PC "Back story", why is that a thing?

[2D8HP]

I started with D&D in the late 1970's, and since I'm on "night nurse" duty with my one month old son I'm trying to get some PbP D&D in. I keep getting asked what my PC's "back story" is!!!????
Huh?
How about "Wields sword, searches for Ale, Gold, Monsters, and Wenc charming conversationalists".
What's wrong with such mature and sophisticated themes such as meeting in a tavern. Leaving said tavern to wail on scaly types who occupy underground abodes, collect shiny objects in said underground abodes, avoid bandits who occupy space between underground dwellings and tavern, bring shiny objects to spend in tavern in noble quest for ale and time with hotties.
I'm interested in the Adventure not the prequel!
What is up with this "back story" stuff? Why is it important?
Edit:
Below is an addition that seems appropriate to put here.

My puzzlement (and "beef" really) is I guess I'm used to a time when you'd "roll up" a PC that would be on paper just stats, a name,.and maybe a physical description, and/or an illustration, then the GM would start narrating what the PC perceives at the adventure site, and only sometimes narrate what brought your PC there (I don't remember anyone "back-in-the-day" using the phrase "rail-roading, but I guess that's what it was, we just accepted it as the price of the ticket).
What I find unsettling and upsetting is the new (to me) requirement that as part of an audition to play the game, I must now write increasingly long histories of what brings my PC to the adventure site.
Having been a DM and experiencing how much more work it is than just being a player, I realize that "beggars can't be choosers", and that if I "want to dance, I need to pay the piper", but still I dislike the experience of instead of my PC being "railroaded" to the adventure, I as the player am being required to write content that I have no interest in, if I want to play. I'm used to the GM narrating a scene, and then thr player narrates their PC's reaction to the scene.
This new (to me anyway) RPG style of "you tell me your story, and then I'll tell you mine", just isn't as fun for me.
Maybe I just don't fit in with RPG'ing anymore, the increasing realization of which first made me angry, and now just makes me sad.

[Milo v3]

Because not all groups want to just do dungeoncrawls with little roleplaying? :smallconfused:
It's as important as your group/campaign makes it.

[Kami2awa]

Actually, while I create backstories for many PCs, it has its drawbacks. A PC is often wildly different in play to how I thought of them originally, and this makes their backstories less relevant. Furthermore, a PC can easily fail to live up to the backstory (He's the greatest thief in his home city? Then why did he fail three times to pick that lock and then fall straight into a trap?)

Backstories often run into "tell, don't show" as you don't get to actually RP them. I've often thought it is better to wait 2-3 sessions with a character before creating any kind of backstory, to establish what they are really like.

[JNAProductions]

Because not all groups want to just do dungeoncrawls with little roleplaying? :smallconfused:
It's as important as your group/campaign makes it.

You don't need a backstory to roleplay well.


Actually, while I create backstories for many PCs, it has its drawbacks. A PC is often wildly different in play to how I thought of them originally, and this makes their backstories less relevant. Furthermore, a PC can easily fail to live up to the backstory (He's the greatest thief in his home city? Then why did he fail three times to pick that lock and then fall straight into a trap?)

Backstories often run into "tell, don't show" as you don't get to actually RP them. I've often thought it is better to wait 2-3 sessions with a character before creating any kind of backstory, to establish what they are really like.

Agreed entirely.

[Koo Rehtorb]

Backstories really aren't necessary.

[goto124]

Not necessary, but a good number of people like them, and their usefulness can depend on genre. For example, in a political intrigue, there has to be an explanation of their social standing, how they got there, what friends and enemies they made along the way, etc. A character-driven game would also have backstories for characters.

I find it easier to know how my character would act based on past experiences.

[Milo v3]

You don't need a backstory to roleplay well.
I did not suggest that a backstory was necessary to roleplay, just that desire for roleplay is a reason why some people have backstories. Also, note that I said backstories are as important as the group makes them.

Though, individuals with no past at all do damage my verisimilitude considering adventuring is such a non-standard lifestyle unless you have a very strange setting, but backstories can develop after play has begun. But that's a personal view of mine, and I have no illusions that my views would be considered the standard.

[Waker]

Like a few others said, I enjoy backstories, but I prefer not to write them up in advance. Most of the time I come up with a barebones idea of a character and a rough history, then as I play the character a bit more, flesh them out a bit. I've had times where I did write it out first, but then because of the playstyle of my party of the story that the DM has, and never got a chance to act how I wanted. As for why people like the backstories, it can provide potential storyhooks for the DM to use, explain the how and the why your character acts the way they do in various scenarios, and it's just kind of fun in general. After all, the character is more than numbers on a paper.

[Trekkin]

I have seen games in which player backstories are critical, because the plot gets built around the PCs and their former associates play key roles in the story. The backstory becomes a player's chance to exposit to the DM what sorts of things should show up when their character is in the spotlight.

I've also seen games in which the player characters' pasts are irrelevant to the story of the game. Sometimes this is because the game is a pure crawl with no RP, but it can also be the nature of the story: if the players start stranded on a deserted island, their childhood friends probably don't matter all that much to the plot.

By far the most common thing I've seen, though, is an attempt at the former turned into the latter by the sheer heterogeny of responses. I've asked for three to five sentences of backstory and gotten everything from six pages of semicolon-infested wittering about third cousins to "His name is Steve. He fights things. With a sword." At which point we soldier on as though Steve simply appeared ex nihilo, sword in hand.

So, as others have said, it depends on the group and player, but probably their most consistently useful function, at least in games I've run is to help the player summarize for themselves to RP their character.

[Madbox]

To some extent it is to give the DM something to start the plot with.

With backstory:
DM: Your childhood friend Joeschmoe sends you a letter asking for help.
Player: Alright, yeah, I remember all the good times. I should help him.

Without backstory:
DM: Your childhood friend Joeschmoe sends you a letter asking for help.
Player: Who? And you don't get to tell me my character's life story, it's MY character *flips table*

That being said, it isn't really necessary. I mean, look at Fafhrd and the Gray Mouser, classic characters that influenced D&D. Their backstories don't matter half the time. Most of their stories are either

1. They heard about treasure and went after it.

2. They got sidetracked on their way back from getting treasure.

3. A wizard made them do it.

[Thrudd]

PbP tends to be more literary and narrative, less adventure game. So think of it more like you're co-writing a fantasy story and you're expected to contribute a chapter about a character you invent. The actual game parts take so ridiculously long that it is basically pointless to even bother, imo. The talky bits are about the only thing you can do, having convos with the other players about the story you've written about your character.

[Max_Killjoy]

A backstory can explain why a character took up the sword, or how they became a traveling priest, or how they came to know the secrets of magic, or...

Fleshing out the backstory helps flesh out the character's personality and motivations.

Some games actually have "perks" and "flaws" based on background, that need to be fleshed out.

Backstory can tie a character into the forward story.


Etc.

[Temperjoke]

A backstory doesn't have to be fancy, but for me, it helps establish who my character is, why he/she reacts certain ways, his/her particular quirks and how they got them. For example, you mentioned going to taverns, killing monsters for loot, etc. To me, that sounds like someone who was a mercenary or a soldier. Why aren't they a soldier or mercenary any more? Do they have a family? What do they do with the rewards they receive? It doesn't have to be intricate, or more than a couple sentences, in fact, it might be better if it isn't, since it allows for flexibility as you play your character.

[Koo Rehtorb]

There's no need to come up with any of it in advance. Start with a personality and maybe like one or two sentences of past.

Specific details can easily just be invented instantly if they come up in play.

[Tiktakkat]

That being said, it isn't really necessary. I mean, look at Fafhrd and the Gray Mouser, classic characters that influenced D&D. Their backstories don't matter half the time. Most of their stories are either

1. They heard about treasure and went after it.

2. They got sidetracked on their way back from getting treasure.

3. A wizard made them do it.

Really bad example.

1. They have actual short stories giving their backstories before they met.

2. Those backstories are a critical part of the story of their first meeting.

3. Their backstories are mentioned in most of their subsequent stories.

Meanwhile,

1. When they go for treasure, they pick up new girlfriends who resemble their first loves.

2. When they get the treasure they lose it because of new girlfriends who resemble their first loves.

3. The wizard makes them do it as payment for helping them forget their first loves.

Their adventures pretty much don't exist without their backstory.

Even characters with significantly less backstory, like say Conan, somehow finds a way to mention he first came south when he helped sack an outpost with his fellow Cimmerians in most of his stories. That's a whole sentence of backstory, yet it finds its way into story after story.

[Madbox]

Really bad example.

1. They have actual short stories giving their backstories before they met.

2. Those backstories are a critical part of the story of their first meeting.

3. Their backstories are mentioned in most of their subsequent stories.

Meanwhile,

1. When they go for treasure, they pick up new girlfriends who resemble their first loves.

2. When they get the treasure they lose it because of new girlfriends who resemble their first loves.

3. The wizard makes them do it as payment for helping them forget their first loves.

Their adventures pretty much don't exist without their backstory.

Even characters with significantly less backstory, like say Conan, somehow finds a way to mention he first came south when he helped sack an outpost with his fellow Cimmerians in most of his stories. That's a whole sentence of backstory, yet it finds its way into story after story.

Yes, their backstory is frequently brought up. And I suppose it's fair to say their chasing after assorted women is pretty much because of their tragic backstory. However, they lose their gold from more than just womanizing. How many times have they dropped it in transit from one place to another? They've had slaves, they've had boats, and lost them. Those things can't be cheap.

Furthermore, I wasn't referring exclusively to Sheelba and Ninguable. There is the time they were hypnotized to go to the far end of the world, and it took like four stories before they got back. The time the wizard kidnapped one as a sacrifice to keep ghosts at bay. The time that the extradimensional merchants tried to take the Mouser. The time the cult of anger sent a spirit out and it ran into them as they guarded someone. Their backstory comes up a lot, but half of the time it doesn't really impact much.

[2D8HP]

Without backstory:
DM: Your childhood friend Joeschmoe sends you a letter asking for help.
Player: Who? And you don't get to tell me my character's life story, it's MY character *flips table*That's pretty darn funny. :smile:

That being said, it isn't really necessary. I mean, look at Fafhrd and the Gray Mouser, classic characters that influenced D&D. Their backstories don't matter half the time. Most of their stories are either

1. They heard about treasure and went after it.

2. They got sidetracked on their way back from getting treasure.

3. A wizard made them do it.
:biggrin:
I love the Fafhrd and the Gray Mouser:
Induction (http://www.baen.com/Chapters/ERBAEN0087/ERBAEN0087___1.htm)

The Jewels in the Forest (http://www.baen.com/Chapters/ERBAEN0088/ERBAEN0088___2.htm)

The Bleak Shore (http://www.baen.com/Chapters/9781625791528/9781625791528___2.htm)

Lean Times in Lankhmar (http://www.baen.com/Chapters/ERBAEN0089/ERBAEN0089___2.htm)

In the Witch's Tent (http://www.baen.com/Chapters/ERBAEN0090/ERBAEN0090___1.htm)

The Circle Curse (http://www.baen.com/Chapters/ERBAEN0088/ERBAEN0088___1.htm)

The Sadness of the Executioner (http://www.baen.com/Chapters/ERBAEN0092/ERBAEN0092___1.htm)

Beauty and the Beasts (http://www.baen.com/Chapters/ERBAEN0092/ERBAEN0092___2.htm)

The Cloud of Hate (http://www.baen.com/Chapters/ERBAEN0089/ERBAEN0089___1.htm)

Sea Magic (http://www.baen.com/Chapters/ERBAEN0093/ERBAEN0093___1.htm)


Many of the later stories had alot of backstory, but the first published adventure, 1939's
The "Jewels in the Forest" AKA "Two Sought Adventure" (http://www.baen.com/Chapters/ERBAEN0088/ERBAEN0088___2.htm) had very little beyond them finding a map.
And that's kind of it. I want to learn my PC's backstory in play.
If it's a good yarn, I like a bit of rail-roading.
Maybe player generated backstory is for the entertainment of the GM?

[OldTrees1]

It all has to do with different philosophies about people's personalities and what the question "Who are you?" means. Some focus on the course of history the character has taken (person that uses backstory to define their character) and others focus on the beliefs and motivations that shape the character in the present. Both are valid and viable means of generating interesting roleplay heavy (or roleplay light) characters.

If you want to filter DMs based upon which style they use you can either directly ask them or ask them "Who are you?". Their answer should inform you about how they view personality. If their answer is to define their identity in a timeless manner then they probably are not expecting much in the way of backstories (in contrast to if they define their identity by tying it to their past).

[Mechalich]

Backstories are necessary. Characters do not spring into existence fully formed from the ether. A character was born somewhere, took up an adventuring class based on some impulse/learning, and has some motive.

However, backstories do not need to be complex.

My character is from land X to the west, left home driven by a burning ambition to make his fortune and enjoy the finer things in life said fortune can provide, and learned to fight through the hard-knocks school of the road is perfectly sufficient. You don't even need to know where land X to the west is (the GM should be able to provide that information). It's perfectly okay for a backstory to be one sentence in length, but that's pretty much the bare minimum for a character existing as an actual character. If the character has nothing to define them besides the numbers/dots on the character sheet then you might as well be playing a tabletop wargame, not a table top rpg.

Additionally, certain settings/ability suites/ethnic backgrounds and so forth may demand further backstory. Example: starting the game with Force use in Star Wars. If your character starts a game as a Jedi-based or Sith-based Force User, they need to have a backstory explaining how that happened, and if they use the Force without being a member of some Force tradition they need to explain how that happened too.

[Yora]

I've stopped encouraging players to think of a backstory a good while ago. It's work that many players are not eager to do and it also tends to be of very little use to me as a GM either.

Instead I now ask the players to come up with a few defining characteristics, like their characters' values, ambitions, and flaws. This is very quickly done and actually very useful in giving the players a good idea what their characters are like.

[LadyFoxfire]

I like roleplaying, and knowing my character's backstory helps in informing how she makes decisions or what her quirks are; for example, my shadow dancer's father was a sergeant in the city watch, so she goes out of her way to avoid harming city guards, and occasionally goes to the watch for information or backup, which they're typically happy to provide, since they know her father.

DMs like knowing the PCs backstories, because working the character's backstories into the plot usually makes it more fun for the players, and sometimes it gives them ideas for plots that they wouldn't have thought of otherwise.

[Fri]

I used to think in term of long flowing backstory, but I find them unnecessary and annoying now. I think most people who are against character backstory are thinking for this kind of backstory, where there's a lot of unecessary details or introduction of three generation of parents and such. But backstory is still important for me. It doesn't need to be long, just need to cover for example, how the character got there, reason for their personality/adventure, and interesting hooks for adventures for them (like important npcs for them and such).

Example, this is character I made. A soldier with this backstory: He's an average youth who joined the army for the promise steady life (no need to think of anything if you join the army, since the army give you money, housing, direction of life), but war erupted right after he joined. He's a pessimist, but this made him survive and got him promoted to field officer because he keep surviving battles, though not enough to be high officers (being pessimistic coward isn't exactly the kind of personality an army want for high officer). He had a lot of experience of being led by naive inexperienced officers who never seen the true carnage of war, so he resented them, but being a soldier is all he knows and being a depressed but don't want to die give him a weird outlook of life on "it always can get worse so let's prepare for it" that give him an edge in battles.

This is where the campaign start, where he's recruited for special ops.

As you can see, the backstory isn't long, but it gives him all I need. Where he came from, the reason for his adventures, reason for his personality, interesting plot hooks (old comrades and officers he resent) and such. I don't need to give him his childhood story, or who his parents are, or how he did high school, because those are irrelevant to what I need for this backstory. Sure I can whip something up if someone ask, but it's just flowers.

[Stan]

He's an average youth who joined the army for the promise steady life (no need to think of anything if you join the army, since the army give you money, housing, direction of life), but war erupted right after he joined. He's a pessimist, but this made him survive and got him promoted to field officer because he keep surviving battles, though not enough to be high officers (being pessimistic coward isn't exactly the kind of personality an army want for high officer). He had a lot of experience of being led by naive inexperienced officers who never seen the true carnage of war, so he resented them, but being a soldier is all he knows and being a depressed but don't want to die give him a weird outlook of life on "it always can get worse so let's prepare for it" that give him an edge in battles.


This is the length of backstory I typically encourage. As a DM, I want personality, plot hooks, and why they'd be in the group. I don't need pedigrees or novellas - those are burdensome. Depending on the campaign style, I ask for backstories of 20-100 words or 10-20 words for simpler games. I also aim for shorter if we're starting at first level. I've seen multi page backgrounds going through wars, daring escapes, and complex revenge for a 1st level character and it gets silly - and adding a level drain at the end to explain it get old.

[Mr.Moron]

I've stopped encouraging players to think of a backstory a good while ago. It's work that many players are not eager to do and it also tends to be of very little use to me as a GM either.

Instead I now ask the players to come up with a few defining characteristics, like their characters' values, ambitions, and flaws. This is very quickly done and actually very useful in giving the players a good idea what their characters are like.

This echoes my experience. No more than 1 paragraph of character description, no more than 2 sentences of which is backstory. I've not once see the pages-long backstories of PCs ever really come up in a substantive sense and nor do they tend to really inform PC actions at the table. I'm sure there are exceptions but for the most part they seem to functionally wind up as long-winded, inaccurate "fan fiction' that nobody reads or cares about.


What I've found to be the better way to incorporate PC backstory is to actually make it part of game. Say, if we notice a trend in a PC say such as Sorcerer Peter uses the Firebolt cantrip a ton I'll ask "So, how old was Peter when he first discovered his ability to shoot out beams of fire?"

The player will answer some age. Then I'll concoct some scenario for this to happen in anything from say playing into the woods from friends to when bandits attacked his home, depending on the mood we're going for. NPC parts will be given to the other players and we'll just play the scenario out for 30 minutes or so until ti comes to a decent conclusion.

I like this approach because it creates backstories that everyone at the table knows, everyone at the table helped build and everyone at the table is invested it. If an NPC shows up from someone's backstory we don't need to explain who that is because someone at the table played that NPC and determined who they are. When the game forks off into some side-quest to fufill some part of a PCs backstory everyone else cares and wants to see how it plays out because it's their story too as player, even if their PC doesn't have much invested beyond knowing the PC it matters to.

Heck. players actively look forward to doing the background sessions for the players PCs.

[Quertus]

You don't need a backstory to roleplay well.
Well, maybe you don't need a backstory to roleplay well, but...

I find it easier to know how my character would act based on past experiences.
What he said.
-----
I come up with backstory because it helps me to roleplay my character. Even more than just personality traits alone. My character is crazy about dragons... Ok, but why? Even if all we're doing is dungeon crawls and tavern time, it's called a role-playing game, dang it, and I'm gonna roleplay.

But, for many reasons, I'd rather no-one else saw my backstory.

For one thing, I often have stretch goals. Suppose my backstory is that my character is so obnoxious, he was kicked out of his previous village / school / party / whatever. If, when I try to act this out, the party instead finds my character adorable, I'll likely conclude that I'm just not ready to act out that level of obnoxious, and scribble those bits out of the character's backstory. :smallredface:

Similarly, I don't want the GM touching any of the pieces of my character's backstory. Having them act out my character's childhood friend will likely work out as well as them acting out the Doctor or my mom IRL - it just won't come across right, and no-one will be satisfied with the experience.

So, having learned what I don't like in a game, my character are generally "not from around here". Yes, they have rich backstories (which kinda negates the value of the easy character creation minigame in earlier editions of D&D), but those shouldn't matter to the game, only to my ability to understand my character, to answer, "what's my motivation?"


It all has to do with different philosophies about people's personalities and what the question "Who are you?" means. Some focus on the course of history the character has taken (person that uses backstory to define their character) and others focus on the beliefs and motivations that shape the character in the present. Both are valid and viable means of generating interesting roleplay heavy (or roleplay light) characters.

I guess I use backstory to define and shape my character's beliefs and motivations...

[DrStubbsberg]

...I guess I use backstory to define and shape my character's beliefs and motivations...

For most of us, this is probably what it comes down to - a sort of bare-minimum "where did he come from," "why is he adventuring (or whatever)," "what does he want," to get the ball rolling (although I'm very guilty of multi-page back-stories because I don't know when to shut up).

It's also very helpful for GMs to give them plot-hooks and threads for the ongoing campaign, or side-quests along the way.

[Pugwampy]

Backstories really aren't necessary.

True but there is a lil added fine tuning options you can do to your character called traits and a nice back story is the main requirement / carrot .

Consider that your humble DM spends so much time preparing a lovely little campaign in your honour, does the most work and usually the most dedicated and all for free I might add .

Could you as player not find it in your heart to honour his generosity with a little bit of nice "toilet" reading material regarding your underpowered and just plain stupid no good character rendered even more useless because its a multiclass ?

You dont even have to think too hard , you could write any old piece of rubbish that pops up in your head.

[Ceiling_Squid]

Getting a game going is hard enough, and I don't have much patience to generate a couple pages of backstory that the GM will either ignore or have trouble integrating into game.

Not to mention, it's easy for a character to drift from their initial concept during play, should a more "right" choice present itself.

The problem, I think, is that some players will conflate roleplaying with writing a damn book, which is a scripted exercise. They imagine that they somehow need a massive backstory in order to have all their motivations and relations nailed down.

Roleplaying is improvisation. So use improv guidelines. Cut all the fat. Have a basic character concept, motivation, quirk, voice, etc. You have some prep time, so do have background, but keep it very lean.

Some of my favorite characters had single-paragraph backstories, or less.

Mileage may vary, though.

I think OP can get by just fine with minimalist prep. Just have your basics nailed down. You can have a major goal or three (arranged in order of priority), and a personal flaw of some sort. All of that can be thought up in a few minutes, and be tweaked to respond to the game organically.

Maybe have a voice you use for in-character speech, or a verbal tic or oath. I can guarantee that you'll be instantly more memorable than the guy who cranked out three pages of backstory that never come up in actual play or clearly inform the character's behavior. Less is more.

And always talk to other players regarding character concepts. You guys are playing a group game, so expect that to inform your choices.

[The_Snark]

... I'm trying to get some PbP D&D in.
[...]
What is up with this "back story" stuff? Why is it important?

(emphasis mine)

I think this is partly a difference in the medium. When playing in person, you generally assemble* your group out of friends/acquaintances. In play-by-post, many DMs post open recruiting threads, and often get far more potential players than they want in a single game. So how do they choose?

The most popular* methods are 1) first come first serve (the first 5 people to post interest/post a finished character sheet are in), and 2) selecting based on which characters the DM likes. In the latter case, your backstory basically functions as a writing sample: the DM reads it to get an impression of your style, the kinds of stories you might like and the kinds of ideas you come up with. That, I think, is why backstory gets more emphasis in online games than tabletop.

*It's entirely possible to leave an advertisement for an in-person game at a local game store, or to start a PbP game with a group of people you already know. But these aren't the norm in my experience.

[Joe the Rat]

As a player, I like enough backstory to put my features together (wizard raised as part of a circus, hence the better-than average strength, animal handling, and juggling), and maybe a hook to the adventure (Merchant made a deal with a "gentleman of wealth and taste" to seek out those that wronged him... but first you have a job). The rest gels from play.

As a GM, backstory helps connect a character to the world. It lets me weave a character's goals into the game (you killed my master = ninja assassin fortress assault), or develop as-yet undefined areas (Evil Count from Barovia Silverfall), or lets me introduce existing features (You're from a famous library? How about this one?).

[Tiktakkat]

Their backstory comes up a lot, but half of the time it doesn't really impact much.

Which means that half the time it drives the story.
And even when it doesn't drive the story it usually puts in a token appearance.
Which is why they are a terrible example of backstory not being relevant.


Now if you want an example of backstory being irrelevant from Appendix N, you could with Cugel the Clever from the Dying Earth books.
His backstory is: he is a thief, and . . .
Yeah, that's it - he's a thief.
So he tries to steal from this wizard and gets hosed.
Everything else about his personality is demonstrated within the stories, with the most minimal linkage between the episodes to keep them as an ongoing story arc. Indeed the only reason that his robbing a wizard is relevant past the first episode is that he is determined to get revenge for being geased by said wizard. Otherwise it would be nothing but a sequence of thinly connected episodes.

[kyoryu]

Backstories are of varying usefulness, depending on the game (meaning, the specific set of people sitting down at the table or doing PbP).

They're not necessary for dungeon crawls (which does *NOT* mean there's no roleplaying in dungeon crawls!)

They're not really necessary for railroads.

They're much more useful in open settings, where the GM is going to use the characters and their backstories to flesh out the world and to drive what happens. As an example, think of the TV show Fringe - the show was about *those* specific characters, and wouldn't have been the same if it was another group investigating weird stuff, because we found out that *those characters* were inextricably involved in what was going on.

Not every game is like that. But for games like that, backstories are incredibly useful.

[Jay R]

Some people really enjoy them, and the backstory helps them develop the character. Some DMs really like them and use them to help drive the adventures.

Consider the musketeers - Athos, Porthos, Aramis, and D'Artagnan. They are all "a warrior with expertise with a rapier, hoping to serve the king and queen". But they are all very different in backstory, in motivation, and in reaction to situations.

If you just want to play "a warrior with expertise with a rapier, hoping to serve the king and queen," then you don't need a backstory, and all the musketeers are the same. But if you want to play a young country lad arriving in the big city, a little dazed and out of his element, who instantly falls in love with his landlord's wife, but who becomes dazzled and overwhelmed by the beautiful woman who shows interest in him," or "dishonored noble who was betrayed by his now-deceased wife, and is now alone, drunk and embittered, finding solace only in his friends and is deadly strife", then you need a backstory.

And if the DM wants to introduce an enemy who is a PC's wife, falsely believed to be dead, than that PC needs to have a deceased wife.

If you just want "Wields sword, searches for Ale, Gold, Monsters," then you don't need a backstory. Haqve fun playing that way.

I want a specific role to play, different from others with the same class and skills. So I write a backstory.

[dps]

Here's all the backstory you need for a standard PC:

"I was poor and didn't want to stay that way, and the easiest way to wealth was to take if by force. I went into monster dens to kill them and take their stuff because that's more acceptable to society than killing and robbing from non-monstrous races."

[RazorChain]

As a GM I often base my campaigns around the PC's and that requires backstories. The focus is not to save the world or fight against the BBEG but what the PC's are up to and what they get tangled in. Also I advocate for open play, this means no note passing and everybody knows what is going on, also the players know each others backstories.

Backstories don't have to be a half a book long, most backstories are maybe half a page and describe a little bit of where the PC's are from and what their goals, hopes and dreams are.

Of course it helps that I mostly GM a point based system so if someone wants to play the greatest thief in the city then that player can just dump a lot points in Lockpicking, Stealth and Pickpocket and be one of the best thieves in the city.


Backstories are not needed at all to play but I use it a lot for plothooks and helps me to make the campaign revolve around the PC's instead of having a mission based adventures.

[Xuc Xac]

Even characters with significantly less backstory, like say Conan, somehow finds a way to mention he first came south when he helped sack an outpost with his fellow Cimmerians in most of his stories. That's a whole sentence of backstory, yet it finds its way into story after story.

This is what I was going to say. There are very few stories about Conan in Cimmeria. But in every Conan story, it's always very important that he's from Cimmeria. Conan according to Robert E. Howard has pantherish muscles because his iron thews were forged in the harsh land of Cimmeria. He has the killer instincts and keen senses of a wolf because he grew up in the unforgiving land of Cimmeria. He has boundless appetites and gigantic melancholies because he comes from the sparse and dreary land of Cimmeria.

Conan according to 2D8HP is just some guy who rolled well for Strength, Wisdom, and Constitution and decided to play a Barbarian.

[SethoMarkus]

I think it was stated earlier in the thread, but there seems to be two common ideas of what a backstory is. One group hears "backstory" and thinks of a retelling of the characters entire life up to this point. Lots of names and events, locations, etc. It doesn't need to be, but a lot of times this style of backstory can become overly longwinded. The other group hears "backstory" and thinks of character personality, who they are, and what events immediately led to them being here now. Traits and quirks of personality, some relations, driving force, etc. This style of backstory is sometimes not seen as backstory but as a character profile.

Both ways are great, but I think people assume one over the other so discussions like this get bogged down with miscommunication.

When I play a character, I like to create a short backstory in the realm of the first style. I think to myself about how this character developed into the person they are today. I try to skim over specific details and instead focus on three time periods: early life, what set their personality; early career, what set their motivation to pick up the "job" they have; and, immediately before play, what brings them here now?

As a DM, I try to require the later style of background to some extent. I mostly use it to help the players build the character they want within the game world I created (whether by directing them to character resources, or changing the game world to fit their character concept), and as a way to explain why the group of PCs are working together. (Just why is the Paladin of Roghteous Fury and the Ex-Con Turned Vigilante grouped together with the Drunk Barbarian Bruiser? The Paladin and Barbarian were buddies from back in the day? Okay, that works.)

[Quertus]

Getting a game going is hard enough, and I don't have much patience to generate a couple pages of backstory that the GM will either ignore or have trouble integrating into game.

Not to mention, it's easy for a character to drift from their initial concept during play, should a more "right" choice present itself.

The problem, I think, is that some players will conflate roleplaying with writing a damn book, which is a scripted exercise. They imagine that they somehow need a massive backstory in order to have all their motivations and relations nailed down.

Roleplaying is improvisation. So use improv guidelines. Cut all the fat. Have a basic character concept, motivation, quirk, voice, etc. You have some prep time, so do have background, but keep it very lean.

Some of my favorite characters had single-paragraph backstories, or less.

Mileage may vary, though.

I think OP can get by just fine with minimalist prep. Just have your basics nailed down. You can have a major goal or three (arranged in order of priority), and a personal flaw of some sort. All of that can be thought up in a few minutes, and be tweaked to respond to the game organically.

Maybe have a voice you use for in-character speech, or a verbal tic or oath. I can guarantee that you'll be instantly more memorable than the guy who cranked out three pages of backstory that never come up in actual play or clearly inform the character's behavior. Less is more.

And always talk to other players regarding character concepts. You guys are playing a group game, so expect that to inform your choices.


Backstories are of varying usefulness, depending on the game (meaning, the specific set of people sitting down at the table or doing PbP).

They're not necessary for dungeon crawls (which does *NOT* mean there's no roleplaying in dungeon crawls!)

They're not really necessary for railroads.

They're much more useful in open settings, where the GM is going to use the characters and their backstories to flesh out the world and to drive what happens. As an example, think of the TV show Fringe - the show was about *those* specific characters, and wouldn't have been the same if it was another group investigating weird stuff, because we found out that *those characters* were inextricably involved in what was going on.

Not every game is like that. But for games like that, backstories are incredibly useful.

Um... I'm jealous?

I've never been able to make a good character through more... extemporaneous / light methods, like y'all seem to be able to.

Even if my characters do sometimes "drift" a bit (from my inability to act out a particular trait, from something unexpected just feeling "right", etc), I still need that firm (albeit mutable) basis to start from.

Character creation would be so much... faster... if I could learn to play this way.

[Thrudd]

If we're talking about a 1st level D&D character, "backstory" is going to be much different (shorter) than it would be for a character starting at 5th or 10th level, or a character in a world of darkness game, or a game that is heavily narrative dependent.

1st level D&D character needs a couple sentences and a couple personality traits. Why does your character want to be an adventurer, what do they want to achieve right now, give two or three descriptive words about their appearance and behavior.
Possibly, what is their relationship to each of the other PCs (because you are already a party)? Business associates, friends, family?

That's it. Spending too much time is a waste for a character who's fate is uncertain (they could die in the first session). Howard had the benefit of knowing that Conan was destined to wear the jeweled crown of Aquilonia upon a troubled brow, and even then his pre-story background was quite brief and vague. Nothing from his background ever really affected the plot, it was just an explanation for why he behaves as he does. Just so, with a D&D character, the important stuff happens while you're playing. The "story" before the game starts doesn't mean a whole lot, except to give the player a guideline for how to roleplay. And it's only a guideline, characters can change and evolve as you go.

[OldTrees1]

I guess I use backstory to define and shape my character's beliefs and motivations...

Sorry for the late reply

Yes, one can see a personality as the result of the history of a character and thus use a backstory (be it short or long, see SethoMarkus's comment) to shape the character's beliefs and motivations. So your method is well suited to yourself.

On the other hand one can see a personality as their current beliefs and motivations and thus use their personality to shape their place in the world (which usually means the present, aka no backstory).

Both are valid and viable means of character generation/development.

[Max_Killjoy]

Here's all the backstory you need for a standard PC:

"I was poor and didn't want to stay that way, and the easiest way to wealth was to take if by force. I went into monster dens to kill them and take their stuff because that's more acceptable to society than killing and robbing from non-monstrous races."


Extruded "character" product.

I prefer a little texture and flavor in my characters.

[Max_Killjoy]

If we're talking about a 1st level D&D character, "backstory" is going to be much different (shorter) than it would be for a character starting at 5th or 10th level, or a character in a world of darkness game, or a game that is heavily narrative dependent.

1st level D&D character needs a couple sentences and a couple personality traits. Why does your character want to be an adventurer, what do they want to achieve right now, give two or three descriptive words about their appearance and behavior.
Possibly, what is their relationship to each of the other PCs (because you are already a party)? Business associates, friends, family?

That's it. Spending too much time is a waste for a character who's fate is uncertain (they could die in the first session). Howard had the benefit of knowing that Conan was destined to wear the jeweled crown of Aquilonia upon a troubled brow, and even then his pre-story background was quite brief and vague. Nothing from his background ever really affected the plot, it was just an explanation for why he behaves as he does. Just so, with a D&D character, the important stuff happens while you're playing. The "story" before the game starts doesn't mean a whole lot, except to give the player a guideline for how to roleplay. And it's only a guideline, characters can change and evolve as you go.

I've been gaming since the early 80s, and "runs a high risk of dying in the first session" is a very different style of play than I've ever been involved in.

Even between two first-level fighters, there's a big difference between the jaded son of nobility out sowing his oats and avoiding his duties on one hand, and the sheep-farmer's daughter who took her grandfather's militia sword and ran away from home to avoid an arranged marriage to the village twerp.

[Velaryon]

This is definitely one of those things that will vary from group to group and DM to DM. Some DMs want to build their story around the characters' previous experiences, others don't care about the PC's histories before the game. I have played with both, and will usually make an appropriate amount of back history for my character depending on who is running the game.

Some DMs will ask for it and not use it, or will constantly drop campaigns before they finish, or have a set story they want to tell regardless of what the PC's past histories might be. In those cases I won't bother, or will give something bare bones if asked for it. Other DMs will run with anything they're given (I try to be one of these because my players appreciate it and it also makes my planning easier), and in those cases I like to come up with a page or two and some interesting hooks.

[Thrudd]

I've been gaming since the early 80s, and "runs a high risk of dying in the first session" is a very different style of play than I've ever been involved in.

Even between two first-level fighters, there's a big difference between the jaded son of nobility out sowing his oats and avoiding his duties on one hand, and the sheep-farmer's daughter who took her grandfather's militia sword and ran away from home to avoid an arranged marriage to the village twerp.

Yes, and both of those perfectly serviceable backgrounds consist of one sentence and probably took you one minute to think up. That's exactly what I would want.

I didn't say "high risk", I'm not talking about killer dungeons/tomb of horrors. But it is definately a non-zero chance, and highest at level one. Not unusual for one or two characters out of five or six to die in the first few levels. Technically, characters can die at any time, any level. By the time the characters are at a reliably survivable level, they have in-game history and motives connected to actual game play that would be more relevant to the game than anything that happened to them as children.

[Max_Killjoy]

Yes, and both of those perfectly serviceable backgrounds consist of one sentence and probably took you one minute to think up. That's exactly what I would want.

I didn't say "high risk", I'm not talking about killer dungeons/tomb of horrors. But it is definately a non-zero chance, and highest at level one. Not unusual for one or two characters out of five or six to die in the first few levels. Technically, characters can die at any time, any level. By the time the characters are at a reliably survivable level, they have in-game history and motives connected to actual game play that would be more relevant to the game than anything that happened to them as children.


I consider those bare-bones backgrounds, in need of a lot of fleshing out. For example, the sheep-farmer's daughter could have left because she doesn't like the idea of being a farm wife, or because her own mother died in childbirth and the thought of it terrifies her, or because she doesn't like the guy she's promised to, or because she dreamed of being rich, or because her younger sister is in love with the guy, or...


But for a game in which risk of character death early on is high (and to me what you describe is high), I suppose they'd be enough.


PS: I wonder if anyone will comment on the literary origin of that background...

[ExLibrisMortis]

I tend to use 'Schrödinger's Backstory', that is, apart from basics (race/species, class/occupation, language/culture, the obvious-at-first-sight and mechanically relevant stuff), the details of my character are not decided until they are required in-character. Works admirably. My current character still doesn't have a hair colour.

[Thrudd]

I consider those bare-bones backgrounds, in need of a lot of fleshing out. For example, the sheep-farmer's daughter could have left because she doesn't like the idea of being a farm wife, or because her own mother died in childbirth and the thought of it terrifies her, or because she doesn't like the guy she's promised to, or because she dreamed of being rich, or because her younger sister is in love with the guy, or...


But for a game in which risk of character death early on is high (and to me what you describe is high), I suppose they'd be enough.


PS: I wonder if anyone will comment on the literary origin of that background...

As the DM, I wouldn't care about any of that. If the player feels better writing all that down rather than just having it in their head and "winging it", I wouldn't stop them. Nobody would be holding you to whatever is written, it's whole purpose is just to give you an idea how to role play, which you can alter at any time.

[Garimeth]

This echoes my experience. No more than 1 paragraph of character description, no more than 2 sentences of which is backstory. I've not once see the pages-long backstories of PCs ever really come up in a substantive sense and nor do they tend to really inform PC actions at the table. I'm sure there are exceptions but for the most part they seem to functionally wind up as long-winded, inaccurate "fan fiction' that nobody reads or cares about.


What I've found to be the better way to incorporate PC backstory is to actually make it part of game. Say, if we notice a trend in a PC say such as Sorcerer Peter uses the Firebolt cantrip a ton I'll ask "So, how old was Peter when he first discovered his ability to shoot out beams of fire?"

The player will answer some age. Then I'll concoct some scenario for this to happen in anything from say playing into the woods from friends to when bandits attacked his home, depending on the mood we're going for. NPC parts will be given to the other players and we'll just play the scenario out for 30 minutes or so until ti comes to a decent conclusion.

I like this approach because it creates backstories that everyone at the table knows, everyone at the table helped build and everyone at the table is invested it. If an NPC shows up from someone's backstory we don't need to explain who that is because someone at the table played that NPC and determined who they are. When the game forks off into some side-quest to fufill some part of a PCs backstory everyone else cares and wants to see how it plays out because it's their story too as player, even if their PC doesn't have much invested beyond knowing the PC it matters to.

Heck. players actively look forward to doing the background sessions for the players PCs.

This is one of the coolest ideas I've seen in a while. Wouldn't work for every game, or every group, but it would work for many, and would be awesome when it worked.

[SethoMarkus]

I tend to use 'Schrödinger's Backstory', that is, apart from basics (race/species, class/occupation, language/culture, the obvious-at-first-sight and mechanically relevant stuff), the details of my character are not decided until they are required in-character. Works admirably. My current character still doesn't have a hair colour.

That's hilarious (hair color bit) and reminds me of a campaign I ran in which one of the PCs never had a name. The player gave the character a name, but none of the other PCs ever asked for it, so the player refused to share it in character or out. So for the entire campaign he was "the human" or "that guy".

[Dr_Dinosaur]

I would gladly not ask for backstories if I knew my table was full of people wanting to share in the storycraft and such. If we can build on each other's narrative contributions I'm willing to dive in blind right beside them. But I don't have that most of the time, and so I need to know where the PCs came from to keep the world from having to react generically to them.

[Max_Killjoy]

As the DM, I wouldn't care about any of that. If the player feels better writing all that down rather than just having it in their head and "winging it", I wouldn't stop them. Nobody would be holding you to whatever is written, it's whole purpose is just to give you an idea how to role play, which you can alter at any time.


And when the GM decides that the character's sister comes looking for them and tracks them down in some foresaken troubled town because their mother is sick... and the player "has it in their head" that the PC is an only child because their mother died in childbirth...

...what happens then?

[mephnick]

I tend to use 'Schrödinger's Backstory', that is, apart from basics (race/species, class/occupation, language/culture, the obvious-at-first-sight and mechanically relevant stuff), the details of my character are not decided until they are required in-character. Works admirably. My current character still doesn't have a hair colour.

This is how I do it as well. It's easier and actually more realistic for individuals that have just come together (most parties). You learn about everyone's character just like you would at work/school, through time based on opinions and actions facing different scenarios. When hostage taking comes up, I decide my fighter is cool with it. Now he's cool with hostage taking from now on. We come upon a cool military faction I like, I ask the DM "Hey, would it be cool if I was a former member?"

Writing an actual backstory seems so restricting to me in actual play.

[Thrudd]

And when the GM decides that the character's sister comes looking for them and tracks them down in some foresaken troubled town because their mother is sick... and the player "has it in their head" that the PC is an only child because their mother died in childbirth...

...what happens then?

The GM doesn't do that. You don't just make up details of the player's character's lives. And you aren't beholden to include a character's background story as part of the game, either.

A player who writes a novella about their character, I've found, tends to expect the GM to use the story to create game scenarios which place their character at the center of the drama. Unless the GM has explicitly asked for that, it may be an unfulfilled expectation. If the writing part is fun for someone, regardless of any effect it has on the game, great. But it should not be seen as a way to exert control over the game's events by forcing the GM to include background elements that the players introduce.

[Max_Killjoy]

The GM doesn't do that. You don't just make up details of the player's character's lives. And you aren't beholden to include a character's background story as part of the game, either.

A player who writes a novella about their character, I've found, tends to expect the GM to use the story to create game scenarios which place their character at the center of the drama. Unless the GM has explicitly asked for that, it may be an unfulfilled expectation. If the writing part is fun for someone, regardless of any effect it has on the game, great. But it should not be seen as a way to exert control over the game's events by forcing the GM to include background elements that the players introduce.

There's no expectation that it WILL appear -- it's an available hook, and gives the GM details to work with.

It doesn't even have to be massive drama or eating up table time... if I imagine the character is an orphan who grew up on the streets, and the GM throws in a letter from the family as a bit of color/fluff... what then? As a GM, I'd rather know ahead of time that a PC was an orphan and not stumble over that avoidable bump.

Frankly, I'm a bit confused by this apparent assertion that an extensive backstory is an attempt by the player to hijack the game.
.

[Mr Blobby]

As a DM, I demand backstories, yes. I call it 'the obituary' - for it is no longer than say 100 words. Simple things in the vaguest detail - where/when they were born, their childhood, how did they end up here - that kind of thing. I offer a little XP reward for people who go beyond this.

While it is a bitch to do at times, I find it's useful - helps both me and the player get to grips over what the character is like. And to be frank, I also find it's a little something the players can work on while we're all waiting for the rest of the party to finish faffing around with their sheets.

I also encourage the players to keep a 'Blue Book' of the details of the character as and when they come up IC in play. As time players [usually] develop the character further; personality quirks, pet peeves, favourite food/drink/music etc - they all go in. So after say 6 months of play, the backstory has grown organically, the player feels like it's "their guy/girl/whatever" [which is quite correct] and most important of all - their character feels like they're real.

[SethoMarkus]

The GM doesn't do that. You don't just make up details of the player's character's lives. And you aren't beholden to include a character's background story as part of the game, either.

A player who writes a novella about their character, I've found, tends to expect the GM to use the story to create game scenarios which place their character at the center of the drama. Unless the GM has explicitly asked for that, it may be an unfulfilled expectation. If the writing part is fun for someone, regardless of any effect it has on the game, great. But it should not be seen as a way to exert control over the game's events by forcing the GM to include background elements that the players introduce.

My two most regular players enjoy creating rich (not always long) character backgrounds. They have never attempted to exert control over the story using their background as an excuse, nor have they ever tried to steal the spotligt using their backstory as an excuse. In fact, many times their backstories become a part of collaborative world building with whoever happens to be DMing. (Oh your character used to be part of an assassin's guild? I didn't add one yet; where was she based? Were they a formal organisation or a loose group of strange bedfellows? Etc)

I think using/expecting a backstory to influence the game world and storyline is only a bad thing if handled immaturely. Same thing with a DM creating details about a character's life or history. You say it is a bad thing, but doesn't the DM influence and decide details about the character's life everytime they pit the character against a monster or other challenge? I understand that you mean strictly changing details about a character's past, but I feel that it comes down to communication between the DM and player. Maybe the player wanted their character to be an only child, maybe they don't care and think their sister coming to find them adds extram drama and tension to the story (in a good way). Maybe they are hard set on being an only child, but they were raised by a neighbor who had a daughter who was like a sister growing up. Maybe the girl is a close childhood friend.

I have seen players try to use their background to take extra control of the game world, but I think that speaks more about the player than whether or not an extensive background is a good thing or not.

[kyoryu]

The GM doesn't do that. You don't just make up details of the player's character's lives. And you aren't beholden to include a character's background story as part of the game, either.

A player who writes a novella about their character, I've found, tends to expect the GM to use the story to create game scenarios which place their character at the center of the drama. Unless the GM has explicitly asked for that, it may be an unfulfilled expectation. If the writing part is fun for someone, regardless of any effect it has on the game, great. But it should not be seen as a way to exert control over the game's events by forcing the GM to include background elements that the players introduce.

This is true.

And in some games, the GM is *expected* to weave the PCs into the story. Fate's big on that, for instance.

In other cases, not so much.

So, like many arguments in RPG-land, it's about expectations, and getting people on the same page. Expecting the GM to use your backstory is fine. Not expecting them to is fine. Expecting the players to write backstory is fine. Not expecting them to is fine.

It's when you have unspoken expectations that mismatch that there's a problem.

[SethoMarkus]

~snip~

I saw this after posting but had to say I really love this idea and may steal it for the future. (If that is alright?)

[Knaight]

With the notable exception of the game I started where the PCs were a bunch of robots literally on the assembly line for the beginning of the first session, the PCs have generally not just sprung up fully formed. As such, a quick sentence or two that gives an idea of where they came from is helpful - I don't want an essay, but either of Max Killjoy's examples is totally fine.

[Red Fel]

As GM, I may request a backstory, in various contexts, for various reasons.

For example:
If I am running a comedy one-shot, I want a two- to three-sentence summary of who your character is, that's it. Don't bother writing it, introduce your character to the party.
If I am running an ultra-lethal campaign, I don't want squat from you. Your pathetic meatsack is going to die in five minutes, I don't need you to spend twice that telling me about his childhood pet.
If I am running a game of diplomacy and courtly intrigue, I will want some serious background. In a context where a character's upbringing and pedigree matter, I need to know about them. For example, I need to know if Sir Kensington is actually a Sir, and if Kensington is his real name, and if he is one of the Westerland Kensingtons, and whether he inherited his knighthood or received it recently, and why, and where his estates are, and how familiar with them he is, and so on... I need a lot to work with.
If I am running a dungeon crawl hack-and-slash, I need a name, a race, and a class. Bring your own dice.
If I am running an immersive character-driven campaign, I need a lot of background. I need character background for plot hooks. I need this because, for the plot to be character driven, it has to be important and relevant to your character; I can't just say, "You want to do this because it's important."
Similarly, in an immersive character-driven campaign, I may use a background requirement as a gauge of the player's investment. If the player at least makes an effort to produce a background, I know they're going to make an effort to be invested in the campaign; if they do absolutely nothing, I get the strong impression that the player would rather be playing a hack-and-slash.
For me, background requirements, if any, are based on the expectation of the game. There are times where a background will tell me whether a player expects the same thing I do. And if they don't, being able to see that in writing enables me to intercept the issue before it becomes an issue.

As a player, I have a tendency to write backstory for my own benefit. It helps me understand the character better. I may never share the backstory I write if it's not asked, but I have it for myself.

That's not to say I use them all the time. I don't. Sometimes they're not appropriate. But sometimes they're very valuable to me, as GM or as player.

[Mr Blobby]

I saw this after posting but had to say I really love this idea and may steal it for the future. (If that is alright?)

Which idea is that then?

[RazorChain]

This is true.

And in some games, the GM is *expected* to weave the PCs into the story. Fate's big on that, for instance.

In other cases, not so much.

So, like many arguments in RPG-land, it's about expectations, and getting people on the same page. Expecting the GM to use your backstory is fine. Not expecting them to is fine. Expecting the players to write backstory is fine. Not expecting them to is fine.

It's when you have unspoken expectations that mismatch that there's a problem.

I think this all can be resolved by communicating expectations before play. I encourage backstories as I incorporate them into play, last adventure revolved around the PC's taking care of a bandit problem that was centered around one PC who is a merchant son and thwarting a rival merchant family. Everybody had fun and instead of fighting some random bandits then this scenario had more meaning to the PC's and when they visit the town of Prospero again most of the towns people are in their debt.

I tell the players beforehand that I will use their backstories and not always in the way the players expect, and those that have problems with writing backstories I help out by taking an interview with the character or just help out with the writing.

[obryn]

Frankly, it depends on the game. In Dungeon Crawl Classics, a backstory is crazy. In Fate Core games, your backstory is your character.

I prefer short & sweet, myself. More than a short paragraph and it's too much.

A good backstory is flexible, somewhat vague, ties into the setting, and gives the DM plot hooks to hang future adventures on. A bad one is long, overly wordy, and doesn't lead anywhere interesting. The latter also tend to be grimdark; I don't think that's a coincidence.

[Honest Tiefling]

You might as well ask why literary characters or video game characters have a backstory. Because it helps that particular genre of whatever and gives depth and flavor. It's not great in all genres, as you probably can enjoy games like Minecraft without giving Steve a backstory if that is what floats your boat. But if you want a story based game, maybe you should go and play something else...

[Max_Killjoy]

This is true.

And in some games, the GM is *expected* to weave the PCs into the story. Fate's big on that, for instance.

In other cases, not so much.

So, like many arguments in RPG-land, it's about expectations, and getting people on the same page. Expecting the GM to use your backstory is fine. Not expecting them to is fine. Expecting the players to write backstory is fine. Not expecting them to is fine.

It's when you have unspoken expectations that mismatch that there's a problem.


To be clear, I am not insisting that every GM should ask for detailed backstories in every game, and that every PC should be required to come with one -- merely explaining the utility and defending the idea against what I see as some rather perplexing objections.

[SethoMarkus]

Which idea is that then?

Both the "obituary" and the blue book ideas.

[Mr Blobby]

Can't claim credit for the 'Blue Book' - that was from my first 'proper' DM. The added bonus is that all that stuff is in one place - a DM/player can simply flick through it and get the thing they needed.

The 'obituary' idea is in fact the rarest of things; an original idea of mine. 'Write a backstory' means a different thing to every person. 'Write a short obituary as seen in a local paper' is much more consise and understandable.

[Max_Killjoy]

The "blue book" as a tool for tracking info and story notes for RPG PCs has been around since at least the early 90s.

They come from this (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blue_book_exam), and the fact that blue books were available as cheap notebooks in most college bookstores.

.

[Mr Blobby]

Yes, I got bored at one point and found that page too.

However, both DM and I were in the UK, and had not been to the USA. I suspect he got the term from some 'DM's guide' or something...

[MrNobody]

In the games i run as a GM a backstory is not mandatory but encouraged: i usually run sandbox-like game, having a general plot (a major event the PCs will be dealing with, such as THE ARMAGEDDON IS HERE!!!!) but leaving my player move in it as they like.
In this kind of games, i use backstories to offer to my players "dedicated subplots" that they may enjoy playing, also including NPCs that they suggested to enrich the world and their gaming experience. They may follow them, they may not: it's their choice! A richer background only means that is easier for me to propose them a route.

As a player, i like to write my PCs backstory because it helps me to better understand and imagine their way of thinking. For example, if i run a Paladin, instead of writing down a short code of conduct I write about the situation in which that code was applied, often trying to explain WHY my PC applied that code in THAT way. The same applies to a wizard: he is interested in necromancy? WHY? WHICH event made him love it so much? WHEN necromancy stopped being A subject of his studies and became THE subject?

That said, a full backstory is not always necessary: you can write down just a couple of lines about the story and describe shorly the character behaviour, or you can do the latter in a couple of lines and totally bypass the story, or you can write nothing at all!!!

[Max_Killjoy]

Yes, I got bored at one point and found that page too.

However, both DM and I were in the UK, and had not been to the USA. I suspect he got the term from some 'DM's guide' or something...

Might be some history here:
http://www.gnomestew.com/game-mastering/gming-advice/the-power-of-blue-booking/

It appears that there's some variation in how the term is used, from simply note-taking, to outright "off-camera gaming".

[kyoryu]

As GM, I may request a backstory, in various contexts, for various reasons....

(fistbump)


I think this all can be resolved by communicating expectations before play.

Always a good idea. Unfortunately, many people don't understand that their assumptions are exactly that - which is where a lot of problems occur.

I don't really know how to solve this problem in the general case. I know how to solve it in the specific case where I'm the GM, by going through exactly what I will and will not be doing in this campaign.


To be clear, I am not insisting that every GM should ask for detailed backstories in every game, and that every PC should be required to come with one -- merely explaining the utility and defending the idea against what I see as some rather perplexing objections.

To be clear, I'm agreeing with you - they're often very useful tools, especially for certain types of games. They're not required for *every* type of game though, and in some cases too detailed of a backstory, especially with expectations of incorporation, can be counter-productive.

[Malimar]

I think of backstories as important, but I'm inclined to take an inventory of characters I've played recently and contemplate how important their backstories have actually been:
Dr. Blelyj - No backstory, just personality. Backstory still came up in play anyway, in that he turned out to be descended from a few different demon and devil NPCs.
Dr. John Euler - In Changeling: The Lost, your character's personality and backstory are virtually one and the same. Backstory very important.
Keyla Neylo - Only minimal backstory, but it still came up as important in play. (A bunch of paladins of Bahamut raided a drow encampment, found a drow girl child, couldn't bring themselves to kill her, and raised her to become a paladin of Bahamut herself. So when she found a clutch of black dragon eggs, it was very important to her that they be raised in the church and not just destroyed or sold, because of her background.)
Scott Beardsley - Old retired empty-nester who took up adventuring as something to do after all his kids moved out, takes all his cues from what his wife (an adventuress) used to tell him about adventuring. Backstory centrally important to personality, and "what would my wife do in this situation?" keeps coming up in play as Scott's guiding light.
Alex d'Cannith - Her personality has a lot to do with the Becoming God, and finding the Becoming God is a large part of her backstory. Still, her backstory mostly serves her personality, not the other way around.
Conclusion: backstory is even more important than I thought.

Mindless hack and slash is a valid play style, and in that case you don't need a backstory, but if you're role-playing, how can you not have a backstory?

[5a Violista]

And when the GM decides that the character's sister comes looking for them and tracks them down in some forsaken troubled town because their mother is sick... and the player "has it in their head" that the PC is an only child because their mother died in childbirth...

...what happens then?

In that case, the character's "sister" takes the PC alone in a room at knifepoint and reveals that she's a courier hired by the Duke of Wherever to deliver a batch of iocane powder, and the only way she can get past the guards of town she needs to get in is by posing as the daughter of a noblewoman with consumption, and it's well-known that all the noblewoman's children have gone missing in war, and it's easiest to pull this con by having the PC pose as one of these MIA soldiers.

Alternatively, after the PC reveals that he/she has no siblings, the soldiers come in and capture the character's "sister" because she was a fugitive and came to the PC pretending to be the PC's sister as a way to hint that she needed help.

Or the woman is the PC's half-sister on the father's side and needs help overthrowing their warlord father. Or maybe she's actually a spy and the DM then reveals how the PC objecting so vehemently that he/she doesn't have a sister completely blows her cover.

Of course, it would be a whole lot easier to set one of these up if the player had, at some point, revealed themselves to be an only child.

[IntelectPaladin]

You know what?
All I had to do to be upset at this is just read the thread title,
and the creator's first post.
I'm actually surprised at how angry I am at this.
Why have backstory? Because I've had the same char and ONLY char for over a full year!
I don't "whoops, that dagger happened, here comes barbarian no. 413.15."!
It's as if he said "why are wierdo's going around being human?"
DnD isn't just about the dice, it's about what the dice gives us, the players, who happen to be people.
We use our mind's eye to play a game that logically speaking is mere paper and plastic.

Without imagination, or flexing what creativity or emotion we have for enjoyment of the game,
The game has no point.
What about all of those moments where you nat-twenty your attempt to lift a building?
Or when the D.M. uses their creativity to make your nat-one the funniest story of the year?
The funny stories on here inspired me to go into DnD in the first place.
Backstory is part of the game, as much so as the dice. We have it because it's part of how we play,
It's how we make our characters more interesting to have,
to make more connections and events avalible in the game,
and lastly, because it's what we enjoy.

I apologize the the length of this rambling,
so thank you for putting up with me.
I know what I'm like. But I'm still me. And I'd rather be me than anyone else.
And thank you for reading this, and I hope you have a better day!

[Ceiling_Squid]

You might as well ask why literary characters or video game characters have a backstory. Because it helps that particular genre of whatever and gives depth and flavor. It's not great in all genres, as you probably can enjoy games like Minecraft without giving Steve a backstory if that is what floats your boat. But if you want a story based game, maybe you should go and play something else...

Videogames and literature are tightly-scripted mediums, and the comparison is nonsensical as a result.

"Story-based game" - that's a loaded term to unpack, and means different things in certain contexts. What does that even mean? What plot or story is there to serve, in a non-railroaded game?

RPGs are collaborative experiences, and subject often to randomness. Going barebones on "backstory" is a perfectly valid way to play them, because character history can be emergent. It's not to everyone's taste, but you can do a lot with a back-cover blurb and some character traits.

Mindless hack-n-slash isn't my thing, but neither is spending an hour writing the backstory for a character who could die unexpectedly, putting a lot of effort to waste. I don't control the payoff to their character arc...the course of the game does.

Without authorial control, the videogame/literature comparison utterly breaks down.

[Thrudd]

There's no expectation that it WILL appear -- it's an available hook, and gives the GM details to work with.

It doesn't even have to be massive drama or eating up table time... if I imagine the character is an orphan who grew up on the streets, and the GM throws in a letter from the family as a bit of color/fluff... what then? As a GM, I'd rather know ahead of time that a PC was an orphan and not stumble over that avoidable bump.

Frankly, I'm a bit confused by this apparent assertion that an extensive backstory is an attempt by the player to hijack the game.
.

So you're saying you wouldn't be upset, or at least disappointed, if the background you spent so much time and effort on was never referenced by the GM? If the GM decides they don't need or want the hooks and details in your character's history?

I'm not saying there is no place for detailed character stories in certain games, but it isn't a universal. As you said, you have never played a game where characters die early on. I started with Basic and 1e AD&D where it was most common early on, and I still run games in this vein.
Unless a GM asked me for a very detailed character history with hooks for the game, I wouldn't presume this was wanted. Most World of Darkness games I played and ran were along these lines, with a story crafted or at least modified around the ideas the players introduced as they collaboratively designed character stories. D&D games mostly are not like this, here I just need "Brawny the fighter and his gang of treasure hunters who want to make a name for themselves".

[Mr Blobby]

So you're saying you wouldn't be upset, or at least disappointed, if the background you spent so much time and effort on was never referenced by the GM? If the GM decides they don't need or want the hooks and details in your character's history?...

That is a fair point - but something which I feel would be solved with the DM being honest with the player when something just won't fit [hook wise], however way they thought about it.

But if the DM knows what kind of game the player wants to play, *and* has been provided with story hooks, the chances of a good game increase.

I feel my obituary / blue-book made piecemeal method offers the best compromise. By itself, it provides just enough skin to put over a character sheet. For a long-runner, it's a sturdy skeleton to which the player can add muscle over time. And if the character dies early on... oh well, you [the player] didn't lose much...

[goto124]

Consider that your humble DM spends so much time preparing a lovely little campaign in your honour, does the most work and usually the most dedicated and all for free I might add .

Could you as player not find it in your heart to honour his generosity with a little bit of nice "toilet" reading material regarding your underpowered and just plain stupid no good character rendered even more useless because its a multiclass ?

Usually I just go along with the GM's story. All the GMs I've been with are more than happy with it. I've never seen a GM get upset that my character was undeveloped, they tend to get more upset over rude or disruptive actions.

I've never used anything to justify disruptive actions. I've never made a GM get upset over my PCs' actions.

Even when my PCs have the barest of backstories, those backstories get tossed out in all of one second. It was either "forget the backstory" or "stop playing the game". For me, the backstory, like the character's personality, is a tool. If it disrupts the game, out it goes.

Though, considering they get tossed out long before I get to the meat of the game, I wonder what I'm doing wrong. I'm not even sure if I've ever actually RP'd before, despite all the games I'm in.

Then again, the blue book method doesn't work for me. My PCs never die, but the games they take part in do, very often. Nearly every game they've been in dies in the intro, or just past the intro. Others go a bit further. In all cases I never found out what was even happening/supposed to happen in the first place. It's been months or years, and my characters haven't gone through enough material to build a backstory.

And even in the one case it happens, I still don't know how to link the events to the character's backstory and personality. All they did was pick up a quest, killed some monsters, returned and claimed a reward. What can I write from that? I could just list down everything my character did in their adventures, like a journal, but that doesn't help with roleplay.

I wonder if 'Write a short obituary as seen in a local paper' could be taken too literally and written as if the character had no flaws at all (due to the dead and all that), or with no 'hidden' aspects of the character written inside. Or written rather funnily if the character is undead :smalltongue:

[2D8HP]

... I'm trying to get some PbP D&D in.
[...]
What is up with this "back story" stuff? Why is it important?
(emphasis mine)

I think this is partly a difference in the medium. When playing in person, you generally assemble* your group out of friends/acquaintances. In play-by-post, many DMs post open recruiting threads, and often get far more potential players than they want in a single game. So how do they choose?

The most popular* methods are 1) first come first serve (the first 5 people to post interest/post a finished character sheet are in), and 2) selecting based on which characters the DM likes. In the latter case, your backstory basically functions as a writing sample: the DM reads it to get an impression of your style, the kinds of stories you might like and the kinds of ideas you come up with. That, I think, is why backstory gets more emphasis in online games than tabletop. Writing sample?
O.K. that makes sense then. :smile:


Which means that half the time it drives the story.
And even when it doesn't drive the story it usually puts in a token appearance.
Which is why they are a terrible example of backstory not being relevant.


Now if you want an example of backstory being irrelevant from Appendix N, you could with Cugel the Clever from the Dying Earth books.
His backstory is: he is a thief, and . . .
Yeah, that's it - he's a thief.
So he tries to steal from this wizard and gets hosed.
Everything else about his personality is demonstrated within the stories, with the most minimal linkage between the episodes to keep them as an ongoing story arc. Indeed the only reason that his robbing a wizard is relevant past the first episode is that he is determined to get revenge for being geased by said wizard. Otherwise it would be nothing but a sequence of thinly connected episodes.:biggrin:
Jack Vance was AWESOME! Long live Appendix N! There was an anthology "Songs of Dying Earth" (https://www.amazon.com/Songs-Dying-Earth-George-Martin/dp/B0096DSP0E/178-1520842-8158916?ie=UTF8&*Version*=1&*entries*=0) which are the "Dying Earth" setting by other authors. Good stuff!


And when the GM decides that the character's sister comes looking for them and tracks them down in some foresaken troubled town because their mother is sick... and the player "has it in their head" that the PC is an only child because their mother died in childbirth...

...what happens then?Actually for me discovering backgrounds in play like that is part of the fun, and I thank GM's who provide it! :smile:


Conan according to 2D8HP is just some guy who rolled well for Strength, Wisdom, and Constitution and decided to play a Barbarian.If you mean Strength, Dexterity, and Constitution then that would be "Gorstag "Grim" Greycastle (http://www.myth-weavers.com/sheet.html#id=862268), a CN Noble background human Barbarian, who is young, strong, quick and is just extraordinarily charmless, stupid and unwise. He suffers from the delusion that by "great feats of arms", he may win the acceptance of his family and peers.
Because stupid is fun!


You know what?
All I had to do to be upset at this is just read the thread title,
and the creator's first post!Um...sorry!:frown:

[Âmesang]

I find the amount of backstory I write for a particular character typically depends on the character's level and how long said character is played as. I wouldn't expect anyone to write copious amounts of backstory for a brand-new, 1st-level greenhorn… but if you're starting at 11th-level it'd be nice to know how that character became a legendary figure (according to the legend lore spell). At the very least I'd agree it's good to have maybe a paragraph or two explaining background, personality, and motivations… adding to it over time not only based on the character's adventures but also on whatever might happen to come to mind that didn't come to mind before.

Granted I do like at least a little bit of character history. Otherwise if he's just "Bob the Fighter. He fights," than what's the point of even giving him a name or a race? If he's just "a fighter" than why go any further than that?


…although I'm very guilty of multi-page back-stories because I don't know when to shut up.
I'm guilty of this, too, at least for one long running character… which I find personally amusing because she was based on a character I had created in the wholly unrelated videogame, SoulCalibur III, using its character creation mode. Much of her backstory actually came about through sheer coincidence (such as being a near-perfect match for a particular sub race, important race-related locations found on a logical path via trade routes, and the city she did the bulk of her adventuring in just so happened to be near her ancestral homeland).

Granted, it also helped that I started the character higher than 1st-level so that also made it easier to explain how she got from Point A to Point B. Although a fun thing about backstories is trying to explain your character's class features. For example, sorcerers are proficient with more weapons than wizards. Why? The explanation for that can add to the character, I imagine (said character was perhaps allied with a local thieves' guild, which could also explain Bluff as a class skill and, taking a page from the Book of Vile Darkness, learning how to manufacture poisons via Craft [alchemy]).

…oddly enough I still haven't written anything about her immediate family or even given them names; I was thinking of waiting just in case I ever played a 1st edition game and chose to play as one of them. :smalltongue: Since it's said that some members of her people can trace their families all the way back to their ancestral empire I may attempt to draw up a family tree for her. No one would care in the long run, I'm sure, but since the character's played as a noble (and a very boastful and egotistical one at that) it would be appropriate… and a fun little silly challenge, too.


…and the sheep-farmer's daughter who took her grandfather's militia sword and ran away from home to avoid an arranged marriage to the village twerp.
Suddenly I want to play as that singing prince from Monty Python and the Holy Grail. :smalltongue: Heck, the fact that his father had to build multiple castles is some backstory in and of itself.

EDIT: Bah! I forgot to mention that lately I've been using the Monster Manual IV / V entries as a template to help write out backstories—not only in what to write but how much to write.

[minderp]

Our group has players who are all completely different in how they play and how invested in the story they are. I am too far gone on the obsessive side. I concoct elaborate backstories, write 20 page story-like journals of each session and paint my favourite scene from every session. I also create my character sheet around the story. Why would a high ranking noble have epic lockpicking skills? Because the fair lady of the noble house is only a front... she's secretly a trained assassin working for the king... etc etc.
One of our players uses the 'he has amnesia' excuse to get out of bothering with any type of backstory.
When i create the backstory, i work closely with the DM to incorporate the it into the campaign. Plan side mission, unveiling past secrets, developing the characters story further. Some of our players have asked me to write up their backstory for them, including them in my characters past to create a viable reason that we're all together in the campaign.
Also depends on what the campaign is. RotRL we just sort of all showed up in Sandpoint for whatever reason, played it for two years and everyone swapped characters multiple times when they died. Got to the end and we all kind of went... wait, so why are we here? Do any of us actually know what is actually going on?

Each to their own, its super important to me, but i understand it isn't important to some. I'll continue writing my epic tales, because it makes me happy to really feel involved and invested in the journey. :)

[Max_Killjoy]

Actually for me discovering backgrounds in play like that is part of the fun, and I thank GM's who provide it! :smile:




The idea of someone else handing me the backstory, the formative events and details, of my character, leaves me absolutely drained of any enthusiasm for a game.

If I wanted that, I'd play a CPRG -- even Mass Effect or DA:O let you choose some details of your character's history.

[2D8HP]

The idea of someone else handing me the backstory, the formative events and details, of my character, leaves me absolutely drained of any enthusiasm for a game.

If I wanted that, I'd play a CPRG -- even Mass Effect or DA:O let you choose some details of your character's history.I've never played a "CRPG" (I had to "Google" what "Mass Effect", and "DA:O" are), so you mean video games?
I played "Adventure" (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adventure_(Atari_2600)) and "Ghost and Goblins" (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ghosts_%27n_Goblins) back in the 80"s, which were obviously "inspired" by D&D, but which were hardly the same experience at all. I prefer TRPG's (in my day they were known as ""FRP's") in which you explore a fantastic world in your imagination, while thinking up shenanigans for your PC to attempt.

[Milo v3]

I've never played a "CRPG" (I had to "Google" what "Mass Effect", and "DA:O" are), so you mean video games?
The C stands for computer. Computer Roleplaying Games.

[Max_Killjoy]

I've never played a "CRPG" (I had to "Google" what "Mass Effect", and "DA:O" are), so you mean video games?
I played "Adventure" (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adventure_(Atari_2600)) and "Ghost and Goblins" (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ghosts_%27n_Goblins) back in the 80"s, which were obviously "inspired" by D&D, but which were hardly the same experience at all. I prefer TRPG's (in my day they were known as ""FRP's") in which you explore a fantastic world in your imagination, while thinking up shenanigans for your PC to attempt.


Yes, "computer RPGs". And the point is, if I ever want someone else to hand me the story of the character I'm playing, there are games where those limits at least make some sense, and they're played alone, on a computer, where much of it has to be preprogrammed and prerecorded and so on.

You seem to have mistaken that for some sort of statement of preference for CPRGs, and turned it around as a strawman to attack so you can take some sort of high ground about "fantastic" and "imagination".


If I'm in the far less limited medium of a tabletop, pen-and-paper RPGs, I'll decide who my character is and where they come from, not the GM. The GM gets input in terms of what is and is not possible in the setting they're presenting, but that's it. You're making comments about imagination and freedom to come up with things, and yet somehow doing that in defense of the notion of someone else handing you your character's background.

.

[OldTrees1]

I've never played a "CRPG" (I had to "Google" what "Mass Effect", and "DA:O" are), so you mean video games?
I played "Adventure" (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adventure_(Atari_2600)) and "Ghost and Goblins" (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ghosts_%27n_Goblins) back in the 80"s, which were obviously "inspired" by D&D, but which were hardly the same experience at all. I prefer TRPG's (in my day they were known as ""FRP's") in which you explore a fantastic world in your imagination, while thinking up shenanigans for your PC to attempt.

I am confused.

Max_Killjoy said they don't like to be handed their backstory and emphasized that statement by saying they would prefer the little choice a Computer RPG (RPG video games) offers over a DM handing them a backstory. It is implied that Max_Killjoy prefers TRPGs where they are not handed their backstory.

You replied (as quoted above) by strongly emphasizing you also prefer TRPGs over CRPGs but your reply's had an argumentative tone. Almost as if you were saying "But I prefer TRPGs and so should you for <reasons>". Since Max_Killjoy also prefers TRPGs I do not understand how your post follows.

[KorvinStarmast]

PC "Back story", why is that a thing?
Because it's fun. My first D&D group was a pure dungeon crawl. I rolled up a magic user, and we went into the dungeons in search of fights and loot.

Beginning with our second D&D group, we all decided to figure out "how we got to that tavern to begin our adventure." Just a quick note: two of the guys in our group are now published authors. They keep asking me to get a book or short story written ... not there yet.

In college, a couple of years later, I joined an already existing group, as a lower level. Their story was already well in progress, so the DM asked me to come up with where my thief came from and how he arrived in town. (He ended up dying in a fight with some evil high priests).

So we rolled up a druid, and I made a back story for him. It was a better story and he survived longer as a character.

We do it because it's fun.

[Pugwampy]

Everyone has a real life . Its hard enough for them to even update their character sheets . I dont ask for nor expect backstories . One dedicated competitor will make a back story just so he can get extra trait powers for his character . Some players think they can get freebees like a magic goodie if they peddle a back story . I usually go with it just to see if they will do it .


For me it depends how long I play a character . I like traits but i wont make a back story for a one session game .

[mephnick]

Mindless hack and slash is a valid play style, and in that case you don't need a backstory, but if you're role-playing, how can you not have a backstory?

Because role-playing is making decisions in character. That's it. It has nothing to do with backstory, acting or funny voices.

I can play a blank slate character and decide on his personality as the game progresses. "I'm a strong fighter, so I fight the thing" counts. I'm still role-playing, the role just isn't as strictly defined.

[Thrudd]

One dedicated competitor will make a back story just so he can get extra trait powers for his character . Some players think they can get freebees like a magic goodie if they peddle a back story .

This is related to the phenomenon I was describing earlier, of people expecting their background to influence the progress of the game.
I would prefer a background be short and simple, and explain only how the character has what the rules of the game dictate they begin with. Sure, your sword can be a family heirloom, but it isn't magical or better than any sword that any beginning character gets to have (and its value will be subtracted from your starting wealth). You can be descended from fairies and magically talented, yes, but that doesn't mean anything works differently for your 1st level wizard than it does for any other wizard. Background stories are not a source of free advantages, and that includes social contacts, rich families, and noble titles.

[RazorChain]

Our group has players who are all completely different in how they play and how invested in the story they are. I am too far gone on the obsessive side. I concoct elaborate backstories, write 20 page story-like journals of each session and paint my favourite scene from every session. I also create my character sheet around the story. Why would a high ranking noble have epic lockpicking skills? Because the fair lady of the noble house is only a front... she's secretly a trained assassin working for the king... etc etc.
One of our players uses the 'he has amnesia' excuse to get out of bothering with any type of backstory.
When i create the backstory, i work closely with the DM to incorporate the it into the campaign. Plan side mission, unveiling past secrets, developing the characters story further. Some of our players have asked me to write up their backstory for them, including them in my characters past to create a viable reason that we're all together in the campaign.
Also depends on what the campaign is. RotRL we just sort of all showed up in Sandpoint for whatever reason, played it for two years and everyone swapped characters multiple times when they died. Got to the end and we all kind of went... wait, so why are we here? Do any of us actually know what is actually going on?

Each to their own, its super important to me, but i understand it isn't important to some. I'll continue writing my epic tales, because it makes me happy to really feel involved and invested in the journey. :)

I always like when players are invested in the game, this is what I like when players collaborate on their backstories and work with the GM. I must admit that I love amnesia characters *wicked grin*

[kyoryu]

Mindless hack and slash is a valid play style, and in that case you don't need a backstory, but if you're role-playing, how can you not have a backstory?

It's not hard. You imagine what your dude would do. That starts to inform you more about who the character is, and that develops over time into a personality.



"Story-based game" - that's a loaded term to unpack, and means different things in certain contexts. What does that even mean? What plot or story is there to serve, in a non-railroaded game?

There's really three approaches to story in games:

1) "Hey, we made a story!" This is where you don't have a story in plan at all, but you tell stories after the fact about things that happen.

2) "I'm going to tell you a story!" Your traditional railroaded story.

3) "Let's tell a story!" The game is set up with a conflict, but not a defined end or path. Resolving the conflict to find out what happens is the driving force in play.

Backstories are most useful in the third type of game, potentially useful in the first, and are often flat-out counter-productive if the backstory doesn't mesh with the GM's planned story.


Usually I just go along with the GM's story. All the GMs I've been with are more than happy with it. I've never seen a GM get upset that my character was undeveloped, they tend to get more upset over rude or disruptive actions.

I'm guessing you're used to playing in the more "#2" style games, above, where "rude and disruptive" really means "disrupts the GMs plans."

[Max_Killjoy]

This is related to the phenomenon I was describing earlier, of people expecting their background to influence the progress of the game.

I would prefer a background be short and simple, and explain only how the character has what the rules of the game dictate they begin with. Sure, your sword can be a family heirloom, but it isn't magical or better than any sword that any beginning character gets to have (and its value will be subtracted from your starting wealth). You can be descended from fairies and magically talented, yes, but that doesn't mean anything works differently for your 1st level wizard than it does for any other wizard. Background stories are not a source of free advantages, and that includes social contacts, rich families, and noble titles.



You seem to be painting with a broad brush, and basing your opinion of backstory on a few bad example players, who have game-detrimental intentions that drive their usage of the tool in the character building kit that is backstory.

And also assuming a level-based game system is being used, with relatively inept and raw starting characters.


One counter-example -- in point-buy systems, you might be able to buy a "perk" as part of your character build that lets you start with a weapon with special properties. This should also inform part of your backstory -- how did you come to possess this weapon? Does that have any implications for the future of your character as the game progresses?


Another instance of backstory being important -- Champions (or whatever superhero-genre RPG). The backstory, or in this case "origin story", of a superhero is both informative and genre-appropriate. How did you get your powers or amazing skills or special tech? Why did you become a superhero? Etc. Very few Champions campaigns start with playing out that origin story; the characters already have their powers and some experience as heroes in most cases.

.

[RazorChain]

This is related to the phenomenon I was describing earlier, of people expecting their background to influence the progress of the game.
I would prefer a background be short and simple, and explain only how the character has what the rules of the game dictate they begin with. Sure, your sword can be a family heirloom, but it isn't magical or better than any sword that any beginning character gets to have (and its value will be subtracted from your starting wealth). You can be descended from fairies and magically talented, yes, but that doesn't mean anything works differently for your 1st level wizard than it does for any other wizard. Background stories are not a source of free advantages, and that includes social contacts, rich families, and noble titles.

Why not? Allow the PC's to be special....give them a low level magical sword which they inherited from their father "Change the world son, for the better" were you father's dying words when he handed you the family blade, then watch how hard it will to let go of the sword when some better loot comes along


One of the PC in my game is from a rich merchant family and his father is always nagging him to stop slumming with those fools and take up his duties as a fistborn in a wealthy merchant house, demanding that he gets married etc, it's a great source of rolepaying. His father sure ain't doling out money to his frivolous son.

Another PC is faerie blooded warrior and recently found out she is daughter of the wind, Kaikias from greek mythology, and a mortal woman. This gives her access to some faerie powers and in a point based system this poses no problems as he pays for her powers as she discovers them.

If you play with a group that works well together and has fun and doesn't envy other people because of some trinkets or titles then a fun background is no issue (As long as you don't bring along a chosen one)

Like in Call of Chtulhu where I played a filthy rich dilettante, an obscure European count who was an consummate art collector. Did his money save him from the things man was not meant to know?

[Thrudd]

You seem to be painting with a broad brush, and basing your opinion of backstory on a few bad example players, who have game-detrimental intentions that drive their usage of the tool in the character building kit that is backstory.

And also assuming a level-based game system is being used, with relatively inept and raw starting characters.


One counter-example -- in point-buy systems, you might be able to buy a "perk" as part of your character build that lets you start with a weapon with special properties. This should also inform part of your backstory -- how did you come to possess this weapon? Does that have any implications for the future of your character as the game progresses?


Another instance of backstory being important -- Champions (or whatever superhero-genre RPG). The backstory, or in this case "origin story", of a superhero is both informative and genre-appropriate. How did you get your powers or amazing skills or special tech? Why did you become a superhero? Etc. Very few Champions campaigns start with playing out that origin story; the characters already have their powers and some experience as heroes in most cases.

.

Yes. World of Darkness games are like that. In such a game, a more involved story is warranted to explain all the merits and flaws, etc. There are specific games like this in which the character's origin story is important. I'm just pointing out that in some types of game, an involved story is not warranted and fluctuates between an extraneous time sink for the player or a blatant attempt to spotlight hog or sidestep system rules. Some people are under the assumption that all role playing games ought to operate as collaborative storytelling exercises where their characters are the fated heroes of a narrative. This is not the case (though I know we can define "collaborative storytelling" in such a way that Basic D&D is included under that label as well as more modern narrative and cinematic systems).

[IntelectPaladin]

Um...sorry!:frown:

Honestly, I should be apologizing for the wording.
It was late at night, and a long day had taken it's toll.
Not to mention the even longer home-cleaning.
I apologize for how I worded my statement,
and I wish you all the best.
And none of the worst, I might add. Who would want the worst?
Thank you for reading this, and I hope you have a better day!

[Sith_Happens]

What is up with this "back story" stuff? Why is it important?

It's not really "important" per se, but it generally helps with rounding out a character a little and even (if you so choose) providing plot hooks to the GM. And it doesn't have to be remotely long or elaborate either. To use your own example:


How about "Wields sword, searches for Ale, Gold, Monsters, and Wenc charming conversationalists".
What's wrong with such mature and sophisticated themes such as meeting in a tavern. Leaving said tavern to wail on scaly types who occupy underground abodes, collect shiny objects in said underground abodes, avoid bandits who occupy space between underground dwellings and tavern, bring shiny objects to spend in tavern in noble quest for ale and time with hotties.

Come up with a few sentences explaining why and how the character got into that lifestyle (even if it's just so many words for "Because he thought it'd be fun") and you're good to go.

[Pugwampy]

Background stories are not a source of free advantages, and that includes social contacts, rich families, and noble titles.

I actually dont have a problem allowing that . A serious player making a little extra effort should be rewarded . Possibly some other players will follow his lead .

It would be awesome if players did that for no reward but this is the Real DND world and everyone expects XP , gold or magic goodies for their participation .

Someone dreams of that perfect magic goodie for his hero , this could be just the loophole he needs .

[Max_Killjoy]

Yes. World of Darkness games are like that. In such a game, a more involved story is warranted to explain all the merits and flaws, etc. There are specific games like this in which the character's origin story is important. I'm just pointing out that in some types of game, an involved story is not warranted and fluctuates between an extraneous time sink for the player or a blatant attempt to spotlight hog or sidestep system rules. Some people are under the assumption that all role playing games ought to operate as collaborative storytelling exercises where their characters are the fated heroes of a narrative. This is not the case (though I know we can define "collaborative storytelling" in such a way that Basic D&D is included under that label as well as more modern narrative and cinematic systems).


Regardless of the system or setting, I actually have a pretty strong distaste for the characters being "the fated heroes of the narrative", and in general I don't care for narrative systems such as FFG's Star Wars.

When we were playing WoD games, we always kinda said "that's nice" to the heavy-handed admonitions from the White Wolf staff about how not wallowing in the torment of your character was badwrongfun and their false dichotomy between the "I'm a monster, woe is me" angstburger and "superheroes with fangs", and then we moved along and had fun.


While I'm a big fan of well-developed, in-depth character, story, and setting in my RPGs, but I find myself very frustrated with a lot of the attempts by games to bake that sort of thing right into the system, with funny dice, or "you succeed but" and "you fail but", or "narrative control handoffs" or whatever.

[2D8HP]

Actually for me discovering backgrounds in play like that is part of the fun, and I thank GM's who provide it! :smile:
The idea of someone else handing me the backstory, the formative events and details, of my character, leaves me absolutely drained of any enthusiasm for a game.If I wanted that, I'd play a CPRG -- even Mass Effect or DA:O let you choose some details of your character's history.
I've never played a "CRPG" (I had to "Google" what "Mass Effect", and "DA:O" are), so you mean video games? I played "Adventure" (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adventure_(Atari_2600)) and"Ghost and Goblins" (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ghosts_%27n_Goblins) back in the 80"s, which were obviously "inspired" by D&D, but which were hardly the same experience at all. I prefer TRPG's (in my day they were known as ""FRP's") in which you explore a fantastic world in your imagination, while thinking up shenanigans for your PC to attempt.
Yes, "computer RPGs". And the point is, if I ever want someone else to hand me the story of the character I'm playing, there are games where those limits at least make some sense, and they're played alone, on a computer, where much of it has to be preprogrammed and prerecorded and so on. You seem to have mistaken that for some sort of statement of preference for CPRGs, and turned it around as a strawman to attack so you can take some sort of high ground about "fantastic" and "imagination". If I'm in the far less limited medium of a tabletop, pen-and-paper RPGs, I'll decide who my character is and where they come from, not the GM. The GM gets input in terms of what is and is not possible in the setting they're presenting, but that's it. You're making comments about imagination and freedom to come up with things, and yet somehow doing that in defense of the notion of someone else handing you your character's background.
I am confused. Max_Killjoy said they don't like to be handed their backstory and emphasized that statement by saying they would prefer the little choice a Computer RPG (RPG video games) offers over a DM handing them a backstory. It is implied that Max_Killjoy prefers TRPGs where they are not handed their backstory.
You replied (as quoted above) by strongly emphasizing you also prefer TRPGs over CRPGs but your reply's had an argumentative tone. Almost as if you were saying "But I prefer TRPGs and so should you for <reasons>". Since Max_Killjoy also prefers TRPGs I do not understand how your post follows.:frown:
Sorry guys, please let me explain further. @Max_Killjoy referenced CRPG's, I said I played some video games in the 1980's, which I found inferior to TTRPG's, because that is the only basis of comparision I have.
Maybe I would be happier playing modern CRPG's. I wouldn't know because I have never played one.
My biography:
1) Played D&D and some other (less fun) RPG's and video games in the 1970's and 1980's (also "Car Wars").
2) In the early 1990's I stopped playing RPG's because the only open tables I could then find were in settings (Cyberpunk, Vampire etc.) that seemed too close to real life, and I just didn't see the fun of playing them.
3) With family, job etc. I consume very little "pop-culture' beyond occasionally going to FLGS, buying some games and supplements that gather dust after I read them (this is why all my jokes reference old things).
4) Dragon Magazine goes out of print, so I must learn to go "online" if I want to continue reading OOTS.
5) My son turns the same age I was when I discovered D&D, so I get the latest (5e) version for him.
6) My son isn't interested in D&D (he prefers a card game "Magic: The Gathering" instead), but I love it again!
7) Play 5e some until....
8) Newborn arrives, no more time for table top.
9)
I started with D&D in the late 1970's, and since I'm on "night nurse" duty with my one month old son I'm trying to get some PbP D&D in......
I feel like Captain America did trying to find his way in the new world of the 1960's, coming straight from the 40's.
A lot of the stuff people post about in this Forum is new to me.

[OldTrees1]

:frown:
Sorry guys, please let me explain further. @Max_Killjoy referenced CRPG's, I said I played some video games in the 1980's, which I found inferior to TTRPG's, because that is the only basis of comparision I have.
Maybe I would be happier playing modern CRPG's. I wouldn't know because I have never played one.

-snip-

I feel like Captain America did trying to find his way in the new world of the 1960's, coming straight from the 40's.
A lot of the stuff people post about in this Forum is new to me.

Let me explain further:
CRPGs are still inferior to TTRPGs. While such an absolute statement might have exceptions, it is generally true. You and Max_Killjoy agree on this statement considering how Max_Killjoy used the inferior status of CRPGs to hammer home how much they disliked being handed a backstory. Max_Killjoy was stating their dislike for being handed a backstory from the DM by pointing out that even CRPGs offer more background choice than being handed a backstory from the DM. This statement says that while TTRPGs are better than CRPGs, tiny choice is better than no choice.

[kyoryu]

I feel like Captain America did trying to find his way in the new world of the 1960's, coming straight from the 40's.
A lot of the stuff people post about in this Forum is new to me.

As a fellow old dude, the biggest thing that I see is that the number of ways you can play TTRPGs has increased dramatically - there's far more styles of game, with differing base assumptions, than there were when I was playing in the 80s.

Find a group playing the way you want to play, and have fun! Or try a different style, knowing it's different, and see if you like it.

[Synar]

First, backstories are vital for most one shots and short scenarios.

Secondly, a very short and general backstory is always nice in any game which does not specifically requires its absence (such as pure tactical dungeon crawling, games like Paranoïa where you are required to feel like a generic unimportant product of the system, or games where you are amnesic). It can be as short as place of birth-uprising/occupation/social status, and it helps a lot to relate to the character.

Then, some games absolutely require detailed backstory, such as some intrigues games. Detailed backstory being different from completely over the top backstory : you need for such a backstory to be relatable and believable, and to create personality, tensions, relations, and side-plots, not to have everyone fawn over you character (or maybe you do, but you get what I mean).

Finally, there are those high power high level D&D or other such system game where you actually want your backstory to be as over the top and full of achievements as possible. but this is definitely an exception.

[Max_Killjoy]

Let me explain further:
CRPGs are still inferior to TTRPGs. While such an absolute statement might have exceptions, it is generally true. You and Max_Killjoy agree on this statement considering how Max_Killjoy used the inferior status of CRPGs to hammer home how much they disliked being handed a backstory. Max_Killjoy was stating their dislike for being handed a backstory from the DM by pointing out that even CRPGs offer more background choice than being handed a backstory from the DM. This statement says that while TTRPGs are better than CRPGs, tiny choice is better than no choice.


Yes, exactly.

If the DM is just going to hand me a backstory, and say "here's who your character is, live with it", I might as well go play a CRPG instead, because even some CPRGs have more choice than the no-choice that DM is giving me.

[Mr.Moron]

Yes, exactly.

If the DM is just going to hand me a backstory, and say "here's who your character is, live with it", I might as well go play a CRPG instead, because even some CPRGs have more choice than the no-choice that DM is giving me.

If this was true it would mean all play should at character creation, as once the you've written (or been given a pregenerated) the backstory all choice and possible outcomes of that character have already been explored. For a lack of choice in backstory to be equivalent to choice at all, it means by definition that no choice can exist outside backstory creation.

[Pippa the Pixie]

I feel like Captain America did trying to find his way in the new world of the 1960's, coming straight from the 40's.
A lot of the stuff people post about in this Forum is new to me.

Your not alone.

You might keep in mind that chances are most posters are younger then you are and it's very simple that generations will never quite see eye to eye. That is just life.

And most people even if your age or so that are still active in gaming have mostly gone with the flow. And this is very true of the game designers. A lot of things in the more modern games very much ''I player old D&D once upon a time and did not like it so I changed it for the new edition''.

And your average internet user/board poster mostly is on the new wave side. There are tons of gamers that still think Old School, they just don't get online and use message boards. And the few that do, really are out numbered by the others. And worse are the vile, personal attacks you will get from them. So a lot of us that don't follow the peer pressure, just keep quiet.

[Max_Killjoy]

If this was true it would mean all play should at character creation, as once the you've written (or been given a pregenerated) the backstory all choice and possible outcomes of that character have already been explored. For a lack of choice in backstory to be equivalent to choice at all, it means by definition that no choice can exist outside backstory creation.


We're specifically speaking of character background and choices that pertain to that.

No one said anything that can reasonably be taken to saying "no choice exists outside of backstory creation" -- that is a canard and strawman purely of your own creation.

[Max_Killjoy]

Your not alone.

You might keep in mind that chances are most posters are younger then you are and it's very simple that generations will never quite see eye to eye. That is just life.

And most people even if your age or so that are still active in gaming have mostly gone with the flow. And this is very true of the game designers. A lot of things in the more modern games very much ''I player old D&D once upon a time and did not like it so I changed it for the new edition''.

And your average internet user/board poster mostly is on the new wave side. There are tons of gamers that still think Old School, they just don't get online and use message boards. And the few that do, really are out numbered by the others. And worse are the vile, personal attacks you will get from them. So a lot of us that don't follow the peer pressure, just keep quiet.


I see some nasty comments from both sides in the Old School vs New Wave debate.

My preferences tend to take from all over the "game design" spectrum... and also reject from all over. I don't care for level-and-class design, or the adversarial GM. I also don't like some of the "narrative" rules systems that I've come across in which every last failure has a silver lining and every last success has a catch.

[Mr.Moron]

We're specifically speaking of character background and choices that pertain to that.

No one said anything that can reasonably be taken to saying "no choice exists outside of backstory creation" -- that is a canard and strawman purely of your own creation.

Nothing I said can be constructed to be a Strawman. "Strawman" does not mean "somebody analyzed my statement in a way I dislike", or that "someone drew conclusions other than what I intended". A strawman is something specific. In order for something to be a Strawman I must:

A) Argue against a point that you didn't make.
B) Claim that my defeat of the argument means that your position is false.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man

The so-called typical "attacking a straw man" argument creates the illusion of having completely refuted or defeated an opponent's proposition by covertly replacing it with a different proposition (i.e. "stand up a straw man") and then to refute or defeat that false argument ("knock down a straw man") instead of the original proposition.[2][3]

In that post I pointed out what I believe to be a natural conclusion of the statement you made:


If the DM is just going to hand me a backstory, and say "here's who your character is, live with it", I might as well go play a CRPG instead, because even some CPRGs have more choice than the no-choice that DM is giving me.

I made no arguments against any point. I have not for example claimed that it is wrong to say that CRPGs are inferior to TTRPGs. I've made no claim on the issue of if "some choice" is superior to "no choice" or not. Simply pointing out an implication of a statement is not a Strawman. If you want to claim I missed context or lack reading comprehension such that the logical implications I draw are false is one thing. However, those things aren't a Strawmen.

Given the texture of this conversation I don't think it was unreasonable of me to read the statement broadly. The entire thrust has been about the merit and quality of a game being contingent on the degree to which player-written backstories are accepted & Incorporated.

[Max_Killjoy]

Nothing I said can be constructed to be a Strawman. "Strawman" does not mean "somebody analyzed my statement in a way I dislike", or that "someone drew conclusions other than what I intended". A strawman is something specific. In order for something to be a Strawman I must:

A) Argue against a point that you didn't make.
B) Claim that my defeat of the argument means that your position is false.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man


In that post I pointed out what I believe to be a natural conclusion of the statement you made:


I made no arguments against any point. I have not for example claimed that it is wrong to say that CRPGs are inferior to TTRPGs. I've made no claim on the issue of if "some choice" is superior to "no choice" or not. Simply pointing out an implication of a statement is not a Strawman. If you want to claim I missed context or lack reading comprehension such that the logical implications I draw are false is one thing. However, those things aren't a Strawmen.

Given the texture of this conversation I don't think it was unreasonable of me to read the statement broadly. The entire thrust has been about the merit and quality of a game being contingent on the degree to which player-written backstories are accepted & Incorporated.


See A above, emphasis added.

No one was talking about all character choice, the context of the conversation has been entirely about character backstory specifically, and my statement followed on from that, and was clearly not meant as an assertion about all character choices ever. Your statement as follows had NOTHING to do with ANYTHING anyone on ANY side of this discussion has ever claimed.


If this was true it would mean all play should at character creation, as once the you've written (or been given a pregenerated) the backstory all choice and possible outcomes of that character have already been explored. For a lack of choice in backstory to be equivalent to choice at all, it means by definition that no choice can exist outside backstory creation.


Not a strawman? It certain looks, walks, and quacks like a strawman.

Or would you prefer "attempting to move the goalposts", or just "non-sequitur"?

Whatever you prefer to call it, it's certainly NOT a reasonable inference, especially given the context of the discussion for multiple pages now.

[Mr.Moron]

Or would you prefer "attempting to move the goalposts", or just "non-sequitur"?

I would go with "Pointing out how the logical implications of the language being used unfairly characterizes those that have different playstyles as having inferior tastes". However of those two I'll go with "non-sequitur".

[Max_Killjoy]

I would go with "Pointing out how the logical implications of the language being used unfairly characterizes those that have different playstyles as having inferior tastes". However of those two I'll go with "non-sequitur".

And I'd go with "deliberate attempt to turn the discussion to something it's never been, and then argue against that instead".

Nothing about "the limited choices in character background given by some CPRGs is better than the no choices in character background given by the DM we're discussing in this hypothetical" carries any implications about choices outside the context of character background.

I'm sick of this nonsense in discussions, online and otherwise, of having to sidetrack into something that was clearly never said.

[Fri]

As GM, I may request a backstory, in various contexts, for various reasons.

For example:
If I am running a comedy one-shot, I want a two- to three-sentence summary of who your character is, that's it. Don't bother writing it, introduce your character to the party.
If I am running an ultra-lethal campaign, I don't want squat from you. Your pathetic meatsack is going to die in five minutes, I don't need you to spend twice that telling me about his childhood pet.
If I am running a game of diplomacy and courtly intrigue, I will want some serious background. In a context where a character's upbringing and pedigree matter, I need to know about them. For example, I need to know if Sir Kensington is actually a Sir, and if Kensington is his real name, and if he is one of the Westerland Kensingtons, and whether he inherited his knighthood or received it recently, and why, and where his estates are, and how familiar with them he is, and so on... I need a lot to work with.
If I am running a dungeon crawl hack-and-slash, I need a name, a race, and a class. Bring your own dice.
If I am running an immersive character-driven campaign, I need a lot of background. I need character background for plot hooks. I need this because, for the plot to be character driven, it has to be important and relevant to your character; I can't just say, "You want to do this because it's important."
Similarly, in an immersive character-driven campaign, I may use a background requirement as a gauge of the player's investment. If the player at least makes an effort to produce a background, I know they're going to make an effort to be invested in the campaign; if they do absolutely nothing, I get the strong impression that the player would rather be playing a hack-and-slash.
For me, background requirements, if any, are based on the expectation of the game. There are times where a background will tell me whether a player expects the same thing I do. And if they don't, being able to see that in writing enables me to intercept the issue before it becomes an issue.

As a player, I have a tendency to write backstory for my own benefit. It helps me understand the character better. I may never share the backstory I write if it's not asked, but I have it for myself.

That's not to say I use them all the time. I don't. Sometimes they're not appropriate. But sometimes they're very valuable to me, as GM or as player.

Why are we even still discussing this. Here. Red Fel have answered this question, for ever, thank you Red Fel. No need to talk about New Wave or Old School or difference between CRPG and TTRPG or what specific system have specific backstory need. I guess for a supposedly evil guy you're okay, Red Fel. I'm even not sure if you're still evil anymore. I suggest burning one or two orphanage.

[2D8HP]

If the DM is just going to hand me a backstory, and say "here's who your character is, live with it", I might as well go play a CRPG instead, because even some CPRGs have more choice than the no-choice that DM is giving me.Well I can definitely remember being told that I must play a role ("Fixer" in Cyberpunk) that was not one I wanted to play, but in the example of the GM introducing a "sister" as a plot hook, even though that makes it "back story" that I didn't choose? I just don't have a problem with that.
The "role" that my PC has in play is important to me, but the backstory?

Franco: And now my friend, the first-a rule of Italian driving.
(Franco rips off his rear-view mirror and throws it out of the car)
Franco: What's-a behind me is not important."Gumball Rally" (https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=AjGXn249Fc0)
I'm interested in what my PC is and will be in play, not in writing what my PC was (basically I just want to get playing already).
:smile:

[Max_Killjoy]

Well I can definitely remember being told that I must play a role ("Fixer" in Cyberpunk) that was not one I wanted to play, but in the example of the GM introducing a "sister" as a plot hook, even though that makes it "back story" that I didn't choose? I just don't have a problem with that. The "role" that my PC has in play is important to me, but the backstory?"Gumball Rally" (https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=AjGXn249Fc0) I'm interested in what my PC is and will be in play, not in writing what my PC was (basically I just want to get playing already). :smile:

All I can say is, where you've been, informs where you are and where you're going. Who you've been informs who you will be. A character who has a sister might react differently, or have a different reason for the same reaction, when he sees someone being abusive towards a little girl, or the party rogue plans to "hit it and quit it" with a young woman who reminds the character of his sister. That said, you can always simply react as you see the character reacting, grab the rogue by the collar, and say through gritted teeth... "Knave, that young lady is someone's sister!" and BANG decide your character has this sister, and from then on, it's established backstory (just make sure to take notes for goodness sake).

I've been attempting to answer the question "PC "Back story", why is that a thing?" -- not trying to assert "PC backstory, why every character in every game must have one at least 10 pages long." That is, defending the validity of the idea, not asserting its universal necessity.

In my experience, even a paragraph or two, or "10 one-line facts about this character" makes a WORLD of difference for most players in getting a handle on who their character is.

.

[Knaight]

And your average internet user/board poster mostly is on the new wave side. There are tons of gamers that still think Old School, they just don't get online and use message boards. And the few that do, really are out numbered by the others. And worse are the vile, personal attacks you will get from them. So a lot of us that don't follow the peer pressure, just keep quiet.

Let's not pretend that personal attacks are a one way street here - there's plenty of attacks from the OSR crowd to everyone else, usually insisting on some combination of everyone else being stupid, lacking in attention span, being incapable of roleplaying, being unduly affected by video games and having no literary background, and having no imagination.

[gooddragon1]

The following expresses my full appreciation of a backstory.
http://www.clipartbest.com/cliparts/Kin/grz/KingrzBzT.gif

[dps]

Extruded "character" product.

I prefer a little texture and flavor in my characters.

Oh, I don't disagree. I want to play something more than a "standard" murder-hobo PC, but a lot of people don't, and they don't need any more backstory than what I suggested. And beyond that, depending on the system and DM, you can reveal your backstory slowly during gameplay rather than have it all written out ahead of time.

[2D8HP]

Oh, I don't disagree. I want to play something more than a "standard" murder-hobo PC, but a lot of people don't, and they don't need any more backstory than what I suggested. And beyond that, depending on the system and DM, you can reveal your backstory slowly during gameplay rather than have it all written out ahead of time.Well said.
Also, I'm pretty much certain that you can write a very, very long "back-story", yet still play a "standard murder-hobo" (especially when you do it right).
:wink:

[Tokidoki]

I usually require some kind of backstory for characters as a GM, but it can be anything from a couple of sentences ("Regdar grew up as a terraforming engineer on a backwater colony world. Now he wanders the cosmos, selling his services as a technician to anyone who needs his skillset.") to a couple of paragraphs maximum. I like when a player's backstory grows organically over the game.

[Red Fel]

Why are we even still discussing this. Here. Red Fel have answered this question, for ever, thank you Red Fel. No need to talk about New Wave or Old School or difference between CRPG and TTRPG or what specific system have specific backstory need. I guess for a supposedly evil guy you're okay, Red Fel. I'm even not sure if you're still evil anymore. I suggest burning one or two orphanage.

It's true, I tend to answer questions with a certain sense of finality. And not just because my Legions of Terror mercilessly slaughter anyone who second-guesses or challenges me. They're such pleasers like that. It's adorable.

And burning orphanages, Fri? Really? How gauche.

It's Thursday. Monday night was days ago. Check your calendar next time. It's right there on the Meetup. "Monday Night Orphan Roast." Honestly.

[Quertus]

Background stories are not a source of free advantages, and that includes social contacts, rich families, and noble titles.

Under these wonderfully fair rules, how does one play a low-level nobleman, someone with an ancestral weapon, etc?


One of the PC in my game is from a rich merchant family and his father is always nagging him to stop slumming with those fools and take up his duties as a fistborn in a wealthy merchant house, demanding that he gets married etc, it's a great source of rolepaying. His father sure ain't doling out money to his frivolous son.

I find a rock to be an adequate prop for role-playing: is the character's first thought to sit on it and rest? Climb it for the view? use it for shade? Poke it with a stick? Collect a sample? Check around the other side? Imagine sculpting a statute? Modify it for their purposes (whatever those happen to be)? Attempt to disbelieve? Etc etc.

So, even though this probably should be obvious, please step me through this: how do you define role-playing such that this particular setup provides better RP opportunity?


While I'm a big fan of well-developed, in-depth character, story, and setting in my RPGs, but I find myself very frustrated with a lot of the attempts by games to bake that sort of thing right into the system, with funny dice, or "you succeed but" and "you fail but", or "narrative control handoffs" or whatever.

You don't like the implementations you have observed - fair enough. Do you believe that all attempts by systems to bake flavor into the rules / mechanics are inherently doomed to failure, or do you believe that some mechanics can positively impact mood?


Let's not pretend that personal attacks are a one way street here - there's plenty of attacks from the OSR crowd to everyone else, usually insisting on some combination of everyone else being stupid, lacking in attention span, being incapable of roleplaying, being unduly affected by video games and having no literary background, and having no imagination.

That's not an attack, that's just stating the facts. It's only an attack if you have to roll to hit. :smalltongue:

Yeah, unless someone with way too much time on their hands produces statistics to the contrary, I'm gonna assume human nature doesn't change significantly with age, particularly when measuring a specific sample set with similar interests.

[RazorChain]

One of the PC in my game is from a rich merchant family and his father is always nagging him to stop slumming with those fools and take up his duties as a fistborn in a wealthy merchant house, demanding that he gets married etc, it's a great source of rolepaying. His father sure ain't doling out money to his frivolous son.



I find a rock to be an adequate prop for role-playing: is the character's first thought to sit on it and rest? Climb it for the view? use it for shade? Poke it with a stick? Collect a sample? Check around the other side? Imagine sculpting a statute? Modify it for their purposes (whatever those happen to be)? Attempt to disbelieve? Etc etc.

So, even though this probably should be obvious, please step me through this: how do you define role-playing such that this particular setup provides better RP opportunity?





Well everybody can roleplay how they like but my group might find a scenario where they poke a rock with a stick rather dull. The player whose character is a merchant son might find it more to his satisfaction to explore his role in a conflict with his father.

In the context of the subject which is backgrounds, then that rock had to be pretty important to a PC´s life that he/she would want to return to it to poke it with a stick.

So as to answer the question about how this particular setup provides a better RP opportunity is quite simple: It is more interesting to the player. Else I'd have to place a darn interesting rock in the PC's path.

[Max_Killjoy]

You don't like the implementations you have observed - fair enough. Do you believe that all attempts by systems to bake flavor into the rules / mechanics are inherently doomed to failure, or do you believe that some mechanics can positively impact mood?




I wasn't talking about baking flavor or mood into the rules -- there's some validity to that and I've seen it work.

My comment was directed at systems that try to bake character decisions and "narrative flow" into the mechanics, with things like strange dice, and having a silver lining for every failure and a catch for every success.

[Thrudd]

Under these wonderfully fair rules, how does one play a low-level nobleman, someone with an ancestral weapon, etc?

It depends on the system. In a system where those things are purchasable with character build points or whatever, you can have whatever it is the rules give you. In D&D, you don't. You can say that one of your weapons is ancestral or that you are a minor noble, but there is no mechanical representation of those things. For whatever reason, your minor noble family is broke or you have no access to their wealth (beyond what the rules say you start with). Your ancestral weapon is just a mundane weapon that has sentimental value to you. Anything you give away to one character, you need to allow an equivalent for all the others. There needs to be a ceiling on the resources players get at the start in accordance with the tone and type of challenge you intend them to face. Setting a precedent that allows background fiction to give mechanical benefits outside of the rules could be a mistake for certain groups, there could be resistance to denying them the same benefits in future games that you would like to be lower powered. And certain types of players will constantly push the limits of generosity when there is no rule-based limit on what their background can give them. Just things to consider.

[Milo v3]

Under these wonderfully fair rules, how does one play a low-level nobleman, someone with an ancestral weapon, etc?
What would cause someone to not be able to do those things? And even if it didn't work in the system at low-level, is that an issue? Not all backstories have to work at level one.

[kyoryu]

I wasn't talking about baking flavor or mood into the rules -- there's some validity to that and I've seen it work.

My comment was directed at systems that try to bake character decisions and "narrative flow" into the mechanics, with things like strange dice, and having a silver lining for every failure and a catch for every success.

DCC uses the strangest dice of any system that I know of, and it's pretty retro.

D&D is the original "funny dice" game.

What, exactly, is wrong with degrees of success? It's hardly a new concept, and not really tied to "narrative" games.

[Max_Killjoy]

DCC uses the strangest dice of any system that I know of, and it's pretty retro.

D&D is the original "funny dice" game.

What, exactly, is wrong with degrees of success? It's hardly a new concept, and not really tied to "narrative" games.


This isn't degrees, it's "you fail, but..." and "you succeed, but..." -- so that there's very often a complication or mitigation attached to the success or failure.

There are a bunch of different "good" and "bad" dice, in degrees, that you have to build up a pool of based on all sorts of factors, and then roll, and then remember what symbols counter what other symbols in what order, and then once you get through all that you still have to figure out what the dice "mean", and each "turn" represents a very long time, and the GM and players kinda have to cooperate to describe what the dice mean and how that minute or so of encounter that each set of rolls represents actually "narrates".

[kyoryu]

This isn't degrees, it's "you fail, but..." and "you succeed, but..." -- so that there's very often a complication or mitigation attached to the success or failure.

There are a bunch of different "good" and "bad" dice, in degrees, that you have to build up a pool of based on all sorts of factors, and then roll, and then remember what symbols counter what other symbols in what order, and then once you get through all that you still have to figure out what the dice "mean", and each "turn" represents a very long time, and the GM and players kinda have to cooperate to describe what the dice mean and how that minute or so of encounter that each set of rolls represents actually "narrates".

I assume you're talking about FFG Star Wars?

[Max_Killjoy]

I assume you're talking about FFG Star Wars?

That would be the poster child for this sort of thing at present, yes.

[Kite474]

They are fun little things that allow you to add a bit to the world. Some are big, some are small, some are important, and some are not. And for me when a GM includes them and you both form a sort of partnership in building a story its one of the best experiences and one the few ,concrete, advantages Table Top RPG's have over other forms.

EDIT: By concrete I mean stuff that is provable and not to a taste kind of thing Generally TTRPG's tend to be better on the story and narrative front while CRPGs are better on the Mechanics front.

[minderp]

You know what?
All I had to do to be upset at this is just read the thread title,
and the creator's first post.
I'm actually surprised at how angry I am at this.
Why have backstory? Because I've had the same char and ONLY char for over a full year!
I don't "whoops, that dagger happened, here comes barbarian no. 413.15."!
It's as if he said "why are wierdo's going around being human?"
DnD isn't just about the dice, it's about what the dice gives us, the players, who happen to be people.
We use our mind's eye to play a game that logically speaking is mere paper and plastic.

Without imagination, or flexing what creativity or emotion we have for enjoyment of the game,
The game has no point.
What about all of those moments where you nat-twenty your attempt to lift a building?
Or when the D.M. uses their creativity to make your nat-one the funniest story of the year?
The funny stories on here inspired me to go into DnD in the first place.
Backstory is part of the game, as much so as the dice. We have it because it's part of how we play,
It's how we make our characters more interesting to have,
to make more connections and events avalible in the game,
and lastly, because it's what we enjoy.

I apologize the the length of this rambling,
so thank you for putting up with me.
I know what I'm like. But I'm still me. And I'd rather be me than anyone else.
And thank you for reading this, and I hope you have a better day!



Yes this!!! I'm 100% with you on this!

[minderp]

I must admit that I love amnesia characters *wicked grin*

God damn amnesia characters, hard to write well into a story without sounding cliche.
And then the orc showed up....
My character - "who are you?" .... "i dont know..."
"where did you come from?" .... "i dont know..."
"how old are you?" ... "i dont know..."
"family? friends? faith? anything?" ... "i dont know...."
"want to join us for no reason whatsoever to go while we go find a wizard to see a man about a dog?"
"........ sure."

[RazorChain]

God damn amnesia characters, hard to write well into a story without sounding cliche.
And then the orc showed up....
My character - "who are you?" .... "i dont know..."
"where did you come from?" .... "i dont know..."
"how old are you?" ... "i dont know..."
"family? friends? faith? anything?" ... "i dont know...."
"want to join us for no reason whatsoever to go while we go find a wizard to see a man about a dog?"
"........ sure."

Well I love them as a GM, pulled an Angel Heart on one of my PC's once

[Hopeless]

I've often tried writing up a background for my characters never seen any of them come into use mind you!

The Cleric of Helm raised by his divorced mother in the family faith who chose to seek out his father and ended up a rival with his half brother over his girlfriend, only for his father to arrange with his supposed superior to have him reassigned which is how he ended up joining the party for their first trip up North.

Shortest write up I ever did was describe a Paladin by naming her Bridget D'Summerville a blatant Buffy the Vampire Slayer rip off!

Over a decade ago I tried to run a game as part of a 24 hour event alongside a five side football tournament which was supposed to be a regular adventure but turned into a bar room brawl after the players started reading each others character sheets and using that as an excuse to start fighting!

It takes all sorts but it really isn't that important if your gm is running a canned adventure!

Depending on the gm it might actually be a deterrent if they decide to cherry pick your background for their own use!

[Cybren]

Backstory (having a picture of the character) is fine, a back story (writing, and expecting other players and the gm to read, some short novella) is often pointless, bordering on rude. If someone handed me four pages of story about their characters life, I'd hand it back to them. I don't have that kinda time.

My view on RPGs is that only things that happen in game are real. Everything else exists in a quantum state where it could change at a moments notice. Which isn't to say there's not going to be discussion between GM and player about the characters origins/relationships/etc. I don't want to have to hunt through a short story to find out the character has a sister, I'd prefer that to come up in play.

In conclusion, I really like this article and if you don't you're a wallaby http://lookrobot.co.uk/2013/06/29/my-mothers-second-best-sword-small-things-big-echoes/

[gooddragon1]

God damn amnesia characters, hard to write well into a story without sounding cliche.
And then the orc showed up....
My character - "who are you?" .... "i dont know..."
"where did you come from?" .... "i dont know..."
"how old are you?" ... "i dont know..."
"family? friends? faith? anything?" ... "i dont know...."
"want to join us for no reason whatsoever to go while we go find a wizard to see a man about a dog?"
"........ sure."

I like it, but I think because of the quote below... I'd run a selective amnesia character. As in they don't remember a lot, but they remember that they don't like being involved in plots that I don't want them to be in or to be things I wouldn't like.


Well I love them as a GM, pulled an Angel Heart on one of my PC's once

[Âmesang]

I've contemplated a pseudo-amnesia character being one who was returned to life but doesn't know who brought him back or why; might be interesting if said character was revived decades or even centuries after death, I suppose.

[Ninjaxenomorph]

Why backstory? Because it's one of the best tools for determining how my character's actions would come down, and how they would differ from my own.

Hmm, I'll use a few of my recent PF character ideas. In a recent aborted game, I was playing a Dhampir named Thaddeus. Now, one of the interesting things about dhampir is that they almost demand backstory. Other half-breeds can be run-of-the-mill, but if you're a dhampir, how you came to be is usually a big question. Is your mother still alive? Do you know who your father is? Do you hate vampires, or want to become more like them? Hell, a mundane backstory is even weird if you're a dhampir.

Anyway, our group was in a position to learn of a plot by the local church to assassinate the king. Out of character, plot bells were going off in my head. In character, Thaddeus wasn't local, but he's the son of a lord in a nearby vampire-ruled kingdom. He came to this land to learn how to better fit in, in addition to the standard 'find fame/fortune' reasons someone goes adventuring. He figures that, if he saves the king, he gets leverage, right? Improve relations between the local kingdom and his homeland, gain political clout, and make daddy 'proud'. At least enough to elevate him to full vampire. Amongst the rest of the group, if I were to have to convince them, knowledge of their backstory would have helped. One guy was playing basically a samurai; if he was reluctant, I would say something along the lines of 'but doesn't your honor demand you save this rightful king?'

Personally, I like Thaddeus the foreign noble eager to prove his worth, rather than Thaddeus the warlord that hits things and wants to make money without offending his player.

Let's use another character of mine, cold open this time. Wreave is in a border-town with his party. While perusing the marketplace, they overhear a blind woman getting 'harassed' (more like she was being politely detained) by soldiers. Now, a rational question might be to ask what was going on. Wreave walks up, hand on the hilt of one of his many weapons, and none-too-kindly asks the soldiers to step off. "Give me an excuse."

The reason Wreave was cruising for a fight with professional soldiers was not because I wanted a fight, but because Wreave was, in his backstory, wronged by the country the soldiers in question worked for. Their actions against his family, in his mind, justified his his stance of 'looking for excuses to spill their blood'. I'm not saying developing a characters backstory during play is a bad idea, far from it. But, I'm going to need something to work from.

[Thinker]

This isn't degrees, it's "you fail, but..." and "you succeed, but..." -- so that there's very often a complication or mitigation attached to the success or failure.

What are your thoughts on Apocalypse World (and AW-based games)? The player declares an action, the GM decides if the action is possible for the character and helps the player figure out which move to use. The player rolls 2d6 and add the appropriate stat. A 6 or lower is a failure and means the GM is going to make bad consequences. A 7-9 is a partial success - the player succeeds, but either has to pay a cost, make a decision, or the GM adds some sort of complication to that or a future scenario. A 10+ is a total success with no drawbacks.

[goto124]

I still don't know how to write a backstory, or a personality, or a character sheet that deals with roleplay. Especially when I've thrown away every inch of "what would my character do" in favor of "what should be done as not to disrupt other people's gameplay".

[Nightcanon]

Here's all the backstory you need for a standard PC:

"I was poor and didn't want to stay that way, and the easiest way to wealth was to take if by force. I went into monster dens to kill them and take their stuff because that's more acceptable to society than killing and robbing from non-monstrous races."

Actually, if you start at first level, can't you go with "I am poor and don't want to stay that way...etc"? How I get into adventuring is session 1.

[OldTrees1]

Do you notice how very few words described what they did in the past? It's all about who they are not were!
As a DM I am much more impressed with a description than a history!
To those who demand a history as an audition?
:yuk:

As I said before there are at least 2 philosophies on what the question "Who are you?" entails. Both are viable and valid. Having a personal preference as a DM and requesting your Players answer the question as you mean it is perfectly acceptable and normal. Just as you being more impressed with the description(to use your language) is acceptable, so to another DM's being more impressed with the history(again, to use your language) is acceptable.

I have suggested that you personally filter for like minded groups when looking for a group since your preference is so strong. Asking the DM "Who are you?" should give you a good idea (except possibly if they are Babylon 5 fans :smallwink:).

[Red Fel]

There you go! Two characters well established!
If you don't know who they are from that I pity you. Do you notice how very few words described what they did in the past? It's all about who they are not were!
As a DM I am much more impressed with a description than a history!
To those who demand a history as an audition?
:yuk:

See this? This is confrontational, and it's unnecessary.

Your opening post had two questions: What is backstory, and why is it necessary? It had an undertone of "I don't think backstory is necessary," but it at least pretended to be interested in a response.

But a post like this? You betray yourself, sir. This kind of post - and it's not the first of its kind by you, in this thread or others - makes it clear that your position is "I don't think backstory is necessary, and further if you disagree you are wrong." You are insulting the people who disagree with you, and it's uncalled for.

I get it. You don't like backstory. You care more about how a character is played then the player's ability to write a background. I understand that, and to a certain extent I agree. But your attitude towards those who disagree is callous and dismissive, and you can do better than that.

If you want to post an "I don't think backstory is necessary" rant, go ahead and do that. But don't couch it in the form of a disingenuous question and then fire back at those who respond in good faith. That's just not cricket.

[2D8HP]

That's just not cricket.
@Red Fel,
Your right. I'm sorry. I feel bad.
Edit:
I was trying to (and eventually failed) to get a "seat" at a PbP game. I was deeply frustrated. I am not a good enough writer.
Probably for the best that I was rejected.
Thanks for your wisdom and honesty.
Please feel free to PM about any posts of mine that seem more cruel than funny, so that I may delete or edit them. My hope is to make people laugh not to grind their teeth
-EDIT-
@Red Fel, RED FEL RED FEL RED FEL
I've actually re-reconsidered my deleted post.
I don't remember writing that it's bad to write a back story. What I object to is the requirement to write ever longer ones to get to play at all (yes I realize "their game, their rules".
Since you are a very effective post writter (I'm being sincere) please enlighten me further.
-Thanks

[Max_Killjoy]

What are your thoughts on Apocalypse World (and AW-based games)? The player declares an action, the GM decides if the action is possible for the character and helps the player figure out which move to use. The player rolls 2d6 and add the appropriate stat. A 6 or lower is a failure and means the GM is going to make bad consequences. A 7-9 is a partial success - the player succeeds, but either has to pay a cost, make a decision, or the GM adds some sort of complication to that or a future scenario. A 10+ is a total success with no drawbacks.

That sounds somewhat better than "yes, but..." and "no, but..." on almost every roll.

AW is not a system I've had a chance to pull apart in detail.

[Beleriphon]

If I get a multipage backstory from a player it goes through the proverbial shredder as I promptly ignore it, and I tell the player if they want to give me something, I have to be able to read and understand the whole thing in less than two minutes.

[QuickLyRaiNbow]

I still don't know how to write a backstory, or a personality, or a character sheet that deals with roleplay. Especially when I've thrown away every inch of "what would my character do" in favor of "what should be done as not to disrupt other people's gameplay".

This is a really good point that nails why I've moved away from asking people for backstories individually.

[Segev]

It's true, I tend to answer questions with a certain sense of finality. And not just because my Legions of Terror mercilessly slaughter anyone who second-guesses or challenges me. They're such pleasers like that. It's adorable.

And burning orphanages, Fri? Really? How gauche.

It's Thursday. Monday night was days ago. Check your calendar next time. It's right there on the Meetup. "Monday Night Orphan Roast." Honestly.

Do you have your legions do cheer-offs against Lord Hater's watchdogs? Because I can totally see you trying to hire Peepers away from him.

Personally, I prefer legions of mindless undead, but there ARE advantages to loyal minions with capacity for initiative.


Also, are you in need of a...disposal service...for the bones from those Monday night roasts?

[Beleriphon]

Do you have your legions do cheer-offs against Lord Hater's watchdogs? Because I can totally see you trying to hire Peepers away from him.

Personally, I prefer legions of mindless undead, but there ARE advantages to loyal minions with capacity for initiative.


Also, are you in need of a...disposal service...for the bones from those Monday night roasts?

Hey man, I need those. You don't get to be the top of the heap of evil brains in jars just by dressing like a pirate thank-you-very-much. :xykon:

[Segev]

Hey man, I need those. You don't get to be the top of the heap of evil brains in jars just by dressing like a pirate thank-you-very-much. :xykon:

Ah, if they're already spoken for... I'll put in a bid for just the ones who were expressly betrayed by a trusted guardian figure, then. I've been working on a new variety of slaymate formed from skeletal remains alone.

[Thrudd]

I still don't know how to write a backstory, or a personality, or a character sheet that deals with roleplay. Especially when I've thrown away every inch of "what would my character do" in favor of "what should be done as not to disrupt other people's gameplay".

You need to know what it is your character is meant to be doing in the game before you decide on a background. If you are the GM, you need to inform your players of this, if you are a player the GM needs to tell you this. Are your characters treasure hunters who explore ruins? Are they special forces operatives who get sent out on impossible missions? Are they superheroes protecting a city from crime and super villains?
Once you know what the game is about, you can decide how it is your character got there and what they are like.

Conflicts often come because people don't know what the game is supposed to be about, and everyone makes a character imagining the game is going to be something different. You make a character that is a retired soldier and humble farmer who only wants to rescue his lost daughter and protect his land from monsters. Another player makes a necromancer who wants to forge his own kingdom with an undead army. Another player makes a pacifist princess who only knows divination spells and social skills and wants to negotiate peace between all the warring kingdoms. This game isn't going to make sense, and your characters are going to step all over each other's toes, unless it is a totally contrived railroad story. That is the GM's fault, they should have told the players what they are meant to be doing and that their characters need to have compatible goals and work together.

Once you know what your character is supposed to do in the game, the rest is easy. Answer a few questions. Why does my character want to do that? What does the character want from life, what are they trying to accomplish? List two or three personality traits. There you go. Built into your character's personality and background is the motivation to engage in the activities you are supposed to engage in, just like all the other characters. There shouldn't be many conflicts like: GM: "this is what the quest is", you: "but my character wouldn't want to do that!"

[wumpus]

More thoughts:
Old school vs. New school - I guess the oldest would have to be D&D (0eish) which started out with a young fighter fresh off the farm... Or maybe a not-so-young Bilbo that is a walking hobbit stereotype (and carefully keeps up the appearance). Oddly enough, it wasn't that much latter that Traveller came out. That famously lethal character generator also pretty much described (with very low detail, more like a resume) what happened to the character from 18 to mid thirties or so. Built-in backstory if you want it (in one of the oldest old-school-games).

I guess to much of the game* is based around the old murderhobo concept (to be honest, Hercules and such pretty much defined the concept of murderhobo. It is pretty much the basis of heroism as barbarism cedes to civilization). Modern tastes have trouble justifying the murderhobo lifestyle, so need extravagant reasons for delving where mortals tend to die.

* not all games, but swords and sorcery are pretty much based on legends involving murderhobos.

[RazorChain]

You need to know what it is your character is meant to be doing in the game before you decide on a background. If you are the GM, you need to inform your players of this, if you are a player the GM needs to tell you this. Are your characters treasure hunters who explore ruins? Are they special forces operatives who get sent out on impossible missions? Are they superheroes protecting a city from crime and super villains?
Once you know what the game is about, you can decide how it is your character got there and what they are like.

Conflicts often come because people don't know what the game is supposed to be about, and everyone makes a character imagining the game is going to be something different. You make a character that is a retired soldier and humble farmer who only wants to rescue his lost daughter and protect his land from monsters. Another player makes a necromancer who wants to forge his own kingdom with an undead army. Another player makes a pacifist princess who only knows divination spells and social skills and wants to negotiate peace between all the warring kingdoms. This game isn't going to make sense, and your characters are going to step all over each other's toes, unless it is a totally contrived railroad story. That is the GM's fault, they should have told the players what they are meant to be doing and that their characters need to have compatible goals and work together.

Once you know what your character is supposed to do in the game, the rest is easy. Answer a few questions. Why does my character want to do that? What does the character want from life, what are they trying to accomplish? List two or three personality traits. There you go. Built into your character's personality and background is the motivation to engage in the activities you are supposed to engage in, just like all the other characters. There shouldn't be many conflicts like: GM: "this is what the quest is", you: "but my character wouldn't want to do that!"

This is a very good point and one of the reasons I get the group together for a pre-session where we discuss what we want to play and collaborate on making characters and backgrounds. This means that the players don't all show up with a mismatch characters that don't work well together.

[2D8HP]

This is a very good point and one of the reasons I get the group together for a pre-session where we discuss what we want to play and collaborate on making characters and backgrounds. This means that the players don't all show up with a mismatch characters that don't work well together.Definitely an advantage of "table-top", which I just don't have that time anymore, I'm finding the auditioning part of PbP difficult. I guess I shouldn't be surprised, since the DM does most of the work, and I presume for PbP they must quickly "weed out" PC's and players who they think will be inappropriate.
Man do I miss tabletop! It would be so nice to roll dice with friends again....

[Beleriphon]

Ah, if they're already spoken for... I'll put in a bid for just the ones who were expressly betrayed by a trusted guardian figure, then. I've been working on a new variety of slaymate formed from skeletal remains alone.

On topic, that exchange of ours is exactly what I'm looking for in terms of character background. It gives a pretty clear example of how a character behaves, but at the same time is short enough to easily remember. I mean if you really think about some very iconic characters have very straightforward backgrounds.

Superman: Alien baby crashes on Earth, and is raised by the kind Kansas farmers Johnathan and Martha Kent. He gains incredible powers under the Earth's sun and uses his powers to save people and protect the world.

Batman: A young boy's parents are murdered during a mugging right in front of him. This affects him so much that as an adult he decides to become a detective-ninja/ninja-detective to make sure no child has the same thing happen.

Spider-Man: Radioactive/bioengineered spider bites highschool student, giving him incredible spider related abilities. Highschool student tries to make money, leads to paternal caregivers death, takes paternal caregivers advice to heart: With great power comes great responsibility.

Robin Hood: English nobleman comes back from the Third Crusade to discover that King Richard has been taken captive in the Holy Land. Determines Prince John is in control and a douche and ends up being an outlaw to fight back and help the poor.

[Max_Killjoy]

Man do I miss tabletop! It would be so nice to roll dice with friends again....


Same here.

[Red Fel]

Superman: Alien baby crashes on Earth, and is raised by the kind Kansas farmers Johnathan and Martha Kent. He gains incredible powers under the Earth's sun and uses his powers to save people and protect the world.

Batman: A young boy's parents are murdered during a mugging right in front of him. This affects him so much that as an adult he decides to become a detective-ninja/ninja-detective to make sure no child has the same thing happen.

Spider-Man: Radioactive/bioengineered spider bites highschool student, giving him incredible spider related abilities. Highschool student tries to make money, leads to paternal caregivers death, takes paternal caregivers advice to heart: With great power comes great responsibility.

Robin Hood: English nobleman comes back from the Third Crusade to discover that King Richard has been taken captive in the Holy Land. Determines Prince John is in control and a douche and ends up being an outlaw to fight back and help the poor.

Dude! Spoilers! Not cool.

[goto124]

This is a very good point and one of the reasons I get the group together for a pre-session where we discuss what we want to play and collaborate on making characters and backgrounds. This means that the players don't all show up with a mismatch characters that don't work well together.

Would there be a session or two afterwards, where players get to tweak their PCs' backstories, when they realize something that sounded cool in their heads didn't work out so well in practice?

[Segev]

Dude! Spoilers! Not cool.

He is evil. And Rosebud was his SLEDDOG.

[gooddragon1]

Why backstory? Because it's one of the best tools for determining how my character's actions would come down, and how they would differ from my own.

My character's actions never differ from my own. They're like the avatar from avatar the last airbender. They know everything any of the others knows and anything I know. Even the ones that are going to have selective amnesia if necessary. Especially the ones that are going to have selective amnesia.

[Beleriphon]

Dude! Spoilers! Not cool.

Bwahahaha, I will ruing everything ever for you: Darth Vader is Luke Skywalker's father, Snape kills Dumbledore, Harold and Kumar get to White Castle, Frodo destroys the One Ring, Thorin Oakenshield dies, the movie Gladiator is about gladiators, and the Titanic sinks at the end of the movie.

[Pyron]

Darth Vader is Luke Skywalker's father ...

How is that possible? They have different last names.

[Ninjaxenomorph]

My character's actions never differ from my own. They're like the avatar from avatar the last airbender. They know everything any of the others knows and anything I know. Even the ones that are going to have selective amnesia if necessary. Especially the ones that are going to have selective amnesia.

So... Nothing like the Avatar?

[RazorChain]

Would there be a session or two afterwards, where players get to tweak their PCs' backstories, when they realize something that sounded cool in their heads didn't work out so well in practice?

Last time I gave them WHOLE 6 sessions to change their characters around. No fun being stuck in a long campaign with a character you don't like.

[gooddragon1]

So... Nothing like the Avatar?

Well at least kind of like the avatar?

[Balmas]

Personally, I don't like writing massive backstories, but I need to have at least a little bit of knowledge of why my character is adventuring and why he does the things he does. It just makes things have more meaning and more entertainment. For me, at least, Druz the Hale, who adventures to bring home money to his poor crippled mother, means more than Druz, level 4 Dwarf Fighter who wants gold. And it makes people feel different and unique. When each character has backstory, they feel unique.

Examples: Harold and Starlight Glimmer are both Hardholders, which means that they run a town with their army of gangsters. However, they feel completely different because they have different backstories. Starlight Glimmer is paranoid, a narcissist, and has turned Our Bunker from a facility devoted to science to a Paranoia-ish friendship training exercise, but she actually cares about the people under her care. Harold, on the other hand, knows that he's old and can't keep running New Bellevue forever; as such, he's started to carefully sabotage the city in the hopes that someone who can do the job better than he can will notice and take him out. Same class, same abilities, completely different feel and motivation.

[2D8HP]

Personally, I don't like writing massive backstories, but I need to have at least a little bit of knowledge of why my character is adventuring and why he does the things he does. O.P. here.
@Balmas, your examples of "backstory" seem great, though I would label them more as character "descriptions" than "histories". My puzzlement (and "beef" really) is I guess I'm used to a time when you'd "roll up" a PC that would be on paper just stats, a name,.and maybe a physical description, and/or an illustration, then the GM would start narrating what the PC perceives at the adventure site, and only sometimes narrate what brought your PC there (I don't remember anyone "back-in-the-day" using the phrase "rail-roading, but I guess that's what it was, we just accepted it as the price of the ticket).
What I find unsettling and upsetting is the new (to me) requirement that as part of an audition to play the game, I must now write increasingly long histories of what brings my PC to the adventure site.
Having been a DM and experiencing how much more work it is than just being a player, I realize that "beggars can't be choosers", and that if I "want to dance, I need to pay the piper", but still I dislike the experience of instead of my PC being "railroaded" to the adventure, I as the player am being required to write content that I have no interest in, if I want to play. I'm used to the GM narrating a scene, and then thr player narrates their PC's reaction to the scene.
This new (to me anyway) RPG style of "you tell me your story, and then I'll tell you mine", just isn't as fun for me.
Maybe I just don't fit in with RPG'ing anymore, the increasing realization of which first made me angry, and now makes me sad.

[Balmas]

DCC uses the strangest dice of any system that I know of, and it's pretty retro.

D&D is the original "funny dice" game.

What, exactly, is wrong with degrees of success? It's hardly a new concept, and not really tied to "narrative" games.

Well, you might want to try out this awesome system called Apoc--


What are your thoughts on Apocalypse World (and AW-based games)? The player declares an action, the GM decides if the action is possible for the character and helps the player figure out which move to use. The player rolls 2d6 and add the appropriate stat. A 6 or lower is a failure and means the GM is going to make bad consequences. A 7-9 is a partial success - the player succeeds, but either has to pay a cost, make a decision, or the GM adds some sort of complication to that or a future scenario. A 10+ is a total success with no drawbacks.

Yeah, that! I've quickly come to enjoy Apocalypse world as one of my favorite systems, both as a player and as the GM, and partial successes are a large part of that. Partial successes mean that there's a bit of leeway in how you respond to the player characters.


That sounds somewhat better than "yes, but..." and "no, but..." on almost every roll.

AW is not a system I've had a chance to pull apart in detail.

Well, you're in luck. Apocalypse World is a system that can be picked up and learned in fifteen minutes, tops. And all you need to play as a PC is contained in the free ref pages, (http://apocalypse-world.com/AW-basicrefbook-letter.pdf) of which 90% is different character playbooks.

As I said before, partial successes are a large part of the reason I love Apocalypse World. They give the player a lot of power in how they want to handle a scene, and the GM gets leeway in how to answer the PCs in their various schemes.

Let's take a hypothetical scenario, shall we? Shoeless Bill is trying to sneak into The Immortals' stronghold so his group can know how to get in with the full army.
D&D: Bill adds up all his skill points and bonuses, etc, for Sneak and Move Quietly. Both of these checks are binary checks; failing either of them means that you're detected.
A*W: Bill tells the MC how he's sneaking in. The MC rules that since this is probably a stressful situation, Bill should roll Act Under Fire, which is 2d6+Cool.

10+, sweet. You're in, no issues.

7-9, you get in, but there's some complications--you know how Old Gumshoe has been missing for the past few weeks? Well, now you know where he went. He's strapped to the rack, and one of the Immortals is standing over him; if you get the plans, Gumshoe might not be alive by the time you get back.

6 and under, well, I guess I get to make one of my MC moves, These can be as simple as Announcing Future Badness--while creeping through the vents, you find out that the Immortals have struck an alliance with Tundra Town to get better weapons. Or maybe I choose to Capture Someone; you join Gumshoe on the rack. Or I Take Away Their Stuff--that fancy knife you got there? Yeah, while you shimmied up the wall, it slipped out of its sheath and fell into the moat. That was your only weapon, wasn't it? Damn.

And after every move, "What do you do?" Apocalypse World is all about what the players want to do, what their actions mean. While D&D is about can you do this, IE, Can you vanquish this army of gnolls come to kill your town, Apocalypse World says, "Of course you can. You walk through the valley of death and fear no evil, because you are the baddest mother****er in the valley. What's that mean to you? What do you do with that power?"

Apocalypse World starts each player out at with a high ability to screw with the world and each other in various ways. The Brainer is that weird freak who can reach into your soul and make you his puppet. The Hardholder runs the town, mostly because he's got an army at his beck and call. A regular doctor might be able to fix you up if you get shot up, but the Angel can raise you from the dead if need be, so don't piss them off. Again, what do you do with that power?

Angel, Henderson staggers into your clinic; he looks like he was on the wrong end of an assault rifle. Remember, this is the same person who screwed you over a week ago. Do you help? If so, what price do you extract? What do you do?

Gunlugger, the Hardholder is threatening to evict you from your home if you don't lead his army against your home town. As the Gunlugger, you are effectively every action hero in the world combined; if needed, you could probably shoot your way out of the Hardholder's entire army, though you'd get shot to hell and back again. What do?

Savvyhead, you've been working on that death ray for a while now. I don't want to say that it's been stolen, but when you wake up, some of your schematics have gone missing. Tell me, who took them? What do?


O.P. here.
@Balmas, your examples of "backstory" seem great, though I would label them more as character "descriptions" than "histories". My puzzlement (and "beef" really) is I guess I'm used to a time when you'd "roll up" a PC that would be on paper just stats, a name,.and maybe a physical description, and/or an illustration, then the GM would start narrating what the PC perceives at the adventure site, and only sometimes narrate what brought your PC there (I don't remember anyone "back-in-the-day" using the phrase "rail-roading, but I guess that's what it was, we just accepted it as the price of the ticket).
What I find unsettling and upsetting is the new (to me) requirement that as part of an audition to play the game, I must now write increasingly long histories of what brings my PC to the adventure site.
Having been a DM and experiencing how much more work it is than just being a player, I realize that "beggars can't be choosers", and that if I "want to dance, I need to pay the piper", but still I dislike the experience of instead of my PC being "railroaded" to the adventure, I as the player am being required to write content that I have no interest in, if I want to play. I'm used to the GM narrating a scene, and then thr player narrates their PC's reaction to the scene.
This new (to me anyway) RPG style of "you tell me your story, and then I'll tell you mine", just isn't as fun for me.
Maybe I just don't fit in with RPG'ing anymore, the increasing realization of which first made me angry, and now makes me sad.

Part of me wants to put it down to different strokes for different folks. If I'm honest, I give reasons and histories to even characters that I make in things like Skyrim and New Vegas; my Courier, for example, is an ex-Legion slave who hasn't figured out the VATS function, while my Dragonborn hails from Orsinnium and came to Skyrim to learn of the clans there.

What about backstories don't you like? Is it the difference between what you're used to and what the group wants you to do? The extra effort beyond "This is my character, let's go kill things?" Am I misunderstanding?

[Cluedrew]

(I don't remember anyone "back-in-the-day" using the phrase "rail-roading, but I guess that's what it was, we just accepted it as the price of the ticket).I don't think it is railroading if you are on board with it.

Personally I avoid the whole audition thing by running games with people I know. Even when I did a lot of online stuff it was mostly friends and friends of friends who became friends. Of course even then we tended to have more verbose start up/introductions than in a table top game, but that is because what your character was doing was the easy bit, it was the conversations that are hard in play-by-post.

[2D8HP]

If I'm honest, I give reasons and histories to even characters that I make in things like Skyrim and New Vegas;Sorry, I had to Google those. I'm pretty much out of the loop when it comes to most pop culture after the 1980's.


What about backstories don't you like? Is it the difference between what you're used to and what the group wants you to do? The extra effort beyond "This is my character, let's go kill things?"Yes, all those reasons.
I want to experience fiction, not write the prologue.
But it's also that I just don't see as much utility in a character history as in a character description (which may be my bias in that a character description is easier for me to write than a history). To hopefully illustrate what I mean:


"Two horsemen cantered leisurely along a narrow, dusty road. They presented a sharp contrast. The larger wore a tunic of unbleached linen, drawn tight at the waist by a very broad leather belt. A fold of linen cloak was looped over his head as a protection against the sun. A longsword with a pomegranate-shaped golden pommel was strapped to his side. Behind his right shoulder a quiver of arrows jutted up. Half sheathed in a saddlecase was a thick yew bow, unstrung. His great, lean muscles, white skin, copper hair, green eyes, and above all the pleasant yet untamed expression of his massive countenance, all hinted at a land of origin colder, rougher, and more barbarous than that of Lankhmar.

Even as everything about the larger man suggested the wilderness, so the general appearance of the smaller man—and he was considerably smaller—spoke of the city. His dark face was that of a jester. Bright, black eyes, snub nose, and little lines of irony about the mouth. Hands of a conjurer. Something about the set of his wiry frame betokening exceptional competence in street fights and tavern brawls. He was clad from head to foot in garments of gray silk, soft and curiously loose of weave. His slim sword, cased in gray mouseskin, was slightly curved toward the tip. From his belt hung a sling and a pouch of missiles.

Despite their many dissimilarities, it was obvious that the two men were comrades, that they were united by a bond of subtle mutual understanding, woven of melancholy, humor, and many another strand. The smaller rode a dappled gray mare; the larger, a chestnut gelding."
There you go! Two characters, that are to me well established! That's what I'm talking about!
Did you notice how very few words described what they did in the past? It's all about who they are not were!
I like reading history, and fiction that reads like history (or an entry in a travel guide book) when I'm alone.
But when it comes to role-playing in a game with others, I'm impatient to get get to the action that's in the scene.
I'm certainly not patient enough to want to write how: "Sir Schmoe grew up in a manor overlooking the valley of zzzzzz.....", when I just want to get to the part were the GM says, "The road is blocked by trees that looked like they had been felled by lightning. You can hear the sounds of approaching horses. What do you do?".
And I guess it is missing the style of RPG'ing that just didn't make these kind of creative demands on players.
And that may be because the style of RPG'ing that I learned is obsolete now that there these fancy new video games you referenced that (may) provide a narrative experience that guys like me used to get from friends, dice and paper. I doubt that I will.find out because I simply have too many demands on my time and wallet (a newborn to take care of for one) to want to become charmed into getting any.
But from what I'm reading I"m guessing that "tabletop" RPG's are now more like improvisational theater practice than how I remember the games being played. Which means that my desire to have the fun I used to get playing what.were called FRP's will go unfulfilled because I am not a good enough actor and writer.
I get some hints reading this forum that.some still.play the way that I was familiar with, but I can't find a way for me to, and for all I know soon a "writer's workshop" experience will be all that's left.
:frown:

[gooddragon1]

As you may have guessed from my previous posts: I hate having to write a backstory. Of any length greater than none.

But why play D&D 3.5 then? Why not play an mmo or something?

Because an mmo cannot attain the flexibility that pencil and paper has since any story it has must be programmed in. Also because I am too lazy to make my own stories in computer games (such as skyrim's editor for example).

Why 3.5 in particular? Because some of the other recent editions sacrificed things for balance and/or speedy play. If I wanted speedy play I'd play an mmo.

However, tying this back to the backstory, I am too lazy to write a backstory, but I want a nice slow game that isn't strictly tied to the inflexibility of computer coding with hard defined walls. A good DM can let you go outside the "walls" of a forest that you are traveling through. The computer game will make your character moonwalk in place. None of that should require a backstory. Sure it helps a DM to tell their story by putting your character into it, and maybe it's selfish to make them work harder since they have less to use, but they still get to tell their story. If I have to make all my characters with selective amnesia then that's what I'll do. But I don't want to do the writing, that's why I'm not a DM.

Note: I used to play at a D&D club at school. I almost never had to make a backstory.

[Milo v3]

I require my players to create a backstory for their characters. Though, that backstory might just be two sentences long and I generally help my players brainstorm ideas.

[goto124]

Going by the description, I would much rather play DnD over AW. DnD seems less... frightening for the novice. Somehow...


I'm used to the GM narrating a scene, and then thr player narrates their PC's reaction to the scene.
This new (to me anyway) RPG style of "you tell me your story, and then I'll tell you mine", just isn't as fun for me.

Does the GM not give info on the game and setting inside the pitch of the game?


Part of me wants to put it down to different strokes for different folks. If I'm honest, I give reasons and histories to even characters that I make in things like Skyrim and New Vegas; my Courier, for example, is an ex-Legion slave who hasn't figured out the VATS function, while my Dragonborn hails from Orsinnium and came to Skyrim to learn of the clans there.

I feel that doing that is rewardless - the game doesn't know you gave them a backstory, and there's not even any sort of acknowledgement from other players when you act in a non-optimal way.

I sometimes act in non-optimal ways even in a video game, but not for roleplay. Instead, it's for a 'hard-mode' thing, or a 'I'm just really curious' thing. Sometimes I would reload at a save point over a hundred times just to poke at a rock in over a hundred different ways and see how the game's reaction changes. I can't do that when there're other players waiting for me to move on with THEIR stories.

To be honest, I've learnt from some painful experiences (:smalleek:) that I vastly prefer the other type of freedom that video games give me. I take my time to poke the world, then share my experience with others on forums. All the benefits of interaction with like-minded players, and none of the drawbacks of actually having to deal with them during gameplay itself.

[PersonMan]

I feel that doing that is rewardless - the game doesn't know you gave them a backstory, and there's not even any sort of acknowledgement from other players when you act in a non-optimal way.

In general, it can be nice to have a general guideline for what to do when there is no optimal choice (or at least no visible one) and it can feel good even when it is just an "only for me" thing.

[Âmesang]

As a bit of an off note I'm reminded of the character creation mode in Mortal Kombat: Armageddon and its ability to give your character an ending text crawl… and then being %&#$'n annoyed that, unlike the ending text crawls for the regular characters, yours would always be in capital letter and there was no carriage return/line break option.

Or maybe a "page break" option; I can't recall, I just remember wanting to have a little pause at the end before finishing with "Have a Nice Day!" in reference to MK Raiden's and MKII Shang Tsung's endings.

[Jay R]

Bwahahaha, I will ruing everything ever for you: Darth Vader is Luke Skywalker's father, Snape kills Dumbledore, Harold and Kumar get to White Castle, Frodo destroys the One Ring, Thorin Oakenshield dies, the movie Gladiator is about gladiators, and the Titanic sinks at the end of the movie.

I like the way you mixed in a couple of false ones here, to throw people off. [Frodo doesn't really destroy the One Ring, and the Titanic sinks 80 years before the start of the movie.]

---------

Back to the topic. Rich Burlew wrote:

... in any gaming group, there is the guy who writes 34 pages of background information for his 1st level fighter, and then there is the guy who writes nothing for a character starting at 15th level. Evert player has a different idea about how much backstory is appropriate or even desirable.

I've given up trying to explain why a long backstory is both appropriate and desirable as part of my character creation and later role-play. The people who don't feel that aren't going to start feeling it after I explain.

Similarly, I don't care why some people don't want a back story.

Create your characters your way, and I will create my characters my way, and we will all have fun.

[Quertus]

, and only sometimes narrate what brought your PC there (I don't remember anyone "back-in-the-day" using the phrase "rail-roading, but I guess that's what it was, we just accepted it as the price of the ticket).

Even if it's, "having slaughtered the mayor and his family, your paladin finds himself on the road out of town", I'm not sure it qualifies as railroading.


Or I Take Away Their Stuff--that fancy knife you got there? Yeah, while you shimmied up the wall, it slipped out of its sheath and fell into the moat. That was your only weapon, wasn't it? Damn.

And after every move, "What do you do?" Apocalypse World is all about what the players want to do, what their actions mean. While D&D is about can you do this, IE, Can you vanquish this army of gnolls come to kill your town, Apocalypse World says, "Of course you can. You walk through the valley of death and fear no evil, because you are the baddest mother****er in the valley. What's that mean to you? What do you do with that power?"

Savvyhead, you've been working on that death ray for a while now. I don't want to say that it's been stolen, but when you wake up, some of your schematics have gone missing. Tell me, who took them? What do?

What happens when the character's response to dropping their favorite dagger in the moat is to bail on the inflation, and go retrieve their dagger?

How did the Savvyhead lose his schematics, if the NPCs can't take actions?

I've ran D&D as what do you do. Oddly, IME, it worked better at low levels. :smallconfused: What makes AW different, that this works at "high level"?

[Bohandas]

Spider-Man: Radioactive/bioengineered spider bites highschool student, giving him incredible spider related abilities. Highschool student tries to make money, leads to paternal caregivers death, takes paternal caregivers advice to heart: With great power comes great responsibility.

Ostensibly spider-related

[Thrudd]

I sometimes act in non-optimal ways even in a video game, but not for roleplay. Instead, it's for a 'hard-mode' thing, or a 'I'm just really curious' thing. Sometimes I would reload at a save point over a hundred times just to poke at a rock in over a hundred different ways and see how the game's reaction changes. I can't do that when there're other players waiting for me to move on with THEIR stories.

To be honest, I've learnt from some painful experiences (:smalleek:) that I vastly prefer the other type of freedom that video games give me. I take my time to poke the world, then share my experience with others on forums. All the benefits of interaction with like-minded players, and none of the drawbacks of actually having to deal with them during gameplay itself.

So, is it the fact that there are no "save points" and no "take backs" the main stressful thing about RPGs for you? Because your instinct, trained from video games, is to follow your curiosity and "poke things", regardless of the likely outcome, die/fail the mission, and then respawn and continue until something else draws your attention away from the mission. Do you ever challenge yourself to get through the mission/story in as efficient manner as possible, without dying or having to restart?

You want to try poking things in the tabletop game, too, but when you do your character and maybe everyone else's gets killed, and there's no do-overs. You've psyched yourself out thinking you have to get everything "right" the first time, which video games have trained you to believe is almost impossible.

But there is no "right". The world has no programmed response to your poking, it is only the GM's mind or the dice. If you attack a quest giver instead of talking to them, you aren't discovering anything about the game, you're just discovering how the GM deals with unexpected behavior and whether they can improvise another way to get you on the quest.

Your character background in an RPG, to whatever extent it is required, should be a guide to help you decide the "right" move for the character at different times. The only real important thing to know is "what does my character want?". Think of that, then take actions which move toward that goal, or that the character would think moves them toward that goal. If the other characters want different things from you, tell them what you want and see if there is a way for those things to coincide or compromise.

[Balmas]

Sorry, I had to Google those. I'm pretty much out of the loop when it comes to most pop culture after the 1980's.
Yes, all those reasons.
I want to experience fiction, not write the prologue.
But it's also that I just don't see as much utility in a character history as in a character description (which may be my bias in that a character description is easier for me to write than a history). To hopefully illustrate what I mean:

There you go! Two characters, that are to me well established! That's what I'm talking about!
Did you notice how very few words described what they did in the past? It's all about who they are not were!
I like reading history, and fiction that reads like history (or an entry in a travel guide book) when I'm alone.
But when it comes to role-playing in a game with others, I'm impatient to get get to the action that's in the scene.
I'm certainly not patient enough to want to write how: "Sir Schmoe grew up in a manor overlooking the valley of zzzzzz.....", when I just want to get to the part were the GM says, "The road is blocked by trees that looked like they had been felled by lightning. You can hear the sounds of approaching horses. What do you do?".

Okay, I think I can see where you're coming from there. In practice, most of my "backstories" then fall under your definition of descriptions. Still, I usually like having some idea of my characters' general history, even if that's as little as "I hate [group] because they invaded my town when I was a child."


As you may have guessed from my previous posts: I hate having to write a backstory. Of any length greater than none.

But why play D&D 3.5 then? Why not play an mmo or something?

Because an mmo cannot attain the flexibility that pencil and paper has since any story it has must be programmed in. Also because I am too lazy to make my own stories in computer games (such as skyrim's editor for example).

Why 3.5 in particular? Because some of the other recent editions sacrificed things for balance and/or speedy play. If I wanted speedy play I'd play an mmo.


D&D is not the example I'd hold up of a flexible system, IMO. Yes, it gives you a million options in terms of character creation and what you can do in any given scene, but in practice 95% of those options translate to combat effectiveness. All social skills come down to maybe four skills, if you don't count tangential skills like Disguise and Forgery. And those social skills have exactly three uses listed in the skill.

Now, the casting system alleviates some of that, but that's getting into Caster vs. Mundane, which is a different subject.


I feel that doing that is rewardless - the game doesn't know you gave them a backstory, and there's not even any sort of acknowledgement from other players when you act in a non-optimal way.

I sometimes act in non-optimal ways even in a video game, but not for roleplay. Instead, it's for a 'hard-mode' thing, or a 'I'm just really curious' thing. Sometimes I would reload at a save point over a hundred times just to poke at a rock in over a hundred different ways and see how the game's reaction changes. I can't do that when there're other players waiting for me to move on with THEIR stories.

Rewardless is an interesting term, and I disagree that establishing motives and desires for your characters in video games is rewardless. For me, knowing what my character wants, what kind of person he or she is, allows me to get immersed further in the game. Example: In Oblivion, the quest for the Daedric Prince Namira requires you to go in and make it possible for her children to slaughter some priests.

In terms of gameplay, there's no reason not to. It's an easy quest, you're in no risk, and the site you do the quest is all of fifty feet away from Namira's shrine.

However, whether I do the quest depends on what my character would do. A more mercenary character would probably do it, no problem. But for Carl, he's going to tell a daedric prince to get bent, because it's better for him to draw the ire of a demi-god than to have four men dead.


What happens when the character's response to dropping their favorite dagger in the moat is to bail on the inflation, and go retrieve their dagger?

Then that's a choice, and an interesting one. It says straight in the MC's handbook that you play Apocalypse World to find out what happens, and that the MC's job is to be a fan of the characters and make their lives interesting. So, you go swimming to get your dagger. That gets me thinking as the MC, "Are the Immortals the kind of people to staff their moat with monsters? Are there people guarding the walls?" What comes out of my mouth is probably that the moat is where all the sewage gets poured; you can get the knife just fine, but if you do, there'll be no chance of stealthing into the castle afterwards, because you're going to stink to high heaven and even if they can't see you, they can sure as hell smell you. What do?


How did the Savvyhead lose his schematics, if the NPCs can't take actions?

Where did you get the idea that NPCs can't take actions? Indeed, the whole idea of Fronts is to give the MC options about what the NPCs are doing behind the scenes. Doublestitch, the local surgeon, is a grotesque, a type of front whose urge is to grab and alter things; maybe she took them to draw the Savvyhead into coming to her, so she could get a particular tool made. Or maybe Warlord Gorg, the heavy from across the valley, snuck a spy into town. Why does he want a deathray, do you think?


I've ran D&D as what do you do. Oddly, IME, it worked better at low levels. :smallconfused: What makes AW different, that this works at "high level"?

Mostly it comes down to moves. Each player has the seven base moves to play with, plus things from their class. These moves are extraordinarily powerful.

Let's take one of the weaker, "Seduce or manipulate." Basically, the character goes in, and tells what they want from someone else, and the MC tells you what the other character wants. On a 10+, sweet, they take you at your word and trundle off to do what you ask. On a 7-9, they say yes, but you need to show some proof that you're going to do what you say. On a 6, the MC gets to move.

So, let's say you want Warlord Grug, who's at your doorstep with his army, to pack up without sacking the town. He says he'll do it, but only if you disarm the guard and start paying tribute. 10+, you've bought the town a reprieve, and the town has six months to build itself up for war. Or hell, maybe you actually keep your promise, which is also an interesting idea. 7-9, he accepts, but he wants that first payment now. Oh, and the guards should probably start piling those weapons into the truck over there. 6, I get to make a move.


Actually, that's another reason that the players are extraordinarily powerful; as the MC, I can move NPCs around, I can get things set up, but I don't get to make any of my hard moves until somebody screws up a move.

[Thrudd]

Here's the thing. In old D&D, background wasn't strictly necessary because the game already told you what your character wants. They want treasure, and maybe to defeat monsters. Like 2d8 said, the game often begins at the beginning of the module/dungeon, and you are told why your characters are there and what you're trying to do/get.
From this point of view, thorough backstory is unneccessary. You can develop it as you go, if you want to.

[Tiktakkat]

I want to experience fiction, not write the prologue.
But it's also that I just don't see as much utility in a character history as in a character description (which may be my bias in that a character description is easier for me to write than a history). To hopefully illustrate what I mean:

. . .

And I guess it is missing the style of RPG'ing that just didn't make these kind of creative demands on players.
And that may be because the style of RPG'ing that I learned is obsolete now that there these fancy new video games you referenced that (may) provide a narrative experience that guys like me used to get from friends, dice and paper. I doubt that I will.find out because I simply have too many demands on my time and wallet (a newborn to take care of for one) to want to become charmed into getting any.
But from what I'm reading I"m guessing that "tabletop" RPG's are now more like improvisational theater practice than how I remember the games being played. Which means that my desire to have the fun I used to get playing what.were called FRP's will go unfulfilled because I am not a good enough actor and writer.
I get some hints reading this forum that.some still.play the way that I was familiar with, but I can't find a way for me to, and for all I know soon a "writer's workshop" experience will be all that's left.
:frown:

Where to start . . .

First, as I noted, Fafhrd and the Grey Mouser are TERRIBLE examples for low-backstory characters given they each got an individual backstory story and how many subsequent stories were impacted by that backstory.
Conversely, Dying Earth is a GREAT example because the characters really have so little backstory before spontaneously appearing.
HOWEVER, Dying Earth does have a LOT of backstory. The thing is, that backstory is focused on the setting rather than the characters. Every third page refers to the "imminent" heat death of the sun, much as every third page of the Lankhmar stories refers to the barbarian origins of Fafhrd and illegitimate nature of the Mouser.
Then of course you get things like Conan, where both his barbaric origin AND the barbarism-civilization cycle of the setting are equally critical elements of the backstory, and so every third page refers to BOTH the ancient AND decadent nature of whatever culture Conan is interacting with as well as Conan's "pure" young AND vital barbaric nature.

There are multiple ways to approach backstory, all of which are equally valid for application in the genre.

Second, as it goes, Gygax commented multiple times on the shift of the game from essentially a fringe version of miniatures gaming to "improvisational theater".
This appears clearly in the difference in page count and "implied" background in early adventures like the Giant series and Village of Hommlet. I routinely challenge other grognards to remember how many pages those actually were compared to how many pages of additional setting and adventure material they created from them, and compare that to the page counts of setting books and adventures these days. Naturally there has been some bloat from layout of stat blocks and the like, but nowhere near what many people expect.

Third, and somewhat of a digression, it is important to note that most of the Appendix N inspiration reading is NOT appropriate for what standard D&D play (other systems will vary) assumes.
90% of those stories are solo heroes/protagonists.
9% are duos.
1% covers more than two, which approaches the 3.5 model of a 4-player party, but only a handful get to the AD&D module standard of 6-12 characters.
And for those 99%, a sizable number are less than likely to ever hang out in a larger group because they are utter sleazebags like Cugel the Clever, too individualistic to manage much teamwork like Conan, or too powerful for anyone to survive long with the like Fafhrd and the Grey Mouser, or some combination of those.
Therefore, when using those for inspiration, be aware that backstory requirements for tabletop play are going to be different, much as the adventures must be different.

[2D8HP]

Does the GM not give info on the game and setting inside the pitch of the game?Yes, but what's caught me off guard is the new (to me) requirement of "now submit your back story", and in a very recent case, I applied to play in a PbP game and the DM kept saying that first I hadn't submitted enough of a back story, and then after which I'd submitted more and more, only to be told:
While your character is getting to be pretty interesting with this backstory NO GAME FOR YOU!

Similarly, I don't care why some people don't want a back story.

Create your characters your way, and I will create my characters my way, and we will all have fun.I don't object to the option to write a back story, it's the requirement to write an increasingly long one, as an audition that I object to.
But beggars can't be choosers, eh?

[Thinker]

Definitely an advantage of "table-top", which I just don't have that time anymore, I'm finding the auditioning part of PbP difficult. I guess I shouldn't be surprised, since the DM does most of the work, and I presume for PbP they must quickly "weed out" PC's and players who they think will be inappropriate.
Man do I miss tabletop! It would be so nice to roll dice with friends again....


Same here.

You guys could try out Roll20 (https://roll20.net/). It's not the same as sitting around with friends, but it is a virtual tabletop. I'm not in the same local as most of the friends I used to game with, but we jump on Roll20 now to do PnP. If you can't convince your friends to give it a try (it's free, by the way), there is a place on there (https://app.roll20.net/lfg/search/)where others are looking to recruit new players. I haven't looked too closely at that section, but I have seen a fair amount of dungeon crawl recruitment as well as cooperative story-telling.

[gooddragon1]

Second, as it goes, Gygax commented multiple times on the shift of the game from essentially a fringe version of miniatures gaming to "improvisational theater".

Is it still theater if I play a clone of myself in every game? I know I'm not alone from that one archetype on the player archetypes thread.

[Max_Killjoy]

Yeah, that! I've quickly come to enjoy Apocalypse world as one of my favorite systems, both as a player and as the GM, and partial successes are a large part of that. Partial successes mean that there's a bit of leeway in how you respond to the player characters.



Well, you're in luck. Apocalypse World is a system that can be picked up and learned in fifteen minutes, tops. And all you need to play as a PC is contained in the free ref pages, (http://apocalypse-world.com/AW-basicrefbook-letter.pdf) of which 90% is different character playbooks.

As I said before, partial successes are a large part of the reason I love Apocalypse World. They give the player a lot of power in how they want to handle a scene, and the GM gets leeway in how to answer the PCs in their various schemes.

Let's take a hypothetical scenario, shall we? Shoeless Bill is trying to sneak into The Immortals' stronghold so his group can know how to get in with the full army.
D&D: Bill adds up all his skill points and bonuses, etc, for Sneak and Move Quietly. Both of these checks are binary checks; failing either of them means that you're detected.
A*W: Bill tells the MC how he's sneaking in. The MC rules that since this is probably a stressful situation, Bill should roll Act Under Fire, which is 2d6+Cool.

10+, sweet. You're in, no issues.

7-9, you get in, but there's some complications--you know how Old Gumshoe has been missing for the past few weeks? Well, now you know where he went. He's strapped to the rack, and one of the Immortals is standing over him; if you get the plans, Gumshoe might not be alive by the time you get back.

6 and under, well, I guess I get to make one of my MC moves, These can be as simple as Announcing Future Badness--while creeping through the vents, you find out that the Immortals have struck an alliance with Tundra Town to get better weapons. Or maybe I choose to Capture Someone; you join Gumshoe on the rack. Or I Take Away Their Stuff--that fancy knife you got there? Yeah, while you shimmied up the wall, it slipped out of its sheath and fell into the moat. That was your only weapon, wasn't it? Damn.

And after every move, "What do you do?" Apocalypse World is all about what the players want to do, what their actions mean. While D&D is about can you do this, IE, Can you vanquish this army of gnolls come to kill your town, Apocalypse World says, "Of course you can. You walk through the valley of death and fear no evil, because you are the baddest mother****er in the valley. What's that mean to you? What do you do with that power?"

Apocalypse World starts each player out at with a high ability to screw with the world and each other in various ways. The Brainer is that weird freak who can reach into your soul and make you his puppet. The Hardholder runs the town, mostly because he's got an army at his beck and call. A regular doctor might be able to fix you up if you get shot up, but the Angel can raise you from the dead if need be, so don't piss them off. Again, what do you do with that power?

Angel, Henderson staggers into your clinic; he looks like he was on the wrong end of an assault rifle. Remember, this is the same person who screwed you over a week ago. Do you help? If so, what price do you extract? What do you do?

Gunlugger, the Hardholder is threatening to evict you from your home if you don't lead his army against your home town. As the Gunlugger, you are effectively every action hero in the world combined; if needed, you could probably shoot your way out of the Hardholder's entire army, though you'd get shot to hell and back again. What do?

Savvyhead, you've been working on that death ray for a while now. I don't want to say that it's been stolen, but when you wake up, some of your schematics have gone missing. Tell me, who took them? What do?




"Act under fire" as a generic category of check, that kinda covers whatever?

"Cool" as a skill?

"I take away your stuff?"

Asking the player to detail who sneaked in and took stuff?

I'll be honest... that sounds really awful to me.



You guys could try out Roll20 (https://roll20.net/). It's not the same as sitting around with friends, but it is a virtual tabletop. I'm not in the same local as most of the friends I used to game with, but we jump on Roll20 now to do PnP. If you can't convince your friends to give it a try (it's free, by the way), there is a place on there (https://app.roll20.net/lfg/search/)where others are looking to recruit new players. I haven't looked too closely at that section, but I have seen a fair amount of dungeon crawl recruitment as well as cooperative story-telling.

I don't know what you'd call the type of game I'm looking for, but it's not "dungeon crawl" AND it's not "cooperative storytelling". I'm stuck somewhere in the middle of all the game-type dichotomies.

[gooddragon1]

"Cool" as a skill?

Well, there is the cool kid class (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?453194-The-Cool-Kid)... (that I made for 3.5)

[Koo Rehtorb]

"Cool" is your ability to work well under pressure. Cool, calm, collected, etc.

[Max_Killjoy]

"Cool" is your ability to work well under pressure. Cool, calm, collected, etc.

Which is a vastly broad and vague concept that could be used to cover almost anything.

[Koo Rehtorb]

It's perfectly thematically appropriate for the genre, though. The main thing to remember is that AW isn't trying to model reality with its ruleset, it's not a simulationist game. For reference the full list of stats are:

Cool: act well under pressure.
Hard: intimidation and fighting
Hot: seduction and/or manipulation
Sharp: smarts and the ability to read people and situations well
Weird: psychic prowess

[Max_Killjoy]

It's perfectly thematically appropriate for the genre, though. The main thing to remember is that AW isn't trying to model reality with its ruleset, it's not a simulationist game. For reference the full list of stats are:

Cool: act well under pressure.
Hard: intimidation and fighting
Hot: seduction and/or manipulation
Sharp: smarts and the ability to read people and situations well
Weird: psychic prowess


I'm starting to remember why I never did look at AW in depth...

[Cluedrew]

"Cool" as a skill?No its not a skill, the moves are more like the skills. Cool is more like strength or wisdom, a base stat. (Apocalypse World has 5 to D&Ds 6, so it is not actually that much broader.)


I don't know what you'd call the type of game I'm looking for, but it's not "dungeon crawl" AND it's not "cooperative storytelling". I'm stuck somewhere in the middle of all the game-type dichotomies.Same. Well not the exact same problem but I too could not find a system that was quite what I was looking for. I have been building my own system from the ground up to try and fix that.

This is not an efficient solution.

[Milo v3]

Yes, but what's caught me off guard is the new (to me) requirement of "now submit your back story", and in a very recent case, I applied to play in a PbP game and the DM kept saying that first I hadn't submitted enough of a back story, and then after which I'd submitted more and more, only to be told: NO GAME FOR YOU!
Well yeah, it's pbp so they want to see what you can do in the medium the game will be played in.

[2D8HP]

I don't know what you'd call the type of game I'm looking for, but it's not "dungeon crawl" AND it's not "cooperative storytelling". I'm stuck somewhere in the middle of all the game-type dichotomies.
Maybe call it fun?
Back in the 1980's I tried to play un "murder-hobo" PC's such as a sincere half-orc Cleric of Good, and an Adventurer that was a gourmet chef (modelled on "Hogan's Hero's" Corporal LeBeau), both were shot down as "lame". And now I just want to again play an "idiot with a big sword".
We always want what we can't have.
:frown:


Well, there is the cool kid class (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?453194-The-Cool-Kid)... (that I made for 3.5)That was hilarious!
Thanks!

:biggrin:

[Theoboldi]

Well yeah, it's pbp so they want to see what you can do in the medium the game will be played in.

Hi, I'm the DM he's talking about. I actually explicitly asked for short backstories, and even accepted one that was much shorter than his.

The reason I rejected 2d8HP was because his backstory didn't include elements I explicitly asked for in the recruitment post, namely a connection to an organisation the PCs were all supposed to be working for.

I generally don't think that you can really judge another person's PbP skills by their backstory. Those are written in a vacuum with more freedom than an actual IC post and no interaction with other players. Sure, you can tell whether someone is going to be awful, but not whether they'll be good. They do serve as a good tool to test your future players' reading comprehension, though.

[Koo Rehtorb]

No its not a skill, the moves are more like the skills. Cool is more like strength or wisdom, a base stat. (Apocalypse World has 5 to D&Ds 6, so it is not actually that much broader.)

If we're comparing it to D&D I'd be tempted to call Cool your fort, will and reflex saving throws all combined into one. There's probably some more stuff too, but I think that captures a lot of what the move does.

[Jay R]

I don't object to the option to write a back story, it's the requirement to write an increasingly long one, as an audition that I object to.
But beggars can't be choosers, eh?
If you don't like the DM's rules, don't play in that game. You probably wouldn't enjoy it. That's what job interviews are for - so the two sides can decide if they would work well together.

Aren't you glad you found out early, instead of after several unsatisfying sessions?

[2D8HP]

. They do serve as a good tool to test your future players' reading comprehension, though. :redface:
He's absolutely right. I can remember AD&D rules that I haven't read in 30 years, usually better than 5e rules I just read.

:frown:


If you don't like the DM's rules, don't play in that game. You probably wouldn't enjoy it. That's what job interviews are for - so the two sides can decide if they would work well together.

Aren't you glad you found out early, instead of after several unsatisfying sessions?I suppose so (but the game sounded really cool). It was just shocking to me both:
1) how important back stories now are.
and
2) how really bad at writing an acceptable one I am!
And what's up with "Faction's anyway?
I miss Greyhawk and the 20th century!
*clicks heels*
Their's no place like home!
Their's no place like home!
Their's no place like home!
:wink:

[goto124]

So, is it the fact that there are no "save points" and no "take backs" the main stressful thing about RPGs for you? Because your instinct, trained from video games, is to follow your curiosity and "poke things", regardless of the likely outcome, die/fail the mission, and then respawn and continue until something else draws your attention away from the mission. Do you ever challenge yourself to get through the mission/story in as efficient manner as possible, without dying or having to restart? I do this in real life all the time. I utterly hate it to no end. It's so rewardless. When I succeed, no one takes notice. When I neither succeed nor fail, no one cares. When I fail, everyone's screaming hell at me.

You want to try poking things in the tabletop game, too, but when you do your character and maybe everyone else's gets killed, and there's no do-overs. You've psyched yourself out thinking you have to get everything "right" the first time, which video games have trained you to believe is almost impossible.

But there is no "right". The world has no programmed response to your poking, it is only the GM's mind or the dice. If you attack a quest giver instead of talking to them, you aren't discovering anything about the game, you're just discovering how the GM deals with unexpected behavior and whether they can improvise another way to get you on the quest. There is no right, only 'nothing anyone will remember for more than 5 seconds happens' or 'something bad happens and you're to blame'.

Your character background in an RPG, to whatever extent it is required, should be a guide to help you decide the "right" move for the character at different times. The only real important thing to know is "what does my character want?". Think of that, then take actions which move toward that goal, or that the character would think moves them toward that goal. If the other characters want different things from you, tell them what you want and see if there is a way for those things to coincide or compromise.I'm constantly coinciding and compromising, all the time. Either case, other people have taken over my story. I do it so much that I'm better off not playing at all. The presence of other people wanting their individuality leaves no space for my individuality.

And even if I express some sort of individuality in a non-disruptive way, so what? No one cares, they're interested only in their own stories. Their interest in me and my character goes only so far as how I helped them push their story along. And their idea of helping is sharply limited to me doing things the exact way they want it, slightly off and I'm disruptive.

Video games don't care either, but they don't care in a manner that gives me space to poke at the world endlessly. They don't scream at me, they don't get passive aggressive, they can't get impatient or angry, they give me far more chances than strictly necessary, they don't have personalities I have to fear messing with.

In video games, I can do what I want. The restrictions of the mechanics are nothing to me - I hop onto another game, or more often I laugh it off and try something else. I can't do that with other people around, when trying anything means huge emotional pain for the next few months.



I placed my responses in bold above. I've been RPing for over a year, spent two months of wondering and crying over what I did wrong, and I still feel the only answer to my loss of SAN points over RP is 'do not RP at all ever'.

[Milo v3]

I placed my responses in bold above. I've been RPing for over a year, spent two months of wondering and crying over what I did wrong, and I still feel the only answer to my loss of SAN points over RP is 'do not RP at all ever'.

Wow, you've had some really bad experiences. You have my sympathy.

[2D8HP]

@goto124,

:frown:

I'm really saddened to read of your unhappiness RPG'ing.
For whatever it's worth I am very grateful for the wit and wisdom you have shared on this Forum.
Your D&D, pop culture and real life based jokes have given me a lot of joy, and I appreciate how you have called out unwise assumptions and stereotypes.
LONG LIVE GOTO124!

[Thrudd]

I placed my responses in bold above. I've been RPing for over a year, spent two months of wondering and crying over what I did wrong, and I still feel the only answer to my loss of SAN points over RP is 'do not RP at all ever'.
I'm sorry. That sounds like some people taking a game much too seriously. Your point about nobody caring 5 minutes later, well it is a game. Video game or RPG, none of it actually matters or means anything, the only ultimate use is having fun in the moment. Whether you go through a video game in 2 hours, or spend 2 months uncovering every secret, or never get past level 1, nobody really cares and it means nothing.

There shouldn't be stress IRL gaming, just excitement and fun. There are so many types of game out there, I'm sure there must be something that any gamer could enjoy. It's just a matter of finding the right group, which isn't always possible IRL. Personally, I think PbP, especially the more free form stuff, is a poor representation of TTRPGs. If that is the primary experience you are having, I feel that you are getting a skewed perspective which doesn't necessarily mean you wouldn't enjoy RPGs in general. Of course, if PbP is your only option, that doesn't help right now. But if you ever had a chance to join a group IRL playing a system that interests you, you might not want to pass it up based on PbP experience.

[Tiktakkat]

Is it still theater if I play a clone of myself in every game? I know I'm not alone from that one archetype on the player archetypes thread.

Dunno.
Depends on how "cloned" your character is? :smalltongue:

[Templarkommando]

On the one hand I can understand not wanting to write a backstory. If that's not the way that you want to roleplay, you're certainly welcome to do (at least at my table) it however you want so long as it's with a certain decorum. I have a few characters in my present campaign that I'm trying to involve, and I want my players to be able to help me tell this story that we're putting together. The reason for this is that I want my players invested in both their characters and in the campaign world, and backstories is one way to do it.

I have a character that picked up the amnesia trope, which is a simple backstory, and doesn't really require a lot of thought, but at least gives the DM something to start from. I start asking questions: Why does this character have amnesia? What is this character's past like? Essentially, the player has succeeded in being both mysterious and in letting me as the DM decide how I want to tell her character's story. The thing that I've settled on is that her character is a seer/prophetess of some sort in addition to her rogue class, and so occasionally I will give her an insight into a situation that other characters might not have via visions or just inexplicably knowing something.

Another character likes to go through awkward social situations. He's always telling stories about his myriad of uncles that came to visit his mom (yes there's subtext there) and so I've started trying to introduce some of the character's past into the campaign.

Another character is insane and thinks that he's trapped in an enormous pocket plane called "The Library" that mirrors real life almost exactly. It just so happens that he wondered out of the Library years ago, only he occasionally wonders back in for short periods. This has given me the opportunity to help this character tell his story.



DnD has a huge portion of its basis in the Sci-Fi/Fantasy genres. These are both genres that do a lot with the back stories of a particular character. You can start your character as a total blank slate if you want but if you give the DM a little bit of info on your character you can help them understand what sort of story you want to help tell.

[goto124]

I'm sorry. That sounds like some people taking a game much too seriously. Your point about nobody caring 5 minutes later, well it is a game. Video game or RPG, none of it actually matters or means anything, the only ultimate use is having fun in the moment. Whether you go through a video game in 2 hours, or spend 2 months uncovering every secret, or never get past level 1, nobody really cares and it means nothing.

I'll be lucky if they cared for 5 seconds. Anything that's roleplaying by me gets ignored, or largely a "rolls eyes and gets on with the rest of the game" reaction. If it mattered even for that moment, I may not remember what exactly I did, but I'll walk away feeling happy. I don't even get that. I feel like I might as well not have participated in the game at all, I could've used the time to play video games. And that's the ideal response to hope for, since the alternative is to break down crying.


There shouldn't be stress IRL gaming, just excitement and fun. There are so many types of game out there, I'm sure there must be something that any gamer could enjoy. It's just a matter of finding the right group, which isn't always possible IRL. Personally, I think PbP, especially the more free form stuff, is a poor representation of TTRPGs. If that is the primary experience you are having, I feel that you are getting a skewed perspective which doesn't necessarily mean you wouldn't enjoy RPGs in general. Of course, if PbP is your only option, that doesn't help right now. But if you ever had a chance to join a group IRL playing a system that interests you, you might not want to pass it up based on PbP experience.

My RL experience is that no one likes to talk to me or even be next to me, and finds me annoying and intrusive if I try to interact. Not sure if it's worth even greater heartbreak. At least I don't literally hear people screaming at me over forum posts.

[Kami2awa]

There's another reason for not necessarily wanting to write backstories, especially long ones. It's homework. People have busy lives and different levels of motivation, ability and energy. A lot of systems require a lot of effort to make a PC, and adding the need to write a lot of material on top of that is just creating a bigger workload. If a backstory can be just a few lines, fine, but if it requires writing a short story, then that's beyond what a lot of people are willing to do just to join a game.

[goto124]

While we're at it, is it actually useful or helpful, in the case of PbP games to use backstory as a 'recruitment filter'?

[PersonMan]

While we're at it, is it actually useful or helpful, in the case of PbP games to use backstory as a 'recruitment filter'?

In my experience: yes.

If as a DM I want to run a game with players who are interested in the world and make characters tied to it rather than being at odds with it, to avoid things like "oh, the setting material is all heavily China-inspired, I'll make a viking!", I find that asking for more material gets you a clearer idea of how each person will play. The applicant whose backstory fits perfectly with your setting description will probably be more in-tune with the world than the one who has a cookie-cutter bare-bones explanation of their character's life that could fit in any setting. As a result, they're more likely to be interested in things and be more than a blank slate who only takes actions that drive the plot, or drive the game towards the next bit of action.

If I'm looking to run a game focused on the actions being taken - a dungeon crawl, for example - I don't really need to look at backstories, etc. because the in-game actions of the characters, their reactions to the dungeon and its dangers, won't become awkward and out of place if a certain 'feel' is missing*. I might ask for a backstory in order to weed out the people whose writing I don't like to read, but the recruitment thread and other character fluff tends to be enough for that. In this kind of game, I'm likely to appreciate a player whose character keeps things moving forwards, rather than being annoyed at them trying to pull the others away from the character interaction they're involved in.

*Assuming this is a generic kitchen-sink-type setting dungeon crawl.

--

A quick way to sum it up would be: If I'm more interested in the talky bits, someone whose character is built to rush past them to get to the action is counterproductive. If the talky bits are there to facilitate the action-y bits, they're perfect, while Talky McPersonality isn't a good fit. Character backstory makes it easier to identify which kind of player / character is being made.

[Mechalich]

For setting specific games asking for backstory can also be useful in revealing a player's proficiency with the setting, which can actually matter a lot for settings with complex lore - WoD is the obvious example but this also includes sci-fi games like Eclipse Phase or Star Wars, and specialized settings like L5R. Having a good grasp of such proficiency allows the GM to better gauge how deep they want to dive into the setting lore and potentially what direction the game is likely to go.

[Quertus]

I placed my responses in bold above. I've been RPing for over a year, spent two months of wondering and crying over what I did wrong, and I still feel the only answer to my loss of SAN points over RP is 'do not RP at all ever'.


I'll be lucky if they cared for 5 seconds. Anything that's roleplaying by me gets ignored, or largely a "rolls eyes and gets on with the rest of the game" reaction. If it mattered even for that moment, I may not remember what exactly I did, but I'll walk away feeling happy. I don't even get that. I feel like I might as well not have participated in the game at all, I could've used the time to play video games. And that's the ideal response to hope for, since the alternative is to break down crying.

My RL experience is that no one likes to talk to me or even be next to me, and finds me annoying and intrusive if I try to interact. Not sure if it's worth even greater heartbreak. At least I don't literally hear people screaming at me over forum posts.

Sorry to hear that. :smallfrown: I think I'd need to see you RP in a group to understand the disconnect, as I've seen too many different things produce similar results. Their reaction, however, is worthy of reproach.


For setting specific games asking for backstory can also be useful in revealing a player's proficiency with the setting, which can actually matter a lot for settings with complex lore - WoD is the obvious example but this also includes sci-fi games like Eclipse Phase or Star Wars, and specialized settings like L5R. Having a good grasp of such proficiency allows the GM to better gauge how deep they want to dive into the setting lore and potentially what direction the game is likely to go.

The WoD setting is this world+... do you really want to measure people's proficiency in real life? :smalltongue:

And... how does system knowledge serve to predict campaign direction? :smallconfused:


D&D is not the example I'd hold up of a flexible system, IMO. Yes, it gives you a million options in terms of character creation and what you can do in any given scene, but in practice 95% of those options translate to combat effectiveness. All social skills come down to maybe four skills, if you don't count tangential skills like Disguise and Forgery. And those social skills have exactly three uses listed in the skill.
-----
Then that's a choice, and an interesting one. It says straight in the MC's handbook that you play Apocalypse World to find out what happens, and that the MC's job is to be a fan of the characters and make their lives interesting. So, you go swimming to get your dagger. That gets me thinking as the MC, "Are the Immortals the kind of people to staff their moat with monsters? Are there people guarding the walls?" What comes out of my mouth is probably that the moat is where all the sewage gets poured; you can get the knife just fine, but if you do, there'll be no chance of stealthing into the castle afterwards, because you're going to stink to high heaven and even if they can't see you, they can sure as hell smell you. What do?

Um... complaining that D&D only has 4-6 social skills, while touting AW, which only has 5 things total? :smallconfused:

But, since AW was promoted as an exemplar... in this scenario, suppose my character's response was to improvise a weapon. And then decide to steal a weapon or 3 from the Immortals while sneaking around. And planting one of those weapons in the quarters of the member at the sweet spot of "likely to be believed of theft" and "whose loss hurts their organization in a way I care about". Then, once the recon is complete, going and retrieving their favorite dagger.

How would AW's mechanics facilitate that story?

[Armored Walrus]

Yes, but what's caught me off guard is the new (to me) requirement of "now submit your back story", and in a very recent case, I applied to play in a PbP game and the DM kept saying that first I hadn't submitted enough of a back story, and then after which I'd submitted more and more, only to be told: NO GAME FOR YOU!
I don't object to the option to write a back story, it's the requirement to write an increasingly long one, as an audition that I object to.
But beggars can't be choosers, eh?

I don't know this for certain, but my guess is that, at least in part, a pbp DM requiring players to spend some time figuring out who their character is (ie. writing a few lines of backstory) is sort of a test of whether or not the DM wants that *player* in the game. Comparing pbp to tabletop gaming, it's not a lot of fun to read "Fighter swing sword (1d20+4)[15]" over and over again, and the DM needs to know if s/he has engaging players joining the game, while at a tabletop session, there are a lot of other entertaining things going on, usually, that don't depend on each player detailing his or her actions or assuming the persona of their character.

Edit: full disclosure, I've never run a pbp game, and only just recently started playing in any, but that's how it appears to me.

Edit 2: You could always put up a post in the pbp forums "looking for 1970s style game" and describe what kind of game you want to play, and see if anyone is interested in joining you.

[QuickLyRaiNbow]

For setting specific games asking for backstory can also be useful in revealing a player's proficiency with the setting, which can actually matter a lot for settings with complex lore - WoD is the obvious example but this also includes sci-fi games like Eclipse Phase or Star Wars, and specialized settings like L5R. Having a good grasp of such proficiency allows the GM to better gauge how deep they want to dive into the setting lore and potentially what direction the game is likely to go.

Mhm. My go-to story here is from a Dragonlance game I ran, contemporary with the second series of books coming out. One of the players was reading them, but hadn't gotten far enough to recognize a particular fancily-hatted dwarf as an avatar of a god, with adventure-defining consequences. Using player backstories as a sort of quiz can be helpful either avoiding or generating that sort of event.

One backstory thing I occasionally ask for is a quick recap of a past adventure. Then I'll sometimes try to work in some sort of parallel obstacle, giving a PC a chance to monologue about that other time when something like this happened and boy wasn't that a zany time!. That can give a character a chance to shine in a situation that might ordinarily not be suited to the particular abilities they have - a fighter in a trap-filled corridor, f'r instance. It also gets the players in the habit of remaining switched on even when their skillset isn't applicable and begins to build collaborative habits.

[ImNotTrevor]

Sorry to hear that. :smallfrown: I think I'd need to see you RP in a group to understand the disconnect, as I've seen too many different things produce similar results. Their reaction, however, is worthy of reproach.



The WoD setting is this world+... do you really want to measure people's proficiency in real life? :smalltongue:

And... how does system knowledge serve to predict campaign direction? :smallconfused:



Um... complaining that D&D only has 4-6 social skills, while touting AW, which only has 5 things total? :smallconfused:

But, since AW was promoted as an exemplar... in this scenario, suppose my character's response was to improvise a weapon. And then decide to steal a weapon or 3 from the Immortals while sneaking around. And planting one of those weapons in the quarters of the member at the sweet spot of "likely to be believed of theft" and "whose loss hurts their organization in a way I care about". Then, once the recon is complete, going and retrieving their favorite dagger.

How would AW's mechanics facilitate that story?

It would be several moves, though it's hard to translate a thing I know little about into Apocalypse World.

Improvising a weapon is probably not a roll at all (since nothing is inherently at stake there) unless you're trying to make it look like a specific weapon,(where something IS at stake!) then I'd likely have you borrow from the Savvyhead's moves for a minute or have you do a basic "+Sharp to see if you get what you want" roll.

Stealing weapons is Act Under Fire, the Fire being that bad things will happen if you get caught. I'd probably have you roll it for each weapon and give you some real hard choices on those 7-9's.

Picking the right person is Read a Sitch.

Then Act Under Fire again.

Really nothing social happened here, though, so it's not an apt comparison.

That, and there are more than 5 social moves. There are 5 BASIC social moves that anyone can do, but every class has one Special Move (activated by having *ahem* relations) and usually at least one social interaction move unless they are VERY non-social as a class. Skinners have several, Battlebabes have one I can think of, Hardholders have them, Choppers have them, Operators and Maestro'd-s also have them... Lots of social moves based on your character's place in society. A Skinner, being a very social, emotional class, has lots of them.
Battlebabes are a midway point between Social and Violent, so have just a couple.
Gunluggers are built exclusively to "maik thingz moar deader" and so have none.

Easy-peasy.

[Balmas]

Um... complaining that D&D only has 4-6 social skills, while touting AW, which only has 5 things total? :smallconfused:

But, since AW was promoted as an exemplar... in this scenario, suppose my character's response was to improvise a weapon. And then decide to steal a weapon or 3 from the Immortals while sneaking around. And planting one of those weapons in the quarters of the member at the sweet spot of "likely to be believed of theft" and "whose loss hurts their organization in a way I care about". Then, once the recon is complete, going and retrieving their favorite dagger.

How would AW's mechanics facilitate that story?

Well, first thing I'd do is start to ask questions. What kind of weapon? How do you get the materials? Are you just grabbing a bit of rebar, grinding it to a point, and wrapping duct tape around it to form a handle? Depending on what you want, it could be as simple as no check at all. For something more complex, I'd probably use the rules from the Savvyhead. Those basically boil down to, "Can I make this?" "Yes, and this is what it'll cost you in terms of money, time, odd materials, etc."

When it comes to sneaking around, again I'm asking questions. Which Immortals are you stealing from? How are you sneaking up on them--do you do it one at a time? Are you throwing rocks to lure some guards away from a weapons rack? Are you looking for a specific kind of weapon? I am a fan of your character, but I'm also playing to find out what happens and I'm trying to make your life interesting. If it's a simple thing--let's say you Read A Sitch and ask, "What's my best way to find an unattended weapon" and go immediately there, you might not even have to roll. If there's a chance of you getting caught, though, that falls under the umbrella of Act Under Fire.

Read A Sitch will tell you where to put the weapons, while Act Under Fire will get you there.

Then I just offer you a choice. You can go get the dagger, but you'll stink like hell until you can wash it off. It's not a problem, though, so long as nobody notices until you get back to town. Or, if the Immortals' are the kind to monsterize their moats, then it'd probably be Seize By Force to get what you want.



I should note that each of these checks has the potential for success, partial success, and failure. And while most of the checks fall under Act Under Fire, it's simple, easy, and entirely reliant on the ability of the PC to stay cool under pressure. In D&D, by comparison, each check is a binary success-fail. For each guard you pass, you must make at least two checks, each of which is opposed by the guards's ability to Listen and Spot. The more checks you make, the more likely it is that either you will roll a one or a guard will roll a 20. Additionally, there are no rules for figuring out where that ideal spot to place your forged weapon, and I can't remember any/ rules for improvised weaponry besides "They do 1d4 damage."


This situation also isn't really relevant to social situations.

Let's start with D&D's social skills, first of all.
-Diplomacy: Talk somebody into being more friendly to you.
--Handle Animal: Diplomacy, but with animals.
--Perform: Eh, kinda circumstantial, and nobody but a bard has mechanical uses for it. Still, it gets people to like you, so tangentially applies.
-Bluff: Get people to believe you when you're lying. And some use with feinting, but that's combat.
-Intimidate: Scare somebody into helping you.
-Sense Motive: Is someone bluffing or under the effect of a mind-affecting enchantment?

I admit, it's a good start. It's better than nothing. But when you look at the rules for social situation and compare it to the tomes of combat rules, it becomes pretty plain where the developers were focused. Some people will have spells that grant things like mind reading, but for the mundanes, the above skills are as good as it gets.

Now, let's look at Apocalypse World's social skills, and what they let you do.
Go Aggro is pretty clearly the Intimidate equivalent. You get into somebody's face and scare them into doing what you want.
Read A Person: This serves the purpose of Sense Motive, but it also expands on it. You get to ask questions like, "What does this person wish I'd do?" "How could I get this person to do X for me?" "What is this person really feeling right now?" "Is this person telling the truth right now?" And this is just the basic move--if you get the advanced version of the move and roll 12+ on the roll, you get to ask the MC any question.
Seduce / Manipulate a person: This is actually two moves, though the mechanics are similar. This is your Diplomacy skill, but also your Bluff and your bribery skill. Through this skill, you get people to help or shtup you. And what you can get people to do is only limited by what the MC deems to be unreasonable; while you probably couldn't convince someone to kill themselves, you might be able to bribe them to kill someone close to them. It's all about what you're willing to pay for what they're willing to do.

There're only four skills, but each of them is more powerful than the D&D skills while also granting additional options to them.

So let's say you're going to go see Don Giovanni. He's angry at you because, eh, let's say you've been embezzling. He greets you like a friend, though, which immediately gets your defenses up. A successful Read A Person gives you three questions, and you use one to find out what he intends to do: he's planning to have you killed at the end of the meeting. Using another question, you ask how you can persuade him to let you live; the MC gives it a bit of thought, and tells you to convince the Don that you're useful. From there, you jump straight to Manipulate a Person, describing how you're schmoozing it up with the Don and telling about how you have a score coming up. Yes, you've been embezzling, but you've been using that money to build up a lucrative opportunity that would more than make up what you've stolen. Depending on how well you roll, either you get a reprieve with or without evidence, or I get to make a hard move as the MC.

[Cluedrew]

LONG LIVE GOTO124!{Applause}

If nothing else I love the realistic armour project. Is that still going on? If your role-playing is half as good as many of the things you say about role-playing on the forum I think you are underselling yourself.

[Max_Killjoy]

Well, first thing I'd do is start to ask questions. What kind of weapon? How do you get the materials? Are you just grabbing a bit of rebar, grinding it to a point, and wrapping duct tape around it to form a handle? Depending on what you want, it could be as simple as no check at all. For something more complex, I'd probably use the rules from the Savvyhead. Those basically boil down to, "Can I make this?" "Yes, and this is what it'll cost you in terms of money, time, odd materials, etc."

When it comes to sneaking around, again I'm asking questions. Which Immortals are you stealing from? How are you sneaking up on them--do you do it one at a time? Are you throwing rocks to lure some guards away from a weapons rack? Are you looking for a specific kind of weapon? I am a fan of your character, but I'm also playing to find out what happens and I'm trying to make your life interesting. If it's a simple thing--let's say you Read A Sitch and ask, "What's my best way to find an unattended weapon" and go immediately there, you might not even have to roll. If there's a chance of you getting caught, though, that falls under the umbrella of Act Under Fire.

Read A Sitch will tell you where to put the weapons, while Act Under Fire will get you there.

Then I just offer you a choice. You can go get the dagger, but you'll stink like hell until you can wash it off. It's not a problem, though, so long as nobody notices until you get back to town. Or, if the Immortals' are the kind to monsterize their moats, then it'd probably be Seize By Force to get what you want.



I should note that each of these checks has the potential for success, partial success, and failure. And while most of the checks fall under Act Under Fire, it's simple, easy, and entirely reliant on the ability of the PC to stay cool under pressure. In D&D, by comparison, each check is a binary success-fail. For each guard you pass, you must make at least two checks, each of which is opposed by the guards's ability to Listen and Spot. The more checks you make, the more likely it is that either you will roll a one or a guard will roll a 20. Additionally, there are no rules for figuring out where that ideal spot to place your forged weapon, and I can't remember any/ rules for improvised weaponry besides "They do 1d4 damage."


This situation also isn't really relevant to social situations.

Let's start with D&D's social skills, first of all.
-Diplomacy: Talk somebody into being more friendly to you.
--Handle Animal: Diplomacy, but with animals.
--Perform: Eh, kinda circumstantial, and nobody but a bard has mechanical uses for it. Still, it gets people to like you, so tangentially applies.
-Bluff: Get people to believe you when you're lying. And some use with feinting, but that's combat.
-Intimidate: Scare somebody into helping you.
-Sense Motive: Is someone bluffing or under the effect of a mind-affecting enchantment?

I admit, it's a good start. It's better than nothing. But when you look at the rules for social situation and compare it to the tomes of combat rules, it becomes pretty plain where the developers were focused. Some people will have spells that grant things like mind reading, but for the mundanes, the above skills are as good as it gets.

Now, let's look at Apocalypse World's social skills, and what they let you do.

Go Aggro is pretty clearly the Intimidate equivalent. You get into somebody's face and scare them into doing what you want.
Read A Person: This serves the purpose of Sense Motive, but it also expands on it. You get to ask questions like, "What does this person wish I'd do?" "How could I get this person to do X for me?" "What is this person really feeling right now?" "Is this person telling the truth right now?" And this is just the basic move--if you get the advanced version of the move and roll 12+ on the roll, you get to ask the MC any question.
Seduce / Manipulate a person: This is actually two moves, though the mechanics are similar. This is your Diplomacy skill, but also your Bluff and your bribery skill. Through this skill, you get people to help or shtup you. And what you can get people to do is only limited by what the MC deems to be unreasonable; while you probably couldn't convince someone to kill themselves, you might be able to bribe them to kill someone close to them. It's all about what you're willing to pay for what they're willing to do.


There're only four skills, but each of them is more powerful than the D&D skills while also granting additional options to them.

So let's say you're going to go see Don Giovanni. He's angry at you because, eh, let's say you've been embezzling. He greets you like a friend, though, which immediately gets your defenses up. A successful Read A Person gives you three questions, and you use one to find out what he intends to do: he's planning to have you killed at the end of the meeting. Using another question, you ask how you can persuade him to let you live; the MC gives it a bit of thought, and tells you to convince the Don that you're useful. From there, you jump straight to Manipulate a Person, describing how you're schmoozing it up with the Don and telling about how you have a score coming up. Yes, you've been embezzling, but you've been using that money to build up a lucrative opportunity that would more than make up what you've stolen. Depending on how well you roll, either you get a reprieve with or without evidence, or I get to make a hard move as the MC.

All the "rolls" in AW sound like they're abstract conceptual things that are applied "as we see fit", as opposed to finite, discrete, and representative of a specific move or skill or ability or "power".

[kyoryu]

All the "rolls" in AW sound like they're abstract conceptual things that are applied "as we see fit", as opposed to finite, discrete, and representative of a specific move or skill or ability or "power".

That's more or less fair. However, in many cases the results are fairly well defined.

[Balmas]

All the "rolls" in AW sound like they're abstract conceptual things that are applied "as we see fit", as opposed to finite, discrete, and representative of a specific move or skill or ability or "power".

For the eight main moves? Yes, that's fair. Though I have to say, Act Under Fire is perhaps the most nebulous; Go Aggro, Seize By Force, Read A Sitch, and Read a Person are far more concrete.

I should note that these eight moves are also only the moves that every player character has access to. Different classes--playbooks, if you use the terminology of the game--have access to different perks.

The Battlebabe (think 80s action hero), for example, has moves that allow her to freeze someone in place with a stare, or declare with prophetic accuracy which NPC in a fight is going to die. The Skinner, who is the prototypical courtesan, can whisper a name to the wind and force the person named to come to him, or become so alluring that nobody in the room can do anything but watch her. The Hardholder starts with two moves: One to determine how well his town is doing, and one for when he leads his troops into battle. The Brainer can implant commands into a person's mind, or rip out your secrets from the dark corners of your mind. The Hocus is the cult leader, and as such his fortunes rise and fall with his followers; when he tells them his truth, he can whip them into a frenzy, or make them fall into an orgy, or fight at his beck and call, or make them bring forth their valuables. The Maitre'D is the mob boss; they run a bar, they have connections that let them get things when they need them, and since everyone eats, everyone has a chance of getting a dose of poison eventually.

In many ways, your playbook establishes more about how you play than the eight main moves.

[Max_Killjoy]

For the eight main moves? Yes, that's fair. Though I have to say, Act Under Fire is perhaps the most nebulous; Go Aggro, Seize By Force, Read A Sitch, and Read a Person are far more concrete.

I should note that these eight moves are also only the moves that every player character has access to. Different classes--playbooks, if you use the terminology of the game--have access to different perks.

The Battlebabe (think 80s action hero), for example, has moves that allow her to freeze someone in place with a stare, or declare with prophetic accuracy which NPC in a fight is going to die. The Skinner, who is the prototypical courtesan, can whisper a name to the wind and force the person named to come to him, or become so alluring that nobody in the room can do anything but watch her. The Hardholder starts with two moves: One to determine how well his town is doing, and one for when he leads his troops into battle. The Brainer can implant commands into a person's mind, or rip out your secrets from the dark corners of your mind. The Hocus is the cult leader, and as such his fortunes rise and fall with his followers; when he tells them his truth, he can whip them into a frenzy, or make them fall into an orgy, or fight at his beck and call, or make them bring forth their valuables. The Maitre'D is the mob boss; they run a bar, they have connections that let them get things when they need them, and since everyone eats, everyone has a chance of getting a dose of poison eventually.

In many ways, your playbook establishes more about how you play than the eight main moves.

Which I guess works for a very specific kind of setting, tone, and game.

Why do people recommend this for random other RPG usage?

[kyoryu]

Which I guess works for a very specific kind of setting, tone, and game.

Why do people recommend this for random other RPG usage?

I really don't know. AW and each of its variants are specifically designed to be *not* generic.

[Cluedrew]

I really don't know. AW and each of its variants are specifically designed to be *not* generic.Because there is an Apocalypse World Hack/Powered by the Apocalypse system out there for just about everything. Dungeon World (Dungeons and Dragons as ported to the Powered by the Apocalypse) is probably the most well known. And unless I am mistaken there is also: Monster of the Week, Avatar World, Monster Hearts, Dream Askew and... any system/game ending in World you have heard of is probably also an Powered by the Apocalypse system.

So individually, no they are not very generic, but most of the rules stay the same and you can relatively quickly jump from one to another. The moding/hacking community based around the system is where it "generic" status comes from.

[Balmas]

Which I guess works for a very specific kind of setting, tone, and game.

Why do people recommend this for random other RPG usage?

You're right; Apocalypse World is generally best when you're playing to a post-apocalyptic scenario, where things are scarce and people have to band together for survival even if they hate each other's guts. It's a very specific genre.

Generally, though, I recommend A*W because it has solid principles behind it, both for the players and for the GMs. Coming as I do from formulaic D&D games where the DM says, "This is what's before you, how do you kill it," a game with most of the narrative power focused in the hands of the PCs appealed to me.

And fortunately, Apocalypse World is only the flagship game. If you don't like its tone or its playstyle, there are other games in a similar vein but with massively different themes and tones. Monster Hearts, for example, is good for roleplaying a game like Buffy the Vampire Slayer, where half the crew is a monster and everyone is hormonally horny half the time. You get to explore what it actually means to be a monster. Dungeon World is a lighter take on heroic fantasy, staffed with people like the Court Wizard or the Folk Hero. Uncharted Worlds is something along the lines of Babylon 5: Apocalypse world, IN SPAAAAACE.

Really, it's quite a flexible system which encourages inter-player drama and roleplaying, where narrative holds power over many things. While it's not a simulation, it doesn't need to be, as the focus is on the characters, what they do, and why they do it.

[2D8HP]

On the advice of this Forum, I picked up DUNGEON WORLD, and while I read the rules, Dungeon World looked fun, and clever.
While for me it suffers the same problem of most new RPG's, in that I can no longer seem to remember many of the rules besides 70's DnD and 80's CoCthulu for very long after reading them (yet I played just as much Top Secret and Traveller why can't I remember them?).
For someone with more mental agility than me (which is likely most of you), I would recommend it.
Plus it's cheap!

[GrayGriffin]

For fantasy PbtA, there's also Fellowship, a relatively recently published game. It's all about forming a group of adventurers and fighting against the Overlord, and is meant to be inherently positive. "Token Evil Teammate" isn't really allowed, except maybe as a Companion (NPC follower, basically). But you can also befriend almost anyone, and the rules explicitly state that the protagonists can turn the Overlord's minions into their Companions by taking the time to bond with them.

[2D8HP]

From a different thread:

I joined this site a few weeks ago, since I thought it was pretty neato that I can PbP with people who enjoy some of the same things I do. Since, I've applied to about a half-dozen threads and been steadily rejected each and every time. I live in a quite remote location, and do not have the luxury of IRL friends to play with, (my town has about 4k people in it, lmao) so if I can't find a game here, I basically don't get to play. I'm just looking for some advice as to whether or not there's something that I'm doing wrong in my applications, which I believe to be the case, and what I need to work on to be a more appealing player to prospective GMs.

It's gotten to the point that I dread spending time writing fluff for my character, since I hate the feeling of wasted time writing background info that's setting-specific, and then not even making it into the campaign. Is that just a hazard of the job, as it were? Bit of a noob here, so even the stupidest advice will most likely be useful. Super bonus points if you want to shoot me a PM and maybe have a short discussion about it, :DI see that I'm not the only one weary of writing a "back-story" as an audition.
Go on strike?

[kyoryu]

From a different thread:
I see that I'm not the only one weary of writing a "back-story" as an audition.
Go on strike?

Yeah, I'm not anti-backstory, but I find that a bit weird.

In games like Fate, you do character creation together, part of which is coming up with your backstory.

But really, while backstory is interesting, even in a story-focused, character-centric game the backstory (where they character has been) is less important than where the character is going.

[Koo Rehtorb]

Backstories are super irrelevant in almost every case. Start with a personality and fill in details about your past when they come up in play. If they don't come up in play then no one cares and they do nothing for you. All a backstory does is lock you down into meaningless details so you can't make up something more fitting later when you have a better feel for your character.

[Max_Killjoy]

Backstories are super irrelevant in almost every case. Start with a personality and fill in details about your past when they come up in play. If they don't come up in play then no one cares and they do nothing for you. All a backstory does is lock you down into meaningless details so you can't make up something more fitting later when you have a better feel for your character.

I've never seen "make it up as you go" amount to anything but a transparently jumbled and self-contradictory mess -- a character needs some sort of background, some sort of prologue, that matches their personality, mechanical build, and future plans.

[Koo Rehtorb]

I've never seen "make it up as you go" amount to anything but a transparently jumbled and self-contradictory mess -- a character needs some sort of background, some sort of prologue, that matches their personality, mechanical build, and future plans.

I mean maybe I was exaggerating slightly, but not much. A couple sentences suffices to give you all the background you need to start off with.

[PersonMan]

I mean maybe I was exaggerating slightly, but not much. A couple sentences suffices to give you all the background you need to start off with.

That's just it, a couple people have said "backstory can be as little as a couple sentences, but it is good for X/Y".

[flond]

On the advice of this Forum, I picked up DUNGEON WORLD, and while I read the rules, Dungeon World looked fun, and clever.
While for me it suffers the same problem of most new RPG's, in that I can no longer seem to remember many of the rules besides 70's DnD and 80's CoCthulu for very long after reading them (yet I played just as much Top Secret and Traveller why can't I remember them?).
For someone with more mental agility than me (which is likely most of you), I would recommend it.
Plus it's cheap!

Obviously do what works best for you. However if you ever do give playing a deal game a shot note that they make those move reference sheets for a reason. And that reason is so you can use them in play.

[Frozen_Feet]

I occasionally use extensive backstories for freeform play-by-posts, where sitting down on a computer to write thousands of words is something I was going to do anyway. Also because character backstory often doubles as setting-building, being half of what little structure there is to build character interactions on.

For tabletop games, whether as a player or GM, I rarely bother. Maps, random encounter tables and other tools which can be used to impart or create information quickly are much more useful. Even a well-written backstory full of hooks typically has low information-time density, meaning that expecting players to read and understand it within a tabletop session is usually foolish.

[Morbis Meh]

From a different thread:
I see that I'm not the only one weary of writing a "back-story" as an audition.
Go on strike?

If you want some tips on writing a backstory without writing pages of prose take a look at this (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showsinglepost.php?p=4974430&postcount=1), effectively it asks for the elements GM's are looking for in character history/personality without having to write it into prose. When I first started I experienced similar setbacks but with experience your writing will get better especially if you are playing with other people who are good writers. Running a dungeon crawl on pbp is hard, it requires active players who post frequently for it to go anywhere since combat heavy games require quick fire posting so as a result games featuring more RP interactions became popular since you could unload a few paragraphs and be good for a day.

[Max_Killjoy]

I mean maybe I was exaggerating slightly, but not much. A couple sentences suffices to give you all the background you need to start off with.


Depends on the character. A 300-year-old character might need more than a couple sentences.


But those of us who have been supporting backstory have said things like "even just a short paragraph" or "10 things about this character's past as a bullet list" can make a world of difference...

to which the response has been "backstory is meaningless, I'm not going to write a 20-page essay".


.

[OldTrees1]

Depends on the character. A 300-year-old character might need more than a couple sentences.


But those of us who have been supporting backstory have said things like "even just a short paragraph" or "10 things about this character's past as a bullet list" can make a world of difference...

to which the response has been "backstory is meaningless, I'm not going to write a 20-page essay".


Incomplete to the point of disingenuous. You forgot those that said "'Who am I?' is answer not by a history but rather by a description." (no mention of length or pages).

You further forgot those of us that said that this is all due to multiple schools of thought on what "Who are you?" is asking (again no mention of length or pages).


Personally I don't care what the length of the backstory requested is. My character will be defined by who they are which to & for me makes a backstory irrelevant. Now I might do the irrelevant writing assignment provided it is short enough, but it would remain irrelevant to my character. Just as it is valid to answer "Who are you?" by reciting your history, so too is it valid for someone to answer "Who are you?" by describing their identity.


Sidenote: I am shocked that nobody has jumped in to mention defining a character by the future in contrast to the past & present philosophies in this thread.

[Segev]

I'm playing a character whose backstory has significant holes in it that I fill as questions are asked. He's quite consistent; I have the personality fleshed out, and I know broad strokes about his family and certain events to use as "hooks" for him to refer back to. The other stuff I make up as I go, and it works because it's in line with the kind of person he is and his loosely-defined family structure. (I know his parents' professions, his older brother's profession, and that he has an aunt with whom he spent some time while his parents were too busy to care for him.)

[2D8HP]

to which the response has been "backstory is meaningless, I'm not going to write a 20-page essay". Who the character is and how they will be played is always in the mind of the player. Except perhaps to remind a player of who their PC is, the "meaning" is to audition to the GM.
So for me the over 170 word essay of the PC that was rejected, will only be "meaningful" to me, if I can ever reuse it to audition for a different game. Otherwise they are writing assignments I'd rather be spared.
:frown:
Some other (shorter) PC "back-story" audition essays I've written, were accepted by GM's and I'm having a swell time playing those PC's, and getting to play those PC's is what is "meaningful" to me.
:smile:
Thankfully in no way so far have the written "back-stories" have yet contradicted how I would choose my PC's actions, had it then that would be a "meaningful" restriction, one that I would otherwise prefer not to have.
I"d rather discover the PC in play.
IRL I served a brutal apprenticeship (effectively a more than 5 year long job interview where I was treated as a human forklift), so I that my experience is vetted, and when I now seek a job, I just wait my turn and go to work without any cursed interview, my performance on the job and how much work there is to do decides whether I stay on or not.
If people enjoy writing a "back-story" great for them, I do not, and I would prefer to be spared that task, and go straight into play.

[5a Violista]

I like writing backstory for much the same reason Frozen Feet writes it in freeform PbP (because freeform is my favorite kind of roleplaying): it lets me participate in setting-building and I think that's pretty fun. Even in non-freeform games, I write backstory to participate in setting-building. It also has the benefit of letting me know how much random inserts and setting things the GM-person will let me get away with. It's sort-of weird: I have the nasty habit of randomly spawning NPCs and cultures and so on as I type. By writing a backstory and judging the DM's reaction, I can figure out whether that will be acceptable in the game or whether I will die of boredom by trying to rein in the spontaneous character generation.

[Max_Killjoy]

Incomplete to the point of disingenuous. You forgot those that said "'Who am I?' is answer not by a history but rather by a description." (no mention of length or pages).

You further forgot those of us that said that this is all due to multiple schools of thought on what "Who are you?" is asking (again no mention of length or pages).



No intent to be disingenuous.

I'm specifically referring to the multiple repeated comments that paint any backstory at all as if it would have to be on par with "War and Peace" -- despite repeated clarifications that "a short paragraph" or "a bullet list of 10 things about this character's past" also can count as ample backstory. Perhaps an attempt at false dichotomy, perhaps simply internet hyperbole?





Personally I don't care what the length of the backstory requested is. My character will be defined by who they are which to & for me makes a backstory irrelevant. Now I might do the irrelevant writing assignment provided it is short enough, but it would remain irrelevant to my character. Just as it is valid to answer "Who are you?" by reciting your history, so too is it valid for someone to answer "Who are you?" by describing their identity.


So... it doesn't matter whether character has any living family, and how they lost any family that's gone, or if they're an orphan? It doesn't matter if there's a spouse and kids somewhere, or a "friend" in every town, or they've shut everyone out -- or why? It doesn't matter if they're from an isolated fishing village, or the cosmopolitan city that serves as the trading hub for an entire continent?

A character's background might not tell you WHO they are, but it certainly goes a long way in explaining WHY they are who they are, and also provides the GM with working material, and serves to help connect the character with the setting of the game.




Sidenote: I am shocked that nobody has jumped in to mention defining a character by the future in contrast to the past & present philosophies in this thread.


I thought at least one poster had said (paraphrasing) "my character is defined by where they're going, not by where they've been".

[kyoryu]

I thought at least one poster had said (paraphrasing) "my character is defined by where they're going, not by where they've been".

*raises hand*

Backstory is neat, but only to the extent that it impacts gameplay going forward.

Which doesn't necessarily mean "I'm planning my character's future!" but rather that the character has drives to go forward in some direction, and arguably future entanglements from the past.

[Max_Killjoy]

I'm playing a character whose backstory has significant holes in it that I fill as questions are asked. He's quite consistent; I have the personality fleshed out, and I know broad strokes about his family and certain events to use as "hooks" for him to refer back to. The other stuff I make up as I go, and it works because it's in line with the kind of person he is and his loosely-defined family structure. (I know his parents' professions, his older brother's profession, and that he has an aunt with whom he spent some time while his parents were too busy to care for him.)

Right, and that's all I'd ask for as a GM -- "tell me a little about where your character is from and how he got to where and when we are now".

I'm seriously not asking for what the character was doing on exactly X date 10 years ago, and what he had for breakfast on the day his father died... or what exact disease his father died of with the medical analysis of the symptoms.



*raises hand*

Backstory is neat, but only to the extent that it impacts gameplay going forward.

Which doesn't necessarily mean "I'm planning my character's future!" but rather that the character has drives to go forward in some direction, and arguably future entanglements from the past.

Backstory is supposed to be a launching pad, not a boat anchor chained to the character's leg. When a backstory gets to the point of being a straight-jacket on the character, then there's a problem.

Is that what some people are reacting to -- past experiences where their backstory had to be so detailed and precise and so on, that it ended up confining them to a tiny cage?

.

[Max_Killjoy]

Who the character is and how they will be played is always in the mind of the player. Except perhaps to remind a player of who their PC is, the "meaning" is to audition to the GM.
So for me the over 170 word essay of the PC that was rejected, will only be "meaningful" to me, if I can ever reuse it to audition for a different game. Otherwise they are writing assignments I'd rather be spared.
:frown:
Some other (shorter) PC "back-story" audition essays I've written, were accepted by GM's and I'm having a swell time playing those PC's, and getting to play those PC's is what is "meaningful" to me.
:smile:
Thankfully in no way so far have the written "back-stories" have yet contradicted how I would choose my PC's actions, had it then that would be a "meaningful" restriction, one that I would otherwise prefer not to have.
I"d rather discover the PC in play.
IRL I served a brutal apprenticeship (effectively a more than 5 year long job interview where I was treated as a human forklift), so I that my experience is vetted, and when I now seek a job, I just wait my turn and go to work without any cursed interview, my performance on the job and how much work there is to do decides whether I stay on or not.
If people enjoy writing a "back-story" great for them, I do not, and I would prefer to be spared that task, and go straight into play.


Your post is longer than 170 words, as something to compare against.


(I do not intend this to be snide or snarky, so please forgive me if comes across that way.)

[2D8HP]

Your post is longer than 170 words, as something to compare against.
Heh.

:smile:

Good catch!

I guess when it comes to writing I'm much better at venting than I am at creating (funnier to).

:wink:


If you want some tips on writing a backstory without writing pages of prose take a look at this (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showsinglepost.php?p=4974430&postcount=1), effectively it asks for the elements GM's are looking for in character history/personality without having to write it into prose. When I first started I experienced similar setbacks but with experience your writing will get better especially if you are playing with other people who are good writers. Running a dungeon crawl on pbp is hard, it requires active players who post frequently for it to go anywhere since combat heavy games require quick fire posting so as a result games featuring more RP interactions became popular since you could unload a few paragraphs and be good for a day.
That was a really good link. Thanks!

:cool:

[Max_Killjoy]

If you want some tips on writing a backstory without writing pages of prose take a look at this (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showsinglepost.php?p=4974430&postcount=1), effectively it asks for the elements GM's are looking for in character history/personality without having to write it into prose.


Missed this earlier -- that's exactly what I mean. It breaks it down into things the GM would want to know, and doesn't apply pressure on the player to write long-form fiction.

[OldTrees1]

No intent to be disingenuous.

I'm specifically referring to the multiple repeated comments that paint any backstory at all as if it would have to be on par with "War and Peace" -- despite repeated clarifications that "a short paragraph" or "a bullet list of 10 things about this character's past" also can count as ample backstory. Perhaps an attempt at false dichotomy, perhaps simply internet hyperbole?
Sorry for the delayed reply

Simple internet hyperbole does tend to be incomplete to a fault. :smallbiggrin: I did not mean to imply bad intent (for I did not presume bad intent).



So... it doesn't matter whether character has any living family, and how they lost any family that's gone, or if they're an orphan? It doesn't matter if there's a spouse and kids somewhere, or a "friend" in every town, or they've shut everyone out -- or why? It doesn't matter if they're from an isolated fishing village, or the cosmopolitan city that serves as the trading hub for an entire continent?
Honestly? No. Those don't matter to what I mean by "Who are you?" and what "Who are you?" means to me. That is not to say that they don't matter to you when you ask "Who are you?" (a completely different question).


A character's background might not tell you WHO they are, but it certainly goes a long way in explaining WHY they are who they are, and also provides the GM with working material, and serves to help connect the character with the setting of the game.
This is why I stressed that this is caused by a philosophic difference over what the question "Who are you?" means. If a good chunk of what one means by WHO is WHY & HOW they are the way they are, then backstories make perfect sense as an ideal vehicle to describe the causal path to reach that endpoint.

To use hyperbole (<--understatement):
One school - I know the effect every cause has had on shaping the character from the beginning of time
Other school - I know how the character would behave in every possible moment, even ones that cannot happen

To say the same thing but differently:
One school uses the history of an instance of the character to describe that character.
The other school uses the definition of the character to describe the instance.

Both questions have their merits and purposes. If a GM asks for a backstory then clearly a backstory is important to them even if it might not be important to the Player or the Player's character's identity.


I thought at least one poster had said (paraphrasing) "my character is defined by where they're going, not by where they've been".
Oh, nice! Please mentally correct every reference to the 2 schools to be a reference to the 3 schools (adjusting grammar as appropriate).

[ImNotTrevor]

I find that I don't fall into any of the "schools of thought" mentioned above. Maybe I'm eclectic?

I find that the history of a character has merit inasmuch as it affects the story/their actions right now.

Harry Potter has a lot of things that happened before page 1 of book 1 that are important to the story, and important to his character. They are important only inasmuch as they affect the story/his actions when the time comes. To say that Harry Potter is in no way defined by his past is inaccurate. (It is a big part of what ends up defining who he is.) He is not defined by what his favorite kind of cookie is or what his first word was.

But he's also not defined by being a "kind, brave wizard boy" because that is a similarly incomplete picture.

Add on to this that human beings are malleable, inconsistent, hypocritical beings, who you used to be may be vert different from who you are. I used to be obsessed with whales and wanted more than anything to grow up and have a wildlife show like Steve Irwin. This dream went well into my teen years. Now? I'm perfectly content to be an English teacher and maybe write a book eventually and live a fairly domestic life, because of various life events that were important to me. To approach me NOW from the perspective of using the character now to define all instances, I was a fairly unadventurous child who primarily liked to read books and write. Which would not be accurate to reality.

From the other direction, though,

Human beings are fickle, inconsistent, hypocritical creatures and defining their future by their past is equally incorrect. To take my past and use it to define who I ought to be now, I should probably work in a zoo somewhere or for Animal Planet or something. Also incorrect.

I've found that characters CRUCIALLY NEED only 4 things. (5 in a tabletop setting)

1. A name, age, basic physical description.
2. Something they instinctually follow around. (Their eyes, their gut, their nose, their genitals, their instincts, their moral compass, their sense of duty, etc.)
3. Something that they want, and a good reason for wanting it.
4. Something that stands in opposition to them acquiring what they want.
(For TRPGs)5. Some past event(s) that tie(s) them to one or more members of the party. (Ie, I saved his life once, I've been watching her from afar, I've secretly admired his work for years, etc.)

That's it. As a GM, I can work with that much. That's all I want. It tells me everything I need to know.

[GrayGriffin]

From a different thread:
I see that I'm not the only one weary of writing a "back-story" as an audition.
Go on strike?

Oh please. The guy who rejected you has been kind enough to point out that you being rejected had nothing to do with the shortness of your backstory, but the fact that your short backstory did not include the one thing he asked you to include, which you could have done with a backstory of any length. Seriously, knowing that, most of this thread tastes like sour grapes to me.

[Max_Killjoy]

Sorry for the delayed reply

Simple internet hyperbole does tend to be incomplete to a fault. :smallbiggrin: I did not mean to imply bad intent (for I did not presume bad intent).


For clarity, I meant that "backstory is bad, I refuse to write a novel" could be hyperbole, or it could be a false dichotomy...