “one true cause” is both artificial and arbitrarily reductive.
Moreover, the example you give doesn’t track with the situation described: if I, as the DM, incorporate something from a player’s backstory into the campaign, then at no point is the player acting as a storyteller. He is solely inhabiting his character as he reacts to the world, including events that he, as a character, has a personal stake in, as they involve elements from his backstory.

Agreed. The players aren't the storytellers, they are the catalysts and inspiration for some great ideas and stories told by the DM. Whether that be from an in game action from their PC, or by a background scenario.

And I'll repeat what I said earlier. Unlike traditional stories, rpgs are written as they are played. Played by the whole group, not just me in front of my PC writing a book. That offers a lot more flexibility, and as a DM, I can move, change, adapt, and add things into the story based on the players' actions and any backstories they have. They don't know what they don't know and you haven't revealed yet. So maybe when prepping for the adventure the NPC X over there was statted out a Bob the fencer. But when player Y tells me that their PC's background was escaping the thieves' guild, suddenly Bob works for that guild and is out to try to found out where the PC is for player Y to track them down and report on their actions. The players have no idea I made that change. And the player didn't dictate any part of the story to me. I made that choice and implemented Bob how I wanted. The player just gave me more ideas. Needless to say, I strongly disagree with the notion tossed around in this thread that I as the DM am smarter and more creative than any of my players. That's poppycock.

 

[lowkey13]

*Deleted by user*

 

[Sacrosanct]

I know!

We just have to be satisfied knowing that we are wittier and better looking.

It's a terrible cross to bear, but someone has to be El Guapo.

El Guapo is what I had stenciled on the sides of each of the engine cowlings on my UH-60 Black Hawk when I was in Korea....

 

[The Crimson Binome]

That is incorrect. In the real world, most events have multiple causes. Suggesting that there is “one true cause” is both artificial and arbitrarily reductive.

In the real world, everything happens from one true cause: internal causality present within our universe. There is no narrative force involved at any point, or any other outside force, because the real world isn't a narrative construct. The concept of there being anything other than internal causality is laughable.

Moreover, the example you give doesn’t track with the situation described: if I, as the DM, incorporate something from a player’s backstory into the campaign, then at no point is the player acting as a storyteller.

No, the player is acting as though their character was a narrative construct, because that's how the DM is treating them. The DM is subjecting them to contrived circumstances, and regardless of how well the player tries to cope with that, it will never be as a real (imaginary) person; a believable person, whether real or imagined, would not have to deal with contrived circumstances.

 

[prabe]

No, the player is acting as though their character was a narrative construct, because that's how the DM is treating them. The DM is subjecting them to contrived circumstances, and regardless of how well the player tries to cope with that, it will never be as a real (imaginary) person; a believable person, whether real or imagined, would not have to deal with contrived circumstances.

All fictional characters, including characters in TRPGs, are narrative constructs, and all stories in which they find themselves are to some extent contrived circumstances. Specifically, any TRPG adventure is a contrived circumstance, whether the GM asks for backstories, or uses them, or not.

 

[The Crimson Binome]

So then there's no way to ever have the brother show up later in an unexpected way? Let's say there's a totally organic way for that to occur; do you not go through with it because it may be mistaken as a forced plot twist? Do you go through with it despite that?

If there's literally no way to tell, and this one dramatic thing could very reasonably happen, then you could roll for it. If it was previously established that this character's brother is one of the twelve disciples of the Big Bad, and an unknown disciple would logically be messing things up in the next town over, then this one happens to be the brother on 1d12 roll of 1.

Alternatively, you could err on the side of avoiding the appearance of meta-gaming. While that does mean unlikely events will never happen (rather than rarely happening), it will still give you the right answer in the vast majority of situations.

What would you do in this situation? And how do you arrive at that decision considering only some kind of logical internal causality and not what's better for the sake of drama?

It's the easiest thing in the world. Just don't meta-game, the same way that you don't meta-game when you're a player rather than the DM. You take all of your knowledge from outside of the game world, like which characters are being controlled by players rather than the DM, and you set that aside for the purpose of determining what happens.

 

[The Crimson Binome]

All fictional characters, including characters in TRPGs, are narrative constructs, and all stories in which they find themselves are to some extent contrived circumstances. Specifically, any TRPG adventure is a contrived circumstance, whether the GM asks for backstories, or uses them, or not.

The premise of an RPG is that we pretend these people are real. It's integral to the process, so we should strive to treat them, as much as we possibly can.

 

[PsyzhranV2]

In the real world, everything happens from one true cause: internal causality present within our universe. There is no narrative force involved at any point, or any other outside force, because the real world isn't a narrative construct. The concept of there being anything other than internal causality is laughable.

No, the player is acting as though their character was a narrative construct, because that's how the DM is treating them. The DM is subjecting them to contrived circumstances, and regardless of how well the player tries to cope with that, it will never be as a real (imaginary) person; a believable person, whether real or imagined, would not have to deal with contrived circumstances.

I have to say, I don't know of any RPG that demands this level of simulationism and causal realism. There are several RPGs that I am tempted to say advocate the exact opposite, though I do not feel qualified to definitively comment on the matter as I have not played them.

What you are describing - utter and thorough avoidance of even the appearance of metagaming - as a necessity for "true" roleplaying is a restriction you are placing on yourself. If your players prefer this style, the simulation of the mundane over the replication of genre and stylistic convention, then more power to you. But introducing narrative elements, dare I say contrivances, to the table is by no means a mortal sin. In some systems and genres, and at some tables, it's more preferable than intentionally enforced mundaneity and lack of narrative drive.

 

[prabe]

The premise of an RPG is that we pretend these people are real. It's integral to the process, so we should strive to treat them, as much as we possibly can.

And there are writers who endeavor to treat their characters as much as though they're real as possible. Neither what they do nor what you do changes the fact the characters are fictional. If a given table prefer to do things the way you describe, that's fine, but it's not The One True Way or anything. Another table may prefer to know where the characters were before the campaign started, in the knowledge that some of those prior events may get brought up; that's not The One True Way, either. One presumes both tables are happy with the stories that emerge from play, and that's the key, really.