How much back story for a low-level PC?

[Desdichado]

According to who? You?

Yes, me. Of course.

Believable and satisfying are in the eye of the beholder.

Yep, exactly my point. You'll notice that I was very careful to put in "can"s and "may"s and stuff like that. Of course, other groups may handwave that away and do it quickly, but some players will certainly find that level of abstraction unsatisfying.

 

[Mallus]

It may take you "hours and hours" while the rest of the group "twiddles their thumbs politely" to make it "believable and satisfying"; but don't presume that I, or the guys I play with, are the same.

We're presuming it takes less time to periodically feature a thing from a PC backstory in a game session --for example, a prominent order of knights which a PC belongs to-- than it would be to play out the creation an equivalent thing from scratch --for example, all the PC's combine their efforts to found an order of knighthood and raise it to prominence.

We're presuming this because it's reasonable. It may not, however, be universally true. Few things are, natch.

 

[korjik]

I agree; I find the attitude surprisingly paranoid as well. And surprisingly protectionist and anti-collaborative. I also think that it's vitally important to not identify too much with your PCs. You are not your PCs. If bad things happen to your PCs, you, as the player, are part collaborative creator, but also part audience. The point of bad things happening to your character is to entertain you. The attitude of being really paranoid and protectionist about your PC seems unhealthy to me, and I would find it a crippling environment in which to run a game. Well, of course the GM's going to try and screw your PC. As long as he doesn't screw over the players then, all's well.

Anyway, that's my spiel. Needless to say, regardless of what I think about it, you're also right that if the players are dreading what the GM might do with their backstories, then clearly the GM has failed to take into account the tastes and preferences of his players, and that is indeed a major failing as a GM.

If the PC wrote the backstory, then the PC has an equal share in the manipulation of the backstory. This dosent mean that the DM cant do things with the backstory, but it does behoove him to check with the player on if the player thinks it fits.

If the player thinks that his PCs mum bakes cookies and harrasses the PC about grandchildren, then having her turn up as a lich is probably not going to go over well. If the player sees the PCs mum as a power hungry psycho, then the lich thing may go over well.

It all boils down to both the player and the DM being flexible. Neither should try to ram things through without the other agreeing, and both should respect the feelings of the other.

 

[Crothian]

A Lich mum that bakes cookies and harasses the PC about grand children.

 

[Vyvyan Basterd]

What I don't want is your background projecting itself into the game-space that we're creating together at the table. Join an organization, or found one, in actual play, not before the game.

To borrow Mallus' term. It's reasonable to believe that a 1st-level Monk trained at a monastary. It's also reasonable to believe that you, as DM, have not detailed every single monastary in the entire world. Unless we start play before 1st-level, how did the newly created monk find training in-game? Or is every monk in the campaign pigeon-holed into the "self-trained prodigy" archetype?

And even if you have created every monastary in the known word, why would you turn down a good idea from a player who wishes to belong to an order that espouses virtues different from your creations? Especially if that player does not wish to focus in-game time on forming his own order. Maybe the player envisions his character as a follower, not a leader. Just an example and of course your reasonable expactations may not match my own.

Yep, exactly my point. You'll notice that I was very careful to put in "can"s and "may"s and stuff like that. Of course, other groups may handwave that away and do it quickly, but some players will certainly find that level of abstraction unsatisfying.

Agreed. And what would actually differentiate hand-waving a guild into existence in-game from creating one before the game starts?

 

[Doug McCrae]

I'm not really a fan of the Conan-esque rootless wanderers who care about nothing but sex and money. Most people aren't like that imo. They have family and friends and a culture that they care about.

I admit tho that the former type makes for faster game setup and more flexible play. And the PCs can easily die without it taking a week to create a new one.

The lich mom did seem to be going too far. It was a crazy jump in power level. A PC's friends and family are quite a tricky area, because neither the GM nor the player has clear authority. The GM gets a say, sure, but so does the player. I think GMs have to tread carefully here. Negotiation is vital.

 

[Nagol]

A Lich mum that bakes cookies and harasses the PC about grand children.

Because children taste better and the cookie bait hasn't been catching enough?

 

[The Ghost]

How long does it take you to build a thieves guild then?

At minimum, a few sentences per session. At most, as much time as the players wish to put in it.

My problem with what Hobo wrote was that it gave off an impression that one of the players was off with the DM wasting away countless hours while the rest of the party was waiting to get back to the adventure. That is a gross exaggeration of the truth - at least, as it applies to the group I play with. In reality, the DM may only spend a few minutes a session handling any particular PC's extra-curricular activities.

Yep, exactly my point. You'll notice that I was very careful to put in "can"s and "may"s and stuff like that.

Yes, I noticed. It was the hyperbole* in your post that I objected to. The reality, at least as far as my group is concerned, is that it does not take us a whole lot of time in game to pursue these other activities in order to find them believable and satisfying.

* Hyperbole is not the appropriate word that I want to use here but - for the life of me - I am unable to think of a more accurate one. What I am getting at is that your choice of language ("poor use of time", "twiddles their thumbs", and "hog the spotlight") doesn't mesh with the reality of what occurs at our table. That's all I am trying to say.

Of course, other groups may handwave that away and do it quickly, but some players will certainly find that level of abstraction unsatisfying.

Agreed 110%.

 

[Ourph]

Huh. Really? Is this common? I mean, to me, that sounds like the perfect use of backstory.

Is this whole "If it's bad for my character, it's bad for me!" mentality common? Most of the people I game with pretty clearly understand that what's bad for their characters is (usually) tons of fun for the players. Who wants a game where the characters just waltz through life without encountering tough times? Tough times are the only interesting stories to tell.

In my experience, the problem that arises with problems based on backstory is that there isn't a lot of room left for player choice or skill to affect the situation.

Adventurers have lives full of problems, but they are generally problems of the player's choosing (i.e. - we chose as a group to enter Deathtrap Dungeon and look for the lost Doohickey of Whatsisname) and the players normally have several options for the type of trouble they choose to get into and skillful play can often ameliorate or deflect some of those problems while still attaining the goal. When the DM springs a "lich-mom" scenario on a player there is often a feeling that there was no choice involved and no option to avoid the problem through skillful play. Now, there may be choices involved in resolving the "lich-mom" problem and skillful play may help that along, but (because the problem is specifically crafted to attach itself to the PC) there is rarely the option to walk away or circumvent the problem the way there is with self-chosen challenges like entering a dungeon or tracking down a villain.

I'm not really a fan of the Conan-esque rootless wanderers who care about nothing but sex and money. Most people aren't like that imo.

Most people don't make their living by wandering around the countryside killing monsters with swords and spells either. The idea that an adventurer might be someone without a lot of family ties or roots holding them to certain places or people seems perfectly reasonable to me.

 

[Neonchameleon]

I agree; I find the attitude surprisingly paranoid as well. And surprisingly protectionist and anti-collaborative.

The failure of collaboration was on the part of the DM in the example of the Lich. The DM took out a bottle of white-out and overwrote a significant part of the player's backstory by turning the mother into a Lich from nothing. The attitude that you can retroactively change someone else's input without consulting them is anti-collaborative. And is an active disincentive for the PCs to collaborate because they know their work won't be respected - instead it will be twisted and the spirit changed for the DM to drop his railroad tracks onto.

Now, not changing the mother's character, but giving her debts etc. would be a different story. When collaborating, you build on the work of the previous person rather than completely change it. Or you ask them about major changes.

I also think that it's vitally important to not identify too much with your PCs. You are not your PCs. If bad things happen to your PCs, you, as the player, are part collaborative creator, but also part audience. The point of bad things happening to your character is to entertain you.

Clearly, if you aren't entertained by the specific bad things that are happening, the scriptwriter has failed.

The attitude of being really paranoid and protectionist about your PC seems unhealthy to me, and I would find it a crippling environment in which to run a game.

And the attitude in which the DM has the right to re-write any part of the background I submit, and tear up the spirit, has been crippling and disempowering and made me wonder why, if I wated to watch a pre-scripted story, I wasn't just watching the TV.

Well, of course the GM's going to try and screw your PC. As long as he doesn't screw over the players then, all's well.

And if the DM wants to screw my PC in dramatic ways, I'm probably going to help. I always try to include some dramatic hooks or some motivations for the DM to entrap the PC in a backstory. And if the DM uses them, good! That's what they are there for. And that is what collaboration is about. If the DM instead chooses to drive a bulldozer straight through the backstory, demolishing the houses to lay down a railroad, then I might as well not bother to give the DM anything. He's going to set up his damn railroad whatever, and if I give him no reason to pick on my PC I won't have the history and motivation twisted in ways I don't understand.

Shorter me: Collaboration is good. But collaboration involves the DM respecting rather than overriding the player's choices in backstory as well as RP.