RAW does not require a background. RAW is fine with the theory that your fighter popped into existance fully armoured and skilled in battle at just the right time to meet the other characters in the tavern and start their first adventure, possibly with a pair of contradictory traits hinting at a very confused past.
however... many of us don't do that. many of us put at least a little effort into deciding where our characters came from, putting some emotional investment into our avatar.
Rolecall, or Rollcall if you prefer. which way do you swing about background.
PS: i'm in the Roleplayer camp. average about a page and a half to two pages of backstory per character.
Even when I only cared about combat I would at least give my character a birthplace, height, weight, and other basics that are asked for on a character sheet.
I do prefer background stories now though. It also helps a player decide what his character would do in certain situations. I try to pick on trait that is mechanically beneficial for optimization, and a second one that is background based.
I can do a background/backstory, but the size depends on my inspiration and what I know about the game's rules and story.
Roleplay's the point, right? I mean, of course I enjoy rolling fist-fulls of dice and wreaking havoc in dungeons, but I could do that by myself or in a video game. Interaction and story-telling are the reason I game.
Generally I'll write up a page or so of backstory or description and after a dozen or so games I'll start trying to write some fiction depicting significant pre-game events in my characters life. It's mostly for my own benefit since I enjoy it so much, but I think it's nice for a DM to have something to pull ideas from for character-specific adventures.
On a side note: When I describe gaming to my non-gamer friends this is the part they get hung up on - they think I play board games two or three nights a week.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
It has been thoroughly discussed.
There is no continuum with Role on one end and Roll on the other.
There are two axes: rules-heavy to rules-lite, and narrative-heavy to narrative-lite.
I've met people who were excellently deep into rules play and narration, I've met people who couldn't seem to get a handle on either and they're still welcome at my table. It's a game, it's a hobby, it's not an exclusive club.
It has been thoroughly discussed.
There is no continuum with Role on one end and Roll on the other.
There are two axes: rules-heavy to rules-lite, and narrative-heavy to narrative-lite.
I've met people who were excellently deep into rules play and narration, I've met people who couldn't seem to get a handle on either and they're still welcome at my table. It's a game, it's a hobby, it's not an exclusive club.
this is understood, i just wanted to do a couple of threads about the extreemes of the roleplaying side of the hobby, and Roleplay verses Rollplay is a catchy title. it might not be accurite by any reasonable measure, but the point was to catch peoples' eye and get them to click on the link. after that it becomes a matter of the thread's first post explaining what its really about.
For my local games (which are more beer & pretzels), I don't worry about involved backgrounds too much. Typically a short background is just fine. Even so, it's not uncommon for all of the players to work out a group background together including ensuring all party roles are covered.
For PbPs though, the backgrounds for PC and NPCs are generally much more involved since that has a more tangible effect over how I develop the ensuing plot lines. In these cases I like to know family ties, motivations, goals, etc.
For my current game, I consider myself exceptionally fortunate where PC backgrounds are concerned. Nearly all of the main PCs (and the NPC who hired them) were existing PCs who met in a GM-less 'RP Tavern'. Thus a good deal of their background and intra-party connections were actually roleplayed prior to revealing the actual campaign hook.
RPG Superstar Season 9 Top 16, RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32
|
I have written very long stories about my characters, but most of those were written when I was half way through the campaign. Mostly, I write up a paragraph or two for backstory at character creation and then let the rest develop from there. My next character however is probably going to have the majority of his backstory already typed up before the game starts.
He is going to have both parents alive, a bunch of siblings, a wife, and a few kids. In fact, his life is pretty darn good before the adventure starts. His life however has pretty much been chosen for him, and he really craves something sides then what he is constantly told he is going to receive. Once he has his first taste of adventure, he won't want to stop. So really, in this case the game is his backstory.
As for roll playing, I do a bit of that too. I like to plan out my character's levels well before I reach them. When I start a new game I know how the first several will look, and make adjustments as I learn what will and will not work. However, as much as I optimize, I also make choices according to background and concept.
I never want to see another PC with more than a paragraph of back-story (200 words MAX). Story is what happens at the table.
In my Kingmaker game only 1 PC had more than the 200 word limit (I think he went all the way to 250) and we roleplay plenty. I frankly get tired of the false division of this role/rollplay crap. It smacks of One True Wayism and the typical elitist snobbery some gamers heap upon one another.
It is entirely possible to roleplay very well without turning oneself into a novelist or method actor.
RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I don't write backstories - I discover them while I'm getting to know my characters.
It wasn't until my PFS fighter had already switched factions (to Grand Lodge) that I learned he'd only ever joined the Society in the first place because of family/community pressure to guard Andoran interests abroad.
It was a few adventures into my druid's career before I learned he didn't really like animals.
I'm still getting to know my inquisitor and my rogue, and I look forward to meeting more of my characters (once I make them).
Okay, discounting the false premise that Role and Roll are somehow antithetical...
I've seen "Roll" players use backstory as justification for awkward combinations that just happened to be overpowered. I've also seen them gloss over backstory for similar reasons.
I've seen "Role" players spurn backstory because they wanted to experience the GM's plot, not hijack it with their own. I've also seen some really great, creative character concepts.
I'm going to conclude, therefore, that the presence or absence of a PC's backstory doesn't tell us anything about the "type" of player.
I'm finding it difficult to disguise my contempt for the sectarian premise of this thread. I'll leave you all to it.
|
I don't understand how one could 'write' their BACKGROUND while playing that character for numerous sessions. So you're 10th level and suddenly you realize that your father's been dead for 12 years? So, for example, DM says there's a ring that's been lost for 20 yrs, super magical, PC's will probably get to keep it when they find it. One player suddenly decides that this ring was HIS family's lost heirloom and he should get to keep it. But it's ok, he JUST wrote it into his background? I think this kind of style leaves the DM totally unprepared and sounds like its used by players to 'one-up' the DM.
I'm sorry, i just don't get this kind of 'background' writing style. Maybe it'll fit some gaming groups, but it definitely wouldn't fit ours...and not just from me, the DM, but I know my players would throw fits if someone tried to pull this at the table. Backgrounds are just that...something that's already happened. Let the present/future campaign events play themselves out as the real story of it all.
|
|
I'm sorry, i just don't get this kind of 'background' writing style. Maybe it'll fit some gaming groups, but it definitely wouldn't fit ours...and not just from me, the DM, but I know my players would throw fits if someone tried to pull this at the table. Backgrounds are just that...something that's already happened. Let the present/future campaign events play themselves out as the real story of it all.
I'm guessing you didn't like Kung Fu Panda 2 then. Or, well, most Hollywood sequels.
What, exactly, is the difference between writing the backstory before the game and writing it during the game, beyond your own perception?
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Leaving things vague also allows the GM to fit your connections in as he wants. I had a character I'd defined as a younger son of minor Dwarven nobility. When we finally returned to the dwarven lands, the GM suggested making him the son of a more important dwarven Baron and used that to hook us into all sorts of messy dwarven politics. It would have been cheesy if I'd decided suddenly I was his son, but it worked out quite nicely, because I'd left it vague.
I'll second this. I find that my character history starts out as a vague, painted in broad strokes concept, getting more specific as play goes on; most specific points are a collaboration between GM and player.
And yes, anyone who tries to claim a magic ring as a family heirloom will find that it is in fact a Cursed Ring of Ultimate Douchebaggery.
|
RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I don't understand how one could 'write' their BACKGROUND while playing that character for numerous sessions. So you're 10th level and suddenly you realize that your father's been dead for 12 years? So, for example, DM says there's a ring that's been lost for 20 yrs, super magical, PC's will probably get to keep it when they find it. One player suddenly decides that this ring was HIS family's lost heirloom and he should get to keep it. But it's ok, he JUST wrote it into his background? I think this kind of style leaves the DM totally unprepared and sounds like its used by players to 'one-up' the DM.
I'm sorry, i just don't get this kind of 'background' writing style. Maybe it'll fit some gaming groups, but it definitely wouldn't fit ours...and not just from me, the DM, but I know my players would throw fits if someone tried to pull this at the table. Backgrounds are just that...something that's already happened. Let the present/future campaign events play themselves out as the real story of it all.
I can certainly understand your incredulity. :) Perhaps I can help clarify.
Think of it this way: when you start a movie or a book, you usually don't know anything about the characters' backstories. Usually it gets revealed later on (and usually in pieces), or it might even just be hinted at and let the viewer/reader speculate.
That's how I do my characters' backstories. I pretend I'm the audience rather than the author, watch what they do, and figure out how things came to be.
Now, you are correct that it would be inappropriate to suddenly announce a strong connection to every new plot point that came along. You forfeit your rights to any such connections when you choose to do a character this way. (Or you talk each item over with your GM, if a connection would make sense.)
Does it seem a little more feasible now? If not, I could explain more or give examples. :)
|
|
I think the majority of the background should be done prior to the campaign starting. At least the stuff that a player wants to deal with, i'm not talking about 10 pages of a family history. I limit my players to half a page maximum. But if they are interested in having a cool sword that's a family heirloom, that's something that should be in a background as it gives the DM time to prep it and determine when in the campaign would be the best time to introduce that. But family history is far less important to me than Why a character is adventuring, Who the character is, What makes them tic, What their goals for the character are, ect. Actually, when i send out background requests for new campaigns, I only send out something similar to the above questions.
This should be established prior to the first session. The major stuff in a character's life happened in the past (not counting upcoming campaign of course). I feel like if you leave everything blank until the player decides a new page in their history at a time that is most advantageous to them, this is cheating a little bit. Guess I'm just used to player cheese & abuse at the table more often than not.
Now...I have introduced something new to a player's background, but usually without the player's knowledge. Kinda like the Darth Vader is really your father type thing. And my players love that kind of stuff. But like i said...different groups are gonna like different ways to do it.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
sirmatt, I had a player speak up out of the blue 'I want to go talk to my underground contact Rourke'. He had never mentioned such a thing before.
What do you say to that?
"Okay, roll Diplomacy."
High roll: Let him talk to Rourke.
Low roll: "Rourke doesn't want to be seen with you after that last thing."
Too much backstory that makes me think of a wall of text is not appreciated but I do like some background. When I Gm I want a well written backstory not a long backstory.
No insult here Sirmattdusty, but can I ask how much down time you have between adventures? Given the starting age of most characters, leaving home is the only real life event they've experienced yet. (Well, the humans/ half-orcs/etc at least.)
Edit: Not that there isn't plenty of variation in the reasons that might drive someone to seek their fortune as a freebooting adventurer.
|
RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
I feel like if you leave everything blank until the player decides a new page in their history at a time that is most advantageous to them, this is cheating a little bit.
And where exactly did you get the idea that anyone's doing this for an advantage? Unless I missed something (feel free to link the post if I did), the only one to even think of that so far is you.
If the idea of someone doing something different than you makes you assume they must be trying to pull something over on you, then you have bigger problems to deal with than backstories. :P
|
|
sirmatt, I had a player speak up out of the blue 'I want to go talk to my underground contact Rourke'. He had never mentioned such a thing before.
What do you say to that?
You give my players too much credit ;)
No, j/k, actually here's two ways how it would work:Bob: I want to go talk to my underground contact Rourke.
Me: Why?
Bob: To find out if he might know about the assassins.
Me: Well, according to your background, you're a monk who lived in a secluded mountain monastary until recruited by this party, so no, you don't have an underground contact named Rourke...maybe you could speak with the master of your monastary instead who you said before was a former assassin as well?
Or
Bob: I want to go talk to my underground contact Rourke.
Me: Why?
Bob: To find out if he might know about the assassins.
Me: Well, seeing as how you said you grew up as a street rat in the slums of Absolom, I'm pretty sure you must've known a guy named Rourke in the underground. Roll Knowledge (local) to find him.
I rolled with it, since he was a bard, patterned after Thom Merrilin.
Good GM.
Note that I am on your side as far as backstory preference — but I also think it is the GM's job to roll with it if a player has their own preference for fun.
|
|
Maybe I'm confusing 'background' with everyone else's idea of what a 'background' is here. Like I said, i'm less interested in exact NPC names, places, dates, contacts, ect for a prepared background. Instead I request Why a character is adventuring, Who the character is, What makes them tic, What their goals for the character are, a brief physical description, and that's about it.
Also, this is how my player's like to do it. Like me, they don't like bothering about what their uncle on their mother's side liked for breakfast each morning (unless for some odd reason that's the reason their adventuring....)
|
|
I rolled with it, since he was a bard, patterned after Thom Merrilin.Good GM.
Note that I am on your side as far as backstory preference — but I also think it is the GM's job to roll with it if a player has their own preference for fun.
I believe every case needs be weighed on its own merits. But denying the idea should have a good solid reason, and suggestions of tweaks to make it allowable. Some things are too out there, but most aren't.
Rourke has become a recurring thieves guildmaster in my games thanks to that player. I couldn't be more pleased.
|
RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
I request Why a character is adventuring, Who the character is, What makes them tic, What their goals for the character are, a brief physical description, and that's about it.
Well, let me use my PFS fighter as an example:
Having been fairly new to Pathfinder when I made him at level 1, I started with just "I want to make a disarm/trip fighter because the flail looks really efficient for that".
Then I made his stats and feat choices and whatnot. Since I had to pick a faction, I picked Andoran because at the time it was the only one that wasn't either extremely specific or else trying so hard to be edgy that I'd feel like some emo teenager if I played it.
Finally, I was intrigued by PFS Day Job rules, and I thought a fighter trained in baking would be funny, so I put a rank in Profession (baker).
And that was it. I started my first session knowing nothing about him but his mechanics.
After a while, it became clear that he was a serious, task-focused type. Not too much into socializing, more into problem-solving (13 INT, 12 WIS) and getting the job done. So now I have a partial personality.
A little later, I decide that it feels right for an intelligent adventurer who travels around a lot to learn any foreign languages he encounters, so he starts putting ranks into Linguistics. Now I know he's a bit of a hobby linguist and intellectual.
At around level 4 or so, season 3 hits and brings with it some new factions (and a free faction switch to anyone who wants it). Like so many others, I'd only really chosen Andoran by default, so I switched to the more neutral Grand Lodge. Felt right, based on who this character was turning out to be.
At level 5, I start re-contemplating the character because my local VC asked me to write up a 400-500 word character profile on him. So I look at what I've got: an intelligent human, originally Andoran (with a bazillion others) but now Grand Lodge, a master baker, a linguist, and a high-AC fighter who protects his allies.
I put it all together: he was born and raised in the country of Andoren, and felt obligated to put his love of baking on hold so he could join the stream of Andorans who were flocking to the Society to spread freedom and democracy. He learned to fight, and enlisted. But he felt like a drop in the bucket, and abandoned his loyalties to his homeland (no ill will, just not acting in their interests anymore). Now he serves the Society and the Society alone, hoping to someday open a bakery in or near Absalom's Grand Lodge so that he can help his comrades even when he's not on a mission.
Ta-dah! A fun backstory, developed during gameplay after starting with nothing but stats, and it wasn't a means of squeezing out any kind of "advantage". This is what I'm talking about. Surely this doesn't seem to strange, does it?
|
|
I think I know where I'm getting mucked up. I first thought that you were waiting until you were several sessions in, waiting to learn who the important NPCs were, what the powerful item was ect, then building your background around the campaign's biggest parts, which to me, is cheating at worst, cheesing it up at best.
So what you do is you have NOTHING at first, just mechanics? And then, when you need a contact, suddenly you have a contact. How do you know what you look like? How do you describe yourself to the other players during the very first session? Do you know why you're sitting at this tavern and why you are bothering even talking to the other characters? Do you know why this character is even interesting in the adventure to start it? Or is that stuff that you actually do come up with, and leave other minor details, like contacts & family to come later on. Very interesting. Not how my players would do it or me for that matter. Sounds like a cool way to do it. Doubt I ever will nor the group I DM neither.
|
RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
So what you do is you have NOTHING at first, just mechanics?
In the case of Cledwyn (my fighter), that's correct. Some of my other characters have a little more going in - it just depends on the character.
And then, when you need a contact, suddenly you have a contact.
No. This feels like cheating. Now, I might ask the GM something like "Would I know anyone from my background in X who could help with/know about Y?" and the GM can decide.
How do you know what you look like?
Picking an ethnicity from the ISWG helps with that. :) Otherwise, I typically look like a run-of-the-mill member of my race. (Frankly, sometimes the overload of "unique" characters in PC parties is kind of sickening. I'm sorry, but I can't buy a party full of mysterious hooded strangers.) I eventually decided that Cledwyn had a beard, just because the mini I used had one. ;)
How do you describe yourself to the other players during the very first session?
Race, clothing/armor, etc. You know, the kinds of things their characters would see when they met me. ;) You don't know someone's backstory just by looking at them!
Do you know why you're sitting at this tavern and why you are bothering even talking to the other characters?
Do I need a reason to be in the tavern? ;) Besides, presumably the GM would be the one telling me why I've met the other PCs, rather than the other way around - doesn't the story have a beginning?
Do you know why this character is even interesting in the adventure to start it?
Same as above - the story hook is the GM's job. I'm probably not playing a character who goes around looking for a reason to get into trouble.
Basically, there's a certain pace at which a character's personal details would normally be revealed in a book or movie. The story becomes more exciting when I get to learn those details alongside everyone else instead of knowing them all ahead of time. And I daresay having too much pre-written background could really stifle good roleplay.
And yes, anyone who tries to claim a magic ring as a family heirloom will find that it is in fact a Cursed Ring of Ultimate Douchebaggery.
Hey, I know that heirloom! (NSFW) Ok, not a ring, and the curse doesn't target its owner, but...
Generally before the first session, I tell all the players that their characters are starting 'here' and they should tell me why they are 'here.
That's what I do, too. But then, I do tend to use published adventures to cut down on prep, too.
I do like to write anywhere from 1-5 paragraphs of history for my characters, explaining things like feats, unusually good or bad abilities and things like that. It depends on how into the character's head I already am when I write it.
I have found myself more and more enjoying improvising it as I go. This is a product of a couple things. First of all my group has had a lot of prematurely ended campaigns. It is really hard to justify putting in a 4 or 5 page background for a character that will last 6 sessions. It has happened more then a few times with some of our dms. Life can get in the way, or something doesnt work out in the story, or simple fatigue. But if there is a descent chance of happening its hard to get motivated to write up a big backstory.
That said I consider roleplaying imporant, and I do enjoy improvising my background. Usually I have a basic framework, a few sentances of history with some motivations, what my character wants, what he hopes to achieve, why is he participating in the adventure. Then as the character develops in play I fill in the gaps. Its kind of fun to sit down between sessions and work out a little more of my back story based on the in the moment inspirations that have come to me at the table. And I have always found that my favorite personalitys are ones I develop on the fly as the game progresses. I always feel like if I try to work one out ahead of time it ends up flatter then the ones I just started roleplaying and went by the seat of my pants.
My current character in a kingmaker game is turning out to be one of my all time favorites, and his background started a few sentances expanding on his campaign trait. He has since developed into one of the more well developed characters (personality wise) that I have ever played and is the literal boogey man of the kingdom (Law and Order enforced at whatever cost). When a group in character argues points of law that might need to be changed or not given the current circumstances of a game, I think we are doing well on the roleplay front.
So like evil lincoln I dont at all believe you have to have a detailed background in order to roleplay effectively, and I dont think it is in opposition to 'rollplay' either.
Generally before the first session, I tell all the players that their characters are starting 'here' and they should tell me why they are 'here.
I'm running my third game now and this is my favorite method. So far none of my players have given me grief - I tell them that they are heading north, and then ask them why their characters would be going in that direction. I let them handle everything else (do the PCs know each other, etc).
I've played in campaigns where the DM wanted rich, deep, fully-fleshed out background stories... and henceforth ignored everything we players wrote.
I've played in games where I rolled up a new character in 10 minutes with no backstory, and had a blast.
No one side of the roll/role axis is better than the other. Fun is fun. If it isn't fun, then it isn't fun. Nobody is "better" at the game because they do/don't write a backstory. Sorry, just venting a little.
|
I used to play in games where a minimum 3 page backstory was mandatory, and in some cases the DM was amazing enough to build off all of the plot lines inherent in these backstories to make a game that made sense.
It got out of control quite often, with players accomplishing more and more, becoming gods, etc before 1st level.
Then we started on APs, and have found a nice balance with the traits and creating a simple background.
The games actually last longer and the characters are less like to break into soliloquy's concerning their 80 year quest to find the grail and become the deity of Frogs again (or some such nonsense).
When I GM, I like backgrounds. They enrich my world and gives me plotlines and npc's to use. I encourage backgrounds by giving xp's for them.
In the campaign I'm in, we fleshed out a simple half page story for each character. Our DM took hooks from each story to flesh out our world. We are now level 7 and things are rich with history.
Example, our fighter took leadership this level, his cohort is a bard/fighter.
My character is a wizard who knew him previously from when he attended a wizard school to learn the magics associated with barding.
As well as we found out my cause in adventuring, Which I stated in my history was research, led us to realize as a group that I have been working for the elfen government. So now we have all been introduced to the elfen realm more tightly.
The best backstories are not set in stone, but fluid.
Then again we have a good to great DM.
He adapts our story into the grand scheme he has planned.
I guess I consider myself fortunate.
Brian
As a DM, I do what I can to make use of "arbitrary detail" backstories, but what I'm really looking for is hooks - motivations, things the character is likely to care about, that sort of thing. I don't care if a player sticks to their backstory if, once we start playing, something else strikes them as something they think would be better to care about, but I find it useful for a player to have thought about it. Knowing what a character cares about is in many ways what distinguishes one character from another once they're removed from their past lives and put into a scenario. It's good for the GM to know, and it's good for the player to have thought about.
Some weird (not bad, but weird) stuff I've seen in backgrounds I've gotten from players:
- A restaurant menu.
- A many-page biography of a hero with alarming levels of detail (particularly with regards to wound location and severity) that ends with the hero being forced to abandon his infant son. The infant son (now grown) is the actual PC, and doesn't know his birth parents.
- One where the character changes from a woman to a man part of the way through. Not like, the character begins identifying as a different gender or has an operation or puts on a cursed belt or something; the player just decided part of the way through writing the background that he'd rather play a male magus and forgot to go back and change the pronouns and stuff in the first half.