How much do you like to collab on backstories (players and DMs)

[Pauly]

OK, let's take a step back. I (and, say, everyone at my table) arrives with a portfolio of existing characters. We pick ones that go together, both mechanically and "socially". I'm not seeing where your stance would consider that a problem (which is good, because it works great).

So, suppose everyone cane to your table with a portfolio of backgrounds… ah, how would they link to one another? OK, fine, I come to the table with a portfolio of backgrounds like… one that's the master of one (potential) PC and trained with a second; a background that's the lover of one (potential) PC; a background that's the sibling of one (potential) PC, etc. And everyone else has been playing email / text tag, creating character background together in pairs (or more). Sounds odd to my ears, but if the players then play Tetris with these combinations to find a workable party, what's the problem?

Or, alternately, why can't I decide that I want to play your little brother, swept away by a storm & raised by wolves… and then, when we get to the table, pick what class(es) I learned between them and now, based on the needs of the party?
.

Provided there’s a degree of flexibility and agreement between the players there’s no problems with Tetrising a party together.

The problems arise if players are selfish. For example:
- if you decide that your character is my character’s long lost younger brother, but I don’t want my character to have a family relationship with yours.
- if you decide that you are playing [X] class with [Y] features and refuse to change even though the party needs [Z] you are forcing another player to take [Z] even if they are actively dislike that.
The problem is when your choices adversely affect the fun of other players. There’s a reason why it’s a common trope for the last player to sit down at the table to be given the role of cleric, a lot of people have more fun playing other classes.

[Great Dragon]

The "I have to play [Z] class" (but don't want to) is not something I enforce, especially as the DM.

"Play what you want" I tell them.

Does this mean that there might not be "the Cleric" (or "The Tank", etc) in the game: For the "Balanced Party"?

Yes.

1) It just means that the Players might need to be more cautious. Know when to retreat.
Decide if it's ok (or truly needed) to take a Short or Long Rest.

Things they decide.

2) It also means that I need to remember to put more Scrolls and Tiles (Potions) of various Healing (and other spells) in the Treasure Chest/s. These things are usually already there, but adding extra (usually) won't "break" my games.

Spoiler: My Economics

Show

While I don't really have to justify doing so, I kinda think that it makes perfect sense for all the various Humanoids (and even smart monsters) to stockpile on these things.

Means of (especially magical) recovery is another "survival" strategy, and those few Casters with Healing would rather sell/trade a Scroll or Tile then cast a spell.

Because, while the "Allied" Races (Human, Elf, Dwarf, Gnome, Halflings, Half-Elves, and Half-Orcs) do find enough (bulk) customers for Hireling Casters to make a profit (unless you're in a village in the boondocks); Other Races tend to not have large stacks of gold/gems conveniently on hand.

(I'll use Individual Treasure, sure.
But "Hordes" are more likely to be found with Dragons, Beholders, Giants, or guarded in the (Humanoid) Chief's Chambers.
Where the gold is used to buy needed items, both mundane and magical, for the "tribe")

So, Healing spellcasting is more of "if you make it back to Base, sure." kind of deal.

But, Scrolls and Tiles (and not just Healing) are "as needed" items and don't have a shelf life. As such, they actually have "more value to more people" then just gold.

*****

The classic "Orc guarding chest in a 10 x 10 room" where there was what?
3d6*10 copper, 2d4*10 silver and 1d10*10 gold and some random mundane items in it?

Never really did make much sense to me.
Which might be part of "the Joke".

*****

I also have "Houserules" for most Magical Items, especially Armor and Weapons.
Interested? Just ask.

[PhoenixPhyre]

The "I have to play [Z] class" (but don't want to) is not something I enforce, especially as the DM.

"Play what you want" I tell them.

Does this mean that there might not be "the Cleric" (or "The Tank", etc) in the game: For the "Balanced Party"?

I'm very much less worried about not having a <Role> than about two people coming with inflexible ideas that
a) conflict (the classic klepto rogue and the uptight paladin comes to mind)
b) overlap (e.g. two "utility but no combat" wizards with proficiencies in the same things)
c) unilaterally make demands on each others backstories

As far as how the party is connected and why they trust one another, I have a simple, blanket solution (for my games, it won't work for all). All PCs have just spent about 6 months at a training facility run by the Adventurers Guild[1], during which time they learned basic tactics, adventuring information and skills, political and social information, etc. They worked in teams (ie the party) and have gotten used to working together.

[1] The name is a bit of a historical carry-over--it's more like an international special-forces/first-in scout organization chartered by the setting's equivalent of the UN and backed up by total control over a portal network that gives them superior logistics and a whole lot of clout. Plus the fact that the founders are ruthlessly dedicated to keeping it going while not letting it turn into a de facto government...

[Great Dragon]

I'm very much less worried about not having a <Role> than about two people coming with inflexible ideas that
a) conflict (the classic klepto rogue and the uptight paladin comes to mind)
b) overlap (e.g. two "utility but no combat" wizards with proficiencies in the same things)
c) unilaterally make demands on each others backstory.

Note: not everything I use works for other tables.

A) While "bickering" and "competetive rivalry" between some of the Players is allowed (think Legolas and Gimli, and not just Elf vs Dwarf) I don't allow outright combative PvP.

B) Now, here I Agree. Overlapping can cause at least one Player to "feel useless". Although some skills might overlap (ie: Arcana), I'm also less concerned about <Role> and more concerned with duplicated Subclasses.

Using your "Wizards" example:
There are 10 "subclasses":
Eight Schools, War Magic, and Bladesinger.
(Not counting Homebrew)

But, if 4 Players really want to play Fighter: Samurai. Ok: I'll focus on what makes each different.

C) But, yes, inflexiblilty here causes entirely too many problems, usually leading to OoC conflict and IC PvP.
While I might not like to have to ask this Player to depart the Game, if they absolutely refuse to change, I'll do so.

Edit:
Now, I don't require Backstories.
But, I love helping those that do them with me. This can make the game lots more interesting - even for me.

Spoiler: Examples

Show

I have a Group of (mostly) New Players, and a couple of Teens.

A) Made a Dwarf Barbarian.
They weren't sure what subclass to go for.
While the classic Bear would have let them "Tank" almost everything; after a few questions, I suggested Ancestors.
They still need practice, with that, but seem happy so far.

B) Made a Necromancer.
I allowed this: After a few sessions of watching them play, I asked what it was they wanted to acomplish with this School: they liked the minions aspect. So, after some "moral" discussion, I recommended Shepard's Druid.

(Note: the suggested change was mostly because they were both a Teen and New to the game. An experienced Player would have been allowed to continue playing the Necromancer, so long as they understood the "typical reaction" of Good NPCs.)
Worst reputations:
1: Necromancers.
2: Assassins.
3: Fiend Warlocks.

[Guizonde]

when i dm, i tell my players the barest minimum and in return, i ensure that the story focuses not on their backstories (ie: "haha, your sister was kidnapped by the bbeg!") but on how the character grows during the campaign. so far, this style has pleased my players. on occasion, i'll use the pc's backstory for a momentary bonus (like a character who grew up in a mechanic's workshop to explain their proficiency and class will invariably also have access to said workshop to build things), but i'd rather see what the mechanic will do with all that knowledge to advance the story. sure, i redlight some things to keep it kosher with the universe, but fundamentally i don't care about the past, i worry about the future. it helps frag mary-suedom. you may be the best in the arena, but let's see if your character can prove it during the story.

the pathfinder game i keep quoting ("cayden caillean's finest crew") takes the opposite approach: the dm asked us for backstories that were rich and unsolved. the entire story boils down to "save the world from a god-killing bbeg". kinda boring, and the dm knows it and did it on purpose. our party is the main focus: each story arc exists to solve the pc's backstory: the cleric's relationships with dragons (a soul destined to safeguard dragons from evil worship), why did the monk not have a name (because he had to prove himself to his god), why was the bard exiled (because his siblings tried to take over absalom by pactising with demons), and why the hell did josé have such a weird and silent relationship with his parents? (because human-drow love stories are frowned upon by everyone and like josé actually wanted to save the world. the family sacrifices itself with the power of love to save the world and destroy the abyssal plane).

josé is now canonically dead. hell, i even wrote "KIA" in permanent marker on the sheet. you don't have too many options to ensure perma-death in pathfinder outside of actively planning it with the dm, and we worked on that for months. the dm told me the chances for josé to retire existed, but were slim, so there still was an element of surprise and choice when he finally decided to nuke the abyss. it wasn't the only option, but it fit with his tendency to emphasize collateral damage over subtlety.

my reroll is more fitting with my style of dm'ing, with a "complete" if laconic backstory. the dm did not want to add another story arc to an already long campaign, and we agree that it'll be more interesting to see what the new character will do having already been blessed by the gods. the character comes into play with the same ecl as the party, and with campaign bonuses in accordance with the ones given by those whose backstory is complete:

Spoiler: campaign rewards

Show

(eva, had she not left the campaign would have had skyrim's dragonborn shouting ability and a 1/day draconic form for combat, kami has the soul of a great monk which functionally makes him a gestalt character, free is the owner of a very large commercial empire. josé was immune to possession and had a permanent aura of banishment and smite evil on all evil-aligned creatures and characters)

. the new character basically is a halfling cleric with a druid companion that works like a paladin's mount and 6 more feats than normal. how did she become so hardcore? because the dm and i built the backstory together to explain why the hell a nomadic halfling shepherd ended up level 10 on a quest to save the world (ok, and to make sure she was as broken as the rest of the team).

tl; dr: i like to focus on the story over character backstory. it works.
my dm likes to focus character backstory over the story. it works too.

[jjordan]

I think that in an ideal situation everyone gets together in the same room with some food and drink and starts talking about what they want. This is brainstorming and it's the DM's job to ensure it gets treated as such. You can reinforce ideas, but not tear them down. This conversation should lead to some consensus on basic questions. If it doesn't, then maybe you need to shuffle the group/find a different game.

As a DM I prefer a more sandboxed approach. I will set up the world and populate it with groups and individuals that have agendas that will progress as the game goes on. If I can, I build this world after getting input from players on what they are looking for. If I get the input after building then I take the input and modify the world so that mechanics the players have put forward have their place in the world alongside the other agendas.

Now everyone has a world they can relate to in a less impersonal fashion. This provides a lot of opportunities. Most of which won't be used, but that's fine.

[farothel]

Provided there’s a degree of flexibility and agreement between the players there’s no problems with Tetrising a party together.

The problems arise if players are selfish. For example:
- if you decide that your character is my character’s long lost younger brother, but I don’t want my character to have a family relationship with yours.
- if you decide that you are playing [X] class with [Y] features and refuse to change even though the party needs [Z] you are forcing another player to take [Z] even if they are actively dislike that.
The problem is when your choices adversely affect the fun of other players. There’s a reason why it’s a common trope for the last player to sit down at the table to be given the role of cleric, a lot of people have more fun playing other classes.

I'm probably privileged insofar that we play with a stable group for over 10 years, so we know each others strengths and weaknesses and we also know what each person likes to play (or not likes to play). And since we also almost Always have multiple campaigns running, we can often compromise (I play the fighter here then you can play the fighter in <other campaign>). So far we've Always managed to get a good party.

And yes, in pary bickering (like the aforementioned gimli-legolas thing) is something that happens quite often and has never been a problem. In fact, it's often quite amusing. I remember a party where one player was a bhudist monk type and the other an ex-spetsnaz commando. The philosophical discussions between those two were quite amusing.

[GreatWyrmGold]

I'd love to play a game where something like that mattered...but as of late, I've only had time to run pregen adventures, and you can only do so much to work character backstories into those...especially when half of the adventure path is on the wrong plane, or when the players barely give you anything to work with.

That said...one thing I've wanted to do for a while is run a game where I ask for backstories first, then write a setting and plot that complements them. Kind of the opposite of what the OP's doing, but still.

[Tanarii]

Or, alternately, why can't I decide that I want to play your little brother, swept away by a storm & raised by wolves… and then, when we get to the table, pick what class(es) I learned between them and now, based on the needs of the party?

c) unilaterally make demands on each others backstories

You guys must hate all the games where this is a requirement of making a character. Off the top of my head, several Powered by the Apocalypse games (Apocalpse world, dungeon world), and the free League games (Mutant Year Zero, Forbidden Lands), all require each player to choose their relationship to each other character in ways that define the other's history. Often in ways that are strongly suggestive as to that other character's associated personality & motivations.

[PhoenixPhyre]

You guys must hate all the games where this is a requirement of making a character. Off the top of my head, several Powered by the Apocalypse games (Apocalpse world, dungeon world), and the free League games (Mutant Year Zero, Forbidden Lands), all require each player to choose their relationship to each other character in ways that define the other's history. Often in ways that are strongly suggestive as to that other character's associated personality & motivations.

Do those games let the affected player push back or reject proposed definitions? If so, not an issue. I don't like things like "I'm the lost prince of your country and you're my servants" unless the others agree without pressure.

And generally, I'm not fond of PbtA games--they don't do what I want and have very opinionated and inflexible styles of play (mainly the DM rules) that conflict with my style. But that's just me.

[BWR]

Generally I prefer detailed settings I can sink my teeth into and build characters from existing cultures. I'm the opposite of Quertus in that 'not from around here' as an excuse to not know anything about the world is just even more of a headache for me as a player or as a GM. Then I have to figure out what sort of culture 'not from around here' is and how it interacts geographically and culturally with 'around here'.
Lack of setting detail means I am more concerned with mechanics, which means it takes even longer for a character's personality to gel.

A meaty world to get into and build characters out of, rather than making a character and placing it into the world is my preferred approach both as a player and as a GM. I prefer backstories for beginning level characters to be minimal and mostly uninteresting. I have made things work with 'runaway princess' but that was annoying.
The higher level (or other systems' equivalents) a character starts the more important a backstory can be.
Exceptions to this are if everyone is building around the same or interwoven backstory or if characters are in some way tied to elements previously introduced in game. In one of our games we have a troupe of PCs who are all descended from my first PC, so they have very specific and detailed, but also very strict, backstories.

[Tanarii]

Do those games let the affected player push back or reject proposed definitions? If so, not an issue. I don't like things like "I'm the lost prince of your country and you're my servants" unless the others agree without pressure.

the goal appears to be from your characters perspective, and thus suggesting roleplaying opportunities to the other player they might not have though of otherwise. But they often kinda sneak in facts along the way.

Here's some examples from Mutant Year Zero and Forbidden Lands suggested relationships:
... was still standing after one of your punches.
... fought by your side.
... left you to die.
... is wonderful. Some day he/she will be yours.
... scammed you out of some bullets. He’s going to pay for it.
... saved you from trouble. What does he want in return?
... is your way to the top. Stay close.
... is stupid and easy to manipulate.
... doesn’t understand her role in the world. You shall guide, but not teach.
... is drawn to dark arts and must be kept under close watch. If needed, it’s your duty to stop her.
... is a slender oak that could grow into something great, given the right care.

And generally, I'm not fond of PbtA games--they don't do what I want and have very opinionated and inflexible styles of play (mainly the DM rules) that conflict with my style. But that's just me.

I think PbtA did something interesting and innovative, making is far more defined what it means to be the GM. Having rules for the DM is a groundbreaking concept, especially since they showed how to do it in a semi-flexible way.

Personally AW doesn't strike me as my cup of tea long term, but I'd still like try it some day. Especially since it seems designed to be a one-shot / short campaign anyway.

(Conversely I'm gearing up to do a trial run for Forbidden Lands. It's strongly OSR-reminiscent, but interestingly you get as much XP for your Pride or Dark Secret (narrative tools) as you do for looting a valuable treasure, defeating a monster, or enhancing your stronghold.)

[PhoenixPhyre]

the goal appears to be from your characters perspective, and thus suggesting roleplaying opportunities to the other player they might not have though of otherwise. But they often kinda sneak in facts along the way.

Here's some examples from Mutant Year Zero and Forbidden Lands suggested relationships:
... was still standing after one of your punches.
... fought by your side.
... left you to die.
... is wonderful. Some day he/she will be yours.
... scammed you out of some bullets. He’s going to pay for it.
... saved you from trouble. What does he want in return?
... is your way to the top. Stay close.
... is stupid and easy to manipulate.
... doesn’t understand her role in the world. You shall guide, but not teach.
... is drawn to dark arts and must be kept under close watch. If needed, it’s your duty to stop her.
... is a slender oak that could grow into something great, given the right care.

These all come from a standpoint of facilitating inter-party drama. And I hate that in a cooperative game. Totally personal taste here, but games that try to push inter-player drama get a hard NOPE from me immediately. I don't PvP. For a fun game for me, the party must be the basic unit. Things that complicate the party's life are disfavored. Things that pit one player against another leave a horrible taste in my mouth.

I think PbtA did something interesting and innovative, making is far more defined what it means to be the GM. Having rules for the DM is a groundbreaking concept, especially since they showed how to do it in a semi-flexible way.

Personally AW doesn't strike me as my cup of tea long term, but I'd still like try it some day. Especially since it seems designed to be a one-shot / short campaign anyway.

(Conversely I'm gearing up to do a trial run for Forbidden Lands. It's strongly OSR-reminiscent, but interestingly you get as much XP for your Pride or Dark Secret (narrative tools) as you do for looting a valuable treasure, defeating a monster, or enhancing your stronghold.)

I strongly disagree that PbtA has anything like flexibility in its DM rules. They're hidebound. Not mechanically so, but everything I've read about the underlying philosophy screams "this is the only way to play and if you do it otherwise you're a bad DM". And it doesn't cabin those opinions to that game. So you get lots of people who think that the style is definitional and applies everywhere, when it doesn't. It's just as particular as a deeply crunchy game, but it just doesn't have the honesty to say what it is.

Trying to set rules for the DM is futile in anything but a totally player-driven game (which very few are). Because as long as the DM is also a content creator, no rule can constrain them. The constraints on the DM are entirely meta. Then again, my concept of what a TTRPG "rule" is is probably quite different than most, so...

[Tanarii]

Trying to set rules for the DM is futile in anything but a totally player-driven game (which very few are). Because as long as the DM is also a content creator, no rule can constrain them. The constraints on the DM are entirely meta.

Breaking this mindset appears to have been exactly their goal. They have shown a way to make the GM side of things crunchy and have 'rules'. It proves the concept: that it is possible to construct 'rules' or 'crunch' about the narrative and meta, that the GM willingly constrains themself with going in, which steer the type of game that is played.

I'm sure they were aware that it wouldn't resonate as a play style with people who refuse to believe the concept of DM rules is even possible.

[Hypersmith]

I'm a huge fan of having a collabed backstory. Getting my fingers into it, weaving it into the plot, seeing characters grow and players excited at what they brought coming to life for everyone to interact with. One of my greatest joys when GMing.

[PhoenixPhyre]

Off-topic response to @Tanarii

Spoiler

Show

Breaking this mindset appears to have been exactly their goal. They have shown a way to make the GM side of things crunchy and have 'rules'. It proves the concept: that it is possible to construct 'rules' or 'crunch' about the narrative and meta, that the GM willingly constrains themself with going in, which steer the type of game that is played.

I'm sure they were aware that it wouldn't resonate as a play style with people who refuse to believe the concept of DM rules is even possible.

It goes back to the basic nature of the game, and how those devs and I have very different ideas about what it should be. I come from the position that the default is free-form, and that rules are there to ease the burdens and to enable fair and simple resolution of uncertainty. The players each individually play characters in a broader world that is independent of them. In that model, a DM has a grab-bag of roles:
Content creator. The DM builds and populates the world. This can be outsourced to a 3rd party (a module writer, for example), but this is irreducibly the responsibility of the DM. He is the final arbiter of what appears in the world. Until he narrates it, it doesn't exist.
Rules arbiter. The DM usually is the one to resolve questions about application of uncertainty resolution mechanics. This can be completely delegated to the group, although it usually isn't.
Voice of the NPCs. The DM is responsible for role-playing the NPCs.
World-Player Interface. The DM is the sole conduit for information about the PCs and their environment.
Plot-Shepherd/pace-setter. In campaigns with external plots, the DM is responsible for moving things along at the appropriate pace. In more sandboxy ones, he's the one who moves the world through the appropriate time-steps as the campaign occurs.

The big one that is not conducive to fixed rules is the first. Being the sole content creator is incompatible with being constrained by rules about how that content exists. "Rule 0" isn't an external rule, it's a necessary artifact of the style of play. It's a recognition that constraining the one in charge of the rules and the content is rather futile.

AW and kin feel to me like someone trying to enforce their "one true style" on everyone else. To insist that the GM is merely the servant of the players, merely an adjunct book-keeper and that the world and everything in it are really the players to do with as they please (subject to mechanical pushback). It puts the players in the role of content creators, and demands that they fill the void. It caters to a specific subset of the hardcore "sandbox or die" crowd, but pretends to be generically useful (or at least its fanboys portray it that way). It also demands that the players produce most of the drama and conflict between themselves, something I find abhorrent in a cooperative game. That last part is pure taste on my part--I hate anything that even smells slightly like PvP.

[Great Dragon]

@PhoenixPhyre
Nicely put.

@GreatWyrmGold
Completely understand.

I would totally not like a tRPG to "bind" me to a set of Rules that were unyielding. I have enough trouble with Rules Lawyers - without them pointing at the book, and quoiting the restrictions of what I can do.

Spoiler: My Campaign

Show

I have tried, more times than I care to count, to build my own Campaign World, but then something happens:

The Players don't care enough to get engaged, which means that all I did was a complete waste of time. Or: they say: "We want _____ Campaign World!" Or: I lose everything by having to move.

As a result, I'm kinda burned out on doing True Homebrew World/s, anymore. And, I don't have a computer for Campaign Cartographer (or similar), with a printer. And being limited to my phone for online access, means that it's not worth the effort, at least right now.

So: I simply used the Forgotten Realms (making some personal changes) as the Foundation, and now just grab premade modules (from all Editions) most of the time. If I can, I'll update and/or rewrite them to either fit better into my World, or just be different. The thread "The Old Keep" was an example of my doing this.
(the help I did get really was greatly appreciated.)

Right now, I'm lucky enough to have Players (in two different games) that will work with me on their Backstory, to fit in with the game.

[Quertus]

Generally I prefer detailed settings I can sink my teeth into and build characters from existing cultures. I'm the opposite of Quertus in that 'not from around here' as an excuse to not know anything about the world is just even more of a headache for me as a player or as a GM. Then I have to figure out what sort of culture 'not from around here' is and how it interacts geographically and culturally with 'around here'.
Lack of setting detail means I am more concerned with mechanics, which means it takes even longer for a character's personality to gel.

A meaty world to get into and build characters out of, rather than making a character and placing it into the world is my preferred approach both as a player and as a GM. I prefer backstories for beginning level characters to be minimal and mostly uninteresting. I have made things work with 'runaway princess' but that was annoying.
The higher level (or other systems' equivalents) a character starts the more important a backstory can be.
Exceptions to this are if everyone is building around the same or interwoven backstory or if characters are in some way tied to elements previously introduced in game. In one of our games we have a troupe of PCs who are all descended from my first PC, so they have very specific and detailed, but also very strict, backstories.

(Amused tone) excuse me? It's not an "excuse" to not know the setting, it's a tool to get to explore the unknown. Because, for me, that's the best part!

You guys must hate all the games where this is a requirement of making a character. Off the top of my head, several Powered by the Apocalypse games (Apocalpse world, dungeon world), and the free League games (Mutant Year Zero, Forbidden Lands), all require each player to choose their relationship to each other character in ways that define the other's history. Often in ways that are strongly suggestive as to that other character's associated personality & motivations.

Fair to say that I hate it. The point of a character, for me, is to explore a particular facet of humanity. Forcing random detritus into my carefully crafted personality & backstory is like throwing dynamite at scientific experiments or bridge builders - it's counterproductive in the extreme.

I also agree with PhoenixPhyre that the particular implementations of dynamite you are describing is antithetical to my general cooperative gaming philosophy.

I'm a huge fan of having a collabed backstory. Getting my fingers into it, weaving it into the plot, seeing characters grow and players excited at what they brought coming to life for everyone to interact with. One of my greatest joys when GMing.

… I must be missing something here. Why can you not enjoy watching the "characters grow and players excited at what they brought coming to life for everyone to interact with", without being involved in the backstory?

[Great Dragon]

*Start of Game*

"It was the day that four Mysterious Travelers drifted into town. None of them knew any of the others, their past deeds, or their Abilities. Only what was visible: clothes and gear, armor and weapons.

Everyone on the street wondered if there was even a sliver of hope that these would be the ones to save their beleaguered town..."

***
I .... suppose that might work out.

[Hypersmith]

… I must be missing something here. Why can you not enjoy watching the "characters grow and players excited at what they brought coming to life for everyone to interact with", without being involved in the backstory?

My statement wasn't exclusionary. I can very much enjoy that, though I have a preference - but I should clarify what I mean by "what they brought to life". And that's a part of the world they crafted with the understanding I intended to use it later on to create plot hooks that relate directly to their character. These places, people, discoveries, and relationships are more often than not the player's original writing, and the collaboration is them reaching out to me to find a spot in the world to slot it in, and if there isn't a space like that, then to create one. It gives the character authenticity, a background, and reasons to do what they do. The holes they left, I fill in with secrets and a story they will hopefully enjoy. This isn't something I spring on them - I tell them it's my intention before they start making anything.

You mentioned earlier that you don't like the GM meddling with your story that way, that it should be a one author thing. But if that worked both ways, I don't think I'd have much fun at all. If all my characters were outsiders who had no connection to these lands or people. If GMs turned down my concepts completely because it doesn't fit the world. I think there's a give and take, from both player and GM. Player, consult and work alongside GM to build into a character that's yours, but has a place in the world. GM, don't make a world so rigid only the notions you've come up with so far work. Flexibility is core to D&D as a game. The ability to improvise, to create dialogue and sceneries and roll with the unexpected. I think that should be reflected in both world and character creation.

If a backstory is meant to stand apart from the world, be an outsider and discover things along with way - that's great too. But it's not the only path. And though exploring the humanity of something like that in a character is something I think I would enjoy, I also enjoy the struggles of family, of ghosts of the past haunting you, of pitting personal experiences and ties against the friends you've fought (and maybe died) alongside. I'd actually consider having a character standing completely outside the world also a collaboration with the GM. Where did they come from? Why don't they know anything?

If a player just refuses to engage with my setting, that I don't understand. Things don't happen in a vacuum. And as long as your character exists in the world, it is the GM's jurisdiction. You can't force a slot for them in, just like the GM can't force you to make a character they want.

Of course, this all comes with the stipulation that collaboration isn't a one way road. If the GM wants to have collaborative backstories integrated, talk to the player about what they intend. GM, you're not a mind reader, and the backstory integration is still for everyone, not just the character it affects directly. Make sure what you want to integrate aligns with the players vision of what's going on.

[flond]

Off-topic response to @Tanarii

Spoiler

Show

It goes back to the basic nature of the game, and how those devs and I have very different ideas about what it should be. I come from the position that the default is free-form, and that rules are there to ease the burdens and to enable fair and simple resolution of uncertainty. The players each individually play characters in a broader world that is independent of them. In that model, a DM has a grab-bag of roles:
Content creator. The DM builds and populates the world. This can be outsourced to a 3rd party (a module writer, for example), but this is irreducibly the responsibility of the DM. He is the final arbiter of what appears in the world. Until he narrates it, it doesn't exist.
Rules arbiter. The DM usually is the one to resolve questions about application of uncertainty resolution mechanics. This can be completely delegated to the group, although it usually isn't.
Voice of the NPCs. The DM is responsible for role-playing the NPCs.
World-Player Interface. The DM is the sole conduit for information about the PCs and their environment.
Plot-Shepherd/pace-setter. In campaigns with external plots, the DM is responsible for moving things along at the appropriate pace. In more sandboxy ones, he's the one who moves the world through the appropriate time-steps as the campaign occurs.

The big one that is not conducive to fixed rules is the first. Being the sole content creator is incompatible with being constrained by rules about how that content exists. "Rule 0" isn't an external rule, it's a necessary artifact of the style of play. It's a recognition that constraining the one in charge of the rules and the content is rather futile.

AW and kin feel to me like someone trying to enforce their "one true style" on everyone else. To insist that the GM is merely the servant of the players, merely an adjunct book-keeper and that the world and everything in it are really the players to do with as they please (subject to mechanical pushback). It puts the players in the role of content creators, and demands that they fill the void. It caters to a specific subset of the hardcore "sandbox or die" crowd, but pretends to be generically useful (or at least its fanboys portray it that way). It also demands that the players produce most of the drama and conflict between themselves, something I find abhorrent in a cooperative game. That last part is pure taste on my part--I hate anything that even smells slightly like PvP.

I'll throw into this off topic tangent.

Spoiler

Show

I'm going to be honest. I think that this is pretty overdone.

Remember, when it comes to being the world, in AW the world is designed by The DM, except when either the rules demand otherwise (pretty rare) OR, the DM disclaims decision making to the PCs (less rare, but entirely at the DM's discretion) I actually consider it pretty mid range in terms of "How much it demands player authorship"

Now, does it have rules for the DM? Yes. But those rules are mostly to demand the DM arbitrates the world. Like, while the DM is strongly encouraged to ask the players things and set things up. If they want to set up a war wagon, guess what they can do that. In fact, most of the time, AW works best when the DM is working up the downsides, threats and scarcties, and the players are being asked questions like "What do you do to survive around here? How do you earn?" and other things their characters would know. In play. That's the part they generally develop.

Also, most importantly. It's very much about doing what the world demands. The DM rules are because frankly, the DM ends up having a lot of power as well. There's no generic skill checks. There's very few ways to "roll to get an idea". There are moves, and then there's what the DM says happens.

I'd say it works for a much wider swath then you're giving it credit for here. Not everyone, obviously. And probably not you. (Except maybe DW, which is pretty darn co-op) but this still felt off enough that I felt the need to talk about it.

[Quertus]

*Start of Game*

"It was the day that four Mysterious Travelers drifted into town. None of them knew any of the others, their past deeds, or their Abilities. Only what was visible: clothes and gear, armor and weapons.

Everyone on the street wondered if there was even a sliver of hope that these would be the ones to save their beleaguered town..."

***
I .... suppose that might work out.

"It was the day that four mysterious coders drifted into the lab. None of them knew any of the others, their past deeds, or their Abilities. Only what was visible: clothes and gear, backpack and drink.

Everyone at the Pentagon wondered if there was even a sliver of hope that these would be the ones to write the missile guidance code."

(And the answer is no, those other three idiots shouldn't have been allowed anywhere near anything so complex as a toaster. )

Point is, when you go to do a job, what you describe is often the case.

In an RPG? It not only absolutely can work, but I'd much rather form bonds in game than start with artificial ones.

And, in some future game, if some of the players happen to run characters who already know one another from a previous job? Bonus!

[Malphegor]

Hm. This thread has started me making little postcard sized summaries in jpeg format of potential future characters to send to my DM so he can think about fitting it into his world or reject my dumber ideas like Fantasy Illuminati Agent.

I tend to draw my characters anyway so it'd be cool to do arty things for the guy, he seems to appreciate that.

[Quertus]

My statement wasn't exclusionary. I can very much enjoy that, though I have a preference - but I should clarify what I mean by "what they brought to life". And that's a part of the world they crafted with the understanding I intended to use it later on to create plot hooks that relate directly to their character. These places, people, discoveries, and relationships are more often than not the player's original writing, and the collaboration is them reaching out to me to find a spot in the world to slot it in, and if there isn't a space like that, then to create one. It gives the character authenticity, a background, and reasons to do what they do. The holes they left, I fill in with secrets and a story they will hopefully enjoy. This isn't something I spring on them - I tell them it's my intention before they start making anything.

You mentioned earlier that you don't like the GM meddling with your story that way, that it should be a one author thing. But if that worked both ways, I don't think I'd have much fun at all. If all my characters were outsiders who had no connection to these lands or people. If GMs turned down my concepts completely because it doesn't fit the world. I think there's a give and take, from both player and GM. Player, consult and work alongside GM to build into a character that's yours, but has a place in the world. GM, don't make a world so rigid only the notions you've come up with so far work. Flexibility is core to D&D as a game. The ability to improvise, to create dialogue and sceneries and roll with the unexpected. I think that should be reflected in both world and character creation.

If a backstory is meant to stand apart from the world, be an outsider and discover things along with way - that's great too. But it's not the only path. And though exploring the humanity of something like that in a character is something I think I would enjoy, I also enjoy the struggles of family, of ghosts of the past haunting you, of pitting personal experiences and ties against the friends you've fought (and maybe died) alongside. I'd actually consider having a character standing completely outside the world also a collaboration with the GM. Where did they come from? Why don't they know anything?

If a player just refuses to engage with my setting, that I don't understand. Things don't happen in a vacuum. And as long as your character exists in the world, it is the GM's jurisdiction. You can't force a slot for them in, just like the GM can't force you to make a character they want.

Of course, this all comes with the stipulation that collaboration isn't a one way road. If the GM wants to have collaborative backstories integrated, talk to the player about what they intend. GM, you're not a mind reader, and the backstory integration is still for everyone, not just the character it affects directly. Make sure what you want to integrate aligns with the players vision of what's going on.

Ah, you don't just enjoy watching the *character* come to life, you enjoy watching the *backstory* come to life. Or… do you enjoy watching another player's backstory come to life when you're a player, or do you only enjoy bringing a backstory to life as a GM? Either way, you meant something different from those words than what I read. So I understand your desire to have your fingers in the pie now.

Follow-up question: how many pies do you need to have your fingers in? Do you have experience with only having your fingers in some pies, but not others? Do you have experience with tables of diverse sizes; if so, does this change the equation?

-----

For myself, as a player, if the GM has created a world worth interacting with and exploring, I prefer to *start* as an outsider, with no(ish) connections to those lands or people, and to *form* those connections in play - just like to my fellow PCs. It's not about refusing to engage the setting - exactly the opposite, it's about *wanting* to engage the setting.

[Hypersmith]

Ah, you don't just enjoy watching the *character* come to life, you enjoy watching the *backstory* come to life. Or… do you enjoy watching another player's backstory come to life when you're a player, or do you only enjoy bringing a backstory to life as a GM? Either way, you meant something different from those words than what I read. So I understand your desire to have your fingers in the pie now.

Not one without the other, no, or I would have said "I don't care for the actual character" I think the backstory completes the character. Gives them personality that makes sense. Even if it's just something simple or very straightforward, characters usually don't come into being only when the game starts. And honestly, if you're takeaway from my argument earlier, particularly

exploring the humanity of something like that in a character is something I think I would enjoy, I also enjoy the struggles of family, of ghosts of the past haunting you, of pitting personal experiences and ties against the friends you've fought (and maybe died) alongside.

Is that I don't like characters coming to life, you're being willfully blind. I very much meant what I said, not what you interpreted. I mentioned earlier building into characters. I didn't say the end product is the backstory. I like seeing a chacters backstory come to life, as both player and GM. It just holds an extra joy for me as GM.

Like, what's even the point of a backstory if your character is just a bunch of numbers on a sheet of paper?

Follow-up question: how many pies do you need to have your fingers in? Do you have experience with only having your fingers in some pies, but not others? Do you have experience with tables of diverse sizes; if so, does this change the equation?

-----

For myself, as a player, if the GM has created a world worth interacting with and exploring, I prefer to *start* as an outsider, with no(ish) connections to those lands or people, and to *form* those connections in play - just like to my fellow PCs. It's not about refusing to engage the setting - exactly the opposite, it's about *wanting* to engage the setting.

I've run and played in games that have a healthy range, where backstory didn't make a difference at all to backstory defined how your character interacted with others. Good range of sizes, from 3 to 8 people, not counting GM. And in my experience, more engaging and compelling characters emerged more consistently in games where players cared about where they came from. I don't feel the need to have my fingers in everything, but if I'm doing it, it's all or nothing. Everyone is on board and they all work with me to varying degrees. If it's not an even playing field in that sense, I'm avoiding it entirely, since I'm running for the enjoyment of the table, not just two or three people in it.

As for wanting to engage the setting that way... That just doesn't make sense to me. Because you're starting as a stranger to the other PCs anyway unless it's a collaborative backstory between players. There's no such thing as no, or even noish connections between the character and the world. You come from somewhere. I'm not asking that you make a novel out of where. Showing up as a stranger is normal. Forming connections will happen. It's not like having a backstory means all of a sudden that I expect PCs to know everyone in town or city. It's not like it removes the chance to engage in the world. What it does mean is that you have a place in the world you're engaging with.

[Great Dragon]

Inflexibility on either side of the Screen, makes things a lot harder for the Group.

Now, I think I understand what some people are concerned with:

Personally, I really don't want any of the other Players deciding to portray my PC's Parents, or even Aunt/Uncle. These are usually viewed as "Authority Figures", and I'm playing a RPG to get away from that. Not to mention why someone almost twice the group's Age is still a 1st level Character?

Siblings, and even Cousins?
I'd prefer these being reserved for Trusted Friends. Known at least a year, both In and Out of Game.

Friends, Co-workers, military buddies, Guild acquaintances, etc - are all fine.

@Quertus:
I think that the question about your "outsider" was: do you still make at least a Basic Idea for them?
Beyond just Race, gender (?), Class (Subclass)
And visible items?

Where are they from?
Backgrounds can be used to tell a lot about this.

1) Another Region of the GM's Game World?
If so, do you work with the GM to figure out where that is, and what the customs are?

2) Another Plane/World?

A) Is it another (pre-existing) D&D Campaign Setting?

Are we in Greyhawk, but you want to bring in a Mage from Ravnica? Cool.
What Background, and Which of the 10 Guilds are they from?

Both you and the GM might also need sit down and figure out any conversions for how your "spells" work.
*****
But, trying to say that your Dragonborn is from Dragonlance, usually isn't going to work, because Draconians are vastly different, and figuring out how to change them into 5e PCs would most likely take too much time.

B) Or is it a Custom Made World?
(Including maybe your own)

Either of these can be used to show people cool stuff and ideas about that World.

****

Sure, the other Players don't know anything about your Character, and can have fun finding out about your PC, as well as showing their PCs to yours.

But, "hiding" everything about your PC from the GM, can be another problem.
I could go into personal experiences related to this, but that's not the point, here.

*****

I do sometimes wonder how, exactly, very different PCs get together to begin with:
(Class/Level isn't really important, for this)

Say the Human is from these parts, but the Dwarf and the Elf are each from their own Kingdoms, and the Tiefling is a drifter. And that's not counting personal Traits or Flaws.

Go one step further, and say that the Dwarf is actually a Duergar, and the Elf is an Eladrin.

My "Mysterious Travelers" intro really could apply, here.

Sure, everyone starting as a member of "The Adventurers Guild" can be used, but that's just another "you all start in a tavern"… and, kinda lazy.

[Constructman]

Quertus, are you just flat-out opposed to PCs having a preexisting relationship with each other at Session 1?

[Max_Killjoy]

Sure, everyone starting as a member of "The Adventurers Guild" can be used, but that's just another "you all start in a tavern"… and, kinda lazy.

Hmmm... I don't know if that's fair to GMs who are trying to get play going as quickly as possible -- like running at conventions, running on a tight schedule for an evening club, etc.

[PhoenixPhyre]

Hmmm... I don't know if that's fair to GMs who are trying to get play going as quickly as possible -- like running at conventions, running on a tight schedule for an evening club, etc.

Yeah. I do it so we can pick up and play. Back stories can come later. Now for my more relaxed games I might ask for a longer character intro so I can find ways to weave it in or lean on it to give information the character would have. I don't expect the characters to be connected before hand, because that gets confining as to class/race choice due to regional restrictions on races.

[Great Dragon]

Hmmm... I don't know if that's fair to GMs who are trying to get play going as quickly as possible -- like running at conventions, running on a tight schedule for an evening club, etc.

I tend to think those are actually separate.
Yes, time limited games are excluded.
Also games where there are Random Players each time the GM sets the game up, even if the GM goes to the same Location and day/time.

@PhoenixPhyre:
Right, since I don't always have my Gaming Materials with me, I've been known to do the "Tavern" or "Guild" starting points.

Heck, most times my Waterdeep/Undermountain games will start in the Yawning Portal; let the Players get to know (at least the basics) each other, and then decide where they want to go.

But, for games where things are more regular schedules (a Player missing a game once a month is ok), putting in more details really can make things a lot more interesting, for everyone.

****

Now, I don't expect what I do to work for everyone, and all my posts are just my habits and/or suggestions.

I tend to use Google Docs, and keep track of the things that Players do in the game.
(I use Docs, since I can access it on my phone, use my tablet when I have access for detailed updates, and at the library to print anything needed)

So, yes there are things in Undermountain that past PCs have changed, that new players will Encounter now. Other than being interesting to me, if any of those old PCs return - they can still see what they had changed.

I like reading what others here do, and I'll consider trying something new.