How much back story for a low-level PC?

[Desdichado]

After the campaign, though, the player who wrote the complex double-agent background said that in order to prevent a lich-mom type scenario, he would write a background so detailed, yet so mundane, that it would be impossible for me to come up with anything bad. On the other side, everybody else said that they would go for the “blank slate” background to prevent a lich-mom scenario.

Huh. Really? Is this common? I mean, to me, that sounds like the perfect use of backstory.

Is this whole "If it's bad for my character, it's bad for me!" mentality common? Most of the people I game with pretty clearly understand that what's bad for their characters is (usually) tons of fun for the players. Who wants a game where the characters just waltz through life without encountering tough times? Tough times are the only interesting stories to tell.

 

[Nagol]

Huh. Really? Is this common? I mean, to me, that sounds like the perfect use of backstory.

Is this whole "If it's bad for my character, it's bad for me!" mentality common? Most of the people I game with pretty clearly understand that what's bad for their characters is (usually) tons of fun for the players. Who wants a game where the characters just waltz through life without encountering tough times? Tough times are the only interesting stories to tell.

Where I see the story as a typical example of DM dickery.

A player didn't want the drama of dealing with stuff from the past was pushed by the DM into adding some mild details to her history. The DM then twisted those details into a adventure dealing with loss, separation, and hate-filled family in a way that didn't make sense for the original player "My mom's a lich? How? I didn't see here as a 12+ level spellcaster!"

<sarcasm>Yeah. That's what I want to face when playing a power-fantasy game like D&D </sarcasm>

 

[Vyvyan Basterd]

Huh. Really? Is this common? I mean, to me, that sounds like the perfect use of backstory.

Is this whole "If it's bad for my character, it's bad for me!" mentality common? Most of the people I game with pretty clearly understand that what's bad for their characters is (usually) tons of fun for the players. Who wants a game where the characters just waltz through life without encountering tough times? Tough times are the only interesting stories to tell.

Where I see the story as a typical example of DM dickery.

A player didn't want the drama of dealing with stuff from the past was pushed by the DM into adding some mild details to her history. The DM then twisted those details into a adventure dealing with loss, separation, and hate-filled family in a way that didn't make sense for the original player "My mom's a lich? How? I didn't see here as a 12+ level spellcaster!"

<sarcasm>Yeah. That's what I want to face when playing a power-fantasy game like D&D </sarcasm>

I agree with Nagol, sort of. I wouldn't go as far to call it dickery, but the player may have seen the scenario as hackneyed. Sometimes bitter old women are just that. Not every one of them need turn out to be some powerful lich. The story was a telegraphed move. I think the death of the mother was fitting and the change in the sister felt natural, but the transformation to lichdom was bit much without the player describing the mother as a powerful person in life.

 

[Mallus]

Most of the people I game with pretty clearly understand that what's bad for their characters is (usually) tons of fun for the players..

Same here.

I always though people played these games in order to take on the role of adventure story protagonists. A class of people famed for having perilous and improbable shi stuff happen to them on a regular basis. That's the whole point of the game, isn't it? Exploiting PC backstories are a way to make the action of the game relate directly to characters. As opposed to 'hearing a rumor about a fell crypt full of riches' from some random bartender.

IMHO, if you're going write a backstory at all, it should include familial enemies, kidnap-prone sisters, the whole nine yards. Creating a backstory that's free off and proof-against plot hooks practically defeats the purpose. At that point, just play homeless dwarf who's sole goal in life is to continually stumble across caves full of monsters and treasure.

 

[(Psi)SeveredHead]

It all starts with the 10 to 20 questions, you know them:

1. Where are you from?
2. Family alive or dead?
3. Do you have kids?
4. Provide a family tree of two levels?
5. Who was your best friends as a kid?
6. How did you meet the other party members?
7. What put you on the road to adventure?
8. Who did you learn your trade from?
9. etc...they are posted somewhere here.

Some of that stuff seems irrelevant to me.

#3. No. How often does that happen?
#4. Too much detail. I hate using random name generators. (Also, sometimes there's PC paranoia.)
#5. We won't ever see them.

Of course, most of these questions are useful.

Same here.

I always though people played these games in order to take on the role of adventure story protagonists. A class of people famed for having perilous and improbable shi stuff happen to them on a regular basis. That's the whole point of the game, isn't it? Exploiting PC backstories are a way to make the action of the game relate directly to characters.

Or maybe it makes things less fun. At least DMs should discuss this with players first.

As opposed to 'hearing a rumor about a fell crypt full of riches' from some random bartender.

I find plot more important than treasure. The best way to motivate me is to point me toward the bad guys.

IMHO, if you're going write a backstory at all, it should include familial enemies, kidnap-prone sisters, the whole nine yards. Creating a backstory that's free off and proof-against plot hooks practically defeats the purpose. At that point, just play homeless dwarf who's sole goal in life is to continually stumble across caves full of monsters and treasure.

Hell no, I don't want to play escort missions in a world without telephones or SWAT teams.

 

[Dausuul]

Where I see the story as a typical example of DM dickery.

A player didn't want the drama of dealing with stuff from the past was pushed by the DM into adding some mild details to her history. The DM then twisted those details into a adventure dealing with loss, separation, and hate-filled family in a way that didn't make sense for the original player "My mom's a lich? How? I didn't see here as a 12+ level spellcaster!"

<sarcasm>Yeah. That's what I want to face when playing a power-fantasy game like D&D </sarcasm>

I have to agree. Mostly it's the "turning the mom into a lich" thing that makes me go, "Wha-huh?" That's trespassing way into player territory IMO--the player presumably never said anything about her mom being a powerful wizard or for that matter a homicidal lunatic.

I too would be inclined to respond to such a scenario with bland Teflon backgrounds from then on. If I want a murderous maternal lich in my backstory, I'll write her in myself, thanks very much.

 

[Desdichado]

Where I see the story as a typical example of DM dickery.

I agree with Nagol, sort of.

Or maybe it makes things less fun. At least DMs should discuss this with players first.

Well, I guess it is more common than I suspected, based on the rash of quick replies here, at least. Huh.

I agree, talking with the players about this kind of thing, or at least knowing in advance how they're going to take it is pretty key.

I'm definitely with Mallus on this one, though... if you think it's "dickery" to have the GM actually use the stuff in your background, then just write it up for yourself and don't even give it to the GM. Or don't bother writing it at all. Apparently it's completely irrelevant to anyone except yourself anyway.

I have to agree. Mostly it's the "turning the mom into a lich" thing that makes me go, "Wha-huh?" That's trespassing way into player territory IMO--the player presumably never said anything about her mom being a powerful wizard or for that matter a homicidal lunatic.

Of course you never said that. Because she wasn't when she was in your backstory. That's the stuff that happened afterwards.

I'm curious if there's a correllation between people who think this is the GM stepping on the PC's territory and those who earlier in the thread were talking about the opposite; it "sitting wrong" with them to have players treading into GM territory.

To me, this is clearly GM territory. I mean, it's about as clear as can be. It's a setting element, pure and simple.

If the GM had come up with some random liche in some random town that had all the exact same attributes except not related to one of the PCs, would the PCs actions really have been any different?

Other than being disconnected and random, I mean?

 

[Dausuul]

Of course you never said that. Because she wasn't when she was in your backstory. That's the stuff that happened afterwards.

Okay, I'll put it more precisely. The player never said anything about her mom having the Intelligence score, native talent, or inclination to become a powerful wizard. And she never said anything about her mom having the mental instability to become a homicidal lunatic. And she certainly never said anything about her mother having the slightest desire to become undead.

So unless these traits were somehow imposed on the mother from outside, you're adding HUGE new elements to the player's backstory and radically rewriting the concept she had. In fact, even if they were imposed from outside, you're still radically rewriting the concept, you're just adding a feeble in-game excuse.

I'm curious if there's a correllation between people who think this is the GM stepping on the PC's territory and those who earlier in the thread were talking about the opposite; it "sitting wrong" with them to have players treading into GM territory.

Can't speak for anyone else, but I agree with both. I have problems with the DM invading player territory, and I have problems with the player invading DM territory. Character background is part of the concept that defines a PC in the game world, and therefore I consider it firmly in player territory*. The DM can certainly use the NPCs introduced in the background, but if s/he does so, I expect those NPCs to be used as presented, not totally rewritten.

If you need a villain and none of the NPCs in my backstory is suitable, make your own. If you need a villain with a past connection to a PC, ask me to come up with one.

[size=-2]*Caveat: While character background is player territory, introducing elements into your background that affect the makeup of the campaign world is infringing on DM territory.[/size]

To me, this is clearly GM territory. I mean, it's about as clear as can be. It's a setting element, pure and simple.

Then why are you asking players to create it? Why didn't you just inform the player that her mom was a murderous lich?

 

[Neonchameleon]

Where I see the story as a typical example of DM dickery.

A player didn't want the drama of dealing with stuff from the past was pushed by the DM into adding some mild details to her history. The DM then twisted those details into a adventure dealing with loss, separation, and hate-filled family in a way that didn't make sense for the original player "My mom's a lich? How? I didn't see here as a 12+ level spellcaster!"

<sarcasm>Yeah. That's what I want to face when playing a power-fantasy game like D&D </sarcasm>

Indeed. As a player, if you're going to around with my PC's family like that, talk it over with me first. (And this goes double if you're going to insert things I've done into my backstory - not to rant about the worst Storyteller I've had ever (seriously, three DM PCs, one for each party member?) And triple if I know how my character would turn dark and that wasn't it - he was far too arrogant to want to play second fiddle to demons.)

Kidnapping or killing family is OK (if annoying) - that doesn't take reevaluating the PC's entire history. If the mother was an extremely powerful undead spellcaster, that means that every single interaction someone had with his (or her) own mother needs to be mentally re-written. And given the influence a mother has, and the influence of a lich, almost every other interaction the PC had before he (or she) left home needs to be reevaluated or rewritten.

Same here.

I always though people played these games in order to take on the role of adventure story protagonists. A class of people famed for having perilous and improbable shi stuff happen to them on a regular basis. That's the whole point of the game, isn't it? Exploiting PC backstories are a way to make the action of the game relate directly to characters. As opposed to 'hearing a rumor about a fell crypt full of riches' from some random bartender.

There's a difference between exploiting PC backstories and re-writing them. Turning ordinary mother into evil undead spellcaster involves re-writing. (Turning sister into aggressive rival would be exploiting).

IMHO, if you're going write a backstory at all, it should include familial enemies, kidnap-prone sisters, the whole nine yards. Creating a backstory that's free off and proof-against plot hooks practically defeats the purpose. At that point, just play homeless dwarf who's sole goal in life is to continually stumble across caves full of monsters and treasure.

I always put plot hooks (or plot-loops (to grab certain types of hook the DM might want to use)) into my background. But that's not what the lich-mother was. In this case, it was the DM performing a surgical operation to implant a hook into the PC where none existed.

 

[IronWolf]

I have to agree. Mostly it's the "turning the mom into a lich" thing that makes me go, "Wha-huh?" That's trespassing way into player territory IMO--the player presumably never said anything about her mom being a powerful wizard or for that matter a homicidal lunatic.

Yeah - I was up with it until the "turning the mom into a lich" thing. That seems a might bit over the top.

I'm all for character backgrounds being used by characters and for a DM working those into the overall campaign. The campaign world is a changing place, so when I create backgrounds I am fully aware that if my travels take me away from people I have listed in my background that the world very well might impact them. People pass, villages or cities come under attack due to the dynamics in that part of the world, etc. Or maybe family or NPCs from the past rise in power and good things happen to them. So I am fine with the DM having the advancing timeline of the world affect things in my backstory in current campaign day.

The lich example comes a little out of the blue to me though. Now if I had written that my mother dabbled in magic and sorcery and seems to have a bit of mental madness to them, then I *could* see that ending up as a mother that is a lich!