Quote from: ArrozConLeche;863187I was thinking more about a situation in which the GM asks me that during a game session (rather than as prep) because we're going all out improv. never has happened, but thinking about it, I would probably be OK given that a case can be made that I should know be able to define my background.

It was clear you meant during rather than before play. My response is the same in either case. Player proposes, GM reviews, curates as necessary, and approves.

Quote from: ArrozConLeche;863163I think that the only blurry line there COULD be when it comes to your character's personal background. Who gets to set details about family, and things like that during play? Depends on the GM, and it's probably the only case where I don't mind a GM asking me to fill in SOME details that would normally be in his domain.

With only a few exceptions the norm is that the players flesh out their own backgrounds. That is not the DMs area and even D&D tells the players to think on their past before becoming an adventurer in some editions. That is not in any way dramatic editing unless the player gives themselves a backstory that somehow over-writes the established one or somehow aggrandizes themselves in a blatant way.

"My fighter trained under the town watch captain before becoming an adventurer." is not dramatic editing unless it has been established that either there is no town watch or the captain didnt train any of the PCs. Even "My character is a noble." may not be if it fits. And so on.

I have known at least two DMs who did campaigns where the DM set the PCs background. One was a fairly basic "You are all nobles from various kingdoms under a curse." and the players fleshed out all the rest. The other was more elaborate with each PC saddled with siblings, family, jobs and so on. In both cases the DMs presented this up front before the campaigns started and only took on players who were on board for that.

And of course there are sessions where you might be handed a pregen character fully fleshed out.

For me at least part of the fun of RPGs and D&D itself is the wide range of styles that can develop from one table to the next. Sure there may be clashes in style. But unless a table is running in a way blatantly meant to ruin enjoyment then its all ok.

I might not get into say dramatic editing style. But I can roll with it or even enjoy it as a DM and player as long as it does not intrude severely.

Quote from: nDervish;863153While I'd definitely agree that would be a dramatically-motivated action, I don't think I'd refer to it as "dramatic editing".  It's still an IC action, regardless of the OOC motivation, not an exercise of OOC editorial powers.

To me, when I've seen it happen, it felt like the Player suddenly took off his 'Roleplaye' cap and put on the one that says 'Author'. Manipulating the PC according to dramatic/story concerns rather than any established motivation of the PC.
No, it didn't involve any special resources and he wasn't compelled by any rules to play it that way... I'm not even sure I would notice it happening if it weren't for the tendency, as I've experienced it, for the Player to announce that he's doing it for the sake of the story (maybe so no one will think he's as dumb as the action might make him appear).

I'm not sure that sort of thing comes from the same mindset as formal 'dramatic editing' mechanics appeal to. Like I mentioned earlier, when I've seen formal 'dramatic editing' in use it didn't come off as an attempt to improve a story so much as just a move to save a PC from failure/damage/death.

Quote from: Omega;863247With only a few exceptions the norm is that the players flesh out their own backgrounds.

Agreed. I was talking more about adding additional background details during play itself, but that wasn't clear from my initial post. I normally expect the GM to handle everything during actual play, but this might be an area where being prompted by the GM to improv some detail on the spot might not bother me too much.

Yeah, walking into a town and having a player declare that the local magic shop owner is his younger sister out of the blue would feel more than a little off kilter if it had not been previously established that the PC had a sister even. Let alone had one in this hithertho unknown town. Or that there was even a magic shop in the town.

Sure the DM can roll with that or even twist it against the player somehow. But as a player I usually sat down to play in the DMs campaign. Not some other players campaign. Nor some back and fourth battle of wills.

Now if the player had said "I wonder if one of my sisters, who owns a magic shop, lives here?" then that is ok as it leaves it invites the DM to play with that, or not. Rather than overriding the DM.

Totally different story if the table is actively playing that style and everyone is on board for that. Some DMs would surely see it as a lessened workload. Lind of like how some DMs have a player who handles the NPC for them for example. Or systems where there isnt a DM at all. Universalis comes to mind right off as its made of this sort of editing.

Quote from: Bren;863181As the GM I have enough to do with making up background for the NPCs. I much prefer the player to propose background elements, with GM review and approval for appropriateness.

I've found that very common. It tends to flow better, not interrupting the rhythm of dialog, coming from the player. Sometimes the player might recognize that the GM probably has an answer to a given question already prepared, and so ask instead. Knowing when and how to improvise is part of the social skill set developed in learning to play well.

Quote from: Omega;863368Sure the DM can roll with that or even twist it against the player somehow. But as a player I usually sat down to play in the DMs campaign. Not some other players campaign. Nor some back and fourth battle of wills.

I think that's a good chunk of my dislike of such mechanics. Just because I've chosen to play with the GM, like his approach to the setting, doesn't mean that I'm in sympatico with everyone at the table.
I've played with guys I can get along with as Players but I'm damn sure I don't want to play in a game where they can take control of setting details to that degree.
One guy might want all combat, all the time. Another, given the reigns, might turn it all into a game of Sailor Moon.
The traditional GM/Referee position sort of balances out those disparities... gives everyone a bit of what they want in ways that (hopefully) fit well into the setting... but mechanics that over-ride that relationship can end up letting Sailor Moon Guy have a lot more say, without anyone to tell him 'no'... or even if they can say 'no' it begins to feel combative, vs. just having the GM filter tastes/idea/suggestions and choose what fits.

That was how Universalis felt.

Player A wants to explore the ruins and spends some coins to gain the narrative. But player B wants to head into the forest and kill stuff and spends coins to try and wrest or divert that control.
Player A swings across the pit on a vine. Player B has the vine snap.

And they blab on for over 150 pages just to enable what amounts to combat round robin.