D&D General Background Vs. Backstory

[Dannyalcatraz]

Backstories need to harmonize with the backstories of other players in the group.

Can’t say I agree with this.

I mean, I’ve literally played RPGs at tables where the only thing I have in common with certain other players is the game in question. Hell, I was in a group for a few years with one guy who was a racist. (Hint: I’m not caucasian.)

 

[lowkey13]

*Deleted by user*

 

[Chaosmancer]

Can’t say I agree with this.

I mean, I’ve literally played RPGs at tables where the only thing I have in common with certain other players is the game in question. Hell, I was in a group for a few years with one guy who was a racist. (Hint: I’m not caucasian.)

I agree it isn't 100% necessary, but I've seen enough conflict and friction from both groups that my character was only in because "we are the players, you have to agree with the group" and as a DM when I had an entire group of players, independently, create an entire team of masked loners who don't trust anyone... then were shocked when we had a lot of friction in the party because no one worked together.

So, it definetly helps if everyone's backstory has at least a thread or two in common, or leave open the possibility of joining with the group.

 

[akr71]

I like when players have thought about their backstory, but when they start to write it down, no more than two or three paragraphs please. If someone has the potential to be a villain or contact, then gimme a name and a few short details.

I have a player who wanted to make a character sheet for the character's father, "a powerful necromancer." I say "Nope, he's an NPC and doesn't follow character creation rules." Awesome! I was just handed a campaign ending villain, complete with a name. Let's go kill the evil dude who wants to become a lich. Oh, by the way - he might be your daddy...

 

[prabe]

I agree it isn't 100% necessary, but I've seen enough conflict and friction from both groups that my character was only in because "we are the players, you have to agree with the group" and as a DM when I had an entire group of players, independently, create an entire team of masked loners who don't trust anyone... then were shocked when we had a lot of friction in the party because no one worked together.

So, it definetly helps if everyone's backstory has at least a thread or two in common, or leave open the possibility of joining with the group.

I also think the intent was that the backstories of the PCs need to harmonize, not those of the players. I still don't think it's absolutely necessary, but I can see that as more likely to be good than bad.

 

[Chaosmancer]

I also think the intent was that the backstories of the PCs need to harmonize, not those of the players. I still don't think it's absolutely necessary, but I can see that as more likely to be good than bad.

Facepalm

Totally missed that, I'll see myself out now

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

My point was that if players of non-harmonious backgrounds can sit at a table for hours at a time for months to achieve a common goal (having fun playing RPGs), it follows that PCs can also put aside even vast, divisive differences in their backgrounds if they share a common goal.

 

[prabe]

My point was that if players of non-harmonious backgrounds can sit at a table for hours at a time for months to achieve a common goal (having fun playing RPGs), it follows that PCs can also put aside even vast, divisive differences in their backgrounds if they share a common goal.

Fair enough, I agree with this and I apologize (if needed). It seemed to me as though you were tweaking @Celebrim for what might have been a typo.

 

[Salthorae]

1) I find most of it "dead weight" (as another poster put it). The player gets very involved in this backstory, but it involves all sorts of fictional elements that don't/won't fit in the game/campaign as a whole.

That's up to the DM and the player whether they fit or not. A backstory doesn't need to be a single draft.

2) For things that may actually tie in- Trying to work these elements into the game, for 4-6 PCs is a PITA unless the game is very scripted/some sort of railroad.

This should be the player's job with feedback from the DM, just like writing any story. Write, edit/draft, write, edit/draft, etc. No railroad involved.

3) It's usually just "Hey look at me, my PC is so awesome"

I guess it can be if the DM allows it.

The situations you're describing seem to be very adversarial in a DM vs. PC kind of way. I.e. "my world and I don't want to take the effort to tie you into the setting" and/or "i don't want to change things to fit your ideas".

Which is fine I guess, but that's not on the PCs and their backstories.

Backstory's to me help me dig into the characters and care about them way more than "this is a wizard with the sage background".

 

[Celebrim]

Can’t say I agree with this.

I mean, I’ve literally played RPGs at tables where the only thing I have in common with certain other players is the game in question. Hell, I was in a group for a few years with one guy who was a racist. (Hint: I’m not caucasian.)

Ahh.. yeah, I meant the back stories of player characters. I have no desire to open up a can of worms about player backstories.