That doesn’t mean a player can be displeased by the direction a GM takes her background NPCs. In fact, I have also dealt with a scenario where I thought I was delivering the intended general story for a player’s background (a Joan of Arc styled paladin, befriending the deposed prince and leading his people against the Giants of Geoffe in Against the Giants), but quickly found I had overthought the process. Being familiar with the story I thought he wanted, I’d planned to eventually have the Prince see the Joan character as a threat because she was so beloved by the people. I was surprised to find that he did not appreciate this development and that he preferred a version with a happy ending and no twist.

I ran into a similar problem when another player didn’t want to do a backstory, and so I made her an amnesiac and developed a backstory for her that had her involved in an exploitative relationship with a villain. She got upset at this as well.

I would take as my lesson from this that if players care about their backstories at all, that GMs should take the time to listen specifically what they expect to happen with their backstories, and establish up front how they will interact with the plot, if at all. My assumption in the first place was that the player wanted a Joan of Arc-type story, when in fact, he just wanted the superhero character and a Disney ending. I would have approached the context around that character differently, had I known that.

Another good bit of advice I’ve seen above is to ask for BRIEF bios, prompted by questions, or better yet – small dramatic vignettes describing pivotal moments, or even a slice of life for that character. This discourages the boring encyclopedia entries that drag on for pages of tragedy, and encourages players to share their interesting backgrounds. Brevity can reduce investment, and discourages players from scripting out what can happen next. It’s not necessary to detail a history that leads to the moment they begin the adventure. I find it better for a player to do a vignette about a happy moment from the character’s childhood, or some other such small item. The break in time gives the GM and player more flexibility to play with once the game has begun.

On a side note, people do tend to be blind with their own families when growing up. In real life, my wife tended to gloss over certain aspects of her family life. Lately, she has noticed certain traits with her family she never noticed before. She isn’t the only one; her best friend’s husband is having the same dis-enchantment with his family, too. Moving away, getting married, and starting a separate life has had much to do with both accounts, and now both view their parents in different lights from growing up.

It happens in real life, it can happen in fantasy, too.

My point was that bad gamers tend to come to the table putting their interests well before that of the group. I believe that such a player, or GM, is a bad gamer. I personally wouldn’t want to play with such a person.

Yes, there are many wonderful game systems that have mechanics and systems that do not follow the traditional model. My understanding of the post was that it was written to address the more traditional types of games.

You don’t know me. I’d appreciate it if you didn’t post claiming that I have to be a “hell of lot more careful” and that I am “looking down my nose at other people”. I seriously doubt that I am being unhelpful and limiting the hobby by expressing my opinion.

I’m enjoying this discussion. Swordgleam, Idran, and others are making excellent points and I enjoy what they are posting. They are challenging statements that require me to think about my own stance on the subject. I hope that what I am posting is challenging their own ideas.

The problem here, as I see it, is that of incentive. Players have an incentive to protect their PCs. GMs have an incentive to challenge the PCs. When players introduce NPCs what incentive do they have to use those NPCs to challenge the PCs with? Not much. Some players do, but in my experience most do not. They are usually more concerned with moving the PC forward through the current adventure.

That is fine, but the GM’s incentive is much different. The GM is only rewarded by challenging the PCs at the appropriate level. Too little and the game is boring, too much and you end up with a TPK. All combat and you have just hack n’ slash, no combat and you just have amateur hour dinner theater.

Now here you have this wonderful tool – the back story. A GM can use that to present non-combat challenges to the PC with. The GM can expand upon the back story and shake up the PC with those revelations. GMs can’t change the back story, but they can draw from them and a good GM will find ways to make those revelations plausible without changing the back story.

So what is the issue here? That the player does not want their character concept challenged? I can send hordes of zombies after the PC, have a dragon savagely attack the PC, have the wrath of the gods reign down upon the PC, but I can’t challenge the character concept?

That just doesn’t fly with me. Challenging the character concept is part of the game. Having the character grow and change, rejoice and suffer, and evolve is the point behind a collaborative storytelling effort. That doesn’t require that the player control NPCs or that the PCs back story be made sacred. That requires that the GM make the PCs the center of the story being told and put them through at times uncomfortable and challenging situations.

Now maybe the player will not enjoy this initially. Good gamers roll with the punches though. They let the GM try something and give feedback. Sometimes they are pleasantly surprised, and sometimes the GM fails. That’s life.

Bad gamers, IMO, start declaring that this is theirs and do not touch it. First, how is that collaborative? Your PC’s actions can never be decreed by the GM, what your PC says can only come from you the player, and the PC is the central figure of the story. In a world of NPCs the PCs have the true advantage in that they are the only characters that matter in the end and only their decisions can change the fate of the world. That is a lot of power.

The GM on the other hand has only the story. That is the GM’s PC. You don’t want the GM telling you what to do with your PC, then show the same respect and leave the GM’s PC under his or her control. Meet each other in the sweet spot of RPGs – influence. Let the GM influence your PCs with the story, influence the story with your PCs. That is how great games come about.

One last thing – players have to ensure that the GM is having fun too. We always talk about how that is the most important part of a GM’s job. I say it is the responsibility of everyone at the table. If the GM is running a fun game for you and then decides to expand upon your back story in a way that you aren’t thrilled with, cut the GM some slack. If the game is fun and the GM thinks the development to the back story is fun let the GM have his or her fun. If it doesn’t work out bring it to the GM’s attention at a later time. Give them a chance to try though. You’d want the same with your PC from the GM.

It does, of course, depend on the type of game you run. But I can’t think of too many where the GM shouldn’t at very least consult the players for advice about their background NPCs.

Running or playing in a game is in many ways like collaborative storytelling. While you make good points in that GM control over NPCs can help the GM tell better stories, player control over NPCs can help the group tell better stories, and I think that is more important.

Except that’s not necessarily clear at all, depending on a number of factors. In one of my own games, I let a player play out a conversation between two of his background characters – the character’s parents in this case – because I knew he’d know the NPCs better than I would, given that he came up with them. (This was a one-on-one side session in an online game, so it wasn’t as boring as it might sound.) It’s not a hard and fast rule that every single NPC in the entire game in every RP is wholly under the ownership of the GM, it depends entirely on the game, the players, and the GM involved. That scene was enjoyable by both me and the player, and I’d say that alone proves it wasn’t wrong to do for that game.

Also, I’m a little confused why your claim that all NPCs are under the GM’s domain is important for the GM not getting attached to an NPC in order to favor them over a PC. Those two things don’t seem related at all, since the first doesn’t have to be true for the second to be, or vice versa. Am I misunderstanding your argument?

(Though personally I’d also say that it’s perfectly fine to get attached to an NPC [assuming you mean emotionally attached] so long as you don’t begin to favor them over the PC or start using them just to mess with the PC in the ways you described, but that’s another argument altogether.)

With this particular example I can see it working. The father is a pirate, and the mother a noble. He would be gone for months at a time, and she would be adept at keeping up appearances. And this is based on an age where women’s rights were not a major concern for many. I could see this series of events being hidden from the child as plausible under those circumstances.

Also, in response to some earlier posts and back to the heart of this post I wanted to add that it is clear who owns the NPCs in every game. They are non-player characters, so they must be the GM’s domain. To me this is important, because a GM should not be attached or favor NPCs in any way. Nor should a GM target and pick on an NPC just to cause a PC grief as a way to get to the player. NPCs are there to tell the story with and not to mess with player’s emotions. No matter who came up with the initial concept for the NPC.

A fair GM who is not interested in “defeating” the players can use all of these things to tell a great story and to run a fun game with. I’d say that the ends justify the means in this situation. Occasionally what we do will upset players whether it be a story element or a roll of the dice that kills a PC, but if the overall experience is a good one the players will roll with it and come back for more.

The father/brother was out of the picture, and I agree that from there, the GM can do whatever they want. Relative you thought died heroically in the war actually defected to the other side? Have an older sister you never knew about, because she was abandoned by your parents at birth? The great-grandpa your dad always told you funny stories about was secretly the founder of a cabal of necromancers? All good.

A (sometimes) present father being abusive, however, is something that was happening within the character’s sphere of influence. It isn’t something the character couldn’t possibly have known about, as in the above examples.

If the character could potentially have known about something, then the GM adding that something is the same as saying, “You didn’t notice that,” which is declaring the character’s actions/perceptions for them.

I think expanding on backstories is great. I just don’t think it should be done in ways which define the character’s actions/perceptions for them. You wouldn’t do it in the present, so why do it in the past?

One great example that probably all gamers know is Luke Skywalker. The first film his character concept is a farm boy looking to leave his boring life and fight for a just cause. He slowly learns about the Force and begins to learn of his destiny.

In the second film it is revealed that his greatest enemy is also his father. The concept of the character changes as he moves from naive farm boy to overzealous idealist who charges into a bad situation.

In the third film we have him as a Jedi. He still has his demons to fight, but now the object is not destruction of his enemy but resisting that dark side within him.

That’s a great character. One that evolved and changed and that had his back story expanded upon.

If a player writes a back story it should lead to dynamic game scenes. Otherwise it is merely fluff. That doesn’t mean that the back story is sacred. At that point it is a tool for the GM to use and build with. Putting up on a pedestal and saying “This can’t be added to. It is exactly as it is.” is limiting the back story to being just a starting point. It makes the character’s past a dead thing, so why introduce any of it into the present?

As a player I would be ecstatic for my GM to expand upon my PC’s back story with revelations of hidden truths. I’d want my character concept challenged. Relinquishing that kind of control to the GM will lead to more significant role playing IMO.

For example, if you told me right now that a relative of mine was struggling with drug addiction while I was growing up, I wouldn’t have any evidence in my “backstory” to contradict you. But I conceive of myself myself as a person who would notice if something like that were going on. So, adding that information would definitely change my “character concept.”

DarthKrzysztof: Ah, the good ol’ days of, “You don’t/must do that; it’s against/required by your alignment.”

When I first saw this topic, I thought that *this* was gonna be the actual subject matter. I mention this because a DM actually DID this to me back in 1st Edition days. He decided that my 1st level paladin’s code of honor required him to charge into the village that was being sacked by a hundred orcs, so that’s what he did, over my strenuous objection. Needless to say, he got captured, and the rest of the party spent the rest of the session rescuing him while I got to do -nothing.-

So yeah, you can imagine how short that campaign ended up being.