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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Communication with players about expectations is the key.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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