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

[gepetto]

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?

Because it seems like your catering to one person more then the rest for one thing. And because that characters backstory has nothing to do with anyone else. So why should the other characters risk their lives for it and put their other goals on hold to chase after one guys past?

When your playing a sandbox campaign theres usually lots of things the party can choose to go do at any point in time. So why put the goals of the whole group behind the goals of one person?

If that player can sell the rest of the party on chasing down their personal demons then by all means sure. But I'm not making that sales pitch for them and I'm certainly not forcing anyone else to do it.

 

[hawkeyefan]

Because it seems like your catering to one person more then the rest for one thing. And because that characters backstory has nothing to do with anyone else. So why should the other characters risk their lives for it and put their other goals on hold to chase after one guys past?

When your playing a sandbox campaign theres usually lots of things the party can choose to go do at any point in time. So why put the goals of the whole group behind the goals of one person?

If that player can sell the rest of the party on chasing down their personal demons then by all means sure. But I'm not making that sales pitch for them and I'm certainly not forcing anyone else to do it.

I'm not saying you have to put one thing ahead of any other. If the party has multiple goals already, then I don't see the problem with adding this one to the list.

Or you could combine goals. The party wants to find the lost Amulet of MacGuffin....hey, it turns out it's on the Mysterious Island that the PC wants to visit. Or something similar.

I suppose I'm used to my PCs having their own motivations, and with them helping each other with those that I don't see this concern about catering, or spotlight. I mean, as a player, I'm usually as down for one adventure as I am another.....it doesn't really matter to me if we hear about the adventure from a NPC, or find a map or other in game cue, or if it's something that a player introduces through PC goals and/or background. Either way, my character is going along.

 

[prabe]

Obviously, what works at one table isn't necessarily going to work at another, but ...

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.

I see using the backstories as a way to tie the PCs to the campaign and the setting. These characters came from somewhere before campaign started. Once they've done some things together, I start having their backstories lead to adventures, and they get to choose the order. Note the plural, 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.

Did you note the plural above? Here's where it pays off. There are multiple backstories paying off at different levels at once. Also, since the backstories start cropping up as adventure hooks after the party is actually a party, they're tied-enough to each other that they're willing to work to help with one another's backstories.

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.

If they're tied together, and they're choosing the sequence in a way that makes sense to the party as a whole, these two things are one thing, and away you go. It's not less work, but it doesn't feel like more work to me, either.

 

[Panda-s1]

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.

uh, not exactly sure how these are mutually exclusive.

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.

it's not like everything ever needs to center around one character either. giving just one character personal motivation is as simple as "the bad wizard is going to DESTROY THE KINGDOM O: also he kidnapped the fighter's dad or something." some people don't feel like they need personal motivations for their character other than there's loot involved, no everyone's gonna get offended one party member got some sort personal tie in to the campaign, and some don't even care at all.

Because it seems like your catering to one person more then the rest for one thing. And because that characters backstory has nothing to do with anyone else. So why should the other characters risk their lives for it and put their other goals on hold to chase after one guys past?

When your playing a sandbox campaign theres usually lots of things the party can choose to go do at any point in time. So why put the goals of the whole group behind the goals of one person?

If that player can sell the rest of the party on chasing down their personal demons then by all means sure. But I'm not making that sales pitch for them and I'm certainly not forcing anyone else to do it.

I really don't get how this is an additional hurdle for character motivation. if one player says "oh hey let's do X 'cause my village is about to be destroyed" that should be enough for other players to go along with it so long as basic rewards are still involved.

 

[aco175]

I have my next campaign starting in Phandalin for the Essentials box. I'm planning to have each PC list one NPC in town that they know. It won't be their whole back story, but someone they know that I can take and feed information through, or place in trouble, or use for adventure. Maybe a new person in town or a miner or such. Not sure if splitting the back story like this make a difference on the discussion.

 

[Nagol]

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.



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.



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.

Somehow you attributed my quotes to Geppeto. I have no idea how.

And that prior mining is the primary complaint from players that are reluctant to provide backstories. Their histories were modified, sometimes quite heavily by DMs without their knowledge or consent. And the DMs changed things that for the DM seemed appropriate, but which impacted how the players felt about their PC and backstory.

It's not that shocking that if you ask for me to produce X and I in fact produce X and expect that X is true with respect to my character, changing it to Y may meet with resistance. The greater the introduction/change associated with X and by necessity the ripples those changes should cause, the greater the resistance.

 

[Tonguez]

I set up the game premise and then give the PCs a place in it

• You are all working for the Holy Church ...
• you are members of Orbrils Travelling Circus ...
• you are all gathered in the City of Makwembo to honour the coronation of the Rain Queen ...

Then its “okay, now telll me how you got to be there and what you do...”
as they talk it might identify signifigant NPC contacts, subgoals and connections which can be used

 

[Blue]

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.

Please, replace the word "need" with "have the opportunity to".

You acknowledge in the same sentence that you build up the adventure in the first place to motivate the characters. It is just flat out wrong to say "I can have all my normal tools for doing this" or "I can have all my normaal tools for doing this plus one more" and prtetend that the second one is inferior. It may be the same or better, but it is never worse.

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.

Which unless all fo youor characters are so generic that they all have the same motivations is a factor anyway.

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.

See my answer to the previous one. Unless all of the characters you run are bland cookie cutters that haqve exactly the same motivations, you are already doing this. Claiming "I have to do the same thing I do now" isn't more work.

 

[Blue]

Because it seems like your catering to one person more then the rest for one thing. And because that characters backstory has nothing to do with anyone else. So why should the other characters risk their lives for it and put their other goals on hold to chase after one guys past?

When your playing a sandbox campaign theres usually lots of things the party can choose to go do at any point in time. So why put the goals of the whole group behind the goals of one person?

If that player can sell the rest of the party on chasing down their personal demons then by all means sure. But I'm not making that sales pitch for them and I'm certainly not forcing anyone else to do it.

Please stop trying to twist it. Getting player buy-in because you are including something from their background is not and never was ignoring the rest of the players and their goals.

Read what the heck we are saying, instead of skimming it and answering as if we had coughed up your preconceived biases that you had already decided against.

 

[Lanefan]

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.

As long as there some sort of implied guarantee that each PC's goals or background will get a chance at vaguely equal airplay, all is good.

But if it's the same PC, or the same few PCs, whose backgrounds keep coming up in play and-or even driving play, that's not good for the long-term health of the game; particularly if other players' PCs have goals and backgrounds that aren't getting any airtime, or they feel they have to fight for said airtime.

Favouritism is bad.