D&D 5E Players railroading dungeonmasters

[tommybahama]

I saw this video and didn't quite understand it. It claims that extensive player backstories railroad the DM and that backstories should be created in the game rather than beforehand. I watched it again and it still had me scratching my head as they gave no examples but had a link to a five page pdf you can download for a dollar...

Someone commented on the video that they only allow their players a two sentence backstory and the creators replied that it should be only three words. That would be like "Elf street urchin warlock" or something like that I guess.

So is there something to this idea or is it just a way to make a buck? Video below:

 

[iserith]

The rule in my games is backstories can be no longer than a Tweet. The fewer words, the better. Just enough to get across the concept to other players and the DM. My games are not based on character backstories, though certain elements may be established during play.

 

[Stormonu]

Personally, I’m not going to read a player backstory that is longer than a paragraph or two. And I prefer it to be bit open so things can develop in-game.

Always enjoy having it turn out that one of the player’s relatives or past acquaintances is now working for the BBEG.

 

[Oofta]

I have veto power over backstories, the video is just a way to make a buck.

I can almost always find some way to fit a backstory in to my game, it's never been an issue other than working out specific details with the player. The only time I've seen it be an issue is when someone wants to have something like the noble background but then I just work out with them how their background is no more or less than other backgrounds.

 

[Urriak Uruk]

I mean, yes there is something to this idea, but neither way is inherently better.

A game can be great where the players have long backstories, and I don't think this really "railroads" DMs that much. They use Matt Mercer as the example in the thumbnail, I assume because the character in the "Mighty Nein" campaign all have detailed backstories. But do we really think Mercer feels that railroaded? I doubt it, especially since he has 6 different backstories (all wildly different) to explore. It limits his options I suppose, but limiting options is often an aide to creativity, not a hindrance. And he is absolutely inventing plenty of material wholecloth, so I don't think he would consider himself being "railroaded" by his players.

Contrast that to campaign 1, where the character of Critical Role didn't really have backstories (at least when they first made the characters). This game is also pretty great, and fun to watch!

Anyway, I think the thesis of this video is a little flawed. Not entirely incorrect, just flawed.

 

[prabe]

I've never gotten the sense that the people who prefer shorter backstories do so because they felt longer ones railroaded them as GMs. It's seemed more to me like a preference to have them be more emergent.

I prefer backstories with a little more substance than some people--because I consider that to be a way to connect the PCs to the setting and the campaign, and it's the only consistent way for players to add things to my world--and I've never felt railroaded by the players. I've grumbled from time to time about players burying the useful parts of their backstories in thousands of words of cruft, but that's nothing like the same thing.

 

[iserith]

Anyway, I think the thesis of this video is a little flawed. Not entirely incorrect, just flawed.

Yes, it's just more drift on a definition that used to be fairly narrow in scope in my experience. Now like many RPG terms people use it to describe "that thing you're doing that I don't like." Useless.

 

[prabe]

Yes, it's just more drift on a definition that used to be fairly narrow in scope in my experience. Now like many RPG terms people use it to describe "that thing you're doing that I don't like." Useless.

It's nothing I'd be inclined to argue hard about, but I think it's at least a little more specific than that. It usually comes across as "I can't do this thing I want," without any particular regard for why.

 

[iserith]

It's nothing I'd be inclined to argue hard about, but I think it's at least a little more specific than that. It usually comes across as "I can't do this thing I want," without any particular regard for why.

Railroading the DM though? C'mon. They do suggest there's a problem with backstories, and that can be true, but it's not railroading.

 

[prabe]

Railroading the DM though? C'mon. They do suggest there's a problem with backstories, and that can be true, but it's not railroading.

I don't think I'm disagreeing, here. Yes, there are potential issues with backstories, but they can be avoided. No, having to work with your player to make their character's backstory fit your world and their ideas isn't railroading the DM.