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

[doctorbadwolf]

Again, who says this is the premise of an RPG? Who claims this? I can't think of any tabletop RPG that demands this in the rules.

That is a bold distinction to make, and quite the narrow definition of "roleplaying".

Not just narrow, but wholly false and unsupported.

When no one ever drops you dont need to.

No one believes you, bud.

 

[TwoSix]

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.

Unfortunately, due to the COVID-19 crisis, most elective surgeries have been put on hold; we're going to need to delay the extrication of that deeply rooted stick.

 

[Fenris-77]

Unfortunately, due to the COVID-19 crisis, most elective surgeries have been put on hold; we're going to need to delay the extrication of that deeply rooted stick.

Masks and gloves sound like a necessity there and are in short supply.

We also need to take into account that a predilection for metagaming is an airborne vector that can live quite happily on most surfaces for up to 72hrs. The mortality rate there is high enough that I'd worry anyway. I mean, we aren't talking about illusionism, which kills something like 80% of gamers exposed to it, but metagaming is still no joke.

 

[hawkeyefan]

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.

Sure, I agree.

However, people can be unreasonable. So how do you decide as a GM that a player just metagamed and made a decision or if the character is simply behaving in an unreasonable way?

This is what I’m curious to hear....how it comes up at the table.

Because for me, it sounds like people don’t want to incorporate player authored back story because they want to control the narrative of the game. And then one step further, they want to control how the characters behave.

I see one common element there, but I don’t want to assume the worst. But so far, no one has given much of an explanation how they handle supposed metagaming at the table.

 

[Umbran]

...It's total nonsense.

... More laughable nonsense.

The fact that no players are welcome at your table is... well I'd call that a stroke of good fortune, for them.

Mod note:

I understand that these are stressful times... but this isn't acceptable.

well arent you just an arrogant ray of sunshine.

Was that really necessary?

Ironic. Too ironic.

@chaochou and @Son of the Serpent Both of you are done in this thread. Please take some time to consider how you can engage without people without being disrespectful.

 

[MGibster]

When running games, I've been known to just make stuff up about a player character's background to get the ball rolling. In star one Star Wars session, I had one of the PC's contacted by their sister to get the group involved in the adventure. And since we never discussed PC background's I just made up a sister on the spot and went with it. I've also been known to introduce NPCs, tell the player their character knows him, and have the player tell me how he feels about the NPC.

 

[Tallifer]

Usually I do not use the characters' background stories very much except as a hook to get them going somewhere. Any of my players who want to fully realize their amazo backstory will have to write it up as a uncanonical novel.

 

[Sadras]

However, people can be unreasonable. So how do you decide as a GM that a player just metagamed and made a decision or if the character is simply behaving in an unreasonable way?

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.

Because for me, it sounds like people don’t want to incorporate player authored back story because they want to control the narrative of the game.

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

And then one step further, they want to control how the characters behave.

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.

 

[prabe]

However, people can be unreasonable. So how do you decide as a GM that a player just metagamed and made a decision or if the character is simply behaving in an unreasonable way?

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.

Because for me, it sounds like people don’t want to incorporate player authored back story because they want to control the narrative of the game. And then one step further, they want to control how the characters behave.

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.

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.

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.

 

[The Crimson Binome]

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?

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.

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"?

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.

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?

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.