• NOW LIVE! Into the Woods--new character species, eerie monsters, and haunting villains to populate the woodlands of your D&D games.

How much back story for a low-level PC?

How much back story for a low-level PC?

  • As a DM - multiple pages

    Votes: 6 4.3%
  • As a DM - one page

    Votes: 26 18.8%
  • As a DM - couple-few paragraphs

    Votes: 58 42.0%
  • As a DM - one paragraph

    Votes: 42 30.4%
  • As a DM - one sentence

    Votes: 16 11.6%
  • As a DM – none

    Votes: 8 5.8%
  • -----

    Votes: 12 8.7%
  • As a Player - multiple pages

    Votes: 10 7.2%
  • As a Player - one page

    Votes: 30 21.7%
  • As a Player - couple-few paragraphs

    Votes: 53 38.4%
  • As a Player - one paragraph

    Votes: 45 32.6%
  • As a Player - one sentence

    Votes: 15 10.9%
  • As a Player - none

    Votes: 7 5.1%

While I certainly agree that players are more engaged by enemies/accomplishments made during play than those created outside of it, both have their place in my campaigns.

Then again, my group sees RPG's as both games and a kind of collaborative fiction, so I neither mind a player traipsing into the author-space to create some proper nouns (people! places! things!), nor do they mind if I enter player-space and muck around with their PC's background fiction. Rather, there's the expectation that the line between player and DM will blur.
That's not-quite-but-almost as far from the way I enjoy roleplaying games as it gets.

Fortunately we're not the only two gamers on earth. ;)
This is great suggestion, but sometimes it's just not practical. It's hard to get a group with diverse interests/goals to agree to spend a lot of (real) time and (imaginary) resources on one character's shtick, say like creating a particular Thieves Guild. It's easier to simply 'write it' into existence, outside of actual play. Particularly if the shtick isn't going to be the focus of the campaign, if it's just part of one PC's time in the spotlight.
For me, if it's something an adventurer is doing, then it is by default and by personal definition the focus of the campaign.

Again, I like strongly collaborative games, where collaboration takes place in play, in character, and if I'm behind the screen I set that expectation before the dice hit the table, by my choice of system, by my choice of setting, and by discussion with the players before characters are generated.
 

log in or register to remove this ad


I always put plot hooks (or plot-loops (to grab certain types of hook the DM might want to use)) into my background.

What sort? Did you know lots of PCs are not educated on this subject and don't know what sort of hooks to provide? A DM kept pressing me for a backstory, and I kept pressing him for an example, and never got one.

(I also have to wonder... how is a 1st-level character so important they have hooks?)
 

The authority that you prefer players work within is the authority of the game-at-play.
Exactly.
The reason I questioned the use of "fanfic" is that in any setup where the GM encourages or even requests backstory, a different form of authority is being explicitly extended.
That follows.

For example, I ask players to include a brief explanation of how their characters came by their respective Advantages and Secrets for Flashing Blades: how did the Cardinal Richelieu come to owe you a Favor? how did you come to swear Secret Loyalty to the duc d'Anjou? Mostly this is to help me roleplay the interaction between the non-player character and the adventurer, but I find it also helps the player to connect a bit more with the setting and the genre.
I should maybe note that I draw a difference between solicited mythos-building-as-background and unsolicited.
That's a reasonable distinction, and fits my immediately preceding example.
The motives are often somewhat similar, I'd argue. They begin with a sort of "what if?" question -- what would happen if I did things my way instead of the way that history, or the author, decreed they would play out? That might be kind of a different philosophy-of-gaming conversation entirely, though...
If you start the thread, I'll gladly weigh in. :)
The idea of a setting that is partially crafted by the players, to me, poses an interesting challenge as a GM that I'd liken to deriving results from random charts. If a player places a monastery in a world, it's roughly the same intellectual challenge to me that it would be if a die roll had come up "32-33: Monastery".
A very intriguing analogy.

Might be fun to unpack that one a bit in another thread as well.
 

What sort? Did you know lots of PCs are not educated on this subject and don't know what sort of hooks to provide? A DM kept pressing me for a backstory, and I kept pressing him for an example, and never got one.

(I also have to wonder... how is a 1st-level character so important they have hooks?)
Hard to list in great detail, but a few I've found effective:

Secret: Changeling (where they are frowned on)
Secret: Cross-dresser (normally female masquerading as male for safety)
Secret: Left the local lord's son lookin a complete idiot - he now wants revenge on whoever it was (and the locals want to buy the culprit a drink)
Secret: Escaped slave, can be reclaimed by owner. (Also works for other types of wanted criminal)

Motivation: Parent was a Priest(ess) of [Shar]. Adventures to make up for it.
Motivation: Was a cultist of [Shar] until tried a demon summoning ritual. Now an Invoker of Selune and trying to make up for previous actions. Hooks include other cultists of Shar.
Motivation: Parent was an adventurer. Wants to find out where he/she fell (or indeed if still alive)
Motivation: Saw parents cut down by a spellcaster/high level warrior. Wants revenge (Inigo Montoya)/Wants to make sure this happens to no one else (Batman).
Motivation: Wants to die gloriously in battle and reach Valhalla. (Might as well tell the DM to do his worst).
Motivation: To be the best and test himself/herself against the strongest foes. (Again)
Motivation: Former slave, now abolitionist.

Bloodline: Blessed/Cursed (who by and nature)
Bloodline: Royal blood (even if illegitimate) - hook being either for blood magic of some sort or if a usurper tries to eliminate the royal line.

Anything there useful?
 

It's reasonable to believe that a 1st-level Monk trained at a monastary. It's also reasonable to believe that you, as DM, have not detailed every single monastary in the entire world.
Of course it is.

The last game I ran was Traveller. The setting was a subsector in Ley sector, along the trailing border of the Third Imperium. That subsector alone has four worlds with populations in the tens of billions.

If a player wants to describe the Imperial Naval vessel or Scout survey ship or sector merchant liner her character served on for twenty pages, she is more than welcome to do so - as long as she is doing so for her own use, not mine.

Again, in the case of the dwarf from the Northern Wastes example upthread, it's established fact in the setting that there are icy wastes in the north and that dwarves live there. I have no problem with a player detailing the tribe if he wishes, because it's pretty safe to assume that I haven't detailed every tribe in every part of the world, but don't expect me as referee to do anything with it in-game. Friendships, loyalties, rivals, social groups - the one's that matter are the one's we develop in actual play.
Unless we start play before 1st-level, how did the newly created monk find training in-game? Or is every monk in the campaign pigeon-holed into the "self-trained prodigy" archetype?
I think I've answered this already.
And even if you have created every monastary in the known word, why would you turn down a good idea from a player who wishes to belong to an order that espouses virtues different from your creations?
I don't turn it down. I encourage the player to pursue it as an in-character goal.

For the game I'm prepping to run, there are more than thirty orders of knighthood which a character may join - and if the player doesn't see one he likes, he's welcome to create something new in-game. If the character wants to serve in the royal army, there are sixteen regiments from which to choose - and if that doesn't work for him, he can raise a mercenary company if he wishes. There are nine gentlemen's clubs (and more coming) to which a character may belong, and the option to found a new club is always there as well. More than thirty bishops' curias, scores of chapters, and dozens of confraternities exist for the religious - and if the character wants to demonstrate his piety in ways that none of those fulfill, then establishing a new sodality is perfectly feasible.
Especially if that player does not wish to focus in-game time on forming his own order.
If the player doesn't want to use any of the setting details, express or implied, and the player doesn't want to be bothered with creating something that fits his vision in actual play, then his expectations are probably not a good fit for the style of game I'm prepared to run.

I do my level best to set clear expectations from the giddyup, to give the players enough information to decide if this is something they would enjoy playing or not. If not, no harm, no foul. Every game isn't a good fit for every player.
 

I am a fan of backstories, as it shows me, as a DM, how hte player envisions their character. Without backstories, I find many players jsut go from decision to decision without a regard for consequence, logic, or realism.

But I should say good backstories, as too many are also just reasons the character became whatever class. I like to see some variety, and a hook or two to use on the character.
 

I'm not really a fan of the Conan-esque rootless wanderers who care about nothing but sex and money. Most people aren't like that imo. They have family and friends and a culture that they care about.
My character is a poor provincial nobleman. His father served as a member of the king's guards, and it is my character's ambition to follow in his footsteps. My character is good with a sword, and at the start of the game he has a purse with a few crowns, a healing poultice of his mother's creation, an old yellow horse, his father's sword, and a letter of introduction to a captain of the king's guards in the capital of the kingdom (the last an Advantage taken during chargen).

And through thousands of pages of ensuing story, we never hear anything about D'Artagnan's parents or life in Gascony again. It's his adventures after he leaves home which matter to us.

The absence of backstory projected into the game doesn't mean a character is necessarily a rootless wanderer without ties to his place and culture.
 

My problem with what Hobo wrote was that it gave off an impression that one of the players was off with the DM wasting away countless hours while the rest of the party was waiting to get back to the adventure. That is a gross exaggeration of the truth - at least, as it applies to the group I play with. In reality, the DM may only spend a few minutes a session handling any particular PC's extra-curricular activities.

Yes, I noticed. It was the hyperbole* in your post that I objected to. The reality, at least as far as my group is concerned, is that it does not take us a whole lot of time in game to pursue these other activities in order to find them believable and satisfying.

* Hyperbole is not the appropriate word that I want to use here but - for the life of me - I am unable to think of a more accurate one. What I am getting at is that your choice of language ("poor use of time", "twiddles their thumbs", and "hog the spotlight") doesn't mesh with the reality of what occurs at our table. That's all I am trying to say.
I actually didn't mean it hyperbolically at all. Building an organized criminal organization from scratch isn't going to take a lot of in-game time? Even at a relatively abstracted level? I disbelieve the illusion.

Sure, in a game like 3.5, you could just say, "I take the Leadership feat this level, and all my cohorts are going to be rogues. I've founded a Thieves' Guild! Huzzah!" I guess at that point, there's little substantial difference between doing that and pre-creating a thieves' guild as part of your background, though, and saying that you're an apprentice member of it at the start of play.

And if there's no substantial difference, why would anyone object to the one and not the other?

:shrug:
 

Hard to list in great detail, but a few I've found effective:

Secret: Changeling (where they are frowned on)
Secret: Cross-dresser (normally female masquerading as male for safety)
Secret: Left the local lord's son lookin a complete idiot - he now wants revenge on whoever it was (and the locals want to buy the culprit a drink)
Secret: Escaped slave, can be reclaimed by owner. (Also works for other types of wanted criminal)

Motivation: Parent was a Priest(ess) of [Shar]. Adventures to make up for it.
Motivation: Was a cultist of [Shar] until tried a demon summoning ritual. Now an Invoker of Selune and trying to make up for previous actions. Hooks include other cultists of Shar.
Motivation: Parent was an adventurer. Wants to find out where he/she fell (or indeed if still alive)
Motivation: Saw parents cut down by a spellcaster/high level warrior. Wants revenge (Inigo Montoya)/Wants to make sure this happens to no one else (Batman).
Motivation: Wants to die gloriously in battle and reach Valhalla. (Might as well tell the DM to do his worst).
Motivation: To be the best and test himself/herself against the strongest foes. (Again)
Motivation: Former slave, now abolitionist.

Bloodline: Blessed/Cursed (who by and nature)
Bloodline: Royal blood (even if illegitimate) - hook being either for blood magic of some sort or if a usurper tries to eliminate the royal line.

Anything there useful?

The motivation stuff was quite handy. I only found the last two secrets useful.
 

Into the Woods

Remove ads

Top