Progressing character backgrounds as the campaign progresses

[Li Shenron]

If the DM doesn't ratchet down this PC and lose the endless questing, Hytotimous is going to overwhelm whatever the rest of the party wants to do. In fact, they're might end up following the "chosen one" around for the rest of the campaign.

I agree that his background is overdone and pretentious, as it seems to introduce events and characters which is the DM's role.

But I wouldn't like to just force the player to change it. I would explain the player that whatever is in his PC background is not 100% the truth. Is he really destined to those deeds? Find out. Does Zorb really exist? Maybe it's a false religion or a made-up myth. Was the PC really born in those circumstances? Maybe that's just his parents tale and they died before he was old enough to be told that is was only a goodnight fable.

- If some players use only in-game events to progress their character, are they shortchanged when others use extra backgrounds to progress more?

Not really, I wouldn't say they are penalized.

- What of the potential of manipulating the campaign world of the DM by including things a player would normally have no control over, be it Vecna or Zorb above.

As I said, Vecna or Zorb are not necessarily what he believes them to be. You can of course adjust your settings to that his BG is actually truthful, but you not need to. Plus, finding that your belief is wrong should be seen as a good PC development opportunity rather than a penalty, if he's a good RPer.

 

[diaglo]

This is a little overdone, but I hope you get the point. If the DM doesn't ratchet down this PC and lose the endless questing, Hytotimous is going to overwhelm whatever the rest of the party wants to do. In fact, they're might end up following the "chosen one" around for the rest of the campaign.

mostly what i do is let the players decide if they want to follow Hype.

if they don't and Hype wants to pursue his destiny. he fades into the background.

of course, there is no time table set for Hype. so he can continue to adventure with the party and help them in the hope that they will eventually help him.

this happened with an assassin in a campaign i am running. he was made an offer, he wanted to accept or couldn't refuse. so he faded into the background with a good dramatic scene.

 

[Umbran]

I would not only accept it, I encourage it. So long as everything is reasonably internally consistent, I think it's great.

So long as everything is reasonably consistent with the character's past behavior, and so long as it doesn't attempt to take undue advantage of things revealed in game, I think it's a fine thing. For stuff created after game start (and often for things before game start), the DM should have some rights of editorial control, he he or she wants them. Filling in your backstory with new ideas is fine. Suddenly revealing that you're the long-lost younger brother of the BBEG isn't always so fine.

 

[Arrgh! Mark!]

I've found that regardless of campaign, background has forced players to interact with PC's and NPC's with some knowledge of that background.

PC's can really start to find NPC's as brief interludes after awhile. Players with little interest in roleplaying and more in gaming can see even kings as just another NPC.

However, after awhile of in-game immersion, these NPC's become more than just another voice of the GM. Background allows immersion more readily than simply jumping fair in, unless the player is particularly talkative personally.

This doesn't neccesarily include only the NPC's described in the background. For instance, a player of mine that was always rather uncaring of my carefully constructed NPC's or people found himself not only interacting more fully but actually wanting to interact with certain NPC's.

It took effort, however .


However, there must be a fundamental interest in the campaign if a background is to extend it. Players with little interest may create interesting backgrounds but will still have little interest.

 

[Janx]

As a DM, I'd want certain rules of thumb for players to follow for making a background. Though the DM should always have editorial control over a PC's background, if there were some rules, the players may have an easier time of it.

Here's some ideas I've got so far (assuming a 1st level PC):
your background should introduce your known parents, siblings and mentors
it should explain where your primary skills and class came from
it should give a reason for you to be adventuring generically
the background may imply certain types of events occurred, but nothing too specific

you can't invent any powerful NPCs (>5 levels?)
you can't have done anything worth XP (no defeating orcs in combat as a child)
you can't reference any special item directly
you can't be guarranteed anything (ex. Torek is going to inherit his father's kingdom)
you can't have done anything that would have needed DM adjudication if it were a normal encounter

Armed with a background, the DM may use it as a foundation for building an encounter or adventure based on some aspect of the background. This would be revealed to the PC at the time of the encounter, in some form of remembered fact. Such as, "you recognize the mechant as a man you once robbed when you were a street urchin." The player shouldn't be inventing every act he did before 1st level, if it is important, it will be the DM's job to adjudicate what happened by telling you.

 

[DonTadow]

I wouldn't allow it. I request a background for each new character before the game starts. I then edit the background to include any flavor, npcs and such. This lets me escape the "well would my character know such and such".

 

[sniffles]

I don't create backgrounds before the character. I usually do it as I'm playing. My character changes as does his history as I play the first few sessions. I come up with a concept that doesn't always work. I make changes to fit in or stand apart.

This is what I do, too. Sometimes in-game events inspire me to think of a piece of background info. Just why did my character react in a particular way to an event? Maybe it's due to some experience in his past.

 

[diaglo]

This lets me escape the "well would my character know such and such".

this always elicits the same response. "Okay, then you tell me(the referee) what you (the PC) know."

if it results in a hem and haw or something that doesn't fit the campaign it gets adjudicated by the referee.

i'm just the referee. if you want to make up stuff. i have to make rulings on it with what i have at hand.

 

[DonTadow]

this always elicits the same response. "Okay, then you tell me(the referee) what you (the PC) know."

if it results in a hem and haw or something that doesn't fit the campaign it gets adjudicated by the referee.

i'm just the referee. if you want to make up stuff. i have to make rulings on it with what i have at hand.

I don't mind if they make up stuff and the npc. But as far as npcs, thats the dms terroritary. This part of the game has to be refereed to prevent abuse. I've been in campaigns were pcs attempted to know every npc we encountered by retro putting it in their background.

 

[tetsujin28]

I would not only accept it, I encourage it. So long as everything is reasonably internally consistent, I think it's great.

Yep. It's been our default way of playing for 30 years. I am not interested in what your character was before the game. I am interested in what your character is and will become. Stagnant heroes are anathema.