Thread by @AzurePimpernel

I'm choosing violence today as we talk #ttrpgs.

I hate when 1 player out of a group of 4 to 6 gives me pages upon pages of backstory, and it doesn't matter what system they do it in. Whether it's #dnd or #pathfinder2e, I don't like it.

Welcome to today's 🧵:
"About Me"

Whether in an established setting or an original setting, the GM knows the contents of the game they have in mind pretty well (or should know). Players, on the other hand should be provided an overview and background of the contents of the game (story).

Let's say it's a table of 5 players and a GM, each with different interests, experience levels, playstyle, and availability. The 5 go off and figure out character ideas after the GM pitches the concept. 4 come back with ideas and questions. The 5th player returns with a character

complete with a long backstory, goals, hobbies, and more. This player has actually superceded even the spirit of collaborative storytelling. In a game where prep and forethought are key for a GM, like d20 fantasy, they've been handed more work and an interpersonal dilemma:

They can risk looking callous, uninterested, or hostile in asking player 5 to not overperform, or they quietly accept 5's actions and now have to incorporate work that's not theirs that's adjacent to play into their game for the sake of one player in addition to their prep time.

Depending on the system, setting, or group, 5's actions can be anywhere from mild inconvenience to major disruption. If players 1-4 have much less time to match that effort, and what they wrote is inconsistent with the details the GM will use, 5's enthusiasm has created a rift:

Players 1-4 want to experience and understand their characters as they go, and can't expect each other or themselves to match 5's character in roleplay or characterization, and should 5 be unhappy with the GM correcting discrepancies, the weight of the narrative has shifted.

The game about careful diplomacy with the fey courts now has a huge pirate subplot because 5 said so and won't rethink their character. They became so infatuated and enamored with "collaborative storytelling" they made it about their experience.

This, is an example, but whether you're a player or GM remember this simple fact: The game, the story happens at the table. This is why I encourage characters to be made at the table. Character details? At the table. Backstories? At the table with GM input and clarification.

This is the same rationale as when players refuse to engage with plot hooks. I don't know where this "GM's ideas don't matter" underpinning rhetoric stems from that I've seen so much, esp. at D&D tables since I started back in 3.5, but it reeks of a selfish immaturity.

It may seem contradictory, can you be mature and play rpgs? Yes, you can. You can respect your GM and players' time, you can respect their place at the table, either everyone has a novella backstory, or nobody does, and I promise if the GM loves that you have a long backstory:

the other players are in for a bad time. The GM has (un)consciously chosen to reward self-interest over the collaborative spirit of the game.

You may read this and think I'd be miserable to play with, but in reality I'm interested in the equal experience of all players.

That includes the quiet player who chooses bard but wants to support the team, that includes the busy player who only has the time at the table to make a character, that includes the player who hates doing voices and loves combat, and that includes me, the GM.

I refuse to make my games about one player in particular, and I will reject efforts that removes cooperation and consent from the rest of the table. I choose actual collaboration, and I think you should too. Play at the table (real or virtual) not in Microsoft Word.

Made a part two because I felt bad about leaving it here.

https://twitter.com/AzurePimpernel/status/1567607007821135874?t=AsKz0dYQYsdCWDcVUIuLkA&s=19