How much background is too much?

[mmadsen]

In discussing my Iron DM "Home Game" entry, I realized I'm not a fan of modules with extensive background. As I said there:

I'd like to hear how other people feel about background, because I think of it as the kind of thing that often reads well but doesn't play well. I like a backstory that's coherent and just complex enough, not one with dozens of twists and reversals before the party even shows up. (If anyone has Aldriv's Revenge, the KoK module, it's wonderful, but the backstory is entirely too convoluted and detailed, at least for my taste.)

Do you feel that more background detail is always better?

 

[BiggusGeekus]

In my opinion things are best when there is a lot of background but the plot is simple enough so the players don't have to know most of it. That way the DM knows where to go if things go off on a tangent, the players who like background can explore it, and the players who don't can still keep up.

 

[Patrick-S&S]

No it does not have to be at all. Although I like really detailed settings and backgrounds, with lots of plots and a frozen timeline, just blabbing for the sake of it is always a drag. It can be a pro and a con really. It all depends who writes it and what trick they use to make it spicy and entoxicating.

 

[mmadsen]

In response to my post (on the other thread), Rune said:

Allow me to contradict, for a moment, one of my favorite posters. I believe that you are trying to assign a role to the background that it should not have.

The background should be detailed and complex enough to allow the DM to run the adventure as flexibly as (s)he wants. Most importantly, a good background should offer the DM the opportunity to insert whatever hooks the DM sees fit.

The background, then, is not something that the players should discover--it is a tool to aid the DM in running the adventure well. It is the spine of the adventure; the players will never see it, but it will support the the aspects of the adventure that they do see (and, hopefully, open avenues into the rest of the campaign). Consequently, the backstory can never be too detailed, although it could be too convoluted (or simply too dry to read).

I agree that the background should allow the DM to run the adventure flexibly, and I agree that it should allow the DM to insert hooks easily. I just don't think more detail generally helps there.

When I'm reading a module, I find that it takes a lot of time and effort to figure out which elements are central to the plot and which are neat but extraneous details.

Is it important that the evil monk assassin leaves a yellow lotus flower? Or can I change that to a blood-red rose? Heck, does he even have to be a monk assassin? Maybe I don't like monks in my campaign.

Is it important that the merchant prince of the port city is the young prince of a recently slain burgher who built his own trading empire? What if I make him the old burgher instead? Or does that ruin something else?

Intriguing details entertain the DM as he reads the module, but do they translate into a better game?

 

[Patrick-S&S]

Intriguing details entertain the DM as he reads the module, but do they translate into a better game?

No not necessarily, especially if he is a bad GM/DM. Although I kinda agree with the insert you added, I must say that with a well developed background with LOTS of plot hooks, adventure ideas and make sense meat, it will translate to a better game if the GM/DM has the power to use it. Sometimes too much nice "adds" may overburden ones brain with an immensely lot of information that you can not get a grip on (wasn't that the lord of this, or wasn't she the wizard who and so on). That was what happened to me when I was introduced to Hârn 13 years ago. These days I come to expect that kind of detail and background if it fills the criteria I want and need for a good gaming. But not all may agree of course...

 

[Rune]

I agree that the background should allow the DM to run the adventure flexibly, and I agree that it should allow the DM to insert hooks easily. I just don't think more detail generally helps there.

I suppose I should clarify by saying that it does, of course, depend on the type of detail that is used. The DM needs to develop a feel for what is essential, and what can be altered (even on the fly, if the DM is practiced); it is a simple matter of distinguishing what I will call supporting detail from fundamental detail. Generally, supporting detail would be things like objects or names, while fundamental detail would be things like the past actions of NPCs.

When I'm reading a module, I find that it takes a lot of time and effort to figure out which elements are central to the plot and which are neat but extraneous details.

I'm afraid that I will never be convinced that a lot of time and effort dedicated to the preperation of the game by the DM will not invariably add to the quality of the game, when it is run.

Is it important that the evil monk assassin leaves a yellow lotus flower? Or can I change that to a blood-red rose? Heck, does he even have to be a monk assassin? Maybe I don't like monks in my campaign.

As I have indicated above, the DM develops a feel for which details are essential and which are not. I would say that your flower is a perfect example of a supporting detail, while the class of the assassin falls somewhere in between the two extremes. Ultimately, the role of the assassin in the adventure will dictate the importance of his class.

Is it important that the merchant prince of the port city is the young prince of a recently slain burgher who built his own trading empire? What if I make him the old burgher instead? Or does that ruin something else?

It is important if you want to make a hook of it (a good hook, by the way, should never state the fact so obviously, but rather, subtley hint at the nature of the detail).

Intriguing details entertain the DM as he reads the module, but do they translate into a better game?

No. They can only help a DM to run a better game, but, ultimately, the "running a better game" part is the responsibility of the DM.

 

[mmadsen]

The DM needs to develop a feel for what is essential, and what can be altered (even on the fly, if the DM is practiced); it is a simple matter of distinguishing what I will call supporting detail from fundamental detail. Generally, supporting detail would be things like objects or names, while fundamental detail would be things like the past actions of NPCs.

But filtering all the material into "supporting" or "fundamental" categories isn't trivial. In fact, simply getting the gist of a module isn't always trivial. Some modules you can spend an evening reading and feel ready to run the next day. Others deluge you with details.

Again, is it important that the monk assassin leaves a yellow lotus blossum? You don't know until you've read the entire module thoroughly. Often you'll dismiss details as "supporting", but sometimes they're important. I'd probably peg a clue left by an assassin as important, but maybe it's not clear why. Ideally modules would lay out more behind-the-scenes thinking, so you'd know what the original writer was going for and knew how to edit it without destroying it.

I'm afraid that I will never be convinced that a lot of time and effort dedicated to the preperation of the game by the DM will not invariably add to the quality of the game, when it is run.

Right, but how does the DM use his time? A to-the-point module can save the DM time and be more flexible. Don't tell me the captain of the guard is 6'2" tall, blond, courting the daughter of so-and-so, etc., if it doesn't play into the current plot. It'll just slow me down.

It is important if you want to make a hook of it.

That's just it though. If the module tells you the merchant prince is the son of the recently deceased burgher who rose up to his position of greatness, etc., can you change that to provide a better hook for your campaign? You don't know until you've done a lot work.

They can only help a DM to run a better game, but, ultimately, the "running a better game" part is the responsibility of the DM.

I think too many details can give the DM too much to sift through, obfuscating the essence of the scenario, making it harder to customize the scenario and provide the specific hooks and tie-ins that fit the DM's existing campaign.

(And in a campaign setting supplement -- different beast, I know -- too many details can simply remove options from the DM. That forest is already filled. Those mountains already house these three goblin tribes. Etc.)

 

[Mouseferatu]

Again, is it important that the monk assassin leaves a yellow lotus blossum? You don't know until you've read the entire module thoroughly.

This caught my attention...

At the risk of seeming obtuse, I have to ask--what's the problem? The DM is supposed to read the entire module thoroughly before running so much as page one. Many modules express this outright, suggesting the DM "familiarize himself" with the contents before ever cracking it open at the gaming table.

As far as how much background is too much, let me put forward this theory.

There should be enough background to accomplish the following:

1) Give the DM a good handle on the environment.

2) Answer every possible (well, within reason) "why?" the DM or players might come up with. If the DM doesn't know why an NPC acts as she does, or why the villains are doing what they're doing, the background is insufficient.

3) Provide plothooks or ideas for aditional stories set in the same environment.

The background is excessive if it does the following:

1) Provides a lot of information that has no bearing on the previous three points. (That is, it's fine to include little details, like the Merchant Prince being the son of a thief. But if you've got into who the thief was, how he went legit, what efforts he took to help his son become a merchant prince, etc, you've probably gone too far--unless the DM needs all that to run the adventure.

2) Adds details that confuse the issues in the adventure, without actually contributing to it. Do not, for example, write an adventure in which the main villain and the high priest happen to have the same name, unless that fact is important to the story.

3) Just seems, in general, too long without adding anything.

Now, you'll notice that all three good points and all three bad points are entirely subjective. There's no hard-and-fast rule that's going to work for everybody. These are the criteria I, personally, would suggest, but you're still going to find a lot of disagreement. Just the way it goes.

 

[uv23]

The more the better. The great thing about having a rich background is that you can use as much of it as you like and save the rest for extensions or entirely new adventures.

 

[ForceUser]

What I want from a published adventure is maps, cool encounters, and treasure. I prefer to write the rest myself.