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

[Reversefigure4]

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.

Although you presumably still had to do all that work setting up the spreadsheet, which I'm guessing is more work than than the players put into making their characters (in Paranoia, wouldn't characters be quite simple to set up? I've never played it).

It's pretty common for my prep as a GM to be front-loaded, spending weeks making the campaign and then only intermittently prepping from there. There have been occasions where on any -given- session, a player does more prep - because they're writing a speech, drawing up a battle plan, etc. But overall, the workload is incomparable, even with the simplest prep games.

[Leon]

GMing a thousand fold, you have to do everything a player isn't and sometimes even manage the players who should be playing just to keep things flowing.

[Telok]

Although you presumably still had to do all that work setting up the spreadsheet, which I'm guessing is more work than than the players put into making their characters (in Paranoia, wouldn't characters be quite simple to set up? I've never played it).

Once, yes. About 6 hours work and I've been about to run Paranoia games for years with one button push (plus "nuclear hand grenade, y/n?"). While characters are simple they still run 10 minutes or so. I hit the break even point on about the third game.

[PhoenixPhyre]

As I see it, a DM has to do everything a player does plus a lot of overhead and tasks that players don't have to do.

Backstories? NPCs need backstories. And there's a lot less wiggle room in those. Sure, they don't need to be as detailed, but there need to be a lot more of them. At least if you want an actual world, not a randomly-generated cardboard backdrop.

Spotlight management? .... that's part of every single thing a DM has to do.

Staying engaged? They're on stage 100% of the time. If they drift off...things go sideways.

Figuring out where to go from here? Yup, all the time.

Etc.

Plus things like
1. having and managing hidden state. Players can get away without having any secrets from anyone else. DMs can't, really.
2. worldbuilding. Even in a pre-generated world such as a module, you have to fill in the gaps and provide bridges.
3. Narration. Tables differ on how much they do, but describing things, deciding what happens on an attack, etc.
4. Action resolution. They're part of every action resolution step. Because they're the ones who decide what mechanics need to be invoked. And even if others do the actual invocation, they're the final step in deciding whether that happens and exactly how the world changes as a result.

[gbaji]

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.

I mostly agree with that. But IME that works best when the backstory is actually "broad strokes". The more detail the player puts into the backstory, the harder it is as the GM to fit things in. If the player backstory is "was orphaned and delivered to adopted parents by a mysterious robed figure", I can do all sorts of things with that as a GM. If the player actually details who the real parents were, who the robed figure was, what each of their motivations were, what other NPC groups/organizations might be insterested in the character, etc, then I'm more or less written into a corner here as a GM.

Also, if it's left broad/vague, then I can actually surprise the player with the discovery of their character's full background in the course of play. If the player actually writes this all out ahead of time, then there is no discovery and there is no surprise. It's just the myself and the player following a pre-written script. IMO, that's just not nearly as satisfying.

I guess that's just my GMing style. I really really love creating that kind of stuff for my players. Putting in odd twists, strange behavior that they must discover through the course of the adventure, secret societies, evil and good forces at work, etc. I want them to discover the world I'm writing/creating via the course of playing within it. Players giving me some basic hooks to work with? Great. 9 times out of 10, I already have some idea/group/thing that will slot into that. But the more detail the player actually writes, the harder it is for me to fit it into anything I've already got going on (but the players don't know about yet). That's really where I was going with that.

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.

Yeah. More or less this. And yeah, this comes back to GMing style. I really don't like players to include "frontstory" in their characters (ie: things they want to have happen to their characters). That's why we're playing the game. You will discover what happens to your character, and how they change and grow, via a combination of things I put into the game and decisions/outcomes you actually make while playing. And also, there are X other players at the table as well, so it's not all about you.

A small amount of backstory, sufficient to describe where the character is from, why they have the starting skills/class/whatever, and what motivates them to do whatever they're doing, is all that's really needed. Adding some bits that can be used as hooks is fine. But the moment the player starts writing stuff that is clearly "this is what I want to have happen with my character over the course of play", I tend to push back quite a bit. I get that some GMs want that sort of thing, so I can totally acknowledge that this can/does work in some settings/campaigns. But it's just now how I GM.

I don't ever write any adventure with the idea of how this will impact characterA's development. I just don't. I write adventures based on "what is happening in the world around the PCs", and then they respond to that. Now, if a player comes to me and says "I'm going to do <whatever>" with my character, I'll consider what happens as a result. But if they come to me with a detailed plot sequence they want to happen with a specific desired endpoint? No. I'm not writing your fantasy story for you.

The closest I've ever come to this was one player who had a specific problem one of his characters was facing and asked me if I could write an adventure resolving it. That was it. No details beyond describing the problem, and wanting a resolution. And just to tie this back in, I find it much "easier" for me to write something myself based on what I know is actually going on in the world around them, than to take a detailed sequence that the player wants and try to wedge it in somehow. And yeah, the more detailed the players proposed story is, the "harder" is actually is for me to write it.

It's all "work". But some work is much harder than others.

[KorvinStarmast]

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.

Yes.

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 usually a good fit.

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

Yes.

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.

You already lost that bet, because of your own biases. I tailor the backstories to the table and the campaign. Suggest you broaden your field of view. Here is {1} Korvin Starmast's back story from 2014: (written after the PHB backgrounds were applied) DM set the game in Forgotten Realms.

Mother died in the violet plague.
On my third trading voyage, Father was killed by the pirate Rustbeard while defending the good ship Windbreaker from attack.
Rustbeard took our ship, since his had burned during the battle.
Salted Bart and Steelfinger mutinied, feeding Rustbeard to the sharks. It was justice, of a sort.
They put ashore those of us who wished to leave piracy to them.
I watched my seven shipmates slowly die from poisoned wine, which was Steelfinger's parting gift -- or the moon's a glowing ball of cheese!
I made for Mother's temple, the one in Scornubel where Father had met her.
The high priest said I had potential. He enrolled me to study as a Cleric of Lathander.
It was four long years of prayer and learning.
I felt a sailor's restlessness.
I left the cloister to spread the Light.
Maybe I can heal a small part of this sick world.
Maybe I can find justice.
How I'll do any of that in this mad city of Waterdeep I'm not sure -- I'm not even sure how I got here.
If a few other people are as restless as I am, there's no telling what we can change ...

DM used two of the hooks I provided to him.
This little narrative also introduced this character to the other five players.
(Ya know, meet in a tavern, but with the use of email, we all emailed our back stories to the rest of the group before the session...mine was middling in length. A couple were longer, a couple were shorter).

I definitely think that people often lose the value of discovering a character as they develop.

You opinion is not a fact.

{1}

Spoiler: What ever happened to Korvin Starmast?

Show

Korvin was my first 5e character, and he died in combat.

[AMFV]

Yes.
You already lost that bet, because of your own biases. I tailor the backstories to the table and the campaign. Suggest you broaden your field of view. Here is {1} Korvin Starmast's back story from 2014: (written after the PHB backgrounds were applied) DM set the game in Forgotten Realms.

Mother died in the violet plague.
On my third trading voyage, Father was killed by the pirate Rustbeard while defending the good ship Windbreaker from attack.
Rustbeard took our ship, since his had burned during the battle.
Salted Bart and Steelfinger mutinied, feeding Rustbeard to the sharks. It was justice, of a sort.
They put ashore those of us who wished to leave piracy to them.
I watched my seven shipmates slowly die from poisoned wine, which was Steelfinger's parting gift -- or the moon's a glowing ball of cheese!
I made for Mother's temple, the one in Scornubel where Father had met her.
The high priest said I had potential. He enrolled me to study as a Cleric of Lathander.
It was four long years of prayer and learning.
I felt a sailor's restlessness.
I left the cloister to spread the Light.
Maybe I can heal a small part of this sick world.
Maybe I can find justice.
How I'll do any of that in this mad city of Waterdeep I'm not sure -- I'm not even sure how I got here.
If a few other people are as restless as I am, there's no telling what we can change ...

DM used two of the hooks I provided to him.
This little narrative also introduced this character to the other five players.
(Ya know, meet in a tavern, but with the use of email, we all emailed our back stories to the rest of the group before the session...mine was middling in length. A couple were longer, a couple were shorter).

You opinion is not a fact.

Broseph, that isn't 12 pages.

Edit: Also you should look at what I replying to, when you declared that "your opinion isn't a fact" I was referring to games that do focus on emergent character development, like Traveller.

Edit 2: And again that backstory is better than any 12 page story. Straight up, it just is.

[KorvinStarmast]

Edit 2: And again that backstory is better than any 12 page story. Straight up, it just is.

At the risk of repeating myself, your opinion is not fact.
I do agree that Traveller added a neat way to procedurally build a "who you were before you did this" and we all enjoyed it. It was a mini game in itself, in a lot of ways, and was fun to mess with since we found Traveller (original) combat to be quite lethal.

[PhoenixPhyre]

My personal opinion is that backstories are better if they're not all nailed down. Some detail? Absolutely. Gives me things to work off of and incorporate. But I love when there's a mystery and the players trust me enough to figure out the answers and weave that discovery into the campaign.

My current online group is great for that--their first campaign, I had an amnesiac warlock. He knew basically his name. The rest? Trusted to me. Their current campaign has several mysteries, large and small. Others had pieces they weren't clear on, that they hadn't detailed. And we worked together to figure it out. That collaboration lets me both do the fine tuning to fit it into an established world AND gives me plenty of "plot eyebolts". Places that they've said in advance that they'll accept plot hooks.

On the flip side, I promise up front and OOC that I won't threaten anyone named in their backstory without giving them the IC chance to intervene if they so choose. They may not successfully intervene, and they may not choose to intervene at all, or they may gleefully stab their ex-wife through the heart on the back of an enemy dragon and send them plummeting to their doom (true story). That's their choice. But they'll have enough warning to intervene if they choose to.

[KorvinStarmast]

... or they may gleefully stab their ex-wife through the heart on the back of an enemy dragon and send them plummeting to their doom (true story).

She felt gravity's pull, yes she did.

[gbaji]

A small amount of backstory, sufficient to describe where the character is from, why they have the starting skills/class/whatever, and what motivates them to do whatever they're doing, is all that's really needed.

Here is {1} Korvin Starmast's back story from 2014: (written after the PHB backgrounds were applied) DM set the game in Forgotten Realms.

Mother died in the violet plague.
On my third trading voyage, Father was killed by the pirate Rustbeard while defending the good ship Windbreaker from attack.
Rustbeard took our ship, since his had burned during the battle.
Salted Bart and Steelfinger mutinied, feeding Rustbeard to the sharks. It was justice, of a sort.
They put ashore those of us who wished to leave piracy to them.
I watched my seven shipmates slowly die from poisoned wine, which was Steelfinger's parting gift -- or the moon's a glowing ball of cheese!
I made for Mother's temple, the one in Scornubel where Father had met her.
The high priest said I had potential. He enrolled me to study as a Cleric of Lathander.
It was four long years of prayer and learning.
I felt a sailor's restlessness.
I left the cloister to spread the Light.
Maybe I can heal a small part of this sick world.
Maybe I can find justice.
How I'll do any of that in this mad city of Waterdeep I'm not sure -- I'm not even sure how I got here.
If a few other people are as restless as I am, there's no telling what we can change ...

That's a nearly perfect example of exactly what I (and at least a few others) were saying is what we want/need as GMs.

Assuming the setting has pirates already established and existing, and the locations mentioned exist, and the temples/gods/towns mentioned already exist, everything is fine.

[Jay R]

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.

Glen was my closest friend for over thirty years. There's tons more interaction between us, and he enjoyed all my games. You're trying to ignore the point I was writing about (and about which the story was relevant), and instead invent an idea about our relationship and how our games went, based on no information at all.

Please stop making up nonsense.

[Imbalance]

I'd have no qualms asking a player with a three sentence backstory to embellish it up to 15. I'd also ask the twelve page player to shrink 'er down to the same target, because I'm not reading all of that.

This discussion also leads me to believe that a lot of the perception of which role is "harder" is based on how much you're overdoing it.

[Reversefigure4]

Plus things like
1. having and managing hidden state. Players can get away without having any secrets from anyone else. DMs can't, really.
2. worldbuilding. Even in a pre-generated world such as a module, you have to fill in the gaps and provide bridges.
3. Narration. Tables differ on how much they do, but describing things, deciding what happens on an attack, etc.
4. Action resolution. They're part of every action resolution step. Because they're the ones who decide what mechanics need to be invoked. And even if others do the actual invocation, they're the final step in deciding whether that happens and exactly how the world changes as a result.

Good list! I'd also add a much greater degree of rules mastery to this pile. A player ideally needs to know how the character works - what their class features do, the stats of their summons, etc - but the GM needs to know -everything-. Can't use a grapple monster without knowing the grapple rules. If you're making up skill DCs, you need to have some idea of comparable ones. You're playing every class, every feat, every possibility in the game.

[PhoenixPhyre]

Good list! I'd also add a much greater degree of rules mastery to this pile. A player ideally needs to know how the character works - what their class features do, the stats of their summons, etc - but the GM needs to know -everything-. Can't use a grapple monster without knowing the grapple rules. If you're making up skill DCs, you need to have some idea of comparable ones. You're playing every class, every feat, every possibility in the game.

And when someone asks for a ruling, you need to have enough knowledge to know how that interacts with other stuff.

[Olive_Sophia]

To me, being a DM is a lot harder. There's a ton more preparation that needs to be done to have a smooth session. You can cut down on a lot of that with certain strategies, but I get too obsessed and spend way more time than is practical on it.

[gatorized]

Ever since I moved away from d&d and similar systems, I find GMing to be super easy, and at least as fun as being a player. I can make up whatever I want on the spot, and I don't have to worry about some unforeseen fiddly rules interaction causing the entire game to explode.

[Easy e]

This discussion also leads me to believe that a lot of the perception of which role is "harder" is based on how much you're overdoing it.

^^^ This person wins the thread!

[Telok]

Ever since I moved away from d&d and similar systems, I find GMing to be super easy, and at least as fun as being a player. I can make up whatever I want on the spot, and I don't have to worry about some unforeseen fiddly rules interaction causing the entire game to explode.

Games with good random content generation are also amazingly easy. I can build full adventures for Traveller, Champions, and Paranoia games just by trawling the interwebz for generators and using a handful of stock npcs from one book. Mork Borg is looking super easy that way too.

[Easy e]

Ever since I moved away from d&d and similar systems, I find GMing to be super easy, and at least as fun as being a player. I can make up whatever I want on the spot, and I don't have to worry about some unforeseen fiddly rules interaction causing the entire game to explode.

I have followed a similar path and found similar results.

[Jay R]

I'd have no qualms asking a player with a three sentence backstory to embellish it up to 15. I'd also ask the twelve page player to shrink 'er down to the same target, because I'm not reading all of that.

"No problem. You'll find the executive summary on page 3, after the title page and the table of contents."

[No, I don't write a title page, table of contents, and executive summary for my character backgrounds. That was just my first amused reaction to this request.]

While I could easily write a shorter version for the DM, my real character background would not be any shorter, because it's my notes that I wrote while creating the character.

In fact, by the time my character background is finished, the DM has written part of it, because I've asked him questions about his world to make my character fit in. The description of his home village and culture will be almost entirely the DM's words.

This discussion also leads me to believe that a lot of the perception of which role is "harder" is based on how much you're overdoing it.

A. You're making the assumption that doing what I enjoy is "overdoing it" if I don't play exactly like you. You have fun your way, and I won't accuse you of "underdoing it". As I wrote back on page 2, "I'm sure your way works for you; it's just very different from my way."

B. In any event, while this sounds logical, it's flat wrong (in my case, at least). I (in your words) "overdo" character backgrounds, and I believe that being a DM is more work (with the proviso that if you love it, it's not really "work").

In general, the people who (in your words) "overdo" it as a player, also tend to "overdo" it as a DM. For instance, I have a document called an encyclopedia, that lists every named character the PCs have met or heard of, with their current status, and what the PCs do and do not know about them. I write a several-page description of each session, which I send out to the players, asking what I left out. This is written from, but is not the same as, my several pages of notes to run each session.

People who write a lot as players also write a lot as DMs. I also write a lot when not in a game at all.

[gbaji]

In fact, by the time my character background is finished, the DM has written part of it, because I've asked him questions about his world to make my character fit in. The description of his home village and culture will be almost entirely the DM's words.

Right. Which means that the longer and more detailed the player makes their character backstory, the more "work" this is for the GM as well.

In general, the people who (in your words) "overdo" it as a player, also tend to "overdo" it as a DM. For instance, I have a document called an encyclopedia, that lists every named character the PCs have met or heard of, with their current status, and what the PCs do and do not know about them. I write a several-page description of each session, which I send out to the players, asking what I left out. This is written from, but is not the same as, my several pages of notes to run each session.

People who write a lot as players also write a lot as DMs. I also write a lot when not in a game at all.

Sure. So let's set aside whether it's time/effort we enjoy or not, or the degree to which either a GM or player "overdoes it". Can we agree that for any given person, with their own personal level of desire/enjoyment to write tons of stuff (or not), there's a lot more of that writing/prepping/whatever when they are acting as GM than when they are acting as a player?

Everything else being the same, given my or your or anyone's specific level of attention to detail, desire to take notes, desire to detail things, or whatever, that person is always going to spend more time on those things when creating the game setting, creating all of the NPCs within that seting, coming up with interesting plots/schemes/problems, and then running and presenting that in a "fun" fashion to the players during game time, than the same person is going to spend when playing in someone else's game. This has certainly been my experience.

And yes, some game systems are "easier" than others. But they're often easier on the players as well. In all the time I've been playing RPGs, I think there's only been a couple game systems that I've played in but not GMed in. And my experience is overwhelmingly that it takes a heck of a lot more time and effort to run a game than to play in it. Always. In every system (well, ones with a GM role in the first place).

I will put one caveat in there. I'm measuring "time/effort spent" here. One can make the argument (and I think a few people have) that being a player is "harder" in that players do have to "figure out" what's going on in the game. They have to come up with the strategies to defeat the bad guys. They have to take the risks with their characters to achieve things in-game. So there is that. To me though, that's the point of the game though, so it's kind of the baseline assumption here. But sure. Worth noting.

Also worth noting that the degree to which there are things to "figure out", the GM had to create them first. I guess we could assume a game where the GM is just tossing monsters and rewards at the players, with no real thought or effort expended, and could then conclude that the player's job is "harder" due to the risk factor involved. I guess. I just don't know if that's the game standard we should be applying here though. To me, that's a pretty crappy/boring game. Which, I suppose, leads us to yet another definition of "harder" for the player (I'd certainly find it "hard" to continue playing in a game like that). I'm not sure if that's what any of us are reallying trying to measure here though.

[KorvinStarmast]

In general, the people who (in your words) "overdo" it as a player, also tend to "overdo" it as a DM. For instance, I have a document called an encyclopedia, that lists every named character the PCs have met or heard of, with their current status, and what the PCs do and do not know about them. I write a several-page description of each session, which I send out to the players, asking what I left out. This is written from, but is not the same as, my several pages of notes to run each session.

People who write a lot as players also write a lot as DMs. I also write a lot when not in a game at all.

I tend to follow a similar pattern.
I have an idea on where the R from your "Jay R" handle may come from (no, not the prime time soap):
the second R of the infamous Three R's.

Spoiler: Likely only amusing to old farts

Show

Readin', Ritin's and 'Rithmatic

[Imbalance]

I'll put it this way: me reading a 12-page backstory is overdoing it. My asking you for a cliff's notes version is my way of keeping my role as DM from becoming harder than it needs to be. I don't really care how much you enjoy making it harder for yourself. I actually respect that you're that much into your character, but if you expect me to take your manifesto as gospel and be as into it as you are, you're overdoing it.

As a player, I constantly have ideas about my character and who they are and how they'd behave. I seldom bother writing them down. I'll give the DM some hooks, but I'll probably forget what they were by the time he gets around to working them into the campaign. There is nowhere near enough return on my time investment to make that much writing enjoyable to me.

I'm far more interested in what will unfold as we play, and that's my approach in either role. Too much premeditation on either side of the table seems to take away from the events at hand. Fabricated backstory can be useful for writing prequels - our story is what is happening now.

[KorvinStarmast]

Fabricated backstory can be useful for writing prequels - our story is what is happening now.

That's a good point to remember. A key part of the backstory is "and that's why {character X} is undertaking this adventure/adventuring" ... which is a point that Tanarii raises every time we have the conversation about back stories.

What are your motives and motivations?
Why are you an adventurer, and not still (whatever background you chose, like Urchin, Criminal, Sailor, Guild Artisan, etc)

[Jay R]

Right. Which means that the longer and more detailed the player makes their character backstory, the more "work" this is for the GM as well.

Only if the GM chooses to do it. If I knew, beyond doubt, that the GM would never read it, I would still write it. That's part of the process of developing a character to play.

But my GMs have been supportive of it. Bob, Nolen, Rob, Dirk, Mike, and Brian have all read my character backgrounds and responded favorably. That covers all my role-playing for the last quarter century.

Sure. So let's set aside whether it's time/effort we enjoy or not, or the degree to which either a GM or player "overdoes it". Can we agree that for any given person, with their own personal level of desire/enjoyment to write tons of stuff (or not), there's a lot more of that writing/prepping/whatever when they are acting as GM than when they are acting as a player?

Yes, of course. That's what I said in the post you quoted: 'I (in your words) "overdo" character backgrounds, and I believe that being a DM is more work (with the proviso that if you love it, it's not really "work").' I'm not sure why you're asking me to agree with what I already wrote.

I'll put it this way: me reading a 12-page backstory is overdoing it. My asking you for a cliff's notes version is my way of keeping my role as DM from becoming harder than it needs to be. I don't really care how much you enjoy making it harder for yourself. I actually respect that you're that much into your character, but if you expect me to take your manifesto as gospel and be as into it as you are, you're overdoing it.

Of course. As I wrote in my "Rules for Players":

20. Your backstory will never matter as much to the DM as it does to you. Remember that your backstory’s primary audience is you.

a. The DM will read your backstory only to the extent that it is interesting to read. If you aren’t an entertaining writer, keep it short.

My character background is the "prep" I do to create a character. I would do it exactly the same even if I knew the DM wouldn't read it at all.

But my DMs have generally been supportive of my desire to fit into their world, and to create a complete character. I know I remember more of my character's background than they do, and that's fine.

As a player, I constantly have ideas about my character and who they are and how they'd behave. I seldom bother writing them down. I'll give the DM some hooks, but I'll probably forget what they were by the time he gets around to working them into the campaign. There is nowhere near enough return on my time investment to make that much writing enjoyable to me.

I suspect that the real difference is implied in your last sentence. I enjoy D&D -- all of it, including character creation. Part of the "return on my time investment" is that I enjoyed it. I know lots of people don't. That why I keep saying, "We all have different approaches, and there's nothing wrong with that." [Third time so far in this thread.]

To disagree with my position, you need to believe that there is something wrong with me enjoying the game the way I do. I certainly don't think that there is anything wrong with you enjoying the game the way you do.

I'm far more interested in what will unfold as we play, and that's my approach in either role. Too much premeditation on either side of the table seems to take away from the events at hand. Fabricated backstory can be useful for writing prequels - our story is what is happening now.

Its purpose is exactly to prepare me for the events at hand. It doesn't take away from that any more than my time as an undergraduate "took away from" my classes as a graduate student. Instead, it prepared me for them.

[KorvinStarmast]

Only if the GM chooses to do it. If I knew, beyond doubt, that the GM would never read it, I would still write it. That's part of the process of developing a character top play.

But my GMs have been supportive of it. Bob, Nolen, Rob, Dirk, Mike, and Brian have all read my character backgrounds and responded favorably. That covers all my role-playing for the last quarter century.
Of course. As I wrote in my "Rules for Players":

20. Your backstory will never matter as much to the DM as it does to you. Remember that your backstory’s primary audience is you.

a. The DM will read your backstory only to the extent that it is interesting to read. If you aren’t an entertaining writer, keep it short.

My character background is the "prep" I do to create a character. I would do it exactly the same even if I knew the DM wouldn't read it at all.

But my DMs have generally been supportive of my desire to fit into their world, and to create a complete character. I know I remember more of my character's background than they do, and that's fine.

I suspect that the real difference is implied in your last sentence.
I enjoy D&D -- all of it, including character creation. Part of the "return on my time investment" is that I enjoyed it. I know lots of people don't. That why I keep saying, "We all have different approaches, and there's nothing wrong with that." [Third time so far in this thread.]

To disagree with my position, you need to believe that there is something wrong with me enjoying the game the way I do. I certainly don't think that there is anything wrong with you enjoying the game the way you do.

Its purpose is exactly to prepare me for the events at hand. It doesn't take away from that any more than my time as an undergraduate "took away from" my classes as a graduate student. Instead, it prepared me for them.

I read you loud and clear.
*applause*
Plus eleventy Five