I've noticed running my strongly exploration-oriented, old school Stonehell Dungeon campaign in 5e D&D as an open table game, that most players really enjoy it, but a minority find it very frustrating that their lovingly crafted backstories are irrelevant & ignored. They seem to me to be playing for something different from the 'three pillars' of Social Interaction, Exploration & Combat. They want to experience a story centred on their character and that character's internal aspect - the 'traits bonds & flaws' stuff in the 5e PHB that I largely ignore. Looking around a bit, I see some GMing advice heavily centred on PC Backstory. To me it feels a bit grubby, the GM giving players 'intimate service' by focusing on their Backstory stuff, making them feel special without any action in-game to warrant this. For D&D I like Backstory on the level "He is Conan - Cimmerian" not "She is Buffy, the Chosen One" - but I can see the other approach working fine in eg Star Wars.

What do you think? Do you hate Backstory focus, or do you make it the centrepiece of your games?

Quote from: S'mon;1050830I've noticed running my strongly exploration-oriented, old school Stonehell Dungeon campaign in 5e D&D as an open table game, that most players really enjoy it, but a minority find it very frustrating that their lovingly crafted backstories are irrelevant & ignored. They seem to me to be playing for something different from the 'three pillars' of Social Interaction, Exploration & Combat. They want to experience a story centred on their character and that character's internal aspect - the 'traits bonds & flaws' stuff in the 5e PHB that I largely ignore. Looking around a bit, I see some GMing advice heavily centred on PC Backstory. To me it feels a bit grubby, the GM giving players 'intimate service' by focusing on their Backstory stuff, making them feel special without any action in-game to warrant this. For D&D I like Backstory on the level "He is Conan - Cimmerian" not "She is Buffy, the Chosen One" - but I can see the other approach working fine in eg Star Wars.

What do you think? Do you hate Backstory focus, or do you make it the centrepiece of your games?

Backgrounds are a bunch of ingredients I can throw in my stew, when I want to. If we're mercs clearing goblins out of a dungeon, I don't particularly care if you're the secret heir to the kingdom of Wherethefuckistan.

Keep it simply, keep it short and keep it plausible for the setting (no secret heirs). And don't expect me to use it if it doesn't fit the current location or story.

Well, they should complain less and bring their backgrounds more into play themselves. I'm sure you'll be glad to pick them up, if they fit the situation.

Quote from: Nerzenjäger;1050832Well, they should complain less and bring their backgrounds more into play themselves. I'm sure you'll be glad to pick them up, if they fit the situation.

Stuff like "he's a gnome - he can talk to the giant rats" or "he's a dwarf, he can recognise the carvings of the ancient dwarven gods" certainly does come up. The mysterious locket a stranger gave the PC when he was 12, is not likely to come up in play.

I like Skyrim a lot more than I like Fallout 4.

Quote from: S'mon;1050833Stuff like "he's a gnome - he can talk to the giant rats" or "he's a dwarf, he can recognise the carvings of the ancient dwarven gods" certainly does come up. The mysterious locket a stranger gave the PC when he was 12, is not likely to come up in play.

I like Skyrim a lot more than I like Fallout 4.

Those aren't backgrounds, those are racial abilities.

A locket would be an oddity. Maybe I'll use it maybe not, but if I do? I'm using it my way.

We just had a thread on backstories a few weeks ago?

Quote from: Omega;1050836We just had a thread on backstories a few weeks ago?

My heart bleeds.

This brings up two things for me:

1) When creating character backstories for your campaign, the GM must act as editor to keep the backstories from becoming ridiculous.
2) Using a character's backstory is where GMing becomes more art than science. Once you let a player create a backstory for their character, you have to figure out how to integrate it into the game in such a way that everybody is satisfied (including you).

EDIT: And I agree, while backstory can work with D&D, its inherently zero to hero playstyle design really diminishes their usefulness.

Quote from: jeff37923;1050841This brings up two things for me:

1) When creating character backstories for your campaign, the GM must act as editor to keep the backstories from becoming ridiculous.
2) Using a character's backstory is where GMing becomes more art than science. Once you let a player create a backstory for their character, you have to figure out how to integrate it into the game in such a way that everybody is satisfied (including you).

EDIT: And I agree, while backstory can work with D&D, its inherently zero to hero playstyle design really diminishes their usefulness.

I had a good player ask me about the special locket in his backstory. I basically said "Fuck your locket, it's what you do now that matters".

I'd take a different approach running say Game of Thrones RPG, but in that case I'd expect the players to create their backstories TOGETHER in the first session as part of the character creation process. I really hate it when players each in isolation create their Special Snowflake backstories and then expect the campaign to revolve around them.

Quote from: S'mon;1050844I had a good player ask me about the special locket in his backstory. I basically said "Fuck your locket, it's what you do now that matters".

I'd take a different approach running say Game of Thrones RPG, but in that case I'd expect the players to create their backstories TOGETHER in the first session as part of the character creation process. I really hate it when players each in isolation create their Special Snowflake backstories and then expect the campaign to revolve around them.

Got to admit, the approach I would have taken would be similar in D&D, but I would have shown the player through actual play and not told him. It is one thing to be told and another to experience it. The special locket your plot hook gave you that shows you are a friend to orcs? The orcs laugh at your gullibility and plan to save you for dessert because you are obviously soft and sugary!

To answer the question ("Do you hate Backstory focus, or do you make it the centrepiece of your games?"), neither.

The main thing I'm seeing is a possible lack of communication, which is the normal response in most threads.

If you are running an "open table game", to me that means the players can vary wildly between sessions. So, there is going to be little working of character backstory into the game on the part of the GM. Any backstory should be fodder for the player on which to base their role-playing. (Perhaps the character feels the need to capture and interrogate at least one member of each group whom the party faces about the pendant they received when they were 12?)

This means you might want to consider better communication about this aspect with the players.

I like backstory, but the way I incorporate it is over the long haul, with occasional big reveals "stuck on top of" the existing plot. Most of my players did backstory as "how this effects how the character acts currently" with only one player creating a mystery in the character's past.

I don't think backstories should be the focus of a game. They're there more for flavor than anything else. I always make up some backstory for all my characters. I find it helps me get more immersed into my character. It's about where the character has been and what got them to where they are, maybe giving the character some direction or motivation. That doesn't mean it should be at the forefront of the game or even brought to light at all. It's a useful tool for anyone really and if the GM finds something in a player's backstory that gives him campaign or game ideas, great, but it certainly shouldn't be expected.

Quote from: Tod13;1050852I like backstory, but the way I incorporate it is over the long haul, with occasional big reveals "stuck on top of" the existing plot. Most of my players did backstory as "how this effects how the character acts currently" with only one player creating a mystery in the character's past.

This sounds like a sensible way to handle it.  The real challenge is when a player wants his backstory to be, basically, his front-story -- when he wants the events of the game to include the resolution of conflicts or issues set up in the character's backstory before play begins.  Nothing's wrong with this provided everyone's on the same page (pardon my pun) about whether that's the kind of game they want.

In theory it should be possible for a skilled GM to run a game that tells a story for some characters and lets others simply play out the encounters, challenges and interactions they want. But I can see how the desire for a more structured, ongoing story can butt heads with other players who just don't care about the necessary time investment.

Quote from: S'mon;1050830I've noticed running my strongly exploration-oriented, old school Stonehell Dungeon campaign in 5e D&D as an open table game, that most players really enjoy it, but a minority find it very frustrating that their lovingly crafted backstories are irrelevant & ignored.

First off I think those players need to temper their expectations. Your campaign is clearly about the exploration of a single site, the Stonehell Dungeon. For me, aside from the personality I choose to roleplay as, I would expect very little of my character's backstory to be relevant. At best maybe if the background involved some type of skilled ability like cooking or teamster.

Quote from: S'mon;1050830What do you think? Do you hate Backstory focus, or do you make it the centrepiece of your games?

I am declining to choose either and opt to go sideways. When I run a campaign, I present the setting as a place with a life of it own. The character's background is as relevant as the circumstances make it relevant.

If the character is from Eastgate and most of his background is related to coming of age in Eastgate the backstory is going to relevant. If they are standing on the stairs leading down to Stonehell well it likely not going to be relevant. Just like in life.

And like in life things from our past occasionally show up just because. So I will "sprinkle" elements of a character's backstory (if they have one) from time to time based on the dice or my judgment.

In your Stonehell campaign if the players have some background elements (like they knew an adventurer) that could show up in Stonehell then I would sprinkle it in at some point.

Quote from: S'mon;1050830They seem to me to be playing for something different from the 'three pillars' of Social Interaction, Exploration & Combat. They want to experience a story centred on their character and that character's internal aspect - the 'traits bonds & flaws' stuff in the 5e PHB that I largely ignore. Looking around a bit, I see some GMing advice heavily centred on PC Backstory.

Players like feeling their choices having meaning. It been my experience having fun exploring a blank hex grid is a specialty taste. The blank grid of dungeon in general works out better because of its history in D&D and the hobby. Exploring a blank square grid knowing that it is a multi-level maze with room filled with monsters and treasure is still a specialty taste.

What works better in my experience if things operate on multiple levels. That the players have reason, some supplied by themselves i.e backstory, others supplied by me which include the unfolding events of the setting and the consequences of what the player did or did not do.

Quote from: S'mon;1050830T "She is Buffy, the Chosen One" - but I can see the other approach working fine in eg Star Wars.

This works with any RPG and in any genre, but you opted to focus on the exploration of Stonehell Dungeon not playing some chosen one. If a player can't read what on the "tin" of your campaign then they need a refresher course in comprehension.

On your end if this is something that repeatably happens then ask yourself. "Am I explaining the premise of the campaign adequately?"

Quote from: S'mon;1050830To me it feels a bit grubby, the GM giving players 'intimate service' by focusing on their Backstory stuff, making them feel special without any action in-game to warrant this. For D&D I like Backstory on the level "He is Conan - Cimmerian" not "She is Buffy, the Chosen One" - but I can see the other approach working fine in eg Star Wars.

This is a general response to the issue of character backgrounds.

Before every campaign I will sit down with the players to develop their character to a greater or lesser degree. The vast majority can be summarized in a paragraph or two. Substantial outliers include players with one or more page of backstory and players who opt for none. For example one players played a halfling knight looking for adventure who rides a trained boar as his steed. And that pretty much it except for one time where in-game he was asked where he come from and the player asked me what is the closet settlement of halfling which was Limerick Shire. His literal reply was "Yeah that where I am from. (In-game) I am Sir Roderick from Limerick Shire.

I can make the spectrum work in my Majestic Wilderlands because I focus on giving the setting a life of it own. I am very good at getting the players feel like they are their as their characters regardless of their play styles. Other than the fact that this is how I enjoy refereeing I find this also levels the playing field so to speak.

You got player who do funny voice, and those who don't. You got players who are just there to kill things and those who want to talk to everybody. And yes you got players with multi-page backgrounds versus those who are a halfling knight riding a boar who only later find out is from Limerick Shire.

By focusing on bringing the setting to life, player tend to act more natural. As if they were really there rather than treating their PC as game pieces on a board. Their own social instincts kick in and they tend to find the opportunities regard of how much work they put into their characters.

Detailed backstories have been in the culture of the game since at least 2E. So I wouldn't consider it a modern trend (unless you're a True Grog who regards everything in gaming culture since 1983 to be modern apostasy).

It's just one of the many aspects of the game that DMs and players need to talk about and sort out their expectations. I'm personally not a big fan of in-depth backstories. But I'll try to work a player who is. However, if his expectations are not a good fit for the campaign you're running, that needs to be talked about up-front.