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

[generic]

I try to incorporate the backstories of my player's Player Characters in each campaign or adventure as best I can, generally, through little details, and being lenient enough to allow leeway which makes sense in-world. For example, if the player says that their Fighter inherited a small farm with arable land from their parents, I will give them the deeds to the farm as an in-game item, and allow them to do what they wish with their land. Tie-in often takes the form of land, family ties, or, sometimes, small villages or outposts which only exists due to the player's backstory. Although I will sometimes incorporate the background/backstory into the main plot of the campaign, or into the subplots, it's often unnecessary, and just clutters everything in the adventure. On the other hand, if a PC expresses interest in, say, slaying the Orc Lord who slew his family with one mighty swing of the Sword Geoyr, I will certainly tailor a sidequest to their aims.

 

[hawkeyefan]

I'm all for player agency over their character, provided such agency is exercised in good faith. Bringing out-of-game issues into the game isn't good faith any more.

Uh...no, I don't, really.

If your character and Bill's character have gone ahead to scout with no means of communicating back to my character and Mary's character, then ideally Mary and I as players should have absolutely no knowledge of what's become of you until and unless you return or find some way of communicating with us. The only things we should know are a) how long you've been gone (vs. how long you expected you'd be gone) and b) whether there's been any sign of trouble we'd be able to notice e.g. a distant scream or the lights and-or sounds of unexpected spells going off.

Because if we-as-players do have knowledge that, say, you got captured and Bill's PC got killed then no matter how hard Mary and I try to deny or avoid it, that knowledge is inevitably going to seep into our thought processes as we determine what our PCs do next: how long we wait, whether we come looking for you or give you up as a lost cause, and so on.

Mine and Mary's actions should be restricted by the knowledge our PCs have, which ideally is the same as our knowledge as players so that we don't have to self-restrict.

Okay, let me try to elaborate.

Forget that we're playing a game for a minute. Imagine a group of 8 people has split up into two groups of 4 in order to search an abandoned building. Each group moves about the building, room to room, examining what's there.

One of the people in the first group gets a little concerned and decides to check in on the second group. Maybe he has a hunch, or maybe he sees something in one of the rooms that indicates there may be a need for caution.....whatever the case, I think you will agree that this is a possibility in the real world. He may, without any direct knowledge of what is happening to them, decide to go and check on the other group. This seems like a very reasonable and plausible action, no?

Okay, now let's take that situation and drop it into a game unconcerned about metagaming, and one that is concerned about metagaming.

In the unconcerned game, the above is still possible. The character from the first group is free to go check in on the second group. There is no restriction on his actions from reasons outside of the game.

In the game concerned with metagaming, there very likely may be such restrictions. Of course, it depends on what is happening at the table. If group 2 actually is in some kind of danger, and anyone from group 1 says "I'd like to go check on them" the DM blocks the action because of the outside knowledge. Oddly enough, if there is no danger, the DM would likely allow it. This is not at all consistent, and is entirely dependent upon elements beyond the game world.

One game allows for any and all actions, the other restricts actions based on a concern about metagaming. A perfectly reasonable and plausible action on the part of one character is blocked.

If plausibility is one of the guiding principles of play, then I think the one that limits plausible actions is probably not preferred. Or would normally not be considered preferable, except that metagaming's been set up as a boogeyman for many gamers.

 

[Ovinomancer]

Just keeping track, we have a Drama Despot and a Drama Doge. I'd like to encourage some additional verbiage, as it'll get crowded if we just have single titles. For example, Fenris-77, Marquis of Drama, Knight of Optimization, and Protector of Salty Snacks.

Well, then, allow me to amend:

Ovinomancer, the Diabolical Despot of Drama, Slayer of Sacred Cows, Terror of Trap Choices, and Despoiler of Salty Snacks.

 

[The Crimson Binome]

Mod Note:

You should be aware - the owner of this site does not buy into "One True Wayism" - and while you put a disclaimer here, that's what you are doing. If you do not have room in your head and heart for what others do, you will be asked to leave the discussion. Gatekeeping like this is not acceptable.

I apologize if it was not clear. At my table, anyone who tries to meta-game is necessarily a cheating weasel, because agreeing to not meta-game is a pre-requisite to playing at my table. Doing so would be a direct violation of explicit social contract. I have zero tolerance for meta-gaming at my table.

At anyone else's table, I have no control over what sort of game they're playing; but there's zero chance that I'll ever play in any RPG that allows for meta-gaming.

 

[Aldarc]

You're still implicitly accusing other tables of metagaming if they are not roleplaying by your One True Way.

 

[Michael Silverbane]

Just keeping track, we have a Drama Despot and a Drama Doge. I'd like to encourage some additional verbiage, as it'll get crowded if we just have single titles. For example, Fenris-77, Marquis of Drama, Knight of Optimization, and Protector of Salty Snacks.

Well, then, allow me to amend:

Ovinomancer, the Diabolical Despot of Drama, Slayer of Sacred Cows, Terror of Trap Choices, and Despoiler of Salty Snacks.

Why are the snacks so salty? Is someone accusing them of metagaming?

 

[Umbran]

I apologize if it was not clear. At my table, anyone who tries to meta-game is necessarily a cheating weasel,

Mod Note:
We don't need your clarification.

We need to you to stop using emotionally loaded terms like "cheating weasel" about other types of play. There is no way that comes across as if you actually feel it is perfectly acceptable for other folks to play that way - it comes across as judgemental, no matter how many disclaimers you put around it. So, please stop using that kind of language.

And, we need to you to follow the rules, and not argue or try to justify yourself in-thread in the face of moderator statements. If you feel you must justify yourself, please take it to the private message system in the future.

 

[TwoSix]

I hereby inform you of my election to the position of "Drama Doge."

Much drama.
Many metagame.
Wow.

 

[Arilyn]

I appreciate chatacter backstories because they give me hooks, and give me an idea of what kind of stories the players are hoping for. I don't insist on backstories. Totally up to the players. Sometimes players come to the table with zero backstory and have incredibly rich characters, while others have detailed backgrounds and very flat characters. I know I have had times where a character I've thrown together with little thought ends up being very memorable, whereas one with lots of background just fizzles. Just never know, which is part of the fun of the game.

As for metagaming? I think there is way too much hand wringing over it. I just assume my players know fire works on trolls, and if somebody remembers some more obscure weakness, no biggie. They have probably remembered wrong anyway. And I change up monsters, so no guarantees.

Players get to know their GM, so metagaming is pretty unavoidable. If a particular GM expects players to talk first, they are going to learn not to attack everything in sight, whereas, attacking first, might be the best tactic under a different GM. Players are going to start unconsciously picking up on patterns, and not even be aware that their behaviour in Bob's game differs from Anne's.

I also find that certain "metagame" systems, such as Fate points, story cards, the escalation die, etc. actually enhance the engagement of the players at the table. To me, maximizing engagement as much as possible, is what is going to make the game world seem more real, and ensure players return to the table.

Really, the only metagaming sin I can think of, is a player reading a published adventure ahead of time, and acting on that knowledge. Or deciding to gather the ingredients for making gunpowder when it hasn't been invented yet, and said character is no alchemical genius.

We are sitting at a table, eating snacks, maybe drinking beer, dealing with phone calls, bathroom breaks, and getting distracted by such gravely important questions, like which is the best Marvel movie. Not going to worry too much over whether John's character insists that the hooded man in the corner of the tavern must be important somehow.

 

[Lanefan]

Before claiming that metagaming is the problem, how about starting with a more basic rule for the table: Don't use this game as a battleground to be jack-donkeys to each other?

You don't have to try. Just tell them that they can't play until they sort it out themselves. They can take it outside but they can't bring it in here.

Exactly. Leave it at the door.

But that don't always happen...and thus the DM has to step in.

But ruling that this is a "metagaming problem" is absolutely ridiculous. It completely misses the forests for the trees. It completely pretends that the people aren't the problem and that they aren't people. It comes across as a self-centered approach that only views the personal problems between the two individuals in terms of how it inconveniences the "fiction" of your game.

Or the play-at-the-table of my game, yes.

You're here to play the game, in good faith. Leave the rest of it outside.

I don't think that's the appropriate approach for the situation. If you can explain to me how this is actually more of a metagaming problem and not an interpersonal conflict between the two players then I'm all ears.

It's both, as one (the interpersonal conflict) leads directly to the other (meta-game character decisions). And I know - I've both seen it and done it during my playing career.

And as I said earlier, as DM of the game it's not my place to sort out the interpersonal conflict but it is my place to - where I can - not allow it to unduly affect my game.