Character backstory - Better Source DM or player?

[Ixtellor]

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

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

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

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

[Melayl]

I think the opposite, actually. It should be almost all up to the player, with some assistance/guidance (and veto power) from thr GM.

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

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

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

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

[kyoryu]

I've seen random backgrounds (even personalities!) and ones authored by players. Both can work and be fun.

[Anymage]

Not only should players have a bigger say in their backstories, but they should also be trusted to add lore to the campaign setting to help build on that. For three reasons.

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

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

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

[Batcathat]

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

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

[Easy e]

I have done and enjoyed both as a GM and a player.

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

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


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

[Reversefigure4]

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

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

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

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

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

[sktarq]

And the is a major difference between the DM setting their background vs their backstory.

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


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

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

[False God]

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

No. Explicitly. Emphatically.

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

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

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

[KorvinStarmast]

Better Source DM or player?

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

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

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

[Pauly]

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

[Quertus]

Is it better to play your own PC, or a pre-gen? Is it better to play Quertus, or Dr. Strange?

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

Can you guess what my answer is?

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

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

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

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

[Telok]

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

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

[Satinavian]

Backstories should be made by players.

- It makes the player more invested.

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

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

However

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

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

[Vahnavoi]

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

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

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

Of course, as corollary, questions such as this:

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

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

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

[Martin Greywolf]

We as humans don't decide our backgrounds, they are thrust upon on us (aside from some choices we make as children).

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Berenger]

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

[InvisibleBison]

We as humans don't decide our backgrounds, they are thrust upon on us (aside from some choices we make as children).

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

[Xervous]

1. Player proposition
2. GM clarification
3. Repeat until satisfied

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

[Misereor]

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

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

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

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

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

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

[KorvinStarmast]

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

Try Xanathar's Guide to Everything in D&D, it's got some options to help flesh out background with a bit of back story if 5e is your game.

anything is better than a tabula rasa nameless orphan murder hobo.... number 38 in a series.

That's an own goal. Player bears the largest share of the imaginative burden of shaping a back story (of whatever depth) for a character unless something like Traveller the system does it for them.

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

Roughly what I posted, but with nicer presentation.

As a convention game master who regularly hands sheets to players saying "this is what you're playing",

Hmm, have you ever run Lady Blackbird?

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

All too often, a reductio ad absurdum results in an absurd statement. Thank you for providing an example.

1. Player proposition
2. GM clarification
3. Repeat until satisfied

Nice point on the "it's is, or can be, an iterative process" in order for best results.

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

Spoiler: The bare bones character creation approach

Show

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

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

[MoiMagnus]

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Ixtellor]

OP Here:

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

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

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

Spoiler: Mini reaction to 'realism' in gaming.

Show

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

[KorvinStarmast]

Spoiler: Mini reaction to 'realism' in gaming

Show

... just reached a point where I have no desire to play D&D with half dragon paladin/monks and Gensai sorcerers.)

I reached a similar point some years ago, but it's getting very hard to find a table where that isn't the case. So I just roll with it.

[Slipjig]

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

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

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

[Vahnavoi]

Hmm, have you ever run Lady Blackbird?

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

[NichG]

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

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

[solidork]

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

[Reversefigure4]

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

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

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

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

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

---

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

[Tanarii]

I played in a game where the DM wrote all our backstories. And chose our race/class too. I got the Drow Assassin that had been cursed to be Lawful Good.

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

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