Proving that something actually did happen to a character

[Godrednu]

I'm thinking about running a campaign wherein the characters decided to have their memories wiped and a new background put in place. The new background will be what the players decided their character backgrounds would be. The players do not know that this is the storyline. When it comes to it and I need to prove, in game, that their characters did in fact make this decision, how would I do it? For instance, in real life you could just have a tape recording of them doing it.

[DivisibleByZero]

Some sort of crystal ball or vision, which essentially just replaces the tape recording for them. While watching it they get a sense of deja-vu, which tells them that it isn't just an illusion.

[Solunaris]

Hold up; are you creating a story-line that is going to take a part of character creation and character agency out of the hands of the players? Because a player should know everything about their PC since they created the character. That is a big no-no, unless I've just misread the situation.

[DivisibleByZero]

Calm down.
It's fine.
Building a story together means that sometimes the DM has some agency with what happens (or in this case, happened) to the players.
He isn't taking anything away from the players, he's adding to them.
The sky is not falling.

[Solunaris]

I'm perfectly fine with the DM acting on the players; what I am not fine with is learning the Blacksmith-turned-hero PC I built was actually part of a secret spy organization for the King and had his memories wiped and replaced for some arbitrary reason I didn't role-play.

If I fail a save mid game and lose my memories, that's cool. But don't tell me the background of my character that I created was all a lie and instead I was a different character built by the DM.

Edit: Or if I give up my memories for the sake of the narrative.

[JellyPooga]

Calm down.
It's fine.
Building a story together means that sometimes the DM has some agency with what happens (or in this case, happened) to the players.
He isn't taking anything away from the players, he's adding to them.
The sky is not falling.

The only problem occurs when a player gets their new (old) Background, their Skills and Features may change to something they're not happy with.

Tread carefully, for you're walking on my dreams...

[DivisibleByZero]

They won't be losing anything. Memories were replaced. That means they have the new memories. That means they still have their BGs.
Jeez people, calm down.
Give the "whole player agency, my character is mine" thing a rest. Nothing is being taken away. Things are being added to enhance the story. If you don't like that concept, then you shouldn't be playing in a cooperative storytelling game.

[MrMcBobb]

I can see why people might be annoyed by not having the character they spent ages on. Especially if they created someone really detailed.

I had a similar idea for a short story a while back where people who have done horrible things pay to have their memories wiped, but a guy accidentally reports his wife as missing when really he killed her (he doesn't remember doing so). So I quite like the concept, but I'm not sure how it would work in D&D.

A good way might be to have them investigate missing persons around the city (they're not missing, they ran away and changed their memories). During this quest perhaps certain NPCs and memory wiping wizards react to them as if they know them, or give them knowing looks. Plant the seed of doubt that the characters aren't who they said they are but don't explicitly tell them.

[Hudsonian]

In D&D you also have this cool ability to inform the player when something that the character learns is true in no uncertain terms.

you could have each player come up with a secret tick or song that gets stuck in their head that they have no idea where it came from then have someone else reveal their knowledge of its origin.

What level is the party? Maybe when someone tries to get a priest to heal them with a greater/lesser restoration the priest is like, "are you sure? there is some pretty powerful magic over you. The kind that most people use as protection from traumatic events. This may remove that as well as your ailment." Then depending on how you set up your plot. "This must have been placed by an extremely powerful magician, or someone able to channel divine or demonic power. Most spells of the mind are cleansed by the working I just did. I don't know the true nature of its purpose, but you have some powerful workings on you."


Edit: guys, the OP asked a question about how to do something, not if it was a good idea. Let's see if we can come up with some ways that would help him reach his goal. I'm sure he has some intelligence and knows his players well enough to judge their level of ire when discovering that there backstory is more complicated than originally thought.

[Solunaris]

They won't be losing anything. Memories were replaced. That means they have the new memories. That means they still have their BGs.
Jeez people, calm down.
Give the "whole player agency, my character is mine" thing a rest. Nothing is being taken away. Things are being added to enhance the story. If you don't like that concept, then you shouldn't be playing in a cooperative storytelling game.

I'm not referring to the mechanical implications. I am referring to the role-play implications, and how it might impact the players to learn that the character they made isn't the character they're playing. Sure, the character still has the "fake" memories but has now lost any connection to NPCs from the backstory and background.

That village our example blacksmith is from? Well, it's real but he doesn't have a family there. His childhood friend that the player might have talked to the DM about before-hand as the reason the PC rose to the occasion and forms the basis of the PC's "Bond?" Yeah, just part of the cover story.

[Randomthom]

You may want to take a pillars of eternity approach to this.

If you haven't played the game then It'll need a little explanation (spolier alert).

In the world in which PoE is set, Souls are rather hard to tie down after death. Sometimes they result in undead or other abominations, sometimes the dead person's soul will end up co-habiting with the dominant soul in someone's body, often lying dormant for many years until a memory triggers the second soul's "awakening". A person with an "awakened" soul displays moments of genuine multiple personalities. It is not like a Jekyll & Hyde thing where neither is aware of the other, in fact, they are capable of full-blown conversations between themselves. The awakened soul could be a child's, a mass murderer or just an old woman.

In your game, perhaps the souls (or perhaps just their memories) could have been transplanted into the PCs. Perhaps the PCs were just the nearest living creatures when life was taken from them or maybe this was a deliberate attempt to hide information by a group of agents who were being hunted and needed to "deposit" the information somewhere to avoid falling into the wrong hands.

These memories could be awakened a little bit at a time (great way to explain some DM exposition when you need to) or you could go for the full-blown second personality (and maybe skills/mental attributes?)

I'm kind-of making this up as I go along but I'm definitely going to use it myself sometime, it's good :)

DAMN I'M GOOOOOOOD :P

Edit: Great thing about this is that it doesn't step on the toes of the players' own backstories. They're still them, they're just something else as well.

[DivisibleByZero]

That village our example blacksmith is from? Well, it's real but he doesn't have a family there. His childhood friend that the player might have talked to the DM about before-hand as the reason the PC rose to the occasion and forms the basis of the PC's "Bond?" Yeah, just part of the cover story.

You basically just decsribed Saul Tigh from Battlestar Galactica, one of the best developed characters on the show.
And I'll reiterate: if you have a problem with cooperative storytelling actually being cooperative, then perhaps a computer game would be a better fit for you than a TTRPG.

[GorogIrongut]

The key, I think to making this work is simple. Each character has a background. They should have both strengths and weaknesses. Identify the biggest weakness that the PLAYER put into their background, and exploit it for your falsified memories.

I'll give you an example, I have a character in my party who's not too bright, very brash and bold. Very much the act without thinking kind of person. It gets her into a LOT of trouble and she spends a LOT of time justifying her, at times, unjustifiable actions.

If I were to do what you're thinking of doing... I would:
a. Either have someone to do the exact same thing to herself as a child. Unthinking... uncaring... they waltz into her community and burn it to the ground. She finds out that her current behaviour is a subconscious cue to the past that she couldn't remember.

or

b. That she's been doing this a long time. So long in fact that it got out of control. Her 'friends' (i.e. not really friends but people who can tolerate being in the same room with her) got together and had an intervention. Realizing the depth of her misdeeds, she opts to wipe the slate clean. A memory flush PLUS optimal environmental conditions, she reckons are enough to stop her from turning back into the person she was...

Except... now that she has her memory back... she realizes that she's walking the very first baby steps that she did to become the horrible uncaring person that necessitated the memory wipe/reset. She's conflicted. Is she meant to be this way no matter what she does? Can she correct her course? Should she want to?

For those of you who've seen it... and if you haven't, I recommend you do so immediately. Think Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind.


By linking it with a part of the background the PLAYER created, you're just deepening what they already made. You're not superimposing your own will.

As a post script, I only spoke about one of the main negatives of that character. She has many positives that ameliorate those negatives... and in fact she spends a lot of time hulking out against whomever she perceives to be a bully because of it. She's both hilarious and annoying at the same time... and she forwards the party storyline 99% of the time compared to the rest of the party.

[Sigreid]

Unless I bought into something like this it would annoy me. But I've never cared for movies or shows with this premise.

As for how, flashes of real memory coming back over time.

[MrMcBobb]

And I'll reiterate: if you have a problem with cooperative storytelling actually being cooperative, then perhaps a computer game would be a better fit for you than a TTRPG.

Except if the DM overrides your contribution by saying it's actually a fake memory, that's not co-operative story telling, it's just story telling. Players should have agency over what they bring to the table and the DM creates a world for them to interact with. That's the co-operative story, not the DM hand waving away your character creation.

[tieren]

I'm thinking about running a campaign wherein the characters decided to have their memories wiped and a new background put in place. The new background will be what the players decided their character backgrounds would be. The players do not know that this is the storyline. When it comes to it and I need to prove, in game, that their characters did in fact make this decision, how would I do it? For instance, in real life you could just have a tape recording of them doing it.

How about having them wander into a town where they are revered as heroes for something they don't remember doing. There could be statues of them in the town square or something. That could lead them to investigating the archives or talking to eye witnesses, etc...

[tieren]

Except if the DM overrides your contribution by saying it's actually a fake memory, that's not co-operative story telling, it's just story telling. Players should have agency over what they bring to the table and the DM creates a world for them to interact with. That's the co-operative story, not the DM hand waving away your character creation.

I think its a matter of degree.

Maybe your character was born in the village you described and had the friends you remember, but something happened and he went down a really dark path for a year or two, then wiped the memory of that time. You could still be basically the right character and the DM can put in the intrigue moments of uncovering what really happened during the missing time.

[Segev]

Why do you need to prove it?

You could let them wonder if it's real or not. If they chose or not.

Have evidence exist, of course. But don't worry about it being indubitable. Let it hint before at something weird. Let it fit, after they hear what happened. But don't insist they must believe it. If they evidence seems ironclad, that's up to them. If it seems questionable, that's also up to them.

If you're going to play with memory gambits, play up the uncertainty, don't play it down.

[GorogIrongut]

Why do you need to prove it?

You could let them wonder if it's real or not. If they chose or not.

Have evidence exist, of course. But don't worry about it being indubitable. Let it hint before at something weird. Let it fit, after they hear what happened. But don't insist they must believe it. If they evidence seems ironclad, that's up to them. If it seems questionable, that's also up to them.

If you're going to play with memory gambits, play up the uncertainty, don't play it down.

And Tieren's comment here:

How about having them wander into a town where they are revered as heroes for something they don't remember doing. There could be statues of them in the town square or something. That could lead them to investigating the archives or talking to eye witnesses, etc...

I like both of these comments a lot.

[KorvinStarmast]

various objections due to badwrongfun by the OP I take it you won't be playing at Godrednu's table.

I read his OP again, and noticed this.

The new background will be what the players decided their character backgrounds would be. It looks like a chargen redo, for a plot based reason. And the players choose.
*Shrugs*
If player objects enough, chances are either the player walks or, if enough of them dislike this, the game folds. The OP won't know until he tries. There are a lot of stories out there which involve you don't know who you actually are. (See Star Wars, as but one of many examples. Michael Scott Rohan's "Winter of the World" series. )


If you're going to play with memory gambits, play up the uncertainty, don't play it down. Yeah, nice point, and nice post.

[DivisibleByZero]

Except if the DM overrides your contribution by saying it's actually a fake memory, that's not co-operative story telling, it's just story telling. Players should have agency over what they bring to the table and the DM creates a world for them to interact with. That's the co-operative story, not the DM hand waving away your character creation.

And conversely, if you tell the DM that he isn't allowed to have any say in your character and that he is only allowed to tell you about the world, that isn't cooperative storytelling on your part, that's just storytelling. You're allowed to change things that he controls through play, but he isn't.

He controls the world, and you can make small changes to the world through play.
You control the character, and if they're going to enhance the story then he can make small changes to your character through play.
You see, it's the combination of the two that makes it cooperative.
What you're describing is a computer game where the computer is a person. That isn't a cooperative game. Go download Neverwinter.
If that's a problem for you, then cooperative storytelling games aren't for you. And yes, I'll keep repeating it until it sinks in.

[Solunaris]

Whoops, my entire argument was predicated on my misreading the first post. My bad...

[BiPolar]

Why do you need to prove it?

You could let them wonder if it's real or not. If they chose or not.

Have evidence exist, of course. But don't worry about it being indubitable. Let it hint before at something weird. Let it fit, after they hear what happened. But don't insist they must believe it. If they evidence seems ironclad, that's up to them. If it seems questionable, that's also up to them.

If you're going to play with memory gambits, play up the uncertainty, don't play it down.

This is absolutely the way to go. The players seem to know what's going and are on board for doing this (as having chosen their new backgrounds), so all you need to do is create a world where they can discover evidence of this. The more, the better!

Very cool idea :)

[Specter]

Have you played Silent Hill? The whole game(s) revolves around someone remembering all the bad things that happened to them, one step at a time.

On Silent Hill 2, for instance, the protagonist comes into town without any idea of what's going on, leading his life, and eventually finds out the whole truth of what happened. There was no physical evidence of what happened, but he remembered. That was enough.

[Godrednu]

Well, guys, thanks for all of the advice and support! I can understand this idea taking away from the players a little bit, but I also understand it's my world to create. What I think I'm going to do is a combination of the two things I read about only taking away the past few years and not necessarily proving it to them 100%. That way they can still have their backgrounds, they just won't know what happened over the last few years. They will have no memory of it, and I can throw in things where they can try to find out what happened but they'll never really know. Or will they?

[Asmotherion]

Hold up; are you creating a story-line that is going to take a part of character creation and character agency out of the hands of the players? Because a player should know everything about their PC since they created the character. That is a big no-no, unless I've just misread the situation.

Calm down. He's not forcing this on his players (from what I understand), he's working with them for a diferent D&D experiance.

Amnesia can lead to a very interesting scenario as a matter of fact. Past vs Currest self etc. Sure, it's not a regular kind of game, but that's just fine, as long as players agree to it.

[Beelzebubba]

I'm perfectly fine with the DM acting on the players; what I am not fine with is learning the Blacksmith-turned-hero PC I built was actually part of a secret spy organization for the King and had his memories wiped and replaced for some arbitrary reason I didn't role-play.

I dunno, I had a DM say up front 'something wild is going to happen, trust me and go with it' and something similar happened and we had a blast.

Why are you so rigid with the kind of game you can enjoy? Do you really enjoy only one sort of game, one sort of narrative, one sort of story?

I think it would be pretty cool, if the thing that replaced it was novel enough.

Edit: It is much more fitting in, say, Shadowrun or Top Secret, but mixing genre conventions can be a breath of fresh air.

[mgshamster]

Have it happen to NPCs first and the PCs have to investigate what's going on. They have to be able to prove it is happening to others.

Then, over the course of their investigation, they start finding clues that it's happened to them as well.

[Sigreid]

I dunno, I had a DM say up front 'something wild is going to happen, trust me and go with it' and something similar happened and we had a blast.

Why are you so rigid with the kind of game you can enjoy? Do you really enjoy only one sort of game, one sort of narrative, one sort of story?

I think it would be pretty cool, if the thing that replaced it was novel enough.

Edit: It is much more fitting in, say, Shadowrun or Top Secret, but mixing genre conventions can be a breath of fresh air.

Speaking only for myself, the memory loss trope is just an eye-roller for me. I think it's about as BS of a plot device as exists.

[Sigreid]

Calm down.
It's fine.
Building a story together means that sometimes the DM has some agency with what happens (or in this case, happened) to the players.
He isn't taking anything away from the players, he's adding to them.
The sky is not falling.

There is a huge difference between having input into a character or fleshing out past events and changing who the character is.

[DivisibleByZero]

There is a huge difference between having input into a character or fleshing out past events and changing who the character is.

See, this is the problem.
Players today feel like they have to build their character from level 20 right at creation, and have a plan of how they get there, before the game even starts.
Character development? That's something for novelists.

The truth of the matter is that this scenario is a great thing for character development. The only reason that certain players hate it so much is because they didn't create a person with history and flaws and a desire to experience the world and create a meaningful development. Instead they created a character "build" with a story in their heads about exactly what happened and exactly what they want to happen in the future, and all of their "development" has already occurred before the first session has even been played.

An even like this doesn't have to change who a character is. It might, but it doesn't have to. Why don't we play it and find out?

[Sigreid]

Seeno, this is the problem.
Players today feel like they have to build their character from level 20 right at creation, and have a plan of how they get there, before the game even starts.
Character development? That's something for novelists.

The truth of the matter is that this scenario is a great thing for character development. The only reason that certain players hate it so much is because they didn't create a person with history and flaws and a desire to experience the world and create a meaningful development. Instead they created a character "build" with a story in their heads about exactly what happened and exactly what they want to happen in the future, and all of their "development" has already occurred before the first session has even been played.

An even like this doesn't have to change who a character is. It might, but it doesn't have to. Why don't we play it and find out?

You're one condescending dude. I actually never plan my character's out ahead of time, they grow in response to what happens to them. That's pretty different than "Simple blacksmith Bob who rose to the challange to protect your town, actually, you were a member of the king's men spies placed in a memory wiped deep cover.".

[DivisibleByZero]

You're one condescending dude. I actually never plan my character's out ahead of time, they grow in response to what happens to them.

If that were true, I can't possibly see why you'd have have such an issue with this concept.

"My characters grow in response to what happens to them."
"NO! NO! NONONONONO! You cannot have THAT have happened to him in the past!"

I don't buy it.

[Sigreid]

If that were true, I can't possibly see why you'd have have such an issue with this concept.

"My characters grow in response to what happens to them."
"NO! NO! NONONONONO! You cannot have THAT have happened to him in the past!"

I don't buy it.

I've been pretty clear that I dislike the memory loss trope in books, movies and shows. I've also been pretty clear that the DM running with my back story is cool. I'm not cool with my character being someone else entirely than what I wanted to play.

[DivisibleByZero]

An event like this doesn't have to change who a character is. It might, but it doesn't have to.

[Sigreid]

An event like this doesn't have to change who a character is. It might, but it doesn't have to.
OP was initially describing a complete identity, background and history replacement.

[DivisibleByZero]

OP was initially describing a complete identity, background and history replacement.
Nope. Not what was said.


I'm thinking about running a campaign wherein the characters decided to have their memories wiped and a new background put in place. The new background will be what the players decided their character backgrounds would be.

The new background will be what the players decided their character backgrounds would be.
As in, the one that they picked is the one that they have. The old one, the one that they decided to wipe, will be whatever the DM decides.
But that one has been wiped and replaced with the one the player chose, so what it was is irrelevant because that is not what it is anymore. It is exactly what they said it was when they created their character.
So I ask again, if you like your characters to develop naturally, why do you have such a problem with this?

[Sigreid]

Nope. Not what was said.



The new background will be what the players decided their character backgrounds would be.
As in, the one that they picked is the one that they have. The old one, the one that they decided to wipe, will be whatever the DM decides.
But that one has been wiped and replaced with the one the player chose, so what it was is irrelevant because that is not what it is anymore. It is exactly what they said it was when they created their character.
So I ask again, if you like your characters to develop naturally, why do you have such a problem with this?
Your quote supports my interpretation.

[DivisibleByZero]

Your quote supports my interpretation.

Okay, let's try this again a different way.


I'm thinking about running a campaign wherein the characters decided to have their memories wiped and a new background put in place. The new background will be what the players decided their character backgrounds would be.

Memories wiped. Check.
New BG put in place. Check.
New BG will be what the players decided their character backgrounds would be. So their new BG, the replacement, is exactly what they wrote on their sheets. The new one, the replacement, is the one that matters, because that's the one that they'll be playing.
So they will be playing exactly the characters that they created. Only those characters have a secret past that they don't know about. That secret past matters NOT AT ALL except to develop the story.
It doesn't matter because the previous BG and history have been completely overwritten.
So once again, the players gett to play the characters that they created, and the DM gets to weave an interesting story around it which may or may not provoke interesting character development (which you claim to hold dear).
So what is it, exactly, that you have a problem with?

[Sigreid]

Okay, let's try this again a different way.



Memories wiped. Check.
New BG put in place. Check.
New BG will be what the players decided their character backgrounds would be. So their new BG, the replacement, is exactly what they wrote on their sheets. The new one, the replacement, is the one that matters, because that's the one that they'll be playing.
So they will be playing exactly the characters that they created. Only those characters have a secret past that they don't know about. That secret past matters NOT AT ALL except to develop the story.
It doesn't matter because the previous BG and history have been completely overwritten.
So once again, the players gett to play the characters that they created, and the DM gets to weave an interesting story around it which may or may not provoke interesting character development (which you claim to hold dear).
So what is it, exactly, that you have a problem with?

Doesn't matter to you. To me I've just been told my character, the one piece of the game that is mine isn't who I wanted to play.

[Contrast]

See, this is the problem.
Players today feel like they have to build their character from level 20 right at creation, and have a plan of how they get there, before the game even starts.

...thats the exact opposite of whats going on here?

The DM is retconning the pre-game life - that will only have an impact on the players if they let it. If your hypothetical player wanted to they could completely ignore it and continue on their pre-trod path.

For me to the issue here is that the DM is doing this without giving the players a heads up.

There's a difference between me creating a character who doesn't know who his parents are and the DM getting to surprise you and the DM randomly revealing halfway through the campaign that you've hallucinated everything which, up to that point, has been the driving force behind your characters motivations. I would, for instance, be a little annoyed if my characters sole motivation was to provide for myself and my orphaned younger brother and then the DM unexpectedly and irreversibly went 'LOL there is no younger brother, you made him up'.

This isn't to say it won't work - he knows his players and how they'll react better than us and he can do it in a way that doesn't raise peoples hackles. But its something OP should consider carefully when he's setting the campaign up and running it. Easiest solution is to say 'Heads up guys, I'm going to be taking some liberties with your backstories' at the start of the campaign. Then figure out which bits (if any) the players want to hold on to and figure out how best to make it all work.

As for making them believe - there's magic in the world. You can have their original memories return partially or fully and make them as reliable as you want.

[DivisibleByZero]

Doesn't matter to you. To me I've just been told my character, the one piece of the game that is mine isn't who I wanted to play.

But it is.
In this case, it is exactly that.
Your character, actually CHOSE to be your character. This isn't some bait and switch about who you are. This is your character, making the decision to stop being who he was and become, in every sense of the word, exactly the character you created.
You weren't you before.
You CHOSE to be you, and that's who you are now.

So your character, the one piece of the game that is yours, is not only who you as the player chose to play, it's who you as a character chose to be.
And even though you claim to prefer to let your characters develop, for some reason you have a problem with this.

[Sigreid]

But it is.
In this case, it is exactly that.
Your character, actually CHOSE to be your character. This isn't some bait and switch about who you are. This is your character, making the decision to stop being who he was and become, in every sense of the word, exactly the character you created.
You weren't you before.
You CHOSE to be you, and that's who you are now.

So your character, the one piece of the game that is yours, is not only who you as the player chose to play, it's who you as a character chose to be.
And even though you claim to prefer to let your characters develop, for some reason you have a problem with this.

A characer is not just mechanics. And develop during play is very different than being told "you're really Jason bjorn #

[DireSickFish]

Might work better in a more modern or futuristic setting. Mainly due to the prevalence of video cameras and recorded data. In your typical D&D setting what happens and is recorded is largely based on living memory. Unless you've got your names on merchant logs or something. The high priest remembers you coming in a few months back, but he doesn't have it written down or anything.

If the players figure out that they're dealing with memory altering foes. then they could assume that it's the NPCs who are getting mixed up and not the players.

What might mess them up more is if they remembered doing something, and go to check it but it didn't happen. Like their mother always used to measure height on a door frame for them and their sibling. When they stop by the old homestead only their siblings height is shown. Spooky.

Good luck with the concept. I hope your players trust you enough to pull this off.

[Segev]

While I sympathize with dividedByZero's support for this plot idea, I do appreciate the concern.

Imagine if the DM simply told you, "By the way, your noble paladin of the goddess of chastity used to rape women, keep them until they became pregnant, then murder them to eat the unborn children in lavish feasts."

Despite you having had your character be a simple farm lad who became a paladin in answering a call to action to save your childhood sweetheart from rampaging orcs led by a devilish tiefling. No, he also was a serial rapist baby-eating murderer, says the DM.

Or that your street thief that you wanted to play as an ex-urchin trying to get all the wealth he feels would have secured a better life for him when he was a kid...was also a well-off merchant's son. Spoiled rotten, in fact, who only pretended to be poor. No, no, you should accept that this happened in your background; it's a chance for character growth for him to accept that he was just playing pretend.

These are deliberately extreme examples, but they are legitimate complaints. If I built a character I'd been eager to play with a backstory I wanted to explore in depth, and this were sprung on me such that I wasn't really playing that character, I'd feel a little robbed. But whether I felt robbed would depend heavily on whether I was wedded to this backstory that is being replaced as central to the character and wanted to legitimately explore that place in the world. If I didn't have that desire for a particular character, I'd be fine with a twist like this.


It depends heavily on how the DM does it. Use it with care, and knowing what you're players are open for, and it can work. Just set expectations for the game carefully.

[Sigreid]

In addition to the objections I have already expressed, I also view this as a particularly heavy handed form of railroading and wouldn't cooperate.

[KorvinStarmast]

Imagine if the DM simply told you, "By the way, your noble paladin of the goddess of chastity used to rape women, keep them until they became pregnant, then murder them to eat the unborn children in lavish feasts."
You say that like it's a bad thing. :smallbiggrin:
What you just described is a whole lot like what goes on with werewolves -- the traditional werewolves of folk tales. What happened to them vis a vis lycanthropy was the for short periods of time, full moon, they were taken over by this 'other' and they'd wake up without knowing what they'd done. It's a classic trope, a curse. It's a curse that you have to find a way to overcome. Is a "pushbutton cure disease casting" really the way to overcome the curse?
In a high magic game, yeah
In a low magic game, where you can't find a cleric to cast a 3rd level spell ...

It depends heavily on how the DM does it. Use it with care, and knowing what you're players are open for, and it can work. Just set expectations for the game carefully. Yes, good advice. I also like DireSickFish's advice.

[Bahamut7]

I see the reveal of the true past more of a Total Recall moment. Do they choose to become who they were? Or remain this new persona, even if some of the memories are fake. The personality is still them. Yes, this plot isn't for everyone, but the players can easily veto playing it and that's it. to me, it sounds fun and I would love to give it a go.

[Pex]

You basically just decsribed Saul Tigh from Battlestar Galactica, one of the best developed characters on the show.
And I'll reiterate: if you have a problem with cooperative storytelling actually being cooperative, then perhaps a computer game would be a better fit for you than a TTRPG.

Cooperative does not mean the DM tells me what my character did, and all I thought I did was a lie.


I'm thinking about running a campaign wherein the characters decided to have their memories wiped and a new background put in place. The new background will be what the players decided their character backgrounds would be. The players do not know that this is the storyline. When it comes to it and I need to prove, in game, that their characters did in fact make this decision, how would I do it? For instance, in real life you could just have a tape recording of them doing it.

That's the problem. If the players know going in, meta-game, the premise of the campaign, everyone has fun. That's "cooperative". If they don't know, the DM is playing them for fools.

[mgshamster]

If the players know going in, meta-game, the premise of the campaign, everyone has fun. That's "cooperative". If they don't know, the DM is playing them for fools.

That's the crux of it.

If the players know ahead of time that it will happen, that takes away a bit of the magic that this style of story provides. There's a certain magic that comes with the discovery of it all that goes away if you're aware it's going to happen ahead of time. Also, it completely removed the option to make it a player's choice to determine if they believe it's happening.

But on the other hand, if a player doesn't know it's happening, it could totally ruin the game for them if they don't like that sort of thing.

It's a fine balance. And one that could only be done if the gm knows the players well enough to know they wouldn't mind it (like maybe ask about it a year ahead of time, and then do it after they've long forgotten the discussion). Also, one should only do this if there's a level of trust between the players and the gm.

[MBControl]

I wouldn't put a lot of effort into proving anything. Let the mystery stand. I would drop information as you go to confirm or debunk their own assumptions.

I like the idea of them succeeding on a skill check, that they should have failed, due to muscle memory taking over.

Random people recognizing them.

I would basically tell them without telling them, and not confirming anything.

Once they've convinced themselves, you have the opportunity to pull the ol' double switch. They're being framed or set-up. Something along those lines.

I really like the concept. It's been used a lot in science fiction, but I like it in this setting because it is so much harder to "prove".

As far as creative license, if the players agree, then they've chosen this as a character trait, and the DM has that trait to use as a storytelling device.

[Drackolus]

This sort of feels like a "dark vs. not-dark storytelling" debate. I don't know about you, but playing as a person who has really bad stuff happen to them is way more engaging for me. I'm a sucker for tragedy.
My paladin finds out she was memory-wiped of the horrible sins he committed? Yeah, that's a horrible thing to happen to a paladin. When they try to deal with it in the ways they know how is when she becomes less of an avatar and more of a character. Maybe it only serves to make her faith even stronger. Maybe she just starts drinking heavily and maybe loses her powers. And both of those are something new to explore, because I can't really write that from experience.
I understand that not everyone is like that, and, as always, you gotta know your players before you start having the BBEG eviscerate a character's love interest. It's also worth noting that having nothing bad happen to players like me would just make us bored, but having certain things happen to players may be really, really unpleasant for them, so it's certainly a greater risk. It's not even a matter of sensitivity; I have a friend who doesn't like that but watched This is the End without flinching (while I had to walk out because it was making me physically ill.)
It's not something that most people think about, but if you ask how someone feels about it before you try it. Just saying "how do you feel about tragic things happening to your characters?" should be enough.

As an aside to "overused tropes," I'd like to point out that everything has been done before. (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/ItsBeenDone) That doesn't mean you can't do it well. I mean, we're literally talking about Dungeons & Dragons.

[furby076]

I like some of the ideas I saw (tl;dr it all). The characters can each have something (or a couple):
1. Memories that don't make sense to them
2. Tattooes they don't recognize, or just give them a sense of something...different
3. Nervous ticks, twitches
4. Phobia, without knowing why (typically someone knows why they are scared of fire...as a kid they may have had a sibling die in a fire)
5. Strangers coming up to them "Tom how are you?". "um, my name is Osiris Rex'... "Stop messing around Tom. Man, you always messed around back in the frat days, glad you're the same. Lets go drinking"... "um, who are you?"

Don't lay it on thick or often...do it rarely...the players probably shouldn't figure something is up for at least a boatload of sessions...if you give them the answer after only 2 sessions...then you have lots of wasted effort

[Sigreid]

That's the crux of it.

If the players know ahead of time that it will happen, that takes away a bit of the magic that this style of story provides. There's a certain magic that comes with the discovery of it all that goes away if you're aware it's going to happen ahead of time. Also, it completely removed the option to make it a player's choice to determine if they believe it's happening.

But on the other hand, if a player doesn't know it's happening, it could totally ruin the game for them if they don't like that sort of thing.

It's a fine balance. And one that could only be done if the gm knows the players well enough to know they wouldn't mind it (like maybe ask about it a year ahead of time, and then do it after they've long forgotten the discussion). Also, one should only do this if there's a level of trust between the players and the gm.

What you could do is have a memory come up in a particularly vivid dream. Players who are willing to go with it can, ones like me can have their character ignore it and go on with their life. For one type of player, it's a past memory to be investigated. For another type, it's just a dream. You should be able to tell pretty quickly which way to take it. There's nothing wrong with that if you don't railroad the player.

Edit: I still bristle at the idea of some on the forum that my game piece is the DM's to change at will.

[agnos]

Cool idea.

Players had their memory wiped right. So visiting their home towns might be a real shocker. New houses and streets; old shops and taverns closed; places more dilapidated than expected. Part of it is describing visual change from their memories or them experiencing (in a way) the memories of others.

[BurgerBeast]

OP starts a a post with a simple question.

Solunaris derails and hijacks thread to change the topic the topic to: his objection about DM vs player control. This is disgusting behaviour. And it’s all over this forum.

DBZ tries to be the voice of reason.
Hudsonian says, clearly and politely, that others should stick to the point.

Solunaris will not let it go. Sigreid feels the need to share that the OP would annoy him. MrMcCobb chimes in as well.

Solunaris retracts because it turns out he misread the post. I have news for you, Solunaris: it doesn’t matter if you misread the post. Even if you read what you thought you read, it’s still rude to completely ignore the OP and turn a thread that he started into your editorial on a different subject. Too late. Damage done.

More of Sigreid using this thread to tell us his opinion on the memory-loss trope. What is wrong with you? Take your agenda somewhere else.

Next, Sigreid tells DBZ that DBZ is condescending. How novel. You’ve contributed nothing to this thread, Sigreid, except for your opinions about a different topic. Have some f@#king manners.

Contrast joins in. Segev brings in “extreme” examples to make the point. Yes, these “extreme” examples are objectionable, but here’s the thing about D&D: it’s a social game played with other people.

To the “it’s my PC so he’s all mine” camp: If the DM breaks your trust in such a ridiculous way, then there’s no need to get into a player-rights debate with the DM. You can just walk. (Cue the violins! “I shouldn’t have to walk! The DM violated my rights!” Well, guess what, snowflake? Welcome to reality. People do s@#t. Whining won’t change it. Just leave and play with people you trust. Cue more violins.

Pex joins in with more of his personal feelings.

Sigreid decides to actually commment on the point of the thread. Well, halelujah. Oh wait… nope… he had to add his own editorial as an edit after the fact.

Here’s your player agency: WALK. If you don’t like it, then walk. Nobody cares how you feel about a game that you are not a part of, and neither should you.

Sigreid, how can you not see that the very objection you are making, to being treated unjustly, is exactly what you are taking license to do, in this thread. This isn’t your counselling session. It’s a thread, with a topic. Stick to it. Have some decency.

One thing you could do is build up trust with a particular NPC through the story so that when the reveal arrives, the PCs would seek this NPC out (and you can provide ample opportunity). This NPC can be the evidence for their pasts. Perhaps, depending on his age and/or magical abilities and/or story circumstances, he was even there when it happened.

[Sigreid]

OP starts a a post with a simple question.

Solunaris derails and hijacks thread to change the topic the topic to: his objection about DM vs player control. This is disgusting behaviour. And it’s all over this forum.

DBZ tries to be the voice of reason.
Hudsonian says, clearly and politely, that others should stick to the point.

Solunaris will not let it go. Sigreid feels the need to share that the OP would annoy him. MrMcCobb chimes in as well.

Solunaris retracts because it turns out he misread the post. I have news for you, Solunaris: it doesn’t matter if you misread the post. Even if you read what you thought you read, it’s still rude to completely ignore the OP and turn a thread that he started into your editorial on a different subject. Too late. Damage done.

More of Sigreid using this thread to tell us his opinion on the memory-loss trope. What is wrong with you? Take your agenda somewhere else.

Next, Sigreid tells DBZ that DBZ is condescending. How novel. You’ve contributed nothing to this thread, Sigreid, except for your opinions about a different topic. Have some f@#king manners.

Contrast joins in. Segev brings in “extreme” examples to make the point. Yes, these “extreme” examples are objectionable, but here’s the thing about D&D: it’s a social game played with other people.

To the “it’s my PC so he’s all mine” camp: If the DM breaks your trust in such a ridiculous way, then there’s no need to get into a player-rights debate with the DM. You can just walk. (Cue the violins! “I shouldn’t have to walk! The DM violated my rights!” Well, guess what, snowflake? Welcome to reality. People do s@#t. Whining won’t change it. Just leave and play with people you trust. Cue more violins.

Pex joins in with more of his personal feelings.

Sigreid decides to actually commment on the point of the thread. Well, halelujah. Oh wait… nope… he had to add his own editorial as an edit after the fact.

Here’s your player agency: WALK. If you don’t like it, then walk. Nobody cares how you feel about a game that you are not a part of, and neither should you.

Sigreid, how can you not see that the very objection you are making, to being treated unjustly, is exactly what you are taking license to do, in this thread. This isn’t your counselling session. It’s a thread, with a topic. Stick to it. Have some decency.

One thing you could do is build up trust with a particular NPC through the story so that when the reveal arrives, the PCs would seek this NPC out (and you can provide ample opportunity). This NPC can be the evidence for their pasts. Perhaps, depending on his age and/or magical abilities and/or story circumstances, he was even there when it happened.

Actually, my first comment made a brief expression of concern as to whether this would annoy any given player, and then a suggestion on how I would go about it if I were going to do it. Then the debate started with DBZ about how much the DM should or should not mess with your character in a pretty condescending way. Thanks for playing though.

[The Vanishing Hitchhiker]

If the players know ahead of time that it will happen, that takes away a bit of the magic that this style of story provides. There's a certain magic that comes with the discovery of it all that goes away if you're aware it's going to happen ahead of time. Also, it completely removed the option to make it a player's choice to determine if they believe it's happening.

Personally, I'd be intrigued enough by the premise itself to sign up for it voluntarily. There's still plenty of "magic" to be had in discovering the character's past—how they'll do it, who they were, why they gave up their memories, what they'll do when they find out.

The problem with the element of surprise is that the DM is going to have to disguise the game as something else out of necessity. A player who would enthusiastically participate in an amnesia plot might pass on the alibi scenario because they don't like the premise as much, or they've recently played in a similar setting and want to do something different, or whatever. Likewise, some of the players who are enthusiastic about the cover story might not like amnesia plots at all for similar reasons.

And when the reveal happens? Well, someone who might have liked the premise otherwise might already be attached to their current character concept. Someone else might end up intrigued by a game with a more mysterious, psychological plotline than they'd anticipated—too bad finals are coming up. Half the party might want to dig deeper into their pasts, the other half might want to embrace their new adventures... would it be worse if they took out their conflict on the DM, or each other? Session Zero didn't apply to the whole picture, so a group could suddenly struggle with coming to an agreement on how to handle the present scenario.

There's just so many things that could go wrong. I say let people know what they're getting into up front and you'll all tell a better story for it.

[Randomthom]

How about having them wander into a town where they are revered as heroes for something they don't remember doing. There could be statues of them in the town square or something. That could lead them to investigating the archives or talking to eye witnesses, etc...

Have you been reading my signature? :P

[Contrast]

But, hear me out here, maybe the DM doesn't want his players to randomly walk out of his game and we're hoping to make make sure he avoids that happening? :smalltongue:

[rollingForInit]

The truth of the matter is that this scenario is a great thing for character development. The only reason that certain players hate it so much is because they didn't create a person with history and flaws and a desire to experience the world and create a meaningful development. Instead they created a character "build" with a story in their heads about exactly what happened and exactly what they want to happen in the future, and all of their "development" has already occurred before the first session has even been played.


No. The most likely reason that I see for this blowing up in the DM's face (from personal experience with similar events), is that the players have carefully crafted characters with background stories, connections, motivations, and so on, and then the DM comes and says that all that is false and their characters are really different characters. I'd never dare do anything like that with my group, because people invest too much in crafting their characters and personalities for that to be any sort of fun surprise. Meanwhile, we're all very much open to things happening along the road, like characters dying, their friends and families dying, connections to other characters changing, unexpected turns of events, even alignments changing from what players originally thought would happen. But the sense of a character's identity is very important, and the DM just going deus ex machina and changing that identity can be pretty bad for a lot of players. That's very different from a character's identity changing organically while you play. And even with organic growth there's of course things a DM might not do. If a character has a relation with an NPC that promotes a lot of fun role-playing or motivations for the character, just killing that NPC to "make the character grow" would probably be a bad idea in most situations. DM's gotta know what their players are fine with changing and what won't be fine.

I'm not saying that a scenario like this is necessarily a bad idea, but you have to be very sure the players are going to like it, otherwise you might end up with a lot of disappointment, which is bad for the players and really bad for the DM.

The best idea would probably be to give the players a heads up that something like this is going to happen. It doesn't have to have all the details, there can still be lots of secrets around it, like how it happened, but it means the players can create characters where they don't mind it happening. And most importantly, they can play with the correct expectations about their characters. They know that the game is going to about.

What's the idea what's supposed to be fun? The actual reveal (and let's face it, truly dramatic reveals are more difficult to pull off than we often imagine), or the role-playing that comes after? If the role-playing is supposed to be what's fun, it's better to have the players prepared. A bit like player secrets; they're more fun to play around if they're out there, and are only secret in-character.

[Segev]

You say that like it's a bad thing. :smallbiggrin:
What you just described is a whole lot like what goes on with werewolves -- the traditional werewolves of folk tales. What happened to them vis a vis lycanthropy was the for short periods of time, full moon, they were taken over by this 'other' and they'd wake up without knowing what they'd done. It's a classic trope, a curse. It's a curse that you have to find a way to overcome. Is a "pushbutton cure disease casting" really the way to overcome the curse? Note two key points:

1) The werewolfism is a curse. It would be weird to have it afflict you before the game starts without your knowledge, but regardless, it's a curse. How you react to that as a player is going to vary, but think of any other curse you might start the game under; how would you react to the DM springing that on you? (There is no expected answer here; it will vary by person.)

2) The curse taking over is essentially a new being controlling your body. This is a vast difference from the DM telling you that your character is the sort of person who did that willingly and with relish. (Possibly pickle relish on the babies, even.) One reveals something your character didn't know, and might be horrified by. The other changes who your character is as a person.


I see the reveal of the true past more of a Total Recall moment. Do they choose to become who they were? Or remain this new persona, even if some of the memories are fake. The personality is still them. Yes, this plot isn't for everyone, but the players can easily veto playing it and that's it. to me, it sounds fun and I would love to give it a go.
Total Recall works, in part, because the life the protagonist discovers was a lie was less than wholly satisfying to him, and didn't really have a lot of bearing on his integration into the plot.

Imagine if, instead, he'd gone on his quest because he believed his wife had been kidnapped, or his kids needed a cure for a disease that was only available in the illegal trade on Mars. Or if he'd started adventuring to make the world a safer place for his daughter to grow up in.

Learning that his very motivation is a lie... that undermines the concept.




The "examine it for myself" perspective I keep taking is asking, "If I were to get into a D&D game and finally, finally get to play Segev the Necromancer as a PC, how would I feel about this reveal about Segev?"

Segev Stormlord is so named because his parents were a weather wizard and a druid, and they earned the patronymic together. He's a necromancer, and has a cold and calculating personality. His family life was as happy as the next human's, growing up, with a younger brother and a younger sister. If pressed, he'll admit he cares about his family, but he's evil enough that he probably would sacrifice them before letting them be used against him. (He likely would take nasty revenge for trying to manipulate him that way, though.)

Learning that his past was one of service to a King's spy agency with a memory gambit put into place would...be incredibly dissatisfying. The fact that his cold nature and evil disregard for others' rights (except insofar as enlightened self-interest suggests he should take care not to offend them) is not based on any sort of childhood trauma is an important point to me. His backstory isn't integral to the character, in general, but I have a hard time accepting a memory-altered replacement past as something that would be aught but character-ruining, despite this.


But, like I said, I have other PCs where this wouldn't be a problem at all. Which is why I merely advise caution.