Backstory - How Not To

[Haltherrion]

Let's start here.It's too bad my earlier post didn't grab your attention the same way.

Well, per the post I did point out, saying any effect of backgrounds is "wishful thinking" is rather bold. It is the sort of statement to catch one's attention, isn't it? Put another way, weren't you intending to denigrate backgrounds when you made the wishful thinking statement? I have trouble interpreting the statement any other way.

If writing a background helps you get into the headspace of your character, have at it, but the game we're all sitting down to play together isn't about your personal fan-fic - it's about what happens while we sit around a table and play the game, so what happened to your character in Vegas stays in Vegas.

As often happens, we will have to disagree. From where I ref, for some players, background makes little difference in their play. But for many, a background provides a unifying theme on which to build the character, a foundation. I'm a big fan of foundations be they for a physical structure, like your house, an engineering project, or a creative exercise like a book, movie or D&D campaign. Tolkien certainly made use of a massive foundation...

Beyond just the utility of helping a player play their character, I also like backgrounds for providing the referee "plot hooks" to work material into the campaign. Whether it is a true plot hook that the ref himself spins into a story or some elements of interest to the player he presents for the players to do with what they wish depends on the ref's style but it has great utility in my experience. I won't claim to always have a brilliant, gripping idea of what to prep next and appreciate tips from the players on what interest them.

To be honest, I'm somewhat surprised that as a ref that doesn't provide story, that seems to let the players direct things, you don't let them get a head start on the direction by working up character backgrounds.

 

[Haltherrion]

The Shaman,

I agree that a 'shared imaginative space' is exactly what makes an RPG so brilliant.

But I don't agree with the idea that this 'shared space' extends to my character.

Agreed I'd give XP but I'm tapped out at the moment

 

[Haltherrion]

As the referee, I'm only interested in what the characters do, because that tells me who they really are.

In many ways, I agree with this. Some words about what the character did before the game started and some incidents that should or should not motivate them don't mean anything to the game if they don't actually cause observable behaviour in-game.

But, there are plenty of good players who can write a background AND act on it. There are also many players who will play their character with a more distinctive personality having crafted a background first to set the stage. I'm one of them to be honest but the best roleplayers at my table are also the ones who create background.

Maybe this whole issue is one of semantics but I think there is more to it. Per your earlier "wishful thinking" comment, you seem to be saying that a background can't help a player play their character, that it doesn't change how they act. I think that is demonstrably wrong. I have players at my table still acting on motivations introduced by their backgrounds 12 sessions later and I don't expect that to stop by session 24. Will it be modified by in-game events, maybe even some day completely superceded if they resolve all background items? Possibly. But these characters are certainly the sum of their backgrounds and their in-game actions.

My group has 4 core players. In this pool even the weakest player, from an RP point of view, at least makes use of his character's parentage and such written into his background. The rest make heavy to very heavy use of their backgrounds. As a gaming group, few of us would contemplate creating a PC without a background.

Separate of how a background shapes a player's RP of his PC, I simply find them useful as a list of things of interest to the PC. THere are times as a ref I like having that information.

Does a background need to be 20 pages? No, three to five paragraphs work pretty well, a half page to a page or so.

Because of how we do PC creation, backgrounds are not optional for my group's campaigns (whether or not I ref). A background is needed to explain some of the "oddities" introduced in our draft process. However, in a more typical starting session, I would not hold it against a player if they didn't have a background. I think a good player can still do a good job with a PC without it but I also think any player can do a better job with it.

 

[The Shaman]

Well, per the post I did point out, saying any effect of backgrounds is "wishful thinking" is rather bold. It is the sort of statement to catch one's attention, isn't it? Put another way, weren't you intending to denigrate backgrounds when you made the wishful thinking statement? I have trouble interpreting the statement any other way.

A players describes his fighter as a tough, no-nonsense veteran who never backs down from a fight - and in an early encounter in the game, when threatened with a sword by a dandy, threatens to call the watch instead of drawing his own blade.

That's an actual example, by the way.

If a player creates a set of characteristics for a character and then ignores them when roleplaying the adventurer, then those characteristics are indeed nothing more than wishful thinking on the player's part. If you describe your character as a 'bookworm,' but never seek out libraries or buy tomes with your loot, then the backstory is wishful thinking. If you describe your character as pious but rarely make any attempt to honor the gods which isn't tied to some sort of direct benefit to the character, then the backstory is wishful thinking.

The character is what the character does. Backstory is talking the talk; actual play is walking the walk.

Does that make "wishful thinking" clearer for you?

As often happens, we will have to disagree. From where I ref, for some players, background makes little difference in their play. But for many, a background provides a unifying theme on which to build the character, a foundation.

And as I've made repeatedly clear in this thread, players in the games I run are welcome to write as much or little as they like as a tool for running their characters.

Beyond just the utility of helping a player play their character, I also like backgrounds for providing the referee "plot hooks" to work material into the campaign. Whether it is a true plot hook that the ref himself spins into a story or some elements of interest to the player he presents for the players to do with what they wish depends on the ref's style but it has great utility in my experience. I won't claim to always have a brilliant, gripping idea of what to prep next and appreciate tips from the players on what interest them.

And I appreciate players who, instead of waiting for me to introduce "elements of interest," send their characters out to pursue what interests them.

You want to be friends with the vicomte? Then don't give me hints about it - go make friends with the vicomte. Talk to people who know him, find out his likes and dislikes, offer him a gift, do him a favor - impress him, earn his trust and his admiration.

But more importantly, don't sit around the table waiting for me to serve up adventure. If you want your character to be the protagonist, then it's incumbent on your character to be protagonistic in actual play.

To be honest, I'm somewhat surprised that as a ref that doesn't provide story, that seems to let the players direct things, you don't let them get a head start on the direction by working up character backgrounds.

When you play Monopoly, do you pass out the properties to the players before the game starts? Or does everyone begin at GO and build their fortune?


And yes, I have played Monopoly that way.

Maybe this whole issue is one of semantics but I think there is more to it. Per your earlier "wishful thinking" comment, you seem to be saying that a background can't help a player play their character, that it doesn't change how they act.

No, what I said was a background which isn't reflected in how a character acts is wishful thinking.

Now, you're welcome to take a few more whacks at that horse, but I'm pretty sure it ain't gettin' up ever again already.

 

[chaochou]

I have rolled up a Swasbuckler 1/Wizard 1 character called Selka.

She is a young gypsy woman whose people have a long and ancient history of folk beliefs, many of them centered around ancestor worship. I know that Selka's people follow 'wandering stars' through the night sky to guide their travels and that there are thirteen such stars. The original twelve clans of Selka's people never followed the 'thirteenth star' because it is a symbol of death.

Selka's people also believe that at the end of this world, the gods will cause all the dead to rise up and inhabit new forms; when they do, all those who are buried together will be a part of the same tribes or clans. So Selka's people are all buried together in huge burial mounds in the hope that they will all be together in the next world.

Since Selka is the last of her people, she is a Gatherer; one who seeks out and find the bones of those who died without being interred with the rest of the clan; all their names are written in the 'Book of the Dead' kept by her people for centuries. She feels a strong obligation to do this, as if she fails then those souls will be 'lost to her clan in the next world'. One sad part about this is that when Selka dies, there is no-one left to place her bones with her people.

Another irony of all this is that Selka was a rebel and left her people to live normally in a city for part of her life, angering her father Jacob by doing so. They were in fact never reconciled and an older and wiser Selka now feels completely inadequate to the task of 'saving' the dead and does not know if she even believes half of the old stories (most of which I have invented already so that I can drop in references to them when I am playing her). So I plan to have Selka explore her people's beliefs as we adventure and eventually work out who she is and what she believes.

Selka also has her own wagon, which is over a hundred years old and belonged to her grandfather and was actually built by her great grandfather; her horses are called Mishka (mouse) and Magnus and that the former is a coward and the latter has a heart of a lion. So even Selka's equipment list is 'living and breathing'.

First off, props for the write up. This, IMO, is an example of 'how to' rather than 'How not to'.

For the purpose of the debate on this thread, I'd highlight how little of this is 'story'. What you've written isn't narrative, it's description. You've described the character's heritage and how Selka feels now - stuff to bring into the game. That's great. Doubly great if the other players buy into it.

You've written next to nothing - in fact only the highlighted part - which talks about anything Selka did in the past. And there's nothing fanatical there either, nothing which limits your character to a specific course of action in any given situation. In fact, you specifically state that her beliefs are going to be decided in game, not pre-determined by your past.

It's all good.

Given that you've got what it takes to make all that up, I'd suggest you could also have made it up in-game, in dialogue with the other players and GM. That might make it living and breathing for them too, although I understand it comes down to personal preference.

These days I tend to prefer backstory to emerge in play and get everyone at the table involved in that creative effort. But for that to work, it's incumbent the GM and other players to ask the questions that prompt it to emerge. It doesn't happen by magic.

 

[Ydars]

Chaochou,

Thanks for getting the point I was trying to illustrate; background is stuff the player can use to make the PC seem more real. It is not an essay about what has happened in their previous life, but merely the sort of notes that an actor might compile when trying to get inside the head of a character.

I also agree that some of this stuff could (and usually does) emerge 'in game'. Indeed, when I DM I usually find my most memorable NPCs emerge whilst actually playing.

I gave this PC as an example and she might never see play as a PC; I might turn up to the session and find she wouldn't fit in and invent someone else on the fly. Then she will reappear as an NPC when I DM one day, but I love creating characters.

The problem is, I am OK making stuff up on the fly (because of years of practise), but not everyone is. I have found over the years that most roleplayers I have played with face to face have not been good at it and need to do a bit of preparation.

 

[Haltherrion]

No, what I said was a background which isn't reflected in how a character acts is wishful thinking.

Now, you're welcome to take a few more whacks at that horse, but I'm pretty sure it ain't gettin' up ever again already.

In the post in question you preceded the wishful thinking comment with a quote from Moltke that seemed to minimize the need for planning anything so it wasn't much of a stretch to interprete the wishful thinking comment as a knock on any background, but caveat-ed as you have since made your comment, and as I've noted in my own replies, I certainly agree it is possible for a player to create a background and then ignore it. It is also entirely possible for a player to create a background and act upon it. I guess in my group, while the former is not unheard of, the latter is much more common.

So, we both seem to agree backgrounds can be useful or useless. Rereading your posts, I still get the strong impression you see little point to them, however. I disagree. While I feel they can be misused or ignored they are in general useful additions to a game, especially in the earlier sessions.

 

[Merkuri]

...start off all the characters with amnesia and then thrust them back into the midst of events where the locals of the city (Freeport) knew of them by their nefarious deeds, which they themselves could not remember...

Have you ever played the computer game "Planescape: Torment"? Aside from being set in Planescape, the game's whole idea was that you played a person trying to figure out who he was and what he did in his past. You don't even know your own name (you're referred to as Nameless for the whole game). You slowly learn your own history as the game goes on.


My character backgrounds generally come from one or two central ideas that I flesh out. My latest character (in a 3.5e game) is a priestess of Farlanghn, the god of roads. I thought about why she'd worship Farlanghn and decided that she grew up at a crossroads inn. Furthermore, I decided that she was not born at that inn, but was a lost child adopted by the inn owners, and that there were strange rumors about her as a child - that she supposedly rescued lost travelers by leading them back to the path then disappearing.

From there, I wrote about a page to tell that background in a more story-like format, but that little blurb was the essence of her backstory. I prefer my PC backgrounds to read like a short story because I like writing them, but if pressed I could've squeezed that background into a paragraph. One time I wrote a PC's backstory in the format of a letter she had written (though I never specified why it was written or two whom it was sent).

I also generally like to leave holes in my background for the DM to fill in later, if he wants. For example, I never said where this character's real parents are, and I never said whether the rumors about her were true or not (one adoptive parent believed in them, the other thought they were hogwash). Some DM's I've played with have incorporated these things, others have not. But I like to give the DM the opportunity to fill in some of my backstory holes and maybe use them to inspire game plots.


I'm also playing a character in a 4e game that has essentially no backstory. She was created quickly, and I said I'd fill in my backstory as time goes on. I haven't, though. She has a personality, but her motivations are vague, and I'm finding that as time goes on I'm having a harder time of putting a backstory to her. Perhaps if we had a constant DM (we trade of DM duties from adventure to adventure for this campaign) I'd find it easier to flesh out her background, but it feels to me like she just leaped into existence during the first adventure.

For me, at least, it seems like I need to have some sort of backstory for a character from the start, even if it's just a skeleton of a story, otherwise that part of the character's life won't ever get fleshed out.

 

[Glade Riven]

This thread has got me thinking about how I go about creating characters, and I've realized something...I don't really create character background - I create personalities. Then I throw together some minor bits of reasoning on why they are what they are that end up serving as hooks for the DM. For instance, Nelzelzubub is a tiefling sorcerer pretending he's a wizard while being both intrigued and fearful of things that will kill him. He got that way because a magical accident thrust his (demonic) soul into the body of a human wizard's apprentice who had botched a summoing. What type of demon, his human's past life, etc. would be discussed with the DM if they so chose to use his background elements in the story.

 

[Dedekind]

This thread has got me thinking about how I go about creating characters, and I've realized something...I don't really create character background - I create personalities.

This is so true and, to me, is the bare minimum for any type of roleplaying experience. It is also my personal maximum if the DM will let me get away with it.