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?
This pretty much sums up my view. These are things that players often spend significant resources on to get and they are basing a fair bit of their character's overall effectiveness on these side characters, which makes them more than an npc. For those two reasons, as long as they are being played intelligently and as long as the player is treating them as actual characters with their own personalities, etc., and not mindless tools, a good DM should generally leave those things alone, aside from the occasional comment like the beetle wanting to get his carapace painted. I as a DM will always retain veto power over any side characters or summoned creatures a player might bring to the table and will have a say in the creation process of any such characters, but as long as they are played reasonably intelligently, they belong to the player to a sufficient degree that I treat them as secondary PCs, not npcs.
Now in different games or editions, I might be willing to set the bar differently based on how much the PC has invested in and relies on these secondary characters for their overall effectiveness, but for PF, these are all significant investments and choices that come with significant costs, and I am not going to penalize a player that chooses to accept those costs by further limiting the usefulness of their choices, nor as a player will I accept any further restrictions or DM interference without an equal reduction in cost or reliance on them when calculating my character's overall effectiveness.
Followers, family members, and other background related are a bit different in that a player is never going to be directly controlling these characters, so they are still quite firmly in the npc territory, and I will treat them accordingly. They are npcs that I will accept input from the player on, especially if I do anything that is unexpected, but they are still npcs, and mine to control. The players get some say in the creation process of these things, but how and when they come up in play is largely at my discretion as a DM, though the player can do things to influence these aspects with the appropriate role playing if they wish to have more influence on these aspects.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I know players that never create backstories for their characters. If a GM were to ask the players to do so, and if they took the time to make creative backstories, but the GM "looking for loopholes" uses that background against them, alters their story, etc - if I were that player, I don't think I'd ever create a background again. Why even ask for a player to create a background if you intend to alter/destroy it? GM's who do this, IMO, aren't worth sharing the same game table.
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.
That's true and not true at the same time. Even in the earliest of editions, there were npcs like familiars that belonged to a specific character and were part of what was used to measure that character's total power. These npcs have never truly belonged entirely to DM, and good DMs figured this out quickly. The line where DM control and player control has shifted dramatically over time, to the point where in PF, these types of npcs often are for all practical purposes, secondary PCs, but even in the most DM controlled system, the player still had significant say in the creation and running of these npcs.
Very few DMs, even in the early days where players were willing to give DMs a lot of control, could get away with telling a player trying to attract a rat familiar with a summon familiar spell that the PC was going to get an imp and like it, even if they were a lawful good wizard that had sworn his life to killing demons. Likewise, a PC going to look with a cohort with certain personality traits or skills would have good reason to balk if the DM tried to force one of three generic cohorts on the PC and none of the three choices even began to match what the PC was looking for.
The actual running of these npcs runs into similar issues; sure, a DM could run them anyway they wanted technically, and most good DMs could get away with the occasional plot twist that relied on the cohort betraying the party, but for the most part, these were npcs that were at the table because the PCs wanted them there and things generally go far more smoothly when the DM recognizes this, and either let the PCs control these npcs under normal circumstances or run them themselves in a similar manner than the PC would have except in rare instances where it genuinely helps the story for everyone at the table.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I know players that never create backstories for their characters. If a GM were to ask the players to do so, and if they took the time to make creative backstories, but the GM "looking for loopholes" uses that background against them, alters their story, etc - if I were that player, I don't think I'd ever create a background again. Why even ask for a player to create a background if you intend to alter/destroy it? GM's who do this, IMO, aren't worth sharing the same game table.
These players you mention seem to operate on the idea that all GM's are bad until proven otherwise. If I as a player am not giving the GM anything to work with then how could he/she ever become the great GM I want?
I get were it's coming from but I think this mind set is somewhat cynical and could be self defeating. At the very least the GM has an uphill battle ahead of them.
-MD
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
In home games I ban the "my parents were killed when I was little" backstory. I flat out don't allow it.
I make you be more original than that.
I'd go even further than that as a blanket policy statement. I'd say that depending on the campaign it's not only appropriate for a GM to influence the PC's backstory, but aspects of the mechanics of the character.
For example: if the campaign is written to follow the exploits of a band of knights in service to a March Lord, allowing the players to make a bunch of elfin wizards will just muck everything up.
I'm generally part of the "back story is fair game" camp. And yes, that includes using any ambiguities as fodder for the ongoing campaign. It may also include adding additional texture to elements that are there.
For example: Your old man was a famous and valorous warrior? Fine. But you didn't say what he is now. Maybe he's suffering from some long term effects of his valorous warfare - chronic injuries, anxieties, bitterness about some loss of vitality, weariness of the fame and just wanting to reside quietly on the farm. Or maybe he's beset by some of the obligations incurred in his prime and needs an adventurous child to help him out with a problem or three. Maybe he has generated some enemies as nefarious as he was valorous - or maybe even less nefarious but still holding a grudge. Perhaps he has turned to philandering (fame begets groupies) to replace some of the excitement he no longer gains on the battlefield and you have a lot of bastard siblings around the countryside.
I like using a PC's back story to introduce campaign developments that will be personally meaningful. When I come up with adventure hooks, they're invitations for the PCs to adventure. Back stories are like adventure hooks for the GM, invitations to build the campaign along certain lines and use those hooks.
...
These players you mention seem to operate on the idea that all GM's are bad until proven otherwise. If I as a player am not giving the GM anything to work with then how could he/she ever become the great GM I want?I get were it's coming from but I think this mind set is somewhat cynical and could be self defeating. At the very least the GM has an uphill battle ahead of them.
-MD
Your absolutely right. It fits right into the category similar to 'Self fulfilling prophecy.' I recognize that. At the same time, I've been burned often enough that it is difficult to chance putting my hand back over the flame.
..
In home games I ban the "my parents were killed when I was little" backstory. I flat out don't allow it.
I make you be more original than that.
I'd go even further than that as a blanket policy statement. I'd say that depending on the campaign it's not only appropriate for a GM to influence the PC's backstory, but aspects of the mechanics of the character.
For example: if the campaign is written to follow the exploits of a band of knights in service to a March Lord, allowing the players to make a bunch of elfin wizards will just muck everything up.
Got zero problem with that. I would love for a GM to work with me on making something that fits in with his campaign. (Note: I will continue to work on it as my character's personality continues to develop and think of more things to add.)
I rarely see that. What I usually get is completely ignoring backstory. Or give me something extensive, then I don't like it because it wasn't what I imagined or I'm going to screw you over with everything you mentioned.
These players you mention seem to operate on the idea that all GM's are bad until proven otherwise. If I as a player am not giving the GM anything to work with then how could he/she ever become the great GM I want?
I get were it's coming from but I think this mind set is somewhat cynical and could be self defeating. At the very least the GM has an uphill battle ahead of them.
-MD
Well considering I'm the primary GM at my table, and not the only one, I as a player don't consider any GMs as bad until they prove otherwise. I have no uphill battles with my players. Our games run very smoothly and all players and GM get along (well one player is consistently disruptive, but we put with it.) The GMs at our table use PC backstories, but we don't alter them, rather we incorporate what they create into a larger story. The GM's goal is to use the character's backstory, not alter and ruin that creation.
My post was specifically responding to one person in this thread that insists that its his right to find loopholes in his players backstories and seems to deliberately use those to disassemble the players story into something entirely different.
I am not speaking in general to all PC backstories - just regarding the one poster.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
These days when it comes to backgrounds, I tend to have my player use an modified version of the background rules from 5E D&D:
- A general lifestyle background (that doesn't need to be related to class) like Acolyte, Soldier, Folk Hero, Noble, etc.
- At least two personality traits like "I'm a voracious reader" or "I have no sense of humor"
- At least one ideal that is core to your characters like "I will not leave a man behind" or "Always look out for number one"
- At least one long term goal like "I will get revenge on the man who murdered my father" or "One day I will run this guild"
- At least one flaw or vice like "I can't resist a pretty face" or "I'm unreliable"
- (Optional) As many hooks as they wish that they want to make available for integration into the story like "My brother disappeared on his 18th birthday" or "I am really a woman dressing up as a man".
Anything on that list is fair game for me to work with, anything else essentially does not exist. Players are free to add to this list as they wish.
The best part of this system is that it tends to be very light so that it is easy to remember what is important. I get grumpy when players brings me small novels for backgrounds that then do not make any appreciable difference in how they run their character.
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).
You know, when you're in a hole, you should at least stop digging.
So,.... Spider-man wasn't bitten by a radioactive spider when he was a student? Batman's parents weren't killed in front of him by an armed robber, driving him to a life as a crime-fighter? There was no radiation accident that killed Dr. Jon Osterman and forced him to become Dr. Manhattan?
Or maybe you're suggesting that Spider-man's Uncle Ben is really alive and in hiding all these years. Or that Frodo didn't inherit a ring from his Uncle Bilbo. [That's three events, one person, and one item, for those keeping score at home. All of which are, by the elf's own words, "fair game" for arbitrary rewrite by the GM since they have no plot immunity.]
In which case,... I can only second thejeff's comment: `the "everything is fair game" a red flag in itself and it would make me much more careful about what hostages I put in the backstory and how attached to it I let myself be.'
If I write a backstory as part of my character, it's part of my character, and you no more get to alter a syllable without my consent than you get to pick my class, skills, and feats when I level up.
If you want to write a backstory for my character,.... well, you can write a character for the backstory, too, and you can make the decisions for that character, and you can roll the dice for that character, and I'll be playing Angry Birds on my iPad until and unless you realize that you're playing, literally, with yourself.
Anything on that list is fair game for me to work with, anything else essentially does not exist.
I'd just like to point out that "work with" doesn't mean rewrite. If I say I'm a voracious reader, you shouldn't get to decide that all I ever read are cheap romance novels. Similarly, if I say that I will get revenge on the man who murdered my father, you don't get to unilaterally decide how and when he was murdered, since that's likely to have a large and continuing effect on how the character is played.
It's a great plot handle, and it's a plot handle that the player (presumably picked) because there's a specific aspect of that handle to be incorporated into the game. That doesn't mean that the GM has to use that handle, and it doesn't mean that that's the only plot hook the GM can use. But it's poor form to rewrite the player's request so you can pretend to respect it while completely ignoring the player's actual desires.
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?
In our group:
What was written (occurred in the 'past'/before the campaign starts) is unalterable - the GM discussed and accepted it, after all.
After that: Any events that occur after the PC has entered the party (and time marches on) is totally fair game. We're all aware of that, and prefer it that way.
(It also helps that we're all very good long-time friends, so we all know what would be distasteful to each other. For example, nothing 'terrible' to wives, no child-killing, etc.)
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Anything on that list is fair game for me to work with, anything else essentially does not exist.
I'd just like to point out that "work with" doesn't mean rewrite. If I say I'm a voracious reader, you shouldn't get to decide that all I ever read are cheap romance novels. Similarly, if I say that I will get revenge on the man who murdered my father, you don't get to unilaterally decide how and when he was murdered, since that's likely to have a large and continuing effect on how the character is played.
It's a great plot handle, and it's a plot handle that the player (presumably picked) because there's a specific aspect of that handle to be incorporated into the game. That doesn't mean that the GM has to use that handle, and it doesn't mean that that's the only plot hook the GM can use. But it's poor form to rewrite the player's request so you can pretend to respect it while completely ignoring the player's actual desires.
No it doesn't, it means "tell me what is important about your character and what I can ignore". Also, it gives characters constraints and weaknesses so that every PC isn't a Mary Sue. For example, if your character "can't resist a pretty face" but rebuffs every femme fatale because "I'm suspicious", then we are going to have a little chat about what a flaw really means.
EDIT: Also, the amount of detail that a player puts into any of these things controls how much extrapolation I have to make. For example, lets look at "I will avenge my father". Phrased like this, I have a great deal of latitude to work with. I can basically decide whatever I want to about the nature of the murderer because the player has essentially ceded all control about it to me. It could be a half-demon wizard or a corrupt police captain.
Let's refactor it a bit, "I will avenge my father, who was murdered by the one eyed man". This reigns in my options quite a bit as the DM. We know it has to be a man and he has to have one eye. Let's refactor again, "I will avenge my father, who was murdered by the corrupt duke of Hamburgerburg." Now we know exactly who murdered his father, I really don't need to make any extrapolation at all.
In all of this, I'm not trying to jerk the player around or create some sort of monkey-paw "for the lulz". If the player doesn't care who killed their dad and wants me to "figure it out and make it cool", then that is their prerogative. If the player wants to control exactly who killed their dad, that is also their prerogative.
|
You know, when you're in a hole, you should at least stop digging.
You are reading far more into my posts than is actually there.
I have said that I am using extreme examples, because it illustrates my point of what I mean when I say nothing a character possesses or is written in his background has plot immunity in my games (and I have been very specific with my examples); you seem to want to take that to mean something even more extreme, by adding your own examples that are so unlike the examples that I have given. And you do this despite the fact that I have on numerous occasions now, said that I do not specifically target a character's background, nor do I actively look for loopholes that I can exploit.
I have further said on numerous occasions that what happens, is when an appropriate opportunity presents itself, I MAY use it, or, I may not use it, but whether I do or not is totally based on the in-game situation.
Something else that I have said numerous times now, is that these are my views, and this is how my table plays it, and my players are 100% on board...
I have also stated that as of yet, no player has declined an invitation to play at my table, nor has any player ever left my table because of my play-style.
|
|
My post was specifically responding to one person in this thread that insists that its his right to find loopholes in his players backstories and seems to deliberately use those to disassemble the players story into something entirely different.
I am not speaking in general to all PC backstories - just regarding the one poster.
If that poster is me, then I refer you to my above post. Obviously it was not directed at you, but the basic point remains applicable...
If that poster is not me, then, well... Nevermind... ;-)
|
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
May I suggest stop giving them more reading material? They have plenty as it is. :)
You'd think, that considering just how at odds my play style is with the majority of the people posting on these boards is, that I would do that...
Silly me!
But I make no appologies for how I play, because I am a card carrying, "You kids get off my lawn" grognard. And I have fully embraced that fact.
Our last game didn't have much character background. When characters were asked were they were from, not much was said and they really didn't act out.
For the current game, we created a system to encourage the players to create good backgrounds (some starting XP, starting gold, couple of potions) and most of us got good backgrounds.
The problem was the GM didn't read them :D
So I was at a point in the start of the game and He said my character's mother poked her head out of the window of a house and I had to tell him that she wasn't alive. (No, both parents were not dead) But it was a little annoying because he tried to change things because he didn't read this new background system he had setup.
I don't think the GM should outright change aspects of a character's background after the fact.
However if it is like one of those threads I have read before where the group is supposed to be all good and someone does an evil character or has an evil background, then I see no reason for him to work with the player to change that background to fit in with the rest.
If the GM asks for you to put together some kind of backstory they should tell you why they're asking. Sometimes GMs get runner's block; they can't think of where to take the campaign. If you've got a story about goblins burning down your village to justify becoming a ranger that hunts goblins, that's a good place to start.
1. if the GM asks and explains, and you chump out on it that's criminal
2. if the GM asks and you put something cool together that the GM doesn't uses, that's bad too
Now again I urge all GMs reading this thread: don't ONLY use backstories to hurt your players. Sometimes they put in cool things. If the player took the time to detail that her younger brother is an aspiring wizard put together a stat block for an adept 1 with an arcane instead of divine focus, then put him into one of the first adventures. Maybe he throws his big sis a spell her party needs; maybe he steals a wand for them.
Sometimes backstories should be used for good and not evil.
This helps mitigate some of those "Killer GM" stereotypes. If you're transparent with your players and then provide as much benefit as you do plot fodder from the backstory, there's no issue.
As for modifying backstories... here's the thing: players don't KNOW where the campaign is or where it's going when they make their character's history. If it's a highly decadent democratic kingdom and a campaign that focuses on intrigue it would be impossible for your character to be one of a long line of descent from the throne.
GMs are people. Different people think differently than you do. Add that to the not knowing the campaign thing and players should understand that their vision of the character's backstory may not gel with the GM's and vice versa.
GM's should work WITH their players; not FOR or AGAINST them.
Because people think differently and your players don't know your vision, have a dialogue with your players to help find a middle ground between what they want their character's story to be and what you need to make sense.
The only thing I ask of my players is: give me something in your backstory that can either fade into the background or can be resolved in a single session. I get frustrated when a player engineers something in their backstory that requires intrigue or highly involved plot to resolve. Reason being that I want this to be OUR campaign, not that character's.
So if your character hates goblins understand that not EVERY monster will be goblins. We can showcase your rage in a session from time to time, but otherwise that's something that can fade back. If however the character puts something in about a lost honor sword of the family they should not be discouraged when a rumor leads to it's recovery in a single gaming session since I don't want our campaign into your guy's family feud.
Finally, to the point of not derailing with backstories, I try to resolve the actionable points of backstories or at least touch on these backgrounds between 1st to 3rd level. Maybe after that we might revisit something but at that point I want the plot to be about what's happening now. This is something I tell my players: give me something, good or bad, that I can use quickly in your backstory. If someone's waiting around over three months of RL time for their cool backtory element to make an appearance, it's kind of frustrating.
A good backstory is something that gives the GM a clue to what you want your character to be ABOUT. Most characters can be described in terms of conflicts, at least outside the gaming medium. Can a relatively powerless person succeed where the great heroes of the ages did not, merely due to his strength of character? Can a person deny the wanderlust within him and what price will he pay for not doing so? Can a wanderer accept his heritage and assume the mantle that is his? What will a prince do when given a chance to help his kingdom even if it will risk his soul? I assume all these should be relatively familiar.
But in RPGs, we get characters whose main defining trait is "I can do 1d12+567 damage when I power attack". I don't know about you, but to me it feels like a pretty big waste. I know many don't agree with me.
If you have a backstory to write, try to find a theme, a conflict. Is your character's focus on the conflict between wilderness and civilization? Is it about duty and doing good? Freedom and security? Trust and vulnerability? So long as you take care not to make that ALL he or she is, it's a good way to find a backstory that works to build off.
|
|
Should a GM change a back story, my gut reaction is no, but approve yes, since a player could attempt to in effect leverage great power, wealth, or allies into their story and then attempt to make unreasonable use of them in game. Being historically good friends with the innkeeper and to leverage that friendship for a little information is cool, but being the grand dukes favourite nephew and getting a phalanx of soldiers to assist you at the drop of a hat, maybe not appropriate.
Once the background is created, it should be mined for gems the GM can use to engage the player in the story, the aforementioned blacksmith's daughter is kidnapped, not unremarkable NPC child #67. Or killing the characters wife/child. Sure the player may have had a character development arc he was thinking of, and it might upset them if that was disrupted, and a reasonable GM might inquire of the player if such a plot development would be acceptable, but once the PCs partner is slain, the PC is given a slew of role playing opportunities to explore, revenge, sadness, a quest to resurrect her, a journey into the underworld. Or worse, what if she has been turned into a vampire, now the player is forced to destroy the monster that was once his partner.
Moreover, the characters background is how the character perceives it. He make think he was all chummy with a NPC, but maybe that NPC really didn't like it. Or perhaps he witnessed a crime or a trauma, but it didn't really happen the way he remembered it. The outcome can be a nice plot twist, and an arc for the character to reconcile their past with the truth.
|
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
A quick illustration of the last point:
Luke: My father and mother are dead, my Aunt told me so. My father died in the great war, he was an amazing pilot.
...
DV: "LUUUUKE I AM YOUR FATHER"
Luke: "Nooooooooooo"
...
Luke: "Hey Leia, remember 2 episodes ago when I was totally trying to make out with you... Yeah so we are brother and sister."
|
I see the backstory as a way that the players signal to the GM what sort of story they want during the campaign.
If your backstory is all about how important your family is and how you became an adventurer to protect them, of course they're going to get threatened over the course of the campaign. As far as I can tell, you are asking me to threaten them.
If your backstory is all about how you never measured up to an older sibling, they might show up as a foil at some point. But more likely, I'll make sure there's an opportunity to rub their face in how awesome you've become by the end of the campaign.
If your backstory is all about being an orphan (and is actually a backstory, not just an excuse to avoid coming up with parents), then I'll make sure to sprinkle the campaign with some places you might belong and surrogate parents.
So, some backstories get all sorts of threatened relatives. If someone calls out a contact as being creepy or disliked, they might show up as a foil or enemy or unexpected last minute ally. Like most questions, it's more nuanced than one right answer.
That said, I've also played with people who tried to use backstories as a method of character optimization or as an play to become the sole focus of the game. Younger me would have twisted their wishes back on them in some horrific fashion, trying to teach some sort of lesson, but now I just don't invite them back.
Cheers!
Landon
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
A quick illustration of the last point:
Luke: My father and mother are dead, my Aunt told me so. My father died in the great war, he was an amazing pilot.
...
DV: "LUUUUKE I AM YOUR FATHER"
Luke: "Nooooooooooo"
...
Luke: "Hey Leia, remember 2 episodes ago when I was totally trying to make out with you... Yeah so we are brother and sister."I suggest not waiting until after they get married to drop the reveal though.
It can work. It works better in literature, since it's usually set up from the beginning and there's no "player" who made the character one way and then got it changed out from under him.
Peter: My Uncle Ben died because I didn't think it was my problem. I learned from that that with Great Power comes Great Responsibility."
Villain: <rips off mask> "You fool! I'm your Uncle Ben! I faked it to get away from you and your insipid Aunt and back to my criminal career!"
Or in an actual comics story, revealing that Peter's parents really hadn't died, but were secret agents or something. Which went over like a lead balloon and was eventually retconned to be imposters, IIRC.
OR Steve Rogers was the first Super-Soldier!
No..wait the government experimented on Black Soldiers first killing quite a few of them till they got it close to right with Isaiah Bradley. THEN they refined it to test on Steve Rogers...
A retcon which made perfect sense given the nature of the real life Tuskegee Experiment...
That being said. There are GOOD retcons and there are AWFUL retcons. All retcons are not created equally...
Agreed. Personally, I do consult with the player first when I have an idea for a story complication concerning their character background.
I usually tell them or give them an idea of what I want to play with but dont tell them in detail. If they say flat out NO that's off limits? Then I leave it alone and move on.
It comes down to trust for me. If you dont trust me not to burn you then I'm not going to invest the time and effort to make the play experience more interesting than it can be. And that's okay.
I had a character once where the reason he was traveling with the party was...
While my character was a way at school (GM's world had a fairly modern approach to higher education) learning the laws to run the family business so my aged father could retire, some noble had schemed to take away the family business. He even did something to get rid of my family so there wouldn't be any problems with people complaining. I was out in the world to try to start a rebellion or at least create enough ill will that the royals pulled that noble and put someone a little less corrupt in charge.
GM said use this noble's name since he will be involved in the campaign. But he didn't want that noble to actually be a corrupt bad guy opponent. So he decided that my family had actually cooperated to secretly move his business to another city and work as an informant. They were going to tell me and include me in the business, but I went out as a rabble rouser so fast that they lost contact with me.
It is not so much a bad story and one of the GM's that was not using the backstory as ammo to hurt me. It was actually a good thing. Great.
But there is now no reason for my PC to be a member of the party. Totally wrecked my characters reason to be any kind of adventurer. He would go join his family and learn to run the business so his father could eventually retire.
We did eventually work something out so I didn't have to retire the character. I had been having a lot of fun asking questions in such a way as to get people thinking and angry. Discovering hidden things and telling the general population so they would be upset with the noble. trying to catch the authorities doing illegal things. Etc...
Uhmm. Now the noble is a good guy and my families friend. So I can't do any of that stuff anymore. So after that, I was never really all that happy with the PC. He wasn't horrible, but not as much fun either.
I'm generally part of the "back story is fair game" camp. And yes, that includes using any ambiguities as fodder for the ongoing campaign. It may also include adding additional texture to elements that are there.
For example: Your old man was a famous and valorous warrior? Fine. But you didn't say what he is now. Maybe he's suffering from some long term effects of his valorous warfare - chronic injuries, anxieties, bitterness about some loss of vitality, weariness of the fame and just wanting to reside quietly on the farm. Or maybe he's beset by some of the obligations incurred in his prime and needs an adventurous child to help him out with a problem or three. Maybe he has generated some enemies as nefarious as he was valorous - or maybe even less nefarious but still holding a grudge. Perhaps he has turned to philandering (fame begets groupies) to replace some of the excitement he no longer gains on the battlefield and you have a lot of bastard siblings around the countryside.
I like using a PC's back story to introduce campaign developments that will be personally meaningful. When I come up with adventure hooks, they're invitations for the PCs to adventure. Back stories are like adventure hooks for the GM, invitations to build the campaign along certain lines and use those hooks.
Gods yes. If a GM does not include elements from my backstory, why did I bother writing it in the first place? Personally, my backstory has begun to always include a minimum of a few elements specifically for the GM to find ways of abusing my character:
Some of them include1. A person I care about
2. A location the GM can use as a setpiece
3. A mystery I don't understand
4. At least 1 enemy (generally 1 potentially high level and 1 low-medium level)
5. A potential ally.
This usually fits in less than a page, but has run to maybe a page and a half. After sending the GM a draft, I discuss it with them to make sure that we are on the same page. We may revise a few things after the first couple sessions when the campaign is still finding its groove, but nothing should be retconned after that. Things may be different than they appear - that is the mark of a good story teller.
I have my players come up with a bit of their character backstories, but just like their character builds, they must be approved. In general though, the only reason I would not approve a backstory is if it doesn't really fit into the fluff and/or theme of the campaign.
I do not change their backstories without telling them, but I will disapprove of one and make several suggestions on how they can make it fit the fluff and/or the theme of the campaign.
For example, on Golarion, all androids look similar to humans. Though it would be possible to make androids look like half-orcs, noone on Golarion (not even the Technic League) has the level of knowledge to do so (perhaps in the future). If the player wants his android character to be built by his "parents", in the shape of a half-orc, and have them over the years build new and better bodies and transfer the soul from one android to another multiple times... well I'm sorry, that just doesn't fit the fluff. Like not at all.
Also the campaign is a story about a party of adventurers, and no one player character should have such a special snowflake world-changing background that the plot becomes focused around that character. This would take too much spotlight away from the other character arcs.
In the above example, if someone on Golarion really did find their own way to make a new kind of android, and transfer souls from one body to another, the plot should really center around the Technic League (and the androids of Szamrak's Haven) doing whatever they can to find this creator and his creation. And then the half-orc android created by the player should really be an important NPC and not a PC.
|
A big part of this debate seems to be about a GM changing a character's back story, but a lot of the discussion is more about the GM using parts of the character's background story for campaign development.
I think a agree with all the people who say that the GM should check with you before changing your back story to fit into the GM's game world. But since you should be working to fit your character into the GM's world in the first place, this doesn't seem to be a problem. It's only a problem when the GM makes a change that totally messes u your character without first checking with you.
But any post start use of your back story should be up to your GM. If you put relatives, loved ones, and friends into your background story you have to expect, and even want the GM to make them part of the story. Otherwise, your entire life is just cheep window dressing. I keep waiting for the GM in one of my current games to slap me with part of my background; but so far he has been reluctant.
Come on Athos, hit me!
|
|
True, thejeff. But as it is always good for a GM to get to know what kinds of game a player will enjoy, that should be the most basic standard.
Know your players! (And players know your GM!)
The next most basic standard is don't constantly repeat yourself. If you as the GM create a story plot-line that involves killing one of the player's closest friends/family that can be some awesome role play opportunity. If you kill and slaughter every loved one a player ever has, it becomes both annoying and boring, as well as looking very much like the GM is picking on you.
Be original!
The great shame is the number of GMs and players that don't get to know what each other find interesting in a game. And this isn't just for new groups. This can easily include long standing groups where people just don't really talk about where the game is going or what they want. Then again, we often don't even know what we want.
GMs shouldn't interfere with a PCs background unless it will clearly make a scene at the table or was purposely designed to mess with other players.GMs have every right however to review and say things with in reason that they would rather not have something at their table
I'm okay with it if there's a GM disclaimer.
To clarify:
I'm cool seeing backstory elements in the game any time ex. seeing your swordmaster at the bar of some other city, getting some adventure hook from him or just chatting.
If the question was about the DM making crazy twists ex. "your loving family is actually a ravenous swarm of spiders", then yeah I'd want a disclaimer so I'm ready to roll with it.
Yeah, I love using character back-stories during games but there is also a disclaimer right at the start about it. It's part of integrating the character and player into the world and I consider it vital to the games I run. If you aren't caring about what is happening, then I don't consider it a very good game. Whether that includes a request from a dear family member or your long last arch-nemesis suddenly turning into the big-bad, it happens and those always seem to give players the best motivation.
I don't like it when GMs use elements of my backstories as adventure hooks. I'd like my characters to actually be able to have family without worrying about them being used as hostages or killed.
But any post start use of your back story should be up to your GM. If you put relatives, loved ones, and friends into your background story you have to expect, and even want the GM to make them part of the story. Otherwise, your entire life is just cheep window dressing.
I wouldn't want it any other way. I put a LOT of effort into backstories. I don't want the GM to come and start messing with that effort. I would also like to focus on actually doing the job my character was hired to do, not gallivanting about paying more attention to her personal affairs than her job.
I think the reason I dislike it so heavily is that I tend to play characters in positions of authority, and one of my biggest crime drama pet peeves is the storyline where a cop's family is kidnapped or killed and the cop goes after the perpetrator. That's a situation where the cop should not be allowed to have any involvement in investigating the case or pursing the perpetrator under threat of suspension or termination from the force, not a situation where the cop should go after the guys who did it. It's a massive conflict of interest likely to result in the cop losing control or a court case having serious vulnerabilities. In my mind, my character would be obligated to stand down and let somebody else rescue her family or kill the murderers, not go on a quest to resolve the issue herself.
Yeah, I love using character back-stories during games but there is also a disclaimer right at the start about it.
I'd be interested to see how you phrase this disclaimer.
"Thank you for putting all that work into writing the background, but now I'm going to ignore everything you wrote and rewrite it as I see fit"?
"I'm glad you created a background for the character you want to play, but now I'm going to turn it into the character I want you to play"?
I think the reason I dislike it so heavily is that I tend to play characters in positions of authority, and one of my biggest crime drama pet peeves is the storyline where a cop's family is kidnapped or killed and the cop goes after the perpetrator. That's a situation where the cop should not be allowed to have any involvement in investigating the case or pursing the perpetrator under threat of suspension or termination from the force, not a situation where the cop should go after the guys who did it. It's a massive conflict of interest likely to result in the cop losing control or a court case having serious vulnerabilities. In my mind, my character would be obligated to stand down and let somebody else rescue her family or kill the murderers, not go on a quest to resolve the issue herself..i see your point, but name ANY cop TV show which doesn't use that as plot hook. Not to mention the entire "Takken" film franchise.
I know. It isn't enough to make me not watch a show, I just don't like it.
|
|
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
I'm going to go ahead and agree that it's not only heroic to go save your loved one, but also disagree with Kelsey that it's unrealistic for a fantasy character to do the "professional thing" and recuse oneself.
Recusals over conflicts of interest is a sort of modern world concept that just doesn't transplant well into a faux-medieval world fantasy settings are based upon. It's the same reason even though magical flight is a thing you still see castles looking like castles, rather than bunkers ringed with AAA sites. It doesn't *feel* right.
A magistrate stepping aside to allow another uncompromised agent deal with a threatened loved one just doesn't make sense in a setting where there are no laws against police brutality and there is no actual oversight on law enforcement.
Seriously, it's often the case of "the law is what I say it is". And not just in chaotic evil society exceptions, either.
I think that one was more in reference to "I'm going to use your background, which might include threats to or death of NPCs in it", rather than "I'm going to change everything."I'd be interested to see how you phrase this disclaimer.
"Thank you for putting all that work into writing the background, but now I'm going to ignore everything you wrote and rewrite it as I see fit"?
"I'm glad you created a background for the character you want to play, but now I'm going to turn it into the character I want you to play"?
As thejeff says basically, yeah.
Honestly I'd hate to play with whichever DMs caused you to develop such a hostile and nasty attitude toward it. If you can't put enough trust in a DM to not screw you over constantly or assume everything he does it to change your character toward his preferences I find that very sad. I've always worked to develop a game everyone can enjoy which includes communicating with and creating the storyline alongside my players.
One of the questions I ask for from players at character creation is an antagonist or opposing NPC they'd like working against them for example. They get to suggest the entire character and reason they are opposed. I've had the responses range from a lawyer trying to buy their family home to their master that became a worm that walks they are out to stop. As it falls under part of their story, any major changes or clarifications are run past that player beforehand. It's lead to some very compelling and fun times and is a hit amongst the groups I've run. I've had some redeem or befriend their antagonists too so it's not always something that goes badly.
I also usually get them to toss me an ally NPC and someone more neutral as a concept they'd just like to interact with (generally like ideas for shopkeeps or a general acquaintance).