PC histories/backstories -- help, hindrance, neither?

[Wombat]

Getting into character is very important in our campaigns, as well as how the characters know each other. We are fairly "character intensive" in our gaming, so the more background, the deeper the character.

Having a good character background is the difference, in our games, between being a collection of numbers and having resources that you can draw upon. If you have a loving family, or at least one member, you can get favours, even loans of money or equipment. Equally if you have a nemesis (or at least someone you really, really don't like) there are built in ideas for adventures.

In our games we make sure to create fairly deep character background. Some of the background material is "big stuff", like family, friends, lovers, enemies, rivals, etc. Some of it is "small stuff", like favourite foods, the name of your uncle's pet cat, music you cannot stand, etc. Either way around, however, this helps fit the character more firmly into the world.

Combat is nice, but when the world as a whole comes alive and the characters have a firm place in it, that is, for us, a great game. Character backgrounds are the way to start down that road.

 

[DragonLancer]

Do character histories/backstories enhance a game?

Can you point to examples in your experience where a PC's pre-written history/backstory has made the campaign better than if everyone started off with a blank slate (read: nothing nailed down and written out)?

Ah... no. I have had players who supply backgrounds but I have yet to find one that adds to the campaign. Most often they don't help nor hinder.

Can you point to examples where a PC's pre-written history hindered a campaign?

Yes. I have had one instance where the player was more interested in his own character background (and self written plot points) than the campaign even when both were intertwined.

Can you point to examples where a PC's pre-written history was completely irrelevant to the campaign?

Yes, on more accounts than you can imagine.

Edit: This was not supposed to be a multiple-choice poll.

Maybe not, but it was the best way to ask the question. Otherwise it was too grey.

 

[velm]

I think it depends on the person. Some really get into that aspect of developing a character, while others just want to hack and kill. I think most fit in a happy medium.
Overall, having a background, hopefully by the player, will get that character a little bit closer to the player.

 

[cybertalus]

IME the answer depends heavily on the DM. As a player I used to be all about backstory, but I have never had a DM who made use of the work I put into my backstory, so over the years my backstories have gotten shorter and shorter.

In fact, my current character has no backstory at all. I started playing him at 12th level and I have no idea what he did before he joined the party. Even if I did, it wouldn't have any effect on the storyline of the game. I know this because the backstories I created for my previous two characters for the same DM had no effect on the storyline of the game.

I'd love to be in a campaign sometime where backstory was used by the DM.

 

[IronWolf]

I greatly prefer my players to have a background written out of some sort. The main game I run is a PBeM so due to the slow moving pace of that medium it can be difficult working the background in to the campaign itself. Sometimes the background lends itself well to fitting in in some subtle way. Others, not so much.

Whether the background gets used or not it certainly helps me as a DM know where a character is coming from. I also find that the players are more likely to refer back to something in their background if they had to write one before starting play. This in the end helps add another layer of depth to the campaign when characters refer to things they did in their past.

 

[Harmon]

As a GM I generally expect something from the Players, but my group lacks interest in back stories so I usually write my own with the Players input.

As a Player I love back story and write some times dozens of pages on a single character. Thou my GM lacks some interest in the back stories I write, I have made an effort to make them aviable to him.

<shrug> what ever, I find it entertaining and that is what is important there I guess.

 

[Herremann the Wise]

I suppose it all depends on the type of game being run. I always do background stories for my characters. I usually try to make sure they bring a few NPC's along with them. A few friends and a few enemies for the DM to take advantage of.

My current and first Story Hour highlights this to interesting effect. I went a little overboard on the background of Lucifus Cray but it has certainly paid off.

I don't think it's necessary in a game but it normally makes the DM feel good that significant interest has been taken in their game.

Best Regards
Herremann the Wise

 

[Lord Pendragon]

I think it depends on the person. Some really get into that aspect of developing a character, while others just want to hack and kill.

I agree. IMO, it comes down to how personal you want the campaign to be. Some don't really care. Myself, I like to be connected to what's happening in a personal way.

In a past campaign, I wrote up a fighter-mage who came from a hidden city far to the north. The city was Spartan, entirely devoted to containing a tear in the fabric of reality between the Prime Material and the Abyss. The city was named Darathia, and the warriors of the city were Darathian Shields, guarding the tear and preventing demons from pouring out from it and devouring the world.

So as our campaign started, I didn't think much of it. The city was far to the North (where we'd probably never go,) and my PC had fled from it. It seemed...distant. We then began to encounter a body-swapping entity. We killed him the first time not realizing it. Then we killed him again, in another body.

Finally, in a very memorable encounter, he turned to my character and hissed, "I know what you are. For years you've barred us from this world. But soon we'll have another way through. And Darathia will be ground into dust."

It was a great moment for me, because it marked a turning point between the villains being faceless, anonymous bad guys, and the villains becoming something that must be stopped. Not for the world or for goodness as an abstract whole. For the PC's friends. His sisters. His home. He was threatening all of that, and he had to be stopped.

In my current game I wrote a short bit in my PC's background about him not getting along with his former master's brother. Now, it's turned out that the brother is making a bid to become the lord of my PC's new home, and is consorting with goblins and assassins. Taking him down will be more satisfying than any generic evil lord could ever be.

So in essence backgrounds provide more enjoyment of the game, namely for the types of players that would write backgrounds in the first place.

 

[D+1]

Some. The actual influence varies on the substance of the background material, how well it works into the direction of the campaign, how deeply the player colors his roleplaying with it, etc. At the very least it can often suffice for an explanation of how and why the PC's start working together in the first place.

 

[Desdichado]

Backstories are only bad if the GM doesn't use them and the players are disillusioned against doing them again. Even then, I'm not so sure that's bad is just a shame the GM isn't using a resource the player is trying to provide for him.

I take that back, they can be bad if the backstories conflict, or provide no cohesive reason for the party to be together.

Personally, my preferred method as a GM is the following:

1. Start the campaign off with a chargen session where everyone makes their characters together and works together to make sure there's some reason why their characters are all together.
2. Have a ready made adventure that will last no more than a session or two right off the bat.
3. At this point, the players have a general idea of who their characters are, but nothing really firm are detailed yet. They get to "test drive" the PCs through about half a session or so as well, which helps them get a handle on the character, in my experience.
4. Sometime between the next session or two, the players work on expanding their character a bit more, with special focus on coming with with background elements that work well as potential adventure hooks as the campaign progresses.
5. As that material starts coming in, I start weaving it into the adventures.
6. Usually, I only have to plan an adventure or two before the players themselves are driving the campaign direction based on goals and motivations that come from their characters' personality and history and what's happened so far.