Character backstory - Better Source DM or player?

[Tawmis]

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

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

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

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

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

[KorvinStarmast]

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

Or, you could stop doing that and write stories for people who lack your gift.
Wait, isn't there a wonderful thread for that?

[Jay R]

It's true that we don't choose our own backgrounds in real life. We don't choose our own intelligence or dexterity either.

Both statements are equally irrelevant to character and background design.

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

3. I often put in specific areas that the character doesn't know, and therefore I don't know either. The GM can develop them and use them as plot points, or leave them alone and they will never be discovered.
[In a game of Flashing Blades (musketeer-era Paris), I once had a character who was a foundling left at the steps of Notre Dame. The GM built a deep political plot out of it, that involved him slowly discovering that he was the illegitimate son of a nobleman. This kind of joy can only happen if the Gm gets to write at least some of my character's backstory. But note that I decided that he was abandoned as a baby.]

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

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

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

[Tawmis]

Or, you could stop doing that and write stories for people who lack your gift.
Wait, isn't there a wonderful thread for that?

I will Venmo you the money for the promotional post.

[KorvinStarmast]

I find broadly speaking that players have trouble keeping track of the minor details of their own backstory, because they aren't regularly on-screen. It's easy to remember that your character hates orcs because they killed your father. It's much harder to remember what your father's name is, because the character only needs that information once every 20 or so weekly sessions, so nearly half a year of real time is going past for the player who has an actual life full of facts to remember.

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

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

Same.

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

Yep.

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

Yep.

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

When the GM offers that kind of input I find that it makes the game better for me.

I will Venmo you the money for the promotional post.

I love what you have done with that thread; sorry I don't contribute to it, I like to write little back stories and as time goes on, I am trying to get better at it.

[False God]

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

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

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

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

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

[Reversefigure4]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[KorvinStarmast]

That's an impressive memory!

Been true for most of my life. That makes it much more painful to hit the stage of life where little bits and pieces of memory begin to go on vacation and not come back.

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

Very true. If you play one game once or twice a week it's easy to stay engaged with the character past, present, and future. If you are in many games per week, you need to keep key notes on a char sheet. (True even back when we only used 3x5 cards for char sheets)

[PhoenixPhyre]

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

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

[TemporalTravels]

Every player makes a 1st level character with nothing more than a name and the character sheet. Zero background.

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

[KorvinStarmast]

Spoiler: intro

Show

Every player makes a 1st level character with nothing more than a name and the character sheet. Zero background.

Send them into a grindhouse of an intro dungeon. Someone dies, replace them with another character. Repeat until the dungeon is complete.

All PCs now have a solid adventure in their backstories, maybe a connection to the dead adventurer they replaced (my brother Daryl, his other brother Daryl), and reason to stay together as a party. If they improv some detail in their background, say "yes, and."

That's one way to to it. Not sure that every table wants to start with a meatgrinder, though.

[InvisibleBison]

Every player makes a 1st level character with nothing more than a name and the character sheet. Zero background.

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

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

[Tanarii]

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

It works for any game that isn't a "book on TTRPG" format. The first adventure is the tying together background for those that survive it. And those that don't, you roll up new characters and bring them to the group.

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

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

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

[Telok]

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

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

[False God]

That's one way to to it. Not sure that every table wants to start with a meatgrinder, though.

It also doesn't actually generate a backstory.

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

[Jay R]

Every player makes a 1st level character with nothing more than a name and the character sheet. Zero background.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[KorvinStarmast]

It gives all the characters a shared event,

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

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

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

[Thrudd]

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

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

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

[sktarq]

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

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

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

[Tanarii]

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

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

[KorvinStarmast]

Except "survived this event in each other's company" is not a reason to stick together.

One of the things that bonds a group of people together is a shared experience, and a shared harsh experience even moreso.

I'd need a damn good reason to stay with my walking PTSD trigger thankyouverymuch.

Then being an adventurer is likely a bad vocation for you/your character. And I'd suggest giving Call of Cthulhu a wide berth.

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

This.

[Stonehead]

I've been planning my final campaign for a long time and I've been thinking about how best to do it, with the following thought;

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Olffandad]

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

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

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

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

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

[kyoryu]

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

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

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

[sktarq]

One of the things that bonds a group of people together is a shared experience, and a shared harsh experience even moreso.

It can but not in a way that necessarily means you want to stay in high risk with them more. You can just as easily come to loathe them and want nothing to do with them.

Then being an adventurer is likely a bad vocation for you/your character. And I'd suggest giving Call of Cthulhu a wide berth.

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

[KorvinStarmast]

It can but not in a way that necessarily means you want to stay in high risk with them more. You can just as easily come to loathe them and want nothing to do with them.

Depends, but there's no game with a party adventuring together for that situation.

I actually would say you are wrong for that.

That's fine too, though I wasn't sure if you were referring to a RL triggering of RL PTSD or the IC case: looks to be the latter.

[Jay R]

Except "survived this event in each other's company" is not a reason to stick together.

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

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

[Reversefigure4]

It can but not in a way that necessarily means you want to stay in high risk with them more. You can just as easily come to loathe them and want nothing to do with them.

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

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

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

[Batcathat]

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

[Telok]

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

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

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