How much back story for a low-level PC?

[Dausuul]

If I don't want interaction, I'll often leave the backstory very empty.

I tend to get annoyed when the DM fills it in because that's not an area I want to focus as a player.

Agreed. Like I said, as a player I'm seldom very interested in my character's back story - I'm interested in where I'm going, not where I've been - but anything that is there, I want it to be there because I put it there. If the DM needs me to have a sibling or a parent for plot reasons or whatever, the DM should ask me and I'll come up with something.

I'm an old-fashioned, territorial gamer. The way I see it, certain things are player territory (the PC's character concept, background, and non-magically-dominated decisions) and others are DM territory (the game world). You can ask somebody to put something in their territory for you, but you don't get to just walk in and do it.

 

[Nagol]

Me neither. I kinda said it earlier, but I'll reiterate; it seems as if we're defending a caricaturish strawman rather than reality. Of course if someone goes overboard, well, then they've gone overboard and that's an issue. This discussion seems to be continually trying to frame any player involvement in setting as already overboard to begin with.

Frankly, as a GM I'd find an entire group of such passive, uninterested players somewhat off-putting. I can deal with the occasional someone who's a little excessive who needs to be reined in slightly. Not that I have to; what is usually meant by this is that players come up with some family names and maybe a local crime boss or minor lord. I very rarely have any conflicts with that level of detail, and if I did, neither one of us would be upset with some minor tweaking to get my vision of the setting and the player's vision of his character's backstory aligned.

I have received multi-page back-story proposals for characters and in some cases let them in and in others said no.

Just because you don't want a backstorydoesn't mean you are uninvolved -- it just means you don't want your past to become a narrative element. Forward looking as opposed to backward.

It's hard to come up with a page or more of background for a newbie (i.e. low-level inexperienced character) that doesn't introduce detail into a campaign that should have consequence to the setting.

 

[Vyvyan Basterd]

Ah, but we're potentially talking page-fuls of this stuff from each player as backstory. I stuck with a single paragraph (at least in style).

Page-fulls? Have you checked the poll?

The more detail every player adds the more likely it is of conflict between visions, forgetfulness, and constraint applied to the campaign setting.

To paraphrase Hobo, you're starting to argue from an absurd viewpoint, so of course the results will sound absurd

Additionally, there is the whole "but my character should" line of argument. "I escaped from this city last year. I should know..."

And the DM should know and adjust accordingly. He did approve the background afterall.

 

[Nagol]

Ah, I've got a player like you. He used to write all of his backgrounds as an orphaned loner so he couldn't be stradled with obligations. Every character. This seemed like player dickery to me and since we were both well entrenched in the Player vs. DM attitude of our 1E days I was often responding with high levels of dickery. "You only thought your parents were dead, mwa ha ha!"

But we've all moved past that attitude in my group and characters have families in the background that often live out as peaceful a life as any other commoner. The occasional appearance of family and friends from a character's background happen when they feel right by the plot. Familial interactions that aren't key to the plot take place "off-screen" and don't sap attention away from the epic adventure that the heroes are embarking upon.

As a player, if I want obligations, I'll include them or adopt them myself during play. If I don't want them then I will shun them during play regardless of how they are introduced. Attempting to introduce an obligation that is 'natural' for the character is an attempt at dickery unless the parties have agreed (i.e. DM to player -- "I want to toss in a card shark who claims to be your lost father, you cool with that?")

 

[Barastrondo]

Ah, but we're potentially talking page-fuls of this stuff from each player as backstory. I stuck with a single paragraph (at least in style).

The more detail every player adds the more likely it is of conflict between visions, forgetfulness, and constraint applied to the campaign setting.

Additionally, there is the whole "but my character should" line of argument. "I escaped from this city last year. I should know..."

At those extremes you're in trouble, but I feel it only fair to note that these extremes are pretty rare, and I've never seen them in play myself. I've heard enough horror stories to believe they're not purely theoretical, but "detailed backstory" in itself is not really the problem. I think it's not about the principle of detailed backgrounds, but more about specifics of methodology -- should that detailed backstory be created in a vacuum, without talking to other players or the DM beforehand?

In my experience, if you get everyone talking about possible backstories over a meal before anything is committed to paper, you avoid a lot of potential problems. The backstories become conversations, not recitations -- which means that everyone's more likely to actually listen, something that works in the player's favor. Of course, a player who's a heavy control freak may not respond as well to this methodology, and may write up a backstory solely for the purpose of creating a "binding contract" -- but I think that should be recognized as a potential result of gaming with control freaks. The person is more responsible than the concept of player empowerment is.

Edit: Though I should note that "more complicated than the GM is comfortable with" is definitely a stopping point no matter what. If the GM isn't comfortable with incorporating more than a page, the player should be okay with the idea that a long backstory isn't something the GM is going to reference.

 

[Nagol]

Page-fulls? Have you checked the poll?

Yes, it is one of the options and I have expereince with it.

To paraphrase Hobo, you're starting to argue from an absurd viewpoint, so of course the results will sound absurd

Sorry writing crap at a moment's notice is not my expertise.

And the DM should know and adjust accordingly. He did approve the background afterall.

Which is why I prefer extensive backgrounds in game systems that better mechanically express them or the expectation is all players have a background of similar extent. You want knowledge about a particlar city? Buy the skill. You want a powerful father? Buy the contact. You want to be on the local crime boss' hit list? Take the hunted.

 

[Desdichado]

The person is more responsible than the concept of player empowerment is.

Bingo! At the root of almost all such "problematic" aspects of gaming, there's almost always incompatible players rather than actual problems with the gaming aspect under discussion. I think in this case, it's no different. I can certainly envison a scenario in which detailed backgrounds are problematic, but as it turns out with my group (and with every group I've ever gamed with, for that matter) backgrounds have been 1) not excessively detailed in the first place, and 2) useful and fun hooks for me as the GM to use to make the game better for all involved.

As with any tool, using it incorrectly can lead to problematic results.

 

[Thornir Alekeg]

If I don't want interaction, I'll often leave the backstory very empty.

I tend to get annoyed when the DM fills it in because that's not an area I want to focus as a player.

How annoyed depends on the expected level of DM dickery as evidenced elsewhere in the campaign. If I thought it was a one-off where I could comfortably expect to treat the event as 'colour' for the session without any long-term ramifications (i.e. family acting as dependents, setting up areas of campaign where I'll run into them again, familial expectations and/or attempts at obligation, resource drain, or attention grabbing) then I wouldn't mind much -- I'd just never refer to the event again.

OK, so you personally would prefer to not have your backstory be a part of the game because you don't want the DM to mess with your PC. I can understand that, having experienced the dickery on a couple of occasions.

For me, the same player who didn't like me adding details to his backstory also didn't like following when the game pursued a thread from the backstory of another PC. There was plenty for the group to do, but the main thread of the adventure was centered on one PC at that time and he didn't seem to like that.

Of course this one player also seemed to want the lion's share of attention from his amazing character builds and his PC's combat skills. Perhaps that is why he didn't like it when the story centered on somebody else. Disconnect in gaming styles I guess. He wanted to hack-n-slash so he could shine, while some other players also wanted to have non-combat screen time to have their fun as well.

 

[rogueattorney]

How about "Grot is a dwarf from the icy Northern Wastes. He is the second (black sheep) son of Hagglefierce, a prosperous platinum mining magnate who runs the largest business of the city Dinklemeyer of the Dwarven Kingdom. They keep the ciy warm through a combination of captured remorhaz and red dragons. His mother Rufflia is the daughter of a the second Duke of the Kingdom Lord Harrleflax who coinciendally is the major trading partner with the human emperor Gurgleflux of Sneezdonia."

Note: I said "nuggets" in their backstory, not steaming loads of... stuff.

Minus the "family tragedy," your example is pretty close to being my "princess" pet peeve. An ugly, bearded one, but a princess nonetheless.

 

[rogueattorney]

My question is: if the DM set up an "encounter" in town where you ran into one of your brothers, and they talked about how your father was ill and would like to see you again, and perhaps also dropped some possible adventure hooks, would you take issue with the DM coming up with your family member names, and where you were from? If your party took the hook, would you be OK with the DM adding some other little details, once you hit town?

I've had players who gave me a bare-bones backstory, but then got upset if I filled in any details for them.

I probably wouldn't have any problem with it. I suppose it would depend on exactly how involved my character and his family are in the DM's hook. My character was designed to be disassociated from his family and on the hunt for fame and fortune. Gaming in an adventure dealing with my family's internal politics would basically be the opposite of that.

I'm not adverse to giving more backstory if asked (and certainly, in games other than D&D where it's a bigger part of the mechanics - Pendragon, for example - I'm all about doing what a player needs to do to have a character up and running). It's just that my preference in D&D has always been that the character's story starts with the first adventure.