Backstory and the line between player agency and GM world control.

[Oddman80]

When a player creates a character backstory, what is the point where a player has to relinquish control before stepping on the GMs control of NPCs?

In a recent thread there was an off topic debate started, but I thought it deserved it's own thread.

Some people were arguing that what a player puts into backstory is rigid and cannot (i.e., should not) be manipulated by a GM, even for the purpose of creating plot hooks.

On the flip side, it can be argued that NPCs are the realm of the DM, and that everything is up for grabs and in no way affects player agency.

Now, as with everything else in the game, a GM can handle manipulation a to a PCs backstory in a clunky manner or in a fluid and elegant manner. But that come down to the quality of a GM, and not to the point of wether or not this is something that should never be done (per the what makes you walk away from a game thread)

I personally believe the backstory is up for manipulation so long as it worked into the story. For example, IRL, a grown man can discover he was adopted as a result of a medical test he recently had to take. If you had asked him, the day before the test, about his background, he would not believe himself to be adopted, as he has no control over his adoptive parents decision to keep this fact from him. Learning about this new fact may be jarring, it may cause him to question his relationship with his parents, but it doesn't actually take any control away from him as far as how he choses to live his life...

How would it be any different if a GM did the same thing to a PC?

I would love to hear people's thoughts. Though I would request a certain Severus Sith sit this one out (as your views were clearly stated)

[Honest Tiefling]

There is no good way to decide it. Some people enjoy it, others would be devastated. I think a good rule of thumb is to preserve the theme of the character, but even then it won't be a guarantee. I think I should warn people I might mess with that beforehand after reading this.

But what I mean for the theme is what is the character's base story? If for instance, the character is a goody-goody two shoes trying his best to be good and sunshine and rainbows...I would not consider telling the player that their character was actually an evil warlord who got brainwashed. It goes against the character's core concept.

What I might consider doing is throwing out hints of the incongruity. The man hears rumors that a knight came to his village with a baby. He left the home of the character's parents the night that the character was 'born', without the baby. But make it an unreliable narrator so I can say that no, his parents are his birth parents, but someone wanted to cast some doubt on the fidelity of a noblewoman if I am getting the hint this is not working out.

[ComaVision]

Like most things in D&D, I think it's a compromise. I don't tell my players how it is going to be, and they reflect the same respect. We find a middleground that works for both of our purposes.

I should say that I'm not using an established setting so they're unable to do their own research on the lore of my world. If it were a FR or Eberron game, they would be able to do a lot more planning without my consultation.

[Threadnaught]

Personally I demand that my players give me something within their backstory I can use against them, keep it vague enough that I get to build it, but if it's part of their past, they must give some details.

I leave them completely in control of their past, provided they don't install their own homebrew cities/countries/continents into the setting.

[Blackhawk748]

I guess it depends largely on the backstory itself. Most of my backstories simply state where my character is from, who his parents are and why he adventures. Pretty much the only way to get a plot hook out of most of mine involve killing a relative, otherwise i have, in a rather tasteful large neon, PLOT HOOK HERE, and i would love it if a DM of mine would use it eventually.

So basically, if PCs want a plothook in their backstory, they generally slide one in, after that the DM can kinda go nuts.

[BRC]

I would follow a "Yes AND" rule.
Which is to say: everything the Player put into their backstory is true.

That is not what is EXCLUSIVELY true, but it is true.

Lets give an example backstory.
"I grew up in a small farming village which was attacked by Orcs. However,me and my best friend were saved by an old man who lived in the hills nearby. He was a retired Dragon Slayer. He took us in and raised us, training us to be able to defend ourselves. My best friend got into an argument with the dragon slayer and left, I stayed behind, taking care of the old man until he died of natural causes a few years later. Now I'm trying to find my friend, and use the skills the dragonslayer taught me to protect people".

Now, EVERYTHING in that backstory is true.

The GM Cannot say: "You may THINK that's what happened, but its not. You are actually a secret agent of the evil empire, your memories were rewritten as part of a deep cover mission". They can't say that the village was not destroyed by a horde of orcs, but by an evil wizard (The Orcs could have been WORKING for the evil wizard). The Dragonslayer must actually have been a Dragonslayer, they can't be some random old man who set up a house in the hills with a bunch of swords and charred armor on the wall, who went around saying he was a retired Dragonslayer, ect.

However, the GM Can Embellish the backstory. The Best Friend didn't leave after the argument, they were kidnapped by the Dragonslayer's enemies. The Dragonslayer thought that if the character knew, they would run off and get themselves killed, and he was too old for a rescue mission, so he lied. That wasn't any Dragonslayer, that was the legendary Remet Drakesbane, who despite his heroic deeds was exiled from the kingdom for having an affair with the queen. Those Orcs did not attack your village at random, they were seeking the ancient temple buried underneath the mill, at least before the Dragonslayer chased them away.

[Blackhawk748]

I would follow a "Yes AND" rule.
Which is to say: everything the Player put into their backstory is true.

That is not what is EXCLUSIVELY true, but it is true.

Lets give an example backstory.
"I grew up in a small farming village which was attacked by Orcs. However,me and my best friend were saved by an old man who lived in the hills nearby. He was a retired Dragon Slayer. He took us in and raised us, training us to be able to defend ourselves. My best friend got into an argument with the dragon slayer and left, I stayed behind, taking care of the old man until he died of natural causes a few years later. Now I'm trying to find my friend, and use the skills the dragonslayer taught me to protect people".

Now, EVERYTHING in that backstory is true.

The GM Cannot say: "You may THINK that's what happened, but its not. You are actually a secret agent of the evil empire, your memories were rewritten as part of a deep cover mission". They can't say that the village was not destroyed by a horde of orcs, but by an evil wizard (The Orcs could have been WORKING for the evil wizard). The Dragonslayer must actually have been a Dragonslayer, they can't be some random old man who set up a house in the hills with a bunch of swords and charred armor on the wall, who went around saying he was a retired Dragonslayer, ect.

However, the GM Can Embellish the backstory. The Best Friend didn't leave after the argument, they were kidnapped by the Dragonslayer's enemies. The Dragonslayer thought that if the character knew, they would run off and get themselves killed, and he was too old for a rescue mission, so he lied. That wasn't any Dragonslayer, that was the legendary Remet Drakesbane, who despite his heroic deeds was exiled from the kingdom for having an affair with the queen. Those Orcs did not attack your village at random, they were seeking the ancient temple buried underneath the mill, at least before the Dragonslayer chased them away.

This is an excellent rule to go by, it also helps if your PCs actually give backstories. Rarely do i get more than a few sentences about their characters life before adventuring, it kinda sucks since i like running sandbox games.

[Honest Tiefling]

I have to ask, why is having the Evil Wizard being in charge of the Horde of Orcs a problem? The Orcs still did the dirty work.

[atemu1234]

I like the veto rule. The player writes it, DM says yes or no, makes recommendations, etc., so it can be used in his campaign.

[BRC]

I have to ask, why is having the Evil Wizard being in charge of the Horde of Orcs a problem? The Orcs still did the dirty work.

Sorry, that bit was unclear.

Its okay to have the Orcs be working for the Evil Wizard, provided the orcs themselves were the ones doing the looting and burning. The Wizard could even have been present, just hanging back a bit. As the character experienced it, the village was attacked by orcs.

Its not okay to have the Wizard be attacking the village singlehandedly, or with a different kind of minion, because that invalidates a stated part of the backstory. Even having the Wizard attack, but use illusions to make it look like Orcs is probably going too far.

[Oddman80]

I like the veto rule. The player writes it, DM says yes or no, makes recommendations, etc., so it can be used in his campaign.

But if agreed upon - does that mean it is now rigid, and untouchable? it may be cliche, but the whole trope of discovering that a character does not really know someone as well as they think they do can be rather fun... but it requires liberties with agreed upon facts... facts may remain, but motives are never so clear.

[Kol Korran]

I personally think that it's a matter of discussion. When people may try to achieve different things (Be it the GM and a player, or different players) conflict my arise. Now, conflict is often great fuel for roleplay, but it can go too far. I will discuss the current question though, as using conflict between players, or characters is a bit different.

My process goes as follows:
When reading a character's background I ask the player the following questions:
1- What are the key elements in the background? What is specifically important to you?
2- How do you see such elements playing out? What sort of experience are you aiming at?
3- What are your limits? What SHOULD NOT happen? (If the player doesn't at all touch on my ideas of manipulating his background, I try to ask in vague enough questions to make sure).

This gives me a frame I can work with, and often gains the player's trust and cooperation.
An example:
In the current campaign, the player of the cleric came from a noble family, who partly broke from local government, he was a cleric of Sarenrae (general goody goddess), had a mentor called John, and he belonged to a separate knightly order called The Sovereign Order of Knights of Sarenrae.

1- What are the key elements in the background? What is specifically important to you?
The player emphasized one main element- relationship with his mentor. The order also was important, but to a lesser degree. The family, and the belief in the goddess mattered little to him.

2- How do you see such elements playing out? What sort of experience are you aiming at?
The main thing here was the relationship with his mentor. He wished to play it out as a loving teacher- student relationship, with the mentor as a father figure. He sought to have him an active NPC, with quite a bit of a roleplay interaction. As to the order, he wanted to experience the companionship of fellow soldiers, and the military life, perhaps leadership.

3- What are your limits? What SHOULD NOT happen?
"Don't have him be a betrayer, secret spy, or pull some sort of a Darth Vader" were his words. "What about death?" The player thought "As long as it's meaningful, and that we had some time to roleplay together." About the order there were no limitations.

So, the campaign is still running, but we have had the mentor join the NPCs and I've put some twists as to make it seem like he may not be all as he seems, but the player has the freedom to explore that roleplay, but also trust me that I don't mess his concept up. The other players don't know it though, and this has caused quite a few discussions in play. The mentor has been captured by a shadow demon (I've been asking whether to use disguise or bluff in one of the threads here), so an interesting confrontation may come, where the shadow demon may try to look as if he is the mentor who has betrayed the party and "has gone Darth Vader", though the player knows this is out of the rules.

The mentor may die though, but in a suitably meaningful way, after the player has developed some attachment to him.

As to the order, I integrated it into the army the party led to capture a fort. It was put in harms way a few times, but has so long survived, and the cleric got to lead it in a few battles. The family? Was killed by demons, which the player used to further play by adopting another group as his family. The matter of belief hasn't come up till the recent session, and now we're working on how it will play out, since it has now become important, by the same process.

It's how we deal with cases of different concepts. A cooperative game after all, no? I hope it helps.

It works for us at least.

[Oddman80]

^that is terrific.
i think trust is a key point. if you are playing with a GM you trust - he could tell you up is down and black is white, and you will roll with it, cause you know there will be a payoff - it is leading to something great. when playing with a GM you trust, you don't just respond with "nuh-uh! that's not how its supposed to be!"

[Ssalarn]

I would follow a "Yes AND" rule.
Which is to say: everything the Player put into their backstory is true.

That is not what is EXCLUSIVELY true, but it is true.

Lets give an example backstory.
"I grew up in a small farming village which was attacked by Orcs. However,me and my best friend were saved by an old man who lived in the hills nearby. He was a retired Dragon Slayer. He took us in and raised us, training us to be able to defend ourselves. My best friend got into an argument with the dragon slayer and left, I stayed behind, taking care of the old man until he died of natural causes a few years later. Now I'm trying to find my friend, and use the skills the dragonslayer taught me to protect people".

Now, EVERYTHING in that backstory is true.

The GM Cannot say: "You may THINK that's what happened, but its not. You are actually a secret agent of the evil empire, your memories were rewritten as part of a deep cover mission". They can't say that the village was not destroyed by a horde of orcs, but by an evil wizard (The Orcs could have been WORKING for the evil wizard). The Dragonslayer must actually have been a Dragonslayer, they can't be some random old man who set up a house in the hills with a bunch of swords and charred armor on the wall, who went around saying he was a retired Dragonslayer, ect.

However, the GM Can Embellish the backstory. The Best Friend didn't leave after the argument, they were kidnapped by the Dragonslayer's enemies. The Dragonslayer thought that if the character knew, they would run off and get themselves killed, and he was too old for a rescue mission, so he lied. That wasn't any Dragonslayer, that was the legendary Remet Drakesbane, who despite his heroic deeds was exiled from the kingdom for having an affair with the queen. Those Orcs did not attack your village at random, they were seeking the ancient temple buried underneath the mill, at least before the Dragonslayer chased them away.

This is a really great way to incorporate a hook into a player's established backstory without actively undermining their creative agency or control of their character. I love it!
To me, a big part of the gaming experience is cooperative storytelling, and I don't believe any one individual, even the GM, should be more important to the experience than another. By changing a player's stated backstory in a way they don't necessarily agree with, you're saying "I'm more important than you", and IMHO, that's just rude, and not the best way to create an enjoyable experience for everyone (or keep a group together).

This just reminded me of something for the "DM can't" thread.

(Also, that is a badass Spider Jerusalem avatar!)

[RoboEmperor]

Let's look at an example:

A PC is a poor orphan, but became a wizard not by going through school, but by taking abuse from rich snobby noble wizards in exchange for a few hours with their textbooks + material components. 5 years later, he's a wizard.

Acceptable changes:
1. Those snobby noble wizards were actually demons in disguise
2. Those snobby noble wizards were actually your father's illusion to try and make you into a strong person
3. PC is actually super rich, but the inheritance letter couldn't find its way to him/her until now.
4. His/her parents was murdered by a conspiracy, and they're trying to find you to finish the job, while the parents left you small pockets of gear and messages here and there to help you and you found some sort of note that leads you to them.

These changes may not be acceptable if the player is super obsessed with one of these, like if he wants the noble wizards to actually be noble wizards to portray the evil society he grew up in, or if he wanted his parents to be poor too and they died because of some evil mafia.

Questionable changes:
1. It was all fake. The PC is actually drugged and inside some sort of tube and just imagined everything there. Therefore his knowledge on magic is also fake so he's just a commoner.

Player can still roleplay his backstory, even if it's fake.

Unacceptable change
1. The PC is actually the opposite gender, and none of the original backstory happened. He just wrote that to fool other adventurers and is in fact an evil cunning scammer who killed his own mother and sold his sister to slavery.

Some people have OCD with their stories, so none of these changes are acceptable. Some people only care about one aspect of the story and as long as that one aspect isn't changed, he's ok. And some people don't really care about their back stories and actually enjoy the DM's crazy shenanigans.

So my opinion is that if the DM plans on changing the player's story, before the campaign begins, ask the player if he can change some parts of the story.
If the player doesn't really, care, no problem.
If the player cares only about one or two aspects, he will ask you if you're gonna change one of them. If you aren't no problem, if you are, he'll probably find another game to join.
If the player doesn't want you to touch anything, then you advise him to join another game.

The goal is to have a fun game, and every game is different, so in order to play with just the people who would enjoy your game, have a short interview with them before letting them join. It's no different than having a player who wants to play epic levels joining when your campaign only goes up to 13.

So to answer the topic question, the "line" is where, when crossed, the player starts to feel very uncomfortable. It differs from person to person.

[Chronos]

Players should follow reasonable constraints where their backstory intersects with the larger world, and the DM can and should step in if they overstep those bounds. But within those bounds, the players should have pretty much free say.

For instance, if the player says that his character is a veteran of the Human-Elf Wars, and the DM's world doesn't have a Human-Elf War in its history, then the DM should say no to that. But on the other hand, the player should be able to say that his character is a veteran of some war or another his lord got into about 10 years back, then the DM should work with the player to say which war that was (it's hardly a stretch to say that there was some war in that time frame).

The only other limit is that a character's backstory should not be a source of power beyond what they'd otherwise have. You can say that your starting WBL was gear that you inherited from your now-deceased mentor whom you're avenging, but you can't say that your mentor was fabulously wealthy and so you have ten times that much wealth.

[Mehangel]

A PC is a poor orphan, but became a wizard not by going through school, but by taking abuse from rich snobby noble wizards in exchange for a few hours with their textbooks + material components. 5 years later, he's a wizard.


Acceptable changes:
1. Those snobby noble wizards were actually demons in disguise
2. Those snobby noble wizards were actually your father's illusion to try and make you into a strong person
3. PC is actually super rich, but the inheritance letter couldn't find its way to him/her until now.
4. His/her parents was murdered by a conspiracy, and they're trying to find you to finish the job, while the parents left you small pockets of gear and messages here and there to help you and you found some sort of note that leads you to them.

Honestly, I see no reason why any of that PC's backstory would have to be changed.

If in that particular setting,

o Wizards learned magic in schools or colleges, then that would make the PC a fugitive wizard who practices magic without a license. This actually makes up for great role-playing in my book.
o Wizards require some sort of ritual to understand/read/cast magic and thus impossible outside of arcane schooling, who is to say that the nobles who beat/abused/hazed the PC did not accidentally perform an alternate ritual by said beatings and abuse.
o Maybe the PC is not actually a "wizard" but an INT-based Sorcerer whose natural talent with magic is drawn upon the reading of magic tomes to which he keeps a journal with his personal thesis and understanding of magic aswell as a list of all his successes with magic.

Heros by their nature are Extraordinary. If a PC wants to do something that while uncommon is not entirely out of the realm of possibility, why stop him or change his entire backstory with needless alterations.

[Curmudgeon]

I follow the rules, which in this case make the DM responsible for every part of the world which is not a PC. Players can choose their character's place of origin for regional feats; everything else is the DM's domain. I rarely do more than glance at a character story, because it's not going to matter in my game.

If you want to create structures in a game world you need to be the DM. I'd be quite happy to DM less and play more if others want to take on the full job of world building. But if I'm doing the job, I'm not going to have my creativity stifled by player desires. They can play in my game, or they can run their own game. They can't make me do the bulk of the work and yet dictate some aspects of how my game world operates.

Let's take a hypothetical example: the player wants their PC to be an only child, and I won't allow that. You see, I've got a scenario wherein the party will eventually encounter a plague which targets every firstborn Humanoid. Firstborn PC players would yell at me if suddenly their characters could do nothing except lie in a hospice and wait to die when the non-firstborn PCs don't root out the plague-spreader and find a cure in a timely enough fashion. But I'm not going to ruin my story (a scenario that's only going to happen after the PCs have a few levels under their belts) by explaining the importance of birth order at character creation. I'm simply going to say that players don't get to make any decisions involving NPCs, and leave it at that.

[Threadnaught]

That ******* Druid has a character whose backstory he wouldn't tell me until we were a few sessions in. I checked it over and couldn't see any major problems in terms of balance, so I simply asked if I could make any additions, he said yes. He gave me permission to add some stuff to his backstory.


So as revenge for him failing to get his backstory, which he claimed he had completed before he even shared his character sheet with me, I added stuff to his backstory without changing any existing stuff. He was annoyed because for a long time, he'd thought I'd turned his heroic character into a villain, when in reality, he'd merely been acting as a double agent. He had amnesia, which is why I felt no need to consult him of the additions.

The real kicker is, when the party had reached Sector Y, killed the NPC they were chasing and took the Locate City Bomb, the resident a Daelkyr, informed him of the things he had forgotten. Including how close he had come to defeating the antagonist mentioned in his backstory.
He was rather upset at learning how close he came to concluding his backstory, it got him his own personal questline though.
MetaMyconid's character backstory is overwritten (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showsinglepost.php?p=15499995&postcount=38) completely until his character dies and someone else claims his weapon and armour, or until he has Remove Curse cast upon him, until either of those happens his name doesn't exist. That's his personal quest.
Circa is wanting to pull at every single quest hook I've presented so far. I sent them through the Alphabet with a hook every other letter.