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

[FrozenNorth]

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.

What part of it becomes unlikely as you go up in levels? In 5e, a gnoll flind is CR 8, so you could definitely have a gnoll flind and his bodyguards as the boss fight for a 10th level party.

 

[Lanefan]

Going back to this point: IMHO, the desire for "complete immersion" immediately stops being laudable when it's being used for gatekeeping purposes, telling other tables that they are having badwrongfun, or adhering to supercilious notions of "bad RP."

Why is it of late that seemingly every time someone wants to dispute a point, the argument of "gatekeeping" shows up?

I mean, I have no problem at all telling someone else (or a lot of someone elses) that I think they're doing it wrong, nor do I have any problem if-when they say the same right back to me. We can then argue, or agree to disagree, or go for pistols at dawn, or whatever.

But to suggest I'm not allowed to say this in the first place? Sorry, not buying it.

See? For me, if a fraction of the fanbase are giant douche-nozzles who go around thinking that it's okay to police others about metagaming and the need to police others about OneTrueWayism roleplaying or telling them that they are doing badwrongfun at their tables, then I not only can't trust them, but I will fight them tooth and claw because they are far more toxic to our hobby than metagaming.

I'm not sure I'd go anywhere near as far as saying either opinion is 'toxic'.

That said, it's a breeding ground for at-the-table arguments and IMO the easiest way to avoid these is just to rule 'no metagaming where possible' and stick to it.

 

[Lanefan]

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?

I think it's more if you decided to attack the fallen comrade rather than cure him, that eyebrows would shoot skyward.

Or if after the battle was done you intentionally dragged your heels such that the comrade bled out and died.

 

[Aldarc]

Why is it of late that seemingly every time someone wants to dispute a point, the argument of "gatekeeping" shows up?

Because of toxic gatekeepers in the hobby that people are growing tired of having to deal with.

But to suggest I'm not allowed to say this in the first place? Sorry, not buying it.

You're not buying what I'm not even attempting to sell? That's laudable. You should probably come up with a better counter-argument than a strawman.

I'm not sure I'd go anywhere near as far as saying either opinion is 'toxic'.

None of this "both sides" nonsense. One opinion entails upholding and including various forms of roleplay that tables enjoy as valid and one is about excluding various forms of roleplay that tables enjoy and declaring them invalid. I'm sorry, but not all opinions are equally valid when it comes to this, and one is definitely far more toxic to the hobby than the other. So I definitely would say that one opinion is toxic.

That said, it's a breeding ground for at-the-table arguments and IMO the easiest way to avoid these is just to rule 'no metagaming where possible' and stick to it.

IMHO, the easiest way to avoid these things is to not to rule against metagaming, which is unenforceable, but simply to ask players politely what their character would do. That may even require that the player talk their decision or thinking process through with other players on a meta-textual level.

 

[Lanefan]

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?

Allow it, of course, and then you can briefly put the two groups of players together as an opportunity for info exchange has arisen.

But otherwise yes, this is one instance where I don't hesitate to step in and smack things down. Ditto with players making suggestions for what other players' PCs should do when the suggesting player has no PC in the neighbourhood and thus no way of knowing the situation; this is something I've had to get rather nasty about in days of old.

 

[Lanefan]

Because of toxic gatekeepers in the hobby that people are growing tired of having to deal with.

In many ways I'm a big-tent kind of person and don't like gates.

That said, I also reserve the right to both hold opinions on what goes on inside said tent and to express such opinions (in a civilized manner).

None of this "both sides" nonsense. One opinion entails upholding and including various forms of roleplay that tables enjoy as valid and one is about excluding various forms of roleplay that tables enjoy and declaring them invalid. I'm sorry, but not all opinions are equally valid when it comes to this, and one is definitely far more toxic to the hobby than the other. So I definitely would say that one opinion is toxic.

I'll just self-moderate here and save the mods some headaches.

IMHO, the easiest way to avoid these things is to not to rule against metagaming, which is unenforceable, but simply to ask players politely what their character would do. That may even require that the player talk their decision or thinking process through with other players on a meta-textual level.

And if that meta-textual talk-through (which ain't a bad idea, for all that!) reveals the player's thinking involves outside-the-game stuff, then what?

"Bob made a move on my girlfriend this week so I'm gonna run his character into the ground, so now I've defeated my Orc I'm going after Falstaffe... "

 

[The Crimson Binome]

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

Bayesian probability analysis. Estimate the likelihood that someone would have made a given decision on the basis of honest character interpretation, compared to the likelihood that they would make that decision on the basis of some other motive. If an observation is too improbable, then we can feel a degree of confidence in how it came about.

The likelihood of an adventurer walking into a dungeon and immediately proceeding to the treasure, without hesitation and without triggering any of the traps along the way, is too small to really consider. Call it one-in-a-thousand, if we're being generous.

The likelihood of a player having their character act in such a manner, if they've read the source material, is much greater. Call it one-in-ten.

Given the relative likelihood of the observed outcome, given those possible motivations, we should believe that it's one hundred times more likely that the player is cheating than that they are not.

And likewise, with a DM manipulating the background to contrive drama for the players. If there are a dozen evil cultists, then there would be a one-in-twelve chance that the character's brother is the one sent on the mission to where the PCs happen to show up, if the DM was acting impartially. If the DM was acting on a bias to create drama, then the likelihood of that outcome is much closer to eleven-in-twelve. Thus, given the observation that the brother does show up, we should believe that it's eleven times more likely that the DM is acting with bias than that they are not.

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

It also exists in the therapist's office, the war room, and any number of other scenarios where our true goal is to understand what someone else is thinking. Sometimes, it even exists in this very forum.

Just like players in a RPG.

Just like so-called "players" who prioritize story-telling over role-playing.

 

[prabe]

Just like so-called "players" who prioritize story-telling over role-playing.

Wow. You're really not clear on the difference between "preference" and "The One True Way," are you?

 

[TwoSix]

And if that meta-textual talk-through (which ain't a bad idea, for all that!) reveals the player's thinking involves outside-the-game stuff, then what?

"Bob made a move on my girlfriend this week so I'm gonna run his character into the ground, so now I've defeated my Orc I'm going after Falstaffe... "

There's a pretty big difference between "I'm bringing personal issues into the game" metagaming and "I'm prioritizing moving the plot over character immersion" metagaming. The first is bad, and the second is good.

 

[The Crimson Binome]

Wow. You're really not clear on the difference between "preference" and "The One True Way," are you?

There are lots of ways to play an RPG, but only one of those ways is actually role-playing. I'm not going around and forcing everyone else to role-play, unless they want to play at my table, in which case they've already agreed.

I'm also not going to let people get away with using weasel words to imply that out-of-character decision making (for whatever motive) is actually role-playing. Words have meaning, and to claim otherwise is disingenuous.