Players, GMs, and "My character"...

[Edvamp]

Collaboration between DM & player is one thing, overriding someone else's expressed veto is another thing entirely...its dictatorship.

To be fair, that wasn't really the question as originally stated. I was replying to, "why is it ever OK to edit somebody else's PC background/history against their will?" Editing a background, in my view, is different than changing a core element of the character without Player input.

If a DM told me the PC I wanted to play as an orphan was being re-written as the middle child of 6 with all my siblings & parents living happily in the shire- or vice versa- I'd either rip that PC up (in full view of all) and start anew or I'd get up & leave.

Yes, I've done both.

Well, that's certainly a calm, rational, not-at-all overreaction to the situation.

Unless the revision is clearly better to me in that it:

1. Fits better within the campaign
2. Models my PC concept better

It's nobody's darn business what background I want form my PC, and I won't put up with pointless meddling.

If the DM really wants a PC in the party who is rebelling from being part of a big, happy and suffocatingly nosy family, he's got the option of talking to other players about THEIR PCs backgrounds before mucking about with mine.

It is the business of the person who is playing God and everyone in the world not being run by you and your party. And there are other concerns besides simply balance issues. What if orphans are raised in a way that would make it difficult, if not impossible, for you to become an adventurer? Or in the vice versa example of the middle of 6 kids, what if no one ever has more than 2 kids?

As for the campaign, the DM might have plans for your family in the campaign. You want your father to be a famous war hero, but the DM had planned for him to have been accused of treason, or cowardice and a potential plot point for you to clear his name. Should the DM have to explain every possible plot point and modify his campaign to fit into your back story, potentially revealing things he shouldn't, or should he look at your back story and calmly explain that he is going to have to change a few things?

I agree that the DM should never tell you how to act, what your personality is. If your intention is to be the dark brooding loner, or the friendly womanizer or the quiet but wize mage, you can do that regardless of your background and the DM should not modify that.

Perhaps a good compromise is to be more vague. This allows you to play the character you want, but allow specific details to be made by the DM for balance, story or realism aspects. So you say you want a background marred by personal tragedy and loss, or a generally happy upbringing but with some family skeletons, or whatever, and let the DM fill in the gaps to fit his campaign. You get the character you want and the DM gets the campaign he wants.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

Bolded Quote for Emphasis.

Oh, I read that, but I also read:

HOWEVER, the PC backstory editiing rules don't necessarily apply to the DM, as long as its done in fairness and to further the "story". I usually seek the player's permission first (hey, are you willing to take a little tinkering for a really cool plot point?) and I do it very sporadically (It was cool when we learned Vader was Luke's father all along, it was less so when we learned Leia was his sister all along...) I've introduced a few such elements, but usually what I do is ask players for backgrounds and twist them a bit to make either cool adventures out of it or to fit better with my world. I'm also not afraid to back-track a bit (or ret-con) to fix problems if someone complains.

(emphasis mine)

It sounds like you're leaving yourself some wiggle room to edit over objections...and it's just that circumstances have worked out in such a way that you haven't needed to.

 

[Edvamp]

You missed the key phrase, "against their will."

All that talk of going to your players and seeking permission is cool, but what happens when the player gives an unequivocal and emphatic "No!" to your proposals?

Do you respect the creativity of your fellow human being or do you trample on it?

Are those the only two options, or is there any room for middle ground? You seem to be implying that any attempt by the DM to affect character creation or background is tantamount to hijacking or handing out pre-gens (as you state in your previous reply).

The choice is not giving the player 100% authority to dictate everything about their character without any DM input...or handing out pre-generated characters to the players with fully fleshed backgrounds. I truly believe there is a middle option of letting the players decide core elements of their characters, especially personality and behavior, but with the DM adding elements to fit his campaign as well.

 

[Edvamp]

As a DM, you have all the power. Players can only do what you permit. PC creation is the fundamental bit of player creativity from which all of their subsequent decisions will flow.

If you are prepared to take away some of that, are you equally willing to make concessions in campaign structure to compensate for that power grab? Would you let a player sit down at the table with a Minotaur PC in your Humans & Halflings only game?

After you told him it was Humans & Halflings only?

I know what my answer would be, but let me ask you, is the DM telling the player that is dead set on playing a minotaur in a humans and halflings only campaign that he cannot play a minotaur restricting that player's creativity and hijacking the character creation process from that player?

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

To be fair, that wasn't really the question as originally stated. I was replying to, "why is it ever OK to edit somebody else's PC background/history against their will?" Editing a background, in my view, is different than changing a core element of the character without Player input.

Why do you see PC background as a non-core element?

Well, that's certainly a calm, rational, not-at-all overreaction to the situation.

I'm a musician, artist, jewelry designer, as well as an entertainment lawyer, so I see the creative process up close & personal from a variey of perspectives. While editing is necessary in every creative process, there is also a point beyond which editing becomes invasive, usually when the editor is supplanting his creative vision for that of the creator's. At that point, the process must be restarted or the relationship must be severed.

In those situations where I shredded a PC or walked out, it had become so.

It is the business of the person who is playing God and everyone in the world not being run by you and your party. And there are other concerns besides simply balance issues. What if orphans are raised in a way that would make it difficult, if not impossible, for you to become an adventurer? Or in the vice versa example of the middle of 6 kids, what if no one ever has more than 2 kids?

So...orphans become completely loyal slaves incapable of running away?

I can buy into the other, to a point- it IS about fitting into the campaign world, and could be made to work by scaling back family size a bit.

But the rest is micromanaging.

As for the campaign, the DM might have plans for your family in the campaign. You want your father to be a famous war hero, but the DM had planned for him to have been accused of treason, or cowardice and a potential plot point for you to clear his name.

Then talk to some other player about doing this if I'm not interested, don't overrwrite my character sheet.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

This was going too slowly on my iTouch...had to move to a real computer...

Are those the only two options, or is there any room for middle ground? You seem to be implying that any attempt by the DM to affect character creation or background is tantamount to hijacking or handing out pre-gens (as you state in your previous reply).

The choice is not giving the player 100% authority to dictate everything about their character without any DM input...or handing out pre-generated characters to the players with fully fleshed backgrounds. I truly believe there is a middle option of letting the players decide core elements of their characters, especially personality and behavior, but with the DM adding elements to fit his campaign as well.

No, there is a middle ground. Editing is permissible, and as I stated in another post, often required, in every creative process.

However, there comes a point when the creator of something- even something as minor as a PC in an RPG- has to be respected. If the player feels that something is an essential part of their PC's design and there is no compelling rules or campaign reason why you should exercise power as a DM and change it, you should leave it alone. If you don't that's a violation of Wheaton's Rule.

I know what my answer would be, but let me ask you, is the DM telling the player that is dead set on playing a minotaur in a humans and halflings only campaign that he cannot play a minotaur restricting that player's creativity and hijacking the character creation process from that player?

Its clearly a restriction but its a restriction with meaningful ramifications for your campaign structure, so it has a real purpose for existing.

If you as the DM say "No", you're holding the line on what you consider to be an essential characteristic of your campaign's structure. If you choose to let the player play the minotaur, that's cool too...as long as your other players have similar options. If ALL of your players then want to play minotaurs, perhaps they as a group are the last (or first) of their kind. And if all of a sudden, you have players presenting you with minotaurs and shardminds and everything BUT humans or halflings...well, you may just re-evaluate your position again.

And in that, it is no different than a player telling you that being an orphan or a member of a happy family is an essential quality of their PC. If that is the player's position, respect it.

Discussion is the key. Perhaps you'll convince the player that your background idea is better. But if you don't, why bigfoot his PC concept? You control EVERY OTHER ASPECT OF THE GAME- you should be able to find other ways to work desirable plot elements into the game with your NPCs and other players without overruling someone's PC background or design decisions on things THEY consider vital.

 

[billd91]

Why does rape keep coming up in this discussion, other than to add to the hyperbole quotient? Romance does not mean rape. I thought this was obvious.

It's about a general approach to the question - not merely about romance. It's about doing something to another character's PC without their consent, whether it's romance or other relationship.

And, unfortunately, it's not merely hyperbole if you observe many gaming horror stories threads. There are far too many people whose gaming experiences have been marred by that act, though usually as an element of play rather than being inserted into their backstory.

There's a tremendous difference in the severity of the offense between unwanted romance and unwanted rape. But they sit on the same issue - one player messing with another player's PC without that player's consent.

 

[Edvamp]

Why do you see PC background as a non-core element?

The core elements, to me, are the character's stats and the personality the player runs the character with. You can play a PC without an established background (hell, in a straight dungeon crawl you can play without a personality but that doesn't seem like as much fun). A PC background certainly adds depth and I encourage them, but they don't have to dictate your character's personality. More on that below.

I'm a musician, artist, jewelry designer, as well as an entertainment lawyer, so I see the creative process up close & personal from a variey of perspectives. While editing is necessary in every creative process, there is also a point beyond which editing becomes invasive, usually when the editor is supplanting his creative vision for that of the creator's. At that point, the process must be restarted or the relationship must be severed.

In those situations where I shredded a PC or walked out, it had become so.

I work in the music industry myself (used to work for the band Suffocation). It almost seems like you are describing the role of the producer in the studio.

So...orphans become completely loyal slaves incapable of running away?

Yeah, not my best bout of creativity, just trying to show that what might be simple flavor text for your background could be a major reality disconnect for that campaign.

I can buy into the other, to a point- it IS about fitting into the campaign world, and could be made to work by scaling back family size a bit.

But the rest is micromanaging.

Then talk to some other player about doing this if I'm not interested, don't overrwrite my character sheet.

Absolutely communication between DM and player is essential, and if it was a general discontinuity between what the player wants in his background and the reality of the general campaign world, that is one thing. But if it would conflict or remove a plot element the DM plans on introducing he shouldn't be forced to reveal it to the player to justify making the change. The Player should trust the DM that whatever changes he makes to the PC background are not malicious attempts to restrict the player, but necessary changes that could play out at a later date.

As for personality, you should be able to justify any type of character archetype or personality regardless of his background. Whether you want to play the tortured loner or the jovial prankster that should be doable. That is kinda what I meant in my previous post about keeping things vague enough so that you can play how you want without inadvertently interfering with the DM and both of you are happy.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

The core elements, to me, are the character's stats and the personality the player runs the character with. You can play a PC without an established background (hell, in a straight dungeon crawl you can play without a personality but that doesn't seem like as much fun). A PC background certainly adds depth and I encourage them, but they don't have to dictate your character's personality. More on that below.

To me, the overarching core element is the character conception: everything else is subordinate to that. Every decision about race, class, power, skill, weapon, etc. follows from that. When you edit my background, you run the risk of excising or altering what I consider essential.

And that is KEY. What you consider incidental may not be to your player, so overruling a creative decision over an expressed objection is, again, disrespectful to some extent, unless you can successfully convince the player otherwise. And if you can't, back off.

I work in the music industry myself (used to work for the band Suffocation). It almost seems like you are describing the role of the producer in the studio.

(Cool!)
At some point, even a producer won't cross a line because he knows the band will walk out.

When that occurs, the label has the choice of not releasing the album or letting it find its way in the market. If they make the edits over and above band's objections and release the album, there could be a lawsuit. Especially if the band actually negotiated for "artistic control" over their recordings.

The Player should trust the DM that whatever changes he makes to the PC background are not malicious attempts to restrict the player, but necessary changes that could play out at a later date.

There are precious few people I trust that well, and they've earned it. And even so, I make those people justify the change. If I remain unconvinced, I may still go along with it, because I know and trust that person. If I don't, however, that's it- I won't play the altered PC.

But not for every DM just because he's the DM.

As for personality, you should be able to justify any type of character archetype or personality regardless of his background.

That's a bit of a stretch, IMHO. A kid raised to adulthood by wolves is probably NOT going to be able to fit seamlessly into high society on Day 1, even if he were the long lost child of Lord Whitehunter, what with wolves being unlikely to teach their man-child when to raise the pinky while drinking or when not to sniff butts.

 

[Edvamp]

No, there is a middle ground. Editing is permissible, and as I stated in another post, often required, in every creative process.

However, there comes a point when the creator of something- even something as minor as a PC in an RPG- has to be respected. If the player feels that something is an essential part of their PC's design and there is no compelling rules or campaign reason why you should exercise power as a DM and change it, you should leave it alone. If you don't that's a violation of Wheaton's Rule.

Its clearly a restriction but its a restriction with meaningful ramifications for your campaign structure, so it has a real purpose for existing.

If you as the DM say "No", you're holding the line on what you consider to be an essential characteristic of your campaign's structure. If you choose to let the player play the minotaur, that's cool too...as long as your other players have similar options. If ALL of your players then want to play minotaurs, perhaps they as a group are the last (or first) of their kind. And if all of a sudden, you have players presenting you with minotaurs and shardminds and everything BUT humans or halflings...well, you may just re-evaluate your position again.

And in that, it is no different than a player telling you that being an orphan or a member of a happy family is an essential quality of their PC. If that is the player's position, respect it.

Discussion is the key. Perhaps you'll convince the player that your background idea is better. But if you don't, why bigfoot his PC concept? You control EVERY OTHER ASPECT OF THE GAME- you should be able to find other ways to work desirable plot elements into the game with your NPCs and other players without overruling someone's PC background or design decisions on things THEY consider vital.

I think we are pretty close in our thinking, the main question that started this line was basically what reason could there be to make changes to a PC background and we have both established that there are legitimate reasons, and I do agree with Wheaton's Rule as well.

Here is what I think is the best way to allow both sides to get what they want and not derail the campaign before it even begins:

Step 1: DM explains campaign concept and any in-world things that could affect character creation such as races, social mores, laws, etc.
Step 1a: DM receives Player input, answers questions, etc.
Step 2: Players create their characters and, if they wish, make up backgrounds that fit into both the anticipated campaign and the established world.
Step 3: DM reviews character backgrounds and only makes changes if there is a campaign or world conflict, but hopefully takes elements from the backgrounds and incorporates them into the campaign.

To expand on your halfling vs minotaur example, I am writing up a campaign for players to be working for the Church. The PCs for this particular campaign must be Good aligned, with at least one Cleric. The players will know this when I ask them if they want to play in this campaign (Step 1).

Now if a player asks if he can play a Chaotic Evil Assassin, I would have to say no. There is no way I could fit that into this campaign (although I might make a second campaign in the same game world for an Evil party). If the player asks if he can be a Chaotic Good Thief, that I can work with. Maybe someone working for the Church to make up for past misdeeds, like Leverage.

We both agree communication is essential. The DM has to know that the players might be attached to their characters and care about how the backgrounds are treated, but players also need to realize that just because it is written on a character background sheet does not make it Canon.