DM question: how much do you incorporate PC backgrounds into the campaign?

[gepetto]

No it doesn't. Read @hawkeyefan's posts. Or mine. We're not talking about either of the things you describe here.

I don't get this at all. DL is more interesting because Tanis's former lover is now his enemy and a dragon hierarch (or whatever they're called - it's been a few decades). LotR is driven by the fact that Gandalf has backstory with Saruman, Aragorn (via his descent from Isildur) with Sauron, Frodo (via his relationship to Bilbo) with Gollum, etc.

Evocative fiction tends to relate to the character, not just to cyphers chasing after McGuffins.

I couldnt disagree more. DL was actively damaged by that bit of unlikely and unbelievable cheese and would have been much better without it.

And LoTR is driven by people not wanting a tyranical force of evil to win and enslave/murder all the good guys. The only backstory that matters in the slightest is Aragorns, and thats exactly the kind of "this guys a special snowflake and your all his sidekicks" adventure thats fine in a novel but a problem in a group activity. No one wants to be the sidekick to your fated hero.

 

[gepetto]

@gepetto - If the default assumption is that whatever story the player comes up with vis a vis their backstory is always going to be less cool and less interesting than whatever you as DM have planned then the issue is with you as the DM, and not so much the quality of the player backstory. I'm very much with @pemerton on this - evocative fiction is character driven, not plot driven. That doesn't mean you don't have a plot, but you also need strong characters and strong ways of connecting those characters to the narrative in multiple ways. You work character driven arcs into the larger plot arcs and make sure everyone gets their moment in the sun. This is much easier if there is some established fiction about how the characters know each other, who they might have in common, and what their core drives and motivations are.

All that said, if both you and your party enjoy running backstory free characters dropped into a plot based adventure, that's fine. If you guys are enjoying yourselves you aren't doing something wrong. However, that doesn't mean that using backstory/background in the way other posters are suggesting is bad, it's just not something that you think you want to do.

You dont get a strong character or anything interesting from a couple paragraphs about back when you were a turnip farmer. A strong character develops from choices that are made IN PLAY in response to the events of the world and the challenges you actually overcome, not things you just wrote down that you succeeded or failed at.

And no those backstories are never interesting. At best they are cheesefilled cliches and at worst they just stupid narcissistic puffery about why your super special. Blech.

Wow. You’ve managed to express both selfishness (What I want is most important to the game, regardless of how anyone else may feel) and insults (calling their friend part of a peanut gallery) in one post.

I strive for efficiency. What I want is the most important. I'm putting in the most time and work so I'm the most important. If a player drops I can replace them in 2 hours, if I'm not there theres no game.

One of the biggest failings of a DM is when they assume their idea is always better than any players idea. It’s arrogant, often untrue, and leads to people feeling like they are being treated like kids with no input. A bad recipe for a social game where everyone is supposed to have fun.

My ideas are better. Thats why they come back to me over and over to run the games but all groan whenever someone else wants to take a turn and start pushing to change back after a few weeks. Its a meritocracy and I'm the proven winner with the track record to show it.

I can say with confidence (and I’m sure many will agree with me here) that some of the best sessions were when the players did something unexpected, or unusual, or creative that wasn’t preplanned by me. It makes the players feel involved, and like their decisions matter to the game world.

A back story is the definition of pre-planned. Theres nothing spontaneous about it and they are almost never creative or unusual. Nor is that a good way to "make their decisions matter" which is sort of a stupid thing that gets said in forums anyway. If they survived then obviously their decisions mattered. If they had made the wrong ones they would have failed.

No one is saying you have to cater to the players and change core game world NPCs or events just because a player wants to

Actually they are saying exactly that. Thats what incorporating a backstory is.

but players should have the ability to play their PCs how they want.

They are free to roleplay their character however they want. They cannot re-write the rest of the world according to their whims.

If they want to go break out a cousin from prison, then you as the DM should facilitate that and treat the world as a living world that reacts to that. There is a reason why railroading is universally regarded as a bad thing.

No I should not. If they can convince the rest of the party to indulge their little sidequest then I will go along with what the majority of the party wants to do. Because its everyones free time, not just the one characters. I definitely should not be putting my thumb on the scale with regards to the parties choice though one way or the other.

And railroading is NOT universally regarded as a bad thing. Lots of players like a degree of railroading, even a fairly heavy degree and lots of GMs do to.

 

[uzirath]

if I'm presenting situations that would be identical regardless of the players' individual PCs then I'm not doing my job as a GM.

I agree. In my GURPS games, even in the less realistic "dungeon fantasy" mode, I always use the advantages and disadvantages of the PCs to inform my game prep. I'm starting a new campaign this weekend, for example. One of the characters has taken the disadvantage, "Vow (Never refuse a challenge to combat)," that fits in with her particular backstory. The fact that she has taken the disadvantage indicates that she will enjoy having this particular vow come up in play. I don't pre-script everything, by any means, but I'm certainly going to provide social opportunities where this might plausibly arise. (Not too hard in a faux-Viking setting!) This will not only be fun for her, but it gives me a hook that I can use to introduce interesting NPCs in the future.

Other PCs similarly have other disadvantages or patrons or allies that may come into play as the campaign evolves. I would be scratching my head to some degree without having that material to work with.

 

[Nagol]

No it doesn't. Read @hawkeyefan's posts. Or mine. We're not talking about either of the things you describe here.

I don't get this at all. DL is more interesting because Tanis's former lover is now his enemy and a dragon hierarch (or whatever they're called - it's been a few decades). LotR is driven by the fact that Gandalf has backstory with Saruman, Aragorn (via his descent from Isildur) with Sauron, Frodo (via his relationship to Bilbo) with Gollum, etc.

Evocative fiction tends to relate to the character, not just to cyphers chasing after McGuffins.

Your job and my job obviously differ. I would agree when running FATE or Champions that the situations depend on the PCs. The system mechanics and character creation almost make it mandatory.

When I run D&D, the situations start entirely indifferent to the PCs. How those situations change will depend on PC choices, stratagems, and levels of success. I've run several groups through exactly the same starting situations and enjoyed watching how the tables diverged.

 

[hawkeyefan]

You dont get a strong character or anything interesting from a couple paragraphs about back when you were a turnip farmer. A strong character develops from choices that are made IN PLAY in response to the events of the world and the challenges you actually overcome, not things you just wrote down that you succeeded or failed at.

And no those backstories are never interesting. At best they are cheesefilled cliches and at worst they just stupid narcissistic puffery about why your super special. Blech.

I feel like you're assuming the worst possible version of the concept. Or course it could be bad. So could the GM's ideas. We shouldn't assume the worst when we discuss these things, or no one would ever get anywhere.

When I'm talking about the idea of incorporating backstory, it's not about the PC's life as a turnip farmer prior to the start of play. Do you always have play begin with PCs having some sort of mundane place in the world that they leave behind due to the call of adventure? I mean, that's a strong trope in this kind of fiction, so I think there's absolutely a place for it....but does it apply to al the PCs? In every game?

Isn't that...to use your phrase.....unbelievably cheesy?

I kind of assume a variety of backgrounds and histories for the PCs. Perhaps one has been a caravan guard, perhaps another is a street urchin, and a third is an apprentice of some kind. These are all perfectly mundane starting points much like your turnip farmer....but there's also room to expand on each much more readily than the turnip farmer. Where has the caravan guard been? Who has he met? What happened on his last job? For the urchin, is he at all connected to the local thieves' guild? If not, how do they look at his petty crimes? Who has he stolen from? For the apprentice, what craft is he learning? Who is his master? Why is he heading out into the world; on some quest from his master, or must he now make his own name?

There's no reason that these things need to be boring, or that the GM can't incorporate them into the story. These don't have to be stories about why "Only this urchin can save the world" kind of fated hero tropes that you seem to think they must be. It's just about creating a place in the world where the PC has been, and which will continue to shape things, even if the PC leaves it behind.

As you say, there should be meaningful choices made in play. Having a backstory of some kind helps grant context to those decisions that may not exist otherwise.

 

[gepetto]

I feel like you're assuming the worst possible version of the concept. Or course it could be bad. So could the GM's ideas. We shouldn't assume the worst when we discuss these things, or no one would ever get anywhere.

Yes but if my ideas are bad no one has fun, the game falls apart and we all go home. If a players ideas are bad its usually not that hard to just ignore the bad stuff without any real problems.

When I'm talking about the idea of incorporating backstory, it's not about the PC's life as a turnip farmer prior to the start of play. Do you always have play begin with PCs having some sort of mundane place in the world that they leave behind due to the call of adventure? I mean, that's a strong trope in this kind of fiction, so I think there's absolutely a place for it....but does it apply to al the PCs? In every game?

Thats pretty much what they all break down to yeah. Every supposedly awesome idea from a player really just breaks to down to either "forced to go out on the road" or "got bored and sought adventure". Theres really only so many origin stories.

Isn't that...to use your phrase.....unbelievably cheesy?

The entire concept of wandering adventurer is cheesy and kind of ridiculous. At best your a rootless vagabond and a worst a roving murder band of psychos. Its something we have to overlook most of the time in this hobby.

I kind of assume a variety of backgrounds and histories for the PCs. Perhaps one has been a caravan guard, perhaps another is a street urchin, and a third is an apprentice of some kind. These are all perfectly mundane starting points much like your turnip farmer....but there's also room to expand on each much more readily than the turnip farmer. Where has the caravan guard been? Who has he met? What happened on his last job? For the urchin, is he at all connected to the local thieves' guild? If not, how do they look at his petty crimes? Who has he stolen from? For the apprentice, what craft is he learning? Who is his master? Why is he heading out into the world; on some quest from his master, or must he now make his own name?

You could actually do all that with a turnip farmer too. Just to be a smart ass. His farm could be on the frontier and after harvest he takes the cart around to nearby farms and villages to sell, making connections and having petty adventures. Mundane is mundane and every job involves some opportunity to meet people from other walks of life and do other interesting things from time to time.

There's no reason that these things need to be boring, or that the GM can't incorporate them into the story. These don't have to be stories about why "Only this urchin can save the world" kind of fated hero tropes that you seem to think they must be. It's just about creating a place in the world where the PC has been, and which will continue to shape things, even if the PC leaves it behind.

But they ARE boring. Thats why you dont play D&D "the caravan guarding" where you spend all day rolling spot checks for trouble and going months at a time without finding any and occasionally roll a fort check to endure hemoroids from the buckboard of your wagon and blisters on your feet. With thrilling social encounters like "trying to get seconds at supper" and "get the boss off your ass".

Nevermind the grim and depressing nature of "urchin, the starveling" where you can attempt to steal enough pocket change to survive every day and endure thrilling chases with the city guard rousting you out of your box under the bridge when you try to sleep, watching your friends and acquaintances slowly doing worse and worse things to survive. Maybe we could throw in a little child sex trafficking and spiraling drug addiction. Really bring that background into the game. I'm sure theres a whole cast of unseemly characters from the tragic background I could introduce. But thats not really the kind of game I want to play in.

As you say, there should be meaningful choices made in play. Having a backstory of some kind helps grant context to those decisions that may not exist otherwise.

But its for you the player. You decide that because you were a starving urchin you look at the world a certain way or because you were a town guard you have certain priorities and prejudices. Those are roleplaying guiderails for the player to choose to follow as closely as they want to. Not for me to strong arm into the game.

 

[hawkeyefan]

Yes but if my ideas are bad no one has fun, the game falls apart and we all go home. If a players ideas are bad its usually not that hard to just ignore the bad stuff without any real problems.

I'm sure you've had bad ideas.....or at least, ideas that would be on par with what your players may offer.....and everyone's managed. Every GM is going to have some off nights, or ideas that don't play the way they hoped.

Thats pretty much what they all break down to yeah. Every supposedly awesome idea from a player really just breaks to down to either "forced to go out on the road" or "got bored and sought adventure". Theres really only so many origin stories.

I think there's a ton of options. Sure, there may be some common elements, or some archetypes that appear more often, and that's fine....but there's always some way to make a character unique, whether it's in play or prior to play.

The entire concept of wandering adventurer is cheesy and kind of ridiculous. At best your a rootless vagabond and a worst a roving murder band of psychos. Its something we have to overlook most of the time in this hobby.

Orrrrrr.....you could try something different that maybe removes that problem?

You could actually do all that with a turnip farmer too. Just to be a smart ass. His farm could be on the frontier and after harvest he takes the cart around to nearby farms and villages to sell, making connections and having petty adventures. Mundane is mundane and every job involves some opportunity to meet people from other walks of life and do other interesting things from time to time.

Sure, I selected mundane options that might offer more than the average turnip farmer. But there are also far less mundane options that you could use.

What if the caravan guard witnessed the slaughter of the crown prince by strange shadowy beings? What if the urchin is actually the baseborn child of the king? And what if the apprentice knows of the dark threat that is looming over the kingdom?

Their backstories could connect them in meaningful ways that play into the idea that the GM has. And you may call it coincidence or cheesy, I suppose, but that's how people tend to meet.....because circumstances draw them together.

 

[Sacrosanct]

if I'm not there theres no game.

There was a lot I could have replied to, like the numerous factual errors you have. But really I only need to reply to this one.

Hate to tell you this, but if you DM the way you describe you DM, I'm pretty sure they do game without you. But they never tell you or invite you so you never know.

 

[R_J_K75]

The party background and their exploits are always more interesting than the background of an individual PC, worse yet is listening to the player telling it. Whenever I tried to incorporate a characters/PC backstory into a campaign it always seemed force and honestly none were really that good.

 

[Fenris-77]

@gepetto - We're back to the tremendous difference between background and backstory. A couple of paragraphs of backstory might be interesting, but often isn't. Background is different. Background might include that backstory, but could/should include a bunch if other stuff that is very useful. Who the character knows, both enemies and friends, what factions and groups are in play, important decisions the character has made, and perhaps most importantly, character drives and motivations. That last bit is lightly indexed by the existing 5e Inspiration rules, but it isn't that useful. Those things taken together are a wonderful planning tool, and some great games run on just that, with no plot planning to speak of from the GM.

On a separate note, I get how hard it is to let go of always thinking you're the smartest guy in the room. Most people who DM probably have that issue at some point, and I know I have. Most players have something to add to a campaign, and some players, invested players, are a virtual goldmine that shouldn't be ignored. YMMV with your group, but that doesn't make it not true generally.