My player's character, the enigma

[Li Shenron]

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.

Ok, good luck!

Tho I have to say that this stinks. Not because of your decision, but because of his premise. Having a character whose story "exists in a vacuum" is nonsense to me. It's like having a movie, where one of the characters simply isn't part of the story, but it's still there. If he is not part of the story, he is part of the furniture? If he has a fantasy about some imaginary character, but want to keep it outside the story of the game, then he can keep it for himself, write up such character using the rules, print the character sheet, and post it on his bedroom wall. Why does he need an actual ongoing game and gaming group around that?

 

[pemerton]

he explained to me that he had refused because he wanted his character's story to exist in a vacuum independent of the campaign.

Like [MENTION=1465]Li Shenron[/MENTION], I'm curious about what your player's motivations are for this.

 

[the Jester]

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.

That's... ridiculous. His character is in the campaign; his story (and backstory), by the very nature of being part of the campaign, is not and cannot "exist in a vacuum independent of the campaign"- at least, not in the style of game I play in.

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.

I hate to say it, but this doesn't sound like a reasonable solution at all. I fall pretty firmly into this attitude- "You're in the campaign, your backstory might get used. You don't give me a backstory, I'll give you one. You don't want this to happen to your character, make one who you are comfortable with this happening to."

I'm afraid that you haven't solved anything, and that this player is going to continue to be disruptive as long as you resist giving him a firm "This is how it works; accept it or git". I hope I'm wrong, but this guy sounds like he should write a story about this character, not play him in a D&D game.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

Some PCs' backstories are inherently difficult to advance within a given campaign, so it's possible that the solution worked out will be sufficient.

...IF the player upholds his side, of course.

 

[haakon1]

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."

Exactly.