An idea that came to mind recently, especially for conspiracy ttrpg settings: In the source media, many reveals are about shaking up what is "known" about the pasts of main characters. The mother is actually alive! The employer is actually a member of the conspiracy! The ex is actually a shapeshifting alien! The benevolent order is actually bent on world domination!
(Thread)
When translating that into ttrpgs and especially trad games, you run into "ownership problems" because of the difference in production: A tv series is developed by a writers' room for the consumption of viewers. No writer will ever be surprised by a twist, no viewer will have ownership over a character (and some viewers really ought to remember that at times).
In ttrpgs, the writing duties and even the consumption are somewhat shared between the GM and the players - the exact ratios and portfolios differ between trad games and story games and even within these types, but it's never 100:0.
That creates a problem: GMs and players are not supposed to unilaterally change established facts. A player can't just say "Actually, this room doesn't contain an orc, it contains a treasure chest." and a GM can't say "Actually, you're not a 13th level fighter, you're a 13th level rogue." Such changes usually need consent and negotiations from both parties and they are again more often seen in story games.
So where does that leave the shocking background twist?
You can't really spring it on players unbidden because it's bad form to just change the part of the world they created.
You can't really negotiate it without losing the shock value of the twist. (Which is not to say you can't negotiate changes to established facts - they just won't be shocking twists then.)
My proposal: The unreliable narration.
Have players write their background stories. Then have them put in italics all parts of these stories that they need to be 100% true.
Everything else is just true *as far as their character knows.* It could be factual - most of it will be, because rewriting a character's entire past just isn't how most campaigns are run. But it might not be and the player has given consent to be surprised without actually ruining the surprise for themselves.
Players might italicize everything - okay, no twists in their backstory, valid choice, we've got all the other PCs and the rest of the world to play with.
Or they might italicize nothing - is their entire past a lie? Is it just like they remember? Is it somewhere in between? We'll find out!
They might italicize some parts that are cornerstones of their character and whose subversion would lead to storylines they're not interested in: Compare "The knight Demitrius is a /vassal of Baelara, a gallant lady./" with "The knight Demitrius is a /vassal of Baelara/, a gallant lady." Am I open to finding out I'm actually serving a tyrant or is that a story direction I don't want to explore with this character?
Of course, the fewer cornerstones I lock in, the more directions remain open for twists and the more surprising they will be, which is why I advocate for marking the parts that must remain fixed rather than marking the parts that are open to change.
Have you employed something similar in your games? What twists did you encounter or create and what made for a good or bad experience at the table?
Cifer
Blind Mapmaker
Matthias