Backstory - How Not To

[Sorrowdusk]

Now this is a different approach. But I will agree that background is definitely a too-for me, backgrounds and histories (but for me, also regular In Character Journals-some about current events, some the past, and sometimes just 'thoughts' or 'ideas') help me build WHO the character is, it tells me why they make the decisions they do, more than 'thats just the way they are' or 'because'. Even if the DM didnt look at it at all, I'd do it for myself, but I would greatly appreciate it if some of it was taken into consideration, the same way we (PCs) regularly bother to let current events change us, take them into consideration rather than always remaining static.

I will say though that events along the way of play definitely affect them, and pose more problems and challenges than what's in the past. AT THE SAME time, characters should have some distant goals or open ended ones. If a big part of your background is 'revenge' against this one guy...will you actually get it? IF you do, of COURSE its at 'the end of the story'. If you complete it halfway, does your character have motivations beyond that? Likewise with lost little sisters, etc, etc. If these are your primary motivations, what do you do when they are resolved? Your character will need a new goal.

There must always be CONFLICT. It's the tension between the way things are in your life, and what you want them to be.

I have very little use for backstory or background.

As a player, my character backgrounds are very sketchy: "Arnaud is a decent swordsman who believes he could someday be a fencing master."

Sometimes the motivations may be a little more involved - for a D&D game many years ago I ran a halfling thief who wanted to start an exotic spell components supply business, frex.

My character is not searching for the sister he never knew. He is not looking to avenge himself on the orcs who killed his family. He's not the bastard son of some mucky-muck. He's just this guy, and the most interesting things in his life are ahead of him - that's his motivation for becoming an adventurer right there.

As a referee I pay very little attention to backstory. A character's relevant backstory begins on the second night of actual play with a recounting of the first night's events.

A player in my games should write as much or as little backstory as she wishes as a personal tool for running her character, but she should not expect me to draw from it during the game. I don't have plots, so 'plot hooks' are wasted on me, and I prefer that players don't write conflicts into their characters which project forward into the game - your character is going to make friends and enemies in short order, so instead of creating a revenge plot whole-cloth, take revenge on someone or something your character met in actual play. "I want to avenge my parents' death!" is nowhere near as interesting to me as, "I want to avenge [fill-in-player-character's-name-here] death!"

In my experience, players have far more stake in the experiences they share at the table than they do in stuff created as part of a character's backstory. Adventurers have skin in the game as a result of actual play unfolding, so I encourage the players to take their motivations from that experience.

I don't like making a detailed history. I would much rather riff on whatever the DM puts in front of me. What usually complicates backstory development (for me) is that I don't know enough about the campaign world.

I will say, 10 years ago I would have been more interested. But I don't have the time to spend writing a detailed backstory which only might be used.

And see thats the thing, if the DM is just going to run what he wants and ONLY MAYBE include elements taken from a characters backstory, history, family members, personal fears, etc Then YES-you might be 'wasting your time'. Of course SOME people just like crafting these kinds of things, so it might be fun to do anyway.

Personally, I like things the other way around. Have your PCs build the charaters they want and determine their backgrounds BEFORE you even think about the campaign of what kind of stories you're going to tell. Take their thoughts in as much as theirs. A character focused on revenge? Work that character into the plot. Player has an idea for an organization? Make use of it. But you need to plan.

As with all things, YMMV

Many players and GMs like extensive backstories full of nice detail. I must say I don't. I like a characters story to be evolving during the campaign, and to develop both backwards and forwards - as the game progresses more and more of the characters' histories are revealed. Much like in a novel, the characters are introduced sketchily and outlined as the story goes on.

This avoids background plots that never happen. A character focused on revenge against a named character that never appears in the story or a character with obligations to an organization that has no role in the plot. Instead, as new plot elements appear in the story, the player can include them in his backstory. So the famous assassin actually killed the orphan character's mother or the rich character that is suddenly haunted by ties to the mob that appeared as a part of the story.

Comments?

 

[Presto2112]

Character backgrounds, for me, have always been more for a player's benefit than the GM's. Personally, when I put a lot of thought and detail into a char background, it fleshes him out more, I know his motivations, I can add little idiosyncracies to his personality.

For example, one dwarf wizard I played had a white opal in place of his right eye as a result of a military training accident, and had his mother turned to a vampire when her mining crew accidentally delved into a drow vampire's crypt. His spellbook did not contain any fire-based spells because in his mind, anyone could create fire, and he respected magic too much to do anything with his spells that could easily be replicated with simple labour or technology.

None of this was actually used in the campaign to move the plot along, but the work I put into this background really helped me enjoy the character more, because I knew him and where he was coming from.

 

[The Shaman]

Have your PCs build the charaters they want and determine their backgrounds BEFORE you even think about the campaign of what kind of stories you're going to tell. Take their thoughts in as much as theirs. A character focused on revenge? Work that character into the plot.

I don't have a story to tell. There is no plot.

There is only what the characters do, and the effect it has on the game-world.

Player has an idea for an organization? Make use of it.

If the player has an idea for an organization, and it's not covered by an existing organization, then she should found it, during actual play.

 

[Haltherrion]

I don't have a story to tell. There is no plot.

There is only what the characters do, and the effect it has on the game-world.If the player has an idea for an organization, and it's not covered by an existing organization, then she should found it, during actual play.

I don't really buy this. No doubt it works for your game but unless all PCs come from generic backgrounds where they knew no one of consequence, were related to no one of consequence, they and/or their family had nothing happen to them of consequence, then this doesn't feel right to me.

PCs don't hatch from a sterile egg or are products of the exact same background. "What the characer does" includes what it did before the game starts. The game is just the point where we start interacting with the characeter in a group. It is a somewhat arbitrary point at that.

I think getting a player to think about who or what their character is and how it acts can be quite useful. It has declining value as the session count goes up but I wouldn't do without it as a player or ref.

 

[The Shaman]

. . . (U)unless all PCs come from generic backgrounds where they knew no one of consequence, were related to no one of consequence, they and/or their family had nothing happen to them of consequence then this doesn't feel right to me.

Arguably that would make them like most people in their societies, but let's set that aside for a moment.

Instead, let's consider this: nothing you write into your character's background ever happened, either. Nothing happens to your character until the game starts.

PCs don't hatch from a sterile egg or are products of the exact same background.

No, but for purposes of playing a roleplaying game, does it really matter? The experiences of 'Bob the Fighter' during the game become his background. His personality develops in play as a result of reacting to his adventures, his backstory begins with a recounting of what happens to him after he sets out on his adventures.

"What the character does" includes what it did before the game starts. The game is just the point where we start interacting with the character in a group. It is a somewhat arbitrary point at that.

It's not an arbitrary point at all. It's the point at which a group of people sat down to play a game together. It's the point at which playing the game becomes a shared experience.

I think getting a player to think about who or what their character is and how it acts can be quite useful. It has declining value as the session count goes up but I wouldn't do without it as a player or ref.

Many referees are fond of citing Helmuth von Moltke - ". . . [N]o plan of operations extends with any certainty beyond the first contact with the main hostile force," paraphrased almost a century later as, "No plan survives contact with the enemy" - to explain what happens when the adventurers actually interact with the game-world, but I've heard very few players express similar sentiments about their characters. The thing is, in my experience, it's no less true for players and their characters than it is for referees and the game-world, and in my opinion that's exactly how it should be, which is why I highlighted the passage in the quote above.

Over the years I've seen players write extensive backstories about their characters which are ignored or become irrelevant after only a few hours of actual play. Your character is what he does in the game. Everything else is wishful thinking.

I like characters which develop in play because they are, like Tennyson's Ulysses, 'a part of all they have met.' More importantly, they are a part of all everyone at the table meets. Too much emphasis on what happened in a character's completely fictional 'past' can work against this, in my experience.

(A corollary to this is one of the reasons I stopped playing d20 games: too much planning for what a character will be twelve levels from now, which can work against responding to the events of the game right now.)

So, there's that.

 

[Glade Riven]

My first character (ever) had a decent sized background (at the request of the GM) - some of which came up later, usually indirectly as the GM expanded on it.

My typical character creation involves creating a personality more so than a background, and then working with the GM to flesh things out so that it fits. Nelzelsubub, for instance, is largly designed to flesh out his quirks as well as explain his bloodline traits and racial stats.

When I've GMed, I've been wanting players to flesh out the characters a little more (for hook mining, etc), but some of the players that I have had getting that info is like pulling teeth.

 

[Haltherrion]

If your quible with backgrounds has more to do with the fact that it is easy to write something into a background that as a player you might not actually use, I suppose that's one thing. But the distinctions you draw below seem overstated to me.

Instead, let's consider this: nothing you write into your character's background ever happened, either. Nothing happens to your character until the game starts.

So you aren't trained pre-game start as a fighter or a wizard? I really don't agree with your assertion. Plenty happens pre-game to your character that matters in game related to definition of your character class, starting gold, etc. Obviously plenty happened to get you to age X, whatever that happens to be for your character and for non-humans, that can be many, many years. Backgrounds allow you to define this in a few sentences or a few paragraphs.

No, but for purposes of playing a roleplaying game, does it really matter? The experiences of 'Bob the Fighter' during the game become his background. His personality develops in play as a result of reacting to his adventures, his backstory begins with a recounting of what happens to him after he sets out on his adventures.It's not an arbitrary point at all.

As I said, as the game goes on, the in-game interactions matter more. But what's the harm in defining some of the pre-game experiences of the character? They obviously did in fact occur unless you mandate that all your PCs must have bland, uninteresting histories.

This isn't too different to my mind, to what a screenwriter or an author does. Does he start his protagonist with no history and everything you know about him is what you read or see going forward with, here's the key part, no reference to anything that occured before the movie or book started? Or are there references to what happened previously?

In all but some literary endeavours, having characters with no reference to background is generally pretty off-putting to the viewer/reader.

It's the point at which a group of people sat down to play a game together. It's the point at which playing the game becomes a shared experience.Many referees are fond of citing Helmuth von Moltke - ". . . [N]o plan of operations extends with any certainty beyond the first contact with the main hostile force," paraphrased almost a century later as, "No plan survives contact with the enemy" - to explain what happens when the adventurers actually interact with the game-world, but I've heard very few players express similar sentiments about their characters. The thing is, in my experience, it's no less true for players and their characters than it is for referees and the game-world, and in my opinion that's exactly how it should be, which is why I highlighted the passage in the quote above.

Yes, I like that quote as well. However, it would be wrong to conclude that he did not make plans. Just that he felt a general needed to be flexible to adapt as events changed. Put into the D&D context, Moltke would be seeming to suggest, make your backgrounds but don't be bound by them. If they get used, great. If they don't get used, no problem.

Just like with a military leader, the backgrounds provide context, some "thinking through" of the character, just as a general tries to think through his initial deployments and foe's reactions. To be knocked flat because your foe does something you didn't think of is bad generalship. So is not having any idea how to cross the river ahead of time. Moltke would hardly have advocated no plans

THere's no attribution for this statement on the wikipedia entry for him but from what is generally known about him, it certainly seems more than plausible:

However, as can be seen from the descriptions of his planning for the war with Austria and the war with France, his planning for war was very detailed and took into account thousands of variables. It is a mistake to think that Moltke thought war plans were of no use (which a simple reading of "No battle plan survives contact with the enemy" would seem to indicate).
​

Over the years I've seen players write extensive backstories about their characters which are ignored or become irrelevant after only a few hours of actual play. Your character is what he does in the game. Everything else is wishful thinking.

That can happen and I have seen it happen with some regularity (for me, maybe 1-2 players in any given gaming group). Those are the ones who also tend to forget their character background and not make use of it but regardless, the greater number who use their backgrounds add a good deal to the fun at our table.

If you tend to run campaigns that last many sessions, I can see why this isn't a big deal for your group although again, I don't see the harm in it. It can help move the character development along in early sessions.

 

[Rel]

So, for Christmas, my wonderful wife got me the Borne Trilogy of movies and we've watched the first two over the last couple nights. It came to me as I was watching that here is a character with LOTS of backstory. He just started off unaware of any of it. The central thrust of the movies is that he is desperately trying to find out who he was and what he has done in the past.

It also brought to mind something that our fellow poster Hobo did in a PbP game a while back, which was to 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. We kicked this idea around in chat one day as the fantasy RPG version of The Hangover. Most of the game was spent with them trying to figure out what had happened to them during the period they couldn't remember and why they had no memory of it.

It also reminded me that I did have a character once who had literally zero backstory. It was an Eberron game and I was playing a Warforged Psion. He was never activated during the war that is central to the setting. He got activated for the first time on the first night of the campaign. He of course had his "programming" (i.e. his various abilities, skills and psionic powers) but no experiences. That was a fun exercise in roleplaying with his central focus being trying to understand his place in the world when he was programed to do a job that no longer existed.

I point up these instances as being exceptions to the rule for my characters and those in the games I run. I think the zero backstory idea can be cool once in a while. But I don't feel that it makes a lot of sense as an every time thing.

 

[Ydars]

I would liken playing an RPG to performing during live improvised theatre, where the plot/story is not written at all and emerges from the interactions between the players on the stage.

When I was studying Comedia del Arte for 'O'level Drama, we learned one thing; you cannot create an entertaining story with the group if you don't have a consistent idea of your character before the performance begins; the more you have to evolve it on stage, the worse the play turns out.

Now of course, time is not so much a factor in an RPG and the audience are the people on the stage.

Having said this, as long as your preparation as a player is all about how your character thinks and reacts and feels and what their goals are then I think preparation is time well spent.

Wasted preparation is when you write a background, hoping your DM will do somthing with it.

A PC's background is solely a tool for a player to contribute to the game; the DM has enough to worry about without trying to weave in a load of player stuff into his game.

 

[The Shaman]

Haltherrion/marcq, forgive me for slicing-an-dicing your post; I want to combine some like thoughts, so I'm reordering things a bit. If I end up distorting your post, please understand that it's not intentional.

Let's dispose of this first.

. . . (I)t would be wrong to conclude that [von Moltke] did not make plans. Just that he felt a general needed to be flexible to adapt as events changed.

Nowhere do I draw such a conclusion or make such an argument nor does the fact that von Moltke was a meticulous planner in any way change his own conclusion that the best-laid schemes o' mice an 'men gang aft agley.

Now let's move on to the heart of our difference.

This isn't too different to my mind, to what a screenwriter or an author does. Does he start his protagonist with no history and everything you know about him is what you read or see going forward with, here's the key part, no reference to anything that occured before the movie or book started? Or are there references to what happened previously?

In all but some literary endeavours, having characters with no reference to background is generally pretty off-putting to the viewer/reader.

The fundamental difference between us is that you keep referrring to story and plot and movies and books and "literary endeavours" and I'm talking about playing a game.

It is perfectly feasible to play a roleplaying game without ever addressing anything an adventurer did before the game began.

One of the characters in the Flashing Blades campaign I'm running began with a one-sentence backstory. By the end of the first night of actual play, he rescued a young acrobat and earned the gratitude of a troupe of commedia dell'arte players, was befriended by a popular courtier and playwright, flirted with a wealthy noblewoman, chased off three dandies who were creating a ruckus, and brought himself to the attention of a pair of nefarious duelists. His sole personality feature specified at the beginning of the game (through a character Secret selected during chargen) is that he has weakness for the ladies, which came into play when he decided to flirt with the noblewoman - everything else flowed from the decisions the player made for the character in the course of actual play.

The character is enmeshed in the game-world not because of his background, but because of what transpired by playing the game. He made choices which have consequences, some potentially beneficial, some potentially perilous, which will carry forward when we sit down to play again in a couple of weeks. This didn't take him writing out a lengthy background or me plotting a story.

What I enjoy most about roleplaying games are the ways in which they are different from stories and movies, so my emphasis is not on what makes a good story, but what makes a good game.

So you aren't trained pre-game start as a fighter or a wizard? I really don't agree with your assertion. Plenty happens pre-game to your character that matters in game related to definition of your character class, starting gold, etc. Obviously plenty happened to get you to age X, whatever that happens to be for your character and for non-humans, that can be many, many years. Backgrounds allow you to define this in a few sentences or a few paragraphs.

As I already noted in a previous post, players are welcome to write as much or as little backstory as they like if it helps them roleplay - a character's backstory is the player's tool for running the character.

Where I see a bright line is creating conflicts which extend from the character's backstory forward into the game. There will be plenty of conflicts which arise from playing the game, conflicts in which all of the players and their characters share.

If the characters want to create something in the game-world, they can do it in-character in actual play. They can add to or change anything in the game-world through their characters, provided they possess or gain the necessary resources and skills and are favored with a little bit of (or, depending on how foolhardy they are, a lot of) luck. They can, and should, respond to the conflicts their actions create in the game-world; they'll make friends, make enemies, join groups, found groups, or whatever in-character, and those are the ones which matter ecause they are part of playing the game together and the shared experience which comes from that.

So what did that fighter or wizard do for those first years of their fictional lives? As much or as little as the player likes, provided there is a clear distinction between the fiction created whole-cloth by the player before the game starts and the events of the game played by all the players and the referee together at the table. My advice to players is that what your character is going to do is much more important than what your character's done - goals are great, but keep them general at the start, and let them evolve as the game unfolds - and that the most interesting things in your character's life are ahead of her, not behind her.

But what's the harm in defining some of the pre-game experiences of the character? They obviously did in fact occur unless you mandate that all your PCs must have bland, uninteresting histories.

This is why I switched the order of the posts around: if I'm understanding you correctly, your focus on story and literature makes fiction about a character as 'real' as what happens in actual play with a group of players.

But I don't equate playing a roleplaying game with literature. I don't believe that an extensive (or any, really) character background is necessary to enjoy the game; I do believe, on the other hand, that the experiences of playing the game serve to define a character better than a bit of fiction created out-of-game, in large part because those in-character, in-play experiences are 'real.'