PDA

View Full Version : I was a blacksmith when raiders attacked my village...



JellyPooga
2008-03-09, 06:24 PM
How much thought or effort do people put into the backstory of their characters?

Most of the players I (like to) game with in my area role-play their characters very well, in regards to having an interesting character and playing to their personality, quirks and foibles, but they always play characters with no real background much beyond "I grew up in a city", "I joined the military at an early age" or the like. Further, they tend not to reflect what little backstory they have, or their characters personalities in their characters game-stats. This means that their characters' stats tend to be nothing more than something to roll dice for (to make it fit whatever game they're playing) and have little bearing, beyond the very basics, on who their character is or was.

On the other hand, I tend to put a lot of thought and effort into creating backstory for my own characters and from this background, I create the personality, quirks and foibles to role-play. I then assign the characters stats based on who the character is now and who the character was then, regardless of whether it makes a "good build" or "powerful character" or whatever (by the way, I'm not trying to say that un-optimal characters are better for roleplaying...just so you don't get the wrong idea).

As a result of this, at least to my mind, by looking at one of my characters' sheets, one could divine much of their history and even some of their personality, to a fair degree of accuracy. The same could not be said for the players I game with. Sometimes, this can get annoying when the effort I've put into crafting (as opposedto just creating) the characters I play is completely ignored. I am the only player I know to have had a character leave a game because I (the player) deemed the game not good enough for that character (in short, it was a hack'n'slash that was supposed to be a RP-heavy...I still played in the game with a new character, but my original character just left the party...everyone else just played the characters they had originally created, because they didn't actually put any effort into their characters from an RP stance). Perhaps it's in part due to bad role-playing on my part (i'm something of an introvert...one reason why most of my characters tend to be introverts or loner types), but it is frustrating nonetheless.

Anyway, the point of all this is to ask how many of you guys put ranks in Profession (herbalist) because that's what your characters mum was and taught you before gnolls killed her in a raid, or Craft (blacksmith) because he was apprenticed to a smith before he was conscripted, or take a level or two of Bard before taking Cleric levels as your main (adventuring) class because you were raised in a tavern and learned to play the flute before you found your faith?

Or am I just being silly by putting stats to backstory?

Thoughts?

JP

Citizen Joe
2008-03-09, 07:00 PM
Professionals don't go adventuring... they already have a job. Likewise for craftsmen. Adventurers are literally the dregs of humanity whose only skill seems to be killing green things and taking their stuff. Thus no skills useless in an adventure setting.

Now, it is conceivable to use DND as a ruleset for portraying non-adventurers, but it isn't really geared for that sort of thing.

Zincorium
2008-03-09, 07:09 PM
An interesting backstory is always good, a long backstory is not necessarily so. As long as it's helping you get into your character's head and gives an adequate explantion of why you're adventuring, in the general sense and not just for a single specific goal, it's only going to help.


The key point of having a PC class is that you've both had training in that direction and that it's a part of who you are (at least the way D&D is set up). As a paladin, you might be a samurai, a champion of the peasants, or any number of other things, but the fact that you are a warrior serving a cause can't and shouldn't be waved away.

As far as the 'stats that reflect background', it's a fair idea, but it should be practical. A rogue with all his skill points spent on profession and crafting skills may make some sort of sense from a certain perspective, but that character is simply not as suited to dungeoneering as other possible characters. I think the fact that the party keeps that rogue, because they're a PC, rather than tell them to scram and get someone who suits the overall goal better, is a break in verisimilitude and outright metagaming. It goes against common sense, you may love the guy like a brother, but when the hard times come, you're going to want that guy somewhere safe and take along someone you're less likely to lose.

As long as the business of adventuring is taken seriously by the character, no conflicts should arise.

Dode
2008-03-09, 07:10 PM
I did, then I realized that my DM would keep trying to hose me using it (ie: fining my family 27000 gp for attempted bed burning in the course of stopping a necromantic ritual), then I stopped.

Saph
2008-03-09, 07:22 PM
I generally start with a maximum of one page of backstory for my characters, including personality and description, and sometimes with none at all.

However, as my characters last longer and longer and develop more and more of a personality, I lengthen the backstory and description, sometimes making up extra things, sometimes taking into account what they've done in game.

My longest-running character had four A4 pages of backstory at the time the campaign finally ended, not counting the in-character campaign diary, and you really could tell pretty much everything about her by reading it.

- Saph

Avor
2008-03-09, 07:23 PM
Skills NEVER hurt. ie-my rouge, a cold blooded pychopath, started with 2 ranks in craft(basket weaving). Give a huge bonus your bluff check when the city gaurd looks at your party and asks what your going to be doing.

I find it better to make something, then find a story for it.

I made my character, put in that lame move, then said he learned it from his aunt before he left his family.

Ascension
2008-03-09, 08:12 PM
I generally put together the stats I want and then create backstory to fit it. I've already explained the over-complicated backstory of my current character twice on these forums, so I won't do it again, but suffice it to say that when I multiclass (rogue/scout in this case) I put extra effort in justifying the choice. "Dips" are great for optimization, but without a good bit of justification they make for unbelievable backstories.

Basically what I would say is that a build that is mechanically simple needs only a simple backstory, but a complex build needs a similarly complex backstory. Some PRCs even enforce this with non-mechanical requirements for entering the class.

Grug
2008-03-09, 08:18 PM
I once played a fighter that used a long sword and nothing else. He had always dreamed of growing up in the military, and was very military minded. He got Knowledge: War. Also: He sold his own sister into indentured servitude to pay his way through military school.

Cybren
2008-03-09, 09:21 PM
I try not to write out a detailed character background because I don't want to subject the DM to cliched amateur fantasy hour. That said I will take a profession or craft skill if i can fit it. Some classes have greater need for their skill points than others, after all.

Chronos
2008-03-09, 09:23 PM
If it's just a one-shot adventure and I don't already have a character made, I'll just decide "I want to play a ranger", or whatever, and toss together a suitably generic backstory (abandoned as an infant, raised by the old hermit in the woods, took up adventuring when old hermit was killed by bugbears). But if it's a character I expect to be doing anything significant with, I'll start with the backstory, and then build the stats to match. In fact, I'll do this sometimes even when I'm not expecting to play any time soon, so I've currently built up something of a backlog of characters waiting to be played. One advantage to building characters story-first like this is that they're more translatable that way: If I find myself in a 4th edition game, I'll probably just be able to dust off one of my reserve characters and play em.

mabriss lethe
2008-03-09, 09:24 PM
I try to blend a little of both backstory and optimization into a character when I put one together.

I have an idea about how I want the character to play. I'll then fill in the numbers to best express that. I'll usually select some feats and a general idea on what skills they focus on first, then start working on attributes and the like. As the numbers start filling out, I tend to refine the backstory further. a tweak here or there to reflect what I'm trying to accomplish. Then go back to shuffling numbers, then refining story, rinse and repeat until I have a character I like. They're hardly ever fully optimized, unless that optimization is to cover some rather obscure niche I want them to fill while still being useful as a whole. (lots of my characters tend to fall into the "obscure and arcane past-times" niche.) What they do may not be the best way to do things, but they'll be the best that I can make them at their style of play.

Erom
2008-03-09, 09:32 PM
I think it has to depend on what kind of campaign you are showing up too. If one of my players showed up to one of my 5-6 session mini-campaigns with more than two sentences of backstory, I don't care, won't give them a chance to tell me, and want to get my damn game started. In general, I think playing DnD well is a _lot_ easier than good writing, so unless you're a published author, take your long backstory to a different campaign.

Stormcrow
2008-03-09, 09:54 PM
Each person has their own ability to consider. I have a player who provides his bio's in point form because he isn't good at writing. He's still a good player...

This thread gives me mind to take a whole party of Blacksmith's from different villagers that were attacked by raiders.

Fhaolan
2008-03-09, 10:04 PM
I tend to work both ways from the middle. Some people do backstory, then stats, some people do stats, then backstory. I do personality, then stats and backstory simultaneously. What would it take to get to this personality, and what effect would that have on his skills/feats/etc?

Then many times I pick a feature, like an unusual race, or a class I haven't done in a long time, or something along that lines, and build around that. It depends on the game. Some games it's not worth putting a lot of thought into it, because likely your character is going to open door #3 and just fall over dead for no apparant reason. Such is life. :smallsmile:

Talya
2008-03-09, 10:20 PM
I took a feat because of my character background (Harem Trained.) Also wasted two caster levels (2 bard, 6 sorceror, 6 heartwarder) thanks to it being appropriate to the background.

GammaPaladin
2008-03-09, 10:22 PM
I generally pick a race and class, not a specific build, but a general idea of what I want him to be able to do, and then come up with a backstory that fits it, and then build the actual character.

Mut
2008-03-09, 11:18 PM
Fun topic.

Lots of variation in how people go about it. Personally, I like to have a decent idea of where the character is coming from and how they act, but to keep my options open so that the PC can be fleshed out in play. Stuff that sounds cool in the abstract may just plain not work with a particular setting, party, or group of players, so sometimes I have to let things go. And no matter what's written on a notebook or character sheet, what really matters is how the character is played and how the other PCs react to them -- the first couple of role-playing sessions are what really establishes the character.

(An example: I played a PC who was, in a nutshell, the world's smartest, weakest fighter. His charisma was through the roof, too. His background was as a squad leader from the army of his human kingdom, and I had this vision of him as a tactical genius and a great leader. A nice idea, but it turned out that the other PCs were a gnome and a wild elf -- not the best-suited for orders and discipline -- and his first, defining interactions with them were based around his naivety and cultural ignorance of anything non-human. So he went in a completely different direction.)

While there's something to be said for basing the crunchy part of the character design around the concept, I think it's OK (and even kind of fun) to work in the other direction, too -- in the terms of the OP, putting ranks in Profession(Herbalist) and deciding on that basis what business his family was in. Or even, in a flash-back to first edition, rolling up the stats in order and building the character around them. Having something concrete like that as a skeleton can spur the creativity.

Renegade Paladin
2008-03-09, 11:29 PM
When I sit down to write a backstory, it almost always turns into a novel in very short order, sort of like this. (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=29422) I therefore only do it for long-term characters; all the others get a page of scribbled notes.

Snadgeros
2008-03-09, 11:59 PM
Quirks are what drive me. I refuse to play any character until I have an interesting and fun way to roleplay him. For example, my half-orc monk/drunken master was a raging alcoholic who was depressed when sober. My human sorcerer was a hippie/conspiracy theorist with a d100 sheet of possible conspirators (rolling that thing was always hilarious).

In general, I pick a class first, and a quirk to go with it. I won't make the character until I'm sure there's a fun and unique way to roleplay it (insane, egocentric, overly confident, etc.). Race, stats, feats, skills, etc. are decided later, with a bit of min/maxing, but no cheese.

I choose classes I like and that seems fun to play, which might be why I love monks (unarmed combat is COOL) and hate wizards (blech...paperwork).

Once I have the crunch done, I build a personality around that, making sure that the quirk I created is the central motif. If he has high charisma, I'll make him talkative and forceful in personality. If his wisdom is low, he'll struggle to make connections between himself and what's going on.

None of this ever affects my in-combat actions, and I still play competently, but when roleplaying, I'll try and stick to my created personality.

Backstory, however, is dead last. I make it last minute, in about half an hour, and build it around the character and personality I've already made. Usually it's just a summary of his motives and a description of how he got this way (why is he a monk? how did he get 19 str? what made him lawful neutral?)

rockdeworld
2008-03-10, 12:55 AM
Heh. I started reading this thread because the topic is essentially what I used for my first RP character, who came back to find his town burned to the ground, forged weapons, became an assassin and was hence known as a scourge to his enemies. It's a favorite of mine, I guess because I love playing assassins (not the DnD assassin - I mean assassins in general RPs).

As far as my character sheets go, the sheet matches the backstory, but it doesn't define the backstory. I might pick a class I like and make a character of that class, give him/her stats, skills (including spells), feats, and lastly items appropriate for what I think the class/character should have for optimization, then I'll make a backstory to support the character I have.

I think Saph has the right idea about backstories - you don't want a backstory to be too long, especially when a "short" backstory for you means 1 paragraph of 3 sentences or so. Generally when I make a character's backstory, I do a basic overview of his/her life - going into more specific detail for the more important parts, even to the point of having a miniature story in the backstory for critical points in my character's life.

I also tend to make backstories longer or shorter depending on how much experience the character has. For a 1st level character this usually means "not much," but take for example an 11th level character I recently created (http://www.myth-weavers.com/sheets/view.php?id=41169). His backstory is... really long (I don't know exactly how Saph measures hers), because he has a lot of story to tell - how he first recognized his psionic powers, how he joined the army, how he became a general, and how he got to where he is now. I don't normally spend anywhere near this much time on just one character sheet, but I felt like this guy deserved it.

This isn't to say that a higher level character should necessarily have a much longer backstory - indeed, many higher level characters' backstories can be summarized in 1 word: training. However, I feel that a backstory should help other players, the DM, and even you better understand your character, to get a feel for how your character would act so that even if you traded places they could perform the part of your character reasonably well compared to how you yourself would act - although this might be discouraged for other reasons :smallbiggrin:

Also: 1 very important thing about backstories (perhaps the most important) is that they should never be tedious or boring to the reader. No one wants to read a dull backstory :smallyuk:

So that's my take, hope you found it at least somewhat enlightening :smallsmile:

SoD
2008-03-10, 01:26 AM
As long as it's helping you get into your character's head and gives an adequate explantion of why you're adventuring, in the general sense and not just for a single specific goal, it's only going to help.

I disgree with the general/specific. I sometimes find my characters backstories to be a mix of general and specific.

For instance, my goblin warmage//swashbuckler wants to train to become a paladin (general) and, someday, wants to find Prators Sheild (specific).

Chronos
2008-03-10, 01:59 AM
Also: 1 very important thing about backstories (perhaps the most important) is that they should never be tedious or boring to the reader.This assumes that there is a reader. When you introduce a new character to the other guys at the gaming table, you give them about two sentences or so... There's no need to recite the character's entire history. But if it's there, and you know it, bits and pieces of it will surface naturally over the course of a campaign. It doesn't have to be all at once, and it's fine if some things never come up, but I find it helps tremendously to have them there.

Zincorium
2008-03-10, 05:28 AM
I disgree with the general/specific. I sometimes find my characters backstories to be a mix of general and specific.

For instance, my goblin warmage//swashbuckler wants to train to become a paladin (general) and, someday, wants to find Prators Sheild (specific).

Er, I think you may be mistaking me. There's nothing wrong with specific goals, but I think you should have general ones as well if you want to have a believable character. You, from your post, have both.

In the above instance, if your character's only goal was to find Prator's shield and you had no other reason for leaving the kobold caves, why on Athas would you be mucking about with all these other adventurers on a completely different errand? It doesn't make much sense.

The desire to be a paladin is your balancing factor, it's why you're out doing any good deeds you get the opportunity to do. And it means you're not going to get bored when the adventure isn't focusing on Prator's shield, because you have a legitimate reason to be where you are (presumably).

horseboy
2008-03-10, 12:04 PM
The problem being that D&D mechanics don't really support characters, they support killing monsters. In other systems, I'll do much more back story.

valadil
2008-03-10, 03:17 PM
I tend to go for longer backstories than the rest of you, but I write pretty well and my GMs usually encourage it. One page is the bare minimum for my character history.

I like to give a paragraph to the biographical information. That stuff is important, but doesn't come up all that often. Most of my time is spend telling a narrative of how the character got where he is right before game start. It really helps me feel out the character and figure out how to play him. A lot of the time I have trouble finding the correct voice when I'm new to a character. This has always frustrated me since I'm expected to make a first impression when I hadn't even figured out the character for myself yet. An in depth backstory with lots of dialog helps solve that problem.

Morty
2008-03-10, 03:27 PM
I personally don't tend to write long backstories for my chracters. I usually come up with a brief story that describes my character's upbringing, goals, personality, likes/dislikes, how did he or she get his/her training and why did s/he went on adventuring. I prefer to define my character by what the character does in game, and I'm also lazy. That only applies to 1st level characters of course. When I was rolling a 5th level Goblin Beguiler, I had to describe how did he get those levels.

MorkaisChosen
2008-03-10, 03:39 PM
I tend to think of a cool concept (i.e. feminist knight, Mind Flayer Paladin of Freedom), then think about the background they'd need to get there. After the background's done I grab a couple of thematically-appropriate skills and stuff (that Knight I mentioned has 2 ranks in Knowledge: History, despite it being cross-class and not having all that many to play with, because she was fascinated by stories of her incredibly heroic ancestors as a child). They are often a bit generic-fantasy, but they exist- there's always some reasoning behind it.

OK, the Mind Flayer PoF (haven't played it yet, but I want to...) is a bit difficult, but I've got some ideas for that!

Rutee
2008-03-10, 04:36 PM
I concur with Morkai's Chosen. I tend to start with the concept, then create a backstory after that. And they have an annoying tendency of being gargantuanly long. You know what they say, brevity is the soul of wit. Regardless, I tend to make the mechanics reflect the character, and the character reflect hte mechanics. It's a two way street for me, with the concept and mechanics mingling together to form a coherent whole at the end.

Ceaon
2008-03-10, 05:03 PM
I always play history- and RP-heavy characters, but that usually doesn't get in the way of building a strong character.

I've played a loner - an introverted ex-disciple of a Green Dragon looking for a new Dragon to gain power from, who had a very high charisma, despite never engaging in much of the conversations except for a rare snide remark or short comment on opposing everything that has been said by others. Even though his high charisma was useless in combat, he was still a powerful character. Because he was a succesful mercenary, I had an excuse to make him as powerful as he could get, because that was what he would want to achieve. I turned him into a grappling, tripping and slashing machine of capture and/or death.

I've also played a powerstripped Wee Jas, trapped in a mirror, functioning as a genie. Great roleplaying since she was too proud to tell others she once was a goddess, and yet because of her high charisma, others wanted to know everything about her. A wizard/sorcerer/ultimate magus build, that, because of some smart build choices, was still powerful even though she had a level adjustment because of her level 0 Divine status.

What I'm trying to say is, one can make a character with interesting roleplay capabilities and a brilliant history that still make fun characters to play with in combat situations. I have never created the perfect example of this, and I doubt anyone ever will. But I feel that every player should try to aim for a RPable combat master with a very rich history, whose abilities ingame reflect his personality and history. Of course, some people create powerhouses and have fun with that, others play Othello's or other RP-heavy characters and have fun with that.

But I think the 'best' character is one that combines RP, history and power.

Anyway, just my 2 cents.

[/ramble]

Chronos
2008-03-10, 05:12 PM
The problem being that D&D mechanics don't really support characters, they support killing monsters. In other systems, I'll do much more back story.Why would you need any rules to support backstory? I'm picturing something like "Characters with the Orphaned trait can purchase the Burning Desire for Revenge motivation at a cost of only one background point, as opposed to the normal two-point cost for that motivation." The rules cover combat and not backstory because combat needs rules, and backstory doesn't.

Kyeudo
2008-03-10, 05:25 PM
When I first started making characters, I started with the backstory, then moved to creating the character based on that backstory. Then I went through a phase where I realized how much those characters sucked stats wise and so I started making the character first and writing a backstory to justify those elements.

Those characters worked well in the party, but they were flat RP wise, so I started making the character optimized for whatever I wanted, then I spent a while writing a backstory to match with the same goal. Then I went back and edited the character to better support the backstory without gimping the concept. These characters are much more fun to play.

horseboy
2008-03-10, 09:08 PM
Why would you need any rules to support backstory? I'm picturing something like "Characters with the Orphaned trait can purchase the Burning Desire for Revenge motivation at a cost of only one background point, as opposed to the normal two-point cost for that motivation." The rules cover combat and not backstory because combat needs rules, and backstory doesn't.Because anytime I go to create a back story much more intricate than "My fighter....yeah...he went into the military and was smart enough to ask his DI what the hook on the back of his pole arm was for" the clunky mechanics that aren't designed to create a character but smash monsters in the face quickly impede my choices. A thing I greatly dislike.

Chronos
2008-03-10, 09:34 PM
Could you be a little more specific? Given how little the rules touch on things like backstory, I have a hard time seeing how they could impede any of your choices.

Rutee
2008-03-10, 10:35 PM
I believe the point is that there's no support for a character who's capabilities don't involve punching people. I never found this to be a major hindrance, personally, because I don't make people who are narrowly focused (They'll have some measure of skill at what I consider the three major fields; Social, Physical, and Mental)

horseboy
2008-03-10, 10:48 PM
With a back story come certain expectations, proficiencies if you will. If a system has NO way of expressing said proficiencies then it becomes entirely DM fiat and back story becomes even MORE important. If a system has an effective means of expressing a character, like Rolemaster, Earthdawn, Shadowrun, Hell, even WW, then said proficiencies can be expressed in a congenial way. If, you're dealing with 3.x well, you're screwed.
Let's take said soldier. What expectations come with being a soldier. Well, he should be proficient with weapons and armour. Great, we've got that. He should know protocols and procedures. Ooops, profession: solder is cross classed. The system is making it as hard as it can for you to be able to express the idea and still let you express it. Heraldry would also be good, so you know which guys you need to stab. Heraldry falls under Knowledge: Nobility. Knowledges are trained only so to even be able to roll for it you have to put a point into it. It's cross classed. Well, what else? Spotting ambushes? Spot, cross classed. Be able to get my buddy stable enough to get him to the triage tent? Cross classed. Dealing with the military hierarchy? (Diplomacy) Cross classed. Trip monkey screwed up and needs to be in a tug of war (balance) whoops, that's right, cross classed. Just putting a 1 in each of these skills that my character should have because of back ground has cost me 3/4 of my skill points and I haven't even gotten to the skills that the system expects me to have and skills which may make my character a unique member of the squad. The only reason I've even got any points left is that I'm smarter than the rest of the grunts and a human. Pretty much the only thing the system encourages me to do within my archetype is KP (craft: cook). Hey I took Cha as my dump stat, why not? Solutions? 1) Extensive DM Fiat, in which case he's taking time away from the group to fix MY character, unfair to everyone and work he shouldn't have to do (Oberoni). 2) Not use the system and rely solely on DM Fiat, in which case I may as well be playing a prior edition. 3) Play a different system. 4) Not play a standard fighter archetype, since the system impedes it so heavily.

ladditude
2008-03-10, 10:48 PM
Be careful to not go crazy making your character based off of your roleplaying. If you have a fighter who becomes a pirate, he doesn't need to be a swashbuckler. If you make decisions that way you'll wind up with a Ranger 1/Fighter 3/Bard 5/Sorcerer 2, justified as an outdoors man who began to defend his town, and then decided to share his musical abilities with the world before discovering his magical ability. This character could easily be a Ranger 12 with ranks in Perform. Fluff can be changed. Crunch can't.

EvilElitest
2008-03-10, 10:55 PM
Professionals don't go adventuring... they already have a job. Likewise for craftsmen. Adventurers are literally the dregs of humanity whose only skill seems to be killing green things and taking their stuff. Thus no skills useless in an adventure setting.

Now, it is conceivable to use DND as a ruleset for portraying non-adventurers, but it isn't really geared for that sort of thing.

Mercenaries, troopers, treasure hunters and what not are professionals.

Personally i put a lot into my back stories, but i focus on the personalities
from
EE

Chronos
2008-03-11, 12:14 AM
So in other words, horseboy, your complaint is that you want to play a Scout, but call him a fighter? Sure, you're allowed to do that, no problem, and it doesn't take any handwaving or DM fiat or anything. But the standard rank-and-file soldier isn't expected to know policy and procedures or deal with the hierarchy beyond knowing who his superiors are and following orders.

Roderick_BR
2008-03-11, 08:36 AM
I did, then I realized that my DM would keep trying to hose me using it (ie: fining my family 27000 gp for attempted bed burning in the course of stopping a necromantic ritual), then I stopped.
That's an example of bad DMing that discourages a player to roleplay and write his character's backstory.

I like to write little snippets of story for my characters. I often try to tie them to the skills and powers he have. As long as it adds some deepness to the charatcer and dosn't drag the story, or turns it only into a DM's tool to torture the character, I think it's cool, and as DM, I reward players with more backstory, like when a character hides in his family's farm with his group, when the rest of the town is too scared to give em shelter, or some good story hooks, when someone a character knew on academy comes looking for him with info of some new ruins his archeologic team found. "...So I told them, 'ya know, I have this friend that is part of an adventuring group, they are used to crawl into dangerous places, I'm sure they'll agree to check the ruins. ' Then I wrote the note calling you here..."

Hal
2008-03-11, 09:11 AM
I've created all of two characters so far, so my perspective might be off on this.

My first guy was a paladin, and his genesis was pretty much, "I want to play a paladin." I also decided I wanted him to carry a warhammer, because that seemed cooler and more distinctive than a sword. When my DM gave me a funny look and told me that paladins usually carry longswords, I figured I needed to give this guy some sort of story.

My second guy went the opposite way. I liked the flavor of the duskblade fluff, so I wrote up a character that came from some isolated community that centered on the training of magical warriors. I then built up his stats to taste. Since he's from an isolated community, it made sense to give him lose wisdom and charisma, since he doesn't quite "get" normal interactions in the big city. I even gave him ranks in Craft (Alchemy), partly because I thought it'd be fun to make all kinds of crazy stuff, and partly because it was how he filled his spare time when not in training.

I don't think there's a "right" way to come up with backstory, but I wouldn't punish players for sacrificing stats to do so. Heck, that's the fun part of a backstory: Getting a chance to use it. Your player took ranks in Profession (Herbalist)? Find a way to incorporate it. Maybe they get to go undercover as the king's medicine man in order to get close enough to watch for assassins.

MorkaisChosen
2008-03-11, 10:56 AM
I've created all of two characters so far, so my perspective might be off on this.

My first guy was a paladin, and his genesis was pretty much, "I want to play a paladin." I also decided I wanted him to carry a warhammer, because that seemed cooler and more distinctive than a sword. When my DM gave me a funny look and told me that paladins usually carry longswords, I figured I needed to give this guy some sort of story.
(Emphasis mine)
...

Wow. That doesn't look like the most RP-encouraging DMing there...

Citizen Joe
2008-03-11, 01:39 PM
Mercenaries, troopers, treasure hunters and what not are professionals.

Mercenaries and troopers may be professional, but they also have jobs and work for people. Thus they don't adventure.

I deny 'treasure hunter' being a profession. I think the term is 'grave robber' or 'thief'. They don't have a marketable skill thus they need to go out and steal stuff.

horseboy
2008-03-11, 02:46 PM
I deny 'treasure hunter' being a profession. I think the term is 'grave robber' or 'thief'. They don't have a marketable skill thus they need to go out and steal stuff.The polite term is "Archaeologist". :smallwink:

So in other words, horseboy, your complaint is that you want to play a Scout, but call him a fighter? Sure, you're allowed to do that, no problem, and it doesn't take any handwaving or DM fiat or anything. But the standard rank-and-file soldier isn't expected to know policy and procedures or deal with the hierarchy beyond knowing who his superiors are and following orders.Riiiight.

Smiley_
2008-03-11, 02:46 PM
I deny 'treasure hunter' being a profession. I think the term is 'grave robber' or 'thief'. They don't have a marketable skill thus they need to go out and steal stuff.

The proper term for 'grave robber' is 'Hunter of the Undead'.

And the term 'thief' is so unsensitive. The politically correct term is 'wealth liberator'

Also, murderer should be 'knife donator'.

But I digress.

What usually happens with me is that the RP element is usually introduced as my character develops. It allows for a little bit of freedom, so I am not restricted to a concrete backstory. However, I usually re-make that same character several times as the character RP developes, keeping the essence the same, but altering skills and such, like giving my barbarian a few ranks in perform(storytelling).

Venerable
2008-03-11, 03:08 PM
When the campaign I'm currently in began last spring, the DM explicitly asked us to come up with backstories for our characters. He wanted their histories to provide story hooks he could hang future stories and plot developments on. This gave the players incentive to create characters with interesting histories.

Some of those seeds are now bearing fruit, and it's made the game more involving — particularly because only part of each character's history is known to the other players. This has made for several surprises along the lines of "We knew you were from Reltorron, but the illegitimate daughter of their former Queen?" and "Wait — you're how old?" :smalleek:

Interesting histories = more story hooks = better character development = more fun for everyone. :smallsmile:

BollaertN
2008-03-11, 03:31 PM
Could you be a little more specific? Given how little the rules touch on things like backstory, I have a hard time seeing how they could impede any of your choices.


I think the point is that the default concept of an "Adventuring Party" doesn't really mesh well with detailed backstories. Unless the DM is specifically tailoring the Campaign Arc to account for all the PC stories.

Most goals or motives you set up in a detailed backstory will either be resolved quickly, or ignored. And then you are left with "So I decided to keep on killing monsters for profit..." :-p

Not that I am opposed to backstories, I usually write them for myself, but I'll admit the open-ended Adventuring Life typical of D&D doesn't much fit.

Take Batman as an example. He has a detailed backstory and motivation for what he does. Now imagine the DM says "OK, now we leave Gotham City and you've been hired to escort a Caravan to Metropolis..." Batman's backstory now either has to be ignored or he goes on an itinerant adventuring life which doesn't really mesh well with his BG... He should be fighting crime in Gotham. That is his story.

Thexare Blademoon
2008-03-11, 11:59 PM
(Emphasis mine)
...

Wow. That doesn't look like the most RP-encouraging DMing there...

With the information Hal provided, I'm inclined to disagree.

For all I know, the DM was simply pointing out that he'd be very unusual, and potentially regarded with suspicion for that reason. Hal's comment didn't imply any forcefulness, in my view, and it ended up pushing him into writing a backstory for that character.

This is based largely on his use of the word "usually". If he said "all Paladins carry longswords" or something similarly extreme, I'd agree with you, but "Paladins usually use longswords"? I'm not seeing the problem.

MorkaisChosen
2008-03-12, 10:38 AM
I suppose not, it's just the funny look that makes me suspicious.

On the rest of the topic: I think it works best when you're told roughly why the party's together before you even make your character- when it's well done it helps to make sure the backstory doesn't conflict. I also like the occasional character secret.

If Ellas Aramond reads this, yes, I do mean exactly what you did for Worldwalls...

nagora
2008-03-12, 11:09 AM
With a back story come certain expectations, proficiencies if you will. If a system has NO way of expressing said proficiencies then it becomes entirely DM fiat and back story becomes even MORE important. If a system has an effective means of expressing a character, like Rolemaster, Earthdawn, Shadowrun, Hell, even WW, then said proficiencies can be expressed in a congenial way. If, you're dealing with 3.x well, you're screwed.

I sort of agree. I think a lot of time has been wasted by people trying to design rules for role-play. In particular, I have recently come to the conclusion that skills/proficiencies are the single biggest block to playing characters ever invented. That's why I've gone back to 1ed and left all that crap behind.

Without skills to limit your conception of the character you are much freer to create an interesting person if you want to, without masses and masses of (generally incorrect and inaccurate) rules about skills to hold you back.

No rule can make you role-play if you don't want to but it's all too easy to make a rule that gets in the way of role-play.

Tsotha-lanti
2008-03-13, 09:44 AM
Could you be a little more specific? Given how little the rules touch on things like backstory, I have a hard time seeing how they could impede any of your choices.

Class skills.

'nuff said, really. You can either have skills your character would logically have based on his or her back story, and you can suck at all of those skills, or you can have the skills decided by your class.


So in other words, horseboy, your complaint is that you want to play a Scout, but call him a fighter? Sure, you're allowed to do that, no problem, and it doesn't take any handwaving or DM fiat or anything. But the standard rank-and-file soldier isn't expected to know policy and procedures or deal with the hierarchy beyond knowing who his superiors are and following orders.

No, he pretty much described a soldier. In fact, if I look at, say, HeroQuest, warriors and soldiers learns precisely the skills he listed - Spot Ambush, etc. The same goes for GURPS, and a bunch of other games. D&D is made to cripple realistic skill-based concepts. Some d20 games do better at it - Conan d20, d20 Modern, etc. - but D&D itself is just a tabletop version of a video game. Fighters, warriors, soldiers, and the like can Climb, Jump, Ride, maybe Handle an Animal, and in 3.5, Intimidate.

Any professional soldier would, indeed, know all the things he listed, and probably more. A conscripted militiaman wouldn't, sure, but they'd know a whole list of other skills relating to rural life (or urban life; Gather Information, etc.)

In fact, if I want to play a character who is from anywhere, I'm screwed by class skills again. Port town or fishing village? Swim. Farm? Handle Animal, Knowledge (nature). Wilderness? Survival, Knowledge (geography), Knowledge (nature), Spot. The city? Gather Information, Knowledge (local), Bluff. It goes on and on. D&D characters are defined by their class, not by their background or who they are. D&D doesn't completely prevent roleplaying, but it does make it harder.


When my DM gave me a funny look and told me that paladins usually carry longswords, I figured I needed to give this guy some sort of story.

What kind of nonsense is that? The warhammer is a mechanically equal weapon, a knights' weapon (regularly used mounted; it was, in fact, far superior to swords in real life, being able to punch through helmets and armor; effectively using a sword mounted against armored knights was next to impossible). That, and it's better against most undead (what do paladins often fight, again?) than a sword. Paladins are archetypal knights, and warhammers are archetypal knights' weapons.

Smack your DM for me.

Jayabalard
2008-03-13, 10:04 AM
Professionals don't go adventuring... they already have a job. Likewise for craftsmen. Adventurers are literally the dregs of humanity whose only skill seems to be killing green things and taking their stuff. Thus no skills useless in an adventure setting. I feel sorry for anyone who has such a narrow view of what adventurers can be...

Ascension
2008-03-13, 10:24 AM
Really, only the characters with 2+INT skill points are totally screwed when it comes to mechanically relevant backstory. When you get up into rogue/scout territory, you can be from practically anywhere and proudly claim you've done practically anything. I'm building a court-bred swashbuckler/rogue right now who will have a love of making ostentatious speeches, and he'll have the Perform (oratory) skill to prove it.

Citizen Joe
2008-03-13, 12:39 PM
I feel sorry for anyone who has such a narrow view of what adventurers can be...
Don't be. Professionals don't make squat compared to the home invading thugs adventurers. My point is having a professional or craftsman background is not conducive to (freelance) adventuring. It usually requires that you destroy your home town to get out of the business. That whole tragic background is totally played out. If you're gonna take a profession or craft due to background, take one that you'll suck at. That way you can say you tried it but weren't very good, thus took up adventuring. Another technique is the military reservist. You could be the local tax attorney but in time of danger you have to pick up your sword and go kill some encroaching dragon. Then you'll have to return to town and work out the taxes on the party's dragon hoard and figure out a loophole in the tax system that allows them to invest in some local charity...

nagora
2008-03-13, 12:49 PM
If you're gonna take a profession or craft due to background, take one that you'll suck at. That way you can say you tried it but weren't very good, thus took up adventuring.

Pretty well exactly what the 1ed DMG said.

Narmoth
2008-03-13, 03:15 PM
JellyPooga, I want you as a player in my next campaign :smallsmile:

Adumbration
2008-03-13, 03:31 PM
For my first game, I wrote up a character history.

Nowadays I make a character that either appeals to me through fluff or power, and make background accordingly. I enjoy making up backgrounds on the spot - in a game the DM wanted to know the social status of my Dragon Shaman for a party. I thought about it for a second, giggled for two, and told him that his an ambassador of the silver dragon community. That are basically embarrased by him and his complete adoration, and regularly send him on missions in faraway places. That character was so much fun for me. (The campaign was a one-shot, so the silver dragons never really had any in-game impact, but still.)

MorkaisChosen
2008-03-13, 03:50 PM
D20 Modern's Career system might help with D&D- for those not familiar, it basically adds a few extra class skills and defines your starting wealth. That means your 1st-level Fighter could be a fisherman (with Swim and Profession) who just happens to be good at killing things.

Rutee
2008-03-13, 04:03 PM
Why would you need any rules to support backstory? I'm picturing something like "Characters with the Orphaned trait can purchase the Burning Desire for Revenge motivation at a cost of only one background point, as opposed to the normal two-point cost for that motivation." The rules cover combat and not backstory because combat needs rules, and backstory doesn't.

Combat needs rules no more then backstory, actually. But to answer the question, the reason combat focus weighs in here is that many backstories you would want to express as forming the character don't work without adding in combat prowess, because that's what DnD is about. If I play someone interested in bringing peace without fighting, or an investigator-turned-social engineer (Two Exalted characters I'm bouncing around), I have very little to express this. Especially the first. It can happen with combatants who do more then combat too, but it's most glaringly obvious with an Apostle of Peace.

Tura
2008-03-13, 08:25 PM
I've never written a background story for tabletop. I've thought about the character's background of course, I've had it in my head, I've shared the interesting parts with the DM or players, I've let it slip bit by bit during the game, but never written one. I've scribbled a few notes to remember names, perhaps.

And then PbP came into my life, and how exactly I went from a short, one-paragraph summary to 2-page stories complete with prologue, epilogue, 1st person recollections, 3rd person narratives and dialogue pieces... don't ask me. It just happened.

Not coincidentally, I lost at the same time all interest in hack'n'slash, and rarely consider joining a campaign if it isn't distinctive, well thought-out, heavy rp, preferably emphasizing social factors, and "requiring good backgrounds".

Current method of character creation: I come up with "what I want to play". That could be anything. A class or class combo, a role, a quirk. I work on the build, the basics. I write the story. No matter what I had in mind at the beginning, the story writes itself, and from that, without actually pursuing it, I have a personality, a description, quirks... everything. I tweak the mechanics. When flavor requires something very suboptimal, I go for it only if survivability is guaranteed by other factors. [If you spend time building a coherent character, you don't want to drop dead at the first encounter, neither drag along the rest of the party. Politeness requires this.]

As for skills, they are indeed hard to reconcile by RAW with a detailed background story. But many games I end up joining have a house rule to circumvent that. Bonus skill points to do as you please, bonus skill points as traits (with or without penalties), make some skills accessible to all classes or ignore cross-class altogether, bonus skill-related feats...

Citizen Joe
2008-03-13, 08:57 PM
And then PbP came into my life, ...
Not coincidentally, I lost at the same time all interest in hack'n'slash, and rarely consider joining a campaign if it isn't distinctive, well thought-out, heavy rp, preferably emphasizing social factors, and "requiring good backgrounds"

Funny how one round of combat taking a week of real time will kinda put you off hack-n-slash.

Tsotha-lanti
2008-03-14, 01:43 AM
D20 Modern's Career system might help with D&D- for those not familiar, it basically adds a few extra class skills and defines your starting wealth. That means your 1st-level Fighter could be a fisherman (with Swim and Profession) who just happens to be good at killing things.

It would. d20 Modern is much, much better about skills in general - most classes have a big ol' selection.

Conan d20, similarly, has Background Skills - you get 2 ranks in three or four skills dependent on your background (nationality). It's not as free and open (unless you're Hyborian), but still better.

Tura
2008-03-14, 02:57 PM
Funny how one round of combat taking a week of real time will kinda put you off hack-n-slash.
Heh. Yes, that might have mattered, too. :smallamused: