PDA

View Full Version : Is campaign backstory a waste?



Talakeal
2015-11-09, 03:27 PM
I am working on a new campaign for when my regular gaming group gets together again in a few months. I have a put a lot of effort into the setting (which is a continuation of my previous campaign but set hundreds of years into the future) and have put a lot of work into the backstory of the region.

I am having a bit of trouble getting the first adventure to flow, and there is one point where I am having a lot of trouble figuring out how to get the players from one plot point to the next. I asked the DM of my current group and he came up with a good solution, but one that required me to rewrite or abandon large elements of the setting.

He told me that is totally irrelevant. Backstory only exists to drive the current plot forward and has no value. Players won't even bother to learn 90% of the background elements you put in the game, and the ten percent they do learn they won't care about and it will be quickly forgotten. He went on to say that backstory and setting detail serves no purpose but to drive the story at the moment, and one should not even bother to make anything that happened in the past, or in the present if it is outside of the players vicinity, interesting or compelling let alone consistent.

Backstory and setting details are for novels, he said, and the worst thing in the world a DM can do is treat their game like a novel.


I hadn't really thought about this before, but I feel there is a lot of truth in what he said. Most players do seem to flat out ignore flavor text and not care at all about the game's plot even as it affects their character, and many players actively refuse to come up with or care about backstory for even their own PC. Am I wasting my time putting all this effort into setting detail? Should I throw out months of work on the campaign backstory for the sake of making a session flow a little smoother?



Note: I am talking about setting and backstory, not plot. I don't have anything set up for the future, only the past and present. This is not about railroading or spotlight hogging NPCs, or any other sort of restriction of player agency for the sake of my story.

BWR
2015-11-09, 03:38 PM
It depends on the player.

Campaign backstory is the setting. The details, the flavor, the history that gives a sense of age and 'realism' to the setting. I love it and have a hard time getting invested in any game without a proper setting description and history I can learn about and get excited by. It helps build my character and my interest. Backstory and setting are not novels, they are the stage on which the PCs act. Star Wars wouldn't have been as great as it is if not for the hints of an ancient and vast setting to play in, yet it is very much the PCs' story.

I know players who don't give a crap about anything but bland backdrops for their latest murderhoboing.

So for me it's not a waste. For others it is.

Ninjadeadbeard
2015-11-09, 03:38 PM
Backstory for settings and campaigns rarely have any meaning for PCs beyond the thin explanation of who they gotta kill and loot this time around.

The Backstory is for the GM. I am regularly praised for my DM-style because it is heavily sandbox and my players generally love that there is ALWAYS something new whichever direction they take. I know everything about my universe, and so I am able to convincingly improvise on the spot endlessly. If I didn't know the backstory, could I keep my players entertained in this way? Of course not.

Your GM friend has a different style. Keep to yours.

Fri
2015-11-09, 03:50 PM
Depends.

For me the question is this. Does it matter in the actual game at all?

If no, yes, it's a waste.

If yes, no it's not a waste.

I mean, will your player learn about the backtory without the gm feeding them? I mean, will they look at a library looking for a way to kill the mysterious evil wraith. Then in the library they'll find out that the evil wraith is actually an ancient king who did some unspeakeable deed a thousand years ago and it can only be hurt by a weapon forged by his son.

Then go for it. Think about the backstory, think up about that ancient kingdom and where was it capital located and what's their typical army (for the zombie army) and so on.

If your players won't do that or don't need to do something similar? And the only reason they'll find out that there used to be an ancient kingdom and there's a line of 15 godking and such is because you'll narrate it to them before the game? Then why bother.

mephnick
2015-11-09, 03:52 PM
Like Ninjadeadbeard said, the back story is there for you to run the setting properly and efficiently. Your players probably won't care otherwise.

My setting has a lot of history, but before our first session in it, all I gave them was a few sentences about what happened in the last major war because that's the thing that most effects the setting at this time. The rest is in my mind so I can answer questions and make the actions of the NPC's make sense. I love writing history, but I know it's for me and the sooner I made peace with that the better my games ran.

You should definitely never ever expect the players to read a document about your setting, or sit there and listen to 20 minutes of exposition. The eager over explanation of setting details that is common with DM's can make it seem like they're running a novel. However I disagree that background isn't important, because it helps the game (and DM) in so many other ways.

Flickerdart
2015-11-09, 03:54 PM
The backstory of a campaign setting is essentially Schrodinger's Cat - until the players witness a portion of it, it exists in a superposition of every possibility. Just because you were originally thinking it's one way doesn't mean that you can't change it. How much you change it is also up to you. If you spent months working on it, there must be a lot of material. Do you have to dump all of it? Can you only change some parts and leave others? Of the parts you do dump, can you reuse them in another place?

You should never treat your setting as a novel, but rather as a Lego set. There are different pieces in there, and the picture on the box is not necessarily how you will put it together when you start playing.

Red Fel
2015-11-09, 04:34 PM
I hadn't really thought about this before, but I feel there is a lot of truth in what he said. Most players do seem to flat out ignore flavor text and not care at all about the game's plot even as it affects their character, and many players actively refuse to come up with or care about backstory for even their own PC. Am I wasting my time putting all this effort into setting detail? Should I throw out months of work on the campaign backstory for the sake of making a session flow a little smoother?

Picture it. A group of tourists arrive in Ruritania. They're here for various reasons. There's a family of four doing a tour of the continent, a geologist traveling and taking soil samples, a bird watcher, a retiree who has made a tradition of coming here every year, and so forth. Lots of them are there for various reasons.

In Ruritania, there may be a large, dense forest. Now, if this was a group like the family of four, who want to see a few castles and then spend the rest of the vacation by the pool, that's entirely irrelevant. However, if one of the tourists was a botanist, and his thesis happened to be on the forms of plantlife indigenous to this part of Europe, you're **** right he's going to want to go to that forest.

That's the point. Many players do ignore a lot of backstory, except where it directly impacts them. And that's fine. But some players relish it, and those players will feel a bit let down if your campaign comes up lacking in that way.

Now, look at these players. The ones coming to your game. All generalizations aside, are there any among these players who like backstory? If so, you'd better have some available if they ask. If not, then you're right, it doesn't add a lot.

For them.

Here's the other thing, though - does backstory help you? Sometimes it does. Sometimes, knowing the history and culture of a region helps you figure out how various NPCs would act or react. If it does, it might be worthwhile to have purely for your own reference, and to heck with the players.

Ruslan
2015-11-09, 05:04 PM
I write backstory because I like writing backstory. It would be nice if the players would read it, even nicer if they remembered it, but I'm honestly not counting on it.

Mysterious old man gives you quest, you go. That's what I'm counting on.

nedz
2015-11-09, 05:12 PM
What a campaign back-story can add is depth, which can aid verisimilitude.

If your players are only interested in hack 'n' slash then it's bit pointless — so it depends upon your players.

If they are interested in the detail of the setting then you need to know this stuff, or at least have it sketched out. What happens when someone makes a Historian type character — or does that not happen ?

Keltest
2015-11-09, 05:37 PM
The backstory is much more a GM tool than it is window dressing for the players. A well developed world has a lot of places to go to and explore, and if the party sets off in a random direction, you can be sure they will encounter something exciting eventually. Even if the players don't remember it at all, it helps the DM run a fun game, and that, IMO generally makes it worth it.

veti
2015-11-09, 06:00 PM
As others have said, the backstory is what you use to write the world. It's why this city is ruled by a council of elders while that one has a king and the other one has a 30' city wall, why elves are rare and why left-handed people speak a different language. And so on.

Change the backstory, and you need to change the world to match it. Or rather, change the world, and you need to change your backstory to match it. Otherwise your world becomes incoherent.

That might or might not matter to your players, depending how much attention they're paying and how much they expect to be able to use their natural intuition about the world. But it'll surely matter to you.

Cluedrew
2015-11-09, 06:14 PM
I can think of 2 main uses for backstory:

One it is a tool for you to use. If the party sails off to Port Harbor and all you know about Port Harbor is that it is where the treasure is... you might have some problems filling out what sort of place Port Harbor is. On the other hand if you know how the treasure ended up their, what sort of industries are found there, who founded it and how long ago there is a lot more you can say about it.

Compare Port Harbor: where the thief fled to, a fishing town created and sustained by the fisher folk themselves with Port Harbor: where the treasure was sealed away, a center of trade that originated as a military outpost in the last war. I haven't stated any thing about the town now in either case but you (hopefully if I did a good job) should have different images of what the town is like now anyways.

The other is for the players to interact with. They can interact with it out of pure curiosity ("What order did the mad wizard belong to?") or to understand the currant world for a very particular reason. Actually the question about the mad wizard could be critically important if they are about to storm his tower. Even if he is not a member now it could still inform what sort of magical defences he has available.

Maybe more than two depending on how you count (actually almost certainly since I probably forgot something) but there you have my 2.

Micah Watt
2015-11-09, 07:58 PM
As others have said - it entirely depends on your players and the tone of the campaign

My players are disappointed if there's no campaign backstory. Generally when creating characters they want a place to start to weave their own individual histories into the campaign. However, these are players that care about continuity and want to carve their place into the world.

I've played in other groups that just want the loot! 😉

goto124
2015-11-09, 11:11 PM
One it is a tool for you to use. If the party sails off to Port Harbor and all you know about Port Harbor is that it is where the treasure is... you might have some problems filling out what sort of place Port Harbor is.

That's my take on it as well. The backstory is a part of the setting, the explanation for why things happen. If the setting has no backstory, that means there's no explanation for why the the bad guys are trying to steal the McGuffin, why the good kingdom isn't doing anything, etc. Good luck trying to respond to the players when they go off the rails.

There's the "Using Modules- Do they really save time?" thread.

Quertus
2015-11-09, 11:37 PM
As has been said, backstory is for you, the DM... and for those players who will enjoy / utilize / need it.

Having a backstory should make it easier for you to roll with the punches, to respond when players do something unexpected.

If, instead, the structure of a thought-out backstory is limiting you, as sounds like is the case, perhaps you will have better luck with a more extemporaneous style. Just make sure you know how to keep such a "Schroedenger's world" consistent, else you might be causing yourself more problems down the line - especially if you have players who care about such things.

Know yourself, know your players, know what backstory does for you.

Magikeeper
2015-11-09, 11:55 PM
I agree with a lot of what's being said here, so I'll just add that the caring generally happens before paying attention to lore. Like, Bob is unlikely to remember the history of Examplius if he doesn't already care about Examplius. The best you're likely to get is a player fishing for something to drive their character, skimming setting lore while hunting for element(s) to tie themselves to / oppose / etc.

----

On a similar note, one of the most tied-to-world, character-development-having PCs I've had the pleasure of DMing for had an initial backstory of two short sentences and an initial personality that lasted all of.. 5 minutes. We apparently changed his name too, as everyone at the table pronounced it wrong and the player just rolled with it for the rest of the lengthy campaign. The PC basically started out as a pile of optimized stats.

What I'm getting at is that someone not being big on starting with a lengthy backstory doesn't necessarily mean they aren't going to care about the world - maybe they just don't know what they want to do with their PC yet. Think about it - when designing a character, do you generally picture what you want to RP in your mind THEN craft a backstory to match? What if you weren't sure what you wanted to RP yet? I'm not saying all bland backstories are amazingly fleshed out PCs waiting to happen - some folk just want to kick down the door - but I wouldn't assume someone isn't going to care about the plot just because they are iffy on having a lengthy PC background from the get-go.

Winter_Wolf
2015-11-10, 12:01 AM
I write backstory because I like writing backstory. It would be nice if the players would read it, even nicer if they remembered it, but I'm honestly not counting on it.

Mysterious old man gives you quest, you go. That's what I'm counting on.

Pretty much what I wanted to say. Backstory is mostly for your own gratification, and if players show any interest in it, consider it a bonus.

themaque
2015-11-10, 12:02 AM
Speaking as a player, I like having backstory. It makes the world feel a little more solid and I can work myself into the world better.

Speaking as a GM if I have a good grasp of the backstory it helps me keep my world stable for players and I can make up things easier with a foot hold to get started.

Fri
2015-11-10, 06:49 AM
Speaking as a player, I like having backstory. It makes the world feel a little more solid and I can work myself into the world better.

Speaking as a GM if I have a good grasp of the backstory it helps me keep my world stable for players and I can make up things easier with a foot hold to get started.

That's true. Some one-two sentences bits of lore used sparingly can add a lot of feeling that the place you're adventuring is a real world. But just remember to keep the dosage right and keep the novel-long bits of lore on things that are actually important/related to the actual game/mission your player is doing.

For example, other than the important page-long lore on the wraith king and the son-forged weapon I mentioned before, I could mention that the city they're currently in produces lemon, or the wall is thought to be built by giant.

Just be prepared when your players decides to start a realm-wide lemonade consortium instead of killing the wraith king :smalltongue:

Sredni Vashtar
2015-11-10, 07:09 AM
It's never a waste. You use that backstory to draw ideas and inspiration from. Sure, lots of players will never pay any heed to it, but that's still no reason to throw it all away.

nedz
2015-11-10, 07:52 AM
It's actually better to reveal the back-story slowly rather than as a huge info-dump. Less is more, and the idea that some information is hidden or lost is itself interesting. This way you create questions in the minds of the players which should pique their interest.

Freelance GM
2015-11-10, 08:06 AM
I agree with most of the people here: Backstory is as relevant as your players choose to make it.

In my case, I like having backstory so that when the players ask questions like, "Where are all these cultists coming from?" I can answer with in-game information like, "they've been recruiting for 20 years," instead of, "well, because I needed this many cultists for a level-appropriate encounter."

Granted, 7 times out of 10, the players will miss or ignore your exposition. But, for the 30% of the time where they don't ignore it, it's better to have it than not.

goto124
2015-11-10, 08:18 AM
Yet another vote for "small pieces of the lore". Instead of throwing an entire wall of text at the player, I break up the wall and throw the small bricks at them until they get it. Heh heh.


the wall is thought to be built by giants.

Alternative (http://robot6.comicbookresources.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/06/attack-on-titan-anime-movie.jpg).


Just be prepared when your players decides to start a realm-wide lemonade consortium instead of killing the wraith king :smalltongue:

Have the wraith king send minions to chase the adventurers because he hates lemons or something :smalltongue:

Flickerdart
2015-11-10, 11:03 AM
Just be prepared when your players decides to start a realm-wide lemonade consortium instead of killing the wraith king :smalltongue:
The wraith king's lime monopoly would be threatened by this kind of drastic disruption, and he would send his armies to sort things out.

...unless you decided in your backstory that the wraith king would never do that and now you have to come up with some alternative villain instead of just rolling with it. Flexibility is important!

Talakeal
2015-11-10, 12:06 PM
It's actually better to reveal the back-story slowly rather than as a huge info-dump. Less is more, and the idea that some information is hidden or lost is itself interesting. This way you create questions in the minds of the players which should pique their interest.

Agreed. I plan on doing just that.

One thing I am actually going to be trying something different for this campaign and typing up small bits of information like letters and flyers and stuff and handing them over to the olayers as props when their characters discover them. I dont know well it will work, but I think it will be more immersive than just giving them an info dump of exposition at the start if done sparingly.


As has been said, backstory is for you, the DM... and for those players who will enjoy / utilize / need it.

Having a backstory should make it easier for you to roll with the punches, to respond when players do something unexpected.

If, instead, the structure of a thought-out backstory is limiting you, as sounds like is the case, perhaps you will have better luck with a more extemporaneous style. Just make sure you know how to keep such a "Schroedenger's world" consistent, else you might be causing yourself more problems down the line - especially if you have players who care about such things.

Know yourself, know your players, know what backstory does for you.

Its not that I am getting caught up in per se. Basically I was having trouble figuring out how to get the players from one scene to another without railroading and asked a fellow DM for advice. He came up with an idea that would work, but it would contradict the established backstory at numerous points and I said it was not worth rewriting massive chunks of the backstory for a one time transition, and his response was that the backstory is 100 percent inconsequential and expendable and no amount of backstory justifies even the slightest inconceniance when you are actually at the table.

Fri
2015-11-10, 01:09 PM
Agreed. I plan on doing just that.

One thing I am actually going to be trying something different for this campaign and typing up small bits of information like letters and flyers and stuff and handing them over to the olayers as props when their characters discover them. I dont know well it will work, but I think it will be more immersive than just giving them an info dump of exposition at the start if done sparingly.



Its not that I am getting caught up in per se. Basically I was having trouble figuring out how to get the players from one scene to another without railroading and asked a fellow DM for advice. He came up with an idea that would work, but it would contradict the established backstory at numerous points and I said it was not worth rewriting massive chunks of the backstory for a one time transition, and his response was that the backstory is 100 percent inconsequential and expendable and no amount of backstory justifies even the slightest inconceniance when you are actually at the table.

I understand what you're saying.

Now my question is, is the changed backstory important or relevant to the game at all? If it's relevant and it would change the meaning or some such of the game, then don't change it. But if you the only one who would know the backstory change because the player would never learn or stumble onto it? Then by all mean, change it.

Mr.Moron
2015-11-10, 01:27 PM
A homebrew campaign or setting is no different than pre-published one in any substantive way. Treat it however you'd treat that. Generally speaking no matter how you're running things simply generating plot hooks generally shouldn't require massive revisions of the surrounding framework. In fact I'm struggling to even think of how such a situation would be at all possible.

What exactly is the situation your players are in, what are their motivations & goals and how do they fit within the current context of the setting? If we knew that it'd be possible to get into specifics that relate to your actual situation at the table.

Red Fel
2015-11-10, 01:38 PM
Its not that I am getting caught up in per se. Basically I was having trouble figuring out how to get the players from one scene to another without railroading and asked a fellow DM for advice. He came up with an idea that would work, but it would contradict the established backstory at numerous points and I said it was not worth rewriting massive chunks of the backstory for a one time transition, and his response was that the backstory is 100 percent inconsequential and expendable and no amount of backstory justifies even the slightest inconceniance when you are actually at the table.

I'm confused about how the backstory impacts scene transitions or railroading. I'm not entirely sure on how we got from one to the other. Could you elaborate?

Here's the other thing, though: Getting the players from one scene to another, unless they are going that way of their own choice, is railroading. It just is. There's a small amount of railroading almost inherent to gaming, and telling the players, "Okay, so you leave the town and go into the forest," is railroading.

Now, if the players say, "We want to leave the town and go into the forest," great. They're going, you're not making them. But if the next spot in your story is the hills, not the forest, and you're trying to steer them towards the hills, that's railroading again. It's not inherently bad, but that's what it is. So it's very hard to say "I want my players to go from A to B, so how do I make them do that without railroading them?" Making them do that is railroading, although whether it's heavy-handed or delicate is a matter of personal style and subtlety. You might as well as, "How do I defenestrate someone without throwing them out a window?" (In this example, "Kick them out the window instead" is not a helpful response.)

Mr.Moron
2015-11-10, 01:54 PM
Now, if the players say, "We want to leave the town and go into the forest," great. They're going, you're not making them. But if the next spot in your story is the hills, not the forest, and you're trying to steer them towards the hills, that's railroading again.

Not necessarily. Let's say I want the players to discover an ancient shrine in the hills and I know because of their character's backstory and just the player's general love for "Free the Slaves" plotlines, that they're near certain to jump on that stuff. The next time they go to the tavern they are hear some rumors about band of slavers operating in the area that are holed up in the hills. Also it looks like they're getting help from that one jerk who stole a bunch of stuff from them two adventures ago and got away.Presto the players are making a bee-line for those hills, where it turns out the only reasonable hiding place is some old ruins... with ancient shrine inside.


They could ignore that whole plot hook with the thing their character cares about and the bandit they never got even with, so it's not railroading they're free to literally anything else. I've never seen it happen though.

Talakeal
2015-11-10, 02:24 PM
I'm confused about how the backstory impacts scene transitions or railroading. I'm not entirely sure on how we got from one to the other. Could you elaborate?

Here's the other thing, though: Getting the players from one scene to another, unless they are going that way of their own choice, is railroading. It just is. There's a small amount of railroading almost inherent to gaming, and telling the players, "Okay, so you leave the town and go into the forest," is railroading.

Now, if the players say, "We want to leave the town and go into the forest," great. They're going, you're not making them. But if the next spot in your story is the hills, not the forest, and you're trying to steer them towards the hills, that's railroading again. It's not inherently bad, but that's what it is. So it's very hard to say "I want my players to go from A to B, so how do I make them do that without railroading them?" Making them do that is railroading, although whether it's heavy-handed or delicate is a matter of personal style and subtlety. You might as well as, "How do I defenestrate someone without throwing them out a window?" (In this example, "Kick them out the window instead" is not a helpful response.)

I suppose it is a matter of subtlety. If I know a player wants to get rich and I drop a hint that the local dungeon is full of gold they will probably go there on their own, where as if I say "Look, the adventure is in the dungeon. If you want to play tonight your characters better get their butts over there," it is pretty blatant railroading.

Both end up with the PCs running the dungeon, but the first doesn't feel like I am taking away their agency.


A homebrew campaign or setting is no different than pre-published one in any substantive way. Treat it however you'd treat that. Generally speaking no matter how you're running things simply generating plot hooks generally shouldn't require massive revisions of the surrounding framework. In fact I'm struggling to even think of how such a situation would be at all possible.

What exactly is the situation your players are in, what are their motivations & goals and how do they fit within the current context of the setting? If we knew that it'd be possible to get into specifics that relate to your actual situation at the table.

I suppose I can give more info, although most forum readers are like PCs, too much backstory scares them away and kills the thread. Some of this might seem familiar for those of you who have been reading my threads in the past.


Long story Short;

Current campaign is set several centuries after a previous campaign.

After the old PCs killed the BBEG his evil kingdom was left a desolate wasteland with no clear ruler. (Think LoTR if after Sauron was destroyed the surviving Nazgul each declared themselves rulers of Mordor and made the orcs fight amongst one another).

A young hero who wanted to follow in the retired PCs footsteps led a crusade into the wasteland to cleanse it and destroy the remnants of the evil forces.

The crusade disappeared and no one knows what happened to it.

Several hundred years passed and the area is no longer a wasteland. The PCs grew up in a small village in this area.

They discover the ruins of an ancient keep. Inside they find that this was the last resting place of the crusade and once a stronghold of evil. The lich who ruled the stronghold was destroyed and his soul imprisoned beneath the tower, but the crusaders, lacking the provisions to return or the strength to continue holed up in here and died, eventually resorting to cannibalism and dark magic. Their ghosts haunt the tower.

PCs explore the tower, adventure over.

Next adventure the enemy of the current campaign has a massive army and the PCs village is right in its path. I want the PCs to somehow recruit the ghosts that inhabit the nearby tower to aid them, once again similar to the Army of the Dead in Lord of the Rings, both saving the town and redeeming the lost souls.

The problem is I have no idea how the PCs would communicate, let alone control, the ghosts on a large scale. The only idea I can think of it awakening the lich that is imprisoned beneath the tower, but the problem is getting the PCs to have that idea (particularly at the right time, if they just happen to awaken him when they first come to the tower they will all end up dead).



So, one of the PCs is a child priest who is believed to be the reincarnation of a saint. The advice was to have the saint he is a reincarnation of be the one who led the crusade. Which is a good idea but...


I already know who led the crusade and have a fairly detailed backstory for her
It was a secular rather than a religious crusade
The order he is a member of didn't exist when the crusade was lost
The crusade was lost, and what happened to it was a mystery. If the leader had gone on to found an order of monks and then have a line of incarnations it would imply that someone survived the crusade and knew what happened to it, which deflates the mystery entirely.

And there were a couple other problems that I can't quite recall atm.


So yeah, there's the story, as brief as I can give it. Let me know if you have any thoughts or advice or need any more info.

Thanks!

MrZJunior
2015-11-10, 02:39 PM
I can't speak for other players, but I personally enjoy backstory, and am always interested in learning more about the backstory of a given setting.

Mr.Moron
2015-11-10, 02:49 PM
I suppose it is a matter of subtlety. If I know a player wants to get rich and I drop a hint that the local dungeon is full of gold they will probably go there on their own, where as if I say "Look, the adventure is in the dungeon. If you want to play tonight your characters better get their butts over there," it is pretty blatant railroading.

Both end up with the PCs running the dungeon, but the first doesn't feel like I am taking away their agency.



I suppose I can give more info, although most forum readers are like PCs, too much backstory scares them away and kills the thread. Some of this might seem familiar for those of you who have been reading my threads in the past.


Long story Short;

Current campaign is set several centuries after a previous campaign.

After the old PCs killed the BBEG his evil kingdom was left a desolate wasteland with no clear ruler. (Think LoTR if after Sauron was destroyed the surviving Nazgul each declared themselves rulers of Mordor and made the orcs fight amongst one another).

A young hero who wanted to follow in the retired PCs footsteps led a crusade into the wasteland to cleanse it and destroy the remnants of the evil forces.

The crusade disappeared and no one knows what happened to it.

Several hundred years passed and the area is no longer a wasteland. The PCs grew up in a small village in this area.

They discover the ruins of an ancient keep. Inside they find that this was the last resting place of the crusade and once a stronghold of evil. The lich who ruled the stronghold was destroyed and his soul imprisoned beneath the tower, but the crusaders, lacking the provisions to return or the strength to continue holed up in here and died, eventually resorting to cannibalism and dark magic. Their ghosts haunt the tower.

PCs explore the tower, adventure over.

Next adventure the enemy of the current campaign has a massive army and the PCs village is right in its path. I want the PCs to somehow recruit the ghosts that inhabit the nearby tower to aid them, once again similar to the Army of the Dead in Lord of the Rings, both saving the town and redeeming the lost souls.

The problem is I have no idea how the PCs would communicate, let alone control, the ghosts on a large scale. The only idea I can think of it awakening the lich that is imprisoned beneath the tower, but the problem is getting the PCs to have that idea (particularly at the right time, if they just happen to awaken him when they first come to the tower they will all end up dead).



So, one of the PCs is a child priest who is believed to be the reincarnation of a saint. The advice was to have the saint he is a reincarnation of be the one who led the crusade. Which is a good idea but...


I already know who led the crusade and have a fairly detailed backstory for her
It was a secular rather than a religious crusade
The order he is a member of didn't exist when the crusade was lost
The crusade was lost, and what happened to it was a mystery. If the leader had gone on to found an order of monks and then have a line of incarnations it would imply that someone survived the crusade and knew what happened to it, which deflates the mystery entirely.

And there were a couple other problems that I can't quite recall atm.


So yeah, there's the story, as brief as I can give it. Let me know if you have any thoughts or advice or need any more info.

Thanks!



Couldn't the ghosts reach out, or at least a ghost? I mean the ghosts have been forgotten about and also the land they fought for is going to be under threat. The PCs just came through and proved themselves capable by smashing up the evil what's in the tower. Sure the child priest isn't their saint but he's a saint all the same and I presume spiritually connected. When the army threat comes make it big badass and stompy. When a spirit comes into the saint's dream and is all "Hey bro, we can totally help you with that army problem but you gotta come back to that tower and let us free. We're totally sick ghost warriors who will help you wreck his ****" the average PC isn't gonna say no right away. At minimum it'll call for investigation. Maybe the ghost is even from the same village as them or some ancient precusor to it the ghost can all be

"I can't stand the of those chumps messing with that lake I used to swim when I was living human kid and not a dead ghost adult You shoulda seen it (describes lake PC played in as a child) beat freakin' lake ever", stuff like that

Mr. Bitter
2015-11-10, 04:22 PM
He told me that is totally irrelevant. Backstory only exists to drive the current plot forward and has no value. Players won't even bother to learn 90% of the background elements you put in the game, and the ten percent they do learn they won't care about and it will be quickly forgotten. He went on to say that backstory and setting detail serves no purpose but to drive the story at the moment, and one should not even bother to make anything that happened in the past, or in the present if it is outside of the players vicinity, interesting or compelling let alone consistent.

Tabletop games are about the choices players make, subject to the whims of DM, dice, and their game system. It's difficult really incorporating backstory into the game as anything other than scenery, and generally unproductive to do so forcibly. I agree completely with your friend in that regard.

On the other hand, backstory does have a major role in inspiring DMs. So I disagree that is completely useless.

I'm also guessing backstory has a place in online games with more down time or in games that make use of blue booking. (http://wiki.rpg.net/index.php/Bluebooking) I don't have experience with that, so I can't speak with authority about it.

Knaight
2015-11-10, 04:44 PM
I'd say that the utility of backstory depends on the specifics of the setting, but it's often useful to at least have the more recent past fleshed out a bit. The entire timeline of a setting is probably mostly pointless. A few generations back in the noble court used as the center of intrigue in a game about intrigue in a noble court? That you'll get real mileage out of. Similarly, if you've got a game about mercenaries in space, you probably want a bit of backstory on each of their jobs. If Gibbs Industries wants technology stolen from Zaitsev Technologies, establishing a bit of history between the companies is likely a good idea. Tracking every CEO of the companies and working up a stock index and the history of said stock index is probably wasted effort.

Thrudd
2015-11-10, 05:17 PM
They discover the ruins of an ancient keep. Inside they find that this was the last resting place of the crusade and once a stronghold of evil. The lich who ruled the stronghold was destroyed and his soul imprisoned beneath the tower, but the crusaders, lacking the provisions to return or the strength to continue holed up in here and died, eventually resorting to cannibalism and dark magic. Their ghosts haunt the tower.

PCs explore the tower, adventure over.

Next adventure the enemy of the current campaign has a massive army and the PCs village is right in its path. I want the PCs to somehow recruit the ghosts that inhabit the nearby tower to aid them, once again similar to the Army of the Dead in Lord of the Rings, both saving the town and redeeming the lost souls.

The problem is I have no idea how the PCs would communicate, let alone control, the ghosts on a large scale. The only idea I can think of it awakening the lich that is imprisoned beneath the tower, but the problem is getting the PCs to have that idea (particularly at the right time, if they just happen to awaken him when they first come to the tower they will all end up dead).



So, one of the PCs is a child priest who is believed to be the reincarnation of a saint. The advice was to have the saint he is a reincarnation of be the one who led the crusade. Which is a good idea but...


I already know who led the crusade and have a fairly detailed backstory for her
It was a secular rather than a religious crusade
The order he is a member of didn't exist when the crusade was lost
The crusade was lost, and what happened to it was a mystery. If the leader had gone on to found an order of monks and then have a line of incarnations it would imply that someone survived the crusade and knew what happened to it, which deflates the mystery entirely.

And there were a couple other problems that I can't quite recall atm.


So yeah, there's the story, as brief as I can give it. Let me know if you have any thoughts or advice or need any more info.

Thanks!

I am inclined not to rely on character backstories as the solution to problems. I would stay away from making the character's saint ancestor the decisive plot point.

Rather, what is the pc's likely response to the approaching massive army? Hopefully they are determined to protect their village. With that goal in mind, what are their reasonable options? I assume they aren't individually powerful enough that they think they can pull off a seven samurai scenario. They need to find a rival army to intercept or defend the village, and hopefully come up with that idea on their own.

What actions make sense for them in that pursuit? Seek the nearest big kingdom and entreat for aid? Maybe when they ask for aid, they are told by the king or general or whoever that there is no chance the army could be deployed in time to save the village. But the king's sage advisor overhears their plight and takes them aside as they leave the court, and tells them of a dark magic which might be their only chance...a cursed spectral army that will follow the orders of whomever can release them from their imprisonment. They should hopefully recognize this this to be the ghosts in the tower. The means to release them might include hunting elsewhere for the artifact or ritual that will end their curse, or returning to the tower immediately and entering a secret area they hadn't discovered before, maybe the sage has a magic key or something which reveals the area. You can tie it into the lich, ending the curse might also release him, and maybe it is weakened or only in spectral form itself and will fly off to find a new body, ala Voldemort. The sage probably has ulterior motives and knows the players actions will release the lich. Alternatively, have the sage give them the basic info, but doesn't know exactly how to end the curse, they need to search for the answer in another location before heading back to the tower.

Talakeal
2015-11-10, 08:04 PM
I am inclined not to rely on character backstories as the solution to problems. I would stay away from making the character's saint ancestor the decisive plot point.

Rather, what is the pc's likely response to the approaching massive army? Hopefully they are determined to protect their village. With that goal in mind, what are their reasonable options? I assume they aren't individually powerful enough that they think they can pull off a seven samurai scenario. They need to find a rival army to intercept or defend the village, and hopefully come up with that idea on their own.

What actions make sense for them in that pursuit? Seek the nearest big kingdom and entreat for aid? Maybe when they ask for aid, they are told by the king or general or whoever that there is no chance the army could be deployed in time to save the village. But the king's sage advisor overhears their plight and takes them aside as they leave the court, and tells them of a dark magic which might be their only chance...a cursed spectral army that will follow the orders of whomever can release them from their imprisonment. They should hopefully recognize this this to be the ghosts in the tower. The means to release them might include hunting elsewhere for the artifact or ritual that will end their curse, or returning to the tower immediately and entering a secret area they hadn't discovered before, maybe the sage has a magic key or something which reveals the area. You can tie it into the lich, ending the curse might also release him, and maybe it is weakened or only in spectral form itself and will fly off to find a new body, ala Voldemort. The sage probably has ulterior motives and knows the players actions will release the lich. Alternatively, have the sage give them the basic info, but doesn't know exactly how to end the curse, they need to search for the answer in another location before heading back to the tower.

Great ideas, thank you, I think that was just what I needed to put all the pieces.

hifidelity2
2015-11-11, 07:53 AM
Long story Short;

Current campaign is set several centuries after a previous campaign.

The crusade disappeared and no one knows what happened to it.

Several hundred years passed and the area is no longer a wasteland. The PCs grew up in a small village in this area.

PCs explore the tower, adventure over.


So far no issues !



Next adventure the enemy of the current campaign has a massive army and the PCs village is right in its path. I want the PCs to somehow recruit the ghosts that inhabit the nearby tower to aid them, once again similar to the Army of the Dead in Lord of the Rings, both saving the town and redeeming the lost souls.

The problem is I have no idea how the PCs would communicate, let alone control, the ghosts on a large scale. The only idea I can think of it awakening the lich that is imprisoned beneath the tower, but the problem is getting the PCs to have that idea (particularly at the right time, if they just happen to awaken him when they first come to the tower they will all end up dead).



So, one of the PCs is a child priest who is believed to be the reincarnation of a saint. The advice was to have the saint he is a reincarnation of be the one who led the crusade. Which is a good idea but...


I already know who led the crusade and have a fairly detailed backstory for her
It was a secular rather than a religious crusade
The order he is a member of didn't exist when the crusade was lost
The crusade was lost, and what happened to it was a mystery. If the leader had gone on to found an order of monks and then have a line of incarnations it would imply that someone survived the crusade and knew what happened to it, which deflates the mystery entirely.

And there were a couple other problems that I can't quite recall atm.


Thanks!

It does not matter if it was secular - it happened X years ago and the Church has "claimed the story" and it was "their" brave knights that did it. Indeed they put an old rusty sword on display and charge 1gp to see it and 10gp to touch it and made a fortune

Most people are made saints long after they are dead and if one used the "Faith breeds substance" then the Crusader now had "power" as people worship him -you can make him the patron Saint of Lost Causes or The Patron Saint of Manure :smallamused: (he bought life to a wasteland). He has no say in the matter

Kami2awa
2015-11-11, 09:36 AM
When it comes to backstory, it depends how you convey it to the players. The last thing you want to do is hand them the equivalent of The Silmarillion to read before the game starts - half of them won't read it, and the half that do won't remember it.

However, giving them the information in game, when they ask, or when it becomes relevant (even through Knowledge skill checks) will make it a lot more interesting, and involve the PCs in the backstory.

Secondly, there is an adage that when writing a story, the story should be about the most interesting part of the main character(s) life. If it's not, then you should be writing about the more interesting part! In other words, the backstory should probably not include events that are actually more interesting to live than the actual campaign.

hifidelity2
2015-11-11, 10:31 AM
Personally I do prepare a back story as it gives me a “Real world” to run

It will only be an outline with main Characters (Good and Bad) and their Goals

I will often produce 2 Maps – a DM one and a players one.

The players one (which I will hand out when they ask (buy it)) is often inaccurate and may have large areas saying “Here be Dragons” as no one has explored that area / if they have they are not sharing it / have claimed to have explored it and have made things up


I know that my group will ask questions and I will slowly flesh out the history as needed

EccentricCircle
2015-11-12, 06:05 AM
From what you've told us I think that your backstory will be very relevant.
Are the players in your current campaign the same as the ones in the previous game you mention?

If so then maintaining consistency between the two games is going to be important. As many people have said there are some players who will take note of such things, and others who won't care. But in my experience the way players start to care about the setting is when they start to see mysteries an common elements develop. Build on any outstanding questions the players have from the previous campaign, and allow their out of character knowledge of those events to inform their characters understanding of the setting. That way you start to build a coherent world which the players are going to want to explore more of.

I've done enough games with the same or similar people that I am now able to build "Metagame Mysteries". Say that the players have already played a campaign about a mystical magical circle from ancient times. When it crops up in a later campaign the wizard doesn't have to listen to me rattle on about it and then halfheartedly relate that to the rest of the party. Instead the player already knows about it and can relate that OOC knowledge in character. The result is that they are far more engaged with the setting than they would have been if the new lore had been completely seperate to the stuff they already know.

This process starts out as throwing in easter eggs for the returning players, but before long you have a consistent world, with themes and stories that are larger than any one campaign in the setting. Players of arcane characters start looking for clues to the larger mysteries. And this inspires players to keep playing in your world, and to play different characters in future games so that they can explore the setting from different angles. Play a wizard in the next game, to take advantage of your magical lore, play a disciple of your ancient cleric, who started their own sect in the previous game etc.
It's a slow process, and along the way there will be three players who don't really engage with the setting for every one who does, but once you have a core group who do want to explore your world then it becomes a very rewarding experience.

LudicSavant
2015-11-12, 06:17 AM
Is campaign backstory a waste?

Short answer: No.

Longer answer: Campaign backstory is valuable if you want to better immerse your players in the world, and players want to be immersed in a world. Of course, it's still possible to waste your players' time with poorly written or irrelevant backstory, or turn them off with backstory that makes it seem like you're writing a play and the players are supposed to take their places and play their roles rather than find their own way. No backstory may be better than sufficiently bad backstory. Good backstory is better than no backstory.


Most players do seem to flat out ignore flavor text and not care at all about the game's plot even as it affects their character, and many players actively refuse to come up with or care about backstory for even their own PC. Am I wasting my time putting all this effort into setting detail? Should I throw out months of work on the campaign backstory for the sake of making a session flow a little smoother?

Eh, different kinds of players care about different things. If a player doesn't care about story or characterization or immersing themselves in a fantasy world or any of that, obviously they're not going to care as much about setting detail as someone who does.

To that end, maybe look at this: http://angrydm.com/2014/01/gaming-for-fun-part-1-eight-kinds-of-fun/

Players who are after kinds of fun like "Fantasy" or "Narrative" or "Discovery" are going to care much more about setting backstory than ones who do not.

Thrudd
2015-11-12, 04:45 PM
Great ideas, thank you, I think that was just what I needed to put all the pieces.

One logical action they might take, that you may want to consider, is that they would simply decide to evacuate the village and move everyone to a safe place out of the army's path, either retreating directly somewhere that a strong army can protect them, or hiding in the hills or something, unless geography prevents this. Is there any way they can avoid the whole ghost scenario? If there is, it will probably come up, so plan ahead.

Talakeal
2015-11-12, 05:00 PM
One logical action they might take, that you may want to consider, is that they would simply decide to evacuate the village and move everyone to a safe place out of the army's path, either retreating directly somewhere that a strong army can protect them, or hiding in the hills or something, unless geography prevents this. Is there any way they can avoid the whole ghost scenario? If there is, it will probably come up, so plan ahead.

Actually, that is what the bad guys want them to do, and are going to give them a chance to evacuate the town. Of course, that is just delaying the problem as any town they take refuge in will soon face the same ultimatum.

But yeah, while the PCs capitulating to the villains demands is always an option, it doesnt seem to be one they ever take even if it would be the most rationale thing to do. PCs are ornery like that.


From what you've told us I think that your backstory will be very relevant.
Are the players in your current campaign the same as the ones in the previous game you mention?


Ideally it will be a mixture of new and old players. Two of the old players left the group to start a family, and we are going to replace them and start a new game.

Honest Tiefling
2015-11-12, 05:00 PM
I can't speak for other players, but I personally enjoy backstory, and am always interested in learning more about the backstory of a given setting.

I'm rather the same. I'm THAT player, who pesters the DM with questions about dress, history, eating habits, etc. of a given region for my character.

Morph Bark
2015-11-13, 09:23 AM
In my field, video games, there's a rule that gets tossed around a lot: focus on your target audience. It doesn't always work out well due to the scale, but when your target audience is small, you can focus better. When it comes to a single D&D group, it simply means you must know your players and what they are looking for in a game.

Since that is advice that has been put forth in this thread already, I'll mention that for players who are very new to the game, it can be quite hard to know what they're looking for. In that regard, it's good to know your players beyond just the game itself. Players who really like books are more likely to be into the backstory and setting, players who've roleplayed in other forms (freeform PbP, larp, etc.) are more likely to really get into their character, and players who enjoy action movies and playing Destiny are more likely into the combat.

This doesn't always hold true, however. Oftentimes, a player may want something, but they don't know if they like other things that are less inclusive of that thing. The fantasy novel geek might come to enjoy the tactical options of magic in combat far more than anything, and the Destiny player might really dig grandiose descriptions of the setting they're in. If you have any new players, it's always worth experimenting a bit, even if it means stepping out of your own comfort zone as a DM occasionally. I'm at my best when I'm winging it and thus get a result of colourful sprawling cities and comedic scenes, but the times when I've prepared carefully crafted dungeons have been some of my players' favourite moments (and in one instance, their greatest frustration).

Steampunkette
2015-11-13, 09:34 AM
Backstory can be incredibly important or incredibly pointless, and it has little to do with what's immediately relevant.

Let's say you've got a community that, until recently, was occupied by an enemy force. People will still talk about what they've lost. Songs of liberation will be sung. There will be fewer people of military age. These are all tiny things that can have a big impact on your players.

Use the party Bard's attempts at performing give your players a gauge of the emotion of the community. Is he singing depressing songs in a war torn community? Boo him off the stage. Have the bartender yank him off by his elbow and grumble about drink sales. Is he singing about freedom and renewal? Cheers and applause, lower DCs to impress people free room and board because he's lifting spirits.

When people use skill checks for impressing locals or haggling, give them the idea that portrayal is important and that freedom fighting adventurers are more likely to get discounts than warmongers.

Let history shape interaction, not just the main story. Let people explore it for the advantages knowing the history grants.

And, when all else fails, look for actor players and immersion players who will get more out of the world.

Joe the Rat
2015-11-13, 12:12 PM
Which would you rather have: A history and background to the world that never gets used, or not having a history or background when you need it?
If you do decide to wing it, write down what you say. A little consistency goes a long way.

Jayngfet
2015-11-13, 04:04 PM
Speaking frankly, your GM friend is 100% right.

While exceptions exist, when you're making a setting you need to operate under the assumption that your players aren't going to care about the distinctions between your made up titles or feuding houses unless it gives them a target to kill, a merchant to shop from, or some other tangible asset.

DuxAstrorum
2015-11-13, 04:12 PM
Back story, whether for a setting or a character is very important for the player emersion from my experience. The more hard work that goes into it helps the players understand what has been going on in the area and can even help guide their actions. I have even had powergaming combat junkies agree that at least some back story is necessary to continue the game's flow. So whoever said that back story doesn't matter is off of their rocker.

EccentricCircle
2015-11-14, 12:14 PM
Ideally it will be a mixture of new and old players. Two of the old players left the group to start a family, and we are going to replace them and start a new game.

That's good, There will be enough people who remember the previous campaign that you are not wasting your time maintaining continuity, but by adding in new players coming to it fresh you have the chance to build some mystery around the events of the previous game. It always helps to have a few of the "old guard" in a game when you are introducing a new group to a world. At the very least, so long as at least a couple of people know what you are talking about it lends credibility to other things you say.