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

[Nagol]

Nothing in a background requires anything to happen. If you are looking at it like that no wonder you dislike them. Luckily, that's not the case at all.

But if your plan involve the characters traveling to an island, you can get some instant buy-in if it's Bob's Island.

Just like if you had a plot that needed a horde of low CR monsters, and one charater's village was wiped out by gnolls - picking gnolls instead of hobgoblins or whatever is no skin off your nose, and can get the player invested. If gnolls never comes up there's no harm, no requirement that you must use them. Just a way that you can get the players more involved with a fantastic return for the work involved.

Need to come up with a trustworthy questgiver, maybe the mentor of one of the characters? It is the less work for you since you already have a name and some details, and establishes it immediately and gives the character a reason to want to do the mission.

A background literally doesn't detract anything or require anything, it's nothing but bonus for the DM if they have a place to fit some of it in.

And so long as the DM treats it as such, great! Those players that want that sort of buy-in get an opportunity and those that don't lose nothing.

Some DMs don't treat it as such.

I've had some DMs that claimed falsely that any player that didn't provide a background just wanted to be psychotic murdering hobos and would attempt to force players into providing them via in-game punishment (unluckiest PC), metagame punishment (reduced xp), assigning a background without consultation (because that makes everything better!), or dropping the non-conforming player.

Other DMs use the opportunity to inject extra advantages and privileges for PCs that catch their fancy. So providing a background is akin to buying a lottery ticket. Sometimes it pays off handsomely.

Still other DMs feel the need to 'fiddle' and implant secrets and drama inside of any background provided to the point the players become exhausted and unwilling to trust anyone from their past. "Hey Bob! I'll bet your doting mom is actually the centuries-old lich bent of erasing all life this time! Nah! My bet is she'll turn out to be the daughter of a devil/demon hybrid that's hiding on the Prime until she can gather the forces to usurp both her parents and will need to use me as a sacrifice for the final acquisition!"

 

[prabe]

And so long as the DM treats it as such, great! Those players that want that sort of buy-in get an opportunity and those that don't lose nothing.

Some DMs don't treat it as such.

Your examples have a distressing air of "voice of experience." I'd call them three examples of Bad DMing, personally.

 

[Nagol]

Your examples have a distressing air of "voice of experience." I'd call them three examples of Bad DMing, personally.

That's because they all are true-to-life examples.

As for whether their bad DMIng, I think the first is absolutely. Using the DM's power to attempt to coerce a player or to dump an otherwise perfectly acceptable player is unwarranted.

The other two depend strongly on player reaction. There was one Runequest game where the GM acted like the second example and the player were perfectly fine and happy to get 'given' stuff because of their backgrounds. Once the players caught on, there was an explosion in 'secret princes' and 'wizard experiment' origins.

As for the third, some players thrive on that crap. The real problem comes when the DM provides it for a player that does not. This one is also the main horror story players reluctant to provide backgrounds have given me over the years.

 

[prabe]

That's because they all are true-to-life examples.

As for whether their bad DMIng, I think the first is absolutely. Using the DM's power to attempt to coerce a player or to dump an otherwise perfectly acceptable player is unwarranted.

The other two depend strongly on player reaction. There was one Runequest game where the GM acted like the second example and the player were perfectly fine and happy to get 'given' stuff because of their backgrounds. Once the players caught on, there was an explosion in 'secret princes' and 'wizard experiment' origins.

As for the third, some players thrive on that crap. The real problem comes when the DM provides it for a player that does not. This one is also the main horror story players reluctant to provide backgrounds have given me over the years.

The second example smacks of favoritism to me. I prefer the detailed backstory to be optional, and if it's optional I don't feel super comfortable giving strong bennies to the players/characters that opt in. Feels too much like punishing (by comparison) those who don't. Obviously, that might work out differently, based on the table.

As for the third, I'm happy not to have any edgelords at my tables. Also, if someone gives me a background that seems to beg for that, that just means I absolutely won't do it. (The masochist says, "Hurt me." The sadist replies, "No.")

 

[hawkeyefan]

Dont tell me. I play with big groups, chances are the other 5 players at the table dont want to show up and watch you play out your background story or follow along while you shoot " bobs travel documentary the D&Ding." If that island happens to come up anyway in the course of the campaign and people are trying to decide whether to go there or not then sure feel free to bring it up to the other players as a reason for them to agree to go or not.

But if the rest of the group doesnt want to go there then its not happening. And ya know thats okay. People set off on certain paths in life for reasons that are never fulfilled all the time. Just ask everyone with a job that has nothing to do with their college major (theres a lot of us).

I always find this kind of reply interesting. Why would the other players object to a potential adventure simply because it's tied to one of the PC's background? Yet, if the GM introduced the idea of a mysterious island, they'd all likely be on board.

The objection seems to be the connection to one character. Why is that?

 

[prabe]

I always find this kind of reply interesting. Why would the other players object to a potential adventure simply because it's tied to one of the PC's background? Yet, if the GM introduced the idea of a mysterious island, they'd all likely be on board.

The objection seems to be the connection to one character. Why is that?

My best guess is that it feels to the other players as though the player whose character's background is being spotlighted is being more central to the adventure? Which might be literally true but doesn't have to matter (though if it matters at a given table it matters).

 

[hawkeyefan]

My best guess is that it feels to the other players as though the player whose character's background is being spotlighted is being more central to the adventure? Which might be literally true but doesn't have to matter (though if it matters at a given table it matters).

Yeah, that's the only thing I can think of, but I'm curious if that's the case. I'm also curious why that matters.....seems like no big deal to me. I mean, if I choose not to offer any background material for my PC, then I probably should expect that my background isn't going to come up.

I mean, as with most things, table expectations are key. But this seems like such a non issue to me. I've played in plenty of games where the focus was on another PC's goals or background. Didn't diminish my enjoyment at all. I really don't get it.

 

[prabe]

Yeah, that's the only thing I can think of, but I'm curious if that's the case. I'm also curious why that matters.....seems like no big deal to me. I mean, if I choose not to offer any background material for my PC, then I probably should expect that my background isn't going to come up.

I mean, as with most things, table expectations are key. But this seems like such a non issue to me. I've played in plenty of games where the focus was on another PC's goals or background. Didn't diminish my enjoyment at all. I really don't get it.

Yeah, not something likely to matter to me, either, if it's another character's backstory being used. Different tables are different.

 

[Blue]

I've had some DMs that claimed falsely that any player that didn't provide a background just wanted to be psychotic murdering hobos and would attempt to force players into providing them via in-game punishment (unluckiest PC), metagame punishment (reduced xp), assigning a background without consultation (because that makes everything better!), or dropping the non-conforming player.

That's a quirk of the DM. A rather zealous quirk. Unless it was part of Session 0 that backgrounds were mandatory. It doesn't really have anything to do with the concept of backstories, it's about that DM.

Other DMs use the opportunity to inject extra advantages and privileges for PCs that catch their fancy. So providing a background is akin to buying a lottery ticket. Sometimes it pays off handsomely.

Depends what you mean. If you are talking about DM favoritism, that again is part of the DM and they will find a way to justify it no matter what.

If you are talking about something like "we can trust this person, they are my long time mentor" so you know a questgiver isn't trying to screw you over, then yes - tying a character into the world has given the DM a method to not be distrustful. By the same token, that mentor can easily act as a hook if kidnapped or whatever.

Still other DMs feel the need to 'fiddle' and implant secrets and drama inside of any background provided to the point the players become exhausted and unwilling to trust anyone from their past. "Hey Bob! I'll bet your doting mom is actually the centuries-old lich bent of erasing all life this time! Nah! My bet is she'll turn out to be the daughter of a devil/demon hybrid that's hiding on the Prime until she can gather the forces to usurp both her parents and will need to use me as a sacrifice for the final acquisition!"

A player giving a backstory should absolutely expect it will be mined for hooks. That's one of the biggest reasons why you create a backstory. You are creating NPCs, locations and organizations and giving them to the DM to use. Just like any other ones, that does mean that they are things you may not know about them.

Thoguh it sounds like a DM is being too heavy-handed in doing that in your example above, especially if they are not trying to true it with what was written about the character's mother.

 

[gepetto]

Nothing in a background requires anything to happen. If you are looking at it like that no wonder you dislike them. Luckily, that's not the case at all.

But if your plan involve the characters traveling to an island, you can get some instant buy-in if it's Bob's Island.

Just like if you had a plot that needed a horde of low CR monsters, and one charater's village was wiped out by gnolls - picking gnolls instead of hobgoblins or whatever is no skin off your nose, and can get the player invested. If gnolls never comes up there's no harm, no requirement that you must use them. Just a way that you can get the players more involved with a fantastic return for the work involved.

Need to come up with a trustworthy questgiver, maybe the mentor of one of the characters? It is the less work for you since you already have a name and some details, and establishes it immediately and gives the character a reason to want to do the mission.

A background literally doesn't detract anything or require anything, it's nothing but bonus for the DM if they have a place to fit some of it in.

A. If I need to delve into a backstory for motivation then I've done a terrible job building up the adventure in the first place. There should be a reason in the here and now why they want to go there.

B. Still doesnt help with the other 4 players at the table. Its not their background after all. So the problem of buy-in still exists for 4/5ths of the table. Not a good ratio.

C. This means its actually MORE work for me, not less. Because I need to plan on the backstory AND something to interest the rest of the group (which reason i would have needed anyway) AND somehow make those two things make sense together.