Where Has All the History Gone?

[Celebrim]

oops

 

[gizmo33]

What happens when I have six different PCs in my campaign world that all have pressing concerns forced on them by their backgrounds? I would imagine I'd wind up with 6 different PC parties.

 

[Ed_Laprade]

In my campaign, you can be related to anyone you like provided you gain no advantage of it. Want to be a part of the the royal family? No problem, just explain how you're a part of it but obtain no real advantage from it. Reasonably, this means that you can be related to anyone provided you give yourself some restrictions on the relationship like: you're illegitimate, you're the black sheep of the family, your family hates you, you've been disinherited, you're the 10th of 12 kids and you don't stand to inherit anything, etc.

If you actually want to have a tangible starting advantage from your background, like the ability to call in favors, recieve loans, legal protection, have an income, have some significant noble rank, etc. then then you have to buy a trait that confers a social advantage like: patron, noble birth, wealthy, heirloom, or whatever.

The reason I have no problem with being 'the third son of the Baron' or '18th in line to the throne', is that so long as it confers no special starting advantage it actually confers no additional long term advantage as well. In the long term, the characters - if they survive - are going to be wealthy heros who will themselves be powerful and who will be able to obtain the favors and friendships of the powerful whether or not they have in their background some theoretical connection to these people. By having a theoretical connection to 'the Baron', it just makes the future role play with those that much more interesting and involving. If it makes the player feel his character is more 'cool', then I'm all for it.

What I'm not for and greatly dislike is a player who invents a background expecting to cash in on that background for some free loot, extra skill points or other advantages. "It says in my background X, so you should let me do Y.", is a statement I consider to be very hostile and adversarial. If you can do Y, it should be reflected on your character sheet. Your character sheet is who you are; your background is only how you got to where you are. You can come up with any background you want to explain your character sheet, but you can't come up with any character sheet you want by explaining your background.

So basically, you agree with me. The character needs approval, if not prior to being introduced. Actually, I like the way you do this. It can add a lot to the actual role playing. (Party arrives at Duke Nukem's castle to ask for help in their current quest. Count Yourchange: "Um, hi dad." Duke Nukem: "How dare you set foot in this castle again!" Rest of party: "Huh?")

 

[haakon1]

What happens when I have six different PCs in my campaign world that all have pressing concerns forced on them by their backgrounds? I would imagine I'd wind up with 6 different PC parties.

Nod. Kinda thinking the same thing. Maybe one at a time?

 

[Jack7]

To my own thoughts on the topic: As Celebrim says below, this is the sort of thing that has potential for abuse by players. Still, if the GM manages it carefully, it could add a lot. In general, I would say that players should be allowed to give themselves legacies fairly freely, and heirlooms within reason (which is to say, you can declare that your PC has a family sword, you can even declare that it's magical, but you can't declare that it's a +5 holy avenger). Inheritances should be mostly for the GM to hand out.

This is something Ed brought up earlier and I forgot to mention. Cause I was pressed for time. Still am cause I'm going up to the planetarium tonight to do some star and planet watching.

Yes, when it comes to heirlooms and inheritances, I (being the DM or GM) generally tend to hand out that kinda thing, but with player input. Though I don't usually give out information with those heirlooms and inheritances. Unless it is a special situation.

As for legacies, and by this I mean family legacies, I usually either let the players develop those ideas themselves, or let that kind of thing be let out piece by piece. That is a player may know he has a legacy, but he might not discover all of the details up front.

I don't though tell players what to do with or about their heirlooms, inheritances, or legacies. That's up to them. If they want to blow them drinking them away then that's up to them. But as with myth and fiction then such objects or legacies often just move on to another person who is willing to make better use of them.

What I'm not for and greatly dislike is a player who invents a background expecting to cash in on that background for some free loot, extra skill points or other advantages. "It says in my background X, so you should let me do Y.", is a statement I consider to be very hostile and adversarial. If you can do Y, it should be reflected on your character sheet. Your character sheet is who you are; your background is only how you got to where you are. You can come up with any background you want to explain your character sheet, but you can't come up with any character sheet you want by explaining your background.

I personally don't think heirlooms, legacies, and inheritances should transfer advantages without costs. I think people benefit from such things all of the time, but as with myths and fairy tales and so forth (and even with history) advantages usually imply costs and responsibilities. To that extent I completely agree.

Heirlooms, inheritances, and legacies should not give automatic advantages without corrpeosnsidng duties and responsibilities and costs. (In that way they are sorta like magical items. You could sell or squander the advantages that magical items give you, but it is foolish to do so in most cases.) They shouldn't be an excuse just to party, buy prostitutes, and live it up, or they become in effect all reduced simply to selfish money advantages. (Of course you've always got the story of the Prodigal Son, or Henry the Vth. The guy who squanders his wealth or seems to disregard his legacy, only to later reform. Wu Lee in my Hoshi group started out as a character like that and later became reformed. It depends on how you let the characters be handled.)

But if used in other ways than just as a source of ready cash then they are good and important adventure and role play tools.

Nod. Kinda thinking the same thing. Maybe one at a time?

I think anything can be abused. Or can become so convoluted that it fails to work properly. So I agree, if every character is simultaneously working on their own Quest, let's say, then it's hard to maintain group cohesion or even have a real game. Everyone is off adventuring in a different direction.

However, that being said, sometimes when more than one party member is pursuing some aspect of a legacy, heirloom, or inheritance simultaneously, or at about the same time, it can makes for some very, very interesting role play, adventuring, and conflict situations. As the players try to sort out what is most important to pursue at any given time, and why. Conflicting interests can be interesting role play and adventuring situations.

Well, it's dark now. Time to hit the observatory.

 

[Jürgen Hubert]

What happens when I have six different PCs in my campaign world that all have pressing concerns forced on them by their backgrounds? I would imagine I'd wind up with 6 different PC parties.

Hmmm... Not necessarily. After all, if they all have important family connections, then they can be a useful resource for each other. They'd essentially be a new alliance, ready to shake up regional politics.

 

[Siran Dunmorgan]

The most recent editions of Dungeons & Dragons have, as it happens, featured explicit support for many of the concepts presented in this thread.

For instance, the 3.5 Edition Player's Handbook II featured an extensive chapter entitled "Affiliations" [1]; many of the racial affiliations presented, e.g. the Caravan of Shadows, or the Bloodfist Tribe, can be construed as representing a character's extended family or, literally, tribe. The Dragon Island affiliation is an example of an affiliation that, while not specifically familial in nature, enhances the social and cultural position of the character in the world.

Much of the game mechanics of affiliations has been carried over into 4th edition in the form of the artifact rules [2], with the differences that the score is now referred to as "concordance", and the relationship is with an object rather than a social organization. The principle remains roughly the same: if the character fulfills certain conditions, and the artifact 'likes' the character better. Typically, these conditions include the character gaining levels; since higher levels typically translate into higher concordance scores, gaining levels typically results in 'unlocking' new powers or properties of the artifact.

The term "heirloom" is used explicitly in Adventurer's Vault, in the context of items that scale in power with their wielders:

This system can even be used to turn mundane items into magic items. A PC's nonmagical heirloom longsword might be empowered by exposure to magic or a heroic deed to become a signature magic weapon. [3]​

The system presented in Adventurer's Vault describes how increases in power in a character's heirloom weapon can be handled mechanically by depriving the character of a treasure parcel that they might otherwise have used to purchase a more powerful weapon, i.e. instead of receiving treasure that's then used to purchase items, the character is simply assumed to have progressively updated their existing item in lieu of the gold they would normally have received.

It can be seen from these examples that Dungeons & Dragons does not, as a matter of policy forbid players from incorporating heirlooms, legacies and similar items to enhance their sense of immersion in the game-world

—Siran Dunmorgan


[1] Noonan, David, Player's Handbook II (Wizards of the Coast: 2006), p. 163 ff.

[2] Wyatt, James, Dungeon Master's Guide (Wizards of the Coast: 2008), p. 164 ff.

[3] Bonner, Logan; Eytan Bernstein; Chris Sims; Adventurer's Vault, (Wizards of the Coast: 2008), p. 198

 

[Woas]

Nod. Kinda thinking the same thing. Maybe one at a time?

I concur.

Although I appreciate the effort, and your past topics have been swell Jack, it has been my experience with (specifically D&D) trying to promote these themes; that is character familial stories, connections, legends, to a table of Dungeon-Slayers really just isn't worth the effort.
We go on Player Character A's personal quest and then character B dies during it so character B's player becomes upset that his/her personal quest never was undertaken... yadda yadda yadda. What I'm saying is with D&D (and specifically D&D. Because there are other P&P RPGs where this stuff is a requirement to gameplay) giving too much wait to a single character's history and special items is putting the "game spotlight" on them not just for a moment, or scene but for an entire adventure and then some. Which honestly is asking a lot from the other player's time, effort an energy to get involved and invested in.

Granted I am sure there are GMs and players out there who would eat this stuff up, and probably utilize these kinds of gameplay aspects already. But on a typical base assumption of the D&D game, I believe you are going to end up with a fragmented player group as Gizmo questioned.

 

[Quartz]

Oh my eyes! Unholy Lovecraftian loquacity!

It was explicitly stated in one of the earlier DMGs (maybe 2e) that the characters are expected to be younger children, sent to earn their way in the world. Their starting money is their inheritance. And, as others have noted, it's often better that way. If you as GM wish to layer stuff on top of that, it's up to you. A RPG rule set is a framework, not the be-all and end-all.

The exception that proves the rules is Cerebral Paladin's sadly defunct Aphonion Tales story hour.

 

[Nifft]

It was explicitly stated in one of the earlier DMGs (maybe 2e) that the characters are expected to be younger children, sent to earn their way in the world. Their starting money is their inheritance. And, as others have noted, it's often better that way. If you as GM wish to layer stuff on top of that, it's up to you.

Yeah. And this suggestion was there because (wait for it) "History" was getting old.

It's great when a player likes this kind of stuff; it's just fine when a player doesn't want to bother with it.

To use my favorite story hour as an example, Eadric the Paladin has a rich history, with strong ties to the setting and many major NPCs.
Mostin has far less history.
Both are excellent characters.

Cheers, -- N