Is 750 word too long for a backstory?

[Tanarii]

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

Forlong grew up in a village where his favorite pastime was to watch the town guards at practice. He always wanted to be a warrior who could protect his friends and family. He considers his sword to be his closest friend, and he is always very careful about keeping it sharp and in good shape.

I never insisted on a backstory again. I’m quite sure that if I had required a five-page backstory, he'd have handed me five pages that boiled down to “He’s a fighter who likes to hit things.”

Not a bad start for a list of motivations. One or two more sentences and it'd be just about right. At least the player was on the right track.

[Mastikator]

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

Forlong grew up in a village where his favorite pastime was to watch the town guards at practice. He always wanted to be a warrior who could protect his friends and family. He considers his sword to be his closest friend, and he is always very careful about keeping it sharp and in good shape.

I never insisted on a backstory again. I’m quite sure that if I had required a five-page backstory, he'd have handed me five pages that boiled down to “He’s a fighter who likes to hit things.”

TBH I think that's a good backstory because it clearly outlines what the player wants from the game and what his character wants from the adventure: he wants to crack heads, take names, earn gold and power up. Throw orcs at him and he'll have a whale of a time

[Alcore]

That is the backstory. If you have a Trait, an Ideal, a Personality and a Flaw...You're done. That's kind of one the geniuses of D&D character creation. It's done.

You’re not done… all you have done is make a stranger.


I hate that about 5e. Whenever I make a character and can’t make a backstory (for whatever reason) I find myself cherry picking those things from the small lists provided. Why is that his trait? How did he come to that ideal? Has he always had that flaw? What are the events that shaped him into the name he is today? I don’t know. He is a foreign construct that is barely known and made in a vacuum.


I may not be able to rattle off those things but all I need to do is read the character’s backstory and I will see the answers. Is 750 a little much? Nope. Is it much to give a DM? Yep!

The backstory isn’t for a DM; it’s so i can RP my character. So I know where he came from and what shaped him. He has many more traits and flaws than just one each and knowing the backstory can bring much needed depth.

[Alcore]

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

Forlong grew up in a village where his favorite pastime was to watch the town guards at practice. He always wanted to be a warrior who could protect his friends and family. He considers his sword to be his closest friend, and he is always very careful about keeping it sharp and in good shape.

I never insisted on a backstory again. I’m quite sure that if I had required a five-page backstory, he'd have handed me five pages that boiled down to “He’s a fighter who likes to hit things.”

It’s perfect.

As a DM it tells me all I need to hear.

As a player It gives me more than enough to expand;

1. He grew up in a village and knows something about farming or woodsmanship or a craft his family practiced.

2. He wants to be The Hero and that is his ideal… is he doing it for goodness sake or has his childlike innocence given way to riches? If I am to play him that needs to be decided or me and the DM can work together on a narrative adventure for character growth!

3. He is slightly insane thinking a piece of metal is his friend -or- a more charitable take; has grown increasingly superstitious over the time since he left home.

4. He is likely to be military minded. Not just a warrior but, possibly, well learned in tactics. Ties in with village as he might of had a side seat with monster battles.

One paragraph implies so much more.

[JNAProductions]

It’s perfect.

As a DM it tells me all I need to hear.

As a player It gives me more than enough to expand;

1. He grew up in a village and knows something about farming or woodsmanship or a craft his family practiced.

2. He wants to be The Hero and that is his ideal… is he doing it for goodness sake or has his childlike innocence given way to riches? If I am to play him that needs to be decided or me and the DM can work together on a narrative adventure for character growth!

3. He is slightly insane thinking a piece of metal is his friend -or- a more charitable take; has grown increasingly superstitious over the time since he left home.

4. He is likely to be military minded. Not just a warrior but, possibly, well learned in tactics. Ties in with village as he might of had a side seat with monster battles.

One paragraph implies so much more.

But none of that is from the player.

Nothing wrong with a simple character, but it does sound like a player/DM mismatch there.

[Jay R]

TBH I think that's a good backstory because it clearly outlines what the player wants from the game and what his character wants from the adventure: he wants to crack heads, take names, earn gold and power up. Throw orcs at him and he'll have a whale of a time

Yup. Once I accepted what he wanted, I could make an excellent game for him.

It’s perfect.

As a DM it tells me all I need to hear.

Exactly correct. It told me the two things I needed to hear. He wanted to play a Fighter, and he didn't want to bother with a backstory.

That's the origin of this rule from my Rules for DMs:

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

But none of that is from the player.

Nothing wrong with a simple character, but it does sound like a player/DM mismatch there.

A. You're right. None of that was from the player.

B. There was no player/DM mismatch. I knew Glen for 38 years. He wanted to play the fighter in the group. He was more interested in military tactics than in the specific rules of the game. [His only moments of frustration came when the rules didn't support his specific tactic. And often, if it fit the situation, I did anyway.]

[Kane0]

Personally I limit it to 3 paragraphs or less.

[Lacco]

It depends.

If it's the "this is the epic story of how my character became an adventurer, but please do not touch it, use anything out of it and do not even dare work the NPCs/events/anything described there into your dastardly GM plans!!!" then yes. It's too long. Around 750 words too long.

If it's the "here is the background of my character, please use anything because I want my character to be tied to the world and the NPCs and I want to give you ammunition/opportunity to make it personal for me"... it's nice. A list of hooks is always welcome. Especially if the player came up with them, so I know they are pre-approved.

If it shows me how the character thinks, gives me the basic idea of how to describe things to the character (not only to the player), what they value, what ticks them off and what works for them... it's great.

I'll read it, but my time is... limited. I won't spend time reading through a novella that will not be used in game (I do not like the "do not touch my backstory!" rule some player have).

Also, if I read it, expect comments, suggestions... mainly because I do not use published settings, so I'll try to work in most things the players come up with, but it has to work with the world as it exists in my head, or it falls apart quickly.

The best way to make a backstory is to talk to the GM. Give them idea about the character, but also try to find a balance between the backstory and the world.

Also, the systems that I usually play have backstories baked into character generation in certain way... so even "no player-written backstory" is acceptable because the character gets out of the chargen with some background. And I prefer "no backstory, let's see what we can find about this character" to "detailed backstory, do not touch".

However, for Shadowrun, I had this big list called "50 questions", which in the end contained somewhere around 247 questions (out of which at least 50 were supposed to be answered by the player) and it worked better than most backstories for me, as it painted a nice picture of the character.

Sometimes it's more important to know that the street samurai loves to bring his dates to Chez Pierre, or that the barbarian has dreams about finally meeting his father in Valhalla and getting his approval for his achievements, or that the fencer's family was disgraced for some mysterious reason by someone wearing certain crest... than to have a novella about a character that I can not use in game.

[JNAProductions]

A. You're right. None of that was from the player.

B. There was no player/DM mismatch. I knew Glen for 38 years. He wanted to play the fighter in the group. He was more interested in military tactics than in the specific rules of the game. [His only moments of frustration came when the rules didn't support his specific tactic. And often, if it fit the situation, I did anyway.]

Fair enough! Glad you guys had a good time together. :)

[PhoenixPhyre]

It depends.

If it's the "this is the epic story of how my character became an adventurer, but please do not touch it, use anything out of it and do not even dare work the NPCs/events/anything described there into your dastardly GM plans!!!" then yes. It's too long. Around 750 words too long.

If it's the "here is the background of my character, please use anything because I want my character to be tied to the world and the NPCs and I want to give you ammunition/opportunity to make it personal for me"... it's nice. A list of hooks is always welcome. Especially if the player came up with them, so I know they are pre-approved.

If it shows me how the character thinks, gives me the basic idea of how to describe things to the character (not only to the player), what they value, what ticks them off and what works for them... it's great.

This. Although I tend to mine things for hooks more--I see backstory and "background" (along with the trait/bond/ideal/flaw because I'm playing 5e) as being player-approved plot eyebolts. Places for me to attach hooks. Ways the player is saying they're willing to engage with.

I do have a standing (and articulated) policy of "I won't kill off or drastically alter named people from your backstory without giving you a chance to respond and stop it. For more 'hidden secret' types, I'll generally clear it with you unless you've explicitly left that open (such as by saying 'I don't know why X did Y')". So mysteries in backstories are often just as useful to me as clear statements. I had lots of fun (and so did the player) with a character whose backstory is

"I don't know who I am, or what I'm doing. I have this rune (from where I get my name) and a sword and some powers. I have vague memories of serving...something. Now I wander looking for my past and looking to survive."

because the player trusted me to make it engaging.

[KorvinStarmast]

"I don't know who I am, or what I'm doing. I have this rune (from where I get my name) and a sword and some powers. I have vague memories of serving...something. Now I wander looking for my past and looking to survive."

because the player trusted me to make it engaging.

Comment from a fellow player in that campaign: this worked for the whole group in that the mystery engaged us, and we helped the PC try to figure it out. (The other PCs all had a much better idea of who they were and where they were from).

[PhoenixPhyre]

Comment from a fellow player in that campaign: this worked for the whole group in that the mystery engaged us, and we helped the PC try to figure it out. (The other PCs all had a much better idea of who they were and where they were from).

Yeah. Having a balance is useful.

[Jay R]

If my DM said that he didn't want a backstory, and wouldn't read one, I would still have a pretty long one written by the time the character was completely designed. It's part of how I decide what skills and abilities he would have.

But that's my process for my purposes. If writing a backstory doesn't help you design the character, then don't do it my way.

[Tanarii]

What if you had 15 minutes to create your character at the table right before launching into the first adventure? Would you even be willing to play in such a game. Many TTRPGs are fully capable of doing that, and it's a great capability to have.

[Tawmis]

What if you had 15 minutes to create your character at the table right before launching into the first adventure? Would you even be willing to play in such a game. Many TTRPGs are fully capable of doing that, and it's a great capability to have.

For me, I would. I wouldn't let the fact I don't have a background prevent me from playing.
But as we're playing, or even after, I'd probably be scribbling things down for what I'd want for my background to get a better feel.
And sometimes, a background isn't needed.

There two games I run - one I call "off week" (which is on the opposite Tuesday of my normal game I run) - where, as a DM I improvise everything. A few players joined. And it's just a ton of RP, where their personalities were developed as we played.

There's literally a game that's me and one other person (from all of my other games, and an excellent RP person) - who were were both like, "Man, I wish there was a game tonight." And I just said, "Screw it. Roll up a character on D&D Beyond. I'll make up an adventure by the time you're done." And we've been playing that every few days, just to kill time, laugh and have a good time. No background was needed. It happened during game play.

But for example, in Out of the Abyss game I play in (and said player above) is also in - we talked and wrote up how we're brother and sister, representing darkness and light in conflicting ways - I am a Tiefling Paladin, while she's a Fallen Aasimar Druid. So when I hit Level 3 I took Oath of the Ancients, to match her druid side.

[Kurt Kurageous]

I didn't find the source of the quote, but the thought was filling out the 2x personality traits, idea, bond, flaw is enough. The reply was, "You've made a stranger."

Once upon a time I'd have agreed.

Now I tell my players in session zero to pick one out of the five and put it on the sheet. As we play, when you learn more about the character, write what you learned in the appropriate space and earn inspiration.

If you bring a fully actualized personality to the table, where's the growth? You have made a character that is doomed...to be boring.

I don't mind a loose backstory as long as I get an idea about the PCs personal goals and motivations. I don't care or use much more than that.

[KorvinStarmast]

I didn't find the source of the quote, but the thought was filling out the 2x personality traits, idea, bond, flaw is enough. The reply was, "You've made a stranger."

Once upon a time I'd have agreed.

I think the "you've made a stranger" is closer to the mark. The 2 T + B+I+F is a skeleton; you can put the flesh on the bones with the back story, be it obese or anorexic in terms of prose.

Not only that, but in D&D 5e background doesn't tell you anything about how you arrived at your choice for class since any background can be applied to any class. That little fleshing out - decide how you ended up as a Fighter, Sorcerer, Rogue, what have you - adds depth to the character. It need not be a paragraph, or paragraphs long, but it fills in something that the background does not.

Granted, if you choose Soldier background for Fighter or Paladin, that part is done. If you choose Entertainer background, though, or Urchin, for the Fighter or Paladin, you may need to add a little bit to tie it all together.

But it's still a case of 'who the character was' not "who the character will become as a result of embarking on this adventure" if they survive the first one. That latter part is why we play: we find out who the PC becomes through the course of their adventuring career.

[Batcathat]

If you bring a fully actualized personality to the table, where's the growth? You have made a character that is doomed...to be boring.

Most of the arguments in this thread are a matter of taste (even if some people seem to believe their subjective opinion is more than just that), but this is just plain incorrect. There's no reason why having an actual backstory should make a static personality any more likely, much less a certainty.

Personally, I think having a character go somewhere is easier if they are actually coming from somewhere, but that part is probably subjective.

[Tawmis]

Most of the arguments in this thread are a matter of taste (even if some people seem to believe their subjective opinion is more than just that), but this is just plain incorrect. There's no reason why having an actual backstory should make a static personality any more likely, much less a certainty.
Personally, I think having a character go somewhere is easier if they are actually coming from somewhere, but that part is probably subjective.

It's very much up to the player (and DM) - and their relationship to the campaign.
Most of my origins are of a small event that helped shape why my character chose the path they're on (Fighter, Druid, etc), and typically some NPCs that the DM can use if they want, but not expected to.
As I said, I've got two games where I DM and didn't ask for backgrounds - because the people involved are strong RPers.
But when you want to plan something to give to the DM - like two of the players being siblings, that deserves a write up if it's more than "We're brother and sister."
Like the OotA game I am in, I mentioned my character is a sibling to another - but it's a more complicated origin.
So we wrote up a single page and handed it to the DM. She used it as part of the tarot card reading. So it was a nice touch.

But, over all, I do love backstories. (My signature will verify that!) Both because I feel like it helps give a feeling for the player and the DM, what that character is like.
Yes, quick notes work too "Works hard, doesn't like dwarves, has a fear of water" - that's good info, sure. But why the dislike of dwarves? What happened to make them fearful of water?
Info that's NOT needed, really - if the person RPs the notes.

It is always a matter of preference, and there is no right or wrong answer.
Every table will have their own ways.

[Jay R]

What if you had 15 minutes to create your character at the table right before launching into the first adventure? Would you even be willing to play in such a game. Many TTRPGs are fully capable of doing that, and it's a great capability to have.

Yes, I am willing to take on a challenge. There is no logical connection from "This is my usual process" to "I would never do anything else if that process weren't available."

If you bring a fully actualized personality to the table, where's the growth? You have made a character that is doomed...to be boring.

Gosh, I guess I've been bored all these decades when I thought I was enjoying role-playing games.

Hint: A "fully actualized" young adult who has never been on an adventure still has the potential for lots of growth.

[Tawmis]

If you bring a fully actualized personality to the table, where's the growth? You have made a character that is doomed...to be boring.

You mean to tell me - since you hit the age of 18, in real life - your personality hasn't changed?
Things that have happened in your life (loss of a family member, pet, favorite pet rock) have had no impact on you?

If so, that's amazing.

While the core of who I am, hasn't changed - the numerous things, hell in the last two years alone (just in my own life, let alone the rest of the world), have drastically changed several things about how I act and view the world.

Coming to the table, with a fleshed out adult character, doesn't mean they're not going to change.
What if the characteristic is that they're this rough and tough kind of fighter, a gladiator sort, who has fought and killed for money.
But somewhere along the adventure, they see a village that orcs rampaged, and see several dead young and elderly.
And suddenly the idea of having killed others for sport and money isn't so great to them?

There's ample opportunities, for any person - if they're good at RP - to show character growth.

You can look at any movie, for example. These characters (say Star Wars) come in already with a backstory. Solo has a bounty on him. Seems to care only about money. Meets Leia, ends up falling in love, and he no longer is just out for the money. Luke, a dreamer, learns to become a Jedi, learns the truth about Vader, and is not only slightly changed - helps Vader find redemption.

These are they types of things that can happen in D&D too.

[Alcore]

What if you had 15 minutes to create your character at the table right before launching into the first adventure? Would you even be willing to play in such a game. Many TTRPGs are fully capable of doing that, and it's a great capability to have.

The mechanics of the sheet is easy; I’ve already selected my character in my head and I am just trying to get my character sheet to match. Depending on the system stuff might get lost or added but it’s still the same character (often retaining growth unless I forgot he grew).

Backstory would have to be written later; it’s play time not writing time.

I didn't find the source of the quote, but the thought was filling out the 2x personality traits, idea, bond, flaw is enough. The reply was, "You've made a stranger."

Once upon a time I'd have agreed.

If you bring a fully actualized personality to the table, where's the growth? You have made a character that is doomed...to be boring.

That would be me. Though I think a difference in definition is the only reason for any disconnect.


As another pointed out; “you have made a skeleton”. I do agree that playing them can flesh them out you are often facing “early installment weirdness” instead. It would be like watching Pirates of the Caribbean: the Black Pearl with Jack Sparrow having a different personality every few scenes as Johnny discovered who Jack Sparrow is. Granted; that probably did happen off screen but by filming everyone was in character.

Traits, ideals, bond and flaws are like tropes. Great tools but can be misused. If you just handed me a list I would either flounder around until I discover my character or I would exemplify those tropes make a flat and boring character. Some people are great at improv and could flourish but i am not that person.

[False God]

I didn't find the source of the quote, but the thought was filling out the 2x personality traits, idea, bond, flaw is enough. The reply was, "You've made a stranger."

Once upon a time I'd have agreed.

Now I tell my players in session zero to pick one out of the five and put it on the sheet. As we play, when you learn more about the character, write what you learned in the appropriate space and earn inspiration.

If you bring a fully actualized personality to the table, where's the growth? You have made a character that is doomed...to be boring.

I don't mind a loose backstory as long as I get an idea about the PCs personal goals and motivations. I don't care or use much more than that.

A "fully actualized person" is more likely to be open to growth and change than one who isn't. That's part of what self-actualization is.

Not knowing something about the character is not the same as the character not knowing something about themselves. Many people will go through their whole lives without ever truly knowing anything about themselves. But that doesn't mean they don't like chocolate or puppies, that they do or don't want to get married, that they enjoy time alone in the woods or that they enjoy working with their hands. It just means they'll never know WHY.

Understanding the why of your character is where the growth happens.

[Theoboldi]

As another pointed out; “you have made a skeleton”. I do agree that playing them can flesh them out you are often facing “early installment weirdness” instead. It would be like watching Pirates of the Caribbean: the Black Pearl with Jack Sparrow having a different personality every few scenes as Johnny discovered who Jack Sparrow is. Granted; that probably did happen off screen but by filming everyone was in character.

Traits, ideals, bond and flaws are like tropes. Great tools but can be misused. If you just handed me a list I would either flounder around until I discover my character or I would exemplify those tropes make a flat and boring character. Some people are great at improv and could flourish but i am not that person.

As much as I disagree with Kurt on this, I do want to point out that in my experience, that kind of "early installment weirdness" happens anyways. Fleshing out a character with two paragraphs of backstory or five pages of it does not make a difference in this regard, as it's not so much a matter of not knowing who the character is, but there being a difference between portraying a character in a story written on your own, versus portraying that same character at a table with 4 other people vying for spotlight and a GM presenting you with situations that you yourself did not plan.

In my mind, creating a skeleton is the best you can do, focusing on providing the important fundamentals of a backstory (What is my place in this setting? Why am I involved in this adventure/profession/scenario? Where could we draw out some hooks for the GM to use?) and leaving yourself open and flexible to elaborate on details, specific contacts, and personality features in play. By establishing too much too early, it's trivial to have hooks that are soon no longer interesting or too difficult to integrate into the game's plot, contacts that become irrelevant, and most importantly, a characterization that clashes with what is seen at the table.

Some amount of backstory is important. I think, like you said, that it can actually help quite a bit with making an interesting character that has clear motivations. It gives them some actual grounding, a genuine foundation to build from and actually allow the details that require flexibility to be built.

[Tanarii]

As another pointed out; “you have made a skeleton”. I do agree that playing them can flesh them out you are often facing “early installment weirdness” instead. It would be like watching Pirates of the Caribbean: the Black Pearl with Jack Sparrow having a different personality every few scenes as Johnny discovered who Jack Sparrow is. Granted; that probably did happen off screen but by filming everyone was in character.

Why is it a different personality? That's the point, it's been established, via the personality system. What hasn't been established is historical events, beyond what is included that actually created a motivation as part of the personality system. The other history is just chaff, since it doesn't come with motivations, it doesn't affect decision making.

Being able to establish facts at the table can result in brand new motivations where there was none before. Like in movies and TV shows where you learn something new about the history of a character because it has spawned a new situation, providing a new motivation / plot line. If history has been previously established to be otherwise, it necessitates a retcon.

Of course, done poorly it can rapidly become a series of unbelievable coincidences that everything ties back to a character's previously undisclosed history.

[Jay R]

We're not going to agree about this and there's nothing wrong with that.

Some of us want a detailed character backstory. Others don't. And people have fun both ways.

I have had fun both ways. When I started playing original D&D in 1975, I would build a character in three minutes, half of which was rolling the dice and writing down 6 numbers. And I had lots of fun.

Now I want to go back and forth with the DM to have a character with a clear place in the world, with connections, goals, character traits, and abilities that occasionally come from that. And I have lots of fun.

I told the story about Glen ("He's a fighter who likes to hit things") because he reminded me, after I had gotten too focused on my approach, that you can play just fine with no interest in a backstory.

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

And there's nothing wrong with that.

[Batcathat]

Why is it a different personality? That's the point, it's been established, via the personality system. What hasn't been established is historical events, beyond what is included that actually created a motivation as part of the personality system. The other history is just chaff, since it doesn't come with motivations, it doesn't affect decision making.

Again, motivations are important, but they're not everything. Yes, a character might not need more than motivations to play, just like a house doesn't need more furniture than bed, toilet and kitchen to live in or a resolution system doesn't need more than something like "Roll a d20, if it's under 10 you succeed". Having more than the bare necessities is often preferable, I think.

We're not going to agree about this and there's nothing wrong with that.

Well, yeah. That's like 98 percent of the discussions around here.

[Theoboldi]

Well, yeah. That's like 98 percent of the discussions around here.

Indeed. Nobody's really in the wrong about what they enjoy when it comes to a topic as inconsequential as character backstory. The only thing that matters is whether the player enjoys the used method and whether its a good fit for their group.

We can still discuss the various benefits and drawbacks of our methods, though, and the utilities they may provide for various kinds of games. Its nice to see some different perspectives.

[KorvinStarmast]

The other history is just chaff, since it doesn't come with motivations, it doesn't affect decision making.

That's the part that's just wrong. (See how easy it is to dismiss something out of hand by using the word "just?") As I mentioned above "how did you end up being a wizard/bard/paladin/rogue" is a part of the back story, and if nothing else it's very helpful for the player in terms of drawing a more fleshed out/three dimensional picture of who and what motivates this PC.
(Does that need to be more than a sentence or two? Probably not).

Spoiler: Why this post?

Show

The tone that comes across in that opener *The other history [B]is just chaff* is as bad and unhealthy as the response that opens up 'that's just fluff'

[Tanarii]

That's the part that's just wrong. (See how easy it is to dismiss something out of hand by using the word "just?") As I mentioned above "how did you end up being a wizard/bard/paladin/rogue" is a part of the back story, and if nothing else it's very helpful for the player in terms of drawing a more fleshed out/three dimensional picture of who and what motivates this PC.

If how they became their class includes some kind of motivation for decision making, then it's not chaff. It's history without resulting motivations that is chaff.

Making me get all tautological here.

However, I will concede there can be possible motivations (and accompanying history for them) other than 5e's Alignment/Personality/Ideal/Bond/Flaw categories. And the quote I was responding to about personality changing scene to scene was in the context of that system. I still don't think it's a result that follows, consistency of personality is more likely, not less. Which is why the stereotypical comment for actors is "What's my motivation?"