Mixing
Players Develop Backstories Too Much
Clash Royale CLAN TAG#URR8PPP
up vote
5
down vote
favorite
I keep running into an issue as a dungeon master where my players develop their characters a bit too much. By this, I mean that they'll write up things in their backstories or develop NPCs that aren't their own, and decide things that their character does not know.
Specific examples:
Player 1 has a character who was saved from drowning by an unknown sea entity which left him with a cursed sword. Great! But now player 1 will occasionally try to send me ideas of what he thinks may have been the monster-- which is really not up to him.
Player 2 is playing a character that she played in a previous campaign, which I'm allowing because she was more or less expelled from the campaign by the DM refusing to do his job. It's fine, but her character has a developed parent figure that she's written out text RPs with (which I don't allow in my games, but others have.)
We've played 7 sessions. I'm running two groups with the same campaign, but both are at 7 sessions at the moment.
I don't think either of them is doing this maliciously or to try and subvert me as a DM-- they're probably trying to help! I don't want to be too rude to them, but I do need to take the reigns back.
How do I discourage this?
How do I take control of unknown backstory entities with players who keep overthinking things that they have no control over?
dnd-5e roleplaying background
edited 41 mins ago
KorvinStarmast
69.6k16217383
asked 1 hour ago
L.S. Cooper
262
New contributor
L.S. Cooper is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
 |Â
show 9 more comments
up vote
5
down vote
favorite
I keep running into an issue as a dungeon master where my players develop their characters a bit too much. By this, I mean that they'll write up things in their backstories or develop NPCs that aren't their own, and decide things that their character does not know.
Specific examples:
Player 1 has a character who was saved from drowning by an unknown sea entity which left him with a cursed sword. Great! But now player 1 will occasionally try to send me ideas of what he thinks may have been the monster-- which is really not up to him.
Player 2 is playing a character that she played in a previous campaign, which I'm allowing because she was more or less expelled from the campaign by the DM refusing to do his job. It's fine, but her character has a developed parent figure that she's written out text RPs with (which I don't allow in my games, but others have.)
We've played 7 sessions. I'm running two groups with the same campaign, but both are at 7 sessions at the moment.
I don't think either of them is doing this maliciously or to try and subvert me as a DM-- they're probably trying to help! I don't want to be too rude to them, but I do need to take the reigns back.
How do I discourage this?
How do I take control of unknown backstory entities with players who keep overthinking things that they have no control over?
dnd-5e roleplaying background
edited 41 mins ago
KorvinStarmast
69.6k16217383
asked 1 hour ago
L.S. Cooper
262
New contributor
L.S. Cooper is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
1
Thanks, I'll remove it!
– L.S. Cooper
59 mins ago
5
I actually disagree with @Slagmoth here. The amount of control a player has over the backstory and story in general is very much dependent on the system being played. Dungeon World plays completely differently to Dungeons and Dragons for example. For this reason, I believe the system tag is important information for the question
– Wibbs
57 mins ago
1
To be fair, what I really need to know is how to deal with an interpersonal thing, where my players are trying to take control of stuff that isn't up to them. But I've only ever played D&D, so maybe this issue isn't possible in other systems?
– L.S. Cooper
54 mins ago
2
Could you explain why you consider this to be bad? Are players trying to gain some benefit by inserting an NPC for you to use? Are players expecting to gain use of the NPC's they're introducing? Do players complain that you haven't used 'their' NPC?
– Ifusaso
51 mins ago
2
Since you are DMing 5e, I added the tag back in. Wibbs was correct in that different systems treat background / back story with considerable differences. Classic Traveller, for example, had extensive background development as part of character creation in a way the D&D never did.
– KorvinStarmast
46 mins ago
 |Â
show 9 more comments
up vote
5
down vote
favorite
up vote
5
down vote
favorite
I keep running into an issue as a dungeon master where my players develop their characters a bit too much. By this, I mean that they'll write up things in their backstories or develop NPCs that aren't their own, and decide things that their character does not know.
Specific examples:
Player 1 has a character who was saved from drowning by an unknown sea entity which left him with a cursed sword. Great! But now player 1 will occasionally try to send me ideas of what he thinks may have been the monster-- which is really not up to him.
Player 2 is playing a character that she played in a previous campaign, which I'm allowing because she was more or less expelled from the campaign by the DM refusing to do his job. It's fine, but her character has a developed parent figure that she's written out text RPs with (which I don't allow in my games, but others have.)
We've played 7 sessions. I'm running two groups with the same campaign, but both are at 7 sessions at the moment.
I don't think either of them is doing this maliciously or to try and subvert me as a DM-- they're probably trying to help! I don't want to be too rude to them, but I do need to take the reigns back.
How do I discourage this?
How do I take control of unknown backstory entities with players who keep overthinking things that they have no control over?
dnd-5e roleplaying background
edited 41 mins ago
KorvinStarmast
69.6k16217383
asked 1 hour ago
L.S. Cooper
262
New contributor
L.S. Cooper is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
I keep running into an issue as a dungeon master where my players develop their characters a bit too much. By this, I mean that they'll write up things in their backstories or develop NPCs that aren't their own, and decide things that their character does not know.
Specific examples:
Player 1 has a character who was saved from drowning by an unknown sea entity which left him with a cursed sword. Great! But now player 1 will occasionally try to send me ideas of what he thinks may have been the monster-- which is really not up to him.
Player 2 is playing a character that she played in a previous campaign, which I'm allowing because she was more or less expelled from the campaign by the DM refusing to do his job. It's fine, but her character has a developed parent figure that she's written out text RPs with (which I don't allow in my games, but others have.)
We've played 7 sessions. I'm running two groups with the same campaign, but both are at 7 sessions at the moment.
I don't think either of them is doing this maliciously or to try and subvert me as a DM-- they're probably trying to help! I don't want to be too rude to them, but I do need to take the reigns back.
How do I discourage this?
How do I take control of unknown backstory entities with players who keep overthinking things that they have no control over?
dnd-5e roleplaying background
dnd-5e roleplaying background
edited 41 mins ago
KorvinStarmast
69.6k16217383
asked 1 hour ago
L.S. Cooper
262
New contributor
L.S. Cooper is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
edited 41 mins ago
KorvinStarmast
69.6k16217383
asked 1 hour ago
L.S. Cooper
262
New contributor
L.S. Cooper is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
edited 41 mins ago
KorvinStarmast
69.6k16217383
edited 41 mins ago
KorvinStarmast
69.6k16217383
edited 41 mins ago
KorvinStarmast
69.6k16217383
69.6k16217383
asked 1 hour ago
L.S. Cooper
262
New contributor
L.S. Cooper is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
asked 1 hour ago
L.S. Cooper
262
asked 1 hour ago
L.S. Cooper
262
262
New contributor
L.S. Cooper is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
New contributor
L.S. Cooper is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
L.S. Cooper is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
1
Thanks, I'll remove it!
– L.S. Cooper
59 mins ago
5
I actually disagree with @Slagmoth here. The amount of control a player has over the backstory and story in general is very much dependent on the system being played. Dungeon World plays completely differently to Dungeons and Dragons for example. For this reason, I believe the system tag is important information for the question
– Wibbs
57 mins ago
1
To be fair, what I really need to know is how to deal with an interpersonal thing, where my players are trying to take control of stuff that isn't up to them. But I've only ever played D&D, so maybe this issue isn't possible in other systems?
– L.S. Cooper
54 mins ago
2
Could you explain why you consider this to be bad? Are players trying to gain some benefit by inserting an NPC for you to use? Are players expecting to gain use of the NPC's they're introducing? Do players complain that you haven't used 'their' NPC?
– Ifusaso
51 mins ago
2
Since you are DMing 5e, I added the tag back in. Wibbs was correct in that different systems treat background / back story with considerable differences. Classic Traveller, for example, had extensive background development as part of character creation in a way the D&D never did.
– KorvinStarmast
46 mins ago
 |Â
show 9 more comments
1
Thanks, I'll remove it!
– L.S. Cooper
59 mins ago
5
I actually disagree with @Slagmoth here. The amount of control a player has over the backstory and story in general is very much dependent on the system being played. Dungeon World plays completely differently to Dungeons and Dragons for example. For this reason, I believe the system tag is important information for the question
– Wibbs
57 mins ago
1
To be fair, what I really need to know is how to deal with an interpersonal thing, where my players are trying to take control of stuff that isn't up to them. But I've only ever played D&D, so maybe this issue isn't possible in other systems?
– L.S. Cooper
54 mins ago
2
Could you explain why you consider this to be bad? Are players trying to gain some benefit by inserting an NPC for you to use? Are players expecting to gain use of the NPC's they're introducing? Do players complain that you haven't used 'their' NPC?
– Ifusaso
51 mins ago
2
Since you are DMing 5e, I added the tag back in. Wibbs was correct in that different systems treat background / back story with considerable differences. Classic Traveller, for example, had extensive background development as part of character creation in a way the D&D never did.
– KorvinStarmast
46 mins ago
1
1
Thanks, I'll remove it!
– L.S. Cooper
59 mins ago
Thanks, I'll remove it!
– L.S. Cooper
59 mins ago
5
5
I actually disagree with @Slagmoth here. The amount of control a player has over the backstory and story in general is very much dependent on the system being played. Dungeon World plays completely differently to Dungeons and Dragons for example. For this reason, I believe the system tag is important information for the question
– Wibbs
57 mins ago
I actually disagree with @Slagmoth here. The amount of control a player has over the backstory and story in general is very much dependent on the system being played. Dungeon World plays completely differently to Dungeons and Dragons for example. For this reason, I believe the system tag is important information for the question
– Wibbs
57 mins ago
1
1
To be fair, what I really need to know is how to deal with an interpersonal thing, where my players are trying to take control of stuff that isn't up to them. But I've only ever played D&D, so maybe this issue isn't possible in other systems?
– L.S. Cooper
54 mins ago
To be fair, what I really need to know is how to deal with an interpersonal thing, where my players are trying to take control of stuff that isn't up to them. But I've only ever played D&D, so maybe this issue isn't possible in other systems?
– L.S. Cooper
54 mins ago
2
2
Could you explain why you consider this to be bad? Are players trying to gain some benefit by inserting an NPC for you to use? Are players expecting to gain use of the NPC's they're introducing? Do players complain that you haven't used 'their' NPC?
– Ifusaso
51 mins ago
Could you explain why you consider this to be bad? Are players trying to gain some benefit by inserting an NPC for you to use? Are players expecting to gain use of the NPC's they're introducing? Do players complain that you haven't used 'their' NPC?
– Ifusaso
51 mins ago
2
2
Since you are DMing 5e, I added the tag back in. Wibbs was correct in that different systems treat background / back story with considerable differences. Classic Traveller, for example, had extensive background development as part of character creation in a way the D&D never did.
– KorvinStarmast
46 mins ago
Since you are DMing 5e, I added the tag back in. Wibbs was correct in that different systems treat background / back story with considerable differences. Classic Traveller, for example, had extensive background development as part of character creation in a way the D&D never did.
– KorvinStarmast
46 mins ago
 |Â
show 9 more comments
5 Answers
5
active
oldest
votes
up vote
1
down vote
As long as your main concern is that the players are trying to gain some advantage, like having NPCs who help them, you just need to tell them. What worked for a DM in a previous game might very well not work for you.
I had players who reacted by swearing that this was not the case. Let's remove the temptation, I said. Then I proceeded to explain the division of power between players and DM in D&D and how thei rcontrol over NPCs could clash with the truths of the setting. This usually worked quite well.
Of course it would have been optimal to do that before the first session. Next time, maybe.
answered 40 mins ago
Zachiel
26.2k361128
add a comment |Â
up vote
1
down vote
It really sounds to me like your players are developing their backstories quite appropriately, at least per the recommendations in the 5e Player’s Handbook. Chapter 4: Personality and Background refers to players detailing much about their character’s relationships with other (non-player) characters:
Bonds represent a character’s connection to people [...] in the world. [...]
Bonds might answer any of these questions: Whom do you care most about? To what place do you feel a special connection? [...]
Your bonds might be tied to [...] or some other aspect of your character’s history
None of this says “have your DM make up characters for you to have a bond with.†D&D 5e explicitly suggests that players take over small, local aspects of the world for the sake of tying their characters to it.
In short, this is not back-seat DMing. Yes, you should reserve the right to veto anything problematic in there. And any NPCs introduced in a player’s backstory are NPCs and you control them as appropriate during the game.
But the fact that they were introduced by a player and not you is not a problem: it is a good thing. It ties the PCs to the world in a way they might otherwise not be, it’s rife with plot-hooks, and it helps you out. To produce the same effect without each player doing some of the work relevant to their own character would mean a ton of back-and-forth with each player, and a lot more work for you.
Some of this may be somewhat new to you if you come from other editions, which were much less explicit about this kind of thing. Nonetheless, this was still heartily recommended behavior in those editions.
So I strongly recommend that you reserve your objections for things that are actually objectionable (for example), but otherwise just roll with it. These sound like great players, and it really does not sound as though they are being pushy about anything.
answered 14 mins ago
KRyan
212k26528916
add a comment |Â
up vote
1
down vote
You and your players have a conflict of expectations.
Throughout my experience with D&D, I've realized that the game means different things to different people. For some players, D&D is a combat-heavy game where the DM tells you what monsters appear, and then the player characters roll dice until the monster is dead. For some players, D&D is game where the DM writes the story, and the player characters come and go without consequence. For other players, D&D is a RP-heavy game where the DM is basically a referee, while the players shape the plot via their characters and choices.
The problem here is that you haven't accounted for the variety of preconceptions that your players bring to the table. You (the DM) think that the players shouldn't influence how you write NPCs or plotlines. Player 1 thinks putting effort into their backstory will have payoff. Player 2 thinks they should have narrative control over a minor NPC that they created. None of these perspectives are wrong per se, but as you have already found out, they are not compatible.
Communicate. Discuss your expectations with your players. Then play.
You need to establish the expectations for your D&D table. Communicate to your players about the separation between player input and DM input. It's your campaign and you can decide this. Or, perhaps you could present this as a discussion, and possibly adjust that separation if the players want more narrative control.
Either way, you and your players need to get on the same page about these expectations for the game.
Many groups organize a Session Zero to discuss their expectations for what they want (and do not want) in the campaign. Typically the Session Zero should occur before the campaign begins, but it is entirely possible to have this discussion during the campaign.
answered 8 mins ago
Mike Q
8,98341862
add a comment |Â
up vote
0
down vote
Player 1
This sounds like this player is just sending you ideas; I don't see any problem here unless you don't like reading them. Unless the player is in-character trying to make those ideas true, then I would just use the ideas as fodder for your own reality you are creating. You are not obligated to use any of their ideas if you don't want to.
Player 2
For this player, you just need to have some communication. It sounds you weren't expecting them to create characters, so tell them that you two will need to work together on this. That way you are involved in this process and you can have the final say in whether or not the character gets into the game.
The main thing is that there needs to be an agreement between you two. No agreement, no character. If the player continues to try to pretend like their made-up parent exists, then you will need to have a separate conversation about the game and how you want to run it. Running a 5e game where the DM creates everything is just as valid as a game where the DM asks players for ideas constantly to create the world as they play.
Addendum
If you really don't want ideas from your players, then you should just say that up front and make it clear. Personally I wouldn't go this route as getting extra ideas from your players is part of what makes it fun for me, but having the DM make everything up and the players just explore is perfectly fine. Just make sure everyone understands and agrees on this, the agreement is paramount. Something like the Same Page Tool is very helpful for this.
If you have concerns about players metagaming with this information, I suggest you give them the benefit of the doubt. Being able to trust your players is important!
answered 28 mins ago
firedraco
4,06611117
add a comment |Â
up vote
0
down vote
Have a Session 0, or at least a real conversation about your expectations
This comes down to your social contract in the game and to expectations. The bottom line solution is to explain how the game works at your table and what kinds of input you would find helpful and what kinds you find to be unhelpful.
You don't need to take the reigns back...
Personally, as long as the players understood that they were making suggestions that I could accept or reject, I would welcome this kind of participation at my table. I go out of my way to work the character's backstory into the game and I encourage them to make it easy for me. So long as its clear that their suggestions are only suggestions, I personally do encourage this type of behavior.
Some RPGs encourage this type of thing by their very rules, especially those that use or are inspired by the FATE system. DND does not encourage this quite so much by its rules (though it does to a small degree), but it accepts it reasonably well and it is a valid play style.
...but you might want to take the reigns back, and the players should respect that.
However, I am well aware that not all DM's encourage that for a wide variety of reasons including wanting to develop the world themselves, wanting to move forward with tightly scripted plots, or simply wanting to focus on the combat. That is a valid playstyle too. Most players, at least those I have dealt with, will be fine limiting their input on the world outside their characters, but it may need to be explicit. This is especially true when the players have a background at tables that encouraged that sort of input.
In short, taking the reigns back is probably as simple as telling your players that you want to. As long as you phrase it as identifying your style, rather than something like telling them their input was inherently bad, they will most likely not find it rude and will likely respect your position.
answered 15 mins ago
TimothyAWiseman
16.4k23181
add a comment |Â
5 Answers
5
active
oldest
votes
5 Answers
5
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
up vote
1
down vote
As long as your main concern is that the players are trying to gain some advantage, like having NPCs who help them, you just need to tell them. What worked for a DM in a previous game might very well not work for you.
I had players who reacted by swearing that this was not the case. Let's remove the temptation, I said. Then I proceeded to explain the division of power between players and DM in D&D and how thei rcontrol over NPCs could clash with the truths of the setting. This usually worked quite well.
Of course it would have been optimal to do that before the first session. Next time, maybe.
answered 40 mins ago
Zachiel
26.2k361128
add a comment |Â
up vote
1
down vote
As long as your main concern is that the players are trying to gain some advantage, like having NPCs who help them, you just need to tell them. What worked for a DM in a previous game might very well not work for you.
I had players who reacted by swearing that this was not the case. Let's remove the temptation, I said. Then I proceeded to explain the division of power between players and DM in D&D and how thei rcontrol over NPCs could clash with the truths of the setting. This usually worked quite well.
Of course it would have been optimal to do that before the first session. Next time, maybe.
answered 40 mins ago
Zachiel
26.2k361128
add a comment |Â
up vote
1
down vote
up vote
1
down vote
As long as your main concern is that the players are trying to gain some advantage, like having NPCs who help them, you just need to tell them. What worked for a DM in a previous game might very well not work for you.
I had players who reacted by swearing that this was not the case. Let's remove the temptation, I said. Then I proceeded to explain the division of power between players and DM in D&D and how thei rcontrol over NPCs could clash with the truths of the setting. This usually worked quite well.
Of course it would have been optimal to do that before the first session. Next time, maybe.
answered 40 mins ago
Zachiel
26.2k361128
As long as your main concern is that the players are trying to gain some advantage, like having NPCs who help them, you just need to tell them. What worked for a DM in a previous game might very well not work for you.
I had players who reacted by swearing that this was not the case. Let's remove the temptation, I said. Then I proceeded to explain the division of power between players and DM in D&D and how thei rcontrol over NPCs could clash with the truths of the setting. This usually worked quite well.
Of course it would have been optimal to do that before the first session. Next time, maybe.
answered 40 mins ago
Zachiel
26.2k361128
answered 40 mins ago
Zachiel
26.2k361128
answered 40 mins ago
Zachiel
26.2k361128
answered 40 mins ago
Zachiel
26.2k361128
26.2k361128
add a comment |Â
add a comment |Â
up vote
1
down vote
It really sounds to me like your players are developing their backstories quite appropriately, at least per the recommendations in the 5e Player’s Handbook. Chapter 4: Personality and Background refers to players detailing much about their character’s relationships with other (non-player) characters:
Bonds represent a character’s connection to people [...] in the world. [...]
Bonds might answer any of these questions: Whom do you care most about? To what place do you feel a special connection? [...]
Your bonds might be tied to [...] or some other aspect of your character’s history
None of this says “have your DM make up characters for you to have a bond with.†D&D 5e explicitly suggests that players take over small, local aspects of the world for the sake of tying their characters to it.
In short, this is not back-seat DMing. Yes, you should reserve the right to veto anything problematic in there. And any NPCs introduced in a player’s backstory are NPCs and you control them as appropriate during the game.
But the fact that they were introduced by a player and not you is not a problem: it is a good thing. It ties the PCs to the world in a way they might otherwise not be, it’s rife with plot-hooks, and it helps you out. To produce the same effect without each player doing some of the work relevant to their own character would mean a ton of back-and-forth with each player, and a lot more work for you.
Some of this may be somewhat new to you if you come from other editions, which were much less explicit about this kind of thing. Nonetheless, this was still heartily recommended behavior in those editions.
So I strongly recommend that you reserve your objections for things that are actually objectionable (for example), but otherwise just roll with it. These sound like great players, and it really does not sound as though they are being pushy about anything.
answered 14 mins ago
KRyan
212k26528916
add a comment |Â
up vote
1
down vote
It really sounds to me like your players are developing their backstories quite appropriately, at least per the recommendations in the 5e Player’s Handbook. Chapter 4: Personality and Background refers to players detailing much about their character’s relationships with other (non-player) characters:
Bonds represent a character’s connection to people [...] in the world. [...]
Bonds might answer any of these questions: Whom do you care most about? To what place do you feel a special connection? [...]
Your bonds might be tied to [...] or some other aspect of your character’s history
None of this says “have your DM make up characters for you to have a bond with.†D&D 5e explicitly suggests that players take over small, local aspects of the world for the sake of tying their characters to it.
In short, this is not back-seat DMing. Yes, you should reserve the right to veto anything problematic in there. And any NPCs introduced in a player’s backstory are NPCs and you control them as appropriate during the game.
But the fact that they were introduced by a player and not you is not a problem: it is a good thing. It ties the PCs to the world in a way they might otherwise not be, it’s rife with plot-hooks, and it helps you out. To produce the same effect without each player doing some of the work relevant to their own character would mean a ton of back-and-forth with each player, and a lot more work for you.
Some of this may be somewhat new to you if you come from other editions, which were much less explicit about this kind of thing. Nonetheless, this was still heartily recommended behavior in those editions.
So I strongly recommend that you reserve your objections for things that are actually objectionable (for example), but otherwise just roll with it. These sound like great players, and it really does not sound as though they are being pushy about anything.
answered 14 mins ago
KRyan
212k26528916
add a comment |Â
up vote
1
down vote
up vote
1
down vote
It really sounds to me like your players are developing their backstories quite appropriately, at least per the recommendations in the 5e Player’s Handbook. Chapter 4: Personality and Background refers to players detailing much about their character’s relationships with other (non-player) characters:
Bonds represent a character’s connection to people [...] in the world. [...]
Bonds might answer any of these questions: Whom do you care most about? To what place do you feel a special connection? [...]
Your bonds might be tied to [...] or some other aspect of your character’s history
None of this says “have your DM make up characters for you to have a bond with.†D&D 5e explicitly suggests that players take over small, local aspects of the world for the sake of tying their characters to it.
In short, this is not back-seat DMing. Yes, you should reserve the right to veto anything problematic in there. And any NPCs introduced in a player’s backstory are NPCs and you control them as appropriate during the game.
But the fact that they were introduced by a player and not you is not a problem: it is a good thing. It ties the PCs to the world in a way they might otherwise not be, it’s rife with plot-hooks, and it helps you out. To produce the same effect without each player doing some of the work relevant to their own character would mean a ton of back-and-forth with each player, and a lot more work for you.
Some of this may be somewhat new to you if you come from other editions, which were much less explicit about this kind of thing. Nonetheless, this was still heartily recommended behavior in those editions.
So I strongly recommend that you reserve your objections for things that are actually objectionable (for example), but otherwise just roll with it. These sound like great players, and it really does not sound as though they are being pushy about anything.
answered 14 mins ago
KRyan
212k26528916
It really sounds to me like your players are developing their backstories quite appropriately, at least per the recommendations in the 5e Player’s Handbook. Chapter 4: Personality and Background refers to players detailing much about their character’s relationships with other (non-player) characters:
Bonds represent a character’s connection to people [...] in the world. [...]
Bonds might answer any of these questions: Whom do you care most about? To what place do you feel a special connection? [...]
Your bonds might be tied to [...] or some other aspect of your character’s history
None of this says “have your DM make up characters for you to have a bond with.†D&D 5e explicitly suggests that players take over small, local aspects of the world for the sake of tying their characters to it.
In short, this is not back-seat DMing. Yes, you should reserve the right to veto anything problematic in there. And any NPCs introduced in a player’s backstory are NPCs and you control them as appropriate during the game.
But the fact that they were introduced by a player and not you is not a problem: it is a good thing. It ties the PCs to the world in a way they might otherwise not be, it’s rife with plot-hooks, and it helps you out. To produce the same effect without each player doing some of the work relevant to their own character would mean a ton of back-and-forth with each player, and a lot more work for you.
Some of this may be somewhat new to you if you come from other editions, which were much less explicit about this kind of thing. Nonetheless, this was still heartily recommended behavior in those editions.
So I strongly recommend that you reserve your objections for things that are actually objectionable (for example), but otherwise just roll with it. These sound like great players, and it really does not sound as though they are being pushy about anything.
answered 14 mins ago
KRyan
212k26528916
answered 14 mins ago
KRyan
212k26528916
answered 14 mins ago
KRyan
212k26528916
answered 14 mins ago
KRyan
212k26528916
212k26528916
add a comment |Â
add a comment |Â
up vote
1
down vote
You and your players have a conflict of expectations.
Throughout my experience with D&D, I've realized that the game means different things to different people. For some players, D&D is a combat-heavy game where the DM tells you what monsters appear, and then the player characters roll dice until the monster is dead. For some players, D&D is game where the DM writes the story, and the player characters come and go without consequence. For other players, D&D is a RP-heavy game where the DM is basically a referee, while the players shape the plot via their characters and choices.
The problem here is that you haven't accounted for the variety of preconceptions that your players bring to the table. You (the DM) think that the players shouldn't influence how you write NPCs or plotlines. Player 1 thinks putting effort into their backstory will have payoff. Player 2 thinks they should have narrative control over a minor NPC that they created. None of these perspectives are wrong per se, but as you have already found out, they are not compatible.
Communicate. Discuss your expectations with your players. Then play.
You need to establish the expectations for your D&D table. Communicate to your players about the separation between player input and DM input. It's your campaign and you can decide this. Or, perhaps you could present this as a discussion, and possibly adjust that separation if the players want more narrative control.
Either way, you and your players need to get on the same page about these expectations for the game.
Many groups organize a Session Zero to discuss their expectations for what they want (and do not want) in the campaign. Typically the Session Zero should occur before the campaign begins, but it is entirely possible to have this discussion during the campaign.
answered 8 mins ago
Mike Q
8,98341862
add a comment |Â
up vote
1
down vote
You and your players have a conflict of expectations.
Throughout my experience with D&D, I've realized that the game means different things to different people. For some players, D&D is a combat-heavy game where the DM tells you what monsters appear, and then the player characters roll dice until the monster is dead. For some players, D&D is game where the DM writes the story, and the player characters come and go without consequence. For other players, D&D is a RP-heavy game where the DM is basically a referee, while the players shape the plot via their characters and choices.
The problem here is that you haven't accounted for the variety of preconceptions that your players bring to the table. You (the DM) think that the players shouldn't influence how you write NPCs or plotlines. Player 1 thinks putting effort into their backstory will have payoff. Player 2 thinks they should have narrative control over a minor NPC that they created. None of these perspectives are wrong per se, but as you have already found out, they are not compatible.
Communicate. Discuss your expectations with your players. Then play.
You need to establish the expectations for your D&D table. Communicate to your players about the separation between player input and DM input. It's your campaign and you can decide this. Or, perhaps you could present this as a discussion, and possibly adjust that separation if the players want more narrative control.
Either way, you and your players need to get on the same page about these expectations for the game.
Many groups organize a Session Zero to discuss their expectations for what they want (and do not want) in the campaign. Typically the Session Zero should occur before the campaign begins, but it is entirely possible to have this discussion during the campaign.
answered 8 mins ago
Mike Q
8,98341862
add a comment |Â
up vote
1
down vote
up vote
1
down vote
You and your players have a conflict of expectations.
Throughout my experience with D&D, I've realized that the game means different things to different people. For some players, D&D is a combat-heavy game where the DM tells you what monsters appear, and then the player characters roll dice until the monster is dead. For some players, D&D is game where the DM writes the story, and the player characters come and go without consequence. For other players, D&D is a RP-heavy game where the DM is basically a referee, while the players shape the plot via their characters and choices.
The problem here is that you haven't accounted for the variety of preconceptions that your players bring to the table. You (the DM) think that the players shouldn't influence how you write NPCs or plotlines. Player 1 thinks putting effort into their backstory will have payoff. Player 2 thinks they should have narrative control over a minor NPC that they created. None of these perspectives are wrong per se, but as you have already found out, they are not compatible.
Communicate. Discuss your expectations with your players. Then play.
You need to establish the expectations for your D&D table. Communicate to your players about the separation between player input and DM input. It's your campaign and you can decide this. Or, perhaps you could present this as a discussion, and possibly adjust that separation if the players want more narrative control.
Either way, you and your players need to get on the same page about these expectations for the game.
Many groups organize a Session Zero to discuss their expectations for what they want (and do not want) in the campaign. Typically the Session Zero should occur before the campaign begins, but it is entirely possible to have this discussion during the campaign.
answered 8 mins ago
Mike Q
8,98341862
You and your players have a conflict of expectations.
Throughout my experience with D&D, I've realized that the game means different things to different people. For some players, D&D is a combat-heavy game where the DM tells you what monsters appear, and then the player characters roll dice until the monster is dead. For some players, D&D is game where the DM writes the story, and the player characters come and go without consequence. For other players, D&D is a RP-heavy game where the DM is basically a referee, while the players shape the plot via their characters and choices.
The problem here is that you haven't accounted for the variety of preconceptions that your players bring to the table. You (the DM) think that the players shouldn't influence how you write NPCs or plotlines. Player 1 thinks putting effort into their backstory will have payoff. Player 2 thinks they should have narrative control over a minor NPC that they created. None of these perspectives are wrong per se, but as you have already found out, they are not compatible.
Communicate. Discuss your expectations with your players. Then play.
You need to establish the expectations for your D&D table. Communicate to your players about the separation between player input and DM input. It's your campaign and you can decide this. Or, perhaps you could present this as a discussion, and possibly adjust that separation if the players want more narrative control.
Either way, you and your players need to get on the same page about these expectations for the game.
Many groups organize a Session Zero to discuss their expectations for what they want (and do not want) in the campaign. Typically the Session Zero should occur before the campaign begins, but it is entirely possible to have this discussion during the campaign.
answered 8 mins ago
Mike Q
8,98341862
edited 3 mins ago
answered 8 mins ago
Mike Q
8,98341862
answered 8 mins ago
Mike Q
8,98341862
answered 8 mins ago
Mike Q
8,98341862
8,98341862
add a comment |Â
add a comment |Â
up vote
0
down vote
Player 1
This sounds like this player is just sending you ideas; I don't see any problem here unless you don't like reading them. Unless the player is in-character trying to make those ideas true, then I would just use the ideas as fodder for your own reality you are creating. You are not obligated to use any of their ideas if you don't want to.
Player 2
For this player, you just need to have some communication. It sounds you weren't expecting them to create characters, so tell them that you two will need to work together on this. That way you are involved in this process and you can have the final say in whether or not the character gets into the game.
The main thing is that there needs to be an agreement between you two. No agreement, no character. If the player continues to try to pretend like their made-up parent exists, then you will need to have a separate conversation about the game and how you want to run it. Running a 5e game where the DM creates everything is just as valid as a game where the DM asks players for ideas constantly to create the world as they play.
Addendum
If you really don't want ideas from your players, then you should just say that up front and make it clear. Personally I wouldn't go this route as getting extra ideas from your players is part of what makes it fun for me, but having the DM make everything up and the players just explore is perfectly fine. Just make sure everyone understands and agrees on this, the agreement is paramount. Something like the Same Page Tool is very helpful for this.
If you have concerns about players metagaming with this information, I suggest you give them the benefit of the doubt. Being able to trust your players is important!
answered 28 mins ago
firedraco
4,06611117
add a comment |Â
up vote
0
down vote
Player 1
This sounds like this player is just sending you ideas; I don't see any problem here unless you don't like reading them. Unless the player is in-character trying to make those ideas true, then I would just use the ideas as fodder for your own reality you are creating. You are not obligated to use any of their ideas if you don't want to.
Player 2
For this player, you just need to have some communication. It sounds you weren't expecting them to create characters, so tell them that you two will need to work together on this. That way you are involved in this process and you can have the final say in whether or not the character gets into the game.
The main thing is that there needs to be an agreement between you two. No agreement, no character. If the player continues to try to pretend like their made-up parent exists, then you will need to have a separate conversation about the game and how you want to run it. Running a 5e game where the DM creates everything is just as valid as a game where the DM asks players for ideas constantly to create the world as they play.
Addendum
If you really don't want ideas from your players, then you should just say that up front and make it clear. Personally I wouldn't go this route as getting extra ideas from your players is part of what makes it fun for me, but having the DM make everything up and the players just explore is perfectly fine. Just make sure everyone understands and agrees on this, the agreement is paramount. Something like the Same Page Tool is very helpful for this.
If you have concerns about players metagaming with this information, I suggest you give them the benefit of the doubt. Being able to trust your players is important!
answered 28 mins ago
firedraco
4,06611117
add a comment |Â
up vote
0
down vote
up vote
0
down vote
Player 1
This sounds like this player is just sending you ideas; I don't see any problem here unless you don't like reading them. Unless the player is in-character trying to make those ideas true, then I would just use the ideas as fodder for your own reality you are creating. You are not obligated to use any of their ideas if you don't want to.
Player 2
For this player, you just need to have some communication. It sounds you weren't expecting them to create characters, so tell them that you two will need to work together on this. That way you are involved in this process and you can have the final say in whether or not the character gets into the game.
The main thing is that there needs to be an agreement between you two. No agreement, no character. If the player continues to try to pretend like their made-up parent exists, then you will need to have a separate conversation about the game and how you want to run it. Running a 5e game where the DM creates everything is just as valid as a game where the DM asks players for ideas constantly to create the world as they play.
Addendum
If you really don't want ideas from your players, then you should just say that up front and make it clear. Personally I wouldn't go this route as getting extra ideas from your players is part of what makes it fun for me, but having the DM make everything up and the players just explore is perfectly fine. Just make sure everyone understands and agrees on this, the agreement is paramount. Something like the Same Page Tool is very helpful for this.
If you have concerns about players metagaming with this information, I suggest you give them the benefit of the doubt. Being able to trust your players is important!
answered 28 mins ago
firedraco
4,06611117
Player 1
This sounds like this player is just sending you ideas; I don't see any problem here unless you don't like reading them. Unless the player is in-character trying to make those ideas true, then I would just use the ideas as fodder for your own reality you are creating. You are not obligated to use any of their ideas if you don't want to.
Player 2
For this player, you just need to have some communication. It sounds you weren't expecting them to create characters, so tell them that you two will need to work together on this. That way you are involved in this process and you can have the final say in whether or not the character gets into the game.
The main thing is that there needs to be an agreement between you two. No agreement, no character. If the player continues to try to pretend like their made-up parent exists, then you will need to have a separate conversation about the game and how you want to run it. Running a 5e game where the DM creates everything is just as valid as a game where the DM asks players for ideas constantly to create the world as they play.
Addendum
If you really don't want ideas from your players, then you should just say that up front and make it clear. Personally I wouldn't go this route as getting extra ideas from your players is part of what makes it fun for me, but having the DM make everything up and the players just explore is perfectly fine. Just make sure everyone understands and agrees on this, the agreement is paramount. Something like the Same Page Tool is very helpful for this.
If you have concerns about players metagaming with this information, I suggest you give them the benefit of the doubt. Being able to trust your players is important!
answered 28 mins ago
firedraco
4,06611117
answered 28 mins ago
firedraco
4,06611117
answered 28 mins ago
firedraco
4,06611117
answered 28 mins ago
firedraco
4,06611117
4,06611117
add a comment |Â
add a comment |Â
up vote
0
down vote
Have a Session 0, or at least a real conversation about your expectations
This comes down to your social contract in the game and to expectations. The bottom line solution is to explain how the game works at your table and what kinds of input you would find helpful and what kinds you find to be unhelpful.
You don't need to take the reigns back...
Personally, as long as the players understood that they were making suggestions that I could accept or reject, I would welcome this kind of participation at my table. I go out of my way to work the character's backstory into the game and I encourage them to make it easy for me. So long as its clear that their suggestions are only suggestions, I personally do encourage this type of behavior.
Some RPGs encourage this type of thing by their very rules, especially those that use or are inspired by the FATE system. DND does not encourage this quite so much by its rules (though it does to a small degree), but it accepts it reasonably well and it is a valid play style.
...but you might want to take the reigns back, and the players should respect that.
However, I am well aware that not all DM's encourage that for a wide variety of reasons including wanting to develop the world themselves, wanting to move forward with tightly scripted plots, or simply wanting to focus on the combat. That is a valid playstyle too. Most players, at least those I have dealt with, will be fine limiting their input on the world outside their characters, but it may need to be explicit. This is especially true when the players have a background at tables that encouraged that sort of input.
In short, taking the reigns back is probably as simple as telling your players that you want to. As long as you phrase it as identifying your style, rather than something like telling them their input was inherently bad, they will most likely not find it rude and will likely respect your position.
answered 15 mins ago
TimothyAWiseman
16.4k23181
add a comment |Â
up vote
0
down vote
Have a Session 0, or at least a real conversation about your expectations
This comes down to your social contract in the game and to expectations. The bottom line solution is to explain how the game works at your table and what kinds of input you would find helpful and what kinds you find to be unhelpful.
You don't need to take the reigns back...
Personally, as long as the players understood that they were making suggestions that I could accept or reject, I would welcome this kind of participation at my table. I go out of my way to work the character's backstory into the game and I encourage them to make it easy for me. So long as its clear that their suggestions are only suggestions, I personally do encourage this type of behavior.
Some RPGs encourage this type of thing by their very rules, especially those that use or are inspired by the FATE system. DND does not encourage this quite so much by its rules (though it does to a small degree), but it accepts it reasonably well and it is a valid play style.
...but you might want to take the reigns back, and the players should respect that.
However, I am well aware that not all DM's encourage that for a wide variety of reasons including wanting to develop the world themselves, wanting to move forward with tightly scripted plots, or simply wanting to focus on the combat. That is a valid playstyle too. Most players, at least those I have dealt with, will be fine limiting their input on the world outside their characters, but it may need to be explicit. This is especially true when the players have a background at tables that encouraged that sort of input.
In short, taking the reigns back is probably as simple as telling your players that you want to. As long as you phrase it as identifying your style, rather than something like telling them their input was inherently bad, they will most likely not find it rude and will likely respect your position.
answered 15 mins ago
TimothyAWiseman
16.4k23181
add a comment |Â
up vote
0
down vote
up vote
0
down vote
Have a Session 0, or at least a real conversation about your expectations
This comes down to your social contract in the game and to expectations. The bottom line solution is to explain how the game works at your table and what kinds of input you would find helpful and what kinds you find to be unhelpful.
You don't need to take the reigns back...
Personally, as long as the players understood that they were making suggestions that I could accept or reject, I would welcome this kind of participation at my table. I go out of my way to work the character's backstory into the game and I encourage them to make it easy for me. So long as its clear that their suggestions are only suggestions, I personally do encourage this type of behavior.
Some RPGs encourage this type of thing by their very rules, especially those that use or are inspired by the FATE system. DND does not encourage this quite so much by its rules (though it does to a small degree), but it accepts it reasonably well and it is a valid play style.
...but you might want to take the reigns back, and the players should respect that.
However, I am well aware that not all DM's encourage that for a wide variety of reasons including wanting to develop the world themselves, wanting to move forward with tightly scripted plots, or simply wanting to focus on the combat. That is a valid playstyle too. Most players, at least those I have dealt with, will be fine limiting their input on the world outside their characters, but it may need to be explicit. This is especially true when the players have a background at tables that encouraged that sort of input.
In short, taking the reigns back is probably as simple as telling your players that you want to. As long as you phrase it as identifying your style, rather than something like telling them their input was inherently bad, they will most likely not find it rude and will likely respect your position.
answered 15 mins ago
TimothyAWiseman
16.4k23181
Have a Session 0, or at least a real conversation about your expectations
This comes down to your social contract in the game and to expectations. The bottom line solution is to explain how the game works at your table and what kinds of input you would find helpful and what kinds you find to be unhelpful.
You don't need to take the reigns back...
Personally, as long as the players understood that they were making suggestions that I could accept or reject, I would welcome this kind of participation at my table. I go out of my way to work the character's backstory into the game and I encourage them to make it easy for me. So long as its clear that their suggestions are only suggestions, I personally do encourage this type of behavior.
Some RPGs encourage this type of thing by their very rules, especially those that use or are inspired by the FATE system. DND does not encourage this quite so much by its rules (though it does to a small degree), but it accepts it reasonably well and it is a valid play style.
...but you might want to take the reigns back, and the players should respect that.
However, I am well aware that not all DM's encourage that for a wide variety of reasons including wanting to develop the world themselves, wanting to move forward with tightly scripted plots, or simply wanting to focus on the combat. That is a valid playstyle too. Most players, at least those I have dealt with, will be fine limiting their input on the world outside their characters, but it may need to be explicit. This is especially true when the players have a background at tables that encouraged that sort of input.
In short, taking the reigns back is probably as simple as telling your players that you want to. As long as you phrase it as identifying your style, rather than something like telling them their input was inherently bad, they will most likely not find it rude and will likely respect your position.
answered 15 mins ago
TimothyAWiseman
16.4k23181
answered 15 mins ago
TimothyAWiseman
16.4k23181
answered 15 mins ago
TimothyAWiseman
16.4k23181
answered 15 mins ago
TimothyAWiseman
16.4k23181
16.4k23181
add a comment |Â
add a comment |Â
L.S. Cooper is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.
L.S. Cooper is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.
L.S. Cooper is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.
L.S. Cooper is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
StackExchange.ready(
function ()
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2frpg.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f134765%2fplayers-develop-backstories-too-much%23new-answer', 'question_page');
);
Post as a guest
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
1
Thanks, I'll remove it!
– L.S. Cooper
59 mins ago
5
I actually disagree with @Slagmoth here. The amount of control a player has over the backstory and story in general is very much dependent on the system being played. Dungeon World plays completely differently to Dungeons and Dragons for example. For this reason, I believe the system tag is important information for the question
– Wibbs
57 mins ago
1
To be fair, what I really need to know is how to deal with an interpersonal thing, where my players are trying to take control of stuff that isn't up to them. But I've only ever played D&D, so maybe this issue isn't possible in other systems?
– L.S. Cooper
54 mins ago
2
Could you explain why you consider this to be bad? Are players trying to gain some benefit by inserting an NPC for you to use? Are players expecting to gain use of the NPC's they're introducing? Do players complain that you haven't used 'their' NPC?
– Ifusaso
51 mins ago
2
Since you are DMing 5e, I added the tag back in. Wibbs was correct in that different systems treat background / back story with considerable differences. Classic Traveller, for example, had extensive background development as part of character creation in a way the D&D never did.
– KorvinStarmast
46 mins ago