PDA

View Full Version : Character backstory - Better Source DM or player?



Ixtellor
2022-05-31, 03:36 PM
I've been planning my final campaign for a long time and I've been thinking about how best to do it, with the following thought;

We as humans don't decide our backgrounds, they are thrust upon on us (aside from some choices we make as children).
And I think its more rewarding, and realistic, and better for the campaign if the DM creates the players backgrounds... based off of pre-interviews where the DM tries to find out what kind of character the player wants to play (within the game world) then creates a background that both fits in the game world and is fulfilling the desires of the player.

I always say there is no right way to play D&D the only goal is fun, but I believe that a DM generated background can/will be more rewarding to the players and the campaign because it adds another element of realism, control for the DM -- to insure things don't get crazy (Player "my character comes from a long line of paladins sired by Angels"), and forces adaptability and opportunity for the player to create something given a situation.

So my real question is --- do you trust your DM to do this for you or do would you as a player need this 'power' for yourself to enjoy your character?

Melayl
2022-05-31, 03:56 PM
I think the opposite, actually. It should be almost all up to the player, with some assistance/guidance (and veto power) from thr GM.

The GM should give the outline of the world and the adventure, and some general guidelines (these things would interact well with the story, but try to avoid these things, and absolutely do not do these things).

If the GM builds the backstory, it takes away some of thr player agency, and IMO, some of the player motivation. If the Player creates the backstory, they have more invested in the character and are more likely to get more into the roleplay and the story.

The GM should absolutely have veto power on any and all parts of the backstory, and should review all backstories prior to the start of the campaign.

Additionally, if the player is having trouble coming up with a backstory, they should certainly ask the GM what they think is appropriate.

kyoryu
2022-05-31, 04:14 PM
I've seen random backgrounds (even personalities!) and ones authored by players. Both can work and be fun.

Anymage
2022-05-31, 04:22 PM
Not only should players have a bigger say in their backstories, but they should also be trusted to add lore to the campaign setting to help build on that. For three reasons.

First, players feel more invested with buy-in and ownership. Although the DM should obviously have veto power (no, you weren't given random artifacts as a first level character), players care more when they feel like there are parts of the world that they in some sense own.

Second, the DM has enough work on his plate as is. The idea is that the DM has every inch of the campaign world mapped out before chargen, but that's a surefire way to guarantee burnout. Adding complete character backgrounds is just more work added on the person who has to do the most.

Third, it lets you offload some of the worldbuilding to other people. A lineage that feels compelled to honor a distant angelic ancestor is cool, and I don't mind the player coming from such a lineage. Nor their adding a bunch of potential plot hooks that they feel personally invested in. Less work for you and a more invested player sounds win-win.

Batcathat
2022-05-31, 04:44 PM
Do I have to create my character's backstory to enjoy playing them? No, probably not, but I definitely prefer it. Creating characters is one of my favorite parts of playing RPGs and I wouldn't want to give up a big part of that (and the GM already gets to create so much, so I think most GM neither want nor need more in that regard). Though as others have pointed out, the GM can obviously advice and veto backgrounds elements (including demanding specific elements, like the characters having gone to a certain school or worked at a certain place or whatever).

I would also argue that quite a bit of our real life "backstories" are up to our own choices. We can't pick the circumstances, obviously, but we can decide what we do with them. So I guess the most realistic option would be for the GM to decide who the characters parents and other circumstances are, while leaving the rest to the player, but that seems needlessly complicated.

Easy e
2022-05-31, 04:46 PM
I have done and enjoyed both as a GM and a player.

However, as a player; being assigned a complex backstory and then having to learn it feels a lot more like homework than when I get to make my own. Others feel the opposite way!

If you are assigning a backstory, it is best to keep the details scant and in bullet point form, and let the player fill in the details.


Finally, I have also really appreciated and enjoyed a "life path" system to build backstories. Some games come with this built into their mechanics. The "life Path" gives your character some bonuses and some weaknesses as it progresses.

Reversefigure4
2022-05-31, 06:19 PM
It's definitely more realistic if a player doesn't decide their own background, but that's not the same as better. And if a player wants a character who is out of their control, rolling up random stats, rolling up a life path, or other randomisers work quite well. It can be a good way when you can't decide where to go ("Hmm, negative intelligence... so I'm not a wizard this time... why would this character have a high skill level in Sleight of Hand and Knowledge: The Planes?") and it can spark creativity.

As a GM, I neither want nor need to create player's backstories. I already need to review them, make sure they make sense within the world, and check I'm happy. But I really don't need to be the one deciding whether or not you want to play an Elf or a Dwarf more. And I'd rather you made Clan McNarg and gave them a backstory I can weave into the world.

As a player, I'd far rather make my own character than be given a backstory. Those make sense for a one-shot where the GM is generating specific characters for a specific scenario - not so much for an ongoing campaign, where my character should be more than a pre-made piece to fit into a story.

It almost always ends up as a negotiation between the player and the GM anyway. "Could your murderous brother involved in necromancy instead of illusions? (So the GM can fit him in better to the evil necromancers cabal)" "Could your best friend by a gnome instead of a human, because then he could also be Player B's brother and create a link between the characters?".

GMs also often assign bits of the backstory as a part of campaign creation - "You all grew up in the small village of Phaeton". "You've all signed off as caravan guards for a journey across the desert". "Somewhere in your past, the Empire ruined your life, and you want revenge." I'm not sure there's a need for the GM to pick all the little details as well.

sktarq
2022-05-31, 06:48 PM
And the is a major difference between the DM setting their background vs their backstory.

As the backstory is as much made up of the characters decisions up to this moment. And those character choices are very much the player purview. Sure they may not have the choice to be born to yeoman or noble parents but they did have to choice of if they refused to deal with the apprenticeship their father set up for them and ran off to join the circus (and thus why they have levels in bard).


It will have a lot to do with the relationship socially between the players and GM if it would work at all. I think it would be better in only quite rare social systems between them. Mostly I think you'd just push the players out of investment and into the "its the DM story we are just here for the ride" issues. Oh and if the plot is going to call on the backstory at all the DM really can't expect the player (and thus the PC) to act in any way like they care (no matter how inconsistent it is with the backstory) so the party may well just not interact with the plot as expected or at all. Because why should the player give the results of a trip to the privy about the NPC they have just been handed?

EDIT: And there are also big differences between being handed a backstory and having "backstory prereqs" or things that should be incorporated. This works better in the general be it "All wizard characters must include in the backstory how the dealt with the royal arcane academy" or "All members of this party are non nobles from the dutchy of Lethe which starting 12 years ago was invaded by the Empire of Krun who conquered it over the course of 6 violent years and you have all been involved/supported the basically destroyed resistance at some time"...These kind of things still leave a lot of room for the players to build around and with the ideas presented. I generally think it should be either as an If/Then (if wizard/then backstory must include) or apples to the whole party. Another option is during a session zero to have a basket of various background items to be included in the party and the players divy them up between themselves. (Oh we need at least 2 samurai, one sugenga, one courtier, and one ninja or rogue plus we need two scorpions, a unicorn, and a dragon with no lions)

False God
2022-05-31, 08:15 PM
So my real question is --- do you trust your DM to do this for you or do would you as a player need this 'power' for yourself to enjoy your character?

No. Explicitly. Emphatically.

The DM controls literally everything. From the NPCs to the trees to the air to the dirt of the world. They can keep their hands off my character except when necessary by the game rules.

If the DM is going to start deciding this or that about your characters beyond what is or isn't reasonably available within the game world, they might as well decide everything. Just hand the players their sheets and tell them "this is what you're playing."

Look if folks want to play that way and enjoy that sort of thing, go ahead. For me, it's a very resounding NO.

KorvinStarmast
2022-05-31, 08:21 PM
Better Source DM or player?

False dichotomy. I have found that as a best practice, the back story is a collaborative effort between player and DM.
Most of the work/imagining comes from the player. The DM usually provides boundaries that are tied to the world that they are building, and can offer suggestions or options in terms of "placing" the character somewhere in the world, and somewhen in the world.

I'll say that for best results, Player leads the effort, while the DM provides such support as is needed to ensure a good fit into the fictional world.

Sometimes that's almost nothing from the DM side. Other times it is a good bit, and of course there are various points in between.

Pauly
2022-05-31, 08:36 PM
My thoughts.
1) PCs are the player’s property. They don’t belong to the DM or other players in the group.
2) The player’s choices are what gives them investment in the character. They chose the stats, they rolled the dice, they chose which lifepath to follow. They will have much less investment in playing someone else’s character.
3) Collaboration with the DM and other players is highly desirable. However if a player changes their character design/concept as a result of the collaboration it must be because of their free choice.
4) DM has veto power over anything that doesn’t fit their world/campaign focus.
5) Other players don’t have veto power, but should be listened to if they express doubts about the character’s fit for the party.

Quertus
2022-05-31, 10:14 PM
Is it better to play your own PC, or a pre-gen? Is it better to play Quertus, or Dr. Strange?

Oh, but Dr. Strange has the advantage of, you know, existing in popular media. So, is it better for someone other than me to play Quertus, or a mage of their own creation?

Can you guess what my answer is?

As others have said, the GM may set up boundary conditions (like, "everyone's playing a noble, each from a different race / kingdom. You've all been invited by the Lord of the Elves on behalf of the OP Angel/Wizard DMPC to discuss McGuffin"), but the player has more ... dang, lost the word... interest + ownership + buy-in + commitment for (EDIT: investment in? is that what I meant?) their own character.

Yes, random generation can provide impetus and ... word ... "thing that sparks ideas" inspiration for a character, but it's just scaffolding, and the player should fill in the details.

If the GM is going to write all the characters, they ought to just write single-author fiction. It's the players actually having authorship of some of the elements that makes an RPG not just single author fiction.

Actually... maybe, if the GM writes all the PCs, the players should write the world, and the adventure. Then the GM runs the adventure, and the players run the characters. Huh. I'll have to try that sometime.

Telok
2022-06-01, 12:21 AM
What I'd pay decent money for and have never heard of being done is a reverse life path system. Something where you could start with a character sheet and then work backwards along the life path that made some sort of sense. Closest I've come is a Traveller character generator where you could set assorted minimums & maximums then it would roll a hundred million characters to try to match.

As for backstory... yes. Simply because anything is better than a tabula rasa nameless orphan murder hobo.... number 38 in a series.

Satinavian
2022-06-01, 01:13 AM
Backstories should be made by players.

- It makes the player more invested.

- It ensures a better fit between what happened in the backstory and how the player thinks of the character

- It will more likely ensure that the player remembers the backstory better than the GM later in play. Otherwise it is just a random worldbuilding detail.

However

- A GM can set requirements and limits for backstory generation. "You must come from town X", "You must end up working for Y", "You must all be familiar with high society in region Z"

- A GM can talk to the player about backstory modifications to add hooks and campaign links.

Vahnavoi
2022-06-01, 05:01 AM
.
If the DM is going to start deciding this or that about your characters beyond what is or isn't reasonably available within the game world, they might as well decide everything. Just hand the players their sheets and tell them "this is what you're playing."
.

As a convention game master who regularly hands sheets to players saying "this is what you're playing", I'll have to say this is a superfluous objection. The actual gameplay for a player in a roleplaying game is deciding what they do, how and why in a given situation from the viewpoint of their character. A game master deciding which character a player plays poses no obstacle for leaving those gameplay decisions to a player.

For quality of gameplay, what matters is quality of characters and that they are within skills of their players to play. Where those characters come from isn't of vital importance. They can be created by a player, or by a game master, or by a game designer, or other person who won't ever be at the table in person, or by randomized procedural generation. So on and so forth. I've used and played, and continue to use and play, all of these. Sometimes several of these for a single game. Specific game design concerns may sway the scales in favor of one or the other, but whichever way you approach it, the point remains the same: players creating their characters is customary, it isn't and has never been necessary.

Of course, as corollary, questions such as this:


[Do]o you trust your DM to do this for you or do would you as a player need this 'power' for yourself to enjoy your character?

Don't have a single answer, because I don't play just one type of game under one game master. The general strategy, when going to play with a previously unknown game master, is to give what they've got a try and see if it works. If what they do works, you can continue to trust them. If what they do doesn't work, you either negotiate a better game or quit playing with them.

With a known game master, it isn't really a question of trust at all. You look at what you know of the overall game to see if it matches what you want and either sit down to play or not based on that. If you don't know what you want, you fall back on trial and error, where the cost of trying out a game is weighed against other things you could be doing with the same effort. Or, in simple terms: if you don't know what you want & have nothing better to do, you just play whatever characters are thrown at you, quitting playing those you don't like and moving on to different characters until you stumble upon one you do like.

Martin Greywolf
2022-06-01, 06:59 AM
We as humans don't decide our backgrounds, they are thrust upon on us (aside from some choices we make as children).

Well, yeah, but most of you people don't know how to fight with a sword either. This is a true statement that has bearing on absolutely nothing.



And I think its more rewarding, and realistic, and better for the campaign if the DM creates the players backgrounds...

I don't even agree it is more realistic. To make it realistic, you'd need some sort of a weighted probability generator., and would end up with a lot of boring, normal backstories



I always say there is no right way to play D&D the only goal is fun, but I believe that a DM generated background can/will be more rewarding to the players and the campaign because it adds another element of realism, control for the DM -- to insure things don't get crazy (Player "my character comes from a long line of paladins sired by Angels"), and forces adaptability and opportunity for the player to create something given a situation.

Okay, first of all, realism isn't good for a game, player engagement is. I'll much rather play an absolutely insane story that would put FLCL to shame and have fun with it than a gritty, simulationist game where I have to roll a new character after every major fight, because 2/3 of deaths in war are a result of famine or disease.

And, we finally find out why you think this is a good idea - more control for the DM. Why? The DM doesn't need more control, the DM has all the control there is. I can see a point to something like this if there is a good general idea behind it, some kind of a unique twist, but this is just... pointless, really.

Well, it's worse than just pointless. If you crate a character for a TTRPG, you are creating a character you want to play, and past experiences are necessarily part of that character - even lack of the backstory communicates you want to focus on adventuring rather than exploring your character's past. If you take it away, you are taking away an integral part of creating a TTRPG character, just as if you took away the mechanical character creatin and just handed over pre-filled character sheets with builds done by you.

Sometimes, this is a good idea. DM making a full character, build and backstory, for someone who wants to try out their first TTRPG game can be a good idea. A DM making a whole bunch of characters, then throwing them into a meatgrinder of a battle so that the survivors can become the true PCs can work for some games - there is at least one fairly legendary W40k TTRPG campaign that started this way (or maybe it was the players who prepared 20 characters each, I don't remember now).

But if the only reason is "I don't like letting my players choose things", then why aren't you writing a novel?

Berenger
2022-06-01, 07:06 AM
It's also more realistic to tell half of your players that their characters sadly died of childhood diseases prior to the first session and they have to sit out this campaign in silence. Sounds about as funny and engaging as a pre-gen character. Maybe deep down you want to try your hand as a novelist instead of a DM?

InvisibleBison
2022-06-01, 07:23 AM
We as humans don't decide our backgrounds, they are thrust upon on us (aside from some choices we make as children).

I don't understand how this impacts players making backstories for their characters. The player and the PC are not the same person, after all. Have you really never encountered a character with an unhappy backstory?

Xervous
2022-06-01, 07:25 AM
1. Player proposition
2. GM clarification
3. Repeat until satisfied

I’m the GM, I can write a dang novel if I want to have all the characters with scripted roles. I can and have vetoed character details that don’t fit. I have had my character details vetoed because they didn’t fit the campaign I was a player in. I trust that my players know what they want to play. If they wanted me to write their character they’d just ask, but they don’t.

Misereor
2022-06-01, 07:38 AM
I've been planning my final campaign for a long time and I've been thinking about how best to do it, with the following thought;

We as humans don't decide our backgrounds, they are thrust upon on us (aside from some choices we make as children).
And I think its more rewarding, and realistic, and better for the campaign if the DM creates the players backgrounds... based off of pre-interviews where the DM tries to find out what kind of character the player wants to play (within the game world) then creates a background that both fits in the game world and is fulfilling the desires of the player.

I always say there is no right way to play D&D the only goal is fun, but I believe that a DM generated background can/will be more rewarding to the players and the campaign because it adds another element of realism, control for the DM -- to insure things don't get crazy (Player "my character comes from a long line of paladins sired by Angels"), and forces adaptability and opportunity for the player to create something given a situation.

So my real question is --- do you trust your DM to do this for you or do would you as a player need this 'power' for yourself to enjoy your character?

As a GM:
I've been thinking about stealing... erm, paying tribute to... the Traveller character creation rules, by converting them into house rules for other systems.
Never gotten around to actually doing it, but it's pretty much a mini-game, and provides some excellent opportunities for unexpected character development and general roleplaying.
I see it as an especially useful tool for people who tend to streamline their characters a bit too much for their own enjoyment.

As a player:
Sure, as long as I get to provide input as well. Having planned to have my character the first in their class at hack'n'slash university, but instead ending up in a feud with the fraternity that framed them for drug trafficking is actually the kind of thing I rather enjoy. If the GM was bad, I wouldn't be playing in their game in the first place, so there is generally a certain level of trust.

KorvinStarmast
2022-06-01, 07:45 AM
What I'd pay decent money for and have never heard of being done is a reverse life path system. Something where you could start with a character sheet and then work backwards along the life path that made some sort of sense. Closest I've come is a Traveller character generator where you could set assorted minimums & maximums then it would roll a hundred million characters to try to match.
Try Xanathar's Guide to Everything in D&D, it's got some options to help flesh out background with a bit of back story if 5e is your game.
anything is better than a tabula rasa nameless orphan murder hobo.... number 38 in a series. That's an own goal. Player bears the largest share of the imaginative burden of shaping a back story (of whatever depth) for a character unless something like Traveller the system does it for them.

Backstories should be made by players.
- It makes the player more invested.
- It ensures a better fit between what happened in the backstory and how the player thinks of the character
- It will more likely ensure that the player remembers the backstory better than the GM later in play. Otherwise it is just a random worldbuilding detail.
However
- A GM can set requirements and limits for backstory generation. "You must come from town X", "You must end up working for Y", "You must all be familiar with high society in region Z"
- A GM can talk to the player about backstory modifications to add hooks and campaign links.
Roughly what I posted, but with nicer presentation. :smallsmile:

As a convention game master who regularly hands sheets to players saying "this is what you're playing", Hmm, have you ever run Lady Blackbird?

It's also more realistic to tell half of your players that their characters sadly died of childhood diseases prior to the first session and they have to sit out this campaign in silence. Sounds about as funny and engaging as a pre-gen character. Maybe deep down you want to try your hand as a novelist instead of a DM? All too often, a reductio ad absurdum results in an absurd statement. Thank you for providing an example.

1. Player proposition
2. GM clarification
3. Repeat until satisfied
Nice point on the "it's is, or can be, an iterative process" in order for best results.

Caveat: I was reading up on Numenera a while back, and I got the impression that by use of three capitalized words to describe a character, the 'back story' is almost dispensed with since the point of the game is to move forward into the unknown and exciting future. However, since I have not played it, I can't say that for sure. I so wish someone in the local area would start a Numenera campaign, I'd really like to try it out.

Character creation has been simplified by having players fill in the blanks to the statement:

"I am a __________ __________ who _________s."
The first blank, the adjective in the sentence, is filled in by a character's "Descriptor", a way to describe the character's strongest characteristic.
The second blank, the noun of the sentence, is filled in by a character's "Type", which is a "Glaive" (a warrior type), a "Nano" (a technology adept type), or a "Jack" (as in jack-of-all-trades).
The third blank, the verb of the sentence, is filled in by a character's "Focus", or what the character is most known for or their special talent.

MoiMagnus
2022-06-01, 08:19 AM
So my real question is --- do you trust your DM to do this for you or do would you as a player need this 'power' for yourself to enjoy your character?

I've played plenty of one-shots and short campaigns with characters created by the DM. It works well especially since all the characters are crafted by the same mind so will interact nicely together and with the NPCs.

On the flip size, unless there is written in big letters in the character sheet "those are suggestions and guideline, feel free to reinterpret them as you want" or something similar, you can easily have a few players that switch to an "actor" stance about the character. And by "actor" that mean they make decisions according to what they think the GM would want this character to behave, thinking that there is a "objectively right" and "objectively wrong" way to RP the character.

And that's probably not really something you want for a RPG. Most of the time, you really want for the player to consider that their character is truly in their control.

Additionally, if the handed backstories are long (which I would definitely advise against), you run into the possibility of the players not doing their homework and not really knowing the backstory of their character. And if the GM think the player know something but that the player doesn't, that usually end up in a mess that can ruin the game much more than a character having no backstory at all. This issue is much less likely to happen if the player is the one that created their backstory.

Now that I've talked about various problems other players might have, what about me? Well, backstories created by the DM have some good chance of working well for me, but it comes with some risks. There are a few subjects I'm uncomfortable with, and while I can endure them for a session or two, I definitely don't want them to be part of my backstory as an item that'll come back again and again during a long campaign.

Ixtellor
2022-06-01, 09:49 AM
OP Here:

1) Thanks for all the replies I enjoyed reading your takes.

2) In the OP I talked about "pre interviews". I didn't want to write an essay, but the 'pre interviews' will last 3 months to a year over email -- where characters are giving the layout of the world (as their characters would know it). The most important thing thing they need to figure out is what is their ultimate goal for what will probably be their last character ever. (We a bunch of old guys coming up on retirement and the game will begin once that occurs). So its not a desire to write a novel -- its a co creation over a lot of time where, hopefully, the characters have complete buy in but the DM has the ability to weave their background into the campaign by setting up their background in a way that will best achieve this.

3) Personally I would never ever enjoy a character handed to me. That just a version of what I call a "puzzle game" where the character is just a tool. D&D doesn't work for me unless its a character driven adventure where they players have long term goals.

4) Realism --- I think its very important to maintain emersion, buy in, and the feeling that what the characters are achieving is important and well earned. Realism doesn't mean the characters have to be the kids that died during childbirth, or that they live their lives as farmers, history and the real world if full of conquerors and heroes. 20 years into D&D I just had this thought "how many crazy wizards are there in the world making all these 'dungeon's full of random traps and puzzles and a hodgepodge of monsters"? From that moment on I just couldn't find enjoyment in the silly aspects of the game. Tomb of Horrors and the silly version of Greyhawk castle (it literally contains a decanter of endless lemonade) I'd rather play a video game than play those. I'm all down for playing a silly game of Paranoia but I want my D&D to have a large dose of realism with a little magic. Rare monsters should be rare -- like a Ferrari in a small town. I feel like the TV series Game of Thrones nailed it. Just enough magic so that its not just medieval simulator. (Again, whatever anyone finds fun is all that matters, but I just reached a point where I have no desire to play D&D with half dragon paladin/monks and Gensai sorcerers.)

KorvinStarmast
2022-06-01, 11:13 AM
... just reached a point where I have no desire to play D&D with half dragon paladin/monks and Gensai sorcerers.)
I reached a similar point some years ago, but it's getting very hard to find a table where that isn't the case. So I just roll with it.

Slipjig
2022-06-01, 11:27 AM
The DM should definitely have veto power over anything that just doesn't fit the campaign. For example, if a character wants to play a Shaolin Monk in a Viking-themed campaign, that's going to be weird. Now, if the character wants to play a Monk, you might refluff the character as a Mad Shaman type.

And I think it's reasonable for the DM to put certain constraints on character backgrounds if it's important to the story arc he's looking to tell. For example, for a Mass Effect campaign, it would be reasonable to say that the PCs are all members of a particular ship's crew at the start (or "no Batarians" if your main enemy will be Batarians). Or if you want to tell a story about a slave rebellion, it's reasonable to tell the players that the characters have all been enslaved at the campaign start.

I guess what I'm saying is that it should be a collaboration: the DM puts left and right limits in place when needed, and let's the players go crazy in the space between.

Vahnavoi
2022-06-01, 11:49 AM
Hmm, have you ever run Lady Blackbird?

Name is familiar, but I would have to read through the rules to say for certain if I have.

NichG
2022-06-01, 03:32 PM
Player motivation towards the game is one of the most important things to cultivate, so anything you can do to improve the chances that a player gets hooked and is able to come up with things for their character to do and to care about is generally going to be worth it. For some players that might mean being totally hands off and giving them license to not only determine their character's backstory but entire regions of the world, organizations, etc. For other players that might mean providing inspiration or opportunities to get them started. Making a player take a backstory that doesn't align with what they're interested in playing out OOC is a good way to kill motivation - you might think the helicopter parent plotline or the secret cuckoo planted by another plan plotline is clever, but if that's not where the player wants to go then they're likely to not just 'struggle to overcome it', but if it keeps being pushed they may as well switch to actively try to ruin whatever it was about it that you thought was cool.

That's not to say that the DM should completely stay out of the process. But they should primarily offer things or seek compromises rather than to try to actually exert control or insist or plan. For example, you could do a thing where the DM comes up with 10 backstory hooks that they're interested in having in play, which come with things that would otherwise not be accessible to a purely player-created backstory (e.g. different starting resources, leadership roles, networks of contacts, noble titles, access to hidden familial magics, free LA race choices, etc). Then players can either take them or leave them. That motivates the DM to make worthwhile hooks and still gives players the ultimate veto.

solidork
2022-06-01, 05:39 PM
I'd be fine with it if we were playing a very tightly focused one shot, but if I'm going to be playing something for the long haul I need to have some say in it. That being said, I think you should follow the Dungeon Rule principle of "draw maps, leave blanks" so that the DM has some room to weave things to their liking. Knowing some things gives you a scaffold to work with, but not knowing everything leaves room for the DM to surprise you, and for you to surprise yourself.

Reversefigure4
2022-06-01, 05:43 PM
For example, you could do a thing where the DM comes up with 10 backstory hooks that they're interested in having in play, which come with things that would otherwise not be accessible to a purely player-created backstory (e.g. different starting resources, leadership roles, networks of contacts, noble titles, access to hidden familial magics, free LA race choices, etc). Then players can either take them or leave them. That motivates the DM to make worthwhile hooks and still gives players the ultimate veto.

Paizo does 'character traits' (mini-feats, essentially) for their Adventure Paths, and says that you have to mandatorily take 1 of the ones presented in the Adventure Path. So you end up with a party who have things like:

Hagfish Hopeful (Ever since passing through the town of Sandpoint as a child and hearing about the contest at the popular tavern known as the Hagfish, you wanted to take that coin purse as your own and carve your name on the ceiling beam above the bar. Training yourself to choke down indigestible food and drink water a pig would refuse, you’ve built up quite a strong resistance to all things putrid and gross.) (You gain a +2 trait bonus on Fortitude saves against disease and poison.)

Student of Faith: While you have personally dedicated your life to a single deity, you study all religions and mortal faiths. Upon hearing that the town of Sandpoint recently completed a cathedral dedicated to the six deities most popular in the area, you had to see the place for yourself, and have arrived in time for the consecration of this holy edifice. Because of your strong faith and broad range of study, you cast all cure spells at +1 caster level, and whenever you channel energy, you gain a +1 trait bonus to the save DC of your channeled energy.

It's not particular restrictive - you could build dozens of character who could match either of those, or pick from the other dozen traits, but they immediately link you into the beginning of the campaign ("You're in Sandpoint"), give you a connection to an NPC or a location, some character motivation, in exchange for a minor mechanical bonus.

---

I find broadly speaking that players have trouble keeping track of the minor details of their own backstory, because they aren't regularly on-screen. It's easy to remember that your character hates orcs because they killed your father. It's much harder to remember what your father's name is, because the character only needs that information once every 20 or so weekly sessions, so nearly half a year of real time is going past for the player who has an actual life full of facts to remember. I imagine it's much more difficult when somebody else comes up with your father's name, the name of your village, your occupation there, etc, etc... I'd feel like as a player I needed to sit at the table with a crib sheet and constantly refresh myself on who I actually was.

Tanarii
2022-06-01, 07:05 PM
I played in a game where the DM wrote all our backstories. And chose our race/class too. I got the Drow Assassin that had been cursed to be Lawful Good.

Surprisingly, I enjoyed it. Especially when the DM had me captured by some evil high priest who dispelled the curse, and bribed me to stay with the party and betray them in the showdown battle. I leaned into the character exactly as the DM had told me to, both before and after the curse was lifted.

TPK in the showdown & everyone lost interest in playing. Not sure what the DM was expecting. :smallamused:

Tawmis
2022-06-01, 09:23 PM
So my real question is --- do you trust your DM to do this for you or do would you as a player need this 'power' for yourself to enjoy your character?

It all depends, as always.
If I create a character, who - for example, is a Human Druid. I've already got notions in my head, what my character is like when I pick the class and race.
If my DM hands me something, completely different (say for example, they hand me a background that pretty much says, "You were once a mass murderer, who was crazy - and you killed six people, before fleeing into the woods. In the woods, you found the sense of peace you never felt in a city and you became a druid."

I am not going to be interested, perhaps if that conflicts with what I had in mind.

I don't mind playing off beat characters - in the Out of the Abyss game I was in, my character got a thing of madness where he heard voices whispering bad ideas - I worked with the DM to flavor it as a demon (since that was the theme of Out of the Abyss) - and took a level in Warlock (I'd been like a level 7 fighter when this happened) - to say sometimes the demon takes over when I do Warlock stuff - and my character has no memory of it (he simply blacks out, similar to Moon Knight if you've watched that). So I played up this crazy dwarf fighter in Out of the Abyss.

So I don't mind going off the path, but I feel like if I am to enjoy what I am playing, I should have some say on the personality that I am going to be playing.

KorvinStarmast
2022-06-01, 10:34 PM
So I don't mind going off the path, but I feel like if I am to enjoy what I am playing, I should have some say on the personality that I am going to be playing.
Or, you could stop doing that and write stories for people who lack your gift.
Wait, isn't there a wonderful thread for that (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?591882-Need-a-character-background-written-up)? :smallbiggrin:

Jay R
2022-06-01, 10:57 PM
It's true that we don't choose our own backgrounds in real life. We don't choose our own intelligence or dexterity either.

Both statements are equally irrelevant to character and background design.

The level and detail of one character's background won't be the same as another's, because players are different. One of my Rules for DMs is:


19. A backstory is like a sword. Some characters are incomplete without one, and others wouldn't use one even if they had it.

I had a player whose backstory was always, “He’s a fighter who likes to hit things.” I once insisted on at least a paragraph. He wrote (more or less):

Forlong grew up in a village where his favorite pastime was to watch the town guards at practice. He always wanted to be a warrior who could protect his friends and family. He considers his sword to be his closest friend, and he is always very careful about keeping it sharp and in good shape.
I never insisted on a backstory again. I’m quite sure that if I had required a five-page backstory, he'd have handed me five pages that boiled down to “He’s a fighter who likes to hit things.”

There would be no point in me writing a background for his character. No matter what I wrote, he would play, “He’s a fighter who likes to hit things.”


As a player, I will write my own background. And by the time it's finished, it will have been seen and updated by the DM many times.

A few basic principles for my own PC's backgrounds.

1. No GM writes as detailed a background as I do. if a GM wrote one for me, I would immediately add more to it.

2. The background is a crucial part of designing the character. The stats, skills, classes, feats, etc. are intimately tied to the background. I can't create one without the other.

3. I often put in specific areas that the character doesn't know, and therefore I don't know either. The GM can develop them and use them as plot points, or leave them alone and they will never be discovered.
[I]I[/B] decided that he was abandoned as a baby.]

4. The GM must have full veto power over the background. There's no point deciding that your character is a half-ogre whose father was an exiled king who became a wyvern hunter in a world with no ogres, exiled kings, or wyverns.

5. I learn a great deal about the area my charcter comes from by the GM's commentary and modifications to my backstory. By the time the game starts, I feel much more grounded in the world from having gone through that process.

Every player is different; every GM is different; every world is different. Some other process might work for you, and that's fine. This is the process that works best for me.

Tawmis
2022-06-01, 11:13 PM
Or, you could stop doing that and write stories for people who lack your gift.
Wait, isn't there a wonderful thread for that (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?591882-Need-a-character-background-written-up)? :smallbiggrin:

I will Venmo you the money for the promotional post. :smalltongue:

KorvinStarmast
2022-06-02, 08:03 AM
I find broadly speaking that players have trouble keeping track of the minor details of their own backstory, because they aren't regularly on-screen. It's easy to remember that your character hates orcs because they killed your father. It's much harder to remember what your father's name is, because the character only needs that information once every 20 or so weekly sessions, so nearly half a year of real time is going past for the player who has an actual life full of facts to remember. I find this PoV utterly alien to how I play characters; I have no problem recalling family names, and other stuff because I do bother to try and make the character come to life in something other than a paper cutout manner. What I am saying, I think, is that what you observe has a lot to do with how each player (in your experience) treats their character.

As a player, I will write my own background. And by the time it's finished, it will have been seen and updated by the DM many times. Same.

2. The background is a crucial part of designing the character. The stats, skills, classes, feats, etc. are intimately tied to the background. I can't create one without the other.
Yep.

4. The GM must have full veto power over the background. There's no point deciding that your character is a half-ogre whose father was an exiled king who became a wyvern hunter in a world with no ogres, exiled kings, or wyverns. Yep.

5. I learn a great deal about the area my character comes from by the GM's commentary and modifications to my backstory. By the time the game starts, I feel much more grounded in the world from having gone through that process. When the GM offers that kind of input I find that it makes the game better for me.

I will Venmo you the money for the promotional post. :smalltongue: I love what you have done with that thread; sorry I don't contribute to it, I like to write little back stories and as time goes on, I am trying to get better at it.

False God
2022-06-02, 08:28 AM
As a convention game master who regularly hands sheets to players saying "this is what you're playing", I'll have to say this is a superfluous objection. The actual gameplay for a player in a roleplaying game is deciding what they do, how and why in a given situation from the viewpoint of their character. A game master deciding which character a player plays poses no obstacle for leaving those gameplay decisions to a player.

For quality of gameplay, what matters is quality of characters and that they are within skills of their players to play. Where those characters come from isn't of vital importance. They can be created by a player, or by a game master, or by a game designer, or other person who won't ever be at the table in person, or by randomized procedural generation. So on and so forth. I've used and played, and continue to use and play, all of these. Sometimes several of these for a single game. Specific game design concerns may sway the scales in favor of one or the other, but whichever way you approach it, the point remains the same: players creating their characters is customary, it isn't and has never been necessary.


Again, and I seriously don't know why people do this when quoting others on message boards, but as I said before: if you enjoy playing that way, by all means.

I was answering for myself and my opinion. Not for what everyone else may or may not have fun doing. As I stated in my original post.

If your argument is basically "You're wrong because a lot of people I know had fun doing this thing you don't like." well, okay. I mean I guess I could counter with "Well, a lot of people I know didn't have fun doing it that way." But neither of these statements counters the other.

Reversefigure4
2022-06-02, 03:43 PM
I find this PoV utterly alien to how I play characters; I have no problem recalling family names, and other stuff because I do bother to try and make the character come to life in something other than a paper cutout manner. What I am saying, I think, is that what you observe has a lot to do with how each player (in your experience) treats their character.

That's an impressive memory! I've had dozens of players and never had one who could do this flawlessly without notes over the course of a long campaign. Even a fairly basic backstory has so many different elements to it.

"I was a blacksmith in a small village. I had 7 daughters with my wife, before she died. They've moved out and on with their lives. I thought I was happy here, but when the Orcs attacked I found a craving for adventure."

Straightforward enough... but there's a lot of little details in here. The village has a name and a geographic location in the world. Each daughter has a name, an age, an occupation, and where they now live. The wife had a name, an age, personality traits. She died from some fact that needs remembering. That's 34 separate facts, just right there, and most of them won't be regularly referenced by the character.

I've never had a single player that could get to session 47, nearly a year after he wrote it, and seamlessly remember Daughter #6s age off the top of his head without checking his backstory notes. I certainly couldn't do it as the GM, and I'd far rather what they were keeping in their heads was the name of the Evil Priest They're Fighting This Adventure, and What The Gem Of Power We're Seeking Was Called.

The player has their own character background, all the facts about the world, and the plot to remember in a game where they're only playing once a week. I don't fault them - certainly I as the GM often can't remember "Hey, what was the name of that bar in the small town we passed through a year and half of real time ago, with the pretty barmaid?" without checking my notes.

(And it gets worse again if those players are playing in multiple games at the same time - you need to remember those 34 facts about your Paladin, and a totally separate set about your Call of Cthulhu investigator).

KorvinStarmast
2022-06-02, 08:23 PM
That's an impressive memory! Been true for most of my life. That makes it much more painful to hit the stage of life where little bits and pieces of memory begin to go on vacation and not come back.

(And it gets worse again if those players are playing in multiple games at the same time - you need to remember those 34 facts about your Paladin, and a totally separate set about your Call of Cthulhu investigator).
Very true. If you play one game once or twice a week it's easy to stay engaged with the character past, present, and future. If you are in many games per week, you need to keep key notes on a char sheet. (True even back when we only used 3x5 cards for char sheets)

PhoenixPhyre
2022-06-02, 09:11 PM
My strong preference (as a forever DM) is for players to take the lead on writing their backstories. But that it involve a conversation with me, so I can find places for things or warn against certain things. But write a backstory full of attachment points ("plot eyebolts"), not a straightjacket. If all your backstory questions are nicely wrapped up in a bow, what you've given me may be great for you. Yay. But doesn't help me include you in the story or find things you'll be interested in. Backstory should be as much pre-commitment to biting at certain (negotiated) hooks should they be offered as explaining the character.

I love when players are willing to trust aspects to me. Where there are mysteries left to be discovered, rather than just a retelling of events.

TemporalTravels
2022-06-02, 09:36 PM
Every player makes a 1st level character with nothing more than a name and the character sheet. Zero background.

Send them into a grindhouse of an intro dungeon. Someone dies, replace them with another character. Repeat until the dungeon is complete. All PCs now have a solid adventure in their backstories, maybe a connection to the dead adventurer they replaced (my brother Daryl, his other brother Daryl), and reason to stay together as a party. If they improv some detail in their background, say "yes, and." If you really want to be wild, play 0th level and have no class abilities.

KorvinStarmast
2022-06-03, 07:52 AM
Every player makes a 1st level character with nothing more than a name and the character sheet. Zero background.

Send them into a grindhouse of an intro dungeon. Someone dies, replace them with another character. Repeat until the dungeon is complete. All PCs now have a solid adventure in their backstories, maybe a connection to the dead adventurer they replaced (my brother Daryl, his other brother Daryl), and reason to stay together as a party. If they improv some detail in their background, say "yes, and." That's one way to to it. Not sure that every table wants to start with a meatgrinder, though.

InvisibleBison
2022-06-03, 09:20 AM
Every player makes a 1st level character with nothing more than a name and the character sheet. Zero background.

Send them into a grindhouse of an intro dungeon. Someone dies, replace them with another character. Repeat until the dungeon is complete. All PCs now have a solid adventure in their backstories, maybe a connection to the dead adventurer they replaced (my brother Daryl, his other brother Daryl), and reason to stay together as a party. If they improv some detail in their background, say "yes, and." If you really want to be wild, play 0th level and have no class abilities.

That sounds incredibly boring and tedious. It also doesn't work for games that don't feature dungeons. And what happens if some characters die in the process of completing the dungeon?

Tanarii
2022-06-03, 09:45 AM
That sounds incredibly boring and tedious. It also doesn't work for games that don't feature dungeons. And what happens if some characters die in the process of completing the dungeon?
It works for any game that isn't a "book on TTRPG" format. The first adventure is the tying together background for those that survive it. And those that don't, you roll up new characters and bring them to the group.

The important part is, character background and even character personality can be developed at the table on the fly as and when it becomes necessary.

Of course, keeping it consistent over multiple sessions, especially when you have multiple characters, is a different matter. Taking notes may be required. :smallamused:

I've done this myself for numerous official play sessions, and "winging it" has generated some quite memorable characters.

Telok
2022-06-03, 10:27 AM
That sounds incredibly boring and tedious. It also doesn't work for games that don't feature dungeons. And what happens if some characters die in the process of completing the dungeon?

You make a new one. Like this: http://www.theallguardsmenparty.com/zerg.html

False God
2022-06-03, 02:28 PM
That's one way to to it. Not sure that every table wants to start with a meatgrinder, though.

It also doesn't actually generate a backstory.

It gives all the characters a shared event, but doesn't tell you anything more than that, and the inherent nature of the meant-grinder will not incline people to add any interesting or creative role-play elements to constitute an actual backstory.

Jay R
2022-06-03, 07:12 PM
Every player makes a 1st level character with nothing more than a name and the character sheet. Zero background.

That’s not how I build characters. My gnome illusionist was raised by mechanicians, so he has a set of mechanic’s tools, and a couple of points in that skill. My Ranger has a single point in Perform(lyre) and a masterwork axe (his wood-cutting axe, not a weapon), because everyone I’ve ever known who has lived alone in the woods has played a musical instrument, and been proud of the quality of their axe. A wizard’s background will influence some of the spells he starts with.

Creating the character and the background aren’t two different tasks, so that I could choose to do only one of them. The background affects the character design.

[And if I played in your game, my character would have a backstory, even if you never read it. It’s part of how I decide what skills and abilities he has.]


Send them into a grindhouse of an intro dungeon. Someone dies, replace them with another character. Repeat until the dungeon is complete. All PCs now have a solid adventure in their backstories, maybe a connection to the dead adventurer they replaced (my brother Daryl, his other brother Daryl), and reason to stay together as a party. If they improv some detail in their background, say "yes, and." If you really want to be wild, play 0th level and have no class abilities.

That’s a good introduction into the game and the party, but it’s not a backstory.

Harry Potter’s backstory is everything that affected him before his adventure started – his parents dying to defend him, being scarred by Voldemort, being raised by muggles, being bullied by his cousin, being known to all wizards even though he didn’t know about them. These affected the skills, attitudes, and knowledge he had when his adventures started.

Long before his uncle (cousin, actually) left him a magic ring, Frodo Baggins had a background, including being orphaned when his parents drowned in a boating accident, having friends like Merry and Pippin, and a gardener Hamfast Gamgee, whose son Sam liked to come over and hear stories. He knew the previous adventures of his cousin Bilbo, and disliked his relatives the Sackville-Bagginses. And he had a childhood history with Farmer Maggot regarding mushrooms. All this directly affected his own adventures.

Bruce Wayne became a dark knight detective because of a tragedy in his childhood, when his parents were murdered in front of him.

These are backstories. That's not the same as the first adventure.

You and your players playing the way you like. But it doesn’t replace a backstory; it’s playing without one.

KorvinStarmast
2022-06-04, 12:00 PM
It gives all the characters a shared event,
Which gives that party a reason to be adventuring together. That's something lacking in a lot of groups where each character does put a backstory into their character and yet the group of them have no 'realistic' reason to be doing stuff together.

That meatgrinder example may inspire some of the players to come up with "how and why did I get here?" as the add new members to the group in an ad hoc manner ... but it's not a "push button get backstory" kind of thing.

I see no value in getting into a "No True Backstory" argument here, since I always give my character one.

Thrudd
2022-06-04, 12:50 PM
I think best practice for backstories is for players to come up with most of it, GM provides setting guidance, possibly requiring the inclusion of specific elements in order to hook all the players together. That way the player should better remember what is actually in the backstory, vs being handed a story that they might only read or skim once and not notice hooks that are thrown into the game connected to them. Of course, you can remind them "remember, that guy is from your backstory?" "Oh, are they? *scrolls through phone to find the file* "oh yeah, that guy..." - but that isn't really the effect we're going for in the game, is it? We want more of surprise, recognition, and excitement when something (supposedly) relevant to the character appears during play.

For my games, I've preferred the players to collaborate on the backstories and together come up with the reason they are a group, or at very least have aligned interests. In D&D-likes, the only thing I really need them to have in their backstory is their motivation for being an adventurer and the nature of their relationship with the other party members. Then we can start the good stuff right away in session 1, with the party already formed and everybody ready to look for an adventure.

Personally, I wouldn't mind a GM giving me a backstory. I also like rolling up random character traits and seeing what sort of person and story might emerge from it.

sktarq
2022-06-04, 04:03 PM
Which gives that party a reason to be adventuring together. That's something lacking in a lot of groups where each character does put a backstory into their character and yet the group of them have no 'realistic' reason to be doing stuff together.

Except "survived this event in each other's company" is not a reason to stick together. And while agree that PC's not having a reason to still together is a problem and common one I just don't see a meatgrinder or even most other "shared event" type hooks to be an even passable solution.

Almost dying due to axe blow and having to be revived by a cleric were death is cast aside may be a semi normal thing to happen in a meatgrinder but frankly seeing that cleric's face to remind me how it feels for my lung to be exposed to the outside or hold my own intestines and how it feels for life energy to knit me back together....I'd need a damn good reason to stay with my walking PTSD trigger thankyouverymuch.

Tanarii
2022-06-05, 02:28 PM
Almost dying due to axe blow and having to be revived by a cleric were death is cast aside may be a semi normal thing to happen in a meatgrinder but frankly seeing that cleric's face to remind me how it feels for my lung to be exposed to the outside or hold my own intestines and how it feels for life energy to knit me back together....I'd need a damn good reason to stay with my walking PTSD trigger thankyouverymuch.
I mean, if magic didn't heal mental trauma in the process, adventurers would probably all retire after their first adventure.

KorvinStarmast
2022-06-05, 02:52 PM
Except "survived this event in each other's company" is not a reason to stick together. One of the things that bonds a group of people together is a shared experience, and a shared harsh experience even moreso.

I'd need a damn good reason to stay with my walking PTSD trigger thankyouverymuch. Then being an adventurer is likely a bad vocation for you/your character. And I'd suggest giving Call of Cthulhu a wide berth. :smalleek:

I mean, if magic didn't heal mental trauma in the process, adventurers would probably all retire after their first adventure. This. :smallcool:

Stonehead
2022-06-05, 03:03 PM
I've been planning my final campaign for a long time and I've been thinking about how best to do it, with the following thought;

We as humans don't decide our backgrounds, they are thrust upon on us (aside from some choices we make as children).
And I think its more rewarding, and realistic, and better for the campaign if the DM creates the players backgrounds... based off of pre-interviews where the DM tries to find out what kind of character the player wants to play (within the game world) then creates a background that both fits in the game world and is fulfilling the desires of the player.

I always say there is no right way to play D&D the only goal is fun, but I believe that a DM generated background can/will be more rewarding to the players and the campaign because it adds another element of realism, control for the DM -- to insure things don't get crazy (Player "my character comes from a long line of paladins sired by Angels"), and forces adaptability and opportunity for the player to create something given a situation.

So my real question is --- do you trust your DM to do this for you or do would you as a player need this 'power' for yourself to enjoy your character?

I would definitely oppose this idea if it was brought up in any of my games. Like you said, if everyone's having fun, you're doing it right, regardless of what other people think, but you should make sure your players are actually on board. I always get a little skeptical when someone says anything to the effect of "No, trust me, giving me more power/control is better for everybody."

I would probably still participate in the campaign if the backstory the DM generated to was limited to what family or region your character was born into, but anything beyond that and I would probably just sit that campaign out. Something like "A dragon torched your town when you were 12" is one the borderline, whether or not I would play would depend on how much I like the DM.

At this point in my life IRL, I think I've chosen more of my backstory than circumstances have. I didn't choose where I was born or to what family, but I chose what to study, how much to study, what field to work in, what company to work for. Even going back to childhood stuff, I chose to read books instead of doing sports like my brother. If part of the DM's backstory is that my character went to a wizard school, I think that's overreaching. That's something the character (and their player) should be able to decide for themself.

Olffandad
2022-06-05, 04:11 PM
My good friend plays the blandest PCs imaginable... they are all kind of like his first 5e PC "Bob" who is vaguely good-aligned, risk-averse, and is otherwise the player's base personality. He literally has no background, no origin story, no family or any detail beyond purely mechanical aspects.

I never discussed it with him, but I have a theory he (subconsciously) feels that any character detail is an opportunity for the DM to "get him" so he avoids creating any extra detail.

He would be a good candidate for having the DM create his character details, which might influence plot but he probably wouldn't internalize any of it in his gameplay either.

Having the DM create a backstory was a new idea for me - I could see it as a tool, if the player is too busy, not very engaged, or maybe too new to come up with a story... "OK, your character was travelling with a caravan. You arrived in town and were paid, so now you're in a tavern looking for work."

I wouldn't be too thrilled if the DM assigned a character background to me. it's very reasonable for the DM to have input into whatever I come up with, such as reframing my idea into something that fits into a campaign framework, for example.

kyoryu
2022-06-06, 10:38 AM
I never discussed it with him, but I have a theory he (subconsciously) feels that any character detail is an opportunity for the DM to "get him" so he avoids creating any extra detail.


When running Fate for new players, I have a part of my speech that I use for people with this mentality.

"Why should you have something that's a trouble? Why would you want aspects to be used against you? Well, first, it's really supposed to be complications, not 'screw you over.' And, as a GM, it's kind of my job to make your life difficult and complicated, and I'm going to do that one way or the other. At least this way you can tell me what kind of complications you would find interesting and fun, rather than it just being whatever I think of."

sktarq
2022-06-06, 12:26 PM
One of the things that bonds a group of people together is a shared experience, and a shared harsh experience even moreso.
It can but not in a way that necessarily means you want to stay in high risk with them more. You can just as easily come to loathe them and want nothing to do with them.



Then being an adventurer is likely a bad vocation for you/your character. And I'd suggest giving Call of Cthulhu a wide berth. :smalleek:
I actually would say you are wrong for that. My character simply needs a motivation to be an adventurer. And one that is stronger the push to "never do that again" that comes from holding one's own organs. And that is most often found in the characters backstory. And I personally love CoC but it its own ways of keeping the party together (the rest of the world won't believe me or may be in on it being the biggest)

KorvinStarmast
2022-06-06, 01:17 PM
It can but not in a way that necessarily means you want to stay in high risk with them more. You can just as easily come to loathe them and want nothing to do with them. Depends, but there's no game with a party adventuring together for that situation. :smallyuk:
I actually would say you are wrong for that. That's fine too, though I wasn't sure if you were referring to a RL triggering of RL PTSD or the IC case: looks to be the latter.

Jay R
2022-06-06, 02:33 PM
Except "survived this event in each other's company" is not a reason to stick together.

It can actually be a pretty good one, according to the historical documents:

"There are some things you can't share without ending up liking each other, and knocking out a twelve-foot mountain troll is one of them."
--- Harry Potter and the Philosopher's Stone, J. K. Rowling

Reversefigure4
2022-06-06, 03:28 PM
It can but not in a way that necessarily means you want to stay in high risk with them more. You can just as easily come to loathe them and want nothing to do with them.

Presuming that the rest of the campaign isn't a meatgrinder, you can work it. "My four brothers all died horribly, as did dozens of other people. But me, Bob, Alice, and Charlie are the only survivors, and we've come way less close to dying on a constant basis since then. I guess we're each others good luck charms. If we separate, we'll probably instantly die again."

I mean, I'm not sure I'd want to do this once, let alone as my 'backstory' for every character, but if that's what the players enjoy... it's going to encourage retroactive backstories, though, since there's no point defining Bob's character until you're sure he's going to actually survive to participate in the campaign.

Retroactive backstories can work too. Later, Bob sits down at the fire and recounts to the rest of the party how he always wanted to be a smith, until Lord Evil dragged his father away, and now Bob is seeking to rescue him (none of this was established until Bob's player said "Hey, Bob wants to sit at the fire and talk"). The trick is that the GM has to be paying attention to then add the background into the game, and that Bob needs to take some notes so he doesn't contradict himself and later talk about how he grew up in a coastal village where his father is still living. It's a way of getting around people who just bring a character to the table and then develop it later, not a great one, but a way.

Batcathat
2022-06-06, 04:08 PM
Perhaps I'm missing something, but I don't understand how the meatgrinder solves the problem of "why are these characters together?" since there still need to be a reason for why they entered the meatgrinder in the first place. It seems like it only moves the problem, rather than solves it. What's the difference between going to the meatgrinder together and going through any other adventure together?

Telok
2022-06-06, 11:39 PM
Perhaps I'm missing something, but I don't understand how the meatgrinder solves the problem of "why are these characters together?" since there still need to be a reason for why they entered the meatgrinder in the first place. It seems like it only moves the problem, rather than solves it. What's the difference between going to the meatgrinder together and going through any other adventure together?


Like this: http://www.theallguardsmenparty.com/zerg.html

Seriously, it works. Can depend a bit on the system and campaign, you don't want to try for a teens at school slice of life comedy with it. Nor anything it takes more than 5 or so minutes to gen a character significantly different from the last.

Batcathat
2022-06-07, 01:09 AM
Seriously, it works. Can depend a bit on the system and campaign, you don't want to try for a teens at school slice of life comedy with it. Nor anything it takes more than 5 or so minutes to gen a character significantly different from the last.

That doesn't really answer my question. According to they link "Our regiment was mustered, our characters met and trained, and we were deployed to fight some orks", which would work as justification for why the party's together even without the added meatgrinder. I'm not saying this method is bad (though I don't think I would enjoy it myself), but I still don't see how it'd solve this particular problem.

Telok
2022-06-07, 02:58 AM
That doesn't really answer my question. According to they link "Our regiment was mustered, our characters met and trained, and we were deployed to fight some orks", which would work as justification for why the party's together even without the added meatgrinder. I'm not saying this method is bad (though I don't think I would enjoy it myself), but I still don't see how it'd solve this particular problem.

Didn't read it all the way through? Well, its not some people's style so can't blame ya. They fought and died like noobs. Kept it up until they were good enough with the system and had reinvented enough tactics to hold against any number of orks. And they died. Then they got more orks and fell back through their own artillery barrage. Then it was renegade guardsmen in urban warfare. Then it was holding an evacuation point against tyrannids. Eventually only one or two shuttles made it out. Sort of. The Inquisition declared the company dead, redirected the shuttles, and got the offer to become jack-booted thug agents of the Inquisition or die. Its practically a perfect from the botton up intro to the 40k universe in general.

Mechanically (I'm not deep in on the different 40k rpgs, so someone correct me if I'm way off) your character from the guardsman generally isn't up to the power level of the inquisition game, at least not without a honking big pile of xp under their belt. Even then, while they'll be complete bad asses in a fight & at their specialty, the characters are wildly unsuitable for the sneaking & investigation of an Inquisition mission. This isn't a zero to hero, knights in shining armor, or spy vs spy game. Its pure dark comedy. This is Black Adder 40k, its Paranoia without the insane computer AI, its a comedy set up.

The players also (usually/hopefully) come out really good at combat, teamwork, & tactics. Many games, combat is the slowest & most fiddly thing in the system. Meat grinders csn quickly instill a lot of experience with the combat engine, as long as its not an hour of 1 turn every 6-8 minutes of your 1 of 8 characters whacking at pointless huge piles of hit points. I've watched, literally over a decade, one person go from "which dice do I roll for this?" to someone you can count on not to royally screw up. Its only the last 3-4 years that the rate of whole table face palms has drastically reduced and the solid team player has been emerging from the murder hobo chrysalis. A good meat grinder, with its bloody, direct, instant feedback of death & mutilation, can speed that process up to a couple marathon sessions instead of years of 3/month mostly weekly sessions.

Batcathat
2022-06-07, 03:14 AM
I'm sure it has its advantages, but the meatgrinder intro was initially presented (in part) as giving the party a reason to adventure together and I still haven't seen any reason why it'd help with that more than any other intro.

To clarify, this method still needs a reason for the characters to get together ("you're guardsmen on assignment together", in this case) and that could be followed by any sort of intro adventure, not just the meatgrinder version.

Morgaln
2022-06-07, 10:16 AM
The question is, if people show up with characters that don't have a backstory, do they even need an incentive to stay together? In my experience that kind of players leans toward "we'll adventure together because we're the players." That makes this mostly a non-issue. The players that are likely to require an incentive are those that have a backstory and draw their motivation from that backstory. And that kind of player is unlikely to appreciate a meatgrinder that kills off said character before their backstory ever becomes relevant.

To me, at least, the meatgrinder seems designed to make sure your players are focused on optimizing more than roleplaying characters. Which is not my style but certainly works for groups that are into that.

KorvinStarmast
2022-06-07, 10:36 AM
The question is, if people show up with characters that don't have a backstory, do they even need an incentive to stay together? In my experience that kind of players leans toward "we'll adventure together because we're the players."
For a lot of people, that's enough. For some people, it isn't because they are looking for a deeper level of immersion into the character, and may assume that all of the other players do as well, which is only rarely true. (IME). The desired level of immersion into the character varies by player.

kyoryu
2022-06-07, 10:44 AM
For a lot of people, that's enough. For some people, it isn't because they are looking for a deeper level of immersion into the character, and may assume that all of the other players do as well, which is only rarely true. (IME). The desired level of immersion into the character varies by player.

Depends on the game, I think. In a lot of games where people are just going on a set adventure path, your backstory is kinda irrelevant in the bigger picture. Sure, it can add to roleplay, but then having character development through play usually does just about as good of a job, in the long run.

In other games, where the game is more about the characters, it may not work as well.

I do think it's interesting that backstory can be both the cause and solution to some of these disruption issues - an improper backstory can create party cohesion issues that wouldn't exist with no backstory.

I guess my biggest thing is that when it comes to things like backstory and whatnot, the primary goal shouldn't be "do it the way I would", but "do something that isn't disruptive". I may prefer some backstory, but if I'm playing an AP, it doesn't matter much. However, a backstory that pushes the character in a very specific direction (that may not align with the party) won't be helpful at all, and is probably worse than no backstory (in some games).

Morgaln
2022-06-07, 10:47 AM
For a lot of people, that's enough. For some people, it isn't because they are looking for a deeper level of immersion into the character, and may assume that all of the other players do as well, which is only rarely true. (IME). The desired level of immersion into the character varies by player.

But then we're back to Batcathat's point; that kind of player will want a reason why they are going into the meatgrinder in the first place.
Also, this might just be me, but the meatgrinder as described by TemporalTravles would kill my immersion quickly; why do new characters show up suddenly whenever one of us dies? Where are they coming from? Why do we trust them? How do they know we need a replacement? And if they get sent by whoever sent us, why didn't we take them with us right from the start?

Reversefigure4
2022-06-07, 05:04 PM
But then we're back to Batcathat's point; that kind of player will want a reason why they are going into the meatgrinder in the first place.
Also, this might just be me, but the meatgrinder as described by TemporalTravles would kill my immersion quickly; why do new characters show up suddenly whenever one of us dies? Where are they coming from? Why do we trust them? How do they know we need a replacement? And if they get sent by whoever sent us, why didn't we take them with us right from the start?

In this meat grinder setup, there are dozens and dozens of undefined people already on the battlefield (or in the dungeon, or the gladiator pits, or whatever) who are already your fellow adventurers/soldiers. You're not playing a character, you're playing a faceless pawn to see which one survives long enough to develop a personality. Bringing in a backstory is actively undesirable at this point since your pawn likely won't live long enough to call on it in any way.

There's certainly nothing gained by doing this backstory-wise over "you're all survivors of the orcish massacre on planet Auxin, who now work for Inquisitor X".

I guess it's fun for people who don't want backstories but like meatgrinders? It's fairly specific.

Telok
2022-06-07, 05:37 PM
There's certainly nothing gained by doing this backstory-wise over "you're all survivors of the orcish massacre on planet Auxin, who now work for Inquisitor X".

I wouldn't consider a meatgrinder as a replacement for backstory. A few lines or inspiration for one maybe. I don't think meatgrinders are for backstory anyways, they have other functions like team building and portraying a crapsack world that I'd value more.

But its more backstory than a lot of players show up at the table with, even in games that provide built in backstory seeds on the sheet or during char gen.

Quertus
2022-06-07, 08:12 PM
The last meat grinder I remember being in… well, it kinda had the opposite effects, dumbing most of the players down, and leading to a “why the **** would I want to team up with these idiots ever again?” response. The other PCs weren’t just PTSD triggers, they were actively pursuing “murdering this character would be good for the planet” territory.

I mean, I guess it kinda felt like backstory, in that it explained why “facepalm” was on hotkey, but it really not only didn’t generate a reason for the PCs to be together, but actively generated reasons for them to want to never see each other ever again.

kyoryu
2022-06-07, 09:49 PM
I like the DCC approach, where in the "funnel" you start with three characters. It helps ease the sting of death a bit.

Reversefigure4
2022-06-08, 04:38 AM
But its more backstory than a lot of players show up at the table with, even in games that provide built in backstory seeds on the sheet or during char gen.

I guess, but not more than would be developed in the actual game anyway. At that point for the linked 40k game, the characters' backstory is really "What we did for the first seven sessions of the campaign (the meat grinder)". Is this really substantially different to a guy whose backstory is "I'm a fighter who was taught to fight with an axe. I showed up and a tavern and met Wizard Wally and Rogue Roger, then we went to a cave and fought goblins and got the mayor's prize horse back."? (The first three sessions of Ye Generic DnD game).

Tanarii
2022-06-08, 10:01 AM
I guess, but not more than would be developed in the actual game anyway. At that point for the linked 40k game, the characters' backstory is really "What we did for the first seven sessions of the campaign (the meat grinder)". Is this really substantially different to a guy whose backstory is "I'm a fighter who was taught to fight with an axe. I showed up and a tavern and met Wizard Wally and Rogue Roger, then we went to a cave and fought goblins and got the mayor's prize horse back."? (The first three sessions of Ye Generic DnD game).
Yes, because the players have grown attached to each other due to a shared experience. And because player-character separation is a myth, that translates down into an actual attachment between the surviving characters involved.

Satinavian
2022-06-08, 10:10 AM
Yes, because the players have grown attached to each other due to a shared experience. And because player-character separation is a myth, that translates down into an actual attachment between the surviving characters involved.
Why would a meatgrinder start of campaign result in more attachment than any other campaign start ? The only difference is that more characters die and thus at the end of the meatgrinder everyone is even less familiar with and attached to the surviving ones.

KorvinStarmast
2022-06-08, 11:37 AM
Why would a meatgrinder start of campaign result in more attachment than any other campaign start ? The only difference is that more characters die and thus at the end of the meatgrinder everyone is even less familiar with and attached to the surviving ones. We seem to have really plunged down the rat hole of the meatgrinder example, and I am not sure if that direction is helpful in answering the OP's original query.

Quertus
2022-06-08, 06:27 PM
We seem to have really plunged down the rat hole of the meatgrinder example, and I am not sure if that direction is helpful in answering the OP's original query.

Point. Created a new thread here (https://forums.giantitp.com/showthread.php?646568-Why-meatgrinders-are-terrible-for-creating-backstory), if anyone wants to continue this discussion.

Mordante
2022-06-09, 09:14 AM
TBH I don't think the background of a character matters that much. I have a general idea what I want from my character. However I'm more than willing to adjust my background as we play if it fits the story better. Most DMs I play with like it if a player has a background for roleplaying purpose. But it is really never part of the main story. For my last character I used the song test of "The Curse of Millhaven" as my background.

Also I think it is weird when lvl1 character have a long character history. We always start at level one.

KorvinStarmast
2022-06-09, 10:27 AM
Also I think it is weird when lvl1 character have a long character history. We always start at level one. I don't. If an elf shows up at age 76, or a dwarf shows up at age 60, they've been doing stuff for most of a human life span. Heck, twenty to twenty five years is a pretty long time: quite a bit can happen in that amount of time.

And the 'long character history' is not a requirement for a back story. Summarizing what the character has become at this point (level 1, entry into adventuring as a career) can take from a few sentences to a few pages. The key is to end up with "Why am I here doing this now? I was {there} and now I am {here} about to do {something}."

One can do what Traveller (original) did and make the character background / backstory mechanically relevant, but that depends on the game system.

FWIW, a nice post about funnel/meatgrinder can be found here. (https://rpg.stackexchange.com/a/51229/22566)

Mordante
2022-06-14, 03:50 AM
I don't. If an elf shows up at age 76, or a dwarf shows up at age 60, they've been doing stuff for most of a human life span. Heck, twenty to twenty five years is a pretty long time: quite a bit can happen in that amount of time.

And the 'long character history' is not a requirement for a back story. Summarizing what the character has become at this point (level 1, entry into adventuring as a career) can take from a few sentences to a few pages. The key is to end up with "Why am I here doing this now? I was {there} and now I am {here} about to do {something}."

One can do what Traveller (original) did and make the character background / backstory mechanically relevant, but that depends on the game system.

FWIW, a nice post about funnel/meatgrinder can be found here. (https://rpg.stackexchange.com/a/51229/22566)

To me adventuring is a result and not a goal. Being an adventurer is not a profession. Going on an "adventure" is because **** needs to be taken care of. One of the parties I play in now is setting up a roof tile business. But to prevent that our transports get robbed all of the time we decided to take care of the local bandit issue. Before that we were sent out to do chores for the Legion (an organization that takes care of delinquents, a kind of foreign legion). Once we paid our debt to society we were on our own, a roof tile business seemed like a good idea. So then we had to raise money, and get permits to start a business (guild). So that meant do more jobs for the locals powers. etcetera etcetera.

KorvinStarmast
2022-06-14, 07:38 AM
Once we paid our debt to society we were on our own, a roof tile business seemed like a good idea. So then we had to raise money, and get permits to start a business (guild). So that meant do more jobs for the locals powers. etcetera etcetera. Sounds like a great table if all of the players have bought into this premise. The "Accidental Adventurer" is my preferred approach but I have found that 25+ years of action RPGs (and games like WoW) as a common background for many players that "adventuring as a thing in itself" underwrites no small amount of table expectations.

farothel
2022-06-14, 07:58 AM
I actually prefer to write my own backstory, as I almost always do number crunching and backstory at the same time. I start out working on the numbers and as I'm doing that, that gets me thinking on why these numbers are what they are and then I start on the backstory and depending on where I go there I come back and change the numbers.

I'm not always writing a long backstory, but a few paragraphs I almost always put down. Of course, I've played a lot of freeform PBeM over the years, where backstory is the only thing you have, so that might also influence my way of working.

And I've once done a game where we did the opposite. The players came with a backstory and created a level 1 character out of that (that way I could also all give them a couple of freebies). This was Alternity, where character creation can be a bit tricky (and long). Then the players could upgrade to lvl3 and add advantages and disadvantages to the character, so they also had some input and could steer in a certain way if they wanted. Of course, this was with a group I've been playing with for over 15 years now, so we know each other pretty well.

Jay R
2022-06-14, 09:34 AM
I'm sure it has its advantages, but the meatgrinder intro was initially presented (in part) as giving the party a reason to adventure together and I still haven't seen any reason why it'd help with that more than any other intro.

He didn't say that it would help "more than any other intro". The paragraph in which he mentioned the idea started by saying another idea works too. His only statement about the meatgrinder was, "A DM making a whole bunch of characters, then throwing them into a meatgrinder of a battle so that the survivors can become the true PCs can work for some games - there is at least one fairly legendary W40k TTRPG campaign that started this way." [Emphasis added.]

He didn't say it worked better than any other intro.
He included another intro that can work well.
He only claimed that the meatgrinder "can work for some games".

You've turned his simple true statement into a much stronger statement he didn't make, and are triumphantly declaring that the statement he didn't make is not true.

[He also dropped out of this discussion 13 days ago.]