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

[Christopher Lambert]

I like Dyal's method.

I like having a backstory, but too often I find DMs want a long and involved one that gets really annoying. (This is especially true in some on-line campaigns ... no, not Turanils, but ones where you're expected to answer 100 questions.)

 

[GlassJaw]

Requiring players to write backgrounds is never a good policy IME. Some players just want to show up, roll some dice, and kill stuff. Some players want an extensive background and unique personality for their characters. Sometimes these players are at the the same table.

I used to require backgrounds or would grant some kind of bonus if a background is written. Regardless, I never felt like I needed to know the player's background to run the campaign. I might get some ideas once in a while but most often, it didn't matter. I'm more concerned now that the players are having fun. If you don't want to write a background, I don't really care.

 

[lauth81]

One example for a background story that heavily influenced a campaign:

I had a human paladin, whose order was destroyed by demon forces and traitors in their own ranks. He was one of the young knights that managed to escaped and vowed to rebuild the order and avenge their fallen comrades. That proved to be the story arc for the whole campaign. I didn´t know this in the beginning and did´nt even expect it to be the case, but it was.

As a DM I encourage players to write a background story, but I don´t demand it. I give out a small XP amount for doing one (up to 200 XP at first level is working wonders ). Mostly, there´s nothing more than an explanation for the PCs in-game-behaviour (like the one fighter, who has a mortal fear of open water) and nothing campaign-influencing like the paladin example above.

 

[ivocaliban]

I mentioned above that PC backstorires are very important to me as a DM, but I've never actually required or even requested a backstory in writing. Having used the interview technique I mentioned in my earlier post, I've found it's most effective to get the kind of information that will prove useful to me without taking up much time or requiring any skill as a writer on the part of my players. I'd certainly welcome a written backstory, but I've never made that request.

Basically, my idea of getting a character's backstory is a game of 20 Questions I ask the PC. I take notes, maybe ask a follow up question, that sort of thing. It helps to get the creative juices flowing on both sides of the fence and came to me after picking up the Legend of the Five Rings rpg years ago. In it were twenty questions a player should ask himself about his character to get a better handle on the type of character they wanted to play. I merely adapted that idea into an interview with the PC. It's actually fun for everyone, so far. And it certainly makes it easier to bring PCs from various backgrounds together when you have all these questions answered early on.

 

[ertai sorcerer]

yes.

Player 1: so we are all in town. how did we meet?

DM: you tell me.

for some this is great roleplay opportunity. for others it is complete waste of time.

For me, your specific example is a complete waste of time. The DM is supposed to tell that, not the players.

But overall, I consider that background stories can only improve things (except if they are way out there, like I'm the son of the king and am about to access the throne, and even then any DM can twist it to a memorable adventure.

I have this principle of mine: PCs can have anything they want, but I'll always have them earn it.

For instance, one of my players (cleric of Gaia) wanted to marry a priestess of Law. She accidentaly broke the link of all clerics to the gods (except the PC, 'cos he came from the future, long story) and they had to track down every bit of that magic and destroy it, as well as every written and memorized trace of it, including their own's. They divorced 8 months later, because she was too restraining for him (he was always off adventuring), but they remained very good friends.

Anyway, what I mean is that players always provide the best adventure hooks for them, because you need to make up no motivation.

 

[irdeggman]

One thing I really hate is when the DM says "Your PC is from here. Your PC knows these languages (usually regional dialects). Give me a d100 roll, give me a d10 roll, give me a d20 roll. Here is your PCs family history, and personal ties."

There is no real connection between the player and his character - it is just an extension of the DM.

My current D&D DM does this. In his mind he has created a detailed world (based on an old game he ran unfortunately only 1 of the 10 or so playing player's played in it so no one knows how things interrelate. He made a feeble attempt to write things down when we started playing. We started this promptly after 3.0 came out. He had "special" races for his dwarves, elves and human subcultures but did not really deal with them game-mechanically to balance them. For example his elves had susceptablity to cold iron. In his original write up (prior to 3.5) this meant they took extra damage from steel and iron based weapons and even some from using metal cookware and utensils. Now he never included any benefit to make up for this and until a player ran an elf it didn't get addressed. He also had dwarves be creatures of the earth and any severe damage they took (vaguely described by him) required healing to be performed by a dwarven spellcaster. We did have 2 dwarves running at the time and one was a bard but we haven't yet had the "severe" damage come into play.

When we "converted" to 3.5 I tried to work with him to create some balance on these issues so they are better, but still not well done IMO.

Now on the other hand this DM when he plays in a game runs very detailed PCs with rich personal histories. So go figure how one can not bring over things to both sides of the table.

Now when playing I generally make up some kind of history to explain what drives my PC. In our d20 Star Wars game (which started as a West End one) I run a couple of very detailed PCs. I just happen to work well with another player who happens to be a DM for our Alternity Star*Drive and Alternity Gamma World games. We ahve developed characters that work well together. Our oldest characters didn't know each other before meeting but have since become "best friends" even though mine is a Klatoonian. Our newest characters are both force usering brothers from a planet that is ripe with natural force users and has a spiritual/primative nature. His is a force adapt/finger while mine is a fringer/jedi warrior. I made up some info as to why our PCs were in exile. The Empire was going to capture and disect my PCs brother (older)and my PC needed to get him off planet before that happened. My PC's brother thought that the Imperials were after my PC since he "stole" something from them and delivered it to the Rebellion. It was actually a ruse to convice my PCs brother to leave.

Now this hasn't developed into a deep thread in the game, but every now and then the GM has the Imperials do a second look at our characters. Thank goodness for the Jedi Mind trick "these aren't the people you are looking for." But it does provide a reason for the deep caretaking of each other our PCs have. No one messes with my brother - and they both are willing to sacrifice each other for the other if needed.

 

[Thornir Alekeg]

I think that histories and backstories can only help a campaign. At the same time I understand that different players see it in different ways. In my current campaign I have been pestering my players for some kind of character history. I explained to the players that it will help me to better understand what each player wants from his or her character. With that I can hopefully tailor the campaign to allow everyone to develop their character the way they want and make some personal connections.

Yesterday I received two character histories, one was a three page story with all kinds of information about where the character grew up, information about his family members and some of the reasons the character is who he is. The second one was a single paragraph, gave a general idea of where the character is from and said that he wanted to explore the lands where his mother came from. Needless to say I will be better able to work with the first player's history for now. I then have to hope that the second player either a) does not mind the campaign taking side treks tied to the first player's character because he is just along for the ride or b) later on develops the character a little more so his character can become more personally involved in the story.

 

[Rafael Ceurdepyr]

Definitely a fan of the backstory. (Although I must confess in the Leviathan campaign that I felt some of the backstory derailed the front story.) I feel like the backstory helps me get into the character and decide how to play him. I've been accused of being a LARPer, because I like the non-combat interactions that grow out of backstory. In Leviathan, Raef's backstory influenced how he behaved (kicked out of cantor's school because he preferred hanging around street corners and singing) and what happened to him (got killed in a duel because of a previous duel he'd won--he got better).

That said, in a Call of Cthulhu game, I came up with an elaborate backstory before even rolling up the character. Big mistake. The numbers didn't really support his background and none of the backstory was used by the GM. But then, he hadn't asked for us to get as elaborate as I did.

 

[Stormborn]

For me, your specific example is a complete waste of time. The DM is supposed to tell that, not the players.

I'm sorry, what page is that on? (shudder...am I defending diaglo? eeek)

No intention of being snippy, but just trying to illustrate a point. Where did that idea come from? It is just these kinds of assumptions that need to be worked out by the group so that everyone is happy.

One of my players recently commented to the effect that the DM was supposed to provide motivation to interest his character in doing something. To a degree this is true, the problem however lies in his character. He is one of those "show up roll die kill stuff take stuff" players. The other players have extended,and often convoluted, backstories, with extended plot hooks. I know that they like roleplaying, and I know that he will put up with it , but not really particpate unless forced. When working on the campaign it is easy to find motives for the other players, but even when there is hope of reward he doesn't really see the point. His PCs typically don't have enough of a personality to even justify being with the other PCs. They just exist.

It is extremely difficult to motivate a PC who has no personality or background w/o resorting to "fetch the stick" kind of games. Especially in the baroque intrigue kind of games that both the other players and the DM want to have.

(and before anyone starts suggesting he find another group to play with, his wife is the worst when it comes to elaborate backgrounds, and he wouldn't play w/o her.)

So, ultimatelly i think that some kind of background always helps to define the character and help the DM with the campaign. Certainly some backgrounds can be a problem, and I think the DM should help guide them to make them an appropriate fit for the campaign and world. However if the players are willing to say: "OK i have this in my background AND i am in this party for a reason" then it should work out fine.

 

[Rafael Ceurdepyr]

his wife is the worst when it comes to elaborate backgrounds

Hey! Wait a minute! I resemble that remark!

Oh wait. He's right. I am the worst. See my previous post in this thread.