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

[hawkeyefan]

Life isn't fair, in the sense of justice or morality. It's absolutely fair in that it's free from outside influence (e.g. a fair coin flip).

I wanted to go back to this for a moment.

How exactly is life free from outside influence?

We’re all impacted by outside influences all the time. We don’t have to look very far to find one going on right now. But even in the absence of a major event, there are any number of minor outside influences that impact each of us daily.

That is literally a definition of role-playing: You abandon your own perspective, and instead think like the character.

That may be a definition, but that does not make it the definition. This is where I think you’re being unreasonable.

If the real reason for making a decision is based on a factor that exists external to the game world, then that's meta-gaming rather than role-playing, and no amount of post-hoc rationalization will change that. If you were actually role-playing for that decision, then you would reach that conclusion without compromising the integrity of the process.

This is simply not true. It would require there being one valid interpretation of a character and all others being invalid.

If I as a player declare an action for my PC and I don’t vocalize my reason for doing so, then how would you as GM ever know if I was taking that action because I wanted to do it as a player, or because I thought that is what my PC would do, or both?

And if someone else was playing that character, faced with the same decision....could they not conceivably come up with a different course based on what they thought a character would do?

So two players could come up with alternate actions based on what they thought the character would do. Therefore, there is no one preferred choice.

Sometimes, there are situations where meta-gaming is the lesser of two evils, but it's never good. It's always to the detriment of the role-playing process.

You're free to not like the truth, or to find it distasteful, but that doesn't make it any less true.

You are right.....it is not my distaste for it that makes it untrue. It’s the fact that it’s not true.

If you disagree, then make some sort of logical argument to support your claim, rather than Appealing to Authority.

I appealed to poo, sir, not to authority.

 

[hawkeyefan]

True, and the implausible happening once in a while is fine.

The problem is when it happens all the time; a flaw many books and movies suffer from.

But what’s the problem. Why is having some implausible things happen bad when we’re talking about fiction?

I get that an excess could possibly push believability past where we’d like it, but I don’t think having some coincidences happen is in any way bad. Even in a zealous adherence to simulationism....a lack of coincidence would be a glaring breach of simulating the real world, no?

And this is also important...we’re not talking about the real world. We’re talking (in general) about worlds where the fantastic is true. Why would we expect such a world to behave as ours does?

Yeah, bad example; sorry. But your PC who's a farmer (and 1st level Fighter) might well have a sister who's already a 7th level adventuring Thief.

The only thing that's always rolled at char-gen is secondary skill, as it can materially affect a character's abilities (e.g. non-mage characters are by no means guaranteed to be literate, but if your secondary skill comes up as Author then you're guaranteed literacy no matter what). If you're going to be related to a noble, or be one yourself, this is where it'll happen.

Other than that we don't usually bother with character history-family stuff until it's clear the character's going to be more than a one-hit wonder, with very rare exceptions if-when something in the plot tells us we need to know it now.

Once the character's established, at some point the player and I* sit down for an evening with some dice and beer and determine where the PC's from, what else it might have done in life, where it might have been, what is has (left) for a family, and so forth. For family we usually just worry about parents, siblings, and - very rarely - children of the PC; along with ex or current spouses if relevant.

* - if the player wants to. Not all do.

This is largely what we do. It can happen anytime though, and likely is an ongoing aeries of discussions. However much the player wants to delve into all these elements, we do....and I offer ideas, and maybe other players offer ideas, and so on. And nothing is certain until it’s introduced in the fiction.

Agreed, though it may at times require you to set aside some of that knowledge.

True, but I'd flip it around: there has to first be a fictional reason for the decision, then after that if it happens to fit in with the outside world it's benefits all round.

Which means the challenge is on you-as-player* to come up with a plausible in-fiction reason why Jane Farmgirl decides to get off the farm, take up the sword, and go travelling with (eventually) a bunch of other potentially-dangerouns people. For me, sheer boredom is the go-to here if the character has any kind of decent Intelligence.

Sure, that all seems pretty reasonable. But I do have a few questions on this. I believe that you’re of the opinion that the PC is 100% the “property” of the player, right? Meaning that any and all decisions, barring those few instances of magic or similar compulsory effects, are up to the player and only the player, right?

If so, how can any decision I make for my PC as the player be deemed as metagaming? Who can tell me I should have made some other decision for my PC?

Because here’s the thing....there is no “best option” because in the real world, there isn’t always a best option for a person faced with any decision. And even when there is a generally agreed upon choice that would be in the person’s best interests....they don’t always do what’s best for themselves. People are dumb or foolish or proud or reckless or mistaken. People are inconsistent.

So let’s say I’m playing a RPG and I make a decision for my PC.... I have the PC rush into danger. Previously, I’ve played the PC as a cautious person, very calculating and careful.

You as GM assume that I as a player am looking for some action. And maybe that’s true, maybe not...I don’t explain.

Do you as GM question my decision for my PC? Do you ask me to explain my PC’s thought process? Because if so, I can explain it in any number of ways that would make sense in the fiction.

So how does this ever even come up in play?

I somewhat disagree. I think they're always at odds, in that metagaming or metaknowledge dilute the (for lack of a better term) "purity" of one's role-play.

The question is merely one of how much dilution one is willing to accept, in the knowledge that nothing's perfect.

I think my questions above address this, pretty much.

Just as an example: the city I live in is, by all standards, not very big. There's someone I knew who I lost touch with many years ago, but who I know has been living in town the entire time, yet the implausible has only happened once where by sheer chance we bumped into each other. That was a memorable event - far more memorable than the nearly-infinite number of times it didn't happen.

So you consider it implausible to bump into someone you know in the small city where you both have lived for many years?

Perhaps this very broad interpretation of implausibility that’s making you think there’s too much?

 

[Lanefan]

Here I would say instead that "Roleplaying likes implausible occurrences. It thrives on them," largely because tabletop roleplaying is an intentional exercise of recreational dramatic play rather than an exercise of reconstructing reality to its "proper" dimensions of plausibility.

Perhaps.

For each person involved, however, there's a different point at which the increasing implausibility breaks immersion beyond recovery. The trick for the GM is to keep the level of implausibility just below that point.

 

[Lanefan]

I want to highlight these 3 quotes because they are precisely why the DM should make ample use of character background in the adventure.

Why the DM, though?

The player should make use of the character background in order to justify why said character is doing what it's doing (in a typical PRG, this probably means adventuring). But the player, not necessarily the DM.

Yes, it is possible for a PC to come up with a fictional reason to go on any adventure or sidequest. But it is a lot easier (and less “metagamey”) if it already ties into that character or their friends.

The reason will tie in to the extent that the player allows it to (or makes it) tie in.

The adventure itself, on the other hand, doesn't actually need to tie in to anything except itself; though it obviously can tie into other things either now or in hindsight.

 

[Aldarc]

Perhaps.

For each person involved, however, there's a different point at which the increasing implausibility breaks immersion beyond recovery. The trick for the GM is to keep the level of implausibility just below that point.

That's a fair enough answer.

 

[Lanefan]

But what’s the problem. Why is having some implausible things happen bad when we’re talking about fiction?

I get that an excess could possibly push believability past where we’d like it, but I don’t think having some coincidences happen is in any way bad. Even in a zealous adherence to simulationism....a lack of coincidence would be a glaring breach of simulating the real world, no?

I think we're closer to agreement here than it might appear at first glance.

I'm not saying there should never be implausible occurrences. I'm more saying that it's an easy trap to fall into to have them occur far too often.

And this is also important...we’re not talking about the real world. We’re talking (in general) about worlds where the fantastic is true. Why would we expect such a world to behave as ours does?

True, meddling deities and all that.

This is largely what we do. It can happen anytime though, and likely is an ongoing aeries of discussions. However much the player wants to delve into all these elements, we do....and I offer ideas, and maybe other players offer ideas, and so on. And nothing is certain until it’s introduced in the fiction.

As in, introduced during play? Because the way I see it, rolling up those backgrounds introduces the elements thus created into the fiction right then, i.e. it locks them in.

Sure, that all seems pretty reasonable. But I do have a few questions on this. I believe that you’re of the opinion that the PC is 100% the “property” of the player, right? Meaning that any and all decisions, barring those few instances of magic or similar compulsory effects, are up to the player and only the player, right?

Pretty much, yes.

If so, how can any decision I make for my PC as the player be deemed as metagaming?

Very early on in a character's career, it often can't. But once a character has established patterns in how and what it does, it's usually pretty easy to tell when something's fishy. Back in 1e days this came under playing out of alignment, and had some rather nasty consequences.

Who can tell me I should have made some other decision for my PC?

Because here’s the thing....there is no “best option” because in the real world, there isn’t always a best option for a person faced with any decision. And even when there is a generally agreed upon choice that would be in the person’s best interests....they don’t always do what’s best for themselves. People are dumb or foolish or proud or reckless or mistaken. People are inconsistent.

Agreed, and having that inconsistency show up during play is great.

So let’s say I’m playing a RPG and I make a decision for my PC.... I have the PC rush into danger. Previously, I’ve played the PC as a cautious person, very calculating and careful.

You as GM assume that I as a player am looking for some action. And maybe that’s true, maybe not...I don’t explain.

Most of the time, because I know my players, I can tell when someone's having their character do something with out-of-game motivations as opposed to just because the character (or player) is having an off day or is in a different frame of mind than usual.

Do you as GM question my decision for my PC? Do you ask me to explain my PC’s thought process? Because if so, I can explain it in any number of ways that would make sense in the fiction.

Rarely does it ever get to the point of direct questioning. More often it's a raised eyebrow and, depending on the decision, a mental note of any possible alignment ramifications down the road.

Bob and Mary's characters have always been good buddies in the game. Then one session they suddenly haul off and try to kill each other; maybe one succeeds. My reaction as DM is going to be a bit different if I happen to know Bob and Mary had a big fight during the week than it would be if I knew they were still good friends in real life and merely wanted to do something silly in the game just for kicks.

It's still out of character either way, but I'm going to be much more torqued off in the first instance than the second.

So you consider it implausible to bump into someone you know in the small city where you both have lived for many years?

Perhaps this very broad interpretation of implausibility that’s making you think there’s too much?

I'm using "implausible" as a synonym for "unlikely to the point of near-but-not-zero chance".

 

[Son of the Serpent]

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

Encorporated completely. Which means it has ti be plausible for their level and if there is something in their backstory that would be impossible due to dm knowledge about the world that the players dont have i let them know they need to change something. I usually dont subject the world to the pc backstory. On rare occasion i have. Very rare. But i have much more time to encorporate these things than most dms do because we play with a very slow leveling style. 1000 times more xp required per level. And we play campaigns for years. If i were dming a campaign that was only supposed to last a couple months the backstories might possibly go out the window accompanied by apologies.

 

[pemerton]

I am still catching up on this thread. But the notion that treating characters as if they are real precludes the use of narrative device is just wrong.

Here are some great books by great writers: Howard's End (EM Forster); The Quiet American (Graham Greene); The Remains of the Day (Kazuo Ishiguro). I woiuld be amazed and impressed if anyone posting in this thread, GM or player, had ever produced a fiction of the same quality as any of these works.

These works are driven by characters and situations that have been carfeully crafted. Howard's End in particular involves multiple coincidences. None of this an obstacle to the characters being written as real. None of this stops these being powerful works.

Further, a movie has to get its story told in a very limited amount of time, sequels notwithstanding.

With an RPG, unless you're getting well on in years you've got all the time in the world to tell or create whatever story or stories you want.

As some hack once said, brevity is the soul of wit. Maybe in my RPGing I would like to have multiple compelling fictinal sequences rather than one drawn-out one?

 

[pemerton]

Well, the logic - such as it is - would consist of me-as-DM knowing at least vaguely where this brother is most likely to be, on a large scale (e.g. we've previously determined he's based in Praetos City these days but both he and the PC originally come from a village some 20 miles south where their family still resides; and he's a simple cobbler so not likely to travel much further than that). From this I now know that if the PCs are in Praetos, the village, or the road/waystations between there's at least a chance they'll meet the guy, and maybe they will; but if they're in Cyrax Town, 300 miles to the south across the mountains, there's no chance at all.

It's not the easiest thing in the world because there's literally no way to replicate reality in the way you insist must be done. The reason is that sometimes in real life, crazy coincidences happen. They just do. Childhood friends who grew up together in rural Kansas but then went their separate ways in college somehow find themselves in Kyoto, Japan 50 years later, and resume their friendship.

Your logic has no way to replicate such circumstances

<snip>

There is no feasible way to craft fiction of any kind without considering the content of the fiction.

Some times, dramatic things happen in real life. Your thinking allows no way for that to happen.

So much what @hawkeyefan has posted!

London is a city of, what, 8 million people? I've spent a total of around 5 weeks there in my life. And one time during those five weeks I was walking down a street somewhere near Bloomsbury and bumped into my best friend's sister, whom I hadn't seen for probably 10 years. I knew she had moved from Melbourne to London, bu tnot much more.

In itself, that's not a story. But now make it my ex-girlfriend instead. And have me stuck in London without the money for a flight home. And now we have the possible beginnings of a story . . .

 

[pemerton]

Barring outside real-life circumstances getting in the way (an equal-opportunity hazard), that's purely by choice of the people involved.

And so is the choice to have a shared fiction that's interesting rather than boring. So what exactly is your point?

Whether the brother is an adventurer or a cobbler or a nobleman is determined by random roll at the same time his very existence is determined (again by random roll of how many siblings you have and what they are), while doing up the PC's history.

Says who? The only version of D&D that has random sibling generation is Oriental Adventures (or is there also an optional chart in Unearthed Arcana?), and it doesn't also have random occupation generation. I know that Gygax's Dangerous Journeys RPG had random family generation.

In most RPGs, the players or GM are free to decide these things.

When one of the players in my BW game decided that he had a brother who'd been possessed by a balrog, this wasn't generated on the random sibling table or the random sibling fate table. He decided this because he thought it would make for interesting play. Which it did.

Role-playing doesn't require you to abandon all knowledge you possess beyond the role you are playing. And playing a role doesn't mean you can't make decisions based on things outside the role, it just means that there also needs to be a fictional reason for the decision.

Further to this, I want to reiterate a point I made upthread. RPGing happens over time, with various tasks distributed across different participants at those different times.

At time 1, I - a player - can deicde that my brother is possessed by a balrog because that sounds like it could be a fun premise for a game.

At time 2, when I'm playing my character, I can make decisions about what to do about my brother without any need to metagame at all.[/quote][/QUOTE]