TheRPGSite

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. :D

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. :D

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. :p

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.

Maybe you should be upfront that backstory isn't going to be important. I usually make this and other expectations explicit for my campaigns and I usually filter out those looking for something else outside of the usual mouthbreather.

I think if you accept a player's intricate backstory at character creation, there's an implied assumption that said backstory will matter. I'll play (and run) games where the entire plot is just the various threads of the PC's backstories being woven together, and games where their backstories mattered not one iota. In the OP's case, the players didn't understand that the game in question was one of the latter, not the former.

I'm in the camp of it is the player's responsibility to pick a backstory (if they want one) that matters with the focus of the campaign.  It's the GM's responsibility to communicate what the campaign is about, and answer questions about particular things as needed, so that the players can do that (if they want).  Players can have any backstory they want, that fits the campaign, as long as I, the GM, don't need to read them.  Any interest I have in their backstories will be no more than a short bullet-point list (for the party as a whole, not each player).  If in play, a particular player manages to tie in some of their backstory to events happening in the game, I will certainly note that and be happy to run with it to some extent.  But it has to be in response to events as they are played and suitable for exploration--not something they merely interject during a conversation, for example.  

Even if I had the inclination to handle involved backstories, and weave them into a campaign (which I don't), they don't work well with 7+ players, unless the group collectively builds a backstory for the party.  In 5E in particular, with a large group, your "backstory" is a combination of your background and what happens in levels 1-3.  Get to level 4, congratulations!  You have a backstory, and everyone in the group knows it well.

I ask the players to distil the backstory into maybe 2 bullet points. If the player can bring these up in game reasonably, I might give them a bonus to a roll, or say "yes, you do know the miller in this town", or some such. As GM, I've got piles of NPCs to manage, the players can handle their PCs. If it's a longer campaign, I'll take those bullet points and perhaps integrate one or two of them into some possible situation, or not; it's fun to surprise a player with a morsel from their character's background

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?

I feel the tailored experience is an important part of tabletop RPGs.  From my POV, if it isn't a tailored experience where player creations, and additions, and yes even wishes are integrated, then there's not a compelling reason to play a tabletop game over the original Pool of Radiance on the Commodore 64.  

I feel "background" is an important first step towards immersion.  It creates an out of the gate investment in the character for the player.  It provides meaningful story concepts for the GM.  The player is flat out telling you what would be cool and fun for them.  It becomes a positive feedback loop.  

Exploration and Combat are not a pillars for me.  They're sideshows.  They're incidental activities.  It's a part of the activity of enjoying RPGs for me, but not the main course.  

Nothing about the way I approach the activity requires that a participant prove to me they are worthy to have fun.  Yes, everyone gets to be special for no reason other than they've made up a character they think is cool.  That's the way I do things.  It works pretty well for me.

I do agree that the larger the group gets, the more impractical this whole direct tailoring to player preference becomes.  Then again, moderate and large groups aren't something I'm interested in.

My backstories are always just to explain the reason that my character acts the way he does - like a character who tried to knock out foes and asked his buddies to make sure that they weren't under enchantment before slitting their throats. He had zero problems with killing foes - but his dad had been screwed over by an enchanter who threw his house into dishonour etc. My character was just making sure that he wasn't used to screw over anyone else the same way.

Frankly - I was shocked when my GM had an old family retainer show up several sessions in. It wasn't a big deal, he mainly just hung out at our base of operations and took care of some business stuff for the group. That, and he'd snuck out the family's ancestral sword. (Mechanically it was the same as if I were getting it enchanted - same costs etc., but from a fluff perspective I was unravelling the spells which had locked away its power - which was a nice touch.)

But it certainly wouldn't have bothered me if the GM hadn't ever brought my backstory up.

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?

As DM I'm running the game to also be surprised, and find out what happens next virtually simultaneously with the players.  

If 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.

Players can write out any backstory they want, but it should be from the vantage point of looking back at a life they left behind.

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

Didn't we just do this topic a few days ago?

I'm of the mind that a character's... character is revealed by the choices the player makes. Take a bribe to let an orc spy go? Refuse to slay an unarmed foe? Risk falling into a chasm in order to reach an ancient tome of dwarven lore?

If someone just wants to come to the table and yak about how their character has a "mysterious past" or some other such shit? No thanks.  They can go write that stuff out in their Harry Potter erotic fanfiction.


There is a meeting ground, where a character's backstory may figure into a present decision. That's fine as well, as long as the player and GM are on the same page.

Quote from: Haffrung;1050865Detailed 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.

I guess I'm a true grog... but I started in 1983/4, never really went over to that newfangled style of 2e (1989!) :D

Most players seem to come in without undue expectations, but I got two recently who seemed to expect more of a (back)story focused thing - one switched to a different table where her proclivities would be accommodated better, I think the other is coming back to mine. Out of several dozen players that's not bad I think but I could perhaps do better.

Quote from: Broken Twin;1050871I think if you accept a player's intricate backstory at character creation, there's an implied assumption that said backstory will matter.

I try to avoid reading Backstory in current Stonehell game, & I do my best to make clear it's not really relevant.

Quote from: Gabriel2;1050883there's not a compelling reason to play a tabletop game over the original Pool of Radiance on the Commodore 64.  

I guess for me the main advantages are:

- truly persistent world, no save points, what you do is permanent & matters in the universe. In Skyrim I must have killed Alduin 20-30 times by now.
&
- GM is much smarter than any AI, vastly superior at social interaction, and can present a wider variety of environments & experiences

But some people definitely do prefer CRPGs and I can see why, especially if they don't care much about these two elements.

Quote from: EOTB;1050888As DM I'm running the game to also be surprised, and find out what happens next virtually simultaneously with the players.  

If 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.

That's an excellent point - yes I very much feel the same way. One reason I love running Stonehell is that I never know where the PCs will go session to session or what they'll get up to, who they'll meet and what they'll kill or be killed by. I've come to loathe running linear adventures, and stuff where I create the encounters/scenes pre session knowing they're what will happen is not much better.

Quote from: Ratman_tf;1050900Didn't we just do this topic a few days ago?

I guess - I'm not seeing anything on the front page though, so I feel no compunction in starting my own thread at whim. :p

Personally, if a player actually provides a backstory that was detailed and decent, I'd try to use it in spite of what I originally intended but more often than not, I get the orphan and wanderlust BS, so I often just bin it.

Quote from: S'mon;1050905I guess - I'm not seeing anything on the front page though, so I feel no compunction in starting my own thread at whim. :p

I'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:

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. :D

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. :p

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. :p

Real DMs don't have time to bleed! :D

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

I know you are, but what am I? :p

(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)

Quote from: Opaopajr;1050953That's Spotlight Expectation[/U].

That's a very different, and metagame focused, table dynamic.

Thanks - yes, you're right. I'm not objecting to players writing backstories that inform how they play their character. It's usually cool when a PC says "I must do X because Y". It's not cool when the player looks at me expecting to be 'fed' spotlight.

Quote from: Ratman_tf;1050927Found 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. :D

Thanks - I could apologise, but at the time that thread ended a few weeks ago it hadn't come up as an issue for me since the guy with the 80 page, 135 year nightmare backstory several years ago. And that campaign was one about aristocrats in Karameikos where a certain amount of backstory was appropriate, it was a question of type and degree, and (IMO) the player weaponising backstory for in game advantage - "So as I'm the True Heir of Kerendas, when do I become Duchess?"

This time I'm explicitly running an old school megadungeon 'Alice in Wonderland' campaign where the PCs' past lives outside the dungeon are of essentially zero relevance. And I was taken aback when a good player asked me about the mysterious locket on his character sheet that he must have put there in chargen, I'm guessing maybe from a PHB Background table. It felt weird to me, that there was clearly a clash of legitimate expectations.

Quote from: Christopher Brady;1050959I 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.

It's so because it is meant to oppress you. :D Enjoy!

Quote from: Opaopajr;1050975It's so because it is meant to oppress you. :D Enjoy!

GMs who run open world sandboxes where the PCs can do anything the player wants are the MOST OPPRESSIVE GMS OF ALL.

I don't tend to "allow" backstories when I'm running games, instead I go with a trick I picked up a while ago (mgf maybe?):
 
Each player says 3 things that anyone would know about their character after being with them for a couple of days.
Each player says 3 things that someone would know about their character after being with them for a couple of months.
Each players chooses 3 things that only their character knows about themselves.

Then I can riff of those answers if I need to, and ignore them if I feel like it. And the players can being them into play as and when they want without me having to worry about creating a specially-crafted encounter or plot or what-have-you. If players want to create a backstory, they're welcome to. But I feel no compunction to use it.

Quote from: spon;1050981I don't tend to "allow" backstories when I'm running games, instead I go with a trick I picked up a while ago (mgf maybe?):
 
Each player says 3 things that anyone would know about their character after being with them for a couple of days.
Each player says 3 things that someone would know about their character after being with them for a couple of months.
Each players chooses 3 things that only their character knows about themselves.

Then I can riff of those answers if I need to, and ignore them if I feel like it. And the players can being them into play as and when they want without me having to worry about creating a specially-crafted encounter or plot or what-have-you. If players want to create a backstory, they're welcome to. But I feel no compunction to use it.

Nice!

Quote from: Christopher Brady;1050959I 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.

Everyone has non-negotiables.  Even in the most cooperative 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?

I like backstory. I run open-world sandboxes, so there are caveats to what backstories I'll allow.

1) I tell my players where we're starting, the general setup. What is commonly known. etc. Then I'll give a brief demographics makeup so they know what's commonly/uncommonly represented in the starting area.

2) Players decide what they want to make. If it falls within the stuff I've elaborated on in #1, we discuss what kind of background they want, and I plug it into the campaign using NPC's I've already established, or if appropriate I'll make something up specific and plug that into the campaign.

3) If someone is wanting some kind of snowflake character. I decide if it's really feasible. If I can think of some angle with them that works - I'll consider the ramifications. If I agree to it, I'll always have some reason for them to be there and it's usually no small thing. This also assumes I think the player can handle it. If none of things pass the sniff-test - I say no.

4) If a player doesn't want a detailed backstory, I just simply plug them in, easy-peasy into the starting area, give them a basic history of why they're there, what they've been doing and we're off and rolling.

I don't suffer from people having these overly long backstories, because I (as the GM) am part of that process. I have no problem people writing up a backstory idea, because invariably I'll do a back-and-forth to pare it down to fit the campaign. Depends on the idea. There are times when players suggest an idea for a background that would invite a WHOLE lot of potential content for the campaign, and it will incite me to change a few things to allow it in (without telling them the how's and why's).

I find on occasion players will take the campaign concept and eke out an interesting angle that would make for a possible ingredient into the stew. I have a caveat to all my players - no one is an island in my games. You are not some itinerant wanderer that is the last of their tribe (and if you are - there is a damn good reason you're the last of your tribe and that reason is probably hunting you down). I always give PC's a list of contacts, and associates germane to the campaign - and it might not be relevant at first, but you can bet your last two coppers we will engage your background in-game. Whether you're just a humble blacksmith that turned adventurer, or you're secretly a Changeling from the Underdark spying on the surface-world. Your background *will* be part of the game at some point.

This lets players feel they have made what they want and get to explore that - even if it doesn't necessarily turn out as they wished.

It seems another case of dissonant expectations to me. Be upfront about your game style and what the players are supposed to do in it, and this kind of problem will be reduced significantly.

There's nothing wrong with snowflakerism or TPKism or PvPism or railroadism or whatever as long as everybody is on the same wavelength.

Quote from: Itachi;1051042It seems another case of dissonant expectations to me. Be upfront about your game style and what the players are supposed to do in it, and this kind of problem will be reduced significantly.

There's nothing wrong with snowflakerism or TPKism or PvPism or railroadism or whatever as long as everybody is on the same wavelength.

TRUTH!

Setting expectations goes a loooooooooooong way towards preventing Campaign implosion.

Quote from: tenbones;1051039*snip*

Oh, wow, one of my favorite posts so far. I'm a big fan of "session 0," which I use to bounce ideas; get feedback; establish backgrounds, setting details, and NPCs that the PCs would be familiar with already; figure out if the PCs already know each other, and if so, how; get everyone on the same page; stuff like that. I don't really have a formal process, though. But it's understood when I GM that I have the right to approve or veto anything, though I try to be fair about it. And that no matter how much I allow my players to establish in session 0, any setting bits or NPCs, once approved by me, belong to me; and I'll use them(or not use them) as I see fit.

That's for games I expect to last a while, of course. I'm not going to go through that much work for a one-shot or mini campaign.

Quote from: S'mon;1050983Nice!

Thanks! As I said, it's not mine, I stole (borrowed? Plagiarised?) it from an article titled "Maximum Game Fun". It really works for me. :-)

Quote from: GeekEclectic;1051048Oh, wow, one of my favorite posts so far. I'm a big fan of "session 0," which I use to bounce ideas; get feedback; [snipped]

I think the concept of the "Session 0" is one of the more important things to come to the fore in terms of RPG concepts; particularly given that the number of playstyles and expectations based on a multitude of different systems and editions has only expanded over the decades. Even what D&D (in the sense of "we're going to play D&D") means between one player and another can vary greatly depending on the edition they got started with and what types of groups they've played with before.

Session 0's get everyone on the same page in terms of expectations and concepts. While that session could simply be a GM saying "this is how it is; take it or leave it", in actual experience I've found it immensely useful as a GM to get feedback from the players (particularly if they're players I've not gamed with before) and what their interests and expectations are so that everyone can enjoy it as much as possible -or- if its going to be something where I or one or more of the players just aren't going to enjoy ourselves because of incompatible expectations (ex. the players all want to play evil PCs while I only run heroic campaigns is not one where anyone is going to enjoy the game for long).

They also let people go over character concepts and how they might play off each other; one of my favorites in this regard was when a group spontaneously decided they'd all play 5e bards (each with a different college) who traveled together in a troupe. Not at all what was expected, but if you're playing in a sandbox (which is how I tend to GM) and the PCs all want to be associated with each other from the start I'm in the "more power to you" school of thought because they just made my life as a GM a lot easier.

It also helps me to smooth over trickier concepts; like wanting to play an atypical race for where I wanted to start the campaign out. Frankly, since I usually sandbox, I generally don't even decide a 'home base/starting point' until I know what sort of PCs are going to be in the campaign. If half or more of the PCs all work if they're from the same region, there's no sense in starting the PCs out on the other side of the continent. I'll just make THAT the starting point and the ones who don't fit are just visiting for reasons to be determined.

Short version; Session 0's are awesome and I recommend them to every game group.

Yeah, it really does help. It gets everyone into having a risk-free taste of what the game is going to be like (or it even sets up risks for what they'll be dealing with personally in the game).

From a GM perspective, especially if you're doing something intentionally different than your normal fare, which has been common for me in the last few years as I've been really exploring new uses to put the Savage Worlds system to use. It's a great way to set the table for the players in how your're going to set up the starting area/region and lets the players get primed and absorb your angle.

It also lets you do a lot of focusing for yourself when you let them do Q/A ESPECIALLY if it's a new setting. Because often if let players consider long enough all the options you present, they will invariably ask you a good question you didn't quite consider, but then forces you to pin that down, which can have downstream ramifications about your sandbox. It also can introduce a LOT of interesting new possibilities.

When Session Zero is over- ideally everyone is walking away with meat to chew on - so when the first adventure kicks off, you should be off and running.

Let me ask this--to what extent do the game masters here supply items of back story for their players, rather than simply letting them choose it.  Going back to the example of the locket, it may be of no use to the game master if player 1 says, "I have the locket that shows I am the heir to the Kingdom of Lower Revolta."  On the other hand, if the locket unlocks the Dingus of Doom, I may well furnish it myself with a cryptic clue as to what it is.

Quote from: wombat1;1051353Let me ask this--to what extent do the game masters here supply items of back story for their players, rather than simply letting them choose it.  Going back to the example of the locket, it may be of no use to the game master if player 1 says, "I have the locket that shows I am the heir to the Kingdom of Lower Revolta."  On the other hand, if the locket unlocks the Dingus of Doom, I may well furnish it myself with a cryptic clue as to what it is.

Hadn't thought about it in a long time (over 20 years), but that's the kind of thing I might do again some time.  In my case, I'd be more likely to do it in a game with quick gen characters.  Make up a bunch of possible backstory items that were rooted in the campaign, put them on index cards, and let players make a random draw (if so inclined).  Boom, instant backstory item that automatically connects to the campaign in a way that I'm already prepared to handle in a meaningful way.

Quote from: wombat1;1051353Let me ask this--to what extent do the game masters here supply items of back story for their players, rather than simply letting them choose it.  Going back to the example of the locket, it may be of no use to the game master if player 1 says, "I have the locket that shows I am the heir to the Kingdom of Lower Revolta."  On the other hand, if the locket unlocks the Dingus of Doom, I may well furnish it myself with a cryptic clue as to what it is.

Depends on the player. I rarely have players that make those kinds of requests. I'm also reticent, due to past experience, overtly telling players that this *huge* thing is resting on them from get-go. THAT said - it doesn't mean that it hasn't/doesn't happen.

First - if someone said "I have the locket that shows I am the heir to the Kingdom of Lower Revolta." as something they want as part of their background. I would think it through on what kind of cool gaming opportunities that would provide. I always ask "Why do you want that?"

Second- If I can't think of anything obvious - I'll start thinking of "What if" scenarios BASED on that backstory-seed that could make things interesting. If I already have a lot of campaign secrets I can plug that into - then usually it's no problem. I just shift what I tell the player privately some information they might know the other PC's don't.

Last - If I think the PC can't really handle the responsibility entailed (either by their own ignorance of secret conceits to be revealed in game, like all the royal families of Lower Revolta are going to be sacrificed to Gozer the Gozerian in the opening scene off-camera rendering the nation moot - or does it?!?!??!) I'll generally say no to that ONE thing. But I'll offer up something similar or closer to what they really want and I believe they can handle.

IF I think they can handle it - then yeah, I'll develop extra stuff for that can cover just about anything - from "unlocks the Dingus of Doom" to linking it to any other "things" in the game no one knows about. What GM doesn't like an open-ended MacGuffin?

Quote from: Steven Mitchell;1051355Hadn't thought about it in a long time (over 20 years), but that's the kind of thing I might do again some time.  In my case, I'd be more likely to do it in a game with quick gen characters.  Make up a bunch of possible backstory items that were rooted in the campaign, put them on index cards, and let players make a random draw (if so inclined).  Boom, instant backstory item that automatically connects to the campaign in a way that I'm already prepared to handle in a meaningful way.

Oh, I like that--all set and ready to go, and as play progresses, other cards of that sort can be tossed into the mix as well.

Quote from: tenbones;1051359Depends on the player. I rarely have players that make those kinds of requests. I'm also reticent, due to past experience, overtly telling players that this *huge* thing is resting on them from get-go. THAT said - it doesn't mean that it hasn't/doesn't happen.

First - if someone said "I have the locket that shows I am the heir to the Kingdom of Lower Revolta." as something they want as part of their background. I would think it through on what kind of cool gaming opportunities that would provide. I always ask "Why do you want that?"

Second- If I can't think of anything obvious - I'll start thinking of "What if" scenarios BASED on that backstory-seed that could make things interesting. If I already have a lot of campaign secrets I can plug that into - then usually it's no problem. I just shift what I tell the player privately some information they might know the other PC's don't.

Last - If I think the PC can't really handle the responsibility entailed (either by their own ignorance of secret conceits to be revealed in game, like all the royal families of Lower Revolta are going to be sacrificed to Gozer the Gozerian in the opening scene off-camera rendering the nation moot - or does it?!?!??!) I'll generally say no to that ONE thing. But I'll offer up something similar or closer to what they really want and I believe they can handle.

IF I think they can handle it - then yeah, I'll develop extra stuff for that can cover just about anything - from "unlocks the Dingus of Doom" to linking it to any other "things" in the game no one knows about. What GM doesn't like an open-ended MacGuffin?

That makes a deal of sense, though the idea of an open-ended MacGuffin that is truly letting it all hang out is troubling.

Quote from: wombat1;1051353Let me ask this--to what extent do the game masters here supply items of back story for their players, rather than simply letting them choose it.  Going back to the example of the locket, it may be of no use to the game master if player 1 says, "I have the locket that shows I am the heir to the Kingdom of Lower Revolta."  On the other hand, if the locket unlocks the Dingus of Doom, I may well furnish it myself with a cryptic clue as to what it is.

If a player wants to add colour to his character with a locket or other item, then I don't see the problem.  As long as they let ME (the DM) do what I want with it, whether that means ignoring it, OR using it to create an adventure for my players.

This is not a contest of wills, it's a game, a cooperative one.  Which I'm beginning to wonder if this board realizes this sometimes.

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?

It really depends on the type of game I'm running. For instance, in a Superhero game? That backstory absolutely matters. The NPC's mentioned in the backstory might be excellent fodder for adventures... Your character's brother gets kidnapped...or you find out the hidden identity of the Supervillain you've been fighting, is the girl you've been dating for several months now!

Superhero stories are Soap Operas with action, so you really want some backstory with the characters to help flesh things out. Even a character like the Punisher helps if I have an old army buddy in trouble, or a former Officer whose turned dirty or the like. The escaped Alien Princess can have family show up, bounty hunters after them... The Mutant can have his own parents turn on him, or have one turn on him the other support him and have it break up the family entirely... Melodrama that's what it's all about! That and bad ass superhero action!

If I'm running a game set in WWII though, with the players as soldiers.... Yeah it matters a little that Donnie is actually a Jew, and people pick on Vincent all the time because he's Italian... but other than that, their "backstory" isn't going to come to the forefront at all. Sure I expect it'll effect how they roleplay their characters, but the focus is on them being soldiers in WWII... When they're storming the beaches of Normandy, the fact Pa lost everything in the dust bowl isn't going to matter... Nor is Vincent's backstory about how his family was run out of town for gambling debts.

If you're running Dungeons and Dragons in the more Conan style, the more Kick in the Door, explore the dungeon, get the treasure...then communicate it to your players, let them know their characters elaborate backstory isn't going to matter. But if you're doing something more like LotR or GoT then their backstory is obviously going to be a little more important.

Communication with players about expectations is the key.

Re communication, I need to remember that "old school dungeon crawl" means nothing to a sizable number of players. "Open world sandbox" does not necessarily imply no backstory. "Like Skyrim but you're probably not the Dragonborn" maybe? :)

Quote from: S'mon;1051496Re communication, I need to remember that "old school dungeon crawl" means nothing to a sizable number of players. "Open world sandbox" does not necessarily imply no backstory. "Like Skyrim but you're probably not the Dragonborn" maybe? :)

Just use normal speech unless you know for sure they're on the same page with the specialized terminology. That's how I handle it.

Quote from: S'mon;1051496Re communication, I need to remember that "old school dungeon crawl" means nothing to a sizable number of players. "Open world sandbox" does not necessarily imply no backstory. "Like Skyrim but you're probably not the Dragonborn" maybe? :)

Quote from: GeekEclectic;1051553Just use normal speech unless you know for sure they're on the same page with the specialized terminology. That's how I handle it.

Yup. My players have no idea what the two phrases mean and none of us have played Skyrim or know what a Dragonborn is.

And even if you're "sure they're on the same page", you're probably wrong. Two people could use "old school dungeon crawl" and appear to be on the same page, until the GM whips out a chess set or crossword puzzle for you to do in the middle of a dungeon, "with death on the line" (Princess Bride voice). (Real example taken from a thread last year.)

Quote from: wombat1;1051383That makes a deal of sense, though the idea of an open-ended MacGuffin that is truly letting it all hang out is troubling.

By "open-ended Macguffin" I mean simply this:I think it's perfectly reasonable to take a "thing" that players are invested in - even passively, and develop game-content around that thing to create more significance that was originally considered. In fact, that's no different than giving a story to that +2 sword, and the players find out that sword's name is "Deathkiss" the blade that slew King Whargarble of Lower Revolta. The difference, of course, is scale. How much significance do you want to give that item in your campaign?

It may not even cross your mind until later - that such things provide good fodder for adventures and adds interesting game-history to your current game. "Who knew the wielder of Deathkiss, the sword that is destined to slay the dragon of Lower Revolta, with the bearer of the Queen's Locket? were *both* in this party?!?!" It's all about the circumstances, and whether you as the GM think it's a good breadcrumb to drop in the game. Of course if the players don't give a crap - no worries. They still have a nifty sword and locket and a story to tell in the taverns on the way to the next kingdom over.

The degree of importance you place on such things is on you. Generally speaking I don't think you should force those issues - but you should definitely consider the ramification of your PC's deciding NOT to pursue it. The degree of those ramifications are of course, up to you, but you should think that through before you slap that on your players.

The wheels upon which your world in motion spins, should ideally spin both ways.

Quote from: Christopher Brady;1051403This is not a contest of wills, it's a game, a cooperative one.  Which I'm beginning to wonder if this board realizes this sometimes.

I know you know this, that it's a stage of GM experience that one attains via trial and lots of error before this light-switch comes on. It's also why I don't post on a lot of other forums anymore. Most *relatively* less experienced GM's are in that dangerous zone of thinking they got it - but still run things like an adversary, and they don't *quite* grasp the bigger picture. And my advice is generally useless in those places.

[video=youtube_share;3sglQ94v6Es]https://youtu.be/3sglQ94v6Es[/youtube]