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

[gepetto]

Borimir's 100% a PC, just with different goals and motives than the rest. He can't bend the party to his goals, so he initiates some PvP; that goes wrong as well so in the end he dies heroically but not before splitting the party into three groups.

Oddly enough, we find out far more about his backstory after he's dead than we do while he's alive. It's still important.

He's definitely an NPC. Or at best an occasional player whose character the GM runs most sessions. But really the background after death thing is how we know he's an NPC. If he was a PC then when he died the player would get a new one and that would be the focus.

 

[gepetto]

You won’t get any disagreement from me that many modern books and films lazily employ coincidence rather than good writing (though my initial example was Star Wars, so modern is relative).

However, certain points remain:

1) there is no reason to assume “DM uses character backstory” means “DM uses character backstory in an excessively implausible manner”. “You run into the gnoll who killed your parents as the chief of a gnoll tribe somewhere else in the same kingdom” is different from “you are actually the son of the BBEG’s lieutenant and this was never alluded to anywhere else previously”;

2) while bad writers (and bad DMs) tend to rely excessively on implausible coincidences, it is possible to use implausible coincidences to very good effect. To put it differently, if you remove bad coincidences from the repertoire of a bad writer, what remains is still a bad writer. Removing coincidences from the repertoire of a DM is removing a tool that can be the proper tool for the job, if used sparingly;

3) to get back to a point I raised earlier, I do this for fun in my spare time, yes, I take pride in my work and try to do the best job I can, but it is a little ridiculous to compare me to a professional screenwriter;

4) the DM who completely ignores your backstory is worse from both an immersion perspective and a “plausibility” perspective. In a 4e game, I rolled up a Rogue with a Soldier background. He was a farmboy who had been conscripted at the end of the war and trained with other locals who knew the area as a scout and a skirmisher. I provided a short background to this effect to the DM. The DM began the adventure with my character trying to break into an archeological dig as part of a Thieves’ guild initiation, and the climax depended on my character reading a note in thieves’ cant, despite my character neither being a thief nor literate.

Yeah but thats like the first adventure, or pretty close. When maybe backgrounds popping up can be believable. If its still happening past level 3 or 4 it becomes progressively more unlikely and undesirable.

 

[hawkeyefan]

So IF I were playing along those lines as strictly as @Saelorn seems to do: If the GM wasn't happy with the player's reasoning for the character's actions it could go to a table vote. Personally if I were a player (and actually a GM) at that table I would prefer it going to the table rather than have the entire decision rest in the GM's hands.

That'd probably be a better way to handle it than based solely on the GM, I think. Still seems odd that other people would know better than the player what his or her character would do.

In a way yes, but also to try maintain a sense of internal consistency.

I don't think having more than one source of input into the fiction really threatens the internal consistency all that much. It could, of course...but it can also be pretty shoddy with only one source, too.

Look if it ever went that dark - the GM would generally have serious trouble at the table. Checks and balances.

I do not run my table as metagame free as Saelorn, obviously, given some of the gaming techniques I have incorporated, but I will say this: Our table is very much open. Anyone is free to question any character's actions at our table since those actions may affect the story's internal consistency. I often find it is players that check players at our table and opinions may be shared and may lead to rethinking/modifying the character action taken. In another light (positive) this could be viewed as shared narrative (between two players). Other times the questioning of a character's actions serves to get clarrification but more so insight into the character.

Yeah, I don't think that this is problematic as an approach, overall.

I just don't quite get how anyone can overrule another player's choice for their character. Seems very odd. Also, where is the line drawn? If I'm playing a cleric of a life deity and I've established that my character's primary concern is the health of his companions.....and as an action I declare to attack an enemy instead of casting a cure spell on comrade.....is this grounds for that character's player or anyone else to question if I'm playing in character?

 

[prabe]

I just don't quite get how anyone can overrule another player's choice for their character. Seems very odd. Also, where is the line drawn? If I'm playing a cleric of a life deity and I've established that my character's primary concern is the health of his companions.....and as an action I declare to attack an enemy instead of casting a cure spell on comrade.....is this grounds for that character's player or anyone else to question if I'm playing in character?

The only way I have done this (and it happened as recently as this past Saturday) was when a player made a decision that didn't seem to reflect the situation/rules. Mind-control effects are obvious; this was a minion that had been given a specific order, and ended up behaving in a way that was ... tactically suboptimal (with the player completely buying in, once I pointed the situation out).

Obviously that's not the same thing as a real in-character decision, which I tend to be leave in the hands of the players. I have, however, seen at least one instance where a player was pondering which class to advance and was talked into changing his mind by the other players (because of what had just happened in-game); that's still probably not what you're talking about.

 

[hawkeyefan]

It hasn't come up at either of the tables I'm DMing, at least not seriously. There are some jokes about bad things happening wherever the PCs are--the parties ended up in the same city, three months apart, and while the first party found the city welcoming to adventurers, the second didn't. Since there are players playing in both campaigns, there was some pondering if they could somehow not be the ones the city had gotten mad at. No one really metagamed in practice, though.

I am really struggling to understand how it even can come up, unless a player outright says "I only did that because I knew the session was almost over, and I wanted something cool to happen" or something similar. Without such an admission, all I'm seeing is an ultra-controlling GM telling people how to run their characters.

I think the absolute refusal to consider using a player-written backstory might reflect that, or it might reflect an insistence on a play-style that at least doesn't reward backstories at all.

Right. I'm trying not to assume the worst. I understand that for some folks, they don't want preconceived ideas about who a character may be, or what they've done to this point. It's not my preferred method of play, and I may disagree about the pros and cons of it.....but I can intellectually understand it.

I welcome backstories, and they can come up at roughly any point in a campaign, but I'm at the point where I'm going to start asking for shorter backstories because I don't want to spend an hour trying to pull the hooks out, and because the PCs are supposed to be closer to the beginnings of their stories than the middles, let alone the ends. I'm also trying to keep my homebrew world consistent, so the more stuff there is in a character's backstory, the more likely it is to conflict with what I have or require some thinking to fit in. I'm not trying to control the narrative of the campaign: As @Sadras said, I'm trying to keep the setting at least somewhat consistent/coherent.

Yeah, I don't need a novella. Generally, a conversation about the character will do. If anything is written down, a paragraph, or better yet a list, will be plenty.

EDIT: I don't believe I have ever tried to control how the characters have behaved as a GM. I have had villains and NPCs do so, however, with roughly little success.

I've never seen anyone play this way. Even if I did have a player say to me "I only had my character do that so we could get to the fight" I wouldn't call them cheater and ban them from my game. I'd probably just chuckle.

 

[hawkeyefan]

The only way I have done this (and it happened as recently as this past Saturday) was when a player made a decision that didn't seem to reflect the situation/rules. Mind-control effects are obvious; this was a minion that had been given a specific order, and ended up behaving in a way that was ... tactically suboptimal (with the player completely buying in, once I pointed the situation out).

Obviously that's not the same thing as a real in-character decision, which I tend to be leave in the hands of the players. I have, however, seen at least one instance where a player was pondering which class to advance and was talked into changing his mind by the other players (because of what had just happened in-game); that's still probably not what you're talking about.

Yeah, I'm not saying that there aren't times where I say something like "You have no way of knowing that" when a player is having their character act on knowledge they don't have. This sometimes comes up when there's a split party....some folks are in one room, and some in another, and one of the groups gets into some trouble.

I might step in and say something....but at the same time, there's no way to say that the character might not be cautious in such a way, is there? What if I placed both groups of players in separate rooms, and then went back and forth between the two, and one of the players said "I'd like to go check on the other group"; should I deny his action? Or allow it?

The way I see it, is that one method limits the options that should be conceivably available to the characters, and one allows for all options that should be conceivably available to the characters.

 

[Lanefan]

Why lock anything in until it needs to be, though?

Because then the player can build off it, as can I-as-DM should I want to and-or have to.

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"

Depends. If we've already determined that the PC doesn't have a brother then it doesn't have a brother, and one would hope the player is already well aware of this (having been involved in the determination process) and thus won't try to invent a brother where none exists.

If we haven't yet determined the makeup of the PC's family then I'll keep this in mind, and maybe bring it in later depending on some other factors e.g. is the player doing this just to try and hog airtime, is the player actively trying to incorporare other PCs into this side-story, and so forth.

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?

I look for patterns.

Ramifications for most characters include how an aligned item treats you; what results someone gets from casting Know Alignment or Detect Good/Evil on you; how you're treated by some NPCs if-when word spreads, and so forth.

If you're a Cleric, Paladin, or other class with alignment restrictions the ramifications can be much more significant, up to and including loss of class or - in very rare instances (i.e. once in my DMing career) - a divine bolt of lightning dropping from the sky...

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

As CG and CN are the two most common alignments played here, I've had lots of practice with this one. They might become too consistent or predictable, or insist on following/enforcing/inventing rules and regulations, or (for a CN) consistently act evilly or goodly, and so forth.

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?

In this example, yes.

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.

The difference is the meta-thinking and motivation behind it.

If their fight in-game mirrors their fight in real life (and-or is caused by it), that's just the reverse of having an in-character argument move out of character; which is something I smack down on rather hard.

But if their in-character fight is simply something happening in character and nothing to do with real life, I'm cool with it as long as it stays in character.

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.

Well, maybe not, as the Pope's movements outside the Vatican are usually quite well publicized.

But e.g. bumping into Tom Hanks or Taylor Swift were either here on an unannounced vacation, perhaps that's closer to what you mean.

 

[Lanefan]

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"?

IME it's one of those things where "you know it when you see it" applies.

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?

Both, I'd say.

They're concerned with portraying their character in such a way as to get those laughs.

 

[hawkeyefan]

If I trust you, then I'll give you the benefit of the doubt. If I find out you've been cheating, then you get one reminder, before being removed from the game.

Let's just use the term "metagaming" in order to remain clear. Cheating can mean any number of things. I'm aware of your stance, and you're aware of mine.....so let's respect each other and not assume the worst, eh?

That certainly sounds, to me, like the they're making the decision from the character's perspective. While it's possible that they're subconsciously meta-gaming, as long as they're acting in good faith, that's the most anyone can ask of a player.

So then how would you ever arrive at a decision that a player has metagamed barring their admission that they've done so?

I would not say that they are role-playing, no. They may be doing something similar to role-playing, in a sense, but they have an obvious ulterior motive which compromises the integrity of the process.

So then role-playing doesn't exist outside the hobby? At least as you define it?

And they don't have an ulterior motive.....there's nothing hidden about their goal to get the audience to laugh. They simply have a goal other than portraying their role.....they have more than one goal, and can be doing both!

Just like players in a RPG.

 

[Aldarc]

He's definitely an NPC. Or at best an occasional player whose character the GM runs most sessions. But really the background after death thing is how we know he's an NPC. If he was a PC then when he died the player would get a new one and that would be the focus.

Or the player needed to drop out of the group, so either the player decided to go for the One Ring himself or the player and GM collaborated on a cool twist for the character. But nothing precludes Boromir from being a PC rather than a NPC.

Both, I'd say.

They're concerned with portraying their character in such a way as to get those laughs.

This is one fairly clear piece of counter-evidence, IMHO, why Saelorn's definition, usage, and sense of roleplay falls flat, at least if they want to assert that their term is how it is commonly used inside and outside of the hobby. Saelorn is basically setting up legitimate forms of roleplay that fall outside of his narrow sense of roleplay essentially as a "No True Scotsman."