[RPG] Players Develop Backstories Too Much

backgrounddnd-5eroleplaying

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 reins 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?

Best Answer

I want to preface my answer by saying that I understand where your impulse is coming from, that I respect it at least in part, and that I share that impulse. But with that preface, I must in good conscience push back against the frame of the question:

Consider Reining In Your Urge To Discourage

I respect and share your impulse, here. I really do.

Every time a player of mine goes off and does something like this, I have a little (or not so little) frisson of fear: What if they're going to break something I had planned? What if they're power gaming for an advantage? What if they touch my GM stuff?!

After a long career in GMing, though, it's rarely been an issue in the way I fear. Are power gamers gonna power game? Yes. But it turns out they're fairly easy to detect and shut down. Will the players occasionally do something that wrecks a plan? I can't actually think of a time that's happened, but I can think of several times that a player was pushing in one genre direction and I was pushing in another... which can be an issue.

But on the other hand, having engaged players who want to contribute to the setting is a blessing in many ways. First, it just means that they are active and are engaged which is a great thing in and of itself. Second, it means that in some sense, they're taking a little of the creativity burden off your shoulders. Third, when players do this in good faith, they are telling you what they are interested in! They're directly telling you something other GMs have to read tea leaves and pull teeth to get from their players. And fourth, sometimes (not infrequently!) a creative and engaged player will come up with something really good that you wouldn't have thought of that you can turn to your advantage.

Still, there are at least potential issues.

Meet Them In The Middle, With Approval

What I do, therefore, is to make clear the following things:

  1. I welcome player input.
  2. But I need to see it and approve of it before it's canon; that's part of my job as GM, enforcing the game canon.
  3. If I veto something, I will whenever possible explain why, but sometimes in order to avoid spoilers, I won't be able to explain.
  4. If this all works the way I expect, then over time you'll have a better feel for what I'll allow, and I'll have a better feel for what interests you, and we'll clash less and less. But while I hope to be more (not less!) easy-going over time, I always retain that canon-veto.

I've found this works pretty well. I'm only GM of my experience who explicitly spells out the fourth point, but that's certainly how it's worked out when I'm a player in a game that encourages player contributions. It definitely works from my side of the table when I am GMing.


Addressing some issues that have come out in comments, which may or may not make it into an edit of the question: I must stress that all of this regards background information, not questions of current NPC ownership or behavior. Different games address this differently, and even within 5e different GMs will have different levels of tolerance. At the very least, influence on current NPC actions strikes me as a qualitatively different question. (And if you think the player is angling to backdoor that sort of thing in through the submitted background, well... that's what veto power is for.)