Backstory - How Not To

[Starfox]

Many players and GMs like extensive backstories full of nice detail. I must say I don't. I like a characters story to be evolving during the campaign, and to develop both backwards and forwards - as the game progresses more and more of the characters' histories are revealed. Much like in a novel, the characters are introduced sketchily and outlined as the story goes on.

This avoids background plots that never happen. A character focused on revenge against a named character that never appears in the story or a character with obligations to an organization that has no role in the plot. Instead, as new plot elements appear in the story, the player can include them in his backstory. So the famous assassin actually killed the orphan character's mother or the rich character that is suddenly haunted by ties to the mob that appeared as a part of the story.

Comments?

 

[MortonStromgal]

I liked the 20 questions in Shadowrun, I always used that as a guide and gave out 1 Karma per question answered whenever the PC chose to answer it. So they didnt have to have a background upfront or ever if they didnt want to.

 

[prosfilaes]

This avoids background plots that never happen. A character focused on revenge against a named character that never appears in the story or a character with obligations to an organization that has no role in the plot. Instead, as new plot elements appear in the story, the player can include them in his backstory.

To me, at least once I'd like to play in a game where a DM read my backstory and worked the details into the game. "An organization that has no role in the plot"? Why doesn't it have a role in the plot? Who says? If my fighter owes a blood-debt to the Church of Illmater in Waterdeep, then why not make the Church of Illmater in Waterdeep matter in the game?

I understand what you're saying, but at the same time it comes across to me as if you don't want the players to tell you what type of elements they want in the game because it might interfere with what elements you want in the game.

 

[Chainsaw]

I prefer minimal backstory as well, but probably for different reasons than you. You seem not to want extraneous details that may not fit into the plot. I just don't want people wasting their time. When I play O/AD&D, the mortality rate is high at low levels. Spending a long time writing an elaborate backstory is silly unless the player just loves writing. Also, the mentality is more that the character's story develops as campaign develops - not before it begins.

For this reason, I prefer a few sentences. For example, "Old Man Halgron is a 60 year old 1st level cleric. He's never been very successful rising through the ranks because he drinks too much and chases women. He's recently decided to adventure a bit so that he can afford a decent funeral when he dies. Plus, he owes the thieves guild some gold after making a few drunken bets."

There you go.

 

[Dark Mistress]

I prefer to work with my players when I GM to make backgrounds. It doesn't have to get into super details but I do want a good once over background. Then often I will after reading it, offer suggestions how to tweak it to make things fit or to help expand on the background.

Such as the example if they say their family was killed by a some cult and was then raised by a woman that ran a orphanage. I might recommend instead it was a church run one from god X. God of the character playing the cleric of the group and perhaps they meet at some point before. Stuff like that to try and tie things together a bit.

Also I tend to use the background players give me. Sometimes for plot hooks, which in turn leads to full blown adventures. Regardless in the end I try and reward players for doing backgrounds in some way, to encourage it.

 

[Chainsaw]

I prefer to work with my players when I GM to make backgrounds.

Back when I was playing 4E, our DM encouraged elaborate backstories. I wrote a few pages for my guy and even created the guy's whole home town, complete with a history, locations (stores, etc) and NPCs. It worked fine, but the DM's approach was muuuuch different from the one my O/AD&D group uses. In his 4E game, there was never really any risk of death and it was more of a "joint story telling" experience. Rolling the dice really only dictated how fast we won battles, not whether we won them. There was a lot of high drama and voices and whatnot. Just a totally, totally different playstyle from the campaigns I'm involved in now.

 

[Silvercat Moonpaw]

My feeling is that it should be left up to the player to decide how much they want to come up with ahead of time. That way each can do it their own best way.

Though personally I like 'em minimal because you never know what you're going to want to change later, irregardless of whether the GM can fit you in. But I also like adventures/campaigns that are improved, so there's no impediment to working a character's backstory in.

 

[Dark Mistress]

Back when I was playing 4E, our DM encouraged elaborate backstories. I wrote a few pages for my guy and even created the guy's whole home town, complete with a history, locations (stores, etc) and NPCs. It worked fine, but the DM's approach was muuuuch different from the one my O/AD&D group uses. In his 4E game, there was never really any risk of death and it was more of a "joint story telling" experience. Rolling the dice really only dictated how fast we won battles, not whether we won them. There was a lot of high drama and voices and whatnot. Just a totally, totally different playstyle from the campaigns I'm involved in now.

Yeah I don't do that, nor would I enjoy that. But I find most players like it when things from their characters history come up and matter later in a campaign.

 

[Chainsaw]

Yeah I don't do that, nor would I enjoy that. But I find most players like it when things from their characters history come up and matter later in a campaign.

I agree. Weaving in a piece of a backstory (or an action from the current game) at a later date helps add some continuity that draws people in. Plus, people tend to give more effort (whether it's solving puzzles, battle strategy or roleplaying with an NPC) if they feel like they've been part of adventure creation.

I just prefer the backstory be short and sweet with a couple vague hooks (see above) rather than some half-baked amateur novella. Players can flesh it out more in game as their character gains experiences.

 

[Doctor DM]

I'm a fan of back story. I like the DM to include it in the game too. It doesn't have to be part of the big overall plot, I think it's better actually as just a little side quest, or some flavor here and there.

Example: In the Western game I'm playing in, my character was a former member of The Fireball Gang, outlaws known for explosives and burning things. He slept with the leader of the gang's girlfriend, was beaten, left for dead, and obviously kicked out of the gang. My character has since reformed and does his adventuring thing now.

We ran into a psychopathic child who was out to get me, and tried locking the rest of the party in an exploding building and forcing me to watch. He was clearly out for revenge and knew who I was, but I had no clue who he was. We beat him, and turns out his parents had been locked in a burning building, murdered by the Fireball Gang. He sold his soul to the devil for power, and has hunted down and killed every member of the gang. I wasn't involved in the death of his parents, but was on the list of gang members, so he came after me.

I liked that a lot. Just one encounter, that involved my backstory in a really cool way. No big showdown with my old enemies for half the campaign, but something happened because of my past. I think that's the way to go with including back stories.

One thing I really dislike though is 1st level characters who according to their backstory, are the most powerful and awesome people ever. You've slain armies of giants and the king is out to get you? You have 7 hit points, come on now.