On the GM Pet Peeves thread, the thought of how much control a GM has over a PC's background came up, and garnered some debate, so I decided to start this thread.
When a player creates a background for their PC, how much control or manipulation should the GM have over it?
I'm assuming that the PC background fits with the campaign world, and the GM has reviewed it and accepted it.
After those steps are completed, should the GM have free reign to affect a PC's background, alter events that the player wrote about, or should the GM get the player's consent before doing so?
Example, a player writes in their back ground that their character has a wife and children. If the GM thinks its a good idea for the wife or children to be killed or kidnapped, is that fair game, or should the GM ask the player first?
IMO, unless a player is deliberately trying to create a background to purposely disrupt the other players or the GM's game concept (which would be wrong on the part of that player and should be controlled somewhat), then whatever the player comes up with should be left alone.
The only time I get involved with a given PC's background is if the player doesn't provide one, and seemingly lacks the creativity to do so.
If a player is coming up with his own background story (and its not disruptive), I think a GM should be hands off regarding it; its not your PC so leave it alone.
|
Let's see. As far as I'm concerned, a GM should not be allowed to alter events in the backstory.
Using an example from a previous group, a GM should not change the backstory in which the PCs father was a mighty warrior to be a coward in the right place at the right time.
A GM could, however use villains with a grudge against the PCs father.
But if the PC has close ones, they should be fair game, unless otherwise established.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
It depends on the table.
As a player, I'm generally willing to allow any reasonable extrapolation from my backstory in the name of keeping the action moving.
As a result, I tend to create characters which are personalities rather than histories. They just tend to plug into games more easily.
As a GM, I definitely resent players who bring a short novella to the table and then expect me to integrate it. A generous GM might accommodate, but it's a really good habit for players to learn to support the GM passively. It keeps them from burning out.
I guess for me it is more an issue of degree rather than yes or no.
I've had GM's that require extensive detailed backgrounds. However, as a player I could absolutely guarantee that every single person I named as someone I liked would be killed, kidnapped, hostage, abused, etc...
Every single person I mentioned that I didn't like would be a high level evil whatever bent on destroying me personally.
There are a few players that like that, but not most of them.
Very soon every player that doesn't like to have the entire world and everything that could happen be against him, would have something very close to the cliché "Jim is an orphan raised by stranger who weren't really horrible, but didn't really care about him all that much either."
The GM would get upset that we weren't giving him more ammo to use on us. So he'd start a new group and the cycle would begin again.
But in moderation, having bad things (and maybe possibly even a good thing once in a great while) happen to people in my backstory is acceptable. Note: Keep it PG-13 I don't need detailed descriptions of the atrocities visited on my sister/niece/grandmother. That is not a part of entertainment to me.
I don't particularly like a GM changing my backstory without working it out with me first. I've had one that did that to the point where I really couldn't find a reason why the character would continue with the group. Then he got really upset when I wanted to retire the PC.
.
.
...
As a GM, I definitely resent players who bring a short novella to the table and then expect me to integrate it. A generous GM might accommodate, but it's a really good habit for players to learn to support the GM passively. It keeps them from burning out.
I've met a few GM's that practically require the novella character history. I actually felt kinda relieved that I didn't get into those games.
|
I think a GM should be hands off regarding it; its not your PC so leave it alone.
In my games, the PC exists in a living, breathing world, where events can effect him, his possessions, and those around him that he loves.
In my opinion, it is indeed the player's character, but that character's father and the rest of his family are NPCs that should have their own lives and their own motivations once play begins; sure, those motivations and desires can be based upon what, if any, parameters the player sets up in his character's background, but once play begins, that person becomes the providence of the GM.
As you can probably guess, I am not a fan of player's running their character's followers, cohorts, and familiars either for the same reasons...
Like I said in the previous thread, I am not going out of my way to target things within a character's backgrounds, but characters within my game worlds are living out their daily lives, and sometimes, bad things happen, and when something or someone within a character's background has plot immunity it breaks the verisimilitude within my games.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
...
As you can probably guess, I am not a fan of player's running their character's followers, cohorts, and familiars either for the same reasons...
I don't have a problem with the GM running almost all that (but most don't want the hassle). Again as long as every single person I hire isn't going to be murdered or betray me, I'm ok with it.
I disagree on the familiar. The way PF does it (as opposed to some legends or novels) a familiar is very much closely tied to the PC, is loyal, and is obedient. It is very much an integral part of my character. If I can't decide what my familiar is doing and when, I won't have a familiar.
|
|
I'll probably leave out the part about the things I don't want affected, and only write in the things that I'm okay with the GM messing with.
And if I hit upon one of those things you don't want affected and thus left out of your character's background?
That's why plot immunity for anything is just a bad idea in my opinion...
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I made an Exalted character once... A dragon blooded diplomat. She never exalted, so instead she was sent by her family to rein in her stupid but skilled warrior brother who exalted as a chosen of fire. On their first trip, the brother challenged a sleazy diplomat to single combat despite my character's warnings. She fled from the inn they were staying in, thereby severing her ties to her family, just before the inn was burnt down the night before the challenge by the challenged. Her family kept seeking her, but she fled far enough not to be found. Play started and went on for years, game time and real.
Then one day, she meets her mother. She wonders why she ran. Butbutbut... My brother died... My responsibility... Silly daughter, he was a chosen of fire. He survived and killed the would be assassin easily at the challenge.
I was gobsmacked. I never thought he would. I never once made the rather obvious connection. With this, my character's family, with a very strained relationship, became an interesting part of the campaign.
However, the GM never changed what I wrote.
I think a GM should be hands off regarding it; its not your PC so leave it alone.In my games, the PC exists in a living, breathing world, where events can effect him, his possessions, and those around him that he loves.
In my opinion, it is indeed the player's character, but that character's father and the rest of his family are NPCs that should have their own lives and their own motivations once play begins; sure, those motivations and desires can be based upon what, if any, parameters the player sets up in his character's background, but once play begins, that person becomes the providence of the GM.
As you can probably guess, I am not a fan of player's running their character's followers, cohorts, and familiars either for the same reasons...
Like I said in the previous thread, I am not going out of my way to target things within a character's backgrounds, but characters within my game worlds are living out their daily lives, and sometimes, bad things happen, and when something or someone within a character's background has plot immunity it breaks the verisimilitude within my games.
Well, I too only allow a player to run a single character, and not his cohorts and followers, though I generally allow them to run their own familiars. Sometimes a PCs background becomes a significant issue in the storyline or at least a plot hook. Unless I include the background as a story element, I generally leave a PC's background story/family alone.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
And if I hit upon one of those things you don't want affected and thus left out of your character's background?
You wouldn't be able to. If I was thinking of having a character with a wife and kids, and then the GM said anything in the background is fair game, I might remove the part about wife and kids.
Or, if I wrote that my character's father was a great warrior, then learned that anything is fair game, I might change it so that both of my parents were killed, and I didn't have any real family.
I think it really all comes down to trust. I do my best to include things in every character back story that the GM can play with, but there are other parts that are integral to my characters, and I don't want them messed with.
With most GM's, I'd just identify the parts of the back story I'm okay with them manipulating, and let them run wild with their imagination.
I haven't run into an issue where a GM said that everything in a back story is fair game for them to alter, change, etc. If that was the case, I'd rather just have the GM create the back story for me, or just roll it up randomly.
|
|
a familiar is very much closely tied to the PC, is loyal, and is obedient. It is very much an integral part of my character.
Even in the edition that I play, a familiar is very much a part of the character; so much so, that if it dies, your character loses hit points, and the familiar cannot be replaced as easily as it can be within Pathfinder.
And just because it is loyal and obedient to you, does not mean that it does not have its own personality or quirks... Or even question what it is told; even the most loyal and well trained dogs or horses can have bad days and need to be told to do something more than once, and familiars are much more intelligent than even the smartest of dogs or horses. Heck, there's even a 3rd party sourcebook that was originally written for 3rd edition, but has been converted to Pathfinder, that has rules for familiars as player characters.
I'm generally not against the GM using the character's background, but it's something that should be used with caution... And ideally, without changing what the player wrote (like the heroic father turning out to be a coward).
I don't like having to write a character with no family just because I don't want the GM to use them as hostages for the BBEG. That story line grows old really fast.
a familiar is very much closely tied to the PC, is loyal, and is obedient. It is very much an integral part of my character....
And just because it is loyal and obedient to you, does not mean that it does not have its own personality or quirks... Or even question what it is told; ...
Never disagreed with that. But I think that since the familiar is such an integral part of my PC, I should design/control/choose that personality and quirks.
I once had a scorpion familiar that rode on my shoulder and acted like a cuddly kitten. But it would try to sting anyone else that got close. Even if they were trying to heal me. It was also terrified of weasels. Plenty of personality and quirks in my opinion.
I have to mention I'm getting mixed messages from you.
You say you don't abuse the PC's backstories or other NPC's. Great.
But the absolute argumentative tone of "I have absolute control and can do anything I want even if I choose not to and you have no say over anything..." would raise a lot of red flags with me. It sounds like a GM who is getting ready to dump on every bit of my PC's back story and every relationship.
I would hope you wouldn't actually do that, but that's what it sounds like to me.
It is largely a matter of trust. Some of us have had enough bad experiences that trust is a bit more difficult to come by.
I suppose if I did decide to try joining your game, I would test the way thejeff mentioned. I wouldn't take a familiar or leadership, but would hire someone more or less permanently. I wouldn't put any close emotional ties in my background, but would probably mention someone that I admired.
If everything got hammered into a bullet and fired at me, I'd probably leave the game. If it was kept at reasonable levels, I'd probably expand on it next time.
Then I would see what happened.
|
|
Or, if I wrote that my character's father was a great warrior, then learned that anything is fair game, I might change it so that both of my parents were killed, and I didn't have any real family.
Granted, I am actively looking for loopholes for this example, which is not something I'd do in a game, but I might have your character find out about long lost uncle Fred, or, much less likely, but still within the realm of possibilities, is find out that dear old dad did not die in that orc invasion after all, but was taken prisoner and...
In my games, nothing within a character's background has plot immunity. However, if you come to me every once in a while, and not with every single character that you make, and say to that you really want dear old dad to have passed away peacefully of old age, and so, you never want to find out during game-play that he is still alive, then I can accommodate something like that (just don't make a habit of it). And don't be surprised if dear old dad's ghost happens to "haunt" the place he died, because while he may have died peacefully in his old age, that darned son or daughter of his just kept... :-P
I once had a GM who often made it a point of horribly murdering adventurer's family members. For example, I had a young male Minotaur character who left his village of peaceful Neutral nomadic hunters to go on an adventure that was a rite of passage into manhood.
My character received a message from an Imp telling him to go home, and when he did and the whole party followed we found the BBEG. The villain threw the severed head of my character's mother at me, and had slaughtered his entire clan. He also raised my character's father from the dead as a minotaur zombie, and teleported away leaving us to fight him.
Yet, despite the pattern in how he dealt with characters backstories, I found myself enjoying these sidequests and events. Because it meant the GM had actually listened to my back story, thought about it, and came up with something that was uniquely for my character.
Even if it is a horrible tragedy, its cool to get the spotlight every now and then.
|
|
I think that since the familiar is such an integral part of my PC, I should design/control/choose that personality and quirks.
In the edition that I play, in order to gain a familiar, you have to have a spell (i.e. Find Familiar), and when you cast it, the familiar that comes to you, is the familiar that you get, and should you be too picky by not wanting that type of animal or creature as a familiar and you send it away, you have to wait a full year in game before you can cast the spell again.
Obviously in Pathfinder, that's not he case, but regardless of edition, I view familiars as NPCs. That's not to say that the familiar just goes and does whatever it wants... The character still tells the familiar what to do and where to go, and for the most part, the familiar is obedient, it's just that sometimes, (because it has its own personality, and identity) there can be cases where the familiar hesitates, or needs more coaxing...
Granted, I am actively looking for loopholes for this example, which is not something I'd do in a game, but I might have your character find out about long lost uncle Fred, or, much less likely, but still within the realm of possibilities, is find out that dear old dad did not die in that orc invasion after all, but was taken prisoner and...
I would hope that the stuff in my back story that I've identified as manipulable would be enough for any GM to make hooks. If my character's father disappeared mysteriously, that's practically begging for the GM to do something with it.
Or if I had wrote that my character's father went off to fight in the orc invasion, and never returned, then having him show up at some point would also be okay.
But if I wrote that my father was a well-respected member of the community, helped orphans, served on the town council, etc., and then a GM turned him into some kind of hidden murderer or pedophile, it wouldn't sit right with me.
Like I said before though, if the GM was really against PC's having back story's that can't be messed with, I'd either ask the GM to generate one for me or roll one up randomly.
I'll probably leave out the part about the things I don't want affected, and only write in the things that I'm okay with the GM messing with.And if I hit upon one of those things you don't want affected and thus left out of your character's background?
Then you'd stop GMing. If you're deliberately abusing the GM's chair, either you stop GMing or I stop playing. Mid-session, if necessary.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
In my games, nothing within a character's background has plot immunity. However, if you come to me every once in a while, and not with every single character that you make, and say to that you really want dear old dad to have passed away peacefully of old age, and so, you never want to find out during game-play that he is still alive, then I can accommodate something like that (just don't make a habit of it).
That is ..... so wrong I lack words for it.
A character's past is past, and the GM doesn't get to rewrite history on the fly. If my backstory is that my character was born in Cheliax but moved to Andoran at a young age, until his father died of some horrible disease and he was forced to start working as a street entertainer to feed his mother and two younger sisters, I do not have to tell you that you shouldn't decide mid-game he was born and raised in Absalom, that his father is still alive but his mother was killed by Red Mantis assassins, or that he's an only child.
If for some reason it's absolutely crucial that he be an only child, the place to discuss it is before the campaign starts.
If you think plot armor destroys verisimilitude, revisionist history and improbable retconning is worse.
When I have asked players to put together a backstory I ask them to keep it vague intentionally. That is because I homebrew a ton and need to be able to fit their stuff into my campaign. Also I tell them up front that I as the GM reserve the right to add or modify details of the backstory to fit the game. This is generally not intended to screw anyone or cheese them off. Its more like adding embellishments or connecting their story to the plot of the game.
In the example of a PC having a famous warrior dad that turned out to be a coward in the right place/right time I wouldn't have an issue doing that as a GM or taking that as a player. I respect though that some players do. As such I'd either not use that angle or try to redeem the father in some way. One I'd used in a similar scenario would be to have the player take on the ghost/reanimate/reincarnation of their dad in some scene where they have the chance to prove themselves. "Sure, all those years ago I was a lousy, stinking coward. But now, Tiamat, you've gone too far. That's my SON down there, and there's no way I'm letting you go!"
I also warn my players up front that the things they put in their backstories may be used against them in a court of Pathfinder. Equally it might be used FOR them. As an example I had a guy playing a dwarf raised in a mercenary troop that ended up becoming a cleric. He was left for dead after a climactic battle that redeemed the troop but also murdered some and scattered the rest. A couple adventures in the PCs ended up in a neighboring town and got into a scrape; suddenly this dwarf appears in an open cellar doorway and ushers them inside. Turns out this was one of the Iron Talon troop and he recognized his former comerade. The dwarf gave them some info, a place to rest for 8 hours and recover spells and such, and even told them where to go outside of town for a cache of fey enchanted weapons (they were behind WBL and I felt bad but didn't want them to just HAVE magic items from the dwarf).
So I guess I'm in the camp where nothing's off limits to the GM in the backstory. I know not everyone plays that way though so I try to be as transparent as possible. As with all things in this game, talk w/your players/GM.
Oh, and a note to GMs: not everything in the backstory has to be bad. Recently a player was running a paladin whose father was killed by kobolds. He had been a weaponsmith and trained his boy; this led to the kid apprenticing at the Temple of Iomedae first as a junior weapon crafter but then as a warrior and finally paladin.
I took this, embellished it and said the dad had been killed for his magic anvil. At level 2 a quest came up to descend into the kobold-section of the megadungeon. It seems their warriors were walking around with enchanted weapons; the paladin reconized an anvil mark from his father's old forge. Had that quest panned out he'd have gotten the magic anvil back so he could put it into the new forge business his character was making in the slums so that he could mentor underprivelaged kids.
Sometimes PCs can have nice things. Often a crafty GM can connect these to suggestions already made by the PC's backstory.
Then you'd stop GMing. If you're deliberately abusing the GM's chair, either you stop GMing or I stop playing. Mid-session, if necessary.How is the GM abusing his chair when he hits things the player never told him were inviolate?
Well, he just mentioned that the father whom I saw die peacefully of old age is secretly alive.
Right, that's it, game over. I'm starting Skull and Shackles next week.
Basically, I do not have to tell a GM that that global causality is inviolate.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Then you'd stop GMing.
Like I said in the other thread, I tell my players beforehand that nothing has plot immunity, so It would be one thing if the player got blind-sided by it out of the blue, but if you go in to a game knowing full well that nothing within a background has plot immunity, and then get your feathers all ruffled up when something does happen, the issue is not on the GM's shoulders.
|
|
Well, he just mentioned that the father whom I saw die peacefully of old age is secretly alive.Then you'd stop GMing. If you're deliberately abusing the GM's chair, either you stop GMing or I stop playing. Mid-session, if necessary.How is the GM abusing his chair when he hits things the player never told him were inviolate?
That's not what was said.
In the example, you never told him that the death was witnessed. More importantly, you never told him 'it is important to me that his father enjoys his afterlife'.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Well, if it is the fact that nothing in your backstory can be changed, a misunderstanding of your character, reinterpreted, expanded or otherwise changed, indeed INCLUDING THINGS YOU NEVER TOLD THE GM WERE IMPORTANT TO YOU, the ONLY sane response for the GM is to avoid your backstory entirely, like the plague, and not try ANY sort of plotline connected to it. After all, any sort of idea touching on it might change something you consider sacrosanct, leading to you getting the GM to stop GMing, mid-session if necessary, right? Honestly, at that point it is probably better not to use backstory at all.
A large part of it is whether you see it as "screwing with the player".
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
It depends on the table.
As a player, I'm generally willing to allow any reasonable extrapolation from my backstory in the name of keeping the action moving.
As a result, I tend to create characters which are personalities rather than histories. They just tend to plug into games more easily.
As a GM, I definitely resent players who bring a short novella to the table and then expect me to integrate it. A generous GM might accommodate, but it's a really good habit for players to learn to support the GM passively. It keeps them from burning out.
This. Holy cow this. A player who gives me an interesting background chock full of vague-but-curious hook points will get rewarded with a ton of neat story gems for their character. This means good stuff ( like allies and friends, bonus tidbits of knowledge, etc. ) and bad stuff ( loved ones swept up in the turmoil of the main story, a nemesis, whatever). I love these backgrounds.
Characters who give me 10 pages of detailed back story are a pain. As a GM, you can't integrate them without a ton of work, you get details wrong, the player responds poorly because you didn't get it right, etc.. These players get acknowledgement, and that's about it. [smile-and-nod-slowly]
That said, I never directly modify a player's background. It's their PC - period. I will, however, ASK players to correct mistakes/inconsistencies (you're Varisian on your character sheet, but your background says you were born in Minkai) or request clarification (you want to be drow? why are you on the surface to begin with?).
On a side note, my pet peeve are the character backstories where the players completely ignore the setting (willingly or otherwise).
GM: "Ok guys, we're running Rise of the Runelords next week...."
PC: "My daddy was assistant to Elminster, and I want to be in the Harpers! I was born in Waterdeep!"
GM: "Dude, its in Golarion...."
PC: "wha...?"
|
|
Well, he just mentioned that the father whom I saw die peacefully of old age is secretly alive.
Not what I said... Not by a long shot...
I said "died of old age" as an example of coming to me with an explanation of how dear old dad died and therefore shouldn't just show up again one day, instead of just saying rather generically, "father died"... If you said he died of old age and you witnessed the event, I wont have him show up alive and well one day, but if you say he just died, and give me no reasons as to why, or you give me a reason that could make his sudden reappearance justified, I might have him show up again... Might... I never once said that I absolutely would, absolutely every time...
It may be anecdotal, but like I keep saying: my players all go in to the game knowing full well that nothing has plot immunity... And so far, no players have declined to play at my table or have ever left my table because of my play-style.
If my backstory is that my character was born in Cheliax but moved to Andoran at a young age, until his father died of some horrible disease and he was forced to start working as a street entertainer to feed his mother and two younger sisters, I do not have to tell you that you shouldn't decide mid-game he was born and raised in Absalom, that his father is still alive but his mother was killed by Red Mantis assassins, or that he's an only child.
That doesn't even retain the general spirit of what I have been talking about within these two threads...
Then you'd stop GMing.Like I said in the other thread, I tell my players beforehand that nothing has plot immunity,
Including the laws of cause and effect? I'm sorry, but if this statement extends to the identity of the country where I grew up,.... well, no.
[
If my backstory is that my character was born in Cheliax but moved to Andoran at a young age, until his father died of some horrible disease and he was forced to start working as a street entertainer to feed his mother and two younger sisters, I do not have to tell you that you shouldn't decide mid-game he was born and raised in Absalom, that his father is still alive but his mother was killed by Red Mantis assassins, or that he's an only child.That doesn't even retain the general spirit of what I have been talking about within these two threads...
You said that everything I did not explicitly label as untouchable was fair game for a re-write. You also said that I wasn't allowed to make a habit of suggesting certain things were untouchable.
I think that since the familiar is such an integral part of my PC, I should design/control/choose that personality and quirks.In the edition that I play, in order to gain a familiar, you have to have a spell (i.e. Find Familiar), and when you cast it, the familiar that comes to you, is the familiar that you get, and should you be too picky by not wanting that type of animal or creature as a familiar and you send it away, you have to wait a full year in game before you can cast the spell again.
Obviously in Pathfinder, that's not he case, but regardless of edition, I view familiars as NPCs. That's not to say that the familiar just goes and does whatever it wants... The character still tells the familiar what to do and where to go, and for the most part, the familiar is obedient, it's just that sometimes, (because it has its own personality, and identity) there can be cases where the familiar hesitates, or needs more coaxing...
Again, it is a matter of degree.
If the GM decides my familiar is going to be lazy and obnoxious so every time I want it to do something I have to spend 10 minutes trying to talk it into following direction or every time we are in a social setting it insults people until we get thrown out (or in jail). Well guess what, I would be upset. The GM has turned an integral part of my character into a severe penalty that I can't do anything about.
If the GM occasionally says something like my beetle wants to get its carapace painted electric blue, that's great. Exactly the kind of thing I would do. Not a problem.
But if you aren't going to constantly mess with it/me, why do you need to bother making such a big deal about how only you control it and can do whatever you want?
But if you have to communicate about every single little detail before changing it, you are by necessity going to lose every possible sort of twist, reveal or point to doing so in the first place. So, thejeff, while communication is a good thing, it doesn't necessarily help here.
What you can do is give the GM something to work with. Put in an old comrade in arms who fell down a waterfall and disappeared, a mystery of some kind your character has gotten into touch with, some unsolved issue. Next, you put in the things that are important to you and state them as clearly as you can. Too much of this will get your backstory unused. For other things, assume the GM can do as he pleases, and hopefully you will get the best possible use out of your backstory.
Backstory is spotlight time. Honestly, so long as the GM doesn't treat it crudely, I am fine with it. A kidnapped sibling would be a good thing, if only the character is then used beyond "someone the BBEG kidnapped to get you to ...."
Thing is: The GM is in charge of the world. Your backstory is a part of your character, or at least the backstory as you understood it, but where things have gone since then is strictly GM territory. You get to say your PC was raised by a skilled potion-making woman, you don't get to keep her service in potion-production in the campaign, at least not automatically. You get to say your father had a mighty magical sword when you were young, you don't get to have that sword, at least not straight away. And so on.
Honestly, at that point it is probably better not to use backstory at all
That's why I suggest separating the back story into things you're okay with having the GM manipulate, and other things that you don't want messed with.
One of my recent PC's was a witch who's mother was a very powerful witch, who raised four daughters that were all witches. As each witch came of age, the mother would tell them to make their own way in the world, and they'd leave home, never to return.
I gave a very brief description of all of the sisters, their magical talents (like one was good with illusions, one was good with manipulating the weather, etc.), and then said the GM was free to do whatever he wanted with them at that point.
I didn't want the mother to play a role in the game, because a.) she was described as really powerful and I didn't want my character to receive any kind of benefits from having a powerful ally, and b.) I wanted the relationship between my character and her mother to be something that heavily informed her world view.
If the GM had the mother suddenly show up and she had changed her ways and she was suddenly very caring and helpful, it would have required me to completely adjust my character.
So, as thejeff said, communicate with the GM what you're cool with having the GM change/alter/expand, and what you aren't.
Honestly, at that point it is probably better not to use backstory at allThat's why I suggest separating the back story into things you're okay with having the GM manipulate, and other things that you don't want messed with.
I think that's fine, as long as the GM understands that the default is "don't mess with." The alternative is that I need to attach a copy of Halliday and Resnick or another physics textbook to my character sheet as part of the untouchable backstory.
One of my recent PC's was a witch who's mother was a very powerful witch, who raised four daughters that were all witches. As each witch came of age, the mother would tell them to make their own way in the world, and they'd leave home, never to return.I gave a very brief description of all of the sisters, their magical talents (like one was good with illusions, one was good with manipulating the weather, etc.), and then said the GM was free to do whatever he wanted with them at that point.
Case in point. You've defined a good adventure hook there but also defined it with relatively strict limitations (the GM can't decide there were really three sisters and the fourth was a figment of your imagination).
|
|
you still look for loopholes and feel free to use them to screw with the player.
No, what I said was:
I am actively looking for loopholes for this example, which is not something I'd do in a game
You're free of course to call it "screwing with the players", but that's not what it is within the context of my games... I have been giving extreme examples here, only to highlight exactly what I mean by nothing having plot immunity...
As I keep saying, I do not go out of my way to target these things, but if an appropriate opportunity presents itself during the game, I MIGHT, take advantage of it. I do not always do so... There have been whole campaigns where I never exploited a character's background.
Regardless, I view a character's background as another tool to use within my GM toolbox whether I use it or not...
Well, not quite, Tormsskull. It's okay if you want something to be important to your character. You could tell the GM so, but making a list of stuff that is okay to mess with is not. Whatever you don't set up as important to you IS fair game.
A powerful mother isn't necessarily an ally, and even if she is, you might well be roughly that power level yourself when you interact with her. As for the relationship between the mother and your character, well, such an NPC could fill many roles in a campaign. Harsh, individualistic, territorial, it would be someone quite useful. Now, the GM can never be entirely sure how you imagine her, but if you describe her well, the GM can make a decent attempt - and you would have created her together. When you do meet her in the campaign, she might have changed in some way within what you described. Say, she since adopted an orphan. What would your character think of this? Would she think of it as the mother mistreating the new disciple? Would there be jealousy that mother never treated her as kindly? Would the character have her angry feelings toward her mother pre-empted and have to deal with them? What would this mean if the mother asked her for something? Was there some other reason for the mother to adopt an orphan?
Using, even slightly changing, the backstory is something that should be done with care, but why give up an opportunity to create something good together?
Thanks for starting the thread Torm
Below is all opinion:
All NPC's (GM or player created) belong to the GM. They are his/hers to do with as they need to further advance the story, provide drama, and are tools to grow the campaign.
Yes, that's a lot of power to give the GM and could produce horrible results. But a good backstory combined with a good GM like Mark Hoover can produce stories that keep players butts at the edge of their seats.
I think a lot of players have had bad GM experiences that makes them a little gun shy on sharing and I can certainly empathize.
|
|
Including the laws of cause and effect? I'm sorry, but if this statement extends to the identity of the country where I grew up,.... well, no.
You said that everything I did not explicitly label as untouchable was fair game for a re-write. You also said that I wasn't allowed to make a habit of suggesting certain things were untouchable.
I never said places or locations, I always used items, people, and events in my examples... Those are the things I mean when I speak of not having plot immunity (i.e. items, people, and certain non-location based events).
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
For me character backgrounds are the beginning to a great game, and really need to be a collaborative effort between the GM and the player.
The GM knows (should know) his campaign world, and the player knows his character. By combining this knowledge the GM and player can help the character have reasons for joining the quest/adventure/whatever and have hooks to keep the character involved/be reward through. It helps because it gives a GM what sort of game the player is looking to be part of too.
This eats up a lot of time for both the player and GM but for me all my best games were when the player and GM had the time to really flesh out that background together.
Well, not quite, Tormsskull. It's okay if you want something to be important to your character. You could tell the GM so, but making a list of stuff that is okay to mess with is not. Whatever you don't set up as important to you IS fair game.
Okay, so you're suggesting to do it the other way, provide a list of things not to be messed with and everything else is fair game. That approach would work for me as well, assuming I don't have to list every little thing.
In the example I provided above, I'd probably only put the character's mother on the list, meaning I didn't want her to play a part in the game.
Now, the GM can never be entirely sure how you imagine her, but if you describe her well, the GM can make a decent attempt - and you would have created her together.
Your examples sound very reasonable. With a different character concept in mind, I wouldn't have to have the character's mother on the list. It was just in this specific case I didn't want her to play a role.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
On the subject of familiars, I would prefer if a GM running any game I played in also role-played my familiar, eidolon, cohort, etc. Or at the very least, sanctioned another player at the table to control that specific NPC. That way I can form an actual evolving bond and interest in interacting them, and I don't just remember once or twice a session that I have a hedgehog in my backpack that needs to make a reflex save.
Also seeing another PC role-playing with themselves is incredibly boring.