TheRPGSite

In another thread there were posts about character backstories.  Some preferred sparse ones, others preferred longer ones.  What are you looking for in a backstory as a player?  What are you looking for in a player's backstory as a GM?

Personally, the most fun with characters I've run are those with the least amount of backstory going in.  I've learned that it's the unexpected awesome that comes out during play that I like the most.

In most rpgs, particularly the D&D-like ones, first session I might want to know "why did you're character decide to become an adventurer?" even though the answer is almost always fortune or escaping poverty. If a character lives, I might want to retroactively decide what they did before, and what kind of family they have alive. Regardless, we try to make our characters forward looking, not looking for hooks in their past, but in what occurs in-game.

In our new-ish now-only-lightly-'Mad Max'-inspired game my GM and I created, we are in a setting where people are 'called' from the sandstorm by a clan's mystic, and remember nothing from before walking out of the storm. It is genuinely unclear whether they even existed a moment before.

Usually just a mantra of some kind, like "I always pay me debts."

As a player, something that I write loosely and briefly beforehand to get me into the mind of the character.  Or maybe just mused about.  Which is then either tossed in the garbage, or if shows some promise, distilled into a short bullet list to remind me if asked.  I might write more than that out of sheer enjoyment at exploring the character, but it's not anything I would likely reference in play.  That's an alternate history for that character, told in a different form.  I'm also entirely fine with, "Here's a pre-gen with some stats, make up a name and let's go."

As a GM, I'm not looking, if I can help it.  I'll make an exception for a new system we are trying, or new players, to sort of break everyone into the game.  But that's for their sake, not mine.  It's not going to matter in play except to the extent that the players make it matter by their actions.  They can talk about it amongst themselves all they want.  I can always use a few more minutes to focus on the upcoming things while they give me a break.  The exception still being new gamers, new systems, where I'll lob them some easy chances to introduce their backstory stuff if they want.

As GM I like a short paragraph to get an idea who the PC is. As player I'm happy to write up a short para on request, likewise.

The more a player rights for me the more the world lives and the more hooks I can grab.  Up to a certain point  of course.

I prefer minimal back story. The back story should not invent anything with significant weight in the setting unless that is part of character generation. In a life-path system like Traveller, concocting a story to match the rolls you made for previous experience is welcome, but anything invented for the setting must pass muster. A well written back story may well affect play, but such effects should be minimal, or supported mechanically by the character. As another life path example, Burning Wheel provides traits and you can buy reputations, affiliations, and relationships so all of those are fair game (and in fact should have at least something behind them). But none of this should be so long the GM and other players won't read it at least by the 2nd game session. And of course the player must be open to veto or modification by the GM and other players.

I have had the experience of a player write a long back story that introduced or changed setting elements against what I had already settled on and not in a helpful way, and unlike Burning Wheel where you write beliefs that may not be correct, but you can play to make them correct, the player just assumed he got to dictate that part of my setting (in one case, he flipped a significant group within the campaign from friend to enemy or maybe it was the other way around -whoops...).

Frank

For games that require a backstory, I'm willing to write up to half a page, and are willing to read half a page per character, too, as a GM.

Quote from: RunningLaser;968838In another thread there were posts about character backstories.  Some preferred sparse ones, others preferred longer ones.  What are you looking for in a backstory as a player?  What are you looking for in a player's backstory as a GM?

Personally, the most fun with characters I've run are those with the least amount of backstory going in.  I've learned that it's the unexpected awesome that comes out during play that I like the most.

What the player wants out of the game.  Do they want to simply be a Sword and Sorcery type, where the past means nothing (A ranger/barbarian in my home campaign had an entirely closed off background, he was the son of a Barbarian and an Elf, he had some adventures, and childhood friend with benefits, and decided to go wander after a while.  Boom, done, meaning that he didn't want some elaborate plot involving something in his past.)  Or do they want a series of events centered around their personal situation?  (Had a Warlock noble girl, who wanted to be a Bard, but the family patriarch, and Warlock Patron, decided to give her a portion of his power, and ordered to go out into the world.  That player wanted the Waterdeep family to be a hook that ties them to the adventure.) so on and so forth.

That's all for me.

I love detailed backstories that I can work into the setting.  It's fun to have the chance to discover and explore the setting along with my players.

You get 100 words. Go crazy.

After you've written your character on an index card. If there is any space left feel free to write up a backstory? :cool:

As noted in a similar thread last year, I tend to keep my backstory short. Sometimes just a sentence, sometimes a little more. The rest comes out from role playing and talking with the other PCs.

My 5e Warlock's background was "Have Shield. Will Travel." Kefra's elf Druid was formerly a spy, still is really. And Jan's half-orc Fighter had some nautical experience which ended with her character wanting to put alot of distance between herself and the sea.

My old magic users all had pretty much the same ol bog standard "apprentice out in the world." start. Sometimes with the added flourish of "and the tower exploded!"

Quote from: Technomancer;968881I love detailed backstories that I can work into the setting.  It's fun to have the chance to discover and explore the setting along with my players.

Your post reminded me that one of the reasons I don't care for backstories is that I want to get that kind of information out of the players via discussion before I even start working on the setting.  If I wait until backstories are available, it will be too late. I'm happy to get input about what the setting is about, and what the particular campaign is about, but I want it early.

Quote from: Gronan of Simmerya;968370I don't want backstory, I want "This is what the character wants."

Quote from: cranebump;968847Usually just a mantra of some kind, like "I always pay me debts."

Quote from: Steven Mitchell;968856As a player, something that I write loosely and briefly beforehand to get me into the mind of the character.

Quote from: ffilz;968867I prefer minimal back story. The back story should not invent anything with significant weight in the setting unless that is part of character generation.

These are my people.

Quote from: RunningLaser;968838In another thread there were posts about character backstories.  Some preferred sparse ones, others preferred longer ones.  What are you looking for in a backstory as a player?  What are you looking for in a player's backstory as a GM?
.

I like backstories that present the character as a fleshed out person with some connections to the game setting and premise then provide some hooks for me to use and get a little idea of what the player is expecting from the game. I like to see explanations for things like Disadvantages, unique abilities and that sort of thing and a general sense of the characters personality and any goal they may have, especially if they aren't obvious from the nature of the game.

Quote from: RunningLaser;968838In another thread there were posts about character backstories.  Some preferred sparse ones, others preferred longer ones.  What are you looking for in a backstory as a player?  What are you looking for in a player's backstory as a GM?

Personally, the most fun with characters I've run are those with the least amount of backstory going in.  I've learned that it's the unexpected awesome that comes out during play that I like the most.

Juuuust enough to tell me why they're doing what they're doing is fine by me.

"I seek fortune and fame."

"Drow raiders killed my father and took his sword."

"I had a vision of the world being consumed by a five headed dragon."

"My old mentor sent for help."

Any of this works for me.

Quote from: RunningLaser;968838In another thread there were posts about character backstories.  Some preferred sparse ones, others preferred longer ones.  What are you looking for in a backstory as a player?  What are you looking for in a player's backstory as a GM?

Personally, the most fun with characters I've run are those with the least amount of backstory going in.  I've learned that it's the unexpected awesome that comes out during play that I like the most.

Just a paragraph of backstory is what I prefer. No more than that. Because it is in the past.

No backstories! It's like in The Incredibles: "no capes!" The backstory gets tangled up in everything else and it kills the game.

 A 2 hit point 1st level thief doesn't need a backstory, they need luck. We don't even want to know your character's name until they survive the first combat encounter.

Quote from: Kyle Aaron;968970We don't even want to know your character's name until they survive the first combat encounter.

That reminds me the apprentice mages in Warhammer.

In Dragon Storm your PCs have a background card that kind of defines who they were before things go to heck.

examples: Remorseful Apprentice. You were a former apprentice to a necromancer. Then you find out they arent the good guys... Or a bog standard peasant who has lived a relatively peaceful life protected by the local necro. Then you find out they arent the good guys... Or a scholar studying ancient texts about how the necros defeated the evil dragons. Then you find out they arent the good guys...

Or adding flaws to the character like Fastidious. Takes an extra round to transform as they have to make sure their clothes are neatly folded and safe. :D These were great for helping players get some sort of handle on their character and dive right in. And its hilarious to watch the hulking Werewolf or Gargoyle taking the time to make sure their doily doesnt get dirty before the fight.

Depends on the game. If I'm running, say, DCC, PCs have backstories like "He's Ted, the gongfarmer." And that's pretty much it. PCs start out as nobodies from nowhere who have only done one noteworthy thing, volunteered to look for the missing villagers/check out that mysterious meteor/find out what's behind that portal.

If I'm running, say, HeroQuest Glorantha, a PC's place in the world, and how they responded to recent events, becomes much more important. I still desire brevity, a few paragraphs at the outside.

Quote from: Tommy Brownell;968936Juuuust enough to tell me why they're doing what they're doing is fine by me.

"I seek fortune and fame."

"Drow raiders killed my father and took his sword."

"I had a vision of the world being consumed by a five headed dragon."

"My old mentor sent for help."

Any of this works for me.

Those are very good, yup.

A player gave me this for his PC:

Sleek as a wolf, at 6'3" and 220lbs Hakeem stalks rather than walks through the civilized cattle of the lowlands.
Background: After the death of his father in battle before Hakeem was born his mother left him to thrive or die among the demon haunted Midnight Goddess Hills. As tradition dictates the Brotherhood of the Sword sought the child after a week and finding the infant alive claimed him for their own.

For a high-roleplay swords & sorcery game that's pretty much perfect IMO. For a high-mortality dungeon bash less would be fine.

It depends on the game. I like looser backstories, with a few high level details, some names, etc. If the setting is well defined, having more solid details doesn't bother me at all. One friend of mine used to write six page backstories for each character - my friends and I agreed to begin rejecting his backstories until he cut them down to a single page. We actually enjoy some bluebooking exercises for some of our games, but I've noticed the longer the backstory, the more cluttered the character gets with events that never enter play.

Quote from: RunningLaser;968838In another thread there were posts about character backstories.  Some preferred sparse ones, others preferred longer ones.

Some didn't care:).

QuoteWhat are you looking for in a backstory as a player?

A "feel" for the character, which allows me to play him without deliberation. Whether that's 5 words or 5 pages is irrelevant.

QuoteWhat are you looking for in a player's backstory as a GM?

I want a list of goals, habits and values.
Also, a list of relationships with other parts of the setting, whether NPCs, organisations or countries.

QuotePersonally, the most fun with characters I've run are those with the least amount of backstory going in.  I've learned that it's the unexpected awesome that comes out during play that I like the most.

Personally, I think the difference is overrated;).

Quote from: Coffee Zombie;968989It depends on the game. I like looser backstories, with a few high level details, some names, etc. If the setting is well defined, having more solid details doesn't bother me at all. One friend of mine used to write six page backstories for each character - my friends and I agreed to begin rejecting his backstories until he cut them down to a single page. We actually enjoy some bluebooking exercises for some of our games, but I've noticed the longer the backstory, the more cluttered the character gets with events that never enter play.

That's another good point, too much background and you just have details someone is going to forget that they even apply. A background should either serve as a bit of color, or be tied to play in a way that is easy to draw on regularly.

The key is that whatever is done during character generation, including back stories, should serve to set up and inform play of the game. And since we're playing a game, not passing the stick and telling stories, the flow of the game should leave the course of events as something to be determined in play.

Your PC is an heir? Cool, let's see if it actually works out that you assume your inherited position, but in the meantime, being heir doesn't convey any in game advantage to your character unless the advantage was something you earned or paid for in character generation, or is something the entire table is good with (even if the "entire table being good" amounts to the other players accepting the GM's granting you advantage).

Frank

Quote from: ffilz;969037That's another good point, too much background and you just have details someone is going to forget that they even apply. A background should either serve as a bit of color, or be tied to play in a way that is easy to draw on regularly.

Re: the dislike for backgrounds on the sandbox thread, I've found that the best way to get a player to tie the character to the setting is to talk to them about it.  They could write a background, probably too long to be useful.  Then I can read it.  Then we are going to talk about it anyway to iron out the differences.  Or we can just cut to the chase, skipping the background altogether.

I'll take a one-sentence description of who the character is and what he wants. If it can't be summed up in one sentence, it's usually (in my experience) an indicator that the player wants to tell a story rather than play a game.

Quote from: That Guy;968984PCs have backstories like "He's Ted, the gongfarmer." And that's pretty much it. PCs start out as nobodies from nowhere.

That's my general preference in a nutshell.

Quote from: That Guy;968984PCs have backstories like "He's Ted, the gongfarmer." And that's pretty much it. PCs start out as nobodies from nowhere.

That's my general preference in a nutshell.

It really depends on the campaign, but I am generally pretty flexible. These days if I have someone with a dense background, I will go over it, tell them what can work, what can't. In some cases I may request specific changes due to setting consistency or balance concerns. Most players don't do this. I find it is a mix though. If a large background story helps them play their character, I am fine by that. I'll occasionally incorporate it into the campaign as well if it fits.

I do try to establish key background details for all characters that I think are important to know. For example who your parents are, where they live, what they do, etc. That isn't something I want them coming up with on the fly during play.

Quote from: BedrockBrendan;969095It really depends on the campaign, but I am generally pretty flexible. These days if I have someone with a dense background, I will go over it, tell them what can work, what can't. In some cases I may request specific changes due to setting consistency or balance concerns. Most players don't do this. I find it is a mix though. If a large background story helps them play their character, I am fine by that. I'll occasionally incorporate it into the campaign as well if it fits.

I do try to establish key background details for all characters that I think are important to know. For example who your parents are, where they live, what they do, etc. That isn't something I want them coming up with on the fly during play.

I try to adjust for the premise and settings. The backgrounds for Pcs in one game where the characters are 15 yr olds in a Post Zombie Apocalyptic world are pretty short, just enough to establish them who they are, what their ties are to the community, friends and family. Things are more involved in games like Exalted where you're character's background assumes they've been active (and often influential even wealthy and famous) before the game starts.

Quote from: Nexus;969097I try to adjust for the premise and settings. The backgrounds for Pcs in one game where the characters are 15 yr olds in a Post Zombie Apocalyptic world are pretty short, just enough to establish them who they are, what their ties are to the community, friends and family. Things are more involved in games like Exalted where you're character's background assumes they've been active (and often influential even wealthy and famous) before the game starts.

Usually player characters in my games start out pretty young and inexperienced. Personally though, I don't mind if they want to play an older character, provided they don't get anything like levels or skill points out of it. If someone wants to play a forty year old man going out on his first adventure, I am cool with that.

Quote from: BedrockBrendan;969101Usually player characters in my games start out pretty young and inexperienced. Personally though, I don't mind if they want to play an older character, provided they don't get anything like levels or skill points out of it. If someone wants to play a forty year old man going out on his first adventure, I am cool with that.

I'm not usually a stickler for age outside of setting restraints and premise. For instance, in the campaign I mentioned 15 is when citizens of their town are considered adults and have to start contributing or face repercussions. And I wanted to have "coming of age" be an aspect of the game.

Quote from: BedrockBrendan;969101Usually player characters in my games start out pretty young and inexperienced. Personally though, I don't mind if they want to play an older character, provided they don't get anything like levels or skill points out of it. If someone wants to play a forty year old man going out on his first adventure, I am cool with that.

So there's one key thing, if you don't try to get anything like levels or skill points (or gold or whatever) out of your background, I'm a lot more open.

In OD&D, I'd be totally game for a player to declare his 1st level PC to be whatever age they wanted. Until their character decided to be an adventurer, they were a "normal man".

In Traveller, you can generate a young or old character, though you don't just get to declare your age, if you want an old character, you need to nurse it through the previous experience system. But then, again, you can't introduce anything in your back story that isn't supported by that previous experience system...

Frank

Quote from: Nexus;969109I'm not usually a stickler for age outside of setting restraints and premise. For instance, in the campaign I mentioned 15 is when citizens of their town are considered adults and have to start contributing or face repercussions. And I wanted to have "coming of age" be an aspect of the game.

That's really the crux of the issue. EVERY campaign has setting restraints and premise. The constraints and premise may be not much more than the choice of rules, or the GM might have a really specific set of constraints in mind. And with that, a back story becomes problematical when it attempts to do an end run around the constraints and premise (and that may just be the fact that the player spent 2 of the 10 pages describing the farm he grew up on and then the GM just burns it down in the first session (oops, sorry player of Luke Skywalker :-)) or otherwise makes it never relevant, or it may be the player trying to write in game status into their character such as levels, skills, gold, nobility, whatever). I've seen that happen with short back stories, and I've seen it with long back stories (I'm actually trying to think if I've ever seen more than one or two long back stories, the only one I can think of was seriously a problem - well, I think there was one in college, written after months of play that really just incorporated play back into the back story - nothing wrong with that).

I'd actually be interested to hear how GMs have made positive use of a 10 page back story, because honestly it's hard for me to imagine that much material either not contradicting the GM's vision, or being totally irrelevant in play.

Frank

Quote from: ffilz;969134That's really the crux of the issue. EVERY campaign has setting restraints and premise. The constraints and premise may be not much more than the choice of rules, or the GM might have a really specific set of constraints in mind. And with that, a back story becomes problematical when it attempts to do an end run around the constraints and premise (and that may just be the fact that the player spent 2 of the 10 pages describing the farm he grew up on and then the GM just burns it down in the first session (oops, sorry player of Luke Skywalker :-)) or otherwise makes it never relevant, or it may be the player trying to write in game status into their character such as levels, skills, gold, nobility, whatever). I've seen that happen with short back stories, and I've seen it with long back stories (I'm actually trying to think if I've ever seen more than one or two long back stories, the only one I can think of was seriously a problem - well, I think there was one in college, written after months of play that really just incorporated play back into the back story - nothing wrong with that).

I'd actually be interested to hear how GMs have made positive use of a 10 page back story, because honestly it's hard for me to imagine that much material either not contradicting the GM's vision, or being totally irrelevant in play.

Frank

It hasn't for me. I explain the premise up front and the players write their backstories based on the character they want to play in that premise. Sometimes I have to veto things or ask for changes but I've had to do that for all steps of character generation. Now if people are showing up for your games with extensive background written without knowing anything about the premise or anything else... I imagine that would be a problem. But I rarely get "10 page backstories". I think one problem with this discussion in a middle is being excluded. Its either None, a sentence or a novella.

 But if I got one where the player spent two pages talking about their home farm I'd assume that farm was pretty important to their character concept and talk to them about what their ideas are. I might have to adjust my vision if I want them to play, ask them to revise or submit a different background. Negotiation or give and take. I'd at the very least let them know the family farm doesn't work because I might not have made that clear.

Systemwise, the games I use require expenditure of chargen resources to have in game perks so "writing your PC as King" isn't a problem.

Quote from: Nexus;969160It hasn't for me. I explain the premise up front and the players write their backstories based on the character they want to play in that premise. Sometimes I have to veto things or ask for changes but I've had to do that for all steps of character generation. Now if people are showing up for your games with extensive background written without knowing anything about the premise or anything else... I imagine that would be a problem. But I rarely get "10 page backstories". I think one problem with this discussion in a middle is being excluded. Its either None, a sentence or a novella.

 But if I got one where the player spent two pages talking about their home farm I'd assume that farm was pretty important to their character concept and talk to them about what their ideas are. I might have to adjust my vision if I want them to play, ask them to revise or submit a different background. Negotiation or give and take. I'd at the very least let them know the family farm doesn't work because I might not have made that clear.

Systemwise, the games I use require expenditure of chargen resources to have in game perks so "writing your PC as King" isn't a problem.

I think we're actually more in agreement than it might appear. There is a middle ground between none and 10 pages. More than a page would probably be too much for me, but then I (mostly) don't run systems that would mechanically allow you to create the king's heir (ok, so actually, two of the 4 systems on my hot list actually WOULD allow that... In Traveller, you COULD come out of chargen with a pretty high Social characteristic, and Burning Wheel has various ways you could get there. In Burning Wheel though, you absolutely don't show up at the table with the king's heir without there being a conversation with the GM and other players, at least not if you buy into how the game encourages you to do chargen.

Now all along I've been saying that writing up a back story to add color to what's mechanically on your character sheet is totally fine. In appropriate systems, that might in some cases need a page to do well. Fine, assuming all of this is happening in collaboration, your 1 or 2 page writeup will be fine, and assuming that collaboration happened on the front end, the player will probably be fine with any critique of the writeup and they will submit a second draft resolving any issues the GM raised.

Now if such a writeup STILL has two pages about the family farm, we will have a conversation about how a family farm fits into the constraints of the game I originally presented and hopefully we can work it out. Maybe the player really does just want two pages of color and never expected the farm to mean anything. Or maybe it's OD&D, and he's going to bring his gold back to his parents on said farm, ok, cool. As long as the player doesn't expect anything special just because he's bringing his gold back to the farm beyond what is in the system.

The back story that got my goat WAS a multi-page back story where the player wrote in several things that contradicted my vision for the setting, and a discussion with him was not really productive. It left a sour taste.

Now here's the writeup I did for my most recent Traveller character:

Istvan served on a number of different ships. On his first ship, he acquitted himself so well in gunnery against pirates (term 1 skills were Gunnery-2, Mechanical-1, J-o-T-1) that he was commissioned and promoted. Unfortunately as one not quite scraped from the bottom of the social barrel, he did not last long on that ship. His next posting saw his value as someone who could accomplish odd jobs and fix things well enough to hold until someone else could fix them properly (J-o-T 2). On his next posting, danger rose again, and he saved the navigator's life while plotting a course to escape a pirate ambush (Medical-1 and Navigation-1) and was again promoted and eventually shown the gang plank. His next posting was on a subsidized liner as medic where he tended to the passengers and improved his skill (Medic-2) before again being shown the gangplank (he just really didn't fit in with the liner culture). A final term found him on a free trader out in the boondocks, after a few tense shore leaves (Streetwise-1), he finally decided that the merchant service was no longer for him and he took retirement, signing off at Carthage down port. During his service he managed to learn a bit here and there, was awarded the blade he carried on those shore leaves (mustering outt: Educ+3, Blade x2, 21 kcr).

That is all supported by the rolls I made during chargen and previous experience. I didn't even name anything (though as a GM, if a player gave me something like this, but named some things, I'd probably be ok with it, perhaps suggesting a couple changes. I have made some setting assumptions, but they aren't anything out of what is expected from a Traveller campaign.

Frank

I don't mind long, even 10 pages long, background I just rarely get them. I'd like to find more players that invested, honestly,

Quote from: Nexus;969167I don't mind long, even 10 pages long, background I just rarely get them. I'd like to find more players that invested, honestly,

What exactly are they invested in? Daydreaming about how cool their characters are when not facing challenges that bite back?

I have dealt with players who wrote consistent, lengthy backstories. I began to send them back with "please submit TLDR version". Sometimes the backstory was decent, and really served to flesh out the character and provide some interesting story hooks. Especially in more grounded campaigns, these could often be helpful additions to the game. In super hero RPGs, a longer backstory was often expected (write me your origin story). But when I have to question bizarre choices and motives, and the player's response is "oh, in my backstory, this happened..." this is where I usually re-read the backstory and look for ways to kick that character out of the mold. Because at least half the time, that's what a backstory becomes. The character's mold, and they're only allowed to grow to the edges of it in some carefully calculated way.

The more often I broke that mold, the sooner the would be novelists in my group saw that what happened at the table would always trump their backstory. After a while, I explicitly asked for "as little backstory as possible - make the character come alive in play so everyone gets involved in their story." Worked like a charm.

I'll still always allow lengthy backstories for super heroes. It just seems to go with the genre.

One of the cool thing about ACKS is, with the Player Companion, they give you all the formulas they've used for creating their "Race/Class Combo Classes".  So if you had a player who did want to make up a rare character type, you could make the Mongol Outrider/Wood Elven Wardancer/Cultist of Acheron Ascended class at the same time.

Quote from: Nexus;969167I don't mind long, even 10 pages long, background I just rarely get them. I'd like to find more players that invested, honestly,

Since all backstory is history, you might find players who like a more game-driven approach to get invested in, rather than an essay to write.

With White Wolf, I always ran the characters through one or more preludes at least one solo and sometimes a group or two as well before the actual campaign.

For some people, just writing something down yourself as a creative exercise is never going to be "living history" in the same way something that came out of gameplay will.

I've had some players balk at doing semi-random Lifepath chargen before.  I always say "Just try it once."  Even the three-pagers don't complain after.  They have plenty of hooks and things they can detail that won't bleed into new setting creation.

Quote from: Black Vulmea;969171What exactly are they invested in? Daydreaming about how cool their characters are when not facing challenges that bite back?

I love the blanket assumption in this post.  Just because that's what YOU would write does not mean everyone else would.  Stop projecting.

Quote from: Christopher Brady;969189I love the blanket assumption in this post.  Just because that's what YOU would write does not mean everyone else would.  Stop projecting.

As I was saying, don't get why some people are so agitated over what people are doing in game they're not involved in.  *shrug* I don't think I've seen one person that enjoys backstories shit on the tastes of people that don't across two threads. Saying I like something you don't is not the same as saying what you like is crap unless you're pretty damn insecure. And you can discuss differing tastes and opinions with out being an ass. Most of participants in these thread have illustrated that.

Quote from: Nexus;969196As I was saying, don't get why some people are so agitated over what people are doing in game they're not involved in.  *shrug* I don't think I've seen one person that enjoys backstories shit on the tastes of people that don't across two threads. Saying I like something you don't is not the same as saying what you like is crap unless you're pretty damn insecure. And you can discuss differing tastes and opinions with out being an ass. Most of participants in these thread have illustrated that.

I think it's just that we all know "that guy", the one who always showed up with a 10-page character backstory where he's the Last One/Chosen One/Heir to X/Half-Drow/Quarter Displacer Beast/Assimilated by the Borg, etc...  One player like that can be so disruptive that it sticks in a GM's craw, and like the Min-Maxing Munchkin, The Rules Lawyer, the Hack and Slasher so taints that mindset that discussion of it always brings to mind the worst extreme.  Of course, all internet discussion tends to go that way anyway...

Also I've noticed on this board that when anyone who has even remotely the aura of "Old School" somewhere around them posts, people who have the aura of "Not Old School thank you very much" around them tend to remove the unspoken "IMO" that people always tack in front of every sentence and replace it with "You're fucking stupid if you don't agree with the following objective truth" or at least sure take offense as if they did. ;)

Quote from: CRKrueger;969241Also I've noticed on this board that when anyone who has even remotely the aura of "Old School" somewhere around them posts, people who have the aura of "Not Old School thank you very much" around them...

There are Non-OSR people still posting on this board?! :eek:
I thought we'd burned the last of them years ago...

Quote from: S'mon;969292There are Non-OSR people still posting on this board?! :eek:
I thought we'd burned the last of them years ago...

But they have huge amounts of hit points and easy access to healing magic and resurrections...it's hard to make them stay dead.

Quote from: Dumarest;969339But they have huge amounts of hit points and easy access to healing magic and resurrections...it's hard to make them stay dead.

Ok, now that was funny. :D

Quote from: CRKrueger;969340Ok, now that was funny. :D

 Can you tell my kids? :p

Quote from: RunningLaser;968838In another thread there were posts about character backstories.  Some preferred sparse ones, others preferred longer ones.  What are you looking for in a backstory as a player?  What are you looking for in a player's backstory as a GM?

Personally, the most fun with characters I've run are those with the least amount of backstory going in.  I've learned that it's the unexpected awesome that comes out during play that I like the most.

I prefer keeping things sparse if I bother with a background at all. I 'm cool rolling up a character and seeing what the GM has in store, and if he wants more details I can flesh them out later.

This way I avoid wasting time writing something up that might never see the light of play, and the GM can focus on coming up with neat shit.

I don't mind 100 words or less for most games. I am good with players who tie their PCs into the setting in some manner, and especially in a sandbox. 100 words is more than enough to develop a couple concrete ideas with some embellishment.

But I rarely run games at 1st level. I usually start OD&D games at 3rd level.

Of course, if we are playing a DCC funnel or other uber-kill game, you get to write 100 words as a reward for surviving zero level!

Quote from: Spinachcat;969437I don't mind 100 words or less for most games. I am good with players who tie their PCs into the setting in some manner, and especially in a sandbox. 100 words is more than enough to develop a couple concrete ideas with some embellishment.

But I rarely run games at 1st level. I usually start OD&D games at 3rd level.

Of course, if we are playing a DCC funnel or other uber-kill game, you get to write 100 words as a reward for surviving zero level!

Man, I don't think I'll understand the "Old School" playstyle but, hey, hundreds if not thousands of people doing something for decades probably know what they're talking about. So game on, ya crazy nuts ya. :D

Quote from: Nexus;969442Man, I don't think I'll understand the "Old School" playstyle but, hey, hundreds if not thousands of people doing something for decades probably know what they're talking about. So game on, ya crazy nuts ya. :D

Here's the thing, for ME, given my background as to how I got into gaming, multi-page backgrounds ARE Old School, all because my first two DMs in D&D were into what's been called Romantic Fantasy, pioneered by Tanith Lee, Mercedes Lackey and Elizabeth Moon.  Mileage will vary.

Quote from: S'mon;969292There are Non-OSR people still posting on this board?! :eek:
I thought we'd burned the last of them years ago...

I fucked off a year ago when Tangency hijacked the place.  Now that they've all vanished, I'm good.  Even though I'm a filthy hippie storygamer.

Quote from: Spinachcat;969437I don't mind 100 words or less for most games. [...] 100 words is more than enough to develop a couple concrete ideas with some embellishment.

I used to use a cap of 250 words, as that's a single handwritten page double-spaced and most of my players would balk at doing that much manual writing.  These days I don't know, I largely play games like FATE and Smallville/Cortex+, where backstory is built right into character/setting generation.  So it doesn't come up as often as it used to.

Before I decided on a cap, I did used to say "I will stop reading after the first page, anything after that didn't happen".

Quote from: Christopher Brady;969454[...] Romantic Fantasy, pioneered by Tanith Lee, Mercedes Lackey and Elizabeth Moon.  Mileage will vary.

The only fantasy Moon has ever written was the Deed of Paksenarrion cycle, which I cannot fathom anyone construing as romantic fantasy.  They're Forgotten Realms novels.

Quote from: daniel_ream;969459The only fantasy Moon has ever written was the Deed of Paksenarrion cycle, which I cannot fathom anyone construing as romantic fantasy.  They're Forgotten Realms novels.

True.  I may be mis-remembering their favourite authors, and how they tried to make AD&D fit.  But that's how we ran it back in the 80's, so like I said, 'story gaming' IS old school to me.  This whole sandbox play style is radical and new.

One of the best campaigns I ran was an Earthdawn game where I encouraged the players to write back story stuff in a notebook between sessions. I would award them a sum of xp for every entry.
Nowadays I'm more of the idea that a characters actions speak more about who they are than any backstory, but I'm not going to discourage a player who wants to do it.
What I cannot stand are players who seem to want to "Be" a certain character than actually play one. "My character is a so and so. Isn't that great?" , eh.

Quote from: daniel_ream;969459The only fantasy Moon has ever written was the Deed of Paksenarrion cycle, which I cannot fathom anyone construing as romantic fantasy.  They're Forgotten Realms novels.

They are not FR novels. Apparently it was inspired by a game of D&D Moon observed though where someone was playing a Paladin and she thought the idea was poorly handled. So perhaps reverse inspired by D&D?

Oh and Tanith Lee is not romantic fantasy either, unless the romantic fantasy genre we're talking about is full of bloody violence, incest and rape.

Quote from: Ratman_tf;969509Nowadays I'm more of the idea that a characters actions speak more about who they are than any backstory, but I'm not going to discourage a player who wants to do it.
What I cannot stand are players who seem to want to "Be" a certain character than actually play one. "My character is a so and so. Isn't that great?" , eh.

I know some hate comparisons to film and theatre but it is all playing a role and I think it fits.

In theatre/film the whole point of a character's background is to provide motivation for the actor. So they know why they do what they do and in certain improv styles (like Mike Leigh's films and plays)  what their character would do in a situation (sound familiar?).

Often the actor and/or the director will work out the background of a character even if it has no direct impact on the scene or story.  Some actors do this and don't share it with the director (Woody Allen, Hitchcock and Bunuel were well known for not discussing the character's motivations or background with actors) but it still helps them.

Walter Hill, the director and even greater screenwriter, believed that as a writer for film he should never have a flashback or tell you the character's backstory. Their actions in the film told you who they were and what had happened to them in the past. The film Hard Times is a great example of this technique.

Basically what I'm saying is that a PC's background is there to motivate them, to help  the player decide what their character is going to do in the present.

Quote from: Voros;969557I
Basically what I'm saying is that a PC's background is there to motivate them, to help  the player decide what their character is going to do in the present.

Yeah. that's good way to put it.

Quote from: Voros;969557Basically what I'm saying is that a PC's background is there to motivate them, to help  the player decide what their character is going to do in the present.

And you'd think that in a Sandbox style of game, in which it's all about what motivates a character to explore that particular hex, that backgrounds with a fair amount of detail on motivations would help with that.

I don't think there's as much of a difference as people are making it out to be.  I'm sure an egregious example of overblown backstory would be agreed as such by most posters and a background having good detail on goals and motivations would pass muster.  People are always going to differ on how much is too much, and what the GM wants or needs to know about the character's personality, and whether the GM wants or allows any worldbuilding as part of the process.

Quote from: Ratman_tf;969509What I cannot stand are players who seem to want to "Be" a certain character than actually play one. "My character is a so and so. Isn't that great?" , eh.

Reminds me of a casual group I ran for new people whom I let create new PCs as they pleased, and they were used to D&D and one detailed a Wood Elf in GURPS terms. Another was a Grey Elf. Details details yada yada foresty elveny goodness and random spells and bows and leather and whatever.

Then in practice, one of the humans beds a peasant daughter and the peasants protest and the PCs shoot them with bows etc and drive them off.
The elveny guys end up participating in a torture session on one of the fallen peasants who failed to get away, but was still alive with an arrow in him.
The party somehow got a case of PC paranoia and thought the peasants must be eeevil, since they didn't really bother to listen to why they were mad at the PCs.
PC Woof Elf: "Tell us what evil sent you to attack us!"
Peasant: "No evil! It was just..."
PC Grey Elf: "TWIST THE ARROW!"
Peasant: "AAAAAaaaaAAAaaaaRGH!!!"
PCs (laughing): "He must be lying! We must get the truth out of him!"

They started talking about how they could use their elven healing magic to keep the prisoner alive and it would allow them to hurt him more during questioning...

This is the gist of why I think it can be a problem for many players to have more backstory or even characterization than they can really internalize.
It can work better if the PCs are fairly generic with a few central characteristics, and more details get established during play as they come up.

Quote from: Voros;969557Basically what I'm saying is that a PC's background is there to motivate them, to help  the player decide what their character is going to do in the present.

First, I have no idea why a roleplayer wouldn't listen to actors and directors about playing a role.

Second, I think I said pretty much the same. But the point is, you don't have to make the GM read the background you developed.

Quote from: Skarg;969627Reminds me of a casual group I ran for new people whom I let create new PCs as they pleased, and they were used to D&D and one detailed a Wood Elf in GURPS terms. Another was a Grey Elf. Details details yada yada foresty elveny goodness and random spells and bows and leather and whatever.

Then in practice, one of the humans beds a peasant daughter and the peasants protest and the PCs shoot them with bows etc and drive them off.
The elveny guys end up participating in a torture session on one of the fallen peasants who failed to get away, but was still alive with an arrow in him.
The party somehow got a case of PC paranoia and thought the peasants must be eeevil, since they didn't really bother to listen to why they were mad at the PCs.
PC Woof Elf: "Tell us what evil sent you to attack us!"
Peasant: "No evil! It was just..."
PC Grey Elf: "TWIST THE ARROW!"
Peasant: "AAAAAaaaaAAAaaaaRGH!!!"
PCs (laughing): "He must be lying! We must get the truth out of him!"

They started talking about how they could use their elven healing magic to keep the prisoner alive and it would allow them to hurt him more during questioning...

This is the gist of why I think it can be a problem for many players to have more backstory or even characterization than they can really internalize.
It can work better if the PCs are fairly generic with a few central characteristics, and more details get established during play as they come up.

I fail to see what level of background detail had to do with it.  The guys were incapable of playing anything other than gutter criminals.  What difference would less or more background detail have made in that instance?

Quote from: Skarg;969627Reminds me of a casual group I ran for new people whom I let create new PCs as they pleased, and they were used to D&D and one detailed a Wood Elf in GURPS terms. Another was a Grey Elf. Details details yada yada foresty elveny goodness and random spells and bows and leather and whatever.

Then in practice, one of the humans beds a peasant daughter and the peasants protest and the PCs shoot them with bows etc and drive them off.
The elveny guys end up participating in a torture session on one of the fallen peasants who failed to get away, but was still alive with an arrow in him.
The party somehow got a case of PC paranoia and thought the peasants must be eeevil, since they didn't really bother to listen to why they were mad at the PCs.
PC Woof Elf: "Tell us what evil sent you to attack us!"
Peasant: "No evil! It was just..."
PC Grey Elf: "TWIST THE ARROW!"
Peasant: "AAAAAaaaaAAAaaaaRGH!!!"
PCs (laughing): "He must be lying! We must get the truth out of him!"

They started talking about how they could use their elven healing magic to keep the prisoner alive and it would allow them to hurt him more during questioning...

This is the gist of why I think it can be a problem for many players to have more backstory or even characterization than they can really internalize.
It can work better if the PCs are fairly generic with a few central characteristics, and more details get established during play as they come up.

I don't follow how this demonstrates a problem character backgrounds, seems more like a problem with the players mindset. and possibly expectations. I've had similar issue come when the players were used to games that, for example, where PCs where the "good guys" and anything that threatened them was evil be default.

Quote from: AsenRG;969628First, I have no idea why a roleplayer wouldn't listen to actors and directors about playing a role.

Second, I think I said pretty much the same. But the point is, you don't have to make the GM read the background you developed.

For sure, not disagreeing just adding my two cents. :D

Quote from: RunningLaser;968838In another thread there were posts about character backstories.  Some preferred sparse ones, others preferred longer ones.  What are you looking for in a backstory as a player?  What are you looking for in a player's backstory as a GM?

Personally, the most fun with characters I've run are those with the least amount of backstory going in.  I've learned that it's the unexpected awesome that comes out during play that I like the most.

Me too, I prefer insta history from the players as we go along. I do however like some kind of short "party bonds" to tie the PCs together from the get go.

Quote from: CRKrueger;969631I fail to see what level of background detail had to do with it.  The guys were incapable of playing anything other than gutter criminals.  What difference would less or more background detail have made in that instance?

Quote from: Nexus;969632I don't follow how this demonstrates a problem character backgrounds, seems more like a problem with the players mindset. and possibly expectations. I've had similar issue come when the players were used to games that, for example, where PCs where the "good guys" and anything that threatened them was evil be default.

Ok. You may be partly right about that, too. But here's what I tend to think about that has me think of these as relevant cases:

One thing is that these players failed to think from the perspective of the detailed and backgrounded characters they had recently created and thought they wanted to play. The result was they played them generically, even in this completely out of character way (which in a more serious game I would tend to halt and set straight before letting them make the PCs do things that those PCs would not do). They also couldn't really remember their own various abilities, and didn't really get into playing the characters except as generic adventurers.

However when I played with these players when they had different characters, and in different games, they actually did quite a bit better. When I tossed them a random realistic but simple NPC who was with the group to play, they played with enthusiasm and creativity, added some personality and goals and did interesting things and had a good time. Those characters became interesting to everyone instead of the "generic adventurer" that their overly-written (detailed but pretty typical and bland) PCs did. They were generally smart people, and sometimes roleplayed well, but they didn't when they had those overly detailed characters.

Now, it may not really have been exactly because of the length and detail of the character backgrounds. But I think it was something along those lines.

Quote from: Christopher Brady;969616And you'd think that in a Sandbox style of game, in which it's all about what motivates a character to explore that particular hex, that backgrounds with a fair amount of detail on motivations would help with that.

I dunno, I've yet to see a lengthy background from a player who was really open to sandbox play, or for a campaign that was genuinely sandbox play. I have seen players motivate their characters out of the weeks adventure in a non-sandbox "the GM presents the adventure of the week" campaign, which is really pissy...

The key for sandbox play is the player has to be ready to engage the options presented by the map, the rumors the GM provides, and the players probing for additional information. It really shouldn't take much back story to present a PC who is ready to engage with whatever the GM comes up with, and dangerous to write back story that might conflict with the stuff that is behind the scenes in the sandbox.

Also what doesn't fly well in sandbox play is the back story that sets up success that the character already has had (which gets to the "don't write benefits into your back story that the character generation process doesn't support" - a 1st level OD&D PC is not a hero of much of anything, you don't get to be the heir to the king in GURPS without spending character points, and the OD&D starting PC is not the heir either unless the GM has actually made that part of his setting).

Quote from: Skarg;969695Ok. You may be partly right about that, too. But here's what I tend to think about that has me think of these as relevant cases:

One thing is that these players failed to think from the perspective of the detailed and backgrounded characters they had recently created and thought they wanted to play. The result was they played them generically, even in this completely out of character way (which in a more serious game I would tend to halt and set straight before letting them make the PCs do things that those PCs would not do). They also couldn't really remember their own various abilities, and didn't really get into playing the characters except as generic adventurers.

However when I played with these players when they had different characters, and in different games, they actually did quite a bit better. When I tossed them a random realistic but simple NPC who was with the group to play, they played with enthusiasm and creativity, added some personality and goals and did interesting things and had a good time. Those characters became interesting to everyone instead of the "generic adventurer" that their overly-written (detailed but pretty typical and bland) PCs did. They were generally smart people, and sometimes roleplayed well, but they didn't when they had those overly detailed characters.

Now, it may not really have been exactly because of the length and detail of the character backgrounds. But I think it was something along those lines.

Hmm, so you're saying all the lengthy backstory was basically TL;DR to their brain, and they just kind of defaulted to murderhobo because it didn't register with them, so they weren't keying in to the fact that this was definitely "un-elvish" behavior?

I can kinda see that.  Still, I put the limitation on the player.  It wasn't as much "too much backstory" as it was "too much backstory for them".  Which I guess is what you said in the beginning. Heh.

So they write backstory, and either the in-game events or their own actions make it irrelevant.

This is why I say: just roll the dice. And as another parent at my kid's school said to their kid about lunch, "you get what you get and you don't get upset."

Quote from: CRKrueger;969761Hmm, so you're saying all the lengthy backstory was basically TL;DR to their brain, and they just kind of defaulted to murderhobo because it didn't register with them, so they weren't keying in to the fact that this was definitely "un-elvish" behavior?

I can kinda see that.  Still, I put the limitation on the player.  It wasn't as much "too much backstory" as it was "too much backstory for them".  Which I guess is what you said in the beginning. Heh.

I think this could be considered the advantage of playing 'archtypes' or characters with a few broad traits, at least for beginners to RPGs.

I recall a table in the 1e DMG (I believe it was) of character traits for NPCs that we use to roll and use for our PCs. It gave us a few traits to hold onto and made the PC feel more unique.

Quote from: CRKrueger;969631I fail to see what level of background detail had to do with it.  The guys were incapable of playing anything other than gutter criminals.  What difference would less or more background detail have made in that instance?

We'd know what past events shaped and motivated their characters to become gutter criminals? :rolleyes:

And in response to what I think Skarg's point was, I certainly have seen players who had difficulty remembering their detailed backstory. But that happens both with backstories that emerge as past play at the table as well as backstories written up before play begins...i.e. some people have poor memories and that problem tends to exacerbate over time.

Quote from: ffilz;969739I dunno, I've yet to see a lengthy background from a player who was really open to sandbox play, or for a campaign that was genuinely sandbox play. I have seen players motivate their characters out of the weeks adventure in a non-sandbox "the GM presents the adventure of the week" campaign, which is really pissy...

The key for sandbox play is the player has to be ready to engage the options presented by the map, the rumors the GM provides, and the players probing for additional information. It really shouldn't take much back story to present a PC who is ready to engage with whatever the GM comes up with, and dangerous to write back story that might conflict with the stuff that is behind the scenes in the sandbox.

Also what doesn't fly well in sandbox play is the back story that sets up success that the character already has had (which gets to the "don't write benefits into your back story that the character generation process doesn't support" - a 1st level OD&D PC is not a hero of much of anything, you don't get to be the heir to the king in GURPS without spending character points, and the OD&D starting PC is not the heir either unless the GM has actually made that part of his setting).

I think it depends on the details. I have seen fairly detailed backgrounds for sandbox campaign PCs, but they tend to just be rough outlines of who the relatives and friends and so on are and what the PC and maybe some others have done with their time so far.

It's not generally a "danger" for world conflicts because I edit/re-write/veto any parts that conflict with the world or are problematic, even adapting details that are not problems but just making them fit things that are in the world.

Since I do use GURPS and would borrow such ideas for running other games with people trying to get perks in a backstory, having status or wealth or reputation is just one valid character design choice, and as GM I'm generally pretty involved in the PC designs. Other GMs I play with tend to also specify what can and can't be used for each campaign. Often that includes some level of background, such as "you're all young aristocrats in Hoochbahar" or something.

If/when I get players who try to make problems with character design that just seem more annoying than fun, I either dissuade or deny them, or compensate/react in other ways that mean they tend to thankfully leave and/or it doesn't work out well for them without usually causing major pain for others, although sometimes such people seem to naturally take each other out. When I have let the munchkins and misbehavers in, they tend to get quickly abused/destroyed by other munchkins or the sane people (PCs or NPCs).

I like character backstories. I have no problem with letting players come up with elaborate character backstories as long as they understand that backstory must be approved by me, and is subject to editing in order to fit into the context of our campaign setting.

This usually involves a good "prologue" for everyone - so they can create connections before the campaign even begins without sacrificing very much of the concept of the character. I find this process tends to get everyone's buy-in not only to their characters but to the campaign sandbox itself. Not all players like having elaborate backgrounds, but I also tell my players - the more shit you want in your background, the more I *will* use it in the context of the game to generate more content.

Some players want humble beginnings, others want to be exiled royalty, if I can indulge them - I will. Of course such things always have corresponding challenge-costs.

Some requests I'll just veto.

Quote from: CRKrueger;969761Hmm, so you're saying all the lengthy backstory was basically TL;DR to their brain, and they just kind of defaulted to murderhobo because it didn't register with them, so they weren't keying in to the fact that this was definitely "un-elvish" behavior?

I can kinda see that.  Still, I put the limitation on the player.  It wasn't as much "too much backstory" as it was "too much backstory for them".  Which I guess is what you said in the beginning. Heh.

Yep. And usually, in a more serious game, or one set more firmly in a world I'd heavily designed, I'd step in and help/edit their roleplaying. But this was a more casual open invitation to some gaming, and I let it get silly because I thought it was sort of interesting and funny to watch the supposedly somewhat wise and moral elves lapse into depraved misguided torture. I also roleplayed the torture victims pretty realistically, so they eventually started to respond as they noticed what they were doing was really terrible, and also started to worry that the real-world neighbors might call the police. :D

I think I've experienced a similar kind of overload myself as a player and sometimes as a GM with some NPCs. When there is too much about a character for me to really hold in my brain, it can be pretty hard for me to play them consistently, and I may get distracted by some other behavior patterns that aren't really appropriate but I don't notice till later. It's a problem for me with characters with too many abilities, too much background, a setting with too many characters for me to keep track of that the character I'm playing is supposed to know, and also for some characters written by others. Also when I'm first trying to play a new personality, and the other players aren't responding to my character as I'm trying to project. When the other players are also just kind of being themselves and reacting to me the way they relate to me as a person OOC, I sometimes find it hard to be in character myself, especially when I'm a player (it's much easier when I'm the GM, also because I can do various things about it that aren't available as a player without raising OOC comments/objections).

Quote from: Skarg;970152I think it depends on the details. I have seen fairly detailed backgrounds for sandbox campaign PCs, but they tend to just be rough outlines of who the relatives and friends and so on are and what the PC and maybe some others have done with their time so far.

It's not generally a "danger" for world conflicts because I edit/re-write/veto any parts that conflict with the world or are problematic, even adapting details that are not problems but just making them fit things that are in the world.

Since I do use GURPS and would borrow such ideas for running other games with people trying to get perks in a backstory, having status or wealth or reputation is just one valid character design choice, and as GM I'm generally pretty involved in the PC designs. Other GMs I play with tend to also specify what can and can't be used for each campaign. Often that includes some level of background, such as "you're all young aristocrats in Hoochbahar" or something.

If/when I get players who try to make problems with character design that just seem more annoying than fun, I either dissuade or deny them, or compensate/react in other ways that mean they tend to thankfully leave and/or it doesn't work out well for them without usually causing major pain for others, although sometimes such people seem to naturally take each other out. When I have let the munchkins and misbehavers in, they tend to get quickly abused/destroyed by other munchkins or the sane people (PCs or NPCs).

The problem really comes down to players writing back stories without a dialog with the GM and the other players. If a dialog is occurring, then anything that needs to be changed should be able to be amicably changed.

But the one time I can remember an extensive back story being presented to me, it was presented with NO dialog before the player submitted his multi-page back story, and was presented after the player had already played for some time in the campaign.

Frank

I pretty much leave it up to players.  If a long backstory floats their boat, I'll indulge them.  Some players like to develop their stories as they play, that's great. Some players are like "I've got an axe" that's cool too.  No sense in forcing or limiting your players' role in the game.

Quote from: ffilz;969739The key for sandbox play is the player has to be ready to engage the options presented by the map, the rumors the GM provides, and the players probing for additional information. It really shouldn't take much back story to present a PC who is ready to engage with whatever the GM comes up with . . .

Well said.

Quote from: Madprofessor;970180I pretty much leave it up to players.  If a long backstory floats their boat, I'll indulge them.  Some players like to develop their stories as they play, that's great. Some players are like "I've got an axe" that's cool too.  No sense in forcing or limiting your players' role in the game.

Well, depends on what you mean by forcing or limiting the player's role in the game...

Quote from: ffilz;970206Well, depends on what you mean by forcing or limiting the player's role in the game...

Well as GM, it's my job to create and run the world, and its the players' job to create and run their characters, of course within the limits of the world/rules.  If players want to create a backstory, or not, that's their prerogative. If I say, "you must create a background" or "you may not create a background," that's crossing the line into the players' primary role/function within the game. Its not a crime or anything, and most PC backstories are created via discussion with the GM which is all kosher, but I've learned that some players like backstories, and some don't, and I think they have more fun if they are permitted the freedom to create and play their character with the amount of detail and fluff that they are comfortable with.

Quote from: Madprofessor;970212Well as GM, it's my job to create and run the world, and its the players' job to create and run their characters, of course within the limits of the world/rules.  If players want to create a backstory, or not, that's their prerogative. If I say, "you must create a background" or "you may not create a background," that's crossing the line into the players' primary role/function within the game. Its not a crime or anything, and most PC backstories are created via discussion with the GM which is all kosher, but I've learned that some players like backstories, and some don't, and I think they have more fun if they are permitted the freedom to create and play their character with the amount of detail and fluff that they are comfortable with.

Ok, though I could see a game where a back story is required, the key then would be to not require more than the players are willing to do. But if it's genuinely required for your game, then a player who doesn't like doing back stories may not be a good player for the game, and that's fine. One thing we need to never get trapped by is that we MUST tailor the game to any specific person, we MAY CHOOSE to do so, but there is no requirement.

Quote from: ffilz;970230One thing we need to never get trapped by is that we MUST tailor the game to any specific person, we MAY CHOOSE to do so, but there is no requirement.

I've seen this happen and a game unravel partially due to it.

Quote from: ffilz;970230One thing we need to never get trapped by is that we MUST tailor the game to any specific person, we MAY CHOOSE to do so, but there is no requirement.

Yep, and the way I choose to meet the player(s) halfway is to talk to them before the campaign planning starts to see what they want to do next that fits within what I'm willing to tailor for them.  Once that is done, the back story is completely optional, and almost entirely for the benefit of the player in getting into the character, and thus there is no need for the player to share the back story with anyone else in the group until such time as it matters during play.   Or even write one, if that particular use isn't relevant to them.

Not disagreeing with you at all, merely explaining my slant on the same idea.

I may have found a solution

100 Mildly plausible background for old school characters.  (http://www.drivethrurpg.com/product/187805/D100-mildly-plausible-background-stories-for-Old-School-Characters?src=also_purchased)

My personal view is more along the lines of Vulmea's and Gronan's. I've seen a number of players try to hijack the campaign with their PC's precious backstory over the years and usually the best outcome to be hoped for is the DM putting his foot down and the player accepting the decision and playing anyway. I've seen one player throw a fit when he insisted his character was a noble and therefore entitled to armor, horse, weapons and other gear free of charge as a 1st level beginner PC -and the DM laughed at him, assuming it was a joke. My rule is, go ahead and write your novella about how your brand new PC is the Chosen One of All Mary Sues and heir to great titles/estates and the offspring of the mightiest fighting man and most powerful sorceress blah, blah, blah...

I still won't read more than three sentences or bullet points of that nonsense*, you've still got a 1st level PC with only the usual starting money** and he/she can still get killed by a giant rat or goblin just like any other.



* Which in my opinion, is more than enough -most characters in drama or literature can be described in two or less.

** I have, in a few cases, granted 1st level PCs things like armor, cash, weapons or other valuables as family heirlooms or just the natural benefit of being of rich or noble birth. However, in these cases, social background was rolled for, NOT chosen by the player OR if the player REALLY wanted such a PC I'd allow it, but dock the character XP equal to double the cost of the items. One 1st level fighter was allowed his plate armor and heavy warhorse, but had to earn an extra 1400 XP (3400 total) just to make 2nd level. In none of these cases was the player being an entitled, petulant schmuck about it.

One thing I've often done with my beginner PCs is to pick or roll for secondary skills/non-weapon skills, then create a background based on the results. For example, if you roll or select sailing, fishing, navigation and you have a fighter with an axe then maybe he could be a Viking-type. Or not. In a previous thread I likened backstories to drawing sketches of PCs to help flesh out a character as something more than a name and stats -which is fine as long as you're not bogging down the game for others with your extraneous material.

Quote from: Elfdart;970805One thing I've often done with my beginner PCs is to pick or roll for secondary skills/non-weapon skills, then create a background based on the results. For example, if you roll or select sailing, fishing, navigation and you have a fighter with an axe then maybe he could be a Viking-type. Or not. In a previous thread I likened backstories to drawing sketches of PCs to help flesh out a character as something more than a name and stats -which is fine as long as you're not bogging down the game for others with your extraneous material.

See, that's the thing. The automatic assumption that background/story (there seems to be something about the word that Triggers people on this board) is going o be short story when its not appropriate to the game isn't universal. I'm really sympathetic to those that have endured players that didn't get it but its not what I and I think the others backgrounds are talking about its what I've bolded above, something to flesh out the character as more than Joe Charsheet.

That's what I'm talking about when I talk about making a character, that's appropriate to the game's premise including "Your fresh faced nobodies,nothing special and this is your first adventure. Good luck." Its not my preferred style but if I agreed to play that premise I'd work with in including any background. Doing otherwise is being an ass. But the entire concept of background isn't 'toxic' or (god help me) 'problematic' IMO. I've found them to a positive thing all around. Though to be fair, aside from personal preference they are not a requirement either.

I don't let players pick their own background stories.

In Dark Albion, it's randomly rolled.

Backgrounds are the thin edge of Communism in gaming, obviously.

Quote from: Voros;971737Backgrounds are the thin edge of Communism in gaming, obviously.

Worse! They slow the game down.

I have found backstories to be an interesting side issue in character creation. If someone wants to play the mysterious stranger, with no family or connections, that's ok too, but I rarely encounter that. I've started campaigns with all of the characters knowing one another and some of them related and they had big backgrounds that gave them motivations. Those generally lasted a long time. But I've had "five strangers meet at the caravan hiring hall" too and that lasted a couple of years.

https://sites.google.com/site/grreference/home/05-the-black-mountain/at-the-high-point-inn

Quote from: Kyle Aaron;971742Worse! They slow the game down.

How do they slow the game down if they're done before the game starts? Serious question no snark intended.

Quote from: Voros;971737Backgrounds are the thin edge of Communism in gaming, obviously.

I don't get it. It seems like something to file under "Its an old school D and D thing, you wouldn't understand" then Live and Let Live.

Quote from: Nexus;971769I don't get it. It seems like something to file under "Its an old school D and D thing, you wouldn't understand" then Live and Let Live.

I suspect there is some degree of backlash to the smug, "more roleplayier than thou" attitude of some of the heavy background advocates of the late '80s and early '90s or similar experiences with that type.  The ones that I knew during that timeframe were too pathetically sophomoric to take anything they said seriously, and for me they were easy to avoid.  I can see how they would create a bad impression on someone that was working out how (and if) to use backgrounds.

Sometimes it feels like 90% of internet battles over RPGs is defensiveness over defining one's own turf in battles that took place in 1991, or 1977, or 2003.

There are legitimate reasons not to want backstory in characters (for the most part a desire to facilitate forward-looking and forward-derived plot hooks/motivations). However, it is legitimately not that big a deal.

Quote from: Nexus;971769I don't get it. It seems like something to file under "Its an old school D and D thing, you wouldn't understand" then Live and Let Live.

It's true that some Grumpy Old Bastards frequently come across as Grumpy just to be Grumpy and that doesn't help.

However, it also seems like there's a little bit of the "you must state publicly that you accept contrary preferences as perfectly valid or be branded the One True Wayist" going on.  At which point, of course, the Grumpy Bastard says "Nah, I don't give two shits what you do, and I still think it's stupid, and have an extra helping of go fuck yourself on top."

Add that to the normal "Every argument seen on a topic on the Internet gets rolled in and conflated with everything anyone else ever said on the topic." and statements on both sides are viewed through a lens where everyone starts with a chip on their shoulder.

Quote from: WillInNewHaven;971745I have found backstories to be an interesting side issue in character creation. If someone wants to play the mysterious stranger, with no family or connections, that's ok too, but I rarely encounter that. I've started campaigns with all of the characters knowing one another and some of them related and they had big backgrounds that gave them motivations. Those generally lasted a long time.

I'd love to understand how big the backgrounds are (paragraphs, pages?) and how all the information helped.

Frank

Quote from: Steven Mitchell;971779I suspect there is some degree of backlash to the smug, "more roleplayier than thou" attitude of some of the heavy background advocates of the late '80s and early '90s or similar experiences with that type.  The ones that I knew during that timeframe were too pathetically sophomoric to take anything they said seriously, and for me they were easy to avoid.  I can see how they would create a bad impression on someone that was working out how (and if) to use backgrounds.

Yea, that's part of the problem for me, and to me, a big background may signal a "role player not roll player" type, who probably won't really fit my play style well. I DON'T consider it a success if we played for more than 15 minutes without the dice hitting the table.

Now that isn't to say that there are play styles where a long background is relevant AND the dice hit the table with regularity. Or that a play style where the dice hardly hit the table isn't enjoyable to those that play that way.

At this point in this discussion, I really want to understand how those of you GMs who like long backgrounds utilize them, and what constitutes a good long background, and what flags you might see that indicate a bad long background. Such knowledge would help me when a player who might enjoy my play style comes up with such a background, and I can point out how parts of their background support the play style they are used to, but don't help my play style without just dismissing them outright.

Frank

Quote from: CRKrueger;971782It's true that some Grumpy Old Bastards frequently come across as Grumpy just to be Grumpy and that doesn't help.

However, it also seems like there's a little bit of the "you must state publicly that you accept contrary preferences as perfectly valid or be branded the One True Wayist" going on.  At which point, of course, the Grumpy Bastard says "Nah, I don't give two shits what you do, and I still think it's stupid, and have an extra helping of go fuck yourself on top."

Add that to the normal "Every argument seen on a topic on the Internet gets rolled in and conflated with everything anyone else ever said on the topic." and statements on both sides are viewed through a lens where everyone starts with a chip on their shoulder.

Ask my wife about grumpy old bastards... Yea, this is a real problem. I will try not to be such a grumpy old bastard, on the flip side, I hope those grumpy young bastards will accept that other play styles are valid as well :-)

Frank

Quote from: CRKrueger;971782It's true that some Grumpy Old Bastards frequently come across as Grumpy just to be Grumpy and that doesn't help.

(http://www.reactiongifs.com/r/picardwave.gif)

Yes, I do, in fact, have sand in my vagina. A pirate's occupational hazard.

Quote from: CRKrueger;971782However, it also seems like there's a little bit of the "you must state publicly that you accept contrary preferences as perfectly valid or be branded the One True Wayist" going on.  At which point, of course, the Grumpy Bastard says "Nah, I don't give two shits what you do, and I still think it's stupid, and have an extra helping of go fuck yourself on top."

It's fun seeing my posts and posting style interpreted by others. Especially when it's spot-on. Well done, Mean Green.

Oh, and hey, Nexus? I don't give two shits what you do, and I still think it's stupid, and have an extra helping of go fuck yourself on top.

And you never answered my question.

Quote from: Black Vulmea;969171What exactly are they invested in? Daydreaming about how cool their characters are when not facing challenges that bite back?

Since my posts so offend your delicate sensibilities, let me see if I can phrase this in a more acid-balanced, safe-for-all-time-zones way.

In my experience, many - but by no means all - gamers who write extensive backgrounds do so not to gain mechanical advantage - though those certainly exist, and I have encountered them - but because they already have an idea how they expect the character's 'career,' for lack of a better term, to play out. Their backstories tend less toward prequel and more toward foreshadowing, projecting conflicts into the game which hasn't even started yet. Given that anything in your backstory never occurred in actual play, it's not part of the shared experience around the table that develops from playing the game, a shared experience that includes dealing with hazards and challenges together.

Now, tell me, which provides a deeper form of investment: writing stuff down that never happened, not even to the player writing it, or reflecting on events and situations which arose from playing the game together?

Quote from: Black Vulmea;971819Now, tell me, which provides a deeper form of investment: writing stuff down that never happened, not even to the player writing it, or reflecting on events and situations which arose from playing the game together?

False choice.

While I agree that for the vast majority of people those things that happen during play and are then retold and reflected on are play are remembered far better than something they went off in isolation and wrote up all by themselves and then never reflected back on. Those aren't the only two options in gaming.

First, a lot of what happens at the table that should be remembered isn't. Hence many GMs find they need to remind players of the important or relevant parts of what has gone before. Whether this occurs as an adventure write up or at the table in play these reminders are needed because players don't remember all of what has occurred at the table. In addition, some players really don't reflect on much of what happens in play. For them play is almost exclusively what happens at the table while they are at the table, not after or outside of play at the table. So there is little if any of the reinforcement from reflecting on events and situations which arose from playing the game together. Unless reminded, they forget details, nuance, and sometimes even the basics of what happened altogether. So those players might be a wash for whether written backstory or played in game is more of an investment. Might be, except for the fact that they are also the same sorts of players who don't reflect much on any pre-written background they create.

Second the writer may reflect as much or more on their lone creation than on some past events and situations of play. I suspect some narrow segment of background writing aficionados fall into that category. For reasons I'll mention later, I don't think having that guy or gal in the group is actually better for play at the table though.

Third backstories can be created (or heavily edited) as a joint exercise as part of character creation. While I hear there are some new games that do that, even fairly old games like Star Wars D6 and Runequest 3 (see especially the Vikings and Land of Ninjas supplements) suggest doing exactly that. The collaborative creation provides some of the same advantages of table play including reinforcement by repetition and the greater knowledge of the group (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Wisdom_of_Crowds) over a single individual. So the choice isn't write it up once and no one else thinks about it ever again. Collaborative writing takes advantage of two of the advantages of at the table history.

There are three advantages I see to at the table 'history' over outside written history.

1. Its is almost always remembered better. Stuff that happens at the table (even if it is not reinforced afterwards with retelling and write ups) will be remembered better than anything that is written up and not extensively reflected on. (There are various learning theories that explain this. I'm way to lazy -- and care too little -- to look up the references.)

2. At the table play is shared history. RPGs are a shared experience. (And even play with a single player and GM is still a shared experience between the two.) Shared at the table history reinforces a common view of the characters and their histories. And a common view is necessary for anything more than a very superficial interaction between the players and their PCs. In addition at the table history is shared nearly equally between the players and the GM. Aligning player views and GM views is a good thing for a shared activity.

3. Shared history takes advantage of other people's memories to help fill in the gaps between any one person's recollections and what actually happened.

Quote from: CRKrueger;971782It's true that some Grumpy Old Bastards frequently come across as Grumpy just to be Grumpy and that doesn't help.

No, I really AM grumpy.

Quote from: CRKrueger;971782However, it also seems like there's a little bit of the "you must state publicly that you accept contrary preferences as perfectly valid or be branded the One True Wayist" going on.  At which point, of course, the Grumpy Bastard says "Nah, I don't give two shits what you do, and I still think it's stupid, and have an extra helping of go fuck yourself on top."

You like me!  You really like me!

Write all the backstory you want, but...

1) Don't expect me to remember anything that isn't contained in bullet points in a total of 25 words or less.  I can't remember what I had for lunch yesterday, don't expect me to remember some obscure detail of your 20-page backstory

2) Don't write a backstory incompatible with the clearly-stated assumptions of my game, which includes starting at first level

Quote from: ffilz;971788I'd love to understand how big the backgrounds are (paragraphs, pages?) and how all the information helped.

Frank

The campaign with the biggest back stories began with my telling the players "After this campaign wraps up, let's start one where you are all young nobles in Old Meyoss (a big city which they knew about but it had never been the site of a campaign) but all of you have serious issues. Maybe your family lost all of its money, maybe you are out of favor with the government and the Bureau of State Security, maybe both. Maybe it is something I haven't thought of." They all had some weeks to come up with back-stories and I stood ready to edit, especially to avoid duplication. I got:
1: The son of the Chief of the Constabulary. His father was in hot water with the other nobles because he had gotten the government to allow his constables to arrest nobles and interfere in some of the crap they pulled. They also looked down on him because he had a job. The kid was proud of his father but most of the other noble kids avoided him.
2: The daughter of a noble house of the previous rulers of the city. Differing in both ethnicity and religion from the new rulers, the Sha are still a large minority and mixed-race people are probably the majority. I had outlined all that in my description of the setting but Joanne fit her character into it. She had the least money problems of all of the characters but the greatest social problems.
3: A youngster whose father had been a very important city official but had been arrested, tried secretly and executed by the Bureau. He and his family had the cash they had on hand and the house they lived in. He was probably the worst off. Maybe his social problems were greater too.
4: A young man who had gone against the wishes of his rural minor-noble family and come to the city to study at The Stone House, a school for Earth magicians. His mother sent him a small allowance but that only provided enough for his food and tuition.
5: A young woman who had inherited a little money from an aunt and gone against the wishes of her family and attended The School of Three Swords. The upper classes of the city, except for the Sha, are pretty patriarchal and she faced great disapproval.
This all impacted how they became allied, got involved in minor quarrels and a few duels, and eventually combatted the big problem facing the city, it was lousy with vampires.

Here goes nothing...

QuoteNow, tell me, which provides a deeper form of investment: writing stuff down that never happened, not even to the player writing it, or reflecting on events and situations which arose from playing the game together?

Speaking for myself, its a false dichotomy as one leads to the other. I like creating a backstory as it grounds the character in the game, make them more 'real' and connected like a fleshed out person and not as pile of numbers on a peice if paper that seemed to spring from the earth and start doing stuff for reasons. I'm invested in the character, I want to see what happens to it, how their story (there's that word) again goes and how it ties into their past. The background gives e something to hang their future reaction too and their personality. People are shaped by their past and I like to know something about when I start playing a character. Its easier to get into their head when there's something there to get into. Really when a character isn't developed for me I'm not really invested in the game since they character feels flat and more like playing piece moving around an imaginary board than a character.

It seems like again this notion that 'backstory' has to be some kind of novel and that that novel is always going to be some kind of masturbatory story of awesome accomplishments like bad fanfiction. Background should be appropriate to the game and its premise. If you're supposed to playing fresh out of the gate you don't write "How I saved the world..." novellas.
 
Also backgrounds aren't, IME, written in isolation in some secret cave to be revealed until the writer shoves them in the gms face. They are partially collaborative with gm veto over things that they just don't work for his vision of the game.

The difference suggested between in game and background event doesn't work for me since not it 'really happened especially not to the player. Its all imaginary just one thing involved rolling dice and the other didn't. One isn't more real, IMO, than the other. The method of creation is different and one is more interactive and social than the other, however.

But end of the day, its all just preferences. Backstories aren't required if something doesn't want them. Wanting them doesn't make you a 'better' role player But there's nothing objectively inferior or Badwrongfun about them. I don't get the urge to prove either case

Quote from: Nexus;971845Speaking for myself, its a false dichotomy as one leads to the other. I like creating a backstory as it grounds the character in the game, make them more 'real' and connected like a fleshed out person and not as pile of numbers on a peice if paper that seemed to spring from the earth and start doing stuff for reasons. I'm invested in the character, I want to see what happens to it, how their story (there's that word) again goes and how it ties into their past. The background gives e something to hang their future reaction too and their personality. People are shaped by their past and I like to know something about when I start playing a character. Its easier to get into their head when there's something there to get into. Really when a character isn't developed for me I'm not really invested in the game since they character feels flat and more like playing piece moving around an imaginary board than a character.

It seems like again this notion that 'backstory' has to be some kind of novel and that that novel is always going to be some kind of masturbatory story of awesome accomplishments like bad fiction. Background should be appropriate to the game and its premise. If you're supposed to playing fresh out of the gate. Also backgrounds aren't, IME, written in isolation in some secret cave to be revealed until the writer shoves them in the gms face. They are partially collaborative with gm veto over things that they just don't work for his vision of the game.

Jesus on a dead tree, two fucking paragraphs of blargal-blargal-blah-blah-blah which doesn't answer the fucking question, as if I need this shit explained to me. Yes, I get it, you can't just play pretend without first communing with Stanislavsky's ghost. Whatever-the-fuck-ever helps you hit your marks on time, trouper.

Which is another reason I dislike backstories, by the way - most of them suck because most gamers can't write to save a baby's life. Acuity and concision are the two most important modes of Papa's built-in, shockproof shit detector (http://www.quotenik.com/ernest-hemingway-paris-review-interview-shit-detector/).

Fuck.

Quote from: Nexus;971845The difference suggested between in game and background event doesn't work for me since not it 'really happened especially not to the player. Its all imaginary just one thing involved rolling dice and the other didn't. One isn't more real, IMO, than the other. The method of creation is different and one is more interactive and social than the other, however.

To me, this is complete fucking insanity, because here's what I hear when I read this shit: 'Not playing the game is the same as playing the game, 'cause imagination.'

I roll the dice, I move my little shoe token to Oriental Avenue, I hand the banker-player a hundred bucks of play money, and I get a little pretend deed in return is not the same gawdamn thing as staring at the fucking pieces in the box. Not even a tiny bit.

Quote from: Bren;971835While I agree that for the vast majority of people those things that happen during play and are then retold and reflected on are play are remembered far better than something they went off in isolation and wrote up all by themselves .
 . .

Then that was the point to stop typing.

Quote from: Bren;971835False choice.

While I agree that for the vast majority of people those things that happen during play and are then retold and reflected on are play are remembered far better than something they went off in isolation and wrote up all by themselves and then never reflected back on. Those aren't the only two options in gaming.

...

There are three advantages I see to at the table 'history' over outside written history.

The way I read what you wrote, you are in agreement with Black Vulmea.

Quote from: Gronan of Simmerya;971837Write all the backstory you want, but...

1) Don't expect me to remember anything that isn't contained in bullet points in a total of 25 words or less.  I can't remember what I had for lunch yesterday, don't expect me to remember some obscure detail of your 20-page backstory

2) Don't write a backstory incompatible with the clearly-stated assumptions of my game, which includes starting at first level

Yea, that would totally work for me, except I might be a bit more lenient with the 25 words or less...

Point 2 is very important, but so is point 1, which I would read to mean communicate to the GM in a functional way what is important to the GM about your backstory so I can utilize it as appropriate.

Frank

Quote from: WillInNewHaven;971838The campaign with the biggest back stories began with my telling the players "After this campaign wraps up, let's start one where you are all young nobles in Old Meyoss (a big city which they knew about but it had never been the site of a campaign) but all of you have serious issues. Maybe your family lost all of its money, maybe you are out of favor with the government and the Bureau of State Security, maybe both. Maybe it is something I haven't thought of." They all had some weeks to come up with back-stories and I stood ready to edit, especially to avoid duplication. I got:
1: The son of the Chief of the Constabulary. His father was in hot water with the other nobles because he had gotten the government to allow his constables to arrest nobles and interfere in some of the crap they pulled. They also looked down on him because he had a job. The kid was proud of his father but most of the other noble kids avoided him.
2: The daughter of a noble house of the previous rulers of the city. Differing in both ethnicity and religion from the new rulers, the Sha are still a large minority and mixed-race people are probably the majority. I had outlined all that in my description of the setting but Joanne fit her character into it. She had the least money problems of all of the characters but the greatest social problems.
3: A youngster whose father had been a very important city official but had been arrested, tried secretly and executed by the Bureau. He and his family had the cash they had on hand and the house they lived in. He was probably the worst off. Maybe his social problems were greater too.
4: A young man who had gone against the wishes of his rural minor-noble family and come to the city to study at The Stone House, a school for Earth magicians. His mother sent him a small allowance but that only provided enough for his food and tuition.
5: A young woman who had inherited a little money from an aunt and gone against the wishes of her family and attended The School of Three Swords. The upper classes of the city, except for the Sha, are pretty patriarchal and she faced great disapproval.
This all impacted how they became allied, got involved in minor quarrels and a few duels, and eventually combatted the big problem facing the city, it was lousy with vampires.

Ok, cool, how big were these backgrounds? How many pages? Given the campaign premise, all sound fine, and I could see several paragraphs from each being useful though your short descriptions go a long ways.

Quote from: Bren;971835Third backstories can be created (or heavily edited) as a joint exercise as part of character creation. While I hear there are some new games that do that, even fairly old games like Star Wars D6 and Runequest 3 (see especially the Vikings and Land of Ninjas supplements) suggest doing exactly that. The collaborative creation provides some of the same advantages of table play including reinforcement by repetition and the greater knowledge of the group (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Wisdom_of_Crowds) over a single individual. So the choice isn't write it up once and no one else thinks about it ever again. Collaborative writing takes advantage of two of the advantages of at the table history.

Oh, I meant to say something about this...

A joint exercise eliminates most of the issues I have with longer back stories, however, I would argue at that point, you are actually writing up something from in-game play. It's a different kind of play, it's not following the procedures your game uses to arbitrate player action, but it is still role play. In one sense, role play starts the moment the players (and GM if your game has a GM) start talking specifics of the game in order to start creating characters and placing them in a setting and situation.

So for me, the real problem back stories are those written in isolation, not based on anything that is a collaboration between the players (and GM). If it's written ONLY to inform the player, that's fine, but if the other players (and GM) are expected to affirm any of it, then it needs to be part of a collaborative effort.

I actually don't think any of us are actually in disagreement. Some of us may not enjoy the types of games where a longer back story may be appropriate, but I don't hear anyone expecting Gronan to memorize a 10 page back story. I don't hear anyone here expecting to write in an heirloom magic item or other in game advantage into their back story without approval from the GM.

Frank

Quote from: Gronan of Simmerya;9718371) Don't expect me to remember anything that isn't contained in bullet points in a total of 25 words or less.  I can't remember what I had for lunch yesterday, don't expect me to remember some obscure detail of your 20-page backstory

I don't have an explicit limit, but I really like bullet points (and have since I reached a certain level of responsibility in business). And I'm not going to remember anything too long or involved. I have enough of that to remember as the GM with the stuff I make up. Remembering stuff other people make up is more difficult for me so I need it to be more concise.

On an unrelated point this is also why I find making up and running my own stuff to be easier than running published stuff. Published stuff needs to be good enough to overcome that added effort on my part.

Quote from: Nexus;971845Speaking for myself, its a false dichotomy as one leads to the other. I like creating a backstory as it grounds the character in the game, make them more 'real' and connected like a fleshed out person and not as pile of numbers on a peice if paper that seemed to spring from the earth and start doing stuff for reasons.

I get that. I haven't a roleplaying game where absolutely nothing about a character's background was known. At a minimum all systems I've ever seen have species (if there is more than one) and the character's past profession (even if that is simply a D&D class). Social rank is also fairly common as is some sort of cultural background even if it's as simple as Nomad, Barbarian, or City Dweller - though mostly I've seen those rolled for or paid for with a point buy. So its not that anyone is suggesting no background at all.

QuoteIt seems like again this notion that 'backstory' has to be some kind of novel and that that novel is always going to be some kind of masturbatory story of awesome accomplishments like bad fiction.

Yeah some folks need to show us on the doll where the bad backstory man touched them. :rolleyes:

QuoteThe difference suggested between in game and background event doesn't work for me since not it 'really happened especially not to the player. Its all imaginary just one thing involved rolling dice and the other didn't. One isn't more real, IMO, than the other. The method of creation is different and one is more interactive and social than the other, however.

One is experienced as an event and has no output other than memories (though often, but not always, the event is retold after the fact). Solitary writing is more a process with an output than it is an experienced event. So it is more real in the same sense that a baseball game you played is a real baseball game and in that sense is more real than a story about a baseball game you wrote. Which was never anything but imagination.

Quote from: ffilz;971866The way I read what you wrote, you are in agreement with Black Vulmea.

Nah. He's being a bit too extreme. And unlike Gronan, BV's too young to acceptably be crankier than am I.

Quote from: ffilz;971872So for me, the real problem back stories are those written in isolation, not based on anything that is a collaboration between the players (and GM). If it's written ONLY to inform the player, that's fine, but if the other players (and GM) are expected to affirm any of it, then it needs to be part of a collaborative effort.

I agree.

Quote from: Bren;971876One is experienced as an event and has no output other than memories (though often, but not always, the event is retold after the fact). Solitary writing is more a process with an output than it is an experienced event. So it is more real in the same sense that a baseball game you played is a real baseball game and in that sense is more real than a story about a baseball game you wrote. Which was never anything but imagination.

When it comes to creating fiction, I honestly don't see a difference. It all nothing but imagination. Really playing baseball is actual physical activity as opposed to reading a story about a baseball. Those things feel completely different not even really comparable whereas rpgs and writing feel much closer to together. But that's probably why I'm  "hippie storygamer" :D Its a different POV but I can see it even if i don't share it.

Quote from: Black Vulmea;971863Acuity and concision are the two most important modes of Papa's built-in, shockproof shit detector (http://www.quotenik.com/ernest-hemingway-paris-review-interview-shit-detector/).

OT but people misunderstand Hemingway all the time. He was never claiming that concision was the end all and be all of writing. There are many great writers with a looser, baroque or rambling style. This is a guy who loved Proust, Dickens and Thackery, far from 'concise' writers.

Concise writing is a good policy for journalism and amateurs but fiction can take more forms and approaches than that.

Quote from: ffilz;971869Ok, cool, how big were these backgrounds? How many pages? Given the campaign premise, all sound fine, and I could see several paragraphs from each being useful though your short descriptions go a long ways.

That was your main question and I didn't answer it.

The guy whose dad was the Chief Constable wrote me a note saying pretty much what I said in his character description and we decided that he had been away training up as a knight for a couple of years and returned to find that the other nobles had pretty much turned against his family. Not a whole lot written. Joanne typed a one-page summary of her character being a Shah noblewoman and I approved it. It surprised me because it put more difficulties in her way. The guy whose dad had been executed wrote a page and I told him to cut out the bit about making his way alone in the slums. That might happen in the course of play and he might gain connections in the criminal underworld but he couldn't have them at the start of play. Bruce asked me what could make a rural noble family cut all connections with a second son, or at least threaten to, and we decided that taking the money he had for good armor and a war-horse and enrolling at the Stone House would do it. Not much written. The last player had always played magicians and she wanted to play something closer to her real self, she was a rugby player. So  we worked out the character together.

----------------
https://sites.google.com/site/grreference/home/05-the-black-mountain

Quote from: WillInNewHaven;971917That was your main question and I didn't answer it.

The guy whose dad was the Chief Constable wrote me a note saying pretty much what I said in his character description and we decided that he had been away training up as a knight for a couple of years and returned to find that the other nobles had pretty much turned against his family. Not a whole lot written. Joanne typed a one-page summary of her character being a Shah noblewoman and I approved it. It surprised me because it put more difficulties in her way. The guy whose dad had been executed wrote a page and I told him to cut out the bit about making his way alone in the slums. That might happen in the course of play and he might gain connections in the criminal underworld but he couldn't have them at the start of play. Bruce asked me what could make a rural noble family cut all connections with a second son, or at least threaten to, and we decided that taking the money he had for good armor and a war-horse and enrolling at the Stone House would do it. Not much written. The last player had always played magicians and she wanted to play something closer to her real self, she was a rugby player. So  we worked out the character together.

----------------
https://sites.google.com/site/grreference/home/05-the-black-mountain

So no books (1 page is long, but manageable), and the one player who wrote too much into his background was ok with your edit. Sounds cool.

It's unfortunate that some of us have run into folks who aren't cooperative with their back stories and get crosswise with the GM. Really though, when that happens, it's not really about the back story, it's about the player and the GM just not being compatible. Sometimes it's due to a player who has been abused by previous GMs and feels like the only way to have an interesting character is to write it all as back story. Other times it's just a player who doesn't understand the cooperative nature of the game and is self centered. Those experiences color the GMs (and other players) who have them, but should not sour us to back stories in general.

So hats off to folks who are willing to be cooperative and write something the GM can use.

And if you really are a frustrated author, save your masterpiece for the proper venue and when you find such be open to editing. In the meantime, if you also want to play RPGs, play them, don't try to ram your fiction where it isn't wanted...

Frank

Quote from: ffilz;971918And if you really are a frustrated author, save your masterpiece for the proper venue and when you find such be open to editing. In the meantime, if you also want to play RPGs, play them, don't try to ram your fiction where it isn't wanted...

Frank

Or find a group/GM that's more compatible with you and play with them.

Quote from: Nexus;971894When it comes to creating fiction . . .

I'm not creating fiction. I'm playing a game.

Quote from: Voros;971909OT . . .

Thank you for letting me know right off not to bother reading the rest of your post.

Quote from: Bren;971877He's being a bit too extreme.

When did 'create your character and start playing' become "extreme?"

'cause we need to figure out when and where that happened and go kick it in the fucking slats.

Quote from: Bren;971877. . . BV's too young to acceptably be crankier than am I.

(https://media.tenor.com/images/2bf000cacb7020230869e7dc2a296665/tenor.gif)

Quote from: Nexus;971894When it comes to creating fiction, I honestly don't see a difference. It all nothing but imagination.

This.  Whether created in isolation or done at the table, events in the game are all just made-up. Someone who writes a backstory making their PC King of the World is no different from someone who plays Chaotic Crazy at the table - they're both suborning a group activity to their need to be the center of attention.

Quote from: Black Vulmea;971923(https://media.tenor.com/images/2bf000cacb7020230869e7dc2a296665/tenor.gif)

So you're likening yourself to the incompetent comic sidekick in a bowdlerized Disney movie.

Seems fitting.

Quote from: daniel_ream;971979So you're likening yourself to the incompetent comic sidekick in a bowdlerized Disney movie.

There should be a 'captain' in there somewhere.

Quote from: daniel_ream;971979Seems fitting.

More than you can ever know.

Quote from: daniel_ream;971979So you're likening yourself to the incompetent comic sidekick in a bowdlerized Disney movie.

How can the original version be a Bowdlerization of itself? :confused: There was no prior Pirates of the Caribbean film or Jack Sparrow character to water down...

Quote from: Dumarest;971994How can the original version be a Bowdlerization of itself? :confused: There was no prior Pirates of the Caribbean film or Jack Sparrow character to water down...

Isn't Jack Sparrow a bowdlerized Guybrush Threapwood?

Quote from: Willie the Duck;971999Isn't Jack Sparrow a bowdlerized Guybrush Threapwood?

 I just Googled that name. I don't play video games so I wouldn't know.

Quote from: Willie the Duck;971999Isn't Jack Sparrow a bowdlerized Guybrush Threapwood?

As silly as Monkey Island was I'd have to say that if anything it was anti-bowdlerized...

(Is there an antonym for bowdlerized?)

Quote from: daniel_ream;971978This.  Whether created in isolation or done at the table, events in the game are all just made-up. Someone who writes a backstory making their PC King of the World is no different from someone who plays Chaotic Crazy at the table - they're both suborning a group activity to their need to be the center of attention.

The problem is, it's a total fallacy to say that just because it's all made up that it's all "fiction" in the sense of an authored literary story.  Writing a backstory might be very close to writing a story, but playing through a prelude or going through a Lifepath with IC choices can be a completely different mental process.

Yeah but that's not the sense that was meant. The term fiction means more than a prose story. It also simply means something that is untrue. It's almost all role-playing fiction in this sense?

Oxford defintion

Fiction:

 Something that is invented or untrue.
'they were supposed to be keeping up the fiction that they were happily married'

Quote from: Voros;972080Yeah but that's not the sense that was meant. The term fiction means more than a prose story. It also simply means something that is untrue. It's almost all role-playing fiction in this sense?

Oxford defintion

Fiction:

 Something that is invented or untrue.
they were supposed to be keeping up the fiction that they were happily married

The problem is, narrative roleplayers always trot out that definition to conveniently place all roleplaying under the Fiction Umbrella, when you have a significant selection of designers who treat Roleplaying as a literal act of artistic creation.

There are people who roleplay to create stories.
There are people who do not create stories when they roleplay.

It's not a coincidence that the people who roleplay to create stories or always have that narrative frame of mind want to define all roleplaying as doing what they do while those who actually don't do that try to remind them that Um, no, we actually don't do that, feel free to just speak for yourself, thanks.

Here's some concrete examples.
I do write short stories, very small amount of poetry, one story long enough to be a novella.  I enjoy it.

When I am roleplaying, let's say Cormac the warrior, I'm trying as much as possible to think like Cormac, do what he would do, and say what he would say.  Is there some crossover there in coming up with a literary character's actions and dialogue, perhaps, but in actually WRITING fiction I am thinking about composition, plot, syntax, all the things that go into literary creation.  When I am roleplaying, I am LIVING fiction and I think of none of that.  I simply react as Cormac.

Later, still roleplaying, Cormac is telling of his deeds to another clan.  At that point I am creating a story, as Cormac.  I'm deciding, as Cormac, how much to tell, how much to leave out, what to embellish, etc.  At that point, the artistic creation begins.  There was no artistic creation and no story prior to that.  None. There were simply events and facts that occurred. Fictional events and facts, yes, but not the same type of fiction as the later story.

I write creatively.
I GM all the time.
When I roleplay, I want what I can't get from those other activities, and see no need to blend or mix them because I do all three.  Doing all three frequently, I know exactly what I get out of them and how I think when I do them.

They are three different things.

Quote from: CRKrueger;972119The problem is, narrative roleplayers always trot out that definition to conveniently place all roleplaying under the Fiction Umbrella, when you have a significant selection of designers who treat Roleplaying as a literal act of artistic creation.

There are people who roleplay to create stories.
There are people who do not create stories when they roleplay.

It's not a coincidence that the people who roleplay to create stories or always have that narrative frame of mind want to define all roleplaying as doing what they do while those who actually don't do that try to remind them that Um, no, we actually don't do that, feel free to just speak for yourself, thanks.

I think this is where a lot of the debate comes down to. I am fine with narrative mechanics and with people wanting story. Where it gets annoying to me is when people use story as the starting point for all RPGs (and not leaving room for games that simply don't care about that ). And often it comes down to equivocation on the word fiction. There is a big difference in meaning between "fiction=novel" and "fiction=something that isn't true". It can be difficult to have a good discussion about the role of story in RPGs when that meaning is blurred.

Quote from: CRKrueger;972130They are three different things.

Good post.  I approach writing and roleplaying from much the same perspective, and for the same reasons.  The one exception is that sometimes when I'm writing GM materials, I'll do it stream of consciousness style in the rough draft.  At those times, I'm almost in a roleplaying mode, albeit for NPCs, deities, and other movers and shakers in the setting.  Later, I'll go back into more of a writing mode to clean that up.  No one ever sees that stream of consciousness stuff but me, and very little of it survives unchanged into, say, a setting document that the players get.  

I've also done a little teaching of basic technical writing.  It's interesting because most technical people can be taught a good technical process to follow for getting at least coherent drafts out.  Every now and then you get a person that so separates the act of writing into their creative side, they have a difficult time applying their technical mindset to it.  I wonder if their is a similar dynamic in place when arguing over this topic.

Quote from: CRKrueger;972119want to define all roleplaying as doing what they do while those who actually don't do that try to remind them that Um, no, we actually don't do that, feel free to just speak for yourself, thanks.

That's a good shorthand (/description in a nutshell) for all the internet drama surrounding TTRPGs (at least the games themselves)--some person wants to group this other thing that someone cares deeply about in with what they care deeply about (and is offended at resistance there-to), and then define what those things mutually 'are about?' Storygamer wants to include themselves and other TTRPGs under the same umbrella and say that they are about creating a narrative. Videogamer or miniatures gamer wants to include their hobby and RPGs under one banner, since 'it's all just gaming.' 4e D&D fan is upset that 4e-nonfan says that 4e doesn't feel 'like D&D.' Reams of digital pages and barrels of digital ink are spent dissecting whether a game or product is 'OSR' and what that means. And so on and so forth.

What is the definition of 'story' being used here? In relation to rpgs, when II  say story I mean 'what happens in the game' but its apparent that is not what other people mean. I like what 'what happens in the game' to resemble the genre the game is meant to emulate so there is some literature structure to it.

Quote from: CRKrueger;972054The problem is, it's a total fallacy to say that just because it's all made up that it's all "fiction"

I never used the word "fiction".  I said "events in game".

Now, personally I have no problem using the perfectly serviceable word "fiction" to mean "the events that happen in the imaginary game world, like Strongdor the Barbarian issuing a mighty challenge to the Ice Drake afore cleaving it in twain" so as to distinguish them from the events that happen around the table, like Dave rolling really well on his Boast check and getting a +1 to damage.

But some OSR fatbeards shriek like autistic frogs (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7Jm_eUQSYAk) when you do that, so I avoid the word.  Clunky as the alternatives tend to be.

Quote from: Nexus;972151What is the definition of 'story' being used here? In relation to rpgs, when II  say story I mean 'what happens in the game' but its apparent that is not what other people mean. I like what 'what happens in the game' to resemble the genre the game is meant to emulate so there is some literature structure to it.

I have no problem with using 'story' to mean the stuff that happens in game. And your preference for the game to emulate literary structure is fine. I was purely talking about people equivocating to connect those two things (i.e. the game is about a story; therefore the mechanics and system should produce results that feel like a story). But people saying 'story' when talking about what happened in their D&D session is something I hear in regular conversation all the time.

Quote from: daniel_ream;972161But some OSR fatbeards shriek like autistic frogs (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7Jm_eUQSYAk) when you do that, so I avoid the word.  Clunky as the alternatives tend to be.

I think a lot of these discussions escalate because tone is so hard to establish in a post. Whenever I have these conversations face to face (or even on skype) it is a lot easier to have a real dialogue for that reason. Online they always seem to result in a meltdown at some point.

Quote from: BedrockBrendan;972171I have no problem with using 'story' to mean the stuff that happens in game. And your preference for the game to emulate literary structure is fine. I was purely talking about people equivocating to connect those two things (i.e. the game is about a story; therefore the mechanics and system should produce results that feel like a story). But people saying 'story' when talking about what happened in their D&D session is something I hear in regular conversation all the time.

(Man, I hate the lack of tone in this medium :) )

I was really asking what different poster mean when they say "story". It feels at times like different people are using different definitions (myself included) and assuming everyone else is on the same page. I should ask about 'fiction' too when I say fiction I mean 'imaginary'.

Quote from: daniel_ream;972161I never used the word "fiction".  I said "events in game".

Now, personally I have no problem using the perfectly serviceable word "fiction" to mean "the events that happen in the imaginary game world, like Strongdor the Barbarian issuing a mighty challenge to the Ice Drake afore cleaving it in twain" so as to distinguish them from the events that happen around the table, like Dave rolling really well on his Boast check and getting a +1 to damage.

But some OSR fatbeards shriek like autistic frogs (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7Jm_eUQSYAk) when you do that, so I avoid the word.  Clunky as the alternatives tend to be.

I know you used events, which is what I try to use.

The thing is, you also said "it's all made up", which is the argument that gets used to mean "it's all fiction" which then conflates "the events that happen in the fictional setting that players create while roleplaying" with "the story people are creating OOC as they utilize various OOC narrative control mechanics, conflict resolution, etc".

It's just the case of some using very loose definitions of "story", "fiction" etc, and others using more specific definitions.

The idea "it's all made-up therefore it's all fiction" is a rationale that frequently starts with the loose definition as foundation, then moves to the specific definition when we get to mechanics, usually when someone is about to argue that a certain mechanics is not OOC/storygamey/narrative/whathaveyou.

So "it's all made up" doesn't really help anything was my point.

The right way to do "backstory", using some, none or all of the following:
-Roll for social class
-Roll for background skills
-Roll for family
-Roll for lifepath or prior significant life events


The wrong way to do "backstory":
-let the players write 25-50 page background novels about how amazing their character is and then have them expect you to integrate that into the campaign.

If I'm running D&D, I'd prefer the "significant  life events" occur during the game.  As for social class, you're all nobodies from nowhere that no one cares about. But then again, I'm not interested in D&D and especially not D&D slapped onto a fake European medieval society.

Most of a character's formation should happen in actual play, I agree. But creating a few prior events can be enormously helpful to give a player an idea of where to go with the character.

Quote from: RPGPundit;972611The right way to do "backstory", using some, none or all of the following:
-Roll for social class
-Roll for background skills
-Roll for family
-Roll for lifepath or prior significant life events

This is the "right way" for someone who likes keeping players on a short leash (i.e., YOU). You can also ask the players to list this items as bullet points, rather than mandating a random roll. This is assuming, of course, that you actually view your players as people, rather than vacuous ciphers sitting at your table to serve your interests alone.

QuoteThe wrong way to do "backstory":
-let the players write 25-50 page background novels about how amazing their character is and then have them expect you to integrate that into the campaign.

On this we agree. But make no mistake. You're still an asshole GM, for asserting random rolls are the "right" way to address character background. For that matter, you don't need any background at all. The characater's race, class, attributes, and skills (if any) allude to that. But, rather than allowing me to concoct a brief abstract, let's just roll on your random tables, shall we, so we don't disturb your gentle sensibilities by allowing one iota of player input.:-/

Quote from: cranebump;974122On this we agree. But make no mistake. You're still an asshole GM, for asserting random rolls are the "right" way to address character background. For that matter, you don't need any background at all. The characater's race, class, attributes, and skills (if any) allude to that. But, rather than allowing me to concoct a brief abstract, let's just roll on your random tables, shall we, so we don't disturb your gentle sensibilities by allowing one iota of player input.:-/

The breadth of experiences found in gaming is truly amazing, no joke. In this thread I keep hearing about the "25-50 page" backstories and I have never, in 30+ yrs of gaming gotten anything that long. I think the longest background I can easily recall receiving was 8-10 pages from a player with a very ornate writing style. Someone more with a drier more concise style might have said the same thing in 3-4. I don't think I've ever gotten one of these infamous masturbatory fanfics disguised as a background which seem to plague so many others. But that might stem in part from a different outlook. I've rarely run "You're nobodies and don't matter." zero to hero games.

Quote from: Nexus;974132In this thread I keep hearing about the "25-50 page" backstories and I have never, in 30+ yrs of gaming gotten anything that long.

Oh, I have, multiple times.  Like just about all things in gaming it's highly dependent on your local gaming culture.  I did most of my gaming in university, so you're going to get different player behaviour from university students than, say, people you meet down the local hobby shop in a largely working class rust belt town.  Personally,  I'm always surprised when people talk about gaming drunk or stoned; I've never seen that in thirty years, but apparently it happens.

Quote from: CRKruegerThe thing is, you also said "it's all made up", which is the argument that gets used to mean "it's all fiction" which then conflates "the events that happen in the fictional setting that players create while roleplaying" with "the story people are creating OOC as they utilize various OOC narrative control mechanics, conflict resolution, etc".

Shrieking about the imaginary storygamer boogeymen is the RPGPundit clown-persona's schtick.  Stealing other people's jokes isn't cool, man.

Quote from: daniel_ream;974134Oh, I have, multiple times.  Like just about all things in gaming it's highly dependent on your local gaming culture.  I did most of my gaming in university, so you're going to get different player behaviour from university students than, say, people you meet down the local hobby shop in a largely working class rust belt town.  Personally,  I'm always surprised when people talk about gaming drunk or stoned; I've never seen that in thirty years, but apparently it happens.

I met most of gaming crew in high school and college then online. I never got much into the pick up game at the FLGS thing but it was healthy around here for awhile. Never had the gaming drunk/stoned issue come up but we were pretty straight arrow. Worst that happened was playing -way- to late and sometimes things got weird about 3-4 in the morning. :D

Quote from: Nexus;974135I met most of gaming crew in high school and college then online. I never got much into the pick up game at the FLGS thing but it was healthy around here for awhile. Never had the gaming drunk/stoned issue come up but we were pretty straight arrow. Worst that happened was playing -way- to late and sometimes things got weird about 3-4 in the morning. :D

Gaming drunk? Once or twice. Gaming stoned? More often but the weirdest was gaming with the GM's two exes in the game.

Quote from: Nexus;974132The breadth of experiences found in gaming is truly amazing, no joke. In this thread I keep hearing about the "25-50 page" backstories and I have never, in 30+ yrs of gaming gotten anything that long. I think the longest background I can easily recall receiving was 8-10 pages from a player with a very ornate writing style. Someone more with a drier more concise style might have said the same thing in 3-4. I don't think I've ever gotten one of these infamous masturbatory fanfics disguised as a background which seem to plague so many others. But that might stem in part from a different outlook. I've rarely run "You're nobodies and don't matter." zero to hero games.

What is it with the "you're all no one from nowhere" attitude. Being someone from somewhere, even if neither is very important, is part of being a character and how can one play a  character without being one?

--
https://sites.google.com/site/grreference/home/05-the-black-mountain

Quote from: WillInNewHaven;974137What is it with the "you're all no one from nowhere" attitude. Being someone from somewhere, even if neither is very important, is part of being a character and how can one play a  character without being one?

What, seriously?

The reason "orphaned sociopath with amnesia" is such a common character back story is that a very, very large portion of players are not interested in the slightest in playing a character - they want to kill things, or disturb shit, or just pfaff around in a fictional (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7Jm_eUQSYAk) world without consequences.  A similar portion of players are so emotionally invested in their character that any attempt by the GM to motivate them by leveraging their character's relationships is tantamount to railroading.  This is a trope that goes back to the very beginnings of roleplaying.

People who want to play a character will do so without needing any further prompting.  People who don't, won't, and no amount of encouragement will get them to.  Know which you've got in your group and plan accordingly.

Quote from: daniel_ream;974134Shrieking about the imaginary storygamer boogeymen is the RPGPundit clown-persona's schtick.  Stealing other people's jokes isn't cool, man.

How disingenuous of you. Those types of arguments have been made here.

Quote from: WillInNewHaven;974137What is it with the "you're all no one from nowhere" attitude. Being someone from somewhere, even if neither is very important, is part of being a character and how can one play a  character without being one?

--
https://sites.google.com/site/grreference/home/05-the-black-mountain

Because on the one hand Nexus is crying foul at people using an extreme, and with the other hand is doing the exact same thing in an attempt to dismiss something he doesn't like.

Everyone does it really, it's an easy trap to fall into.

Quote from: daniel_ream;974145People who want to play a character will do so without needing any further prompting.  People who don't, won't, and no amount of encouragement will get them to.

My experience agrees with the former, but disagrees with the latter;).

Quote from: daniel_ream;974145What, seriously?

The reason "orphaned sociopath with amnesia" is such a common character back story is that a very, very large portion of players are not interested in the slightest in playing a character - they want to kill things, or disturb shit, or just pfaff around in a fictional (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7Jm_eUQSYAk) world without consequences.  A similar portion of players are so emotionally invested in their character that any attempt by the GM to motivate them by leveraging their character's relationships is tantamount to railroading.  This is a trope that goes back to the very beginnings of roleplaying.

People who want to play a character will do so without needing any further prompting.  People who don't, won't, and no amount of encouragement will get them to.  Know which you've got in your group and plan accordingly.

I think that almost everyone I have played with over the years has been a mix of those two attitudes and a group where most of the players lean toward roleplaying will get some roleplay out of the most hardened murder hobos.

--
Bill Reich
https://sites.google.com/site/grreference/home

Quote from: CRKrueger;974148Those types of arguments have been made here.

And yet, miraculously, the world keeps on spinning.

Are you next going to claim that since the Forge and story-games.net are largely moribund you've triumphed over an enemy that never existed?  I think that's next on the checklist.

Quote from: AsenRG;974167My experience agrees with the former, but disagrees with the latter;).

Well, do expand then.  I've seen quite a lot of theorizing that one can encourage people who don't want to play a character to do so, and I've yet to see it.  I should note that by "playing a character" I mean making at least a modicum of effort to act in accordance with the character's position in the fiction (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7Jm_eUQSYAk).  Someone who has their character repeatedly insult or jape with someone in a superior position with the demonstrated means and willingness to execute people who behave like that is not "playing a character", in my defintion.  They're pfaffing around in a fictional (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7Jm_eUQSYAk) world without consequence.

Quote from: daniel_ream;974202Well, do expand then.  I've seen quite a lot of theorizing that one can encourage people who don't want to play a character to do so, and I've yet to see it.  I should note that by "playing a character" I mean making at least a modicum of effort to act in accordance with the character's position in the fiction (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7Jm_eUQSYAk).  Someone who has their character repeatedly insult or jape with someone in a superior position with the demonstrated means and willingness to execute people who behave like that is not "playing a character", in my defintion.  They're pfaffing around in a fictional (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7Jm_eUQSYAk) world without consequence.

Simple. You don't know what you don't know.  Some people who play that way have never tried anything else or even seen anyone play differently.  They come to a table where everyone plays differently and some of them find out they like having consequences for their actions.  They like their actions to have meaning and repercussions.  Some don't, and never will, sure. But, I "converted" 3 out of 5 new gamers in one winter quarter of college gaming alone.  It happens.

The reason "orphan sociopath with amnesia" is such a common character type is that most people are booger-eating morons who are doing well to shit unassisted.

Quote from: Gronan of Simmerya;974224The reason "orphan sociopath with amnesia" is such a common character type is that most people are booger-eating morons who are doing well to shit unassisted.

I don't recall introducing you to my coworkers...?

Quote from: RPGPundit;972611The right way to do "backstory", using some, none or all of the following:
-Roll for social class
-Roll for background skills
-Roll for family
-Roll for lifepath or prior significant life events

The wrong way to do "backstory":
-let the players write 25-50 page background novels about how amazing their character is and then have them expect you to integrate that into the campaign.

I agree. We've been using the White Star 'serial' generator (7 rolls of a d6) for life paths & it creates great little single-paragraph backstories with lots of cool stuff. Something like that as a life path generator for D&D would be great (some Googling indicates the only ones around are a lot more complicated). The guy who sneaked a 50 page backstory for his Classic D&D PC past me last year really killed my desire to run that game, I never want to see that again.

Quote from: WillInNewHaven;974137What is it with the "you're all no one from nowhere" attitude. Being someone from somewhere, even if neither is very important, is part of being a character and how can one play a  character without being one?

I don't think that's really what people are against (the 'someone from somewhere, even if neither is very important'). Unless the central premise of the game is that your character literally walks out of the mist with no memories or backstory (a really specific premise, mind you), people expect that your character grew up somewhere and got to the campaign's starting point somehow. The point (in those campaigns, in my opinion) is simply that none of that matters remotely as much as what they do now, based on the events that unfold as the campaign progresses. Your character is trustworthy and honest? Only if they show themselves to be. Same with sneaky and suspicious. Brave? Show that based on their actions when ratmen attack the tavern. Outside of forum navel gazing, the important part of the premise is to focus on how the characters behave in the campaign, and that the plot hooks are derived from what happens in the campaign. Having your character write letters to his family back home in podunksville in between adventures is rarely frowned upon.

Quote from: daniel_ream;974202Well, do expand then.  I've seen quite a lot of theorizing that one can encourage people who don't want to play a character to do so, and I've yet to see it.  I should note that by "playing a character" I mean making at least a modicum of effort to act in accordance with the character's position in the fiction (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7Jm_eUQSYAk).  Someone who has their character repeatedly insult or jape with someone in a superior position with the demonstrated means and willingness to execute people who behave like that is not "playing a character", in my defintion.  They're pfaffing around in a fictional (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7Jm_eUQSYAk) world without consequence.

I'm on my phone, but CRK said it in this post.

Quote from: CRKrueger;974219Simple. You don't know what you don't know.  Some people who play that way have never tried anything else or even seen anyone play differently.  They come to a table where everyone plays differently and some of them find out they like having consequences for their actions.  They like their actions to have meaning and repercussions.  Some don't, and never will, sure. But, I "converted" 3 out of 5 new gamers in one winter quarter of college gaming alone.  It happens.

That doesn't sound like people who don't want to play a character; that sounds like people who want to but don't know how.

Quote from: daniel_ream;974375That doesn't sound like people who don't want to play a character; that sounds like people who want to but don't know how.

Oh, you mean people who have been there, done that, threw the T-shirt down the toilet and swore on Baby Jesus "NEVER AGAIN!"...

...yeah not much you can do for those folks. :D

Quote from: Gronan of Simmerya;974224The reason "orphan sociopath with amnesia" is such a common character type is that most people are booger-eating morons who are doing well to shit unassisted.

Why do you keep insulting your table like that? :confused:

Quote from: Christopher Brady;974385Why do you keep insulting your table like that? :confused:

That's not his phrase.

* sigh * And you'd been doing so well.

Quote from: CRKrueger;974388That's not his phrase.

Okay. Go on. I was wondering too.

Gronan is the King of Random Roll proponents.  And that is the simplest mechanic for people who, in his words, cannot do shit unassisted.  So I'm left confused, do you, or don't like random rolling?

Wow.  What a fucking non sequitor.

[SAMUEL L. JACKSON]

READING COMPREHENSION, MOTHERFUCKER!  DO YOU HAVE IT?

[\SAMUEL L. JACKSON]

Post 147...

Quote from: daniel_ream;974145The reason "orphaned sociopath with amnesia" is such a common character back story is that a very, very large portion of players are not interested in the slightest in playing a character - they want to kill things, or disturb shit, or just pfaff around in a fictional (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7Jm_eUQSYAk) world without consequences.

Post 154...

Quote from: Gronan of Simmerya;974224The reason "orphan sociopath with amnesia" is such a common character type is that most people are booger-eating morons who are doing well to shit unassisted.

Quote from: Nexus;974415Okay. Go on. I was wondering too.

Gronan was answering Daniel Ream, who first used the phrase in his post.

It's gotten to the point where Brady is just embarrassing himself in his fervor to argue with Gronan.

Quote from: CRKrueger;974444Post 147...


Post 154...




Gronan was answering Daniel Ream, who first used the phrase in his post.

It's gotten to the point where Brady is just embarrassing himself in his fervor to argue with Gronan.

I had the impression it was "Booger eating morons" that was the issue but maybe I misread the situation.

Quote from: Nexus;974458I had the impression it was "Booger eating morons" that was the issue but maybe I misread the situation.

Oh. Well maybe, who knows.  But Gronan says something like that 3 times a week.  Based on the Nightly News, I don't know that I'd argue with him. :D

Not required at all, but please keep it short and sweet if it's written. For example, below, one sentence is great (1.) and a couple more are fine if they're succinct and give me the referee something fun (and optional) to use later (2.-3.). I do not want to to read someone's short story or novella that introduces lots of complexities and specifics. You'll probably die in the first session anyway.

1. Old Man Halgron's a 67 year-old first-level cleric who spends most of his time drinking too much.
2. He's decided to adventure because he owes a serious gambling debt to the thieves guild.
3. If he doesn't pay it, he's worried something might happen to innocent clerics at his temple.

Quote from: CRKrueger;974444Post 147...

Post 154...

Gronan was answering Daniel Ream, who first used the phrase in his post.

It's gotten to the point where Brady is just embarrassing himself in his fervor to argue with Gronan.

To add on that, CB could have attempted the same thing (assuming he had a point other than pick the same fight of the past X years) by saying something along the lines of, "wait, random roll is the simplest mechanic for people who cannot do shit unassisted. So do you not like random rolling?" And even if everyone would jump in to say, "no, that wasn't said, look here, here, and here," people would not come down on him, since we all get misreading something.

Quote from: cranebump;974122This is the "right way" for someone who likes keeping players on a short leash (i.e., YOU). You can also ask the players to list this items as bullet points, rather than mandating a random roll. This is assuming, of course, that you actually view your players as people, rather than vacuous ciphers sitting at your table to serve your interests alone.

I have a backlog of dozens of local gamers who would sell their grandmothers to get a chance to game at my table.

When players are presented with random rolls, it allows them to think up how to interpret those rolls into a character they would not have thought up through the process of their imagination alone. Of course, some narcissists have trouble visualizing the fact that their own imagination can actually be improved upon.  They usually end up playing Players-as-Divas Storygames. You know, the ones that usually only last one or two sessions?

QuoteOn this we agree. But make no mistake. You're still an asshole GM, for asserting random rolls are the "right" way to address character background. For that matter, you don't need any background at all. The characater's race, class, attributes, and skills (if any) allude to that. But, rather than allowing me to concoct a brief abstract, let's just roll on your random tables, shall we, so we don't disturb your gentle sensibilities by allowing one iota of player input.:-/

My players have enormous input and make incredibly creative characters. Thanks to the tools that are provided to them.

Quote from: RPGPundit;975403When players are presented with random rolls, it allows them to think up how to interpret those rolls into a character they would not have thought up through the process of their imagination alone...
...My players have enormous input and make incredibly creative characters. Thanks to the tools that are provided to them.

Yeah, this fits my recent experience using the White Star life path Serial system (three players rolled their own, two took my pregens). I think the PCs turned out much more interesting than you'd usually see with purely self-written backgrounds, and they all fit in a paragraph or two.  I have them at http://smonstats.blogspot.co.uk/2017/06/white-star-toshe-station.html - can't post an example as 'non-English characters not accepted', but I think they all turned out well. One thing I like about these life path type background generators is that they are designed to create material for use in play, and make the game richer. Left to themselves, some players will write stories that close off possibilities, not open them up.

I'm going to say that 95% of the time randomly generated characters are the way to go as you get PCs you wouldn't otherwise create, and there's nothing less interesting than players spending hours trying to make their PC be just what they imagine they want, which is usually a retread of their last PC or a character from fiction.

I'll give 5% to games where you're consciously creating something based on stereotypes, like the templates from West End Star Wars or a super hero game.

Quote from: Dumarest;975483I'm going to say that 95% of the time randomly generated characters are the way to go as you get PCs you wouldn't otherwise create, and there's nothing less interesting than players spending hours trying to make their PC be just what they imagine they want, which is usually a retread of their last PC or a character from fiction.

I'll give 5% to games where you're consciously creating something based on stereotypes, like the templates from West End Star Wars or a super hero game.

My preference is mostly random generation with a few built in options to make choices and/or steer the randomness a little.  For a made up example, I think I would like the BECMI/RC random generation method a little more if you picked your class first, and then that choice affected the random rolls for the characteristics.  But you can get effectively the same thing with a little judicious options stacked on top of the random generation, if the players are reasonable: "I'm cool rolling on a random personality trait as long as I don't have to accept choice #47, which I don't want to play."  "Fine, if you get that one, you can reroll."  Likewise, when we played a lot of Basic D&D, we'd sometimes have every player plus the GM roll up a random character.  Then we'd roll off to see the order of picking, and let each player pick one of the generated characters.  People still had to deal with what they got, but they had a little choice.  (That worked fine, because inevitably we had a TPK and started over soon enough.)

Quote from: Steven Mitchell;975486My preference is mostly random generation with a few built in options to make choices and/or steer the randomness a little.  For a made up example, I think I would like the BECMI/RC random generation method a little more if you picked your class first, and then that choice affected the random rolls for the characteristics.  But you can get effectively the same thing with a little judicious options stacked on top of the random generation, if the players are reasonable: "I'm cool rolling on a random personality trait as long as I don't have to accept choice #47, which I don't want to play."  "Fine, if you get that one, you can reroll."  Likewise, when we played a lot of Basic D&D, we'd sometimes have every player plus the GM roll up a random character.  Then we'd roll off to see the order of picking, and let each player pick one of the generated characters.  People still had to deal with what they got, but they had a little choice.  (That worked fine, because inevitably we had a TPK and started over soon enough.)

That's the beauty of TPKs. Get tired of your character? Who had the time? They dropped like flies when I was a kid playing D&D.

Quote from: RPGPundit;975403My players have enormous input and make incredibly creative characters. Thanks to the tools that are provided to them.

Their brains, one would hope. You need much more than that.

Quote from: RunningLaser;968838In another thread there were posts about character backstories.  Some preferred sparse ones, others preferred longer ones.  What are you looking for in a backstory as a player?  What are you looking for in a player's backstory as a GM?

Personally, the most fun with characters I've run are those with the least amount of backstory going in.  I've learned that it's the unexpected awesome that comes out during play that I like the most.

I gone both ways as a player and a GM. Random backstory is fun because it lets you come up with the "why" rather than the "who." By this I mean you randomly roll Beekeeper as your background and you get to decide why a beekeeper left the apiary in order to seek adventure. This allows a character's persona to develop organically over time.

Creating your own backstory let's you determine who this person was, is, and will be (if you set some goals ahead of time). For me, the real fun in this one is seeing how far afield the character flies from those principle foundations during the course of the game through choices and consequences of randomized rolls; good or ill. This also allows a character's persona to develop organically over time.

So long as the player is flexible enough and didn't make their backstory based on say, a character from fiction and they only play Gilgo Gaggins exactly as Bilbo Baggins progressed. This is the type of player who eventually gets mad at the GM for not giving him a ring of invisibility sometime throughout the campaign or cries when the dragon just eats his ass instead of listening to his silly stories (sorry, Gilgo, you failed that bluff check and Skraug eats you for a light snack.)

Quote from: darthfozzywig;975554Their brains, one would hope. You need much more than that.

The brain is great, but the creative process, be it writing, painting, or creating characters can be ENORMOUSLY helped by outside stimuli. And random generated stimuli helps you to jump outside the box of where your neurons usually fire.