My player's character, the enigma

[Quentin3212]

I definitely agree, and don't worry I avoid group sessions of calling folks out except when it needs to be done at the time in order to curb repeated events in a single session. I once had a teacher who would call kids to her desk at the front of the class during class to discuss why they did bad on a particular assignment or test (in a loud voice), it was fun for no one and taught me the benefits of discretion at a young age.

The reason it has gone on as long as it has is because I had a hard time acknowledging it as yes this is becoming disruptive due to his not being a disruptive player in other games we play in together. I think he takes issue with my DM style which is a bit more hands on than in other games we play, and is showing it by producing characters who either take advantage or oppose said style.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

Anything the DM doesn't know, doesn't exist. Backstory, especially backstory that impacts the world at large, is something the DM needs to know -- in fact it doesn't exist without DM approval.

Likewise, character abilities, possessions, and other such attributes might be kept from other players, but not the DM. The DM really does need to know if only to keep the world running plausibly and smoothly.

Let Bob know that and suggest he share what he wants in the character or you won't accommodate any more reveals at all. "You say Bob has/knows/encountered X? He's mistaken."

I approve 100%.

 

[Quickleaf]

[MENTION=6775101]Quentin3212[/MENTION] I don't think I'd ever play with a player like that...I mean how old is he, 14?

Harsh criticism aside, your suspicion that Bob has a problem with your DMing style may be right. After all, you mention that this is your baby and you take a stronger hand DMing. I'm not sure what that means in your case exactly, but a useful conversation starter might be:

"Hey Bob, you might not realize it, but you've been disrupting this game for a while now and I'm a bit mystified at why. I'm assuming it has something to do with you not liking my DMing style? Let's talk about it, because this disruption has got to stop. What about this game I'm running makes you want to disrupt the rest of our fun? Is there some other game or style of game you wish we were playing?"

That should reveal all and nib the problem in the butt. If its a BS answer, give Bob the boot. But often engaging trouble players can provide a lot of insight into elements of your DMing style that don't work for everybody.

 

[Olgar Shiverstone]

I suggest you open a discussion with the words "Hand me your character sheet." Players keeping character info secret from other players is one thing (though potentially disruptive out of character); players keeping character info secret from the DM is a no-go.

 

[Quentin3212]

I agree,

I have no problem with internal group intrigue, characters who don't share goals or alignments with the party, and detailed side plots. In fact I quite enjoy them, they encourage me to be creative, and show the players involved are not only engaged with their character but the campaign as a whole.

What I dislike is show boaters, people who attempt to make the game about them, people who keep vital character information from me, and power gamers (though I understand one player's power game is another player's average tabletop experience).

Unfortunately this particular occasion falls solidly under one of those negative points and I suspect is hedging on at least one possibly two others.

 

[pemerton]

In my campaign I have attempted to promote players spending extra time filling out their character's backstories

<snip>

Bob has kept me pretty much completely in the dark about Stormageddon beyond telling me the basic name, race, class combo that you pretty much have to tell the DM, as well as the fact that he was a slave.

<snip>

Bob informed me that Stormageddon can speak Abyssal, Infernal, and Supernal all of which are exotic languages requiring explanations for your character knowing them, and when I asked bob where Stormageddon had learned the languages I was told they were part of his character's backstory and nothing I needed to know.

<snip>

I dislike that he is refusing to tell me anything about his character, and I suspect he has done so in order to have a trump card to any possible plot hook I may attempt to implement with his character. He can never really be susceptible to the claim that actions taken are out of character because hey we don't actually know anything about him, and he can never be used to drive any story because it could be hypothetically vetoed with a "that doesn't work because [insert backstory/motivation/etc. that contradicts current event"

<snip>

I have gone through a lot of work to ensure everyone's characters work in the universe and the universe works with what they want to do, it's pretty much my baby and I have spent an inordinate amount of time filling it in so that campaigns set within it don't feel like they are being run in a vacuum.

It's possible that Bob is just a bad player who takes pleasure in disrupting others' fun. If that's true, the advice from others upthread about stern words and/or booting from the group seem sensible enough.

The rest of my post works on the assumption that Bob is still going to be part of the game, and that what is going on here is a clash of playstyle expectations.

From the extracts I've quoted from your OP, it looks like Bob is trying to keep his PC's backstory secret to (i) prevent it being used against him by the GM, and (ii) as a possible protection against future GM force. I don't know how much GM force you use in your game - your OP doesn't make that clear - but you do refer to the campaign world being "pretty much [your] baby", and you also seem to imply that, as GM, you will tell a player that his/her PC is acting "out of character" and use that as a device for pressuring the player to change his/her PC's declared actions.

I think one way to try and deal with (i) is to make it clear to Bob that he doesn't have to worry about (ii). That is, if Bob is more confident that backstory won't be used by the GM as a device for pressuring the players into making particular action declarations for their PCs, then Bob might realise that the way you have fun in an RPG is precisely by telling the GM your PC backstory so that the GM can then use it to come up with interesting situations for your PC to deal with. How can the GM do that if s/he doesn't know what your backstory is? For instance, how you can give Bob interesting situations that relate to Stormageddon's background as a slave if Bob hasn't told you who the enslavers were?

Of course, if Bob is just an unreasonable, disruptive person then the above has no applicability. It is predicated on the assumption that he is a reasonable person looking to have fun RPGing.

 

[Quentin3212]

I haven't used a backstory to force a path of action in the game, thus far the back story's have only been used towards story hooks with the characters where applicable. As for telling someone they are acting out of character I also haven't encountered this, though if say a player was playing a bleeding heart man of the people and suddenly decided to screw a bunch of villagers over for some gold I would question their motives and ask them to provide an explanation for the sudden swing in priorities. My "it's my baby" comment was more directed towards the amount of work I have put into both the setting and the campaign, and the player's apparent complete disregard for said work.

I'm not sure that Bob would feel this way, as there is yet to be a precedent of me using backstory as a clout to restrict character action.

 

[innerdude]

Anything the DM doesn't know, doesn't exist. Backstory, especially backstory that impacts the world at large, is something the DM needs to know -- in fact it doesn't exist without DM approval.

Likewise, character abilities, possessions, and other such attributes might be kept from other players, but not the DM. The DM really does need to know if only to keep the world running plausibly and smoothly.

Let Bob know that and suggest he share what he wants in the character or you won't accommodate any more reveals at all. "You say Bob has/knows/encountered X? He's mistaken."

Somebody XP Nagol for me for this post. This is a great response.

My minor addition to it would be to say, it's clear that he doesn't trust the OP as a GM. Meaning, if the player trusted the GM, he or she would give the GM that information with the understanding that the GM would use it to build the type of game the player wants.

The player's behavior is a pretty clear indication that he doesn't care about the GM's desire to run a campaign that would be to his tastes, thus lessening the GM's enjoyment and fun.

Talking to the player realistically and responsibly, and then coming to a compromise would be the "litmus test" for me. If the player is willing to be mature about it, and recognize that there's more people interested in having fun in the game than just him, he could stay. Otherwise, he'd be gone.

 

[Olgar Shiverstone]

Somebody XP Nagol for me for this post. This is a great response.

Gotcha covered.

 

[Quentin3212]

Ok sorry this took a few days, but here's an update.

I sat down and talked with my player regarding how simply not telling me his backstory after I had specifically told people it was tied into certain things they could take (ie what languages they have) was not ok for my game, and he explained to me that he had refused because he wanted his character's story to exist in a vacuum independent of the campaign.

Long story short I agreed to not develop his character's story through plot looks and side quests, and he will be sending me a copy of said story at some point in the new future. Now it's just down to waiting and seeing if he actually follows through on his half of the deal.