DragonLancer
Hero
Quasqueton said:
And how do you think they got to be 1st level in the first place?
I come from a time when D&D had 0-level commoners, and I always figured that characters must have had something happen to jump them to 1st.
PC histories/backstories -- help, hindrance, neither?
- Thread starter Quasqueton
- Start date
And how do you think they got to be 1st level in the first place?
I come from a time when D&D had 0-level commoners, and I always figured that characters must have had something happen to jump them to 1st.
no effect
I picked the "no effect" option because we usually don't have them for a given game. On the odd occasion that we do have one, the backstory might enhance the game or it might hinder the game.
I have had great fun playing a PC with a detailed backstory. Even a minimal story helps me get into the role. Fun.
Conversely, I have had the headache of having player wanting HIS backstory to control parts of the campaign world; and the charcater had no knowledge of the world. When that player DMed, he rejected another player's backstory as too detailed for play. Not fun.
I think the basic problem is that players don't separate player knowledge from character knowledge. A backstory is often just an excuse to infuse player knowledge into character knowledge without "wasting" skill points on knowledge skills.
Overall, I can leave the backstories in the back. My current game has none, and it's working out great.
I picked the "no effect" option because we usually don't have them for a given game. On the odd occasion that we do have one, the backstory might enhance the game or it might hinder the game.
I have had great fun playing a PC with a detailed backstory. Even a minimal story helps me get into the role. Fun.
Conversely, I have had the headache of having player wanting HIS backstory to control parts of the campaign world; and the charcater had no knowledge of the world. When that player DMed, he rejected another player's backstory as too detailed for play. Not fun.
I think the basic problem is that players don't separate player knowledge from character knowledge. A backstory is often just an excuse to infuse player knowledge into character knowledge without "wasting" skill points on knowledge skills.
Overall, I can leave the backstories in the back. My current game has none, and it's working out great.
Herpes Cineplex
First Post
I like Quasqueton's point about backgrounds that are far too elaborate for 1st level characters; in fact, I was all psyched to post it myself, but he beat me to it.
One of our problem players, now thankfully no longer gaming with us, used to do that, as well as the other "bad background" things Quasqueton mentions. We'd get the starting-power-level character who was involved in ridiculously overpowered events before the game started, who also had a personality in play which was diametrically opposed to the personality suggested by the background, and who also typically violated one of the campaign concepts discussed by the GM at the start of the game (if you said "make characters who would be interested in doing good deeds on the high seas," her character would be the murderous bandit queen of the mountain passes). It was like hitting the trifecta of Bad PC Design.
She also rarely shared her character background with anyone else, even the GM. It was all top secret, I guess. Or she couldn't be bothered to finish it, or she just liked complaining that we'd started the game before she had a chance to finish it (funny, because we take 2-4 weeks after the game is announced and characters are being made before we actually play).
That's about as bad as any problem we've ever had with character backgrounds has ever gotten.
With our healthier, more well-adjusted players, we follow this rule:
...and it works out very well. In general, people work up as much background detail as they want to, if they want to work up any details at all. The broad strokes of their character, though, are discussed early on with the other players and the GM: usually the main questions are "Why are the PCs hanging around each other?", "What kinds of things do they do as a group, and what group goals do they have?", and "What kinds of things do they NOT want to do?"
Getting answers to those questions early on is immensely helpful to both the players and the GM. It also gives people who want to have some kind of backstory-related goal the opportunity to pitch it to the GM before the game begins, to see whether it's something that can work in this particular game. If the GM says it'll work, it gives the other players advance warning so they can try to figure out reasons for their characters to be interested in that goal as well if they want to. If it won't work, the idea can be scrapped before anyone gets too attached to it (and almost certainly will be able to fit into another game later on).
Personally, I consider the bulk of a PC's background to have nothing at all to do with the GM: it's there for the player's sake and no one else's. Sometimes it's fun to work out all the things like who a PC's family was or their pet's name or whatever; it can make playing that character more entertaining for the player. But as far as the GM's concerned, it shouldn't (and doesn't) make much difference, because it's more important to stay focused on what kind of person the PC actually IS right now, what their opinions on current campaign events are, and what plans they're making for their immediate future. If there's something in the background that can help answer those questions or shape those plans, that's the kind of thing that gets discussed during character generation.
--
eventually we're going to try having no backgrounds at all, and just handle them in flashbacks
ryan
One of our problem players, now thankfully no longer gaming with us, used to do that, as well as the other "bad background" things Quasqueton mentions. We'd get the starting-power-level character who was involved in ridiculously overpowered events before the game started, who also had a personality in play which was diametrically opposed to the personality suggested by the background, and who also typically violated one of the campaign concepts discussed by the GM at the start of the game (if you said "make characters who would be interested in doing good deeds on the high seas," her character would be the murderous bandit queen of the mountain passes). It was like hitting the trifecta of Bad PC Design.
She also rarely shared her character background with anyone else, even the GM. It was all top secret, I guess. Or she couldn't be bothered to finish it, or she just liked complaining that we'd started the game before she had a chance to finish it (funny, because we take 2-4 weeks after the game is announced and characters are being made before we actually play).
That's about as bad as any problem we've ever had with character backgrounds has ever gotten.
With our healthier, more well-adjusted players, we follow this rule:
Joshua Dyal said:
...and it works out very well. In general, people work up as much background detail as they want to, if they want to work up any details at all. The broad strokes of their character, though, are discussed early on with the other players and the GM: usually the main questions are "Why are the PCs hanging around each other?", "What kinds of things do they do as a group, and what group goals do they have?", and "What kinds of things do they NOT want to do?"
Getting answers to those questions early on is immensely helpful to both the players and the GM. It also gives people who want to have some kind of backstory-related goal the opportunity to pitch it to the GM before the game begins, to see whether it's something that can work in this particular game. If the GM says it'll work, it gives the other players advance warning so they can try to figure out reasons for their characters to be interested in that goal as well if they want to. If it won't work, the idea can be scrapped before anyone gets too attached to it (and almost certainly will be able to fit into another game later on).
Personally, I consider the bulk of a PC's background to have nothing at all to do with the GM: it's there for the player's sake and no one else's. Sometimes it's fun to work out all the things like who a PC's family was or their pet's name or whatever; it can make playing that character more entertaining for the player. But as far as the GM's concerned, it shouldn't (and doesn't) make much difference, because it's more important to stay focused on what kind of person the PC actually IS right now, what their opinions on current campaign events are, and what plans they're making for their immediate future. If there's something in the background that can help answer those questions or shape those plans, that's the kind of thing that gets discussed during character generation.
--
eventually we're going to try having no backgrounds at all, and just handle them in flashbacks
ryan
Elder-Basilisk
First Post
My experience is that it is different with different groups but that an open invitation to just "write a backstory" is asking for trouble.
In one campaign, for instance, the game was set in the Savage Coast. I decided to play an Aragorn as ranger of the north type character whose family had lost their holdings before the invasion of Turrosh Mak but still defended the land and people out of a sense of noblesse oblige. There was also a rogue who was on the run from the Safeton guild for some reason, and a pair of elves who were human-hating kleptomaniacs. Needless to say, the elves never did anything but cause trouble and it was a happy day when their players decided to quit. The rogue wasn't really working with the party, and I spent the entirety of the campaign wondering "what's going on? why am I here?" The basic problem was that the DM didn't want to tell us what the campaign was about so we had a bunch of backstories and goals but they did nothing to tie us into the campaign.
As a DM, I've recently had some success with backstories. I described the campaign to the players, told them the basic premise, and the kind of characters I was looking for (they would all be questors, looking for a mystical chapel whose appearance was supposed to portend great things for the kingdom). So, I ended up with a deposed noble pretending to be a peasant, a huntsman whose lord had been killed in a blood-feud, an older noble who joined the quest to get back to an environment where he was more comfortable and get out of his wife's way as she married off their daughters, and a few other characters. I was able to tie some of the characters together and started developing a few threads from the get-go. Overall, the ability to include specific challenges--like, does a character delay his quest to seek revenge upon a bandit he recognizes from his past, or does the deposed noble defend his people against a raid or go on to get an artifact in a later quest--enabled me to provide role-playing challenges to the group that would otherwise not have been possible.
So I've seen character backgrounds both get in the way and enhance games.
In one campaign, for instance, the game was set in the Savage Coast. I decided to play an Aragorn as ranger of the north type character whose family had lost their holdings before the invasion of Turrosh Mak but still defended the land and people out of a sense of noblesse oblige. There was also a rogue who was on the run from the Safeton guild for some reason, and a pair of elves who were human-hating kleptomaniacs. Needless to say, the elves never did anything but cause trouble and it was a happy day when their players decided to quit. The rogue wasn't really working with the party, and I spent the entirety of the campaign wondering "what's going on? why am I here?" The basic problem was that the DM didn't want to tell us what the campaign was about so we had a bunch of backstories and goals but they did nothing to tie us into the campaign.
As a DM, I've recently had some success with backstories. I described the campaign to the players, told them the basic premise, and the kind of characters I was looking for (they would all be questors, looking for a mystical chapel whose appearance was supposed to portend great things for the kingdom). So, I ended up with a deposed noble pretending to be a peasant, a huntsman whose lord had been killed in a blood-feud, an older noble who joined the quest to get back to an environment where he was more comfortable and get out of his wife's way as she married off their daughters, and a few other characters. I was able to tie some of the characters together and started developing a few threads from the get-go. Overall, the ability to include specific challenges--like, does a character delay his quest to seek revenge upon a bandit he recognizes from his past, or does the deposed noble defend his people against a raid or go on to get an artifact in a later quest--enabled me to provide role-playing challenges to the group that would otherwise not have been possible.
So I've seen character backgrounds both get in the way and enhance games.
NewJeffCTHome
First Post
I have not read more than the first few replies so far, but I will say that it all depends on the background. A good, realistic background can really add to the campaign. However, more often or not, I see backgrounds that are more appropriate for a 4th to 6th level PC (or higher) than a beginning first level character. I think if you put in TOO much detail and too many earth-shaking events into your PC background, you risk making the DM feel guilty if he or she does not hit each & every one of the 2001 facets of your background.
NewJeffCTHome
First Post
DragonLancer said:And how do you think they got to be 1st level in the first place?
I come from a time when D&D had 0-level commoners, and I always figured that characters must have had something happen to jump them to 1st.
To add to what Quas said, I've seen similar backgrounds - and not only that. They were imprisoned by hobgoblins for a year and then led a slave revolt that allowed them to escape their slave masters by ducking into the dreaded Black Swamp where the band of escaped slaves lost many of their number due to attacks from trolls & ogres as well as the evil swamp lich, who managed to get all the slaves except said PC.
When I returned to playing D&D after a 13-year hiatus, this was my biggest surprise. I was stunned to discover that people who had got involved in the game during the 90s had developed this custom where the player would create a character background without consulting the GM. I found it bizarre --and quite unproductive.
I believe character backgrounds can add a lot but they cannot be something primarily controlled by the player. The background needs to arise out of a dialogue between player and GM; in my view, the ideal character background is one hammered out over a weekend brunch or after-dinner drinks.
I believe character backgrounds can add a lot but they cannot be something primarily controlled by the player. The background needs to arise out of a dialogue between player and GM; in my view, the ideal character background is one hammered out over a weekend brunch or after-dinner drinks.
cybertalus
First Post
Gneech, I hear you about not getting character backgrounds when I DM. Which is a shame, because usually at least one or two of my players also DM, and I'd really like a chance to show them how cool it can be to have a DM integrate bits of their character background into the game.
Quasqueton, I've been totally guilty of the overly full character background. It took me a while, but I finally figured out I was trying to give my DMs hints about things I'd like to do with my character. Not that necessarily wanted the DM to do things exactly as I had it written up, but things with similar themes and situations.
I've also created a character and thought he would play a certain way, only to find out that something in the campaign world or other PCs would send him off in an entirely different direction. Or sometimes I will sincerely think I can play a certain personality, only to find in actual play that I'm so horrible at it that I need to change how the character behaves. It's not malicious or trying to vex the DM, it's just how things turn out.
It seems that a lot of this comes down to how much influence and perhaps input the players have on the direction and storyline of the campaign. As a player I much prefer to feel like what I and the other players want to do makes a difference. All too often I've played in games where I've felt that the DM had a story he wanted to tell and it didn't really matter if the players wanted to do something else entirely different. While that's probably true of a lot of campaigns, it's more enjoyable for me as a player when there is at least the illusion that I have some influence.
Quasqueton, I've been totally guilty of the overly full character background. It took me a while, but I finally figured out I was trying to give my DMs hints about things I'd like to do with my character. Not that necessarily wanted the DM to do things exactly as I had it written up, but things with similar themes and situations.
I've also created a character and thought he would play a certain way, only to find out that something in the campaign world or other PCs would send him off in an entirely different direction. Or sometimes I will sincerely think I can play a certain personality, only to find in actual play that I'm so horrible at it that I need to change how the character behaves. It's not malicious or trying to vex the DM, it's just how things turn out.
It seems that a lot of this comes down to how much influence and perhaps input the players have on the direction and storyline of the campaign. As a player I much prefer to feel like what I and the other players want to do makes a difference. All too often I've played in games where I've felt that the DM had a story he wanted to tell and it didn't really matter if the players wanted to do something else entirely different. While that's probably true of a lot of campaigns, it's more enjoyable for me as a player when there is at least the illusion that I have some influence.
Afrodyte
Explorer
I am also a stickler for character backgrounds, but I am very particular about the type of information I want to get from them. I used to have very long, elaborate backstories for my characters (as a player and as GM), but as my interest in dramatic writing grew, the word count on my characters' backgrounds lessened, but the information was more focused. I made sure to give appropriate details about my character's major life experiences, significant relationships, goals, and motives. In other words, I am very careful about making sure there is something the GM can do with my character's background. In doing so, I often ask more questions about the setting. When the GM knows the setting and knows the type of game he wants to run, it is much easier for me to make a background that works with the campaign than when I am told something generic like "standard D&D."
This extends to my GMing as well. Despite admonitions about giving every player an equal share in spotlight time, I find that I am biased towards those PCs which have a reason to do things in the world beyond simply being an adventurer. After all, when these characters are the center of attention, I am doing more of what I actually enjoy.
This extends to my GMing as well. Despite admonitions about giving every player an equal share in spotlight time, I find that I am biased towards those PCs which have a reason to do things in the world beyond simply being an adventurer. After all, when these characters are the center of attention, I am doing more of what I actually enjoy.
Doug McCrae
Legend
It should the other way round in 3rd ed cause +LA sucks. You wanna be a half-dragon? No problem, go nuts! You wanna be a human? Well justify it you powergaming sunnavabitch!Scribble said:If a player wants to play soemthing "weird" IE a half dragon, or half demon, or somesuch thing or other from savage species a backstory then becomes mandatory. My reasoning is that if you can't give me a good reason that you want to play this thing other then because it gives me plus this or that, then sorry no weirdness for you.
Similar Threads
