PC histories/backstories -- help, hindrance, neither?

[diaglo]

I'm sorry, what page is that on? (shudder...am I defending diaglo? eeek)

oh, great and mighty Champion of my cause... wait a second let me give you a title

I dub thee Stormborn... Champion of OD&D.

there that's better.

actually ertai is right. some people like it some don't.. which is what i said in answer to Quasqueton's original askance for examples. there was no bias in my example of which one is the correct way just an open forum.

 

[Quasqueton]

The difference in my experiences with PC backstories and most others here is amazing. I have never seen a PC's backstory enhance my gaming experience. I have on occasion had backstories actually hinder my DMing of the game.

Too often I see backgrounds that are too elaborate for a 1st-level character. Hell, many backstories would make for grand adventures all by themselves. Yet, the PC has 0 xp to show for the grand deeds. The rogue who escaped from the prison, joined a band of gypsies, crossed the great divide, ran through the war-torn border, and is now in this town to meet the other PCs.

Then there are the backgrounds that undermine (unintentionally) the precepts for starting the campaign to begin with. Or the ones that say the PC should be going in a direction either unrelated to where the DM intends, or actually is opposed to where the DM intends. The ranger whose family was taken by slavers, and he now is seeking to find and rescue them, although the DM wasn't intending to run a "against the slavers" type campaign.

The backgrounds that set up a certain personality for the PC, but then the Player plays the character completely different. The happy-go-lucky dandy, court bard who ends up directly insulting everyone and picks fights with every NPC the party meets.

The backgrounds that set an ending for the PC's adventuring career. The war-weary fighter just looking for a place to settle down and retire.

I do not enjoy having to figure out a way to tie 4-6 diverse backstories into my campaign.

To me, a PC's background is what happens *in game* from levels 1 to 4. I (as Player and DM) find it much more enjoyable when an old villain from earlier in the played campaign comes back into the PCs' lives, than when an villain comes from one PC's pre-game background. A villain who supposedly killed one PC's father in a pre-game write up is not nearly as exciting and motivating as a villain who killed a PC in the group's early adventures.

I have actually created my current campaign series to pretty much negate a PC's background history. The PCs have come to a new continent, leaving their previous lives behind. 2.5 months and 3,000 miles seperate the PCs from their backgrounds. They are essentially "starting over" in the New World, to create their story *in game*.

Quasqueton

 

[Rafael Ceurdepyr]

I do not enjoy having to figure out a way to tie 4-6 diverse backstories into my campaign.

The way we've managed to prevent too much diversity of backstory in our backstory-laden games is to hand out a "What you know" sheet of background, including what sort of characters and backgrounds are appropriate to the setting. Players can then be guided to choose something that won't be as hard to tie in.

But then, I often collaborate on backstory with another player so that we have mutual background experiences (romances, family ties, etc.).

 

[Desdichado]

Quasqueton; I've seen that happen. That's why a chargen session, or portion of a session, at the beginning of the campaign, where the players can work together and the GM can help guide them away from backstories that simply won't work, is my preferred method.

I like backstories, but I like them to start out pretty bare and skeleton like at the beginning, and gradually fill themselves in a bit over the course of the first few sessions. As a player, it seems it takes a session or two for me to get a handle on the PC anyway; so I'd prefer to not have to come up with a lot of details until I've seen the PC in action, and seen what he does. A lot of times, I get a lot of great ideas for the character in the first few sessions.

Here's an example; for the last six weeks or so I've taken a break from running my Dark•Heritage game because I've had three successive waves of family in town, and then the Detroit Gameday to manage. To get our fix, one of the other guys ran a quick Dungeon magazine adventure, and I whipped up a human ranger character for that. Although I had given the guy a little bit of thought, I wasn't really sure what his quirks and the like where, but based on a fairly offhand comment I made, the character developed into this real elfophile (it helped that we had a female cleric of Corellon Larethian (sic?)) in the group that he could suck up to. That developed into quite an interesting concept and backstory, and really took on a life of its own.

If I had planned everything out ahead of time, it would never had had a chance to happen, though.

 

[Akrasia]

A good backstory can provide excellent seeds for future adventures.

At least 1/3 of the adventures in my campaign are the result of PCs pursuing goals based on their background. I let them take the initiative!

If you give your players biographies that include concrete long-term goals for their characters (with their input, of course), you need never worry about 'railroading' again!

 

[The_Gneech]

IME the answer depends heavily on the DM. As a player I used to be all about backstory, but I have never had a DM who made use of the work I put into my backstory, so over the years my backstories have gotten shorter and shorter.

...

I'd love to be in a campaign sometime where backstory was used by the DM.

I am SO on that page it isn't even funny. I always write character backgrounds, for my own use if nothing else, which are then summarily ignored by the DM. Sometimes, these backgrounds have been completely contrary to the campaign, but I didn't know that because I hadn't been told what the campaign was going to be like and just came up with something I'd want to play. Over time I've learned what the DM likes and dislikes, and started making characters to that template. (He loves big long plots. He hates anything having to do with the ocean. He hates Chaotic Anything alignment. So my CG wanderlusting swashbuckler who likes to tweak the nose of the rich and mighty ... just isn't going to work. Perhaps I should play a paladin?)

Conversely, I only rarely get background info from players ... and it's often directly inverse to what I put into the campaign background writeup. I ask for a cohesive group of bold do-gooders, I get CN and N rogues and mercenaries who all defer to somebody else ("I'M not gonna lead the party, YOU lead the party! I'm not leading the party, I'm going off on my own to pick pockets!").

I sometimes wonder if I'm insane, or if it's the rest of the group.

-The Gneech

 

[kigmatzomat]

Backstories are, to a large extent, useless in starting campaigns. 1st level yabbos simply don't have much experience. In those games I provide the starting locations (i.e. you can be from these 3 villages) and ideas of the types of backgrounds you can have (village 1 is farming, village 2 has a small gem mine, village 3 a lumber mill) and a general trend, if not motivation (this game will involve a lot of traveling and will need characters able to interact with guardsmen and minor officials without being jailed in the first 10 minutes).

Games with advanced characters require at least an hour or two to sift through simple histories and come up with decent contact points. Perhaps the best game where that occurred was when I was a player in a VtM game and the GM had us write up our *very* experienced characters in the same room. It cut down redundancy, streamlined the party politics, and got a few basic group tactics hammered out.

Of course I've also seen massive game disintigration occur when DMs disregard backstory and get completely opposite reactions from players. At the same time, I've seen more than a few players chuck their own history and descent into hack'n slash.

IMO, events that occurred outside of the game are only potential history and can be rewritten at any time by any participant.

Heck, I don't even require players to specify an alignment for a few sessions. Gives people more wiggle room to find a character that fits. "Hmmm, this LG alignment chafes; perhaps I should get a LN. Or am I more then NG type?"

 

[Arnwyn]

IME, backgrounds have never "hindered" our game. Ever.

There have been times when a player has come up with something inappropriate (like in Quasqueton's post, above), but we all work together to iron out any rough spots. It's never been hard, and it certainly has never "hindered" the campaign in any way, shape, or form.

Generally, backgrounds have only enhanced our game - though they are not required. (And they are usually only simple affairs, with only a few paragraphs. That's all that's needed for a 1st level character, really.)

 

[Scribble]

I preffer my players create some sort of backstory for their character. It gives me an idea of what motivates their character, and ideas for how to work them into the campaign on a more personal level. I find it also helps the players become more entrenched in the world. They begin to care more about what happens in the world as opposed to simply when the next monster is going to show up.

If a player wants to play soemthing "weird" IE a half dragon, or half demon, or somesuch thing or other from savage species a backstory then becomes mandatory. My reasoning is that if you can't give me a good reason that you want to play this thing other then because it gives me plus this or that, then sorry no weirdness for you.

 

[Invictikore]

I love using a characters background agianst them, In a nice DM kinda way