I used to write a few paragraphs for PC backstory etc, but over time have come to the view that one sentence backgrounds are best.

If the players want to introduce some kind of background relevant to what's happening at the table, they can do so at the table, when we all learn about it at the same time. Too much ready made background encourages GMs to try and cater to a predetermined plot or connection - and to keep that particular PC alive in order to preserve that plot - which is imo the polar opposite of a good campaign, where gameplay > plot.

http://dndhackersguild.weebly.com/blog/are-pc-backgrounds-more-hindrance-than-help

Quote from: EOTB;1050888If I'm weaving a backstory into the game that's a heavy uppercut to the entire point of why I take the time to make up this world - because now I'm working towards a wish list.

Once you as the GM have seen and okayed a background, it's just additional setting elements and NPCs for you to use as you see fit, just like anything else you might have prepped. If you're handed something that's more like a wishlist than an actual background, just say no.

Quote from: Psikerlord;1050917Too much ready made background encourages GMs to try and cater to a predetermined plot or connection - and to keep that particular PC alive in order to preserve that plot

Fuck that noise. Once you've signed off on it, what they've handed you is an easy place to apply pressure. You have no obligation to keep background NPCs alive or healthy. Obviously anything you use them for should make sense . . . but beyond that, no obligations whatsoever. Run them into the dirt if you want.

Backstory isn't a new thing, but the way it is being applied is new-ish.

(1) In the days of OD&D we all came up with backstory for our characters, but we didn't do it prior to level-1. What my group did, at least, was start with a pile of stats and start playing. Along the way, stuff would happen and we would invoke creativity to build a backstory that fits with the way we reacted to those things that happened. Backstory grew organically through play.

(2) In 5E there are charts and a person is supposed to make choices and selections prior to play, then try to follow those selections no matter what happens to the character thereafter. Backstory becomes a "before the adventures got underway" sort of thing, predestined at the origin of the character.

With this in mind, it's no surprise that players are more traumatized when they lose a character than in the old days. In the 1970's if I lost a character early on it was okay because he hadn't really come together into a concept yet, and it would take only 5-10 minutes to create a replacement. In the 2010's a player spends an hour or so building a character with backstory, and not only is there more emotional investment but replacement would require another hour or so.

I only really care about backstories if the whole party comes up with them together and they're interlinked.
(RPGs are group games - so what's the point of purely individual story hooks?)

In which case they drive the campaign - if they don't drive the campaign (say for example I'm running more of a traditional D&D game) - then they're only relevant so far as they help the player to play their character - they should not contain a wish list of story hooks.

Quote from: S'mon;1050915I've just looked over the threads back to 15th May and couldn't see one about backstory, so maybe it has a weird title and I missed it. :confused:

Found it.

https://www.therpgsite.com/showthread.php?39198-Stuff-They-Taught-You-Wrong-About-D-amp-D-quot-You-Must-use-PC-Backstories-in-Your-Game-quot

Not that there's a limit on thread topics.

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

I hate backstory focus and do not make it the centerpiece of my game. A few minor and low-powered details are fine though. For example, I typically ask my players for 2-3 sentences telling me why the PC's adventuring (get rich is perfectly fine), who might want to help them (uncle tends bar at the inn) and who might want to hurt them (rival barkeep). It's understood that I may or may not ever incorporate the info (and that dumb shit like half-demon secret sons of the kings gets you a kick in the balls).

Quote from: S'mon;1050840My heart bleeds.

Channeling the ghost of ignorance past? :rolleyes:

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

Backstory should be just one paragraph for a character. Anything more than that, the player doesn't get an invite. Always vet your players.

That's Spotlight Expectation[/U].

That's a very different, and metagame focused, table dynamic. I'll offer Background-relevant threads as side-quests, and sometimes weave it into the main adventure, but for these types it's never enough. It becomes an issue of: "claiming GM attention" as a form of validation, and turning it into a competitive sport. It's inverting a positive (PC flavor exploration) into a negative (gaping, suppurating, validation need-hole).

Don't do therapy at the table. Provide your campaign, (ideally something you can live with yourself afterwards,) be a fan of the PCs in terms of spotlight, learn how to say 'No,' and let god sort 'em out. You're not being paid psychotherapist money.

About two years ago started playing with a new group of younger players.  A couple of whom were deeply entrenched in the idea that if they wrote ten pages of backstory I would read it and was obliged to incorporate it into the campaign.

I politely and patiently I made it clear that anything past three interesting bullet-point sentences would likely never be read and absolutely not be included into play.

One decided his fiction was more important than role-playing games and left.

One continues to write lengthy background for her own enjoyment, but bullet-points what matters for me.

The others happily accepted that, in my group at least, this was simply the way it was.

Backstory is fine.  Have as much as you like.  But don't expect it to be used, especially if it is will detract from the focus of the campaign or give your character spotlight time at the expense of everyone else.

I remember a time when Role Playing Games were thought to be cooperative.  But it sounds to me that the DM wants it to be about him.  How times change.

Quote from: TJS;1050923I only really care about backstories if the whole party comes up with them together and they're interlinked.
(RPGs are group games - so what's the point of purely individual story hooks?)

In which case they drive the campaign - if they don't drive the campaign (say for example I'm running more of a traditional D&D game) - then they're only relevant so far as they help the player to play their character - they should not contain a wish list of story hooks.

Well said!

It so depends on the campaign. In general, I expect backstories to be more player fodder than GM fodder, but I will cull them for good bits (but my players get 100 words only)

I personally like the "special locket" in the backstory because I'll do something fucked up with it when the player least expects it.  

Remember how the swords glowed in the Hobbit when goblins or orcs were near? That's because the swords want to be found and their wielders slain by making them easy to find by glowing. That's how I roll with "special lockets".

Quote from: S'mon;1050840My heart bleeds.

Real DMs don't have time to bleed!

Quote from: Omega;1050934Channeling the ghost of ignorance past? :rolleyes:

I know you are, but what am I?

(We should probably put each other on Ignore List for a bit, I got annoyed with your Newsflash! line in my Fighter house rule thread so seeing things through red-tinted glasses right now)