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

[PsyzhranV2]

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.

Cite the gollywoggin’ source of your overly strict and narrow definition of roleplaying, if you please? Fourth time asking and I'm losing patience.

 

[prabe]

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.

There are indeed many ways to play a TRPG. Many people would call many of those ways "role-playing." You don't get to make the decision as to whether another table is doing that correctly.

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.

So, the player who uses his knowledge of a published adventure to waltz through it at no risk to his character is very probably doing it wrong. I don't think you'd get much argument about that, if only because it kinda nukes the fun for everyone else at the table. I'm not sure how adding information about who your character is, and how your character got to the beginning of the campaign, and what ties your character has to the setting, can be bad; nor do I understand how a DM wanting that information is a bad thing. Creating the character seems as though it would necessarily be an out-of-character process, so I don't see how any part of that would be a problem for you.

Words have meaning, and to claim otherwise is disingenuous.

Words have meanings, yes; sometimes a word has more than one. I'll second @PsyzhranV2 on this: Where is your definition of "role-playing" coming from? It sounds less like an actual definition and more like a personal/aesthetic thing.

 

[gepetto]

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.

The part where you should have moved the hell on. Because your 0 level nobody being involved with people who are powerful and important enough to be involved in high mid or high level adventures is ridiculous. And if as a GM you havent been able to build up enough shared history by then to have everyone bought in without having to drag up some backstory from way back when then you suck.

You should have done far more important things by then as part of your collective history as a group, things which are better to have as reasons for the adventure because they are from the SHARED HISTORY that was actually played rather then one characters silly origin story.

And I think 5e sucks, so referring to it as a mechanical source for a roleplaying issue is not going to get you anywhere.

 

[The Crimson Binome]

There are indeed many ways to play a TRPG. Many people would call many of those ways "role-playing." You don't get to make the decision as to whether another table is doing that correctly.

If we're going to ignore history and common sense, then nobody can ever claim to be role-playing. Labels are only meaningful if they facilitate communication, and you insist on rejecting that. Whatever. The key idea is still in the underlying process, which the label is supposed to represent.

The point of an RPG is to engage with the world as our character does, as though it was a real place, and not just a story. That's the unique thing, which distinguishes an RPG from any other type of game.

Meta-gaming is bad because it means you aren't doing that anymore. You aren't engaging in the world as your character would, if they were a real person, living in a real world. Once you start operating on story logic, then all you're left with is a story. It no long reflects that unique thing, which is only possible in an RPG.
[/QUOTE]

 

[doctorbadwolf]

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.

You’ve yet to actually defend your definition of roleplaying. It’s a false definition.

You are doing the same thing as if method actors started claiming that only are actor, and other “actors” are doing something other than acting.

You are practicing full immersion roleplaying, which is a type of roleplaying. Most other players practice other types of roleplaying.

 

[Sadras]

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.

...(snip)...

I just don't quite get how anyone can overrule another player's choice for their character. Seems very odd.

I think Saelorn said it best - you generally give the benefit of the doubt to the player. That is not to say, a quick discussion cannot take place just to help assist the internal consistency for one or more of the players. Everyone at the table is relatively mature - even newbies quickly learn from the experienced in this regard.
It would never be brought up in a malicious way. If I have to think of my games over the years - I have never changed a player's decsion, never once. I may have questioned, prodded and poked but never have I actually enforced the rule.

Having said that I HAVE reversed the use of a plot point (5e DMG) by a player. I was trying out the system where players have the ability to inject fiction via the use of plot points. The player was testing out the limits of these plot points and used it to have fingers fall out of the villain's pockets so that it could guarantee the villain was guilty for a crime they suspected and to immedialy convert the social encounter into one of combat. With the use of that plot point in such a blunt shoddy manner all the players groaned at the table - they were not happy with the use of that plot point. I exercised my GM authority in that 1 and only scenario ever and overruled the player's injection of fiction and have never again incorporated plot points. I didn't like having to negate the use of a plot point to ensure the table enjoyed the game so I instead removed this gaming feature all together so I would not have to exercise such GM authority again. I don't like using that kind of GM authority and I also could not provide a reason I was sufficiently happy with to the player at that point for denying him the use of his plot point.

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?

No. I imagine our discussion here is very much painting things in black and white - it isn't really so. The only thing that has ever happened at my table has been player vs player discussion and having seen the player of the pc changing their course of action because they agreed with the other player's input. No hard feelings either side. It has happened a handful of times at my table in the last decade.

 

[prabe]

The point of an RPG is to engage with the world as our character does, as though it was a real place, and not just a story. That's the unique thing, which distinguishes an RPG from any other type of game.

That's certainly a point. For many it's the main point. It's not the only point. TRPGs can be seen as story-generators. I'd say the emergent stories are the real strength of TRPGs, the real point of play, the real unique thing about them.

Meta-gaming is bad because it means you aren't doing that anymore. You aren't engaging in the world as your character would, if they were a real person, living in a real world. Once you start operating on story logic, then all you're left with is a story. It no long reflects that unique thing, which is only possible in an RPG.

You seem to be conflating meta-gaming with operating on story logic. They're not the same thing and neither necessarily needs to be game-breaking. I'd argue that some rules-thinking (arguably meta-game thinking) is going to be inevitable; those rules are pretty much how the world works, and it's possible to consider the players' thinking to be a reflection or abstraction of the characters' thinking.

Also, the world of a TRPG is removed enough from reality that for some people the only way to engage with it is with something like story-logic. It's not always easy to maintain willing suspension of disbelief in the face of what, e.g., D&D can throw at characters. Story logic sometimes helps with that.

 

[Aldarc]

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... "

I hope that any well-adjusted adult here, which may already be asking too much from people, could recognize here that the problem is not metagaming, but personal issues between Bob and the Speaker. Bob and the Speaker should handle this between themselves like adults. But in no way is the actual problem here metagaming. It's the personal lives of the players. So we should probably stop pretending like metagaming is the disease rather than a mere symptom. IME, metagaming is almost always the symptom of an underlying problem at the table rather than the actual problem itself.

 

[hawkeyefan]

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

I suppose it would have to be since there's no way to prove it.

Both, I'd say.

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

Sounds about right.

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.

But even then.....isn't it that I'm actually establishing that there's something not quite certain about my character's devotion to life?

I don't mind when the players or GM says "Wow, really? That seems unlike your cleric"; we can discuss it and maybe I'd even revise my choice. But ultimately, I'm the one that decides.

I'm surprised to hear you advocating for this.

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.

But like I said.....the approach of letting them metagame actually "aligns with reality" better since it allows for all conceivable options. Where as the decision to restrict the character's actions is the one being made by outside of game factors.

Do you see what I mean here?

 

[The Crimson Binome]

You seem to be conflating meta-gaming with operating on story logic. They're not the same thing and neither necessarily needs to be game-breaking.

Story logic is the form of meta-gaming that's relevant to this thread. If the DM makes things happen in order to facilitate a story, then that's a form of not-acting-purely-on-internal-causality (aka meta-gaming). It's the same category of behavior as other forms of meta-gaming, such as dungeon speed-running. If you're in the game because you want to pretend to be a real person in a believable world, then those things are both bad for the exact same reason.

I'd argue that some rules-thinking (arguably meta-game thinking) is going to be inevitable; those rules are pretty much how the world works, and it's possible to consider the players' thinking to be a reflection or abstraction of the characters' thinking.

To the extent that the rules of the game reflect the reality of the game world, a player thinking about those rules will reflect how their character thinks about that reality. This is one of the reasons why it's possible to stay in character, when making decisions. Both the player and the character are on the same page, that a fall from 200' is survivable to a sufficiently-skilled warrior.

Also, the world of a TRPG is removed enough from reality that for some people the only way to engage with it is with something like story-logic. It's not always easy to maintain willing suspension of disbelief in the face of what, e.g., D&D can throw at characters. Story logic sometimes helps with that.

As with many things, it gets easier with practice. While the concept of story logic might work as a crutch for very young players, or people very new to the hobby, most people should be capable of accepting the concept of alternative reality after they've had a bit of experience.