Is my DM being too restrictive?

[Waifu Collector]

So my a friend of mine decided to run a campaign, and it’s actually going pretty well so far. I just have one concern. He said he doesn’t want influence on his world from character backstories, due to the fact it’s “his story.” For example, he likes two other character’s stories (our wizard and barbarian) because of how simplistic and because they don’t have much of an impact. On the other hand, I just do what I’ve always done, establish some things in the world because DMs appreciate having to do less work. However, while he didn’t directly say it, it’s obvious he disapproved of it. This has me worrying that the campaign will be far too stilted and “railroady” as they say.

Should I be concerned? Is he being too strict? Should I talk to him about it?

[LtPowers]

Maybe. Maybe. Yes.

Some DMs are very attached to the specifics they've laid out for their world, but that doesn't necessarily mean they'll railroad the players when game time comes. Maybe he's happy to let you affect the world through play, but he had a reason not to put your character's small village in that spot.


Powers &8^]

[ad_hoc]

Well the phrase 'his story' is troublesome. D&D is not one person telling a story to a group. It is a collaborative effort. The PCs should definitely be able to have an effect on the game.

That doesn't mean that they have an effect on the world beforehand. I think a paragraph is the max a backstory should be. 1 to 2 lines is all you need. Your background covers all the important bits.

So it seems to me that you may be doing the same thing your DM might be doing. Trying to tell a story to the group. You are not the protagonist. You are part of an ensemble creating a story together.

[Particle_Man]

Talk to the dm and see if you can find out enough about his setting that you can build a character backstory that both matches it and satisfies you.

[LtPowers]

Trying to tell a story to the group.

"Backstory" is called a "story" for a reason. A detailed one gives the DM multiple hooks to use which immerses the character into the larger narrative.


Powers &8^]

[Jophiel]

Honestly hard to say without knowing the story. If you say "I came from a halfling village called Clearstreams" and he's upset that you made up a village and named it, then that's fairly unreasonable. If you say "I'm on the run after assassinating the Crown Prince and throwing the kingdom into chaos, allowing orcs to invade and capture several major cities" then he's reasonable to object to you unilaterally writing something that significant about the game world.

I assume it's somewhere in the middle so it's hard to answer.

[DeTess]

I don't think he's necessarily too restrictive by just not wanting a detailed backstory. I know some DM's appreciate it, but I know others dislike what they see as someone trying to 'force' details into their setting for their own gain. As long as he isn't being railroady with regards to your actions in the game, I don't see any issue.

I would have a chat with him out of the game, if you think there's some bad vibes between the two of you that need clearing up, but otherwise I'd just let it go.

[Keravath]

I'd suggest talking to the DM, describe what you have in mind for your backstory and ask where it would fit into his world and if you need to make any changes. Also, try to avoid incorporating world shaking events as part of your backstory or establishing your character as part of the existing power structure or making your character a descendant or relation of someone famous or significant. These types of backgrounds will often NOT fit in to any particular world. On the other hand, you can create backstories that are a bit more mundane though still perhaps extreme for the character but which could potentially happen in any setting.

Things to avoid without prior DM approval:
- widespread natural disaster that impacts your formative years (tidal wave, earthquake, massive volcano) etc
- widespread warfare or political conflict between nations that somehow directly impacts your character (for all you know the world the character grew up in didn't even HAVE any large scale governance ... or the DM hasn't decided that yet)
- Making your character prominent nobility (prince/duke/first son) who will inherit and have wealth and responsibilities
- making your character a significant heir to anything
- making your parents particularly significant or meaningful in anything more than a generic way (captain of the guard is fine, first commanding general of the Nation of Gond ... would not)

There are tons more. Basically, the more dramatic, impactful and larger scale you make your backstory ... the less likely it is to be able to fit seamlessly into the world created by a DM.

Some easier to incorporate ones:
- 3rd son of a minor noble or local ruler
- any mundane family - parents are trades people - innkeeper, blacksmith, farmers, carpenter etc ... lots of potential background stories that fit into any world
- some typical catastrophic events could include ... sacked village (choose a general tribe/faction from DM setting) ... local sickness or plague that affected your village growing up ... bandits ... basically any relatively common kind of situation that might fit into any world.

A complex background with world and story implications does NOT usually help the DM since it may or may not fit into their world and honestly the DM may not want to tie any of the story elements to the character background because, how often would you expect that to happen? :)

The characters have found themselves involved in a story in the world ... they make their choices and the story evolves ... but that story probably does not have anything to do with any of the character backgrounds and although it can occasionally be cool to tie back a story element to character background ... there is no need to do so and an overly developed character background may just be wasted as a storyline element beyond how it influences the decisions your character would make in the context of events happening in the game.

[TheFryingPen]

Talk to the dm and see if you can find out enough about his setting that you can build a character backstory that both matches it and satisfies you.

This, basically. In my opinion, the DM is the "lead designer" of the world you play in and the players are contributors. They don't just get to freely modify large chunks of it without the DM's approval. But a DM not allowing players to add any of their ideas wastes potential and is going to frustrate the players (unless you all agree to go with a pre-made or purely DM driven railroad campaign). Ideally you confer with your DM while creating the main plot points of your backstory.

And as always, the dose makes the poison. E.g. I wouldn't mind anyone making up a small village where something insignificant (for the greater context of the world, it can be very important for the PC) happened. But if a player came to the first session with a backstory like "Fleeing from the huge and powerful northern kingdom [which doesn't exist in the DM's world] that threatens all of DMland [the land created by the DM] Playus Characterus carries important information that might be the key to the nation's survival ... " I'd surely argue against that, were I player or DM. I'd suggest to that player to rewrite the backstory and start by asking the DM if there maybe was or could be a far away foreign land the PC might have come from.

[Keravath]

Also, keep in mind that the real purpose of the character background is to outline events that contributed to how the character sees the world around them and how it will affect their decisions as they encounter new situations in the game world. Ideally, it is a bit of a roadmap to how the character became who they are today and as such provides a basis for the player to make roleplaying decisions.

A background a player creates should NEVER be expected to become a storyline element in the DMs world. It doesn't work that way. A DM may decide to tie a character background into the storyline if they like and if it fits somehow. Occasionally, the DM and players will work together creating backgrounds that are intended to be part of the storyline. However, that is never the primary purpose of the background ... the background is basically a set of events that contributed to the formation of the character and these events may or may not become significant in the DMs world, completely at the DMs discretion.

A DM preferring that the player not produce an incredibly detailed background is not an immediate concern ... it just indicates that the DM thinks of the backgrounds as player character definition tools and not storyline elements which is perfectly ok.

[CantigThimble]

Worst Case Scenario: By 'His Story' he means that he will railroad you into oblivion and doesn't want any player input into how things play out. Backstories are just the first of many ways he will block you from changing things.

Best Case Scenario: He doesn't want to deal with pushy players or players trying to 'get' him by making up stuff to ut intheir backstories that they can use to break things, but will open up to the players once he's more comfortable with the group.

Or it could be many other things in-between those two. As we're third party spectators, trust your judgement over ours. You know this guy, we don't.

[Ronnocius]

So my a friend of mine decided to run a campaign, and it’s actually going pretty well so far. I just have one concern. He said he doesn’t want influence on his world from character backstories, due to the fact it’s “his story.” For example, he likes two other character’s stories (our wizard and barbarian) because of how simplistic and because they don’t have much of an impact. On the other hand, I just do what I’ve always done, establish some things in the world because DMs appreciate having to do less work. However, while he didn’t directly say it, it’s obvious he disapproved of it. This has me worrying that the campaign will be far too stilted and “railroady” as they say.

Should I be concerned? Is he being too strict? Should I talk to him about it?

Honestly while the phrase 'his story' isn't the best thing to say sometimes people use the wrong words, so I wouldn't consider that troubling just yet.

As for the backstory, it is (in my humble opinion) 100% fair for a Dungeon Master to say 'I don't want character backstories influencing my game'. Often times I find that players with very intricate backstories spend too much time focusing on their backstories and failing to become engaged in what is happening right now in the campaign. The main point I see is when you say you have established things in the world. Sometimes this is alright, but as a general rule your backstory should fit into his game world and he shouldn't have to change his world to accommodate your backstory. For example, creating minor NPCs is fine but creating a major city or kingdom in your backstory is definitely crossing the line. I cannot remember who posted it, but someone had a 'Batman example' for backstories that I thought was quite good as a guideline.

Anyways, I wouldn't worry about it until the campaign itself begins. Also in regards to railroading in general, in my game I did not railroad and the players decided to go off the rails. This led to a much less fun experience for me and other players as well (I was even accused of railroading at some point). So basically don't be one of those players who ditches the quest just for the sake of wasting the DM's prep time (not saying you are or anything but it is something I have seen a lot).

EDIT: It seems the campaign has already begun, I must have misread. In that case it should be easy to tell if it is heading towards railroading.

[some guy]

So my a friend of mine decided to run a campaign, and it’s actually going pretty well so far.
Ultimately, this is what matters.

It sounds like you and your dm have different expectations of what a player brings in the game world before the game begins. Both your and the dm's views are valid. This disconnect could have been avoided by the dm setting expectations and you asking if you could bring in new lore via your backstory.

The game certainly doesn't have to become stilted or railroady because of this (it might as well become stilted or railroady in a game in which the dm takes lots of stuff from backstory). A dm can railroad you into certain situations that might be connected to your backstory, but they might railroad you into unconnected situations.

Other posters gave good tips, but as long as you are enjoying the game don't worry. If it becomes a problem, talk to him.

[JNAProductions]

Talk to the DM. Have an honest and mature discussion-don't accuse the DM or blame them or anything, just explain that you could be having more fun, and work together to achieve that.

[Tanarii]

He said he doesn’t want influence on his world from character backstories, due to the fact it’s “his story.”
You should be very concerned. Not because of the backstory issue, but because he used the phrase "his story".

[JNAProductions]

You should be very concerned. Not because of the backstory issue, but because he used the phrase "his story".

I'll echo the poster who said that people don't always use the right words.

It's a warning sign, but if it was just a misstatement, whatever. If it's clear that he really and truly MEANT that, though... That's usually gonna be problematic.

[BW022]

Should I be concerned? Is he being too strict? Should I talk to him about it?

No. If you need to.

It's good that he is thinking about plot, backgrounds, and how a character might effect it. Many a DM have had an issue creating a wonderful campaign, settings, or plotline involving a distant land... only to have a player show up whose backstory is they are the son of a powerful noble from that land. That can completely change the story, give that player massive advantages, make plots/encounters meaningless, have that player hog table time or make others less able to contribute, etc.

Personally, I'm a fan of generic backgrounds -- but they are easier to manage. Even if there is something unusual about your PC, you typically want it small scale such that it doesn't affect the campaign.

My advice is to ask your DM for help in crafting your background. Tell them in vague terms what you are looking for. If you want to be a exhiled noble, then ask for his help in selecting which house you are from, where your parents are, etc. and he can ensure it isn't going to be a problem.

[Sigreid]

It could be as simple as I the way I feel about backstories. I don't want to read your back story. I don't want to weave it into the campaign. I want to know where you live, did you come from another land, why are you willing to go on a life endangering adventure. And I don't really care about any of that. What matters is what does your character want from here?

I know there are DMs who love a good backstory and use them extensively. Some of us just don't. What you want to watch out for is the whole all roads lead to only one conclusion thing.

[Pelle]

On the other hand, I just do what I’ve always done, establish some things in the world because DMs appreciate having to do less work.

What do you mean by establishing things in the world, big things like nations, organizations and communities, or just small things like family members and friends? For the former, I think it depends on how much time the GM has invested in the world and how much free space there is left.

[EggKookoo]

I'll echo the poster who said that people don't always use the right words.

It's a warning sign, but if it was just a misstatement, whatever. If it's clear that he really and truly MEANT that, though... That's usually gonna be problematic.

He might have meant his setting, which is a different issue.

As a DM, I set the setting (after getting at least tacit approval from my players so I know they're interested in playing in it). The story is what emerges from playing.

[Keravath]

You should be very concerned. Not because of the backstory issue, but because he used the phrase "his story".

Really? I don’t think I know of a single DM who doesn’t consider their setting to be their world. Their world also contains a potentially immense number of stories all happening at the same time. The actions the players choose to take interact with and affect the stories presented by the DM which are set in his world and could very easily be referred to as “his story”.

The question is whether the player actions will affect the storyline and to what extent .. the comments in the original post give no indication one way or another except the OP says it is going well so far.

Finally, if you consider the players as interacting with a world presented by the DM then it is quite possible for PCs to decide which of the many stories in the world to interact with. If the DM creates a world with only one story then it is a limitation of the DMs world building that a campaign could go “off the rails” .. in a dynamic world .. the PCs choose where to go and a campaign can by definition never go “off the rails”.

[Mad_Saulot]

What is your character backstory compared to your DMs vision of the setting? Which setting is it?

[SirGraystone]

Restricting background story, and restricting how the player choice affect the campaign as you play are two different beast. Without knowing more about your backstory and the DM setting for the campaign it's hard to really see who's right.

[Urukubarr]

yeah would have to know about your story and theirs.

some people like very basic little backgrounds that don't really grant anything but a start point. others create huge backstories in the hopes of getting bonuses because "my characters dad is the king of the country" its best to explain as the GM what players can and cannot do and WHY! some people can get away with certain backstories if the GM knows the player wont abuse it.

I find character creation to be a slightly collaborative effort, in my homebrew world I have the rule of *you can create a small village, around 50-100 people, along with some relatively small events if needed, and if tragedy or events of significance do happen they should be from the CHARACTERS POINT OF VIEW and be not very specific* we kind of come up with it together, it helps me grow my world, and they get a very good idea of their starting point as well.

what I mean from character pov is if your character was away then came back to find the village destroyed. they should not know the exact group that did it, the exact people that took part in it, and the exact reason why. let the GM come up with and slip that in, maybe you find a partial ledger in a merc camp talking about various villages they raided as part of a contract and the characters was on the list. . .interesting, this is quite the hook, could be interesting, maybe the character will pursue this further.

but yeah, like I said, need more data.

[Maelynn]

I just do what I’ve always done, establish some things in the world because DMs appreciate having to do less work.

This is quite a generalisation, one which I suspect your DM might not adhere to. It sounds like he created the setting himself, put some work into it and is proud of that, and doesn't seem to appreciate players changing and adding things to his creation just because of their backstory. It might feel as if you're taking his creation from him, depending of course on how intrusive your backstory is to his setting.

I seriously doubt that him being a bit protective over his creation means that he will be the railroading type of DM. YMMV, of course, but I think it's too hasty a conclusion.

I'll chime in with the suggestion to ask your DM what bits of your backstory he doesn't like and how you can change it to fit better in his setting. If it still matters at this point, that is.

[Tanarii]

He might have meant his setting, which is a different issue.

As a DM, I set the setting (after getting at least tacit approval from my players so I know they're interested in playing in it). The story is what emerges from playing.
Agreed that setting is fine. A DM saying "it's my setting" or "its my campaign" is being a little bit controlling, but generally it's nothing but the truth, unless they're either running a published campaign or they're intentionally part of some kind of collectively run campaign with multiple DMs.

But any DM or player who uses the term "story" is already raising red flags. Although "collective storytelling" and "backstory" have become such common parlance for "playing a game together" and "history of my character" that they may get a pass. Even so it's worth keeping an eye on such people. It entirely possible they may think roleplaying is about storytelling.

But "it's my story" from a DM goes way beyond a simple red flag.

[Sigreid]

Agreed that setting is fine. A DM saying "it's my setting" or "its my campaign" is being a little bit controlling, but generally it's nothing but the truth, unless they're either running a published campaign or they're intentionally part of some kind of collectively run campaign with multiple DMs.

But any DM or player who uses the term "story" is already raising red flags. Although "collective storytelling" and "backstory" have become such common parlance for "playing a game together" and "history of my character" that they may get a pass. Even so it's worth keeping an eye on such people. It entirely possible they may think roleplaying is about storytelling.

But "it's my story" from a DM goes way beyond a simple red flag.

In my experience the most difficult people to deal with as players or DMs are the ones who fancy themselves as writers because they often aren't running or playing a game so much as getting an audience for their novels.

[Tanarii]

In my experience the most difficult people to deal with as players or DMs are the ones who fancy themselves as writers because they often aren't running or playing a game so much as getting an audience for their novels.
I won't go as far as "most difficult" when it comes to players, but it's close when it comes to DMs. Or RPG designers that drop in their RPG introduction that RPGs are about telling stories. I'm always surprised when they manage to turn out a working product, typically by completely ignoring what they wrote in the intro.

5e would be a good example of that.

[Waifu Collector]

Restricting background story, and restricting how the player choice affect the campaign as you play are two different beast. Without knowing more about your backstory and the DM setting for the campaign it's hard to really see who's right.

To summarize the setting: An enigmatic organization named “Truth” has begun a worldwide blitzkrieg, destroying everything in their path that doesn’t surrender, or that isn’t useful to them. My backstory relating to this was a low ranking member of a knightly order (inspired by the Knight of the Order background). Basically when Truth invaded her homeland, the entire order was wiped out, with her father mysteriously going missing right before. I may have gone overboard with making a nation she’s from, but I think my DM and I should’ve worked together to establish where I’m from, as opposed to me taking my own liberties. However, my DM generally is poor at communicating with us, or at least he was until recently.

Let us compare my backstory to two others, which my DM has gone on record saying that these are his favorites.

Our Barbarian: A member of a Goliath tribe, settled in the mountains to the east. Due to the fact they were considered a significant threat to Truth, the goliaths alongside the dwarves, were genocided almost in their entirety.
Our Wizard: Went to a wizard school and wants to avenge her dead parents.

[EggKookoo]

I won't go as far as "most difficult" when it comes to players, but it's close when it comes to DMs. Or RPG designers that drop in their RPG introduction that RPGs are about telling stories. I'm always surprised when they manage to turn out a working product, typically by completely ignoring what they wrote in the intro.

5e would be a good example of that.

D&D (5e included) is absolutely about telling stories. You just don't know what you're telling until you tell it (you might think you do but it's an illusion).

[Gryndle]

not really enough info to say if the OP's DM is being too restrictive or not. how much of a backstory was given?

some players only give a couple of sentences that are thinly disguised "this is why I am a murder hobo", to the other extreme of players that think a backstory is an opportunity to enter an amateur short story contest, or worse think their stories should define the scope of the campaign.

For me as a DM, I like something in the middle from my players...a paragraph or two that tells me where you are from and why/you became whatever you are at 1st level, and what you care about.

And then DM quality too....some are too controlling, others aren't. Where your DM falls on that spectrum dictates how much backstory is too much or too little.

as a side note and small confession....I am almost always the DM for my group, and get burned out. Last Friday we just finished one campaign that ran from 1st to 16th level. Now we are starting the Dragon Heist campaign going into Dungeon of the Mad mage, ran by one of the other guys. We have known this was the plan since those two books were announced, and I have been really excited about the prospect of just being a player again. My character concept has been developing and evolving since then, but only in the past two weeks has the group started discussing characters and backstories.

I realized that the backstory I had pieced together had grown to three or four pages, which I think is too much. So I boiled it down to a few key bullet points, until finally decided that I was basically going to play an NPC scout from my now finished campaign that had been expected to die on several occasions but through crazy die rolls and occasional PC intervention kept surviving.
but for campaign purposes it distilled down to- "he was a kid from Waterdeep that volunteered to fight in someone else's war because he believed in the cause. Now that the war is over he has returned home, more mature and a little jaded."

[KorvinStarmast]

To summarize the setting: An enigmatic organization named “Truth” has begun a worldwide blitzkrieg, destroying everything in their path that doesn’t surrender, or that isn’t useful to them. My backstory relating to this was a low ranking member of a knightly order (inspired by the Knight of the Order background). Basically when Truth invaded her homeland, the entire order was wiped out, with her father mysteriously going missing right before. I may have gone overboard with making a nation she’s from, but I think my DM and I should’ve worked together to establish where I’m from, as opposed to me taking my own liberties. However, my DM generally is poor at communicating with us, or at least he was until recently. You can still work together. You need to talk to your DM and have a conversation where you both come to a consensus on how your back story fits into the DM's setting. It's not too late to do that; DM's always have the power of retcon.
What you don't do is ask him to accept the advice of stranger he's never met on the internet.
Do that person to person dialogue thing together: I predict a win - win if you present the desire to make it fit better into the DM's setting in good faith.

Best wishes on a fun campaign.

[Tanarii]

some players only give a couple of sentences that are thinly disguised "this is why I am a murder hobo",
These are my favorite players. Name, Alignment, and 4 single sentences for the motivations of Personality, Ideal, Bond, Flaw is perfect. At least in terms of my being confident they've sufficient invested in their character.

Backstory never counts as sufficient investment in the character. They're a terrible way to create, enumerate, and communicate explicit character motivations.


D&D (5e included) is absolutely about telling stories. You just don't know what you're telling until you tell it (you might think you do but it's an illusion).
No. I am not telling stories. And don't you dare try to tell me I am.

[Mad_Saulot]

To summarize the setting: An enigmatic organization named “Truth” has begun a worldwide blitzkrieg, destroying everything in their path that doesn’t surrender, or that isn’t useful to them. My backstory relating to this was a low ranking member of a knightly order (inspired by the Knight of the Order background). Basically when Truth invaded her homeland, the entire order was wiped out, with her father mysteriously going missing right before. I may have gone overboard with making a nation she’s from, but I think my DM and I should’ve worked together to establish where I’m from, as opposed to me taking my own liberties. However, my DM generally is poor at communicating with us, or at least he was until recently.

Let us compare my backstory to two others, which my DM has gone on record saying that these are his favorites.

Our Barbarian: A member of a Goliath tribe, settled in the mountains to the east. Due to the fact they were considered a significant threat to Truth, the goliaths alongside the dwarves, were genocided almost in their entirety.
Our Wizard: Went to a wizard school and wants to avenge her dead parents.

Your backstory sounds fine to me, except the bit about creating your own nation, that would only be reasonable if the DM specifically said that he hadnt done much work on the geography of the world and needed help creating places.

I'm starting a game in an established setting (Faerun) so there is no scope for one of my players creating their own nation.

Although having said that if they were reasonable about it, say they come from a nation thats way off the established map then i might go along with it, take him aside and flesh out the specific details of said nation to help define his character and possibly to visit one day.

[Keravath]

To summarize the setting: An enigmatic organization named “Truth” has begun a worldwide blitzkrieg, destroying everything in their path that doesn’t surrender, or that isn’t useful to them. My backstory relating to this was a low ranking member of a knightly order (inspired by the Knight of the Order background). Basically when Truth invaded her homeland, the entire order was wiped out, with her father mysteriously going missing right before. I may have gone overboard with making a nation she’s from, but I think my DM and I should’ve worked together to establish where I’m from, as opposed to me taking my own liberties. However, my DM generally is poor at communicating with us, or at least he was until recently.

Let us compare my backstory to two others, which my DM has gone on record saying that these are his favorites.

Our Barbarian: A member of a Goliath tribe, settled in the mountains to the east. Due to the fact they were considered a significant threat to Truth, the goliaths alongside the dwarves, were genocided almost in their entirety.
Our Wizard: Went to a wizard school and wants to avenge her dead parents.

There are several possible issues about your backstory that might or might not be a problem depending on the DM.

- you create a knightly order - do knightly orders even exist in this world? Especially when based on a particular order that introduces a large number of people with certain beliefs.

- her homeland was invaded and you admit that you took some "liberties" in creating her homeland and other elements which may not even have a place in the world the DM has created.

- you have a father that has gone "mysteriously missing". Mysterious to who? Your character would think they are missing ... possibly presumed dead. The ONLY person for whom it could be "mysterious" is the DM. Inserting something like this is ASKING the DM to deal with the explicit storyline hook that you have put into your character background. If you had said "father is missing and presumed dead" then the DM can use it or ignore it. However, describing it as mysterious is as good as a request to the DM to explain the mystery .. which probably has absolutely no bearing on the world or storyline he has created. Players should not have any expectation that the DM would "solve" events in their backstory or even incorporate any content remotely related to a character backstory. Sometimes it happens and can be fun but the players should never expect it.

- The “Truth” has begun a worldwide blitzkrieg destroying everything in their path that doesn’t surrender, or that isn’t useful to them.

Do you know how big the world is? Do you know how extensive this organization is? In D&D, travel times are typically slow and communications over long distances can be difficult. The DM has told you that the organization is "worldwide" but this could be based on local experience. Perhaps the organization is only currently affecting 1/4 of the continent. However, your backstory created a whole nation invaded by this organization ... the DM can't say "Well that doesn't work since the organization isn't really worldwide ... just from the nation next door ... but it FEELS worldwide to you". The fact that the organization seems like an invading juggernaut is just how your characters currently see things. If the DM tells you why your backstory doesn't work and that breaks the storyline then you lose surprise and immersion. By creating an extensive background you may well have created content that can't exist in the world and storyline as currently written but the DM can't tell you that without spoiling the story.

Now lets look at the acceptable backgrounds.
1) Barbarian. Local background affected by the current situation. Works fine since the proximity of the village is consistent with character understanding of the current situation. The background does not create any nations/political organizations or mysterious storyline hooks. The DM is free to incorporate those if he likes ... other survivors etc but there is no requirement.
2) Wizard. Away at wizard school when her parents are killed and wants revenge. Simple and again totally consistent with the local storyline that has been explained to the players. DM can incorporate other members from the school or people from the wizard's home village if they wish at their discretion.

Do you see the difference between your large scale, overly detailed backstory that may not be consistent with the actual game world which the DM can't tell you about without spoiling things compared to the local backgrounds of the two other characters that can be easily worked into the world and existing storyline?

Chatting to the DM to figure out what to use as a background would be a good start. However, a background like the following might fit

- character comes from a small town in the "south". Outside the town was a small keep that was home to an order of fighters of various types with a common belief in helping others. The "truth" targeted this organization when they attacked the town since they knew they would oppose them and it was the strongest organization in the area. During the fighting, your father disappeared and is presumed dead. You escaped somehow.

This background has most of the same character development elements as you described above while avoiding the world building elements that may not fit into the DMs game world.

[LaserFace]

I feel like chopping up the things I see is the best way to address your concerns.


So my a friend of mine decided to run a campaign, and it’s actually going pretty well so far. I just have one concern. He said he doesn’t want influence on his world from character backstories,

This is something that varies by personal taste. I just ran a session zero last night, and I gave a very vague idea of what the world is like, inviting players to help shape the setting. I like when players help build it, because I frequently think they have cool ideas and as a group we can make something cooler than any of us would individually.

But, maybe a DM can be wary of a player trying to have too much control. If a player came to me with a 5 page backstory that also delves into historical politics of an entire kingdom, having such humongous ramifications that it actually restricts my own ability to work, I'm gonna maybe have a problem delivering what I think are good sessions. I'd certainly be trying to compromise with them, to let them play the character they want to play, without having too much sway over the development of the world.


due to the fact it’s “his story.”

Okay, your DM is awful and you should probably bail.



For example, he likes two other character’s stories (our wizard and barbarian) because of how simplistic and because they don’t have much of an impact. On the other hand, I just do what I’ve always done, establish some things in the world because DMs appreciate having to do less work. However, while he didn’t directly say it, it’s obvious he disapproved of it. This has me worrying that the campaign will be far too stilted and “railroady” as they say.

Should I be concerned? Is he being too strict? Should I talk to him about it?

Communication is always good.

[EggKookoo]

No. I am not telling stories. And don't you dare try to tell me I am.

On the off chance you're not being facetious...

DM: The goblin staggers toward you, rare fury and determination on its face. It raises its axe, swings [rolls 4]... and the injuries you dealt it were just too much. It stumbles and misses you.
Player: I return the blow. [rolls 20] Crit! I do [2d8 + 2] 14 points!
DM: The goblin collapses at your feet, dead. The hand that's not holding its axe relaxes, and a dull gray key clatters to the stone floor.
Player: I grab it. Is this the key to the rusted chest we saw?
DM: Perhaps... perhaps not. Do you go try to find out?

That's a story. Just one that was written as it was told.

[LaserFace]

On the off chance you're not being facetious...

DM: The goblin staggers toward you, rare fury and determination on its face. It raises its axe, swings [rolls 4]... and the injuries you dealt it were just too much. It stumbles and misses you.
Player: I return the blow. [rolls 20] Crit! I do [2d8 + 2] 14 points!
DM: The goblin collapses at your feet, dead. The hand that's not holding its axe relaxes, and a dull gray key clatters to the stone floor.
Player: I grab it. Is this the key to the rusted chest we saw?
DM: Perhaps... perhaps not. Do you go try to find out?

That's a story. Just one that was written as it was told.

I think that's a very liberal interpretation of the word story, given that there is a preponderance of inexperienced DMs who have treated the game like a verbal novel. I could probably spend the entire day digging up examples of people complaining about DMPCs, unkillable villains, plot contrivances that undermine player decisions, and so forth, all of which done for the sake of "story".

Given this sort of context, I don't find it strange to an experienced DM to be repulsed by the idea of "telling a story". Personally, I like to consider myself a referee, a world-builder, a personality-crafter, a lore-writer, a situation-maker, and a lot more things, but ultimately I feel like the "story" requires player decisions and dice rolls. I set rules of how the world behaves through observable NPC actions, dynamics of the environment, etc, but I don't think it's a story until players provide input. So, I don't really tell a story, so much as help to facilitate one.

[DrowPiratRobrts]

As others have said, it depends on if your DM uses “story” to mean what has already happened in the world or what will soon happen to the party.

The latter is railroading and should be discussed/negotiated with everyone in the game getting a say on how much they want or don’t want that sort of game, including the DM.

The former is nothing to be worried about on its face, especially if it’s a world the DM created. Players get to decide who their character is, but they can’t always expect to decide anything they want about their past. Likewise players don’t get to decide if anything from their backstory makes it into the campaign as a plot hook. You can request that from your DM, but the DM is ultimately the one who decides what hooks to offer the players and what situations to put them in. Just like the players have full authority to choose to pass those hooks by in search of something more interesting.

[EggKookoo]

I think that's a very liberal interpretation of the word story, given that there is a preponderance of inexperienced DMs who have treated the game like a verbal novel. I could probably spend the entire day digging up examples of people complaining about DMPCs, unkillable villains, plot contrivances that undermine player decisions, and so forth, all of which done for the sake of "story".

"Story" doesn't imply or require it to be good. There are far, far more bad stories out there than good ones, but they're all still stories.

A story, in its loosest definition, it really just a causal sequence of events. Properly speaking, a story just needs three things: a setup, a conflict, and a resolution, some or most of which can be implied. Certain storytelling formats -- such as narrative ones like novels, movies, etc. -- also have other features that, while strictly speaking aren't requirements, are often used as the makings of a good story. Foreshadowing, overlapping threads, theme, arcs (plot- and character-wise), denouement, resonance, and so on.

Other forms of storytelling don't need that. Most standup comedy is storytelling. It's very stripped down most of the time (unless you're doing one of Bill Cosby's old routines from before be became a cultural villain) but it's storytelling nonetheless. Song lyrics are often this kind of simplified storytelling. Newspaper comic strips are another example. TTRPGs are usually a little more fleshed out than standup comedy or song lyrics, but not so much as a typical novel. They lack the ability to do proper foreshadowing (it can be done but only incidentally) and there are a lot of narrative features that just don't work with a cooperative multiplayer game.


Given this sort of context, I don't find it strange to an experienced DM to be repulsed by the idea of "telling a story". Personally, I like to consider myself a referee, a world-builder, a personality-crafter, a lore-writer, a situation-maker, and a lot more things, but ultimately I feel like the "story" requires player decisions and dice rolls. I set rules of how the world behaves through observable NPC actions, dynamics of the environment, etc, but I don't think it's a story until players provide input. So, I don't really tell a story, so much as help to facilitate one.

It also isn't required of a story that it have a single author. Collaborative stories exist in all kinds of forms. Improv acting (which shares a lot with TTRPGs) is a form of make-it-up-as-you-go group storytelling. Hell, even a party (I mean a literal party, with drinking, music, socialization, etc.) is a very loose form of storytelling, although the conflict is usually (hopefully) pretty mild and abstract. OH NOT YOU RAN OUT OF MARTINI OLIVES! And the resolution is anti-climactic. But ask anyone afterward about that really great party they went to and get ready to hear a story.

[GlenSmash!]

On the off chance you're not being facetious...

DM: The goblin staggers toward you, rare fury and determination on its face. It raises its axe, swings [rolls 4]... and the injuries you dealt it were just too much. It stumbles and misses you.
Player: I return the blow. [rolls 20] Crit! I do [2d8 + 2] 14 points!
DM: The goblin collapses at your feet, dead. The hand that's not holding its axe relaxes, and a dull gray key clatters to the stone floor.
Player: I grab it. Is this the key to the rusted chest we saw?
DM: Perhaps... perhaps not. Do you go try to find out?

That's a story. Just one that was written as it was told.

A DM presents scenarios. They players describe approaches to scenarios. From there you get outcomes to the scenarios. The result of those outcomes makes a story.

That doesn't necessarily make the DM a story teller. They might be, or they might not be. The game only requires that the DM is a scenario presenter.

[LaserFace]

"Story" doesn't imply or require it to be good. There are far, far more bad stories out there than good ones, but they're all still stories.

A story, in its loosest definition, it really just a causal sequence of events. Properly speaking, a story just needs three things: a setup, a conflict, and a resolution, some or most of which can be implied. Certain storytelling formats -- such as narrative ones like novels, movies, etc. -- also have other features that, while strictly speaking aren't requirements, are often used as the makings of a good story. Foreshadowing, overlapping threads, theme, arcs (plot- and character-wise), denouement, resonance, and so on.

Other forms of storytelling don't need that. Most standup comedy is storytelling. It's very stripped down most of the time (unless you're doing one of Bill Cosby's old routines from before be became a cultural villain) but it's storytelling nonetheless. Song lyrics are often this kind of simplified storytelling. Newspaper comic strips are another example. TTRPGs are usually a little more fleshed out than standup comedy or song lyrics, but not so much as a typical novel. They lack the ability to do proper foreshadowing (it can be done but only incidentally) and there are a lot of narrative features that just don't work with a cooperative multiplayer game.

It also isn't required of a story that it have a single author. Collaborative stories exist in all kinds of forms. Improv acting (which shares a lot with TTRPGs) is a form of make-it-up-as-you-go group storytelling. Hell, even a party (I mean a literal party, with drinking, music, socialization, etc.) is a very loose form of storytelling, although the conflict is usually (hopefully) pretty mild and abstract. OH NOT YOU RAN OUT OF MARTINI OLIVES! And the resolution is anti-climactic. But ask anyone afterward about that really great party they went to and get ready to hear a story.

Okay, but that's not what I'm talking about.

[Waifu Collector]

There are several possible issues about your backstory that might or might not be a problem depending on the DM.

- you create a knightly order - do knightly orders even exist in this world? Especially when based on a particular order that introduces a large number of people with certain beliefs.

- her homeland was invaded and you admit that you took some "liberties" in creating her homeland and other elements which may not even have a place in the world the DM has created.

- you have a father that has gone "mysteriously missing". Mysterious to who? Your character would think they are missing ... possibly presumed dead. The ONLY person for whom it could be "mysterious" is the DM. Inserting something like this is ASKING the DM to deal with the explicit storyline hook that you have put into your character background. If you had said "father is missing and presumed dead" then the DM can use it or ignore it. However, describing it as mysterious is as good as a request to the DM to explain the mystery .. which probably has absolutely no bearing on the world or storyline he has created. Players should not have any expectation that the DM would "solve" events in their backstory or even incorporate any content remotely related to a character backstory. Sometimes it happens and can be fun but the players should never expect it.

- The “Truth” has begun a worldwide blitzkrieg destroying everything in their path that doesn’t surrender, or that isn’t useful to them.

Do you know how big the world is? Do you know how extensive this organization is? In D&D, travel times are typically slow and communications over long distances can be difficult. The DM has told you that the organization is "worldwide" but this could be based on local experience. Perhaps the organization is only currently affecting 1/4 of the continent. However, your backstory created a whole nation invaded by this organization ... the DM can't say "Well that doesn't work since the organization isn't really worldwide ... just from the nation next door ... but it FEELS worldwide to you". The fact that the organization seems like an invading juggernaut is just how your characters currently see things. If the DM tells you why your backstory doesn't work and that breaks the storyline then you lose surprise and immersion. By creating an extensive background you may well have created content that can't exist in the world and storyline as currently written but the DM can't tell you that without spoiling the story.

Now lets look at the acceptable backgrounds.
1) Barbarian. Local background affected by the current situation. Works fine since the proximity of the village is consistent with character understanding of the current situation. The background does not create any nations/political organizations or mysterious storyline hooks. The DM is free to incorporate those if he likes ... other survivors etc but there is no requirement.
2) Wizard. Away at wizard school when her parents are killed and wants revenge. Simple and again totally consistent with the local storyline that has been explained to the players. DM can incorporate other members from the school or people from the wizard's home village if they wish at their discretion.

Do you see the difference between your large scale, overly detailed backstory that may not be consistent with the actual game world which the DM can't tell you about without spoiling things compared to the local backgrounds of the two other characters that can be easily worked into the world and existing storyline?

Chatting to the DM to figure out what to use as a background would be a good start. However, a background like the following might fit

- character comes from a small town in the "south". Outside the town was a small keep that was home to an order of fighters of various types with a common belief in helping others. The "truth" targeted this organization when they attacked the town since they knew they would oppose them and it was the strongest organization in the area. During the fighting, your father disappeared and is presumed dead. You escaped somehow.

This background has most of the same character development elements as you described above while avoiding the world building elements that may not fit into the DMs game world.

To answer some things:
-I meant her father was missing and was indeed presumed dead, I should’ve specified that.
-The continent IS the world. It’s basically Pangea, and Truth has conquered the vast majority of it (I wanna say like 70-80%). So I thought making a nation wouldn’t be too bad, considering he also said that many nations were either destroyed or turned into puppet states.
-I did revise her backstory to be more simple and fit his desires. It went from that to “aspiring musician is made to join the military, Truth invades and she and her company get their collective asses kicked, dad’s dead, she wants revenge.” That’s probably better for what he wants, though it’s painfully simple from what I’m used to.

Edit: I think making a knightly order is not as influential as saying “my race was genocided because we were too powerful.”

[GlenSmash!]

For what it's worth I've never considered making a nation in my DM's setting using my backstory.

It strikes me as strange.

Now my character founding a Nation in the game is something that would be more my speed.

[EggKookoo]

Okay, but that's not what I'm talking about.

You 1) conflated particular forms of storytelling with the general concept, and 2) disqualified a proposed example of storytelling because it had multiple simultaneous authors. I was just clearing that up.

[LaserFace]

You 1) conflated particular forms of storytelling with the general concept, and 2) disqualified a proposed example of storytelling because it had multiple simultaneous authors. I was just clearing that up.

I'm saying "I'm here to tell a story" is a DM phenomenon players have had to endure for decades. Tanarii is talking about red flags specifically because of DMs who are obsessed with an "It's my story" approach. Notice the contrast between "It's my story" and "It's our story". If a DM talks about "my", "me", or "I'm" and not "Our", "us" or "we're", this is a red flag. The red flag is that you're getting an amateur writer and not a DM. What you're talking about is entirely adjacent to that context.

[Keravath]

I'm saying "I'm here to tell a story" is a DM phenomenon players have had to endure for decades. Tanarii is talking about red flags specifically because of DMs who are obsessed with an "It's my story" approach. Notice the contrast between "It's my story" and "It's our story". If a DM talks about "my", "me", or "I'm" and not "Our", "us" or "we're", this is a red flag. The red flag is that you're getting an amateur writer and not a DM. What you're talking about is entirely adjacent to that context.

I beg to differ. I don't think a DM referring to their world as "his" (or "hers") is necessarily a ref flag. It could be?

When I have created a campaign world ... I think I've often referred to it as "my" world. The nations in my world interact with each other in ways I define. NPCs in my world do things for their own reasons. The majority of stories happening at any one time in my world are my "stories", storylines, plot hooks, events. The party adventures through "my" world ... making decisions and affecting any of "my" stories or storylines they interact with. In most cases, the party becomes a central element in some number of these stories. The stories evolve and change in response to the player actions and the NPC decisions that result from those interactions (perhaps something like a civilisation sim? :) ).

However, as the DM, it is always "my" story. The PCs never decide what the NPCs will do though their actions might influence those decisions. The PCs don't decide what will come up next, what events might happen, what significant NPCs and organizations might do in response to both other NPCs/organization and PC actions. The PCs are observers and influencers of the greater events in the world ... they aren't generally deciders unless the characters take actions with world shaking scope.

Anyway, the bottom line is, I don't really see any issue with a DM referring to the campaign as "his" story ... it is how it all plays out at the table that matters and just using the word "my" may not be indicative of anything significant.

[LaserFace]

I beg to differ. I don't think a DM referring to their world as "his" (or "hers") is necessarily a ref flag. It could be?

When I have created a campaign world ... I think I've often referred to it as "my" world. The nations in my world interact with each other in ways I define. NPCs in my world do things for their own reasons. The majority of stories happening at any one time in my world are my "stories", storylines, plot hooks, events. The party adventures through "my" world ... making decisions and affecting any of "my" stories or storylines they interact with. In most cases, the party becomes a central element in some number of these stories. The stories evolve and change in response to the player actions and the NPC decisions that result from those interactions (perhaps something like a civilisation sim? :) ).

However, as the DM, it is always "my" story. The PCs never decide what the NPCs will do though their actions might influence those decisions. The PCs don't decide what will come up next, what events might happen, what significant NPCs and organizations might do in response to both other NPCs/organization and PC actions. The PCs are observers and influencers of the greater events in the world ... they aren't generally deciders unless the characters take actions with world shaking scope.

Anyway, the bottom line is, I don't really see any issue with a DM referring to the campaign as "his" story ... it is how it all plays out at the table that matters and just using the word "my" may not be indicative of anything significant.

To be clear, it's not really the specific use of language, or what constitutes a "story" (which honestly I couldn't care less about). It's about the conveyance of intent behind certain words that go hand-in-hand with behaviors that result in a bad game. Non-DMs try to exert too much control because they are obsessed with driving narratives, to the detriment of player-driven action. It's about a certain attitude, where the DM considers the players as guests who should consider themselves fortunate for the chance to participate. I'm not trying to indict any specific individual with this, or say that you can't make a case for yourself, even if you use words that I think personally constitute a red flag. It's more like that playing with really controlling people can be a frustrating experience, so keeping a lookout for that behavior and communicating with them one-on-one about their attitude is probably worthwhile (although my inclination is just find another game, or strictly play with people who are already long-time friends who I trust).

[EggKookoo]

I'm saying "I'm here to tell a story" is a DM phenomenon players have had to endure for decades. Tanarii is talking about red flags specifically because of DMs who are obsessed with an "It's my story" approach. Notice the contrast between "It's my story" and "It's our story". If a DM talks about "my", "me", or "I'm" and not "Our", "us" or "we're", this is a red flag. The red flag is that you're getting an amateur writer and not a DM. What you're talking about is entirely adjacent to that context.

Ok, that's fine but I was just responding to Tanarii's assertion that playing D&D is not telling a story. I described how a story is constructed out of a collaboration of decisions made by the DM and the players.

I don't mind if you talk about railroading or heavyhanded DMing but please don't chastise me for trying to steer back to my point.

[LaserFace]

Ok, that's fine but I was just responding to Tanarii's assertion that playing D&D is not telling a story. I described how a story is constructed out of a collaboration of decisions made by the DM and the players.

I don't mind if you talk about railroading or heavyhanded DMing but please don't chastise me for trying to steer back to my point.

I genuinely didn't believe you grasped their message. I'm still not sure I do. But they can comment themselves lol

[Tanarii]

A story, in its loosest definition, it really just a causal sequence of events.Despite what many people seem to think, that's not what a story is. An emergent story is close to that, in which is is a recounting of a series of events. But the events themselves are not a story.

When I run a game I'm not there to tell stories. Not even emergent stories. Players can recount emergent stories after the fact of they like, but that's not the actual game play experience in any way. It's just a possible by-product.

What is happening is a decisions, consequences, and experiences. That's what my games are about. Stories never enter into what my games are about.

[EggKookoo]

Despite what many people seem to think, that's not what a story is. An emergent story is close to that, in which is is a recounting of a series of events. But the events themselves are not a story.

Go watch a play. The actors aren't recounting anything. They're acting out the story in real time, right in front of you. The only difference between that and a TTPRG is that in the latter each "actor" is making up their own lines and actions as they go, using the rules and dice to help keep things under control.

Hell, most D&D games even follow the setup/conflict/resolution structure. It's as story as it gets.


What is happening is a decisions, consequences, and experiences. That's what my games are about. Stories never enter into what my games are about.

Decisions, consequences, and experiences is the story!

[Tanarii]

Decisions, consequences, and experiences is the story!
No. They are not. They can be what a story is about after the fact. But decisions especially, but often experiencing to a large degree, are the diametric opposite of stories.

Just as I do not live the story of my life, I do not play the story of my characters or DM the story of player's characters.

Edit: but this is pretty off topic. The a DM saying "it's my story" should be a large red flag to anyone. Thats a lot more than claiming emergent storytelling to be what the game is about.

[KorvinStarmast]

Okay, your DM is awful and you should probably bail.
That is lousy advice.

[CantigThimble]

No. They are not. They can be what a story is about after the fact. But decisions especially, but often experiencing to a large degree, are the diametric opposite of stories.

Just as I do not live the story of my life, I do not play the story of my characters or DM the story of player's characters.

I don't really like to get involved in highly semantic discussions, but I am kind of curious about this. How are stories diametrically opposed to storis if stories are pretty much always composed of decision making?
Why is the distinction so important to you?

What do you envision the difference to be between a game run with the goal: 'We're here to create a story together.' vs a game with the goal: 'We're here to experience decisions and consequences.' ?

[LaserFace]

That is lousy advice.

Yeah, maybe.

Howabout: Communicate and figure out if your DM is actually awful, or if it's fine. Don't be afraid to look for a better game. You shouldn't settle with people who are more concerned with their setting and their novel than they are player satisfaction.

[Tanarii]

You shouldn't settle with people who are more concerned with their setting than they are player satisfaction.Also it's important to find out: are they fine with you changing the setting with in-game actions? That's the key. Backstory-ing setting elements into existence in the settings past, vs accomplishing changes through game play, are two different things. If a DM is shutting down the latter that's when most players are really going to start objecting.

How flexible a player should probably be about DMs being recalcitrant about backstory-into stuff into their setting is also going to depend on how long the setting has existed before they came along and how many players there are. A new game with a new setting for a single small group of players has far more room to be flexible, as it has less previously established facts.

[CantigThimble]

Yeah, maybe.

Howabout: Communicate and figure out if your DM is actually awful, or if it's fine. Don't be afraid to look for a better game. You shouldn't settle with people who are more concerned with their setting and their novel than they are player satisfaction.

Absolutely. People on forums who have been through the trenches of 10 page threads on the semantics of terms like 'roleplaying', 'story' and 'decisions' will have far more precise things that they mean when they use those terms than most people, who will use the terms far more casually.

Talking to a person >>>>> third party analysis a 2 word quote he said once.

Be on the lookout for the kind of problems others on here have experienced in relation to the phrase 'my story' but also be open to the possibility that he actually means something totally innocuous.

[EggKookoo]

Edit: but this is pretty off topic. The a DM saying "it's my story" should be a large red flag to anyone. Thats a lot more than claiming emergent storytelling to be what the game is about.

Agreed. I think our disagreement is that for me the troubling word is "my." I'm not sure in your case fully but I suspect it's at least "story" but possibly both?

I don't think we fundamentally disagree about what D&D is. I think, as CantigThimble notes, it's a disagreement about the definition of words.

[Sigreid]

Agreed. I think our disagreement is that for me the troubling word is "my." I'm not sure in your case fully but I suspect it's at least "story" but possibly both?

I don't think we fundamentally disagree about what D&D is. I think, as CantigThimble notes, it's a disagreement about the definition of words.

Pretty sure you and Tanarii are fighting over the definition of what is a story. And I'm pretty sure I'm with Tanarii, Things that are happening, when they are happening are not a story. Things that have happened are a story when you relay them later. i.e. Falling off a cliff is not a story, it's just something that is happening. Later you can tell your friends the story of the time you fell off the cliff.

[EggKookoo]

Pretty sure you and Tanarii are fighting over the definition of what is a story. And I'm pretty sure I'm with Tanarii, Things that are happening, when they are happening are not a story. Things that have happened are a story when you relay them later. i.e. Falling off a cliff is not a story, it's just something that is happening. Later you can tell your friends the story of the time you fell off the cliff.

Ok, I wanted to let this go but...

A play is not a story because it's happening right in front of you? I know a play isn't literally "happening" the same way falling off a cliff is. But neither is playing D&D. They're both simulations. Neither is "related later" to anyone (well, they could be, but that's not relevant).

A play is a story because... what? It's rehearsed? Does that mean a novel isn't a story because it never gets rehearsed? Or is it because it's scripted? A story can't have interactive, procedural, or dynamic elements? And what is happening if not scripting when the DM preps the adventure? Sure, the DM doesn't script everything -- there's more ad-libbing in D&D than you might get in a play. And of course the DM doesn't do anything like script the PCs actions. The players do, but they have to do it in real time by the nature of the game. Really, a TTRPG is almost exactly like improv acting with the addition of dice mechanics.

When you play D&D, you're creating and telling the story as it happens. You're both the storyteller and the audience.

[Sigreid]

Ok, I wanted to let this go but...

A play is not a story because it's happening right in front of you? I know a play isn't literally "happening" the same way falling off a cliff is. But neither is playing D&D. They're both simulations. Neither is "related later" to anyone (well, they could be, but that's not relevant).

A play is a story because... what? It's rehearsed? Does that mean a novel isn't a story because it never gets rehearsed? Or is it because it's scripted? A story can't have interactive, procedural, or dynamic elements? And what is happening if not scripting when the DM preps the adventure? Sure, the DM doesn't script everything -- there's more ad-libbing in D&D than you might get in a play. And of course the DM doesn't do anything like script the PCs actions. The players do, but they have to do it in real time by the nature of the game. Really, a TTRPG is almost exactly like improv acting with the addition of dice mechanics.

When you play D&D, you're creating and telling the story as it happens. You're both the storyteller and the audience.

Agree to disagree.