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

[prabe]

I mean can you really get away with not addressing background or backstory in a campaign? every character has a place in the world, no matter how small, and unless they literally came into existence right as the campaign started it would follow they have a history in the world.

Run an adventure path. At least the Paizo ones I've played in, the characters basically don't matter as more than bundles of statistics. Part of that might be that at this point I'm about done with PF 1E, of course.

 

[Panda-s1]

Run an adventure path. At least the Paizo ones I've played in, the characters basically don't matter as more than bundles of statistics. Part of that might be that at this point I'm about done with PF 1E, of course.

I disagree. I know at least the early adventure paths had player's guides that had stuff like background feats to help incorporate your character into the setting.

 

[prabe]

I disagree. I know at least the early adventure paths had player's guides that had stuff like background feats to help incorporate your character into the setting.

And I've chosen them, and no part of any character's background or backstory (of mine, anyway) has ever come up, in the four-ish APs I've played any of. The things that happen in the APs happen regardless of which characters are being played, so of course the character backgrounds/backstories are at least less relevant than in a homebrew campaign where the DM is connecting available stories to the characters' backstories.

 

[Panda-s1]

And I've chosen them, and no part of any character's background or backstory (of mine, anyway) has ever come up, in the four-ish APs I've played any of. The things that happen in the APs happen regardless of which characters are being played, so of course the character backgrounds/backstories are at least less relevant than in a homebrew campaign where the DM is connecting available stories to the characters' backstories.

I mean is it still out of the question for the DM to change things a little to make PCs better connected to the story?

 

[prabe]

I mean is it still out of the question for the DM to change things a little to make PCs better connected to the story?

It's not out of the question at all. It's not the way the APs are written, and it's not the way they've been run. Even though the one GM is frantically re-writing the one he's running us through so it makes some amount of sense, he's not particularly doing so to make the characters more involved. He's been trying to solve internal-logic problems more than anything else, as I understand it (and I still might have blown up the AP, by asking one question).

 

[Panda-s1]

It's not out of the question at all. It's not the way the APs are written, and it's not the way they've been run. Even though the one GM is frantically re-writing the one he's running us through so it makes some amount of sense, he's not particularly doing so to make the characters more involved. He's been trying to solve internal-logic problems more than anything else, as I understand it (and I still might have blown up the AP, by asking one question).

remind me why people think adventure paths are great okay but really even lost mine of phandelver gives better incentives and hooks for players to be directly involved with the npc's from the beginning.

 

[prabe]

remind me why people think adventure paths are great okay but really even lost mine of phandelver gives better incentives and hooks for players to be directly involved with the npc's from the beginning.

Might do. I haven't played or run anything published for 5E. My experience with APs is with Paizo's. I struggle to make enough sense of published adventures, so I don't run them, and the lone 5E campaign I'm in is a homebrew setting.

 

[Panda-s1]

Might do. I haven't played or run anything published for 5E. My experience with APs is with Paizo's. I struggle to make enough sense of published adventures, so I don't run them, and the lone 5E campaign I'm in is a homebrew setting.

the pre-generated characters in the starter kit had backgrounds that would tie you directly to the setting. the dwarf fighter was explicitly related to some of the plot-relevant dwarf npc's as well.

 

[prabe]

the pre-generated characters in the starter kit had backgrounds that would tie you directly to the setting. the dwarf fighter was explicitly related to some of the plot-relevant dwarf npc's as well.

I've heard good things about it, so I'm not surprised. I gather it's more the exception than the rule, even among 5E Adventure Books, though.

 

[Lanefan]

I will go as to say that every DM running a homebrew campaign that doesn't incorporate backstories is ignoring valuable tools and making their job harder. You don't need to use them, but why wouldn't you use them when they are full of help for the small price of reading a few pages per charactrer, much less time then you'd spend prepping a single session but with long term payouts.

I run homebrew, but trying to get some players (past and present) to do backstories would be largely similar to trying to squeeze water from a stone.

This would leave me-as-DM in the unpleasant position of either having to ignore the backstories that did get done, or unduly favouring/focusing on those PCs with backstories over those without. Never mind some players tend to go through characters at a rather rapid rate...

If everyone was willing and enthused about doing backstories that'd be different.