What do you perceive is harder? Being a Player or a GM?

[AMFV]

Perhaps for the short attention span generation, that is true.
The cleric who replaced Korvin Starmast (he died) has a 12 page long back story.
Everyone in our group enjoyed it, based on their feedback to me when I sent it to them in pdf format. Would you care to read it, or is that too much for you? I can send you a pdf.

I will say that as a DM, if a backstory is longer than like two pages, I don't even want it. Generally I'm looking for useful notes I can use to integrate the player.

[Kane0]

DMing is more of a mental burden

[False God]

I will say that as a DM, if a backstory is longer than like two pages, I don't even want it. Generally I'm looking for useful notes I can use to integrate the player.

I flatly tell my players two things:
I hand them a 3x5 card and tell them to write down 5 important elements about their character.
Everyone is welcome to provide a longer and more detailed character backstory, but I make no promises on reading it. If you don't provide a cliffnotes sheet, there's no guarantee I'll know anything about your character other than play. Anyone who does this needs to keep in mind that the more they write, the harder I will be on their spelling, grammar, legibility and overall story-writing ability. I will make critique and commentary as I read and return the story when I am finished with these notes (in red pen) on them.

If the second half comes across as intimidating to the players that's the point. If you write well I'm happy to read it. If you don't I've no interest in wading through some FanFiction(dot)net gargabe.

[Jay R]

I will say that as a DM, if a backstory is longer than like two pages, I don't even want it. Generally I'm looking for useful notes I can use to integrate the player.

No problem; it's not primarily for the DM. My character background is how I built the character. The DM doesn't necessarily need to know why my Ranger carries his father's old masterwork axe (for chopping wood, not as a weapon). But I had to know why I spent 50 extra gp on a tool.

Similarly, the DM has to know that my gnome Gwystyl thinks that there is a quest associated with his hooked hammer (which might be a delusion, depending on whether or not the DM wants to use it). But she doesn't need the two-page description of why Gwystyl believes that. But I needed it; it was part of how I decided who Gwystyl was and how he thinks.

So I really don't care if my DM reads it. I had to write it to build the character.


---

As a DM, I want to read everything my players write about their characters. I want to know how they are thinking about their PCs. I can get much more expansive -- not merely to integrate the player into the story and the world, but to build new things that will resonate with them. A mere side comment from one PC about being a shepherdess before becoming a druid became an important plot point in an otherwise political session.

---

My approach works for me; I'm not recommending that anybody change from what works for them.

We all have different approaches, and there's nothing wrong with that.

[Ionathus]

Perhaps for the short attention span generation, that is true.
<snip>
Would you care to read it, or is that too much for you?

Oh, give me a break. Don't bring lazy generational stereotypes into this.

You can look at the shirt on the rack for minutes or hours, but there's no way to tell how it's going to fit on you until you've tried it on for size. Every time I open my mouth at the table to roleplay a new PC, they come out differently than I'd imagined them – regardless of how long I spent on their backstory.

For my first PC I wrote three full pages of backstory, and I don't regret doing it, but it didn't really enrich the experience at all. The second I started talking and taking actions and roleplaying her personality, all that backstory faded to the background and I discovered that XYZ was actually a lot more important to her than ABC. I didn't change the character, I just realized which parts were the most compelling.

A bulleted list of key personality traits, a few ideals/bonds/flaws, and the "hook" that gets you excited about playing your PC is enough for me. If a 12 page backstory works for you, then I'm happy for you. It's not necessary for effective roleplaying, not by a long shot, and in my experience can be a hindrance or a distraction to new players as they obsess about not contradicting their backstories. "Leave blank spaces on the map" to allow for growth and all that.

[Easy e]

**** Snipped a lot of good content. You should go read it! ******

Nothing you say is wrong.

That said, I do think folks on this board have a tendency to "over-complicate" the role of the GM. Maybe it is because we do not get to be players enough and we forget what players actually want out of the game? Perhaps it is because we have all been GMing too long and basic GMing no longer appeals?

Here are some things to recall about many, many (But not all) players:

1. They only care about your NPCs to get them to the next part of the adventure. All of your Innkeepers could literally be the same guy named Phil, and they might not notice; or it would just become a running gag for unimportant NPCs.

2. The PCs do not care much about your world. It is just a vehicle for talking and doing things that they do care about, stuff related to their character. Most of the time, they will barely think about it unless it becomes a barrier to their fun or they want to exploit it somehow.

3. They do not care about the plot, Like the world it is a vehicle to play their character and that is about it. They do not care why the trade federation is boycotting Naboo. They care about what happens when they go to negotiate the end of the blockade.

4. They do not care about the rules of the game. Those are just vehicles to tell stories and do things as their characters. They care what their character can do, and that is about it.

5. Ultimately, they want to succeed in what they want their characters to do. Finish the quest, date the princess, take over the kingdom, find the thing, etc. They do not need to succeed in what you and your world need them to do. They might be happy to date the NPC, and then the world explodes.

Players only really care about their characters. Therefore, just make your world revolve around the characters. That means a lot less prep for you as you only need to worry about the stuff that touches them, and add in more stuff that touches them. The vast majority of players do not own their own books, go on forums, or talk about RPG rules outside of a session. There is no need to overcomplicate your game for them.

Steal liberally from their backstory and use it, give them a few choices and follow where they lead to create new challenges, and only detail stuff that they come in contact with in a session. Then, take some notes as you go for yourself to reference later BUT if the players don't take notes you don't have to worry too much about it either. They won't recall necessarily.

As AMFV said, the players are telling you the game is good. As GMs we are saying it is not. Let's take the feedback from our players at face value. If they say it is good, it is good. If they say do more of X, do more of X. If they want less of Y, do less of Y. We don't have to deliver anymore or less than what the players want.

If as GMs we make it look and feel too hard to GM, then we are only hurting ourselves in the long run. If we make GM look daunting, then you will be the forever GM of your group. If we make it seem hard, we will not get more GMs and therefore will have less games to choose from. If we make GMing looking like a burden then no one will do it and our favorite games will die. If we make GMing seem like a steep learning curve then we will not get a chance to play in cool games put on by others in cool new worlds. No new GMs means our hobby withers.








Caveat= Now, much of what I said is for "basic GMing". I could sit down with no prep and run a 10-12 session sandbox game with 0 prep using the basic "rules" listed above. Just give the players what they want.

Once you have experience GMing, then you can push your players to give you more of what you want as the GM. A different play style, new games, GM-centric plot points, etc. as you feather in your needs collaboratively with the players. I am guessing most of us on this board are "experienced" GMs and that is why we "overcomplicate" GMing. We want to because basic GMing is now boring to us.

[Ionathus]

Here are some things to recall about many, many (But not all) players:

I see your point and I assume you're exaggerating for effect, but I'd disagree with several of these generalizations. Most of the players I've played with are actively invested in the plot, for instance, and many of them enjoy exploring the rules to maximize their PCs' power and effectiveness. And, of course, you should be prepared for any NPC to become a party favorite.

The main thrust of your argument, though, is super true. No amount of prep work or loredumping can make players enjoy a plotline or NPC they don't care about. I see a lot of beginner DMs obsessing over their fictional world, political factions, 1000 years of lore, and numerous NPCs that they poured their hearts into. I think that's a mistake, especially for new DMs who don't know what their players are going to enjoy and engage with. Put them in a tavern in a sleepy country town and give them 3 wildly different plot hooks, and let them tell you what direction they want the story to go.

Basing the story around their characters, weaving their backstories and NPC relationships into the plot, and setting "will this be fun for the players" as your Question Number One is the best path to people enjoying their time at your table.

[PhoenixPhyre]

I see your point and I assume you're exaggerating for effect, but I'd disagree with several of these generalizations. Most of the players I've played with are actively invested in the plot, for instance, and many of them enjoy exploring the rules to maximize their PCs' power and effectiveness. And, of course, you should be prepared for any NPC to become a party favorite.

The main thrust of your argument, though, is super true. No amount of prep work or loredumping can make players enjoy a plotline or NPC they don't care about. I see a lot of beginner DMs obsessing over their fictional world, political factions, 1000 years of lore, and numerous NPCs that they poured their hearts into. I think that's a mistake, especially for new DMs who don't know what their players are going to enjoy and engage with. Put them in a tavern in a sleepy country town and give them 3 wildly different plot hooks, and let them tell you what direction they want the story to go.

Basing the story around their characters, weaving their backstories and NPC relationships into the plot, and setting "will this be fun for the players" as your Question Number One is the best path to people enjoying their time at your table.

Well, yes, no, and maybe. Whether or not they care is both extrinsic and intrinsic, in a circular sort of way. If the DM's world is shallow and doesn't feel "alive", I'm going to be disconnected and playing my character as a chess piece at worst, as a social play-piece at best. If the DM's world is deep, has inviting mysteries, and most of all feels alive when I poke it (ie reacts in at least plausible ways when I interact with it), I'll be more engaged with it.

And DM excitement about their plot and world makes a huge difference. A DM who is full of that ineffable "twinkle", who loves to talk about the world--those DMs naturally attract/generate players who are interested in the world they're portraying. Or at least are more likely to do so.

If you have a flat, unresponsive world, your narrative pacing is off, or your ability to react to the players' actions isn't great, doing a sandbox (letting the players drive) isn't going to be much good either. You might as well just go all-in on a packaged module in a known, externally-defined world and get buy in on that. You'll never hit the highs of a great homebrew campaign...but you'll avoid most of the lows.

And some of it depends on the other players as well--it's really hard to get into a serious campaign's world and plot if even one of the other players is treating it like a joke or is playing chess-piece style (running it purely as a tactical simulator). At least personally.

I'm in a campaign as a player. The DM's a good person, excited about his setting, and the worldbuilding is pretty good. But his pacing is, well, not so great (objectively speaking). By level 8, there's a hint of a plot, but mostly wandering around. We've had...maybe 1 success? And that was partial (saved some of the people, couldn't explore the rest of the place because it was collapsing). Lots of bouncing from place to place, not knowing what's going on. And some of the other players tend (for better or worse) to rabbit hole on particular things to the point that they're slowing play significantly and making it hard to get any session momentum.

I've also, as a DM, been really blessed (can't take credit for it) by having really really good, dedicated players recently. My online group (of which KorvinStarmast is one) is now on their 3rd campaign in the same world. They're super into the world, their characters, and pushing me to explore more mysteries. It's symbiotic, and the world's depth and "aliveness" have benefitted greatly. They routinely RP between sessions, plan for upcoming things, I'll post "dreams and visions" between sessions, etc. And they care about the NPCs as well--we had a good session that was mostly just interacting with their (and others) previous characters, who are NPCs in the world. And one of the big elements of Campaign 1 was dealing with some NPCs (friendly) that they'd built up both in backstory (one characters' son among them) and during play.

My in person group as a DM isn't quite as on-fire about it, but they're also quite involved and very interested in the NPCs and the world.

On the other hand, I've been in groups and DM'd for groups that didn't care at all. Generally I quickly left those ones, because that's a style of play I can't gel with.

[Ionathus]

All fair points!

You're right, the DM does need to care about their world and be excited to run the campaign, and the players will (hopefully) feed off that energy and give it back in a positive feedback loop.

Especially for new DMs though, I do feel that there's a perception that "the more work I've put into developing the world, the better the game will be." And I think that's a fallacy that trips up a lot of new DMs and has them prioritizing the wrong things. Up to and including the classic "we talked about doing a campaign so I went out and wrote an entire novel's worth of setting and plot points and now I'm having trouble getting my players interested in it, why don't they care, don't they know how hard I've worked on this!?"

But maybe that's just a part of being a first-time DM and you can't avoid doing at least one campaign where you over-prepare or write plot points that require railroading your PCs around a bit. I don't think it's a major problem in most cases. But I do have a friend right now who wants to DM a political thriller campaign, and the whole table has yet to sit down and talk about the campaign and what we would be most interested in, let alone build characters or schedule a first session, and he's frantically writing a ton of stuff and getting really excited about it. I recognize that exact experience from the first time I DMed, and I suppose I'm worried that expectations won't meet reality.

[FrogInATopHat]

I will say that as a DM, if a backstory is longer than like two pages, I don't even want it. Generally I'm looking for useful notes I can use to integrate the player.

I don't know how one takes pride in a 12 page backstory, suggests that it should be expected of players and then, with all the misguided will in the world, suggests that reading those backstories (we're taking usually at least 3 more players), incorporating relevant information in the campaign (and dealing with backstory conflicts) is for the GM to do, and then says the GM has the easier job.

The very suggestion is mind-breakingly unbalanced already.

[KorvinStarmast]

I will say that as a DM, if a backstory is longer than like two pages, I don't even want it. Generally I'm looking for useful notes I can use to integrate the player.

I can also write one that is three sentences long.

You can look at the shirt on the rack for minutes or hours, but there's no way to tell how it's going to fit on you until you've tried it on for size. Every time I open my mouth at the table to roleplay a new PC, they come out differently than I'd imagined them – regardless of how long I spent on their backstory.

That's not an uncommon thing to discover in an RPG. Very often (I find) you end up playing to discover who the character will become. {1} A character who starts and ends "the same" particularly if one is in a campaign, doesn't appeal to me as much as one who grows (character development) over the course of play.

{1} But that depends a bit on the RPG, and for one-shots that often doesn't come about.

@FalseGod: your approach looks to be good with the basics and is also flexible enough to accommodate different player styles.

[Easy e]

Something I learned a long time ago is that:

"All sales (read as GMing) is the transfer of enthusiasm from one person to another."

[KorvinStarmast]

Spoiler: snip a few points

Show

Here are some things to recall about many, many (But not all) players:

1. They only care about your NPCs to get them to the next part of the adventure. All of your Innkeepers could literally be the same guy named Phil, and they might not notice; or it would just become a running gag for unimportant NPCs.

2. The PCs do not care much about your world. It is just a vehicle for talking and doing things that they do care about, stuff related to their character. Most of the time, they will barely think about it unless it becomes a barrier to their fun or they want to exploit it somehow.

3. They do not care about the plot, Like the world it is a vehicle to play their character and that is about it. They do not care why the trade federation is boycotting Naboo. They care about what happens when they go to negotiate the end of the blockade.

4. They do not care about the rules of the game. Those are just vehicles to tell stories and do things as their characters. They care what their character can do, and that is about it.

5. Ultimately, they want to succeed in what they want their characters to do. Finish the quest, date the princess, take over the kingdom, find the thing, etc. They do not need to succeed in what you and your world need them to do. They might be happy to date the NPC, and then the world explodes.

Players only really care about their characters.

That's an overly broad assertion. It varies greatly, player by player, IME. TBH, your five points came across as a bit jaded in tone, which caught me a little bit by surprise.

I don't know how one takes pride in a 12 page backstory, suggests that it should be expected of players and then,

Since I did not do that, who do you think did? My response was a riposte to the blythe assertion that any backstory longer that {a certain length} was {negative terms}.
Did I use an extreme case to illustrate my disagreement?
Yes. It's the longest one I've written (by a large margin) in decades.
And the whole table enjoyed it.

But maybe that's just a part of being a first-time DM and you can't avoid doing at least one campaign where you over-prepare or write plot points that require railroading your PCs around a bit. I don't think it's a major problem in most cases.

I am sure that every DM runs into this at some point, and not just first time GM's.
I have had some issues in my Salt Marsh campaign (which I have modified considerably for my own reasons) on the "connection" between the players and the world.
One of my players did a good job of responding to my expressing that frustration in a PM to him by describing to me what he saw as the variations of "the mental map" of the world - that I had - versus what each player has.
When he put it in those terms, it helped me make some adjustments on how I provided clues, world background info, etcetera. Good players give good feedback like that.
Each PC basically has an NPC in Salt Marsh (and in one case up in the Styes) who is, for their own in-world reasons, an ally or associate of the PC and is very much a bit of connective tissue.
But each of the eight players in this campaign (we have had three replaced over the course of the adventures) responds to that connection differently, and with a different level of enthusiasm.

[gbaji]

The main thrust of your argument, though, is super true. No amount of prep work or loredumping can make players enjoy a plotline or NPC they don't care about. I see a lot of beginner DMs obsessing over their fictional world, political factions, 1000 years of lore, and numerous NPCs that they poured their hearts into. I think that's a mistake, especially for new DMs who don't know what their players are going to enjoy and engage with. Put them in a tavern in a sleepy country town and give them 3 wildly different plot hooks, and let them tell you what direction they want the story to go.

I think the key here is to find the right balance and "fit" for the table you are at. I also 100% agree that over prepping can be as problematic (moreso sometimes) as under prepping. As an experienced GM, I can write some very broad stroke outlines and then fill them in "on the fly" as players explore the world. This method may be somewhat intimidating to beginning GMs though, so I totally get the desire to write a ton of stuff. But yeah, that can result in various degrees of railroading behavior (I wrote it, so it has to come into play!), or just frustration by the GM if the players don't find all that stuff terribly interesting.

As you gain experience, you learn what you "really need" to run a scenario well. And yeah, often it's not what a beginning GM thinks they need. And to be fair, a lot of this is from a somewhat misguided effort to mirror what we often find in campaign modules. Tons of detailed maps. Lists of everything in town, or the surrounding area. Detailed NPCs, plots, hooks, etc. It's there because if it's not there, it feels like it's missing to whomever bought the box of stuff you're selling. Er, but what you discover over time is that you really don't need all of that to run something.

Doubly so based on the table makeup. I've had groups of players who absolutely loved delving into intricate plots points, injecting themselves into various intrigues and schemes (and came up with a few of their own, sometimes in conflict with other party members as well). I've also had groups who are just like "Ok. Where are the monsters we're supposed to kill?". What I prioritize in terms of campaign or even scenario writing is going to vary a heck of a lot between those two types of groups.

Someone mentioned "give the players what they want". That's absolutely true. Although, I do tend to have a preference for more complex background interaction (hey. It's my world, right?), so even in the latter type of group, I'll sneak some of that in there anyway. But I don't force players to go in directions they don't want to go. Even if I wrote 20 pages of compex interaction explaining why various NPCs were doing various things that happened around the PCs, if they don't really care, then it doesn't matter to any degree more than "this bad thing is happening. How do you want to stop it" level stuff. They don't always have to know why something happened. But I personally find value in having an explanation ready in case they do choose to investigate.

But yeah. Learn what your players actually care about in your game. If the players don't actually care who "Bob the Innkeeper" is, or about his life history, family troubles, etc, maybe don't spend that much time on that level of detail. If the players actually want that stuff, put it in there. But if the Innkeeper only matters to them as "the guy who rents us rooms, and puts ale/food on our table", then just let that drop.

That's not an uncommon thing to discover in an RPG. Very often (I find) you end up playing to discover who the character will become. {1} A character who starts and ends "the same" particularly if one is in a campaign, doesn't appeal to me as much as one who grows (character development) over the course of play.

Definitely agree with this as a player. I've had characters that I had a very complete idea of who/what/why about on startup, and others I was like "Um... I'm a big guy with an axe". I tend to prefer to think of backstory as prologue. I want my characters to grow as they adventure. And yeah, I've found that even when I do write up some kind of "here's what I want to do with this character", I often find that actual events that occur in the course of play may take this character in a completely different direction.

And that's a good thing IMO.

[Pauly]

[snip a lot of good stuff]
As AMFV said, the players are telling you the game is good. As GMs we are saying it is not. Let's take the feedback from our players at face value. If they say it is good, it is good. If they say do more of X, do more of X. If they want less of Y, do less of Y. We don't have to deliver anymore or less than what the players want.

[snio some more good stuff]

A lot of stuff I agree with in this post.

On the feedback, I follow a symptom/diagnosis/remedy approach. Your users are generally good at telling you their symptoms, not so good at diagnosis and have difficulty with coming up with the best remedy.

For example with a common complaint of “it’s too complicated” it may mean it is too complicated or it might really mean
- this is hew and I don’t understand it yet.
- I was poorly trained by the person who taught me.
- I am not interested
- thus uses a different subsystem to the rest if the game.
- it takes too long

Similarly if you ask someone what car they want to drive and they say ‘a Ferrari “ it doesn’t automatucalllybmean
- they are prepared to learn to drive stick
- are willing to do the maintenance
- want to pay for a Ferrari.

[Jay R]

I don't know how one takes pride in a 12 page backstory, suggests that it should be expected of players and then, with all the misguided will in the world, suggests that reading those backstories (we're taking usually at least 3 more players), incorporating relevant information in the campaign (and dealing with backstory conflicts) is for the GM to do, and then says the GM has the easier job.

The very suggestion is mind-breakingly unbalanced already.

This is all based on a false assumption. You'll never have to read several long backstories. You aren't going to get long backstories from everyone, no matter how much you expect or encourage it.

I once tried to encourage backstories. I had one player whose approach frustrated me; when asked about his PC, Glen would always say, "He's a fighter who likes to hit things." Once, I got frustrated with that, and required at least a 3x5 card worth of character description and backstory. Glen gave me some version of:

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 read that, and never insisted on a backstory or character description again (although I prefer to have them). I’m quite sure that if I had required a five-page backstory, he could have handed me five pages that boiled down to “He’s a fighter who likes to hit things.”

He was more interested in how to flank the orcs than he was in "character development". But that's actually deeper immersion. When the orcs attack, the hypothetical person I'm simulating ought to be more interested in how to flank the orcs than in character development.

That way isn't for me; I want to have a more specific character. But Glen was always playing a role, and it was always somebody that my character was glad to have at his side when the fight started. Once I realized that his way was good for him, and wasn't bad for me, I was able to calm down a lot.

In the game I’m currently running, I have one character with a long political backstory that was the basis for a two-session political adventure. Another PC’s backstory is that she learned to be a bard from an older bard on the village. That mattered once, when passing through the village. I use each person's backstory about as deeply as they wrote it. And that works for all my players. As I wrote in my "Rules for DMs":

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

As I said earlier in the thread, "We all have different approaches, and there's nothing wrong with that."

[False God]

This is all based on a false assumption. You'll never have to read several long backstories. You aren't going to get long backstories from everyone, no matter how much you expect or encourage it.

I once tried to encourage backstories. I had one player whose approach frustrated me; when asked about his PC, Glen would always say, "He's a fighter who likes to hit things." Once, I got frustrated with that, and required at least a 3x5 card worth of character description and backstory. Glen gave me some version of:

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 think you're being overly harsh on your player, I think that's a great backstory, and I think reading it simply as "Forlong likes to hit things." is missing a great deal of what he actually told you. Unlike a lot of longer backstories, this one leave a lot of room open for the DM to add to. Perhaps a childhood friend who also liked watching the guards, maybe even a childhood crush? Bandits, gangs or local lords who abused his friends and family could give him reason to want to protect them. He may also be seen as kinda a weirdo, paying more attention to his sword than maintaining those friendships and family relations. Perhaps there was trouble from within the family, an abusive aunt or drunken cousin, so its hard for him to trust other people, but it's easy for him to trust his weapon.

A player doesn't have to establish every historical detail about themselves to make for a good backstory, and IMO, it's a mistake common in early writing to put in too many details. As a cooperative game, it's also up to the DM to fill in the gaps.
Perhaps Forlong gets discounts at the local blacksmith, because Mr Joe saw just how much Forlong cares for his weapons.*quest hooks
Perhaps Forlong failed the guard test, but the guards think he's a solid guy and always invite him out to drinks. Maybe some of his friends who used to watch the guards with him are now guards.*quest hooks
Perhaps his father thinks he's a delinquent, who abandons his chores to go watch the guards, and a failure for not passing the guard test, getting a nice stable job, and settling down with the neighbor girl Susie. Does Forlong still feel family is worth defending, even if that family thinks he has no worth?*character development
Perhaps Susie wishes she could have the bravery to strike off on her own like Forlong, or maybe she did and something bad happened.*plot hooks and character development

Now, maybe you did all this, I don't know. But I think there's more said in that backstory than you're giving it credit.

[Jay R]

I think you're being overly harsh on your player, I think that's a great backstory, ...

Did you not read the whole post? That backstory was what convinced me to stop trying to get a more detailed backstory out of my players.

I specifically described how he role-played, and how immersive it was. My conclusion was, "Once I realized that his way was good for him, and wasn't bad for me, I was able to calm down a lot."

[False God]

Did you not read the whole post? That backstory was what convinced me to stop trying to get a more detailed backstory out of my players.

I specifically described how he role-played, and how immersive it was. My conclusion was, "Once I realized that his way was good for him, and wasn't bad for me, I was able to calm down a lot."

Yes. And I still don't see that you attempted to engage with that backstory. You just decided Glen's performance in combat was more valuable to the game than any further effort invested in getting him to roleplay. What did Glen do when he wasn't in combat? Zoned out?

There's a difference between losing the desire to want more; and accepting a lower standard. Your post reads more like the former, and less like the latter.

[Ionathus]

Yes. And I still don't see that you attempted to engage with that backstory. You just decided Glen's performance in combat was more valuable to the game than any further effort invested in getting him to roleplay. What did Glen do when he wasn't in combat? Zoned out?

There's a difference between losing the desire to want more; and accepting a lower standard. Your post reads more like the former, and less like the latter.

I'm gonna give Jay R the benefit of the doubt and just assume there were elements of that player-GM interaction they haven't shared with us. Making broad assumptions about what Jay R did or did not also do as the GM feels like a waste of time – I don't see any reason to litigate the story further.

[gbaji]

This is all based on a false assumption. You'll never have to read several long backstories. You aren't going to get long backstories from everyone, no matter how much you expect or encourage it.

The assumption was in the post he was replying to. It wasn't about whether the players would actually write long backstories, but the assumption that if a player does do this, it somehow represents more work/time/efort (makes it harder) for the player. But here's the thing. To whatever degree the player does write a long backstory, that backstory is either only meaningful to the player (and never affects anyone else) or there is some expectation that it will affect the actual game being played (by like other players). At which point, that long backstory becomes "work" for the GM to integrate with the rest of the game world.

I think that was the point being made. The assumption that players writing long and intricate backstories is somehow support for "being a player is harder than being a GM" is somewhat absurd. If you write all of that, and none of it has any effect on the game, then you "being a player" wasn't "harder". You just choose to do something, off on the side, that didn't affect anyone else in any way. The moment anything you wrote into that backstory actually involves other players at the table, the GM is the one "working harder" to incorporate it into the rest of the setting.

At least, that is the counter point I got from that post.

Having said that, you are correct. 99% of players will never write that much for a character, so it's really irrelvant anyway. I guess maybe we have to ask whether we're measuring "harder" or "easier" in the context of making "the game" (ie: the thing we are all playing together collectively) work well. Something you choose to do on your own, for your own enjoyment/edification is great, but should not count as making the "job of being a <player|gm> harder". We should be looking at things you "must do" in those roles to make a game successful. And sure, spending time on backstory may make a game more successful. Or it may not (especially if the backstory conflicts with some elements/plans of the setting).

I've had many players come up with intricate backstories, read through them, and then basically took a virtual pen to them, going "this doesn't work. I'm not allowing that. That's a violation of the rules. This doesn't even exist in thie game universe, blah blah blah". So no. If we get to vote on whether long detailed backstories represent more "work" (or making things "harder) for the player or GM, I will still vote "GM" every time. You just have to invent something and write it down. Creative writing exercise. Easy. I could do that in like 5 minutes while half asleep (and some of them look like that's exactly what happened) I, as the GM, have to figure out how to integrate this into the game. Way way way harder IMO.

A player doesn't have to establish every historical detail about themselves to make for a good backstory, and IMO, it's a mistake common in early writing to put in too many details. As a cooperative game, it's also up to the DM to fill in the gaps..

Which is exactly the point. And it's not just "filling in the gaps". Heck. I'd rather the player left gaps for me to fill in. That's less work (and thus easier). The more detail, and the fewer gaps, the "harder" it is as the GM to actually fit that in with whatever else exists in the game setting. The player is giving me less wiggle room to use.

If you write down "was raised by sentient cybernetic wolves", then I either have to "red pen" what you wrote, or I have to now incorporate sentient cybernetic wolves into my game. I think you can all guess which direction I'm likely to go. Though to be fair, every once in a great while a player will throw something out there that ticks my creative side and I use it. But very very "once in a while".

As a total caveat to all of that, if the player does actually spend a lot of time, thinking about the backstory, working to integrate it into the game setting, taking into account the races around, what magic exists, religions, organizations, cities, kingdoms, the history of the world, and comes up with something that brilliantly intergrates into the setting, fits perfectly, doesn't create strange imbalances, or assume things that don't actually exist, and otherwise really adds something great to the game, without me having to do any work myself? I'll totally hand it to that player that they worked "hard" to contribute to the totality of the game setting.

I can count on the fingers of zero hands exactly how many times that has ever happened though. In 40ish years of GMing various games, never has this ever happened. Really simple straightfoward/basic backstories? No problem. But there is an absolute direct correlation between the complexity and detail of a character backstory and the amount of work I'm going to have to do as a GM to either work with the player to incoporate that character into the setting and/or reject various parts of the backtory. And let me be clear, if it's a great idea, I will spend that time working with the player to make it work. But yeah, that's me doing work. That's my job being "harder". That extra work may absolutely be worth it, but it's never just the player doing more here when it comes to backstory. Not if they actually expect that backstory to have any relevance within the game itself.

I'd much rather players spend more time on their characters personality and less on the details of their history. You need to know the personality to roleplay the character. That's necessary. Everything else may be nice filler, but isn't actually needed, and honestly may even be better left vague/broad and then explored and/or expanded on during play rather than before it. Just my preference here. I have a strong leaning towards "at table focused play". I want that to be where decisions are made, and where history happens. By playing it out. Writing a script ahead of time and then just acting it out isn't terribly interesting to me. When stuff happens at the table, by the players, you never know for sure where it's going to go. That's real "creative/cooperative storytelling". I want to maximize that.

[Fiery Diamond]

Which is exactly the point. And it's not just "filling in the gaps". Heck. I'd rather the player left gaps for me to fill in. That's less work (and thus easier). The more detail, and the fewer gaps, the "harder" it is as the GM to actually fit that in with whatever else exists in the game setting. The player is giving me less wiggle room to use.

If you write down "was raised by sentient cybernetic wolves", then I either have to "red pen" what you wrote, or I have to now incorporate sentient cybernetic wolves into my game. I think you can all guess which direction I'm likely to go. Though to be fair, every once in a great while a player will throw something out there that ticks my creative side and I use it. But very very "once in a while".

As a total caveat to all of that, if the player does actually spend a lot of time, thinking about the backstory, working to integrate it into the game setting, taking into account the races around, what magic exists, religions, organizations, cities, kingdoms, the history of the world, and comes up with something that brilliantly intergrates into the setting, fits perfectly, doesn't create strange imbalances, or assume things that don't actually exist, and otherwise really adds something great to the game, without me having to do any work myself? I'll totally hand it to that player that they worked "hard" to contribute to the totality of the game setting.

I can count on the fingers of zero hands exactly how many times that has ever happened though. In 40ish years of GMing various games, never has this ever happened. Really simple straightfoward/basic backstories? No problem. But there is an absolute direct correlation between the complexity and detail of a character backstory and the amount of work I'm going to have to do as a GM to either work with the player to incoporate that character into the setting and/or reject various parts of the backtory. And let me be clear, if it's a great idea, I will spend that time working with the player to make it work. But yeah, that's me doing work. That's my job being "harder". That extra work may absolutely be worth it, but it's never just the player doing more here when it comes to backstory. Not if they actually expect that backstory to have any relevance within the game itself.

I'd much rather players spend more time on their characters personality and less on the details of their history. You need to know the personality to roleplay the character. That's necessary. Everything else may be nice filler, but isn't actually needed, and honestly may even be better left vague/broad and then explored and/or expanded on during play rather than before it. Just my preference here. I have a strong leaning towards "at table focused play". I want that to be where decisions are made, and where history happens. By playing it out. Writing a script ahead of time and then just acting it out isn't terribly interesting to me. When stuff happens at the table, by the players, you never know for sure where it's going to go. That's real "creative/cooperative storytelling". I want to maximize that.

So... you've never had the DM present the setting to the players (not just setting concept, but at least a basic surface level of the actual setting), then have the players create their backstories? That's what's always been the case in games I've been in. If you've really had your ideal backstory creation happen zero times while doing that, either you have subpar backstory-creating players or your setting is too simple or too convoluted, because this has easily happened at least twice in my experience, and my gaming experience is like a third of the length of yours.

And of course the DM will have to incorporate things even if the player's stuff is perfect. But that's not extra work for the DM above and beyond just running the game normally unless they have to spend time with the player outside of sessions to iron things out, which is not a given.

Granted, the backstories were 1-2 pages, not super duper long, but still.

[gbaji]

So... you've never had the DM present the setting to the players (not just setting concept, but at least a basic surface level of the actual setting), then have the players create their backstories?

Yes. I have. Why did you stop the progression at that point?

What is the next step in that progression? The DM presents the setting to the players. The players write their backstories. And then.... what happens next?

The DM then spends a boatload of time integrating all of those different (cause odds are the players didn't do much coordinating here) backstories into the setting, and then tries to figure out what to write as an adventure that will incorporate them. Often having to choose which to do first, which to put on the backburner, where to insert hooks into something going on now that will lead into something relevant to someone's written backstory, etc.

I'm making the point that complex and detailed character backstories, while they certainly represent additonal time/effort spent by the player *also* create the need for additioanl time/effort spent by the GM. I was specifically countering the idea that being a player is somehow "harder" because some players may spend a ton of time on backstories by pointing out that to whatever degree this is "harder" for the player, it's also "harder" for the GM.

If you've really had your ideal backstory creation happen zero times while doing that, either you have subpar backstory-creating players or your setting is too simple or too convoluted, because this has easily happened at least twice in my experience, and my gaming experience is like a third of the length of yours.

I didn't just say "ideal backstory". I wrote "without me having to do any work myself". I'm not saying that this isn't a good idea. In fact, it's a very good idea. I'm merely countering the idea that "12 page backstory" makes it "harder" to be a player relative to the GM. It doesn't. For every line the player writes in that backstory, the GM is probably going to write a page in an adventure at some point along the line to deal with. And if the GM doesn't do this, then the backstory didn't actually do anything in terms of play at the table. I mean, other than personality traits being roledplayed that is. But if you actually have details in there (who, what, when, where, why) and you actualy want those details to come up in some way in play? The GM does that.

And of course the DM will have to incorporate things even if the player's stuff is perfect. But that's not extra work for the DM above and beyond just running the game normally unless they have to spend time with the player outside of sessions to iron things out, which is not a given.

How is that not extra work? If you write "was kidnapped by pirates at a young age", and I decide to incorporate that into the game. I have to stop and think about who those pirates were. Are they still alive? If so, where are they and what are they doing now? How do they feel about this adventurer they kidnapped as a child? Do they want to kidnap again? Heck. Did they hand the kid a gold coin as a going away gift when they started their adventuring career, and now they've discovered that it's the key to ending a curse and have been searching the seven seas for said adventurer for the last x years now?

Character backstory is an absolutely great starting point for "new adventure ideas". But the actual adventure and the details within have to be written by the GM. Your character backstory isn't going to have any impact or relevance to game play unless the GM actually takes the time to write it into a scenario at some point. I mean, I guess we could argue that makes the GM's job "easier" because there's a free idea or something. But, everything else being the same, it's "easier" for me to integrate my own story ideas into my own world, than someone else's. That's why I pointed out specifically how incredibly rare it is for the player to actually do "all the work". I've had a couple of occasions where it was "close". But to me, the "work" of writing an adventure isn't just listing monsters, or treasure, or whatnot. I can do that in my sleep. What takes time is thinking through the plot/story of what is happening. And handing me a one line idea is only the very starting point to that process.

I will acknowledge that as long as players don't have a super expectation of their written stuff making it into an adventure, then on balance this can absolutely make my job "easier" as a GM. Ideas are there. I can pick from them as I want. That just becomes part of the creative process (and washes out cause I would have spent the same time on some other idea anyway). But a lot of the time, when players do write that much (seems to be in direct proportion to how much they write actually), there also tends to be a strong exectation that the GM is going to do something with it (usually sooner rather than later). And in those cases, the more that's written, the more constrained I may be. I now have to write something with pirates. And there's a gold coin. And a curse. Maybe I had no intention or interest in this sort of adventure, but now... here I am. And, of course, me being me, I'm not going to just do the one pirate adventure in a vacuum and then move on. I'm going to create an entire set of "rules for how pirates operate in my world". Which now includes how much impact they have on trade. And how merchants deal with the losses. Which kingdoms agressively go after them. Which maybe make deals. Are there privateers as well? How do they work? Heck. Given the setting, what sorts of weapons/magic/whatever do pirates actualy use to capture ships? Are there standards? Do pirates kill everyone? Let everoone go as long as they surrender their cargo? How often will pirates steal a whole ship? What do they do then? Is "rescuing standed pirate victims" a common thing for the various kingdoms coastal patrols?

That one line of text in the backstory may lead to me writing dozens of pages of content. Now, maybe the end result of that is a far richer and more interesting game setting. In fact, probably. But it's still a heck of a lot of "work". Again. Let me be really clear. This is not "bad" by any means. But, if a player introduces a character, and has this rich complex backstory, complete with tons of details hooks and ideas, as a GM I often feel pressured to set aside something I may have wanted to write (or perhaps even already written) in order to incorporate those details. Even if it's just modifications to an existing adventure idea, that's still "more than I would have done otherwise". The end result may absolutely be well worth the effort, but that's not really the point here.

[Fiery Diamond]

Yes. I have. Why did you stop the progression at that point?

What is the next step in that progression? The DM presents the setting to the players. The players write their backstories. And then.... what happens next?

The DM then spends a boatload of time integrating all of those different (cause odds are the players didn't do much coordinating here) backstories into the setting, and then tries to figure out what to write as an adventure that will incorporate them. Often having to choose which to do first, which to put on the backburner, where to insert hooks into something going on now that will lead into something relevant to someone's written backstory, etc.

I'm making the point that complex and detailed character backstories, while they certainly represent additonal time/effort spent by the player *also* create the need for additioanl time/effort spent by the GM. I was specifically countering the idea that being a player is somehow "harder" because some players may spend a ton of time on backstories by pointing out that to whatever degree this is "harder" for the player, it's also "harder" for the GM.



I didn't just say "ideal backstory". I wrote "without me having to do any work myself". I'm not saying that this isn't a good idea. In fact, it's a very good idea. I'm merely countering the idea that "12 page backstory" makes it "harder" to be a player relative to the GM. It doesn't. For every line the player writes in that backstory, the GM is probably going to write a page in an adventure at some point along the line to deal with. And if the GM doesn't do this, then the backstory didn't actually do anything in terms of play at the table. I mean, other than personality traits being roledplayed that is. But if you actually have details in there (who, what, when, where, why) and you actualy want those details to come up in some way in play? The GM does that.



How is that not extra work? If you write "was kidnapped by pirates at a young age", and I decide to incorporate that into the game. I have to stop and think about who those pirates were. Are they still alive? If so, where are they and what are they doing now? How do they feel about this adventurer they kidnapped as a child? Do they want to kidnap again? Heck. Did they hand the kid a gold coin as a going away gift when they started their adventuring career, and now they've discovered that it's the key to ending a curse and have been searching the seven seas for said adventurer for the last x years now?

Character backstory is an absolutely great starting point for "new adventure ideas". But the actual adventure and the details within have to be written by the GM. Your character backstory isn't going to have any impact or relevance to game play unless the GM actually takes the time to write it into a scenario at some point. I mean, I guess we could argue that makes the GM's job "easier" because there's a free idea or something. But, everything else being the same, it's "easier" for me to integrate my own story ideas into my own world, than someone else's. That's why I pointed out specifically how incredibly rare it is for the player to actually do "all the work". I've had a couple of occasions where it was "close". But to me, the "work" of writing an adventure isn't just listing monsters, or treasure, or whatnot. I can do that in my sleep. What takes time is thinking through the plot/story of what is happening. And handing me a one line idea is only the very starting point to that process.

I will acknowledge that as long as players don't have a super expectation of their written stuff making it into an adventure, then on balance this can absolutely make my job "easier" as a GM. Ideas are there. I can pick from them as I want. That just becomes part of the creative process (and washes out cause I would have spent the same time on some other idea anyway). But a lot of the time, when players do write that much (seems to be in direct proportion to how much they write actually), there also tends to be a strong exectation that the GM is going to do something with it (usually sooner rather than later). And in those cases, the more that's written, the more constrained I may be. I now have to write something with pirates. And there's a gold coin. And a curse. Maybe I had no intention or interest in this sort of adventure, but now... here I am. And, of course, me being me, I'm not going to just do the one pirate adventure in a vacuum and then move on. I'm going to create an entire set of "rules for how pirates operate in my world". Which now includes how much impact they have on trade. And how merchants deal with the losses. Which kingdoms agressively go after them. Which maybe make deals. Are there privateers as well? How do they work? Heck. Given the setting, what sorts of weapons/magic/whatever do pirates actualy use to capture ships? Are there standards? Do pirates kill everyone? Let everoone go as long as they surrender their cargo? How often will pirates steal a whole ship? What do they do then? Is "rescuing standed pirate victims" a common thing for the various kingdoms coastal patrols?

That one line of text in the backstory may lead to me writing dozens of pages of content. Now, maybe the end result of that is a far richer and more interesting game setting. In fact, probably. But it's still a heck of a lot of "work". Again. Let me be really clear. This is not "bad" by any means. But, if a player introduces a character, and has this rich complex backstory, complete with tons of details hooks and ideas, as a GM I often feel pressured to set aside something I may have wanted to write (or perhaps even already written) in order to incorporate those details. Even if it's just modifications to an existing adventure idea, that's still "more than I would have done otherwise". The end result may absolutely be well worth the effort, but that's not really the point here.

Ah. I see where our disconnect is. See, I don't see incorporating the player's backstory into your shared story as extra work, because it supplants what you might have done instead, not adds to it. As a DM, I lean very heavily to the improv side of the improv-preparation spectrum, and while I might have some broad strokes ideas for the tale in which the players will find themselves, I will have almost no details beyond the setting itself (probably in more detail than I gave to the players, of course; there need to be some surprises for them) before I get given the character info from the players. The story is built around the confluence of character and setting, not around the setting with details added to incorporate the characters. It's definitively NOT "more than I would have done otherwise" to include the character's stuff. It's still work, but it's work I'm doing instead of what I would have done otherwise. And arguably easier, since creativity with constraints is significantly easier than having no limits for a number of reasons. Having prompts to build off of is much easier than coming up with compelling story stuff and further setting details without prompts.

[Pauly]

All this talk about backstories reminds me why I like Traveller and Traveller like games with procedurally generated back stories.

[AMFV]

I don't know how one takes pride in a 12 page backstory, suggests that it should be expected of players and then, with all the misguided will in the world, suggests that reading those backstories (we're taking usually at least 3 more players), incorporating relevant information in the campaign (and dealing with backstory conflicts) is for the GM to do, and then says the GM has the easier job.

The very suggestion is mind-breakingly unbalanced already.

The thing is that a 12 page backstory is actually not harder to write than a nice two page one. Limiting yourself to the essentials means that you have to write better and forces you to think about what's really important. If I'm reading a novella about the players before I get into the game there's no wiggle or flexibility. And there's no way that I'm going to be able to do more than a few backstory hooks per player, at least not while keeping them satisfying.

I can also write one that is three sentences long.

I would bet you money that the three sentence ones you've written are better than the 12 page ones you've written at accomplishing their intended purpose in game.

Ah. I see where our disconnect is. See, I don't see incorporating the player's backstory into your shared story as extra work, because it supplants what you might have done instead, not adds to it. As a DM, I lean very heavily to the improv side of the improv-preparation spectrum, and while I might have some broad strokes ideas for the tale in which the players will find themselves, I will have almost no details beyond the setting itself (probably in more detail than I gave to the players, of course; there need to be some surprises for them) before I get given the character info from the players. The story is built around the confluence of character and setting, not around the setting with details added to incorporate the characters. It's definitively NOT "more than I would have done otherwise" to include the character's stuff. It's still work, but it's work I'm doing instead of what I would have done otherwise. And arguably easier, since creativity with constraints is significantly easier than having no limits for a number of reasons. Having prompts to build off of is much easier than coming up with compelling story stuff and further setting details without prompts.

Here's the thing, even if you're improving, having your improv sharply limited is going to create situations that will be more work.

All this talk about backstories reminds me why I like Traveller and Traveller like games with procedurally generated back stories.

I definitely think that people often lose the value of discovering a character as they develop. A long backstory means that you have a lot less freedom if your character actually winds up different than you had originally envisioned. That's why I think short succinct backstories are better, they give you room to change up a lot of things while giving the DM a few things to hook to, so it's enough for like a fairly okay thing without locking you in or getting the DM locked into your novel. Players who should be writing novels instead are just as bad as DMs doing it.

[Velaryon]

One point I haven't seen brought up so far (though I admit I started skimming the thread more than actually reading it by about the middle of page 2) is that the burden of scheduling the game tends to fall on the GM. This makes sense, since the game revolves entirely around the GM's availability. You can still play the game if one of the players isn't available,* but you cannot play without the GM.**

*Unless it's a solo game, or that player is the only one who can host.
**Unless it's a game that doesn't have a GM, in which case it's irrelevant to this discussion.

Anyway, I'm coming down firmly on the side that GMing is significantly harder than being a player. GM Burnout is a thing. I have never heard of Player Burnout. The sentence "I'm sorry everyone, being a player is taking up too much time and it's just not as much fun anymore, I'm going to take a break and run a game instead," has not only probably never been spoken, it was hard to even type without laughing.

Being a player doesn't require homework outside the game. Being a GM almost always does, even if it's as minimal as "reading the next chapter of the module so you know what the players will be facing." I've never been unable to jump on PSN the night before a game because I had to get ready to be a player the next day.

I did try to read and understand the people who take the "playing is harder" side of the debate, but it seems to me like the only way to argue that position is to redefine what "harder" means in such a way as to completely exclude the workload of being a GM vs. being a player, which I just can't get on board with.

[Telok]

I did try to read and understand the people who take the "playing is harder" side of the debate, but it seems to me like the only way to argue that position is to redefine what "harder" means in such a way as to completely exclude the workload of being a GM vs. being a player, which I just can't get on board with.

Define "work". That's the issue. I don't care that we've missed the last three games because as a player d&d is tedious labor that I'm keeping up for the next real game. Prepping for my next gming run is fun and I get fussed if I can't do any that week.

[OldTrees1]

Define "work". That's the issue. I don't care that we've missed the last three games because as a player d&d is tedious labor that I'm keeping up for the next real game. Prepping for my next gming run is fun and I get fussed if I can't do any that week.

Here is my thoughts on the topic:

Work/labor:
An activity or activities involving mental or physical effort.
Harder:
The total effort required for all the tasks for one role, is greater than the total effort required for all the tasks of the other role.

GMing requires the GM do prep for the next session. Being a player does not require you to do prep for the next session. Thus GMing takes more work. It does not matter that the activity of prepping can be fun, it is still extra work. The only way for being a player to be harder than GM is if participating as a player in a session is SO much more effort that running a session for the group, such that the difference is also greater than all the effort it takes the GM to prepare for that session.

However, knowing how much I prep (roughly 2-3x the session length), if participating as a player is that laborious relative to my labor of running the session + my labor of preparing the session, please speak up so I can adjust the sessions to make it easier for you.

[Telok]

GMing requires the GM do prep for the next session. Being a player does not require you to do prep for the next session.

Much good, but this bit is not universally true. I've seen & been a zero prep GM, plus some games are far less GM leaning than D&Ds. Example. I have... somewhere, it's been a while... a spreadsheet that one-click automated everything I need for GMing a Paranoia game except NPC names and tge R&D toys. The players will do more prep work making characters than I have to prep for that game. Much of the work for the spreadsheet was finding lists like "101 things to go wrong at a grocery store" or "101 accidental mutation events" and copying them.

Now, if the GM isn't good at improv, system mastery, etc., it's a train wreck. Seen that with people trying to low-prep GM from D&D adventures. But D&D requires fights, maps, stat blocks, convoluted rules scattered across multiple books, not fitting the mechanics on one or two peices of paper, and such things.