PDA

View Full Version : DM(GM) and Player Relationships



mithrawnudo
2012-12-06, 03:53 PM
I am a veteran player (about 8 years now) of D&D, Pathfinder, all that fun stuff. I started DM'ing after about a year. Ever since then, I've been DM'ing on a regular basis. In the last year or two however, the opportunities for me to play as just a PC have been vanishing.
Luckily, this week a chance popped up and I took it. The setting for the game is going to be an Arcane College. Sounded pretty generic, so I made up a character whose goal is to expand the College's influence and set up a world-wide Magocracy. The DM was neutral on the whole affair, but warned me that the leaders of the College wouldn't like it, and are all above 20th level. I am playing an elf, so I told him I will just out wait them to all die.
Now, he has taken over my backstory and is building it for me, citing "I am just fleshing out the college."

That got me thinking: What is a DM's role in PC generation? Obviously a DM has to set limits and standards. Obviously a player has to be willing to compromise with the DM and play in the DM's world. For instance, if I made up a world with no magic, my players couldn't be wizards. However, I always try to work as closely as possible with my players to let them make the character that they want to as much as possible.

So what is the DM's role? I am too lenient? Is my current DM too heavy handed? What do you think? If you are a player, tell me about your good DMs, or your bad DMs. If you are a DM (I say DM because I started in D&D, I'm not saying any brand is superior) tell me how you like to do it. I'm interested in seeing what the 'best' DMs are like.

hymer
2012-12-06, 04:03 PM
It's possible he has a good reason for doing what he's doing. Maybe he thinks your plan sounds oppressive and he wants you guys to be heroes not villains. Or his plan all along was that the college intended to do that very thing, but you guys are supposed to try and stop it rather than go along with it. Or something entirely other.
That doesn't mean he's going about it in the best possible way, though. If he has a good reason, he should explain either what his reason is, or that for reasons he cannot yet reveal, he'd like you not to do that.

To the general discussion: The DM should do his best to accomodate the players' wishes within reason. As you mentioned, a world devoid of magic is not one where you play a wizard. And a paladin of Tyranny and one of Freedom probably are likely to make a team that runs as smoothly as a pig on stilts. The story would grind to a halt until some sort of resolution is reached, which is likely to trample on the wishes of at least one player. One of those guys needs to make a different character, and it's probably better to do it before the PK and the hurt feelings.

Jay R
2012-12-06, 04:06 PM
The DM's role is to rule whether you can do what you want to, and how well it works.

In your position, I would be writing a character background as if the DM were not doing so. I would send it to him as quickly as possible (ideally before he got around to writing one), and ask if he accepted it.

That would start the process of negotiating. He has to be able to insist that the background fit in his world. But you have to be willing to play the character.

Make sure you remind him that your elf isn't planning to set up the magocracy until at least a century from now, so it's not going to affect day-to0day decisions.

DrBurr
2012-12-06, 04:54 PM
I always viewed the DM's involvement in the Player creation to be 2 duties

First the DM explains what kind of game he or she wants to run and tells the group what they don't want, as well as what level to build and acceptable alignments. Then they leave the player's to go to work staying out of the actual creation unless asked to help or on whether or not Half-Orcs are acceptable.

After this the DM waits for submitted characters, reviews them and decides whether or not this character would work in their game world. If they don't work the DM should inform the player about what doesn't work and make a suggestion on how to adjust the character.

For example I started my 4th edition campaign I told the group I didn't want psionics or monster races and the group had to be non-evil and I wanted characters to be different classes, two of my player's wanted to play rogues but only one actually submitted a character so I ruled he was the rogue. At the same time though two my player's wanted to be Paladins but they both decided to be Brothers so allowed it.

Thats just how handle character creation, I'm to busy building cities the group might visit to stop and backseat build characters though

Kelb_Panthera
2012-12-06, 05:26 PM
The only thing a DM is automatically allowed to do, in regards to PC character creation, is set limitations to what is allowed. ANY additions or changes to the submitted character can only be made with the player's permission.

The PC's are their players' creations and avatars within the game world. A DM has no business messing with them in an OOC fashion.

There's nothing wrong with a DM asking (as in genuinely requesting, not ordering politely) a player to include a plot-hook detail in his PC's background, but he needs to be prepared for a "no." Asking for changes to actual mechanical details is totally out-of-bounds, beyond vetoeing attempts at munchkinry.

Always remember the DM's mantra: "It's our story, not my story."

jindra34
2012-12-06, 05:30 PM
The only thing a DM is automatically allowed to do, in regards to PC character creation, is set limitations to what is allowed. ANY additions or changes to the submitted character can only be made with the player's permission.

I'd append one thing to that, namely 'that the character (and kinda player) would be aware of at the start.' Essentially minor changes that don't alter the player's statements, should be fine.

Kelb_Panthera
2012-12-06, 06:01 PM
I'd append one thing to that, namely 'that the character (and kinda player) would be aware of at the start.' Essentially minor changes that don't alter the player's statements, should be fine.

If I'm reading you right, you're saying that a DM is allowed to give the players an idea what kind of campaign he intends to run?

I actually file that under the responsibilities of the DM rather than something they're allowed to do. A DM that doesn't give you -some- idea of what to expect, even if it's something like "I'm going to be randomly generating practically everything," has already made a GM'ing mistake that sets up a red-flag in my mind.

To use the OP's situation as an example; the DM should have told them he intended to run a campaign set in and around a mages' academy, and either given some basic details about academy life or planned part of his first session around the academy's orientation. He may have also chosen to include limitations on what the players were allowed to build, such as "everyone must be some kind of arcanist" or "no divine characters" as well as any alignment restrictions and/or specifically excluded or included classes.

The players, in turn, should have built characters that fit within those restrictions and included at least a small note about how they came to be at the academy. They may have also included as much or as little detail in their characters backgrounds as they wished.

Compromise is important, and everyone needs to be willing to accomodate everyone else to a certain extent, but the DM has plenty of characters he can write up in the form of NPC's. He needs to leave the PC's' backstories alone or at least negotiate with the player whose character he wants to change.

nedz
2012-12-06, 07:16 PM
..., so I made up a character whose goal is to expand the College's influence and set up a world-wide Magocracy. The DM was neutral on the whole affair, but warned me that the leaders of the College wouldn't like it, and are all above 20th level. I am playing an elf, so I told him I will just out wait them to all die.
If this is your character's motivation then this should be fine, and the DM should not change this. If it's not realistic or will run up against the powers that be — then this should emerge during the game.


Now, he has taken over my backstory and is building it for me, citing "I am just fleshing out the college."
Maybe he's just adding in names of NPC's etc. or adding more detail ?

There is a component of a PC's back-story which is about dove-tailing them into the setting. Player's, most likely, will not be in possession of detailed milieux stuff which is pertinent only to their specific character choices. This is about verisimilitude really — just so that your character doesn't judder into the setting.

mithrawnudo
2012-12-06, 07:42 PM
There is a component of a PC's back-story which is about dove-tailing them into the setting. Player's, most likely, will not be in possession of detailed milieux stuff which is pertinent only to their specific character choices. This is about verisimilitude really — just so that your character doesn't judder into the setting.

Yes. I agree, the DM must work the character into the backstory, especially since the entire world's/setting's backstory will presumably contain information the players shouldn't know. However, I prefer to talk to the players face-to-face (or as best as possible) and have them tell me what their character is going to act like, how he/she/it thinks, why the character does what it does, ect ect. I do this usually before I put the finishing touches on the world and try to let them segue into the game as smoothly as possible.

In other words, I take a player-centric view of inserting characters into the game. I have played games on the other hand (pre-generated games or official games) that do not let this happen. Both can work. I prefer one, but I was simply wondering how everyone else here prefers to do it.

Kelb_Panthera
2012-12-06, 09:28 PM
Yes. I agree, the DM must work the character into the backstory, especially since the entire backstory will presumably contain information the players shouldn't know. However, I prefer to talk to the players face-to-face (or as best as possible) and have them tell me what their character is going to act like, how he/she/it thinks, why the character does what it does, ect ect. I do this usually before I put the finishing touches on the world and try to let them segue into the game as smoothly as possible.

In other words, I take a player-centric view of inserting characters into the game. I have played games on the other hand (pre-generated games or official games) that do not let this happen. Both can work. I prefer one, but I was simply wondering how everyone else here prefers to do it.

Bold for emphasis.

How in the world does that make any sense? What possible reason could a character have for not knowing about his own background? What legitimate reason is there for a player not to know his character's entire life from conception to just before the beginning of the campaign, if he chooses to draw up such an extensive backstory?

The only way the bold makes any sense at all is if the DM is trying to tell his story through the players, rather than trying to tell a story with the players. It utterly smacks of a trans-continental railroad of a game.

mithrawnudo
2012-12-06, 09:43 PM
Bold for emphasis.

How in the world does that make any sense? What possible reason could a character have for not knowing about his own background? What legitimate reason is there for a player not to know his character's entire life from conception to just before the beginning of the campaign, if he chooses to draw up such an extensive backstory?

The only way the bold makes any sense at all is if the DM is trying to tell his story through the players, rather than trying to tell a story with the players. It utterly smacks of a trans-continental railroad of a game.

What I meant there was the setting's background. I wasn't clear. I didn't mean the player, but what I meant was the DM's notes on secret things, hidden fortresses, actions by NPCs that aren't known the players, ect.

Nothing to do with the PC directly, but simply the world. I've edited the original post to reflect this. My post was badly worded. All I meant was the DM's should (in my opinion) have things that the player's do not know, and as such, DMs must work with the players.

Jay R
2012-12-06, 10:12 PM
What legitimate reason is there for a player not to know his character's entire life from conception to just before the beginning of the campaign, if he chooses to draw up such an extensive backstory?

"I am your father, Luke."

CarpeGuitarrem
2012-12-06, 10:15 PM
I've been coming around to the idea of GM-Player cooperation more and more. Apocalypse World sets the following rule in stone for the GM: be a fan of the players. In return, players should place a degree of trust in the GM. If both sides are tugging at one another, keeping secrets and testing the bounds, it's a futile effort. The GM's trying to run a world, the players are trying to run stories, and they're at cross purposes.

RPGs work best when the players and the GM are working together. Sometimes, this does mean the GM keeping secrets, whilst the players understand that the GM is keeping secrets for the purpose of making the overall game better for the players. Both should be willing to work with the other, as a give-and-take.

Vorr
2012-12-06, 10:19 PM
The only thing a DM is automatically allowed to do, in regards to PC character creation, is set limitations to what is allowed. ANY additions or changes to the submitted character can only be made with the player's permission.


What?! I just don't understand this statement at all.

The DM sets the basic frame work for the game in rules. The DM can say, for example ''no stuff from the Tome of Battle''. The players must follow the rules the DM sets. A player, or all the players can't force a DM to use a rule or book they want (''we demand you let us use the TOB!"). The DM also gets to set House Rules (''Teleport stuns you for 1-10 rounds'') and approve or disapprove homebrew("My wizard fix gives 9th level wizards 9th level spells''). The players can ask for things, but the DM has the final say.

The DM sets the basic frame work for the storytelling of the world. The DM builds, creates and fashions all the details of the world. The player agrees to play in this world. A player can't just make a story and drop it into the world and force a DM to use it (''My dad is Awsomo the wizard and rules the city of Kort''). The player either works with the DM about the story, or makes a story outline with no details that the DM fills in. The player can't dictate details of the fantasy world ("I'm a member of the guild and everyone likes me'').

And the main thing the DM does is create conflict. That is what the game is all about. The characters must fight against something, time, nature, other characters, destiny, whatever. Take the Guild from the OP, it would be a very boring game if the guild was a bunch of zombies that did everything the player wanted. It's much more fun to have the 'hostile' guild, that the player will be in conflict with...and ultimately defeat. But to be handed a goal on a silver platter is boring (''You take a step out the doorway and everyone in the world joins your side and you all live happily ever after'').

ReaderAt2046
2012-12-06, 10:21 PM
Just my 2 cps.

I assign uttermost importance to being able to decide everything about my character. The GM can nix things if they don't fit into the setting, but they cannot change things. If the character I want is impossible in this setting, tell me so and I'll make a new one, but I guard my character's soul like my own.

This can also produce problems long-term if you find out ten sessions in that some crucial fact about your character, the linchpin of the roleplaying, is impossible.

Kelb_Panthera
2012-12-06, 11:22 PM
What?! I just don't understand this statement at all.

The DM sets the basic frame work for the game in rules. The DM can say, for example ''no stuff from the Tome of Battle''. That's the basic idea. If the DM doesn't like ToB, he doesn't have to allow it in his game.
The players must follow the rules the DM sets. A player, or all the players can't force a DM to use a rule or book they want (''we demand you let us use the TOB!"). A DM would do well to reconsider his position if all his players wanted a particular book in, but it's still his final decision to make. If only one player wants it, and the others are indifferent, that player's just out of luck for the time being.
The DM also gets to set House Rules (''Teleport stuns you for 1-10 rounds'') and approve or disapprove homebrew("My wizard fix gives 9th level wizards 9th level spells''). The players can ask for things, but the DM has the final say. That's the gist of it, though if a DM is making houserules that stupid he shouldn't be DM'ing in the first place. Inclusion of homebrew has alwasy been a DM call. Facilitating fun for the rest of the group is the DM's job, but the DM's a player too. If you want to make him run a game he's not happy with, you likely won't have him DM'ing for very long. By the same token, if a DM's players don't like his houserules or homebrew, he likely won't have players for very long. No gaming is better than bad gaming.


The DM sets the basic frame work for the storytelling of the world. The DM builds, creates and fashions all the details of the world. The player agrees to play in this world. A player can't just make a story and drop it into the world and force a DM to use it (''My dad is Awsomo the wizard and rules the city of Kort''). The player either works with the DM about the story, or makes a story outline with no details that the DM fills in. The player can't dictate details of the fantasy world ("I'm a member of the guild and everyone likes me''). I disagree. A skilled DM should try to work in whatever backstory the players come up with, barring attempts at munchkinry. Your example of having Awesomeo the uber-wizard as a father would require some negotiation. If Awesomeo is a very busy wizard that can't take time out from his important, wizardly responsibilities to interfere with whatever the PC's are actaully doing, I'd have no problem with him whatsoever. PC's with family come with built in plot-hooks.


And the main thing the DM does is create conflict. That is what the game is all about. The characters must fight against something, time, nature, other characters, destiny, whatever. Take the Guild from the OP, it would be a very boring game if the guild was a bunch of zombies that did everything the player wanted. It's much more fun to have the 'hostile' guild, that the player will be in conflict with...and ultimately defeat. But to be handed a goal on a silver platter is boring (''You take a step out the doorway and everyone in the world joins your side and you all live happily ever after'').

That's a gross exaggeration. If a player writes "everyone likes him" in his backstory, that'll be taken as the character being particularly likeable. Npc students would be friendly by default, in the example scenario, rather than the indifferent that they'd normally be, if the campaign started some time after the character became a student.

RPG's are cooperative gaming and everyone should be willing to compromise to a certain extent, I just believe that extent should be limited to veto power for the DM in regards to character generation. If he adds or changes anything without the player's permission, it's not the player's character anymore. The DM has effectively stolen a piece of the player's character at that point.

Vorr
2012-12-06, 11:52 PM
I disagree. A skilled DM should try to work in whatever backstory the players come up with, barring attempts at munchkinry. Your example of having Awesomeo the uber-wizard as a father would require some negotiation. If Awesomeo is a very busy wizard that can't take time out from his important, wizardly responsibilities to interfere with whatever the PC's are actaully doing, I'd have no problem with him whatsoever. PC's with family come with built in plot-hooks.

That was my point. A player can say ''my dad is Awesomo the wizard'', but does not get to create the Awesomo NPC. The Dm adds in the ''busy dad'' part of the character. And even if the player makes the ''my dad is always busy with work'', it's the DM that has to flesh it out and role play it and add in details like ''why''.




That's a gross exaggeration. If a player writes "everyone likes him" in his backstory, that'll be taken as the character being particularly likeable. Npc students would be friendly by default, in the example scenario, rather than the indifferent that they'd normally be, if the campaign started some time after the character became a student.

Players often try to slip lots of stuff into a backstory...



RPG's are cooperative gaming and everyone should be willing to compromise to a certain extent, I just believe that extent should be limited to veto power for the DM in regards to character generation. If he adds or changes anything without the player's permission, it's not the player's character anymore. The DM has effectively stolen a piece of the player's character at that point.

What is stealing a piece of a pc? If the DM adds a family member that the player did not create is that stealing? If the DM adds just a friend or foe? If the player creates a NPC of 'bob the wizard', but the DM makes him a sneaky thief is that stealing?

Acanous
2012-12-06, 11:57 PM
^At the same time, though, there are game-mechanic rules for social interaction. If the player wrote down "Everyone likes him", but has a negative Charisma mod and no points in diplomacy, then it's more probable that he's the buttmonkey that THINKS everyone's laughing with him.

If you had a positive CHA mod, then sure, you can assign that to being "Likeable", or being "Driven", being Physically attractive or just very talented at performing arts.
Once the game begins, you can roleplay any way you want, and it can affect how people see you, but for the beginning of the game? Your backstory and your character sheet should compliment eachother, not run opposed.

Kelb_Panthera
2012-12-07, 02:45 AM
That was my point. A player can say ''my dad is Awesomo the wizard'', but does not get to create the Awesomo NPC. The Dm adds in the ''busy dad'' part of the character. And even if the player makes the ''my dad is always busy with work'', it's the DM that has to flesh it out and role play it and add in details like ''why''. Not so. The DM -can- flesh out awesomeo as an NPC if he wants to use him for a plot-hook, but if he doesn't he either adds in the "too busy to interact with the campaign" bit, or ignores him entirely if the player already wrote that part in, using him only as a possible psychological reference to the character's mind-set. That Awesomeo exists can and, if the DM wills it, will be entirely irrelevant to the campaign.

On a personal note, I'd probably jump all over Awesomeo as a means to generate plot-hooks since I don't plan a campaign with any one particular story in mind (see my sig if you're curious).





Players often try to slip lots of stuff into a backstory... The key word in that sentence is "try." Unless they can back up their shennanigans with mechanics they're ignored. If they can then it's allowed -if- it fits within the parameters given before character gen, and unless it's game-breaking.




What is stealing a piece of a pc? If the DM adds a family member that the player did not create is that stealing? If the DM adds just a friend or foe? If the player creates a NPC of 'bob the wizard', but the DM makes him a sneaky thief is that stealing?

If it's done without discussing it with the player, yes. It's hijacking his character's backstory in all of those instances. A simple "Hey, do you mind if I add <X> to your backstory? It'll lead to something," is not too much to ask for, but a DM should have a backup plan in-case the player says "no." The bold shouldn't even be possible unless "Bob the wizard" is somehow related to the player's character.

Xefas
2012-12-07, 02:56 AM
It depends on the rules of game, obviously. Some games have no GM (Pilgrims of the Flying Temple). Some have a GM that has less impact on the game than the players do individually (Kagematsu). Some have a GM that is relatively on par with the other players in terms of agency (In a Wicked Age). Some have a GM that is mighty, but heavily constrained (Apocalypse World). Some have a GM that is mighty, but played as a pure enabler, rather than an opposing force (Blazing Rose). Some have a GM that is basically playing a freeform game where they're Yahweh, and everyone else is playing an entirely different game on the other side of the table, that has rules, and the two are somehow supposed to mesh into a coherent dynamic, but often don't, but everyone thinks that the resulting mess is what's supposed to happen because they've only ever played a handful of very similar RPGs before (D&D).

A lot of games will outline the GM's role in character generation. In Apocalypse World, they'll mostly be taking notes on what the players want to see later on, and shouting suggestions for stuff they think is cool, or throwing out ideas when someone is stuck. In The Dresden Files, you're taking part in the City Creation process with the players. IIRC, in InSpectres, you're mostly just hanging out while the players do the work, and then jump in later.

So, the exact nature of the relationship between GM and Player is dependent on the game in question. Choose as you like. Now, if there are problems outside the scope of the game, such as the person acting as GM breaking the social contract, making anyone feel left out or uncomfortable, creating dissonance in the group, or whatever - that's stuff that needs to be handled outside the scope of the game, via mature, calm, adult, rational conversation. Likely, they didn't realize that whatever they were doing was a problem, and everything will be sorted, and that's fine. I mean, if they do realize that what they're doing is a problem, and don't care, that makes them a jerk. And... well, I guess it's a value judgment on your part whether it's worth it to you to spend your free time with a jerk.

nedz
2012-12-07, 04:45 AM
Yes. I agree, the DM must work the character into the backstory, especially since the entire world's/setting's backstory will presumably contain information the players shouldn't know. However, I prefer to talk to the players face-to-face (or as best as possible) and have them tell me what their character is going to act like, how he/she/it thinks, why the character does what it does, ect ect. I do this usually before I put the finishing touches on the world and try to let them segue into the game as smoothly as possible.

In other words, I take a player-centric view of inserting characters into the game. I have played games on the other hand (pre-generated games or official games) that do not let this happen. Both can work. I prefer one, but I was simply wondering how everyone else here prefers to do it.

Well I was thinking more along the lines of, well I'll give an example.

Player creates a Rogue and says he's part of the rogues guild.
DM provides information about the rogues guild: contacts etc.
This is information which other characters probably won't have and so won't be in the general background information. It's also information the DM has to furnish.
The DM might have several such guilds and so a decision about which one the rogue belongs too would also have to be made.

Whilst it's good to give out background information before the game starts; if that devolves into a large information dump, then the players will probably get bored and not read it. So the DM should also add in more information which is relevant to the specific character.

Zeful
2012-12-07, 01:41 PM
Just my 2 cps.

I assign uttermost importance to being able to decide everything about my character. The GM can nix things if they don't fit into the setting, but they cannot change things. If the character I want is impossible in this setting, tell me so and I'll make a new one, but I guard my character's soul like my own.

This can also produce problems long-term if you find out ten sessions in that some crucial fact about your character, the linchpin of the roleplaying, is impossible.

The only way this stance is reasonable at all is if you decide everything about your character at character generation. Which is far more limiting to you than the DM. But then with an absolute attitude like that I'm surprised you even get to play.

Morithias
2012-12-07, 02:30 PM
My general rule is Plot > Players > DM.

However this can easily be shifted, and if you try to abuse your backstory for bonus points you didn't spend a feat on, expect to be punished.

You want to be a prince but didn't take the noble blooded feat, solely so you can have extra influence and free money? Yeah, your family isn't going to survive the opening credits, expect the castle to burn and you spend the rest of your life hiding from that bounty hunter who wants your head.

You write that you are the best swordmans in existence even though you're only level 8, and this is a setting that has people well into their high 20's? Expect someone to call you on that claim and show you what true power is.

As for the college. Writing that you are a student there, that's fine. Writing that you're the top student? You better hope you're a better optimizer than me, and can back that up with numbers.

Writing you have family is good. Writing you have family for Nepotism is something that makes me murder said family.

Backstory =/= free bonuses, and the moment you use it as such, I get mad.

shadow_archmagi
2012-12-07, 05:34 PM
I'd say that the DM is well within his rights to want a say in designing the college. However, since it's a cooperative storytelling activity, you should also have a say in the makeup of the college, and you should work together to decide on what kind of atmosphere will work best for telling the kinds of stories that you both want to tell.

I'd certainly allow a player to be the top student. Granted, there would still be more powerful wizards in the world, but they'd have graduated other years, or maybe be bitter about the fact that they're more powerful wizards but always failed Advanced Dragonology and that brought down their GPA.

Morithias
2012-12-07, 06:41 PM
I'd say that the DM is well within his rights to want a say in designing the college. However, since it's a cooperative storytelling activity, you should also have a say in the makeup of the college, and you should work together to decide on what kind of atmosphere will work best for telling the kinds of stories that you both want to tell.

I'd certainly allow a player to be the top student. Granted, there would still be more powerful wizards in the world, but they'd have graduated other years, or maybe be bitter about the fact that they're more powerful wizards but always failed Advanced Dragonology and that brought down their GPA.

Here's the problem though. Colleges are a type of affiliation. Higher ranking in the college = Higher in the affiliation = Higher bonuses from said affiliation.

I have no problem with backstory and will work with the player to make them work, but the instant you start writing things in your backstory in an attempt to get free stuff? That crosses my line. You can have contacts, but they fall under the rules of contacts listed in the DMG2 and Cityscape. You can be the son of a guildmaster, but if you want any kind of favor you better have favored in guild. You can be a noble, but you better have noble birth.

Of course there are exceptions to the rule, but I go out of my way to keep things fair. Say you're a member of a noble house and don't take the feat? Said noble house is a low ranking house that is currently living on money saved from when your house actually meant something. You're basically a noble in name only.

Say you're the son of guildmaster in a merchantile guild, but didn't put ranks in profession (merchant)? You're the unfavored child, looked over for your younger sister instead who actually IS a trained merchant. You're basically just another employee as far as they're concerned.

You want bonuses from your backstory? Take feats and skills that give you said bonuses. Crunch gives your abilities, fluff does not.

Now of course over the course of the campaign you can EARN stuff like noble titles and a reputation as a great wizard, but starting out with the reputation or noble title, because you did nothing more than write a few sentences? Yeah ain't happening. Why don't I just write in my kitsune merchant's backstory that she's actually a forgotten god and demand immortality for free? No if I want that backstory, I take the Wedded to History feat, and earn it, I pay my feat tax.

Jay R
2012-12-07, 10:30 PM
Just my 2 cps.

I assign uttermost importance to being able to decide everything about my character. The GM can nix things if they don't fit into the setting, but they cannot change things. If the character I want is impossible in this setting, tell me so and I'll make a new one, but I guard my character's soul like my own.

This can also produce problems long-term if you find out ten sessions in that some crucial fact about your character, the linchpin of the roleplaying, is impossible.

That's fine. You can play that way. I hope you have fun with it.

But you would not be allowed in my game if you want to claim the kind of god-like knowledge that no real person in the world ever has.

I reserve the right to have a childhood friend of yours turn out to be the bad guy, or to provide a half-sister that you never knew about to complicate the mission, or to have your boss be a secret masked raider at night, or to make you the dead ringer for an obscure foreign prince.

The DM is in charge of the plot, and the plot is allowed to involve the player characters, and I will not give away secrets to you that your character wouldn't know.

Luke Skywalker didn't know his father was Darth Vader until the moment that it was revealed for maximum effect. Rudolph Rassendyll scheduled a Ruritanian vacation not knowing he was a double for Prince Rudolph. Athos didn't know Milady de Winter was his estranged wife. Harry Potter didn't learn that his godfather was a convicted murderer until it made a good story for him to learn it.

What you are insisting on eliminates many really good plotlines - and especially the kind of plotlines that focus on the character.

But have fun with it anyway. There are lots of other plotlines that don't involve your character so intimately. I'm sure your way works for you and the people you play with, just as my way works for me and my friends.

ThiagoMartell
2012-12-07, 10:58 PM
You know, I completely dislike long and involved backgrounds for RPG characters. The story is not about the fanfic you just wrote, it's about the game everyone is playing. To me, backstory should be something you can describe in a few words. "I'm a runaway ninja from the Iga clan", "I'm a shell shocked war veteran", "I'm an ace F1-racer addicted to meth", stuff like that. More detail than that is unnecessary, IMHO. You're not writing a novel. You're playing an RPG.

Kelb_Panthera
2012-12-07, 11:19 PM
You know, I completely dislike long and involved backgrounds for RPG characters. The story is not about the fanfic you just wrote, it's about the game everyone is playing. To me, backstory should be something you can describe in a few words. "I'm a runaway ninja from the Iga clan", "I'm a shell shocked war veteran", "I'm an ace F1-racer addicted to meth", stuff like that. More detail than that is unnecessary, IMHO. You're not writing a novel. You're playing an RPG.

I agree, and I disagree.

On the one hand, having a lengthy and well made backstory can help you get into a frame of mind that is different from your own. The devil's in the details, as they say.

At the same time, the DM and possibly the other players really only need the cliff-notes version of such a backstory. They can get to know your character during play.

ThiagoMartell
2012-12-07, 11:40 PM
My point is basically that well-made and lengthy are not the same and that backstory is not the same as personality. Backstory is mostly about other characters you won't be playing anyway.

nedz
2012-12-07, 11:59 PM
I agree completely that a player owns their character; but until it is integrated into the setting, and the game starts, it doesn't exist.

So all mechanical options, subject to any house rules, and all decisions the PC makes in the game are the property of the player. The rest of the world is the property of the DM.

Now these things should always be negotiated, and I have reworked vast tracts of the setting to match a back-story, but sometimes some things just have to go.

ThiagoMartell
2012-12-08, 12:03 AM
I'd like to note that this kind of adversarial approach (players can't mess with NPCs, they belong to the GM; GMs can't mess with PCs, they belong to the players) is largely detrimental to storytelling as a whole.
If what you really care about is the story, it's better to allow everyone to chime in. Bliss Stage even makes it so each player has more than one character and characters can be traded.

nedz
2012-12-08, 12:16 AM
It's not adversarial — it's just that you don't want Romeo taking Juliet's lines or vice versa.

Kelb_Panthera
2012-12-08, 12:40 AM
I'd like to note that this kind of adversarial approach (players can't mess with NPCs, they belong to the GM; GMs can't mess with PCs, they belong to the players) is largely detrimental to storytelling as a whole.
If what you really care about is the story, it's better to allow everyone to chime in. Bliss Stage even makes it so each player has more than one character and characters can be traded.

I seem to have miscommunicated my point then.

I don't see my position as adversarial. It's simply a matter of boundaries and mutual respect.

Being a DM means taking on the mantle of an authority figure, to a certain extent.

As a DM, you create the campaign world and nearly everything in it (barring published settings, which I personally almost never use except as inspiration). Trying to create the players' characters for them so they can interact with your world in the way you want them to, without regards to how they envision their character, is crossing the line. The players wouldn't have a game without a DM, but the DM wouldn't have a game without his players either.

A player, on the other hand, should be allowed to make whatever character he pleases, within the parameters the DM has set forth for the campaign. Note however, that I said "character" in the singular. If a player includes characters in his backstory, it's entirely a matter of the DM's discression as to whether or not those characters will mean anything to the setting or, in cases of characters described by the player as being particularly powerful or important, whether they exist at all. A DM can, and should, reserve veto rights for any character a player creates, but this is not to say that collaborative effort for PC related NPC's is a bad thing.

On a related note; the whole Vader - Luke thing works beautifully as part of a narrative, but I can't help thinking it would've caused some major friction at a gaming table, if it was simply sprung on luke's player.

Such a move would require that the DM know his player well enough to accurately guess how he'd react, (luke's player could've simply ignored the reveal and went for the kill anyway) and would be invoking the bond of trust between DM and player that just doesn't always go quite that far.

I could easily imagine luke's player bringing the game to a crashing halt, or turning into a problem player immediately after that reveal. Such a reaction may seem petty on the surface, but some people would tremendously resent having such a dramatic change thrust upon the character they created. Their only options, at that point, are to either accept the change and shift the character's personality to match such a psychologically traumatic event, or to ignore it and have the character come off as slightly ubalanced for not reacting to something so traumatic. In either case the other PC's perception of Luke will have been irrevocably changed.

I really don't think it's too much to ask of a DM, in that situation, to ask something like "Hey <luke's player>, I want to include Luke's dad in the story, but the way I want to do it will almost certainly have a noteable impact on Luke. Is that cool?" Simply giving luke's player the opportunity to say "nah. I like luke the way he is," or "That could be interesting. Sure," goes a hell of a long way toward keeping the game running smoothly.

ThiagoMartell
2012-12-08, 01:19 AM
It's not adversarial — it's just that you don't want Romeo taking Juliet's lines or vice versa.

It is. D&D is largely an adversarial game and the same applies to most classic RPGs.


I seem to have miscommunicated my point then.

I don't see my position as adversarial. It's simply a matter of boundaries and mutual respect.

No, I understand. It's not something about your point, it's about D&D and classical RPGs as a whole. When the DM's job is to throw challenges at the players, instead of telling an engaging story with them, then it is adversarial, no two ways about it.


As a DM, you create the campaign world and nearly everything in it (barring published settings, which I personally almost never use except as inspiration). Trying to create the players' characters for them so they can interact with your world in the way you want them to, without regards to how they envision their character, is crossing the line. The players wouldn't have a game without a DM, but the DM wouldn't have a game without his players either.
That's my whole point, basically. Everyone should work together. I don't think the DM should mess with player characters, because that's not how D&D does it. I'm just pointing out that the way D&D does it is detrimental for storytelling, for reasons you yourself point out later. Character ownership means some situations are off limits or at least harder to deal with.
D&D is a great game and I love it, but it's conventions suck when it comes to storytelling while other RPGs do it a lot better.


I really don't think it's too much to ask of a DM, in that situation, to ask something like "Hey <luke's player>, I want to include Luke's dad in the story, but the way I want to do it will almost certainly have a noteable impact on Luke. Is that cool?" Simply giving luke's player the opportunity to say "nah. I like luke the way he is," or "That could be interesting. Sure," goes a hell of a long way toward keeping the game running smoothly.
That sounds like it would work (it's basically what I do when I run more conventional RPGs), but the player might simply not like the result, take offense and come to the forums complaining about how the DM made his character's father the bad guy.
Now, if the player accepted that whatever happens in the game goes, no one would have any problem, the story would flow better and the reveal would be a complete surprise.

nedz
2012-12-08, 01:53 AM
Maybe our argument is semantic. There are play-styles which are more adversarial than that which I am describing. You are describing a story telling play-style.

ThiagoMartell
2012-12-08, 02:13 AM
Maybe our argument is semantic. There are play-styles which are more adversarial than that which I am describing. You are describing a story telling play-style.

Yes, that's exactly it. My apologies for not making my point in a more clear way.

Jay R
2012-12-08, 08:14 AM
I really don't think it's too much to ask of a DM, in that situation, to ask something like "Hey <luke's player>, I want to include Luke's dad in the story, but the way I want to do it will almost certainly have a noteable impact on Luke. Is that cool?" Simply giving luke's player the opportunity to say "nah. I like luke the way he is," or "That could be interesting. Sure," goes a hell of a long way toward keeping the game running smoothly.

That doesn't miss by much being:
"Hey, everyone, I have a great surprising plot-twist in mind, when I introduce Luke's father. Here's your heads-up so you won't be as surprised when it happens."

A character's background includes many years of life, and that they have met people throughout their life, some of whom won't be on their sheet of paper. If you wrote down your individual character on a few sheets of paper, does that paper include everybody you've ever met?

The last time I ran a super-hero game, I explicitly included this in the introduction:


If the character’s backstory requires a specific subculture (Norse gods, Kryptonians, the Green Lantern Corps), we will discuss it until we have agreed on the basic form. I reserve the right to decide some things about the culture that you will not be told at the start.

But telling you in advance the nature of the plot twist (like that it includes your father)? Not gonna happen.

Hopeless
2012-12-08, 08:31 AM
Having my character turned into a cleric because the group is down a player and the dm doesn't bother asking me? No

I had enough problems when they shifted the game from d&d to gurps especially when it became clear the magical items required fatigue spent by the person using it, I had created a sailor with no magical aptitude other than a follower of the faith of Lara (yes that Lara!) who came from a wealthy family and when it was ported over to Gurps took the relevant advantages and disadvantages as proof of that.

Sometimes mistakes are made and the best thing you can do is adapt, and regarding luke and his dad I couldn't help notice you didn't mention Luke's twin sister...:smallwink:

mithrawnudo
2012-12-08, 12:22 PM
My playing style is as player cooperative as possible. Being that I know exactly what the world is like and knowing the entire and completely true history of the world, I always like to sit down with my players and talk to them about their characters. That way, for instance, if I have it planned that the college hates despots and one of my players wants to play a despot-to-be, I have a few options.

The first thing I must do is decide is if the player is playing this character to disrupt the game and be a jerk. If he/she is, the I'll obviously turn them down. But if they honestly just think that will be fun to play, then I have another call to make. Is the fact that the college hates despots important to the world? Is it that important that I will reject a player's character simply because of that? If it is, say the college through down a evil and terrible Magocracy 200 years ago and I have it in the backstory that because of this everyone is distrustful of mages. Yes, that is important enough to turn them down. Otherwise, I'd just change that part of the backstory and let him be a despot-to-be.

As the DM, my main goal (to me) is to allow the players to interact in the world. I will create conflict, make them strive to survive, but if they are not having fun because the DM is being petty or is intruding on their few prerogatives, it can end poorly.

The player doesn't get to make the world. The player doesn't get to throw monsters at the party. All they get to do is make their character and shape their decisions. I don't think a DM should intrude on that. If a DM wants to say "No.", that is the DM's choice. If the DM wants to add or substract to the PC, that is the player's call. If that means that the character is unplayable, so be it, but that is not the DM's call to make. Just what I think.

Kelb_Panthera
2012-12-08, 12:40 PM
That doesn't miss by much being:
"Hey, everyone, I have a great surprising plot-twist in mind, when I introduce Luke's father. Here's your heads-up so you won't be as surprised when it happens."

A character's background includes many years of life, and that they have met people throughout their life, some of whom won't be on their sheet of paper. If you wrote down your individual character on a few sheets of paper, does that paper include everybody you've ever met?

The last time I ran a super-hero game, I explicitly included this in the introduction:



But telling you in advance the nature of the plot twist (like that it includes your father)? Not gonna happen.

Of course I don't expect a player to list every character theirs has ever met, that'd be absurd.

A character's father isn't just some random guy he met on a visit to the canteena though. By his very existence, a father will have an influence on his child. By drastically changing what was written in the backstory (dad died during luke's infancy. Thus living with the uncle) you cannot help changing the character himself. The same would be true of the character's mother as well as any guardians and mentors the character had growing up that weren't their parents.

Yes, asking first is a minor tip-off to the plot-twist, but you'll note I intentionally kept the request vague enough that it'll still be a suprise. I, personally, think that such a courtesy is more important than maximizing the impact of the suprise for the narrative, especially since such courtesy can be given without eliminating the suprise altogether.

I didn't mention the luke-leya relationship because, as I recall, its plot-significance was pretty close to nil. Even if they hadn't been related Han's jealousy would've been misplaced, since luke and leya's relationship came off as platonic anyway. Comparing the movie to a tabletop game, it seems more like a decision that was made to short-circut Han's coming into direct conflict with Luke. It really kinda feels that way even within the context of the movie itself.

I suppose that at least part of the reason for my attitude is a strong desire for structure in my RPG's. When I make a character (as a player) I want to explore the nature of that particular character and how he interacts with the world. If I wanted to explore the interactions of a myriad of characters, I'd've volunteered to DM.

I suppose I should also note that adding a passing aquaintence, e.g. some neighbor the character knew but who had minimal influence, isn't what I'm talking about when I talk about adding things to the PC's backstory. Former co-workers, neighbors, distant relatives, people who used to be the children you played with, etc. are fine. It's the nuclear family, the close friends, influential teacher and mentors, former lovers, etc. that are added by permission only.

The purpose of this restriction is to prevent the DM from rattling the foundation of the character's psyche without determining if that would make the character unplayable. Unplayable in the sense of destroying the player's desire to play the character.

mithrawnudo
2012-12-12, 03:32 PM
I wanted to update everyone on what has been ongoing in the game. I told the DM that I did not approve of his attempts at taking my character, his response was to get defensive and say that he had not taken my character. I successfully lobbied to have my character's "friend" removed from the game. The game itself will occur in 3 days. I am anxious to see how the DM will act in the game.

Also, I would like to thank everyone for their responses. I have seemed to get the feeling that the equation should skew more towards the players than the DM.

NichG
2012-12-12, 05:24 PM
For me its more a continuum than an absolute boundary. Basically, there are things that are pretty central to the player and DM's creative area - things like the personality, morality, etc are pretty much entirely in the player's hands. Things like 'what the BBEG is planning' or 'how many kobolds are in this room' are pretty much entirely in the DM's hands (though its actually more like 90% there since I can easily see design space for things that would let players influence these things, if not in games I generally play).

Between those you have sort of a gradation of 'how important should be it before you ask for control?'. So, the player has put a 13 in Strength for his wizard and a 16 in Int. Thats pretty deep in player territory - the DM might suggest something different, but who knows, the player may be trying something clever or wants to handicap themselves because they've played a lot of god wizards or whatever. But that combined with a reason to be worried about it (maybe this player has a tendency to make unplayable characters and then throw fits, or something) suggests the DM might want to step in and negotiate control, even build an 'example character' to help the player.

Things like backstory get into that muddled mix that is entirely negotiation. I think its perfectly legit for the DM to say 'this guy was a fellow student in one of your classes'. Saying 'and you were friends with him' is, however, much closer to that core of player agency of deciding the personality of their character, and a DM should be very cautious about going to that extent (much better to say 'he was like this - is that someone you would have been friends with?').

Similarly, its pretty standard for a player to say things like 'so yeah, my mother is such and such and my father is such and such' even though those are NPCs and are normally DM-domain. But no DM should really bat an eye there. However if the player says 'My father is such and such, a priest of this god I made up' then that's getting deeper into the DM's territory; if the player is going somewhere with it, then it might make sense for the player to be adamant about that detail, but the player shouldn't stand too strongly on it if its not actually important and the DM balks.

Saying 'my mother is actually the empress of the country we're in' could make for an awesome story. But its deep in the DM's territory, so the player should expect to trade a lot of other details if they really want that one (they may have to give up on picking their mother, father, siblings, etc, and may even have to accept extra limits on what character class they can be or whatever).

Huh, I could almost imagine making a point-based system for this kind of thing. A player could say 'I want to design the government of our country and be the child of a powerful politician' (8 points), which the DM could then use to say 'okay, but your first character level is Noble (5 points), and your three siblings have the following personalities (1 point, 1 point, 1 point)'.