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

[pemerton]

True, and in that process of invention we're creating a fictional reality quite different from our own, in which our PCs live and do whatever they do when we play them.

Which means there's now two "realities" - one for us, one for our PCs.

No. There is one reality: the real world. And it doesn't need scare quotes to describe it.

The "reality" or "world" of the PCs does need scare quotes, because it is obviously not a reality at al. It is a fiction. It is authored. What you and @Saelorn are advocating are various sorts of constraints on authorship, such as that things in the fiction be authored by way of random rolls (onewhat tables? ones you wrote up? is that metagaming?) rather than deliberate choice.

No RPG text has ever advocated that. Gygax always advocated deliberate authorship of the dungeon, with random generation used simply to fill in peripheral details. No one thinks that the Tomb of Horrors would be a better module if Gygax had rolled it all up rather than made the choices that he did in authoring it.

Stated at the level of generality appropriate to this current thread discussion, making choices about what brothers are like, or where they are in the gameworld, is no different from making choices about whether there are gobins or orcs on the first level of the dungeon.

the implausible happening once in a while is fine.

The problem is when it happens all the time;

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 so are you setting yourself up as the arbiter for everyone else's game? (As @Saelorn clearly is.)

If not, what point are you trying to make? Who in this thread is expressing the concern that their game is suffering due to an excess of implausibility? As far as I've seen it is only a criticism being levied by some against the games of others whom they've never met and with whom they've never played.

In my 4e game after the PCs defeated a ropet and some beholders, when they explored they found the remains of a former member of The Order of the Bat, who had gone missing centuries before - the decision that such a thing was found was made by me as GM, and all the backstory made up on the spot, in interplay between me and the player whose PC was a member of The Order of the Bat. That PC was able to take some valuable things from the remains of his predecessor (ie magic items that the payer had on his "wishlist").

Implausible? Coincidence? Good luck? Fate? What does it matter? It's no more absurd than Gandalf and Thorin finding ancient swords of Gondolin in a trollhoard in the Ettenmoors.

 

[Fenris-77]

The extended background tables in Xanthars has random family and sibling generation, does it not?

 

[PsyzhranV2]

The extended background tables in Xanthars has random family and sibling generation, does it not?

It does. There are also a few online random generators based on the Xanathar's table, such as this one: This is my Life

 

[pemerton]

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.

This contention is confused, and also confusing.

When we strive to treat the PCs as real people, are you saying that we should be polite to them and hold parties on their birthdays? Or are you stating a constraint on authorship? If the latter, a process constraint or an outcome constraint? If a process constraint, how do you tell it's being adhered to? And what do you do if it's not?

A player can know that a decision was taken non-randomly by the GM (eg see the story not far upthread about discovering the remains of a member of the Order of the Bat) but respond to it using the process of choosing or intuiting or <insert apposite verb here> how his/her PC would act. In the episode just described, the PC honoured his predecessor with a small ceremony followed by making sure that the treasures of the Order of the Bat would not be wasted!

 

[haakon1]

In fact, pretty much every main character has a backstory that comes into play and is important to the overall story in some way.

About LOTR, how the backstory is revealed is important. When we first met Gandalf & Gollum in The Hobbit, we didn’t get to read their backstories. It was revealed in play, the same way it works in most TV series, at least form the audience POV. My point is, don’t say the PC’s have to make up the whole story before the gaming starts. Their specific home village and family and even why they left, the player can decide to reveal later, as they figure it out in the context of the plot.

Character DEVELOPMENT has a lot of room if the backstory has a lot of room. My favorite TV show right now is “Endeavour”, and while they main character (Inspector Morse) was a very well known major star of British TV for decades, the whole series is about filing in how young Endeavour Morse became the old character. Each of the major characters also has backstory - and indeed who they actually are - developed over the seasons. We knew early on DI Thursday was from London and a WW2 vet. We didn’t know until it became relevant that he left London in a cloud after his “bagman” was murdered and framed for corruption by London mobsters - that’s SLOWLY revealed and deepens the story for everyone. If Fred Thursday was a PC, I’d be just as happy if he came up with that 12 sessions into the game than if he came up with in character creation - actually much more likely to fit the plot and campaign world and character as they have been developing it in the “revealed” way.

 

[The Crimson Binome]

How exactly is life free from outside influence?

Everything in the entire universe is internal to this universe. In the real world, there is no such thing as an outside factor. If you read something in the news, then that news is a real thing that exists in this world, so of course it can influence you. Even if the news in the article is fake, it's still a real article, capable of being read and influencing your behavior.

Contrast with the game world, where we have this whole reality outside of the game world, which shouldn't be able to influence the reality inside of the game world. If the player reads a news article in the real world, then that news article probably doesn't exist within the game world, so it couldn't logically influence the behavior of their character.

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

It's a definition which has stood the test of time for decades, because it's also the primary definition of the term outside of the hobby. If you want to establish it as some sort of special jargon, aside from that, then you should do that from the outset. But there's also no reason why anyone should buy into your special definition, given your obvious ulterior motive.

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?

This is a trust-based hobby. I need to trust that you aren't cheating. If I can't trust you, then you aren't welcome at my table.

That's why this is such a big deal. If there's a fraction of the player-base which thinks meta-gaming is okay, then you can't trust them, because they don't understand that they're doing something wrong.

 

[prabe]

That's why this is such a big deal. If there's a fraction of the player-base which thinks meta-gaming is okay, then you can't trust them, because they don't understand that they're doing something wrong.

If this is a big deal, it's a big deal if/when/because people at the table don't have the same ideas what the rules are. If everyone agrees and is having fun, no one is doing anything wrong--not you at your table, where people strive not to metagame at all, not at my table, where backstories arise from time to time and people talk about game rules when they are arguably in character (both of which seem to fall in your definition/s of metagaming; I apologize if I misunderstand them), not the people at some other table where there's a full railroad in effect.

 

[hawkeyefan]

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.

I don't know if I agree at all, but I think that ultimately this is just a matter of preference. So in that sense, I don't really think we're disagreeing so much as our preferences differ a bit.

True, meddling deities and all that.

Right, and any other number of phenomena that may apply.

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.

Why lock anything in until it needs to be, though? I mean, if a player says to me "My PC wants to find their brother who left the farm years ago" I'm going to incorporate that into the game. How will I do so? Why commit then and there at session zero when I can see how the game goes, and see if there's a way to incorporate this into the ongoing events in an interesting way"

Pretty much, yes.

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.

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

Okay, but then that inconsistency makes us unable to gauge if someone else is making a decision outside of character, doesn't it?

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.

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.

Ramifications of what kind? I mean, I get the idea of alignment and all, but I don't tend to think that people only ever behave in one of nine possible ways. So how do you decide when ramifications are needed, and what they would be?

And if someone's Chaotic Neutral, how do you ever determine if what they've done is against alignment? If they become too consistent?

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.

I don't think I'm quite following.....Bob and Mary had a fight in real life, and so they have their PCs fight in the game?

You'd be more mad about that than if they just decided their PCs now wanted to kill each other? I mean....what's the difference? The same thing is happening.

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

Two people who live in the same town bumping into each other in that town is simply not implausible. Bumping into the Pope in that town is probably a better example.

When you bumped into the person you may have thought, "wow I haven't seen them in so long", but I doubt you'd think "how could this possibly happen?" Um, you live in the same town is how it happened.

 

[hawkeyefan]

Everything in the entire universe is internal to this universe. In the real world, there is no such thing as an outside factor. If you read something in the news, then that news is a real thing that exists in this world, so of course it can influence you. Even if the news in the article is fake, it's still a real article, capable of being read and influencing your behavior.

Contrast with the game world, where we have this whole reality outside of the game world, which shouldn't be able to influence the reality inside of the game world. If the player reads a news article in the real world, then that news article probably doesn't exist within the game world, so it couldn't logically influence the behavior of their character.

Everything in the fictional world is made up. Including the reasons for any decision made by any character. They're fictitious.

How can you judge what is a valid decision versus an invalid decision when people can be quite mercurial?

In other words, if I'm in your game, and I have my character take an action that you find to be questionable by your standards, how do you know I'm not doing so in character? Do you only know when someone says that's the reason?

What if you asked a player why their character did something, and they replied with "I'm not sure....it just felt like what they'd do"?

It's a definition which has stood the test of time for decades, because it's also the primary definition of the term outside of the hobby. If you want to establish it as some sort of special jargon, aside from that, then you should do that from the outset. But there's also no reason why anyone should buy into your special definition, given your obvious ulterior motive.

I don't think that what you've offered as a definition is jargon. I think it is only a definition because it is incomplete in that role playing is a conscious act. You do not abandon your own perspective.....everything is shaped by your perspective.

This is why you can have two real people who may have completely different perspectives on a fictional person. They're deciding something for the fictional person, and they're doing so by relating to the person and imagining how they'd feel and what they'd do in those circumstances.

And speaking of outside the hobby.....what about sketch comedians? They role play, right? Would you say that they're more concerned with portraying their character, or with getting laughs?

This is a trust-based hobby. I need to trust that you aren't cheating. If I can't trust you, then you aren't welcome at my table.

That's why this is such a big deal. If there's a fraction of the player-base which thinks meta-gaming is okay, then you can't trust them, because they don't understand that they're doing something wrong.

You don't need to trust me in any way because we're never going to wind up in a game together. I mean.....I suppose it could happen under some odd circumstances, maybe at a con, or in an online game, or maybe if one of us wound up moving to a new location and found a new gaming group.

But who'd believe that?

 

[Son of the Serpent]

Everything in the fictional world is made up. Including the reasons for any decision made by any character. They're fictitious.

How can you judge what is a valid decision versus an invalid decision when people can be quite mercurial?

In other words, if I'm in your game, and I have my character take an action that you find to be questionable by your standards, how do you know I'm not doing so in character? Do you only know when someone says that's the reason?

What if you asked a player why their character did something, and they replied with "I'm not sure....it just felt like what they'd do"?





I don't think that what you've offered as a definition is jargon. I think it is only a definition because it is incomplete in that role playing is a conscious act. You do not abandon your own perspective.....everything is shaped by your perspective.

This is why you can have two real people who may have completely different perspectives on a fictional person. They're deciding something for the fictional person, and they're doing so by relating to the person and imagining how they'd feel and what they'd do in those circumstances.

And speaking of outside the hobby.....what about sketch comedians? They role play, right? Would you say that they're more concerned with portraying their character, or with getting laughs?



You don't need to trust me in any way because we're never going to wind up in a game together. I mean.....I suppose it could happen under some odd circumstances, maybe at a con, or in an online game, or maybe if one of us wound up moving to a new location and found a new gaming group.

But who'd believe that?

Logic still operates in d&d.
Your character is a person.
People are subject to psychology.
You can therefore have a general sense of when a character is being played very unrealistically and non-self-consistantly.
So yeah. Pretty easy to tell that not all actions are reasonable.