How much back story for a low-level PC?

[The Shaman]

What exactly would be "off-putting?"

I prefer that the setting be changed in-character, in actual play, not in meta, and particularly not through some bit of fanfic.

I think players should fit their characters to the setting (frex, the Northern Wastes dwarf example) rather than warping the setting to fit their characters.

I agree players should be proactive, and I think they should make the setting sit up and dance when they pipe a tune, but I think they should accomplish this during the game, as a group, in actual play, not out-of-game before it.

 

[The Shaman]

I like for character personalities and background to develop organically through play rather than being novelized before a play session even begins.

Yup, agreed.

 

[steenan]

I need a little background, both as a GM and as a player. It does not have to be written down - we play a lot of one-shots, so talking about the characters for a few minutes before the session is enough.

As a GM, I prefer a short (one to few paragraphs) background with a lot of hooks. I hate long histories, detailed families etc. that are hard to use in game (or that the player does not want used in the game). IMO, you should only write in your background what you want to see somehow used in the game.

As a player, I try to write backgrounds in the same way. I detail what I perceive as a hook for my character, while the rest is mentioned in few words, if even that.

I take care for the background to fit the genre and style of the game. I also don't put any things in there that my character wouldn't be able to mechanically perform on average. Thus, when I prepare a young, inexperienced character, he won't have any strange or heroic deeds in his history, other than possibly what caused him to begin adventuring.

 

[FireLance]

For a low-level PC, a paragraph of background should be more than enough.

However, I'm starting to think that my ideal system would be for each PC's background to be an evolving document that changes, expands and becomes more detailed as the character gains levels and becomes more involved in the campaign world.

Perhaps after every level, each player should add a sentence or two to the character's background, to flesh him out more and to provide more hooks for role-playing. Hence, by the time a character hits the mid-teen levels, his background could easily be a page or more long.

 

[Barastrondo]

I prefer that the setting be changed in-character, in actual play, not in meta, and particularly not through some bit of fanfic.

I'm kind of curious as to what qualifies as "fanfic". Is it the lack of "authorization" by the setting's primary author (be it the GM, Greg Stafford, or H.P. Lovecraft)? Most of what we do could easily be called some level of fanfic by outside parties, only codified by special fanfic rules and subject to a grand fanfic editor. A writeup of a Star Wars RPG session would be scarcely distinct from Star Wars fan fiction to someone not really familiar with RPGs.

I'm curious because I don't think of players as writing fanfiction by default; it would really only qualify if it's determined that it will have no impact on the game. I see the process more as contracting freelance work, in a way; it's subject to editing and may be sent back for multiple drafts, but if someone is playing in a game I'm running they're the equivalent of an author in a shared-world anthology, not a fan. And with that comes (through our table social contract, mind, not by virtue of RPGs as a whole) a variable level of permissions to add to the setting.

Not that I'm trying to disprove your preferences or anything, as usual; I'm just interested in how you're using the term and why it wouldn't apply to all of us.

 

[Desdichado]

Uhm. They go overboard, it really happens.

All of your examples were good examples. (and I bet they weren't pages long, either.) From what you posted, they connect to the actual game charecter, to the world, and gave non-binding reasons for adventure. Liberties taken were creative in the good way and far, far from earth shattering.

Not all backgrounds are like that.

Yes. Thank you. I already know that.

Like I said, though, the problem there is someone going overboard. The problem isn't PC backgrounds.

Again... players mis-using the tool to cause problems is a problem with the player, not a problem with the tool.

 

[Desdichado]

One sentence describing a new character is enough, whether it is a character I am playing or a character a player in a game I DM is playing. I like for character personalities and background to develop organically through play rather than being novelized before a play session even begins. Of course, I won't refuse someone the opportunity if they want to write up six pages of background for Turdle, the 1st-level wizard. So long as they aren't going to be disappointed if Turdle makes a deadly mistake and doesn't make it out of his first adventure alive.

So, to you, six pages is a novel?

 

[Zhaleskra]

As I've read suggestions from various systems and as my time for gaming has been reduced, I want to see backgrounds for characters reduced regardless of the level. Having said that, I think White Wolf's "three words" (IIRC) is too short. On the other end, I'm not totally adverse to filling a page. My "sweet spot" would have to be: three sentences to three paragraphs.

 

[Desdichado]

Not that I'm trying to disprove your preferences or anything, as usual; I'm just interested in how you're using the term and why it wouldn't apply to all of us.

It's your character, and it's our setting; in no way whatsoever can this be considered fanfic. It's just "fic", plain and simple. So I'm curious too. Unfortunately, it's because I think it's coming across as simply using a disparaging term to dismiss a playstyle he doesn't like, but I could be wrong there and there's more to it.

 

[Doug McCrae]

Again... players mis-using the tool to cause problems is a problem with the player, not a problem with the tool.

I think it's the combination of tool and player. Tool A in the hands of player X may be fine but in the hands of player Y it's a disaster. Conversely tool B might work for Y and not X. I'd say it's not the tool or the player to blame, it's that particular combination.

One sees this all the time in roleplaying, it's so subjective, different players approach the game with very different ideas about what's important, there are so many different methods.