D&D General It's Session Zero! How Much Backstory Do You Give Your Character?

[Hriston]

Since it’s a story, I like to give it a three act structure, so I’ll generally write three or four paragraphs, although it could be as short as three sentences. Paragraph one (and two, if there are four) describes the PC’s hometown, early relationships, and circumstances of their birth and upbringing and the events that got them involved in and entry into a life of adventure. Paragraph two/three describes some significant event that happened during their early adventures that left its mark on their identity and often involves a confrontation with an significant foe/rival. And paragraph three/four describes the aftermath of those events in a way that segues, if possible, into the current adventure.

Here’s an example I wrote for a character, inspired by her TIBFs. The game started at ninth level, so I felt I had license to make it kind of long:

Backstory
The small fishing village of Steelport, sandwiched, as it was, between the Dense Bay and the Ponoree Hillside, depended for its survival on the preservation of a peaceful coexistence with the local hill giants. This uneasy truce had been maintained for generations and had allowed the people of Steelport a hope of defending their coasts from the pirates that often plagued their shores. In fact, some said the villagers were half giant themselves.

Bible was born at sea, in the midst of a raging typhoon. She grew up stronger than most and soon joined the effort to free her village home from the pirate scourge. In a few short seasons of fierce ship to ship fighting, Bible proved her mettle in battle. She became known as a hard fighter (and a hard drinker) and earned the nickname “Fistblood” from her crew mates. Soon the pirates no longer dared to approach Steelport, and it was clearly time to take the fight to them!

As the campaign against the pirates expanded, seasons became years, and Bible served under a ship’s captain to whom she was extremely loyal. On a night of uncanny darkness, the pirates, in league with a sea hag, lured the captain’s ship onto the jagged rocks, and it was pulled down by a gaping whirlpool that opened to swallow it whole. Bible escaped the wreck, clinging to a floating timber, but her captain was lost in the deep. Someday, she believes, she will go in search of her captain, and they will be reunited at last.

The Pirate War, as it came to be called, lasted until the coasts of the kingdom were clear and safe. For her services to the crown, Bible was awarded the title of Reeve and Protector of Steelport, where she resides to this day. Her duties include knocking heads together when rough customers land in port to cause mischief and maintaining the fragile peace with the hill giants. But now, with giant-raids on the rise and the peace evidently broken, she is determined to root out the cause and restore order to the kingdom.

 

[DEFCON 1]

I'm at 'Lots', because our tables tend to be filled with community theater people and thus we are all conditioned when doing plays and such to do all that stereotypical character backstory, internal life, high-falutin' "Actor!" stuff you all hear about to tie ourselves into the story we are going to present to an audience. Now granted, it's admittedly all completely unnecessary when playing D&D... but it's what I was taught in school and I'm rather conditioned to do it and enjoy the process, so I do it for my PCs anyway.

 

[Blue]

As a DM, I want from my players:

• Their motivation / Call to Adventure. Why do they risk their life adventuring?
• Connections to the world, both positive and negative. Putting the blacksmith that raised the paladin into danger is instant buy-in from at least one player.
• Anything they need to make their character feel alive and rich. I laugh at the hypocritical DMs who dislike multi-page background when exposition over the course of the campaign will be much more for each player to take in.

 

[payn]

I'm at 'Lots', because our tables tend to be filled with community theater people and thus we are all conditioned when doing plays and such to do all that stereotypical character backstory, internal life, high-falutin' "Actor!" stuff you all hear about to tie ourselves into the story we are going to present to an audience. Now granted, it's admittedly all completely unnecessary when playing D&D... but it's what I was taught in school and I'm rather conditioned to do it and enjoy the process, so I do it for my PCs anyway.

Yeap, that makes some sense if you need something concrete to play a character from the start. I can understand having that guideline for an actors mind. For me, I dont because I discover many of the details at the same time as everyone else at the table through play. The role emerges and details fill out as they are challenged.

 

[Man in the Funny Hat]

Is it fair to say having those personal ties in a story reduces your enjoyment, instead of increases your enjoyment? Like it breaks your immersion?

Put it this way - does it increase the DM's enjoyment when -I- dictate to them that they must have a certain town, or nation, or NPC's, or historical events in order to fit my character's backstory?

 

[Man in the Funny Hat]

I don't know if you've watched Critical Role, particularly campaign 1.

I've tried to watch CR a couple times and a few other such videos. It doesn't work for me. My guess is because it's oriented to be passive entertainment as much as interactive for the participants, so not really the same as PLAYING.

Would this have been more or less satisfying if the group had been leading a rebellion without any connection to one of the PCs?

Why would it NOT have been satisfying if the PC group had been leading the rebellion as opposed to being involved specifically because it's something in ONE PC's backstory? If I play in a Star Wars rpg, does my character's father have to be Darth Vader in order for my character to have a personal stake in the Rebellion? And if I wanted a mysterious, initially unknown father figure in my character's backstory to possibly surface in ongoing adventures, I can write that AS part of my backstory, rather than just one day find it's been inserted there FOR me. If I don't put that in there, is it really the DM's prerogative to decide that it will be? If I write my backstory as Luke originally understood it to be (I'm an orphan whose father was a navigator on a spice freighter), where does the DM get permission to first have an NPC tell me that's wrong and that he was a jedi who was betrayed and murdered, and then change that story again to tell me he is actually still alive and the BBEG of the whole campaign?

D&D is not written fiction, nor is it a screenplay. They may share a lot of traits, but they're NOT the same, and don't work entirely the same way. Players only get to really control their PC. With certain curses and spell effects even that can be taken away - and that is something that players sensibly AVOID. DM's need to exercise care and caution when they deliberately take away control of a players PC for their own purposes - even if they HOPE that doing so will be a net positive for everybody. I mean, if I create a PC whom I superficially describe in backstory as religiously devoted, that doesn't mean the DM is free to decide my character is actually devoted to a bizarre cult.

If a DM actually wants adventure ideas to tie to everyone's PC that's one thing. I might not even mind if the DM says at the outset that they intend to use any of that in any way they choose - and then I agree to play on that basis. For a DM to simply demand 3 pages of backstory from everyone without explanation why or what they're intending to do with it and to it, and then do whatever THEY want with that backstory without explanation or justification, that's QUITE another.

For example, if a character "grew up in the circus", you don't have to write up everyone else who worked at the circus in order to introduce a friend from back in the day.

You also don't have to introduce an NPC friend from back in the day unilaterally (Oh, your backstory talks about a circus so... here's an old friend you also mentioned, and whatever you may or may not have thought about who that friend really is, THIS is now going to be the reality as I have decided it will be). Perhaps just ASK if doing so would be an area of the PC's backstory that the DM may have PERMISSION to futz with.

Of course, not every NPC (be they villain, rival, or ally) will be connected to anyone's backstory. But the ones that are feel a lot more satisfying.

Tell that to Luke Skywalker.

 

[GrimCo]

Anything they need to make their character feel alive and rich. I laugh at the hypocritical DMs who dislike multi-page background when exposition over the course of the campaign will be much more for each player to take in.

As one of those DM-s who dislikes multi page background, i can share my 2c on that topic.

First and foremost, i hate lore dump expositions both as a player and as a DM.

Now, when i'm running 5e, 95% of the time, characters start at lv 1-3 and campaign ends by lv 8-10. Characters at those starting levels aren't adventurers yet, or at best, they had only dipped they little toe into adventuring. They didn't do anything so important to warrant multi page background. Usually, they are also young, so not much life experience in general. I look at their backstory same as i look at CV for junior positions. Clear, concise and short. Give me highlights.

Now, for more established starting characters ( mid tier 2 or above), i put more emphasis on party backstory. What did they as collective do up to that point. It's team game. Story isn't about Tom,Dick and Jane individually. It's about Tom,Dick and Jane together as a group. I highly value good group cohesion and shared interests and goals that align with campaign theme and setting. That's why we have rule that no one creates characters before session 0.

Now, i get that some people like to write and flesh out details. But question for you, for low level characters, what would multi page background even contain?

 

[Campbell]

Put it this way - does it increase the DM's enjoyment when -I- dictate to them that they must have a certain town, or nation, or NPC's, or historical events in order to fit my character's backstory?

I mean it does for this DM. A substantial part of my enjoyment comes from building on what the players are bringing to the table and investing in their characters' personal journeys.

 

[jmartkdr2]

Of course, this all assumes the dm hasn't stated what they want beforehand - if the dm says they want a one-page backstory, or for us to fill out a list of 20-questions we'd all endeavor to do that.

 

[Seramus]

Put it this way - does it increase the DM's enjoyment when -I- dictate to them that they must have a certain town, or nation, or NPC's, or historical events in order to fit my character's backstory?

Me? Yes, as long as you're not going bonkers like an exiled warlord with an army waiting for you to resume command when you get back home.