How much background is too much?

[kenjib]

Another issue is making sure that all of this background is accessible to the characters in one form or another (perhaps even more than one in case they miss a source).

In the end of a certain module* a rebel faction shows up to help the group, but there is nothing that I saw in the entire module to let the characters know who this group was and why they were helping. This element of the module seems written for DM gratification rather than from the perspective of actually playing the module. The info is there, but there is no suggested way to feed it to the players. It's not too hard to fix but it's still something that should pertain to pretty much all of the background in the module. The characters should have some way of learning or inferring most of it, except for odd special cases.

* not named to avoid spoilers

 

[Rune]

I'm going to go out on a limb, here, but I don't think that the information in the background should be fed to the players. The adventure should hint at the information (in the form of hooks). Nothing more and nothing less. It should be up to the players to take the initiative to follow up on the hooks when and if they choose to do so.

 

[kenjib]

I agree with that - I didn't mean to say that it should be spoonfed. The players still need to take the initiative to find the info, and they might fail, but the hooks should usually be there somewhere or other, especially when it's important to the plot, and in the example I gave above they weren't presented until it was not really relevant anymore.

In that case it was the very last encounter of the entire adventure and this group suddenly appears out of nowhere, for no apparent reason (from the players' perspective), and helps the PCs.

 

[Rune]

I can agree with that, but the hooks need not be spelled out; if they are implied, this should be good enough (unless they are poorly thought-out to begin with.

 

[Psion]

For me, the fundamental issue with background in adventures is compatability. The more convoluted the background is, the more likely I will have to jimmy it to fit my campaign.

One of the most beautifully detailed d20 system advenutres is Dark Awakenings: Guardian. The background is very detailed and the module is very flexible, which really shows the strength of background in a d20 system module. At the same time, I would have to do a lot of jimmying to get it to work in my campaign in the first place.

 

[mmadsen]

The more convoluted the background is, the more likely I will have to jimmy it to fit my campaign.

Exactly.

What I find most useful isn't so much extra detail but lots of suggestions. And a clean, to-the-point layout.

 

[rounser]

A pet peeve of mine with many published modules is that they come up with a background story to set the adventure up, and then never reveal what that background was to the players even when they've finished the adventure. From the perspective of everyone playing who's not the DM, the entire excursion seems just as arbitrary as if there was no back story at all. It's a fairly consistent problem with adventures from Dungeon magazine in particular - great background story and justification for setup, but no way to share it with the PCs, so from the player's perspective, the details of this romp seem just as arbitrary and fabricated as the last.

It's a subtle form of poor design because I don't think many people recognise it, and it seems especially prevalent among adventures with complex background stories. An adventure that "makes sense" because it reveals it's background somehow to the PCs, or at least gives them a realistic opportunity to do so, is considerably superior in terms of cohesion to one that doesn't bother and just justifies itself to the DM, IMO.

Not every adventure should make sense from the PC's perspective, but I think that most should. There's a reason why Scooby Doo had an exposition at the end to explain the happenings of each episode - and although I'm not suggesting that approach in particular, it's there for good reason.

 

[Ranes]

The title of the thread reminded me of this anecdote from my gaming past. I knew a DM who created and ran a campaign for a group of my friends. I didn't play it but I lived in the house where it was run. The DM obviously loved his background. I remember late one night, hearing him talking to the players as I passed by the game room. As I was headed fridgewards at the time, I thought I'd stick my head around the door and ask if anyone needed a drink. I will never forget the sight of all four players, completely zonked, fast asleep. Whether he was utterly oblivious to their condition or in complete denial of it, the DM's relentless, monotonal delivery of his world's history continued.

I made a quick judgment call and quietly closed the door.

In terms of how to deliver background, I believe in show not tell, as much as possible. Outright exposition is a clumsy mechanism.

Rounser, Mmadsen, Psion, Rune et al... good points.

Okay, I'm gone.

Ranes

 

[mmadsen]

A pet peeve of mine with many published modules is that they come up with a background story to set the adventure up, and then never reveal what that background was to the players even when they've finished the adventure. From the perspective of everyone playing who's not the DM, the entire excursion seems just as arbitrary as if there was no back story at all.

Exactly. It's one thing to have a cool story for the DM to read. It's quite another to have that cool story come out in play.

 

[mmadsen]

Does anyone have any good examples of adventures they've bought that seemed to have too much or too little background? Or, if you prefer, too convoluted a background?

As I recall, Aldriv's Revenge had a lot going for it, but a quick read of the prologue left me dizzy.