Not every DM loves a page worth of backstory, but I do...

... and typically, my players give me some details about their character, ask me to write up their backstory - I pass it to them, make sure they're good with it.

Now the reason I love a good page or so of backstory, is I tend to pull NPCs, towns, whatever, from a character's background, somewhere down the campaign - and it gives them a hook to really be interested in that particular story/plot that's unfolding. (I have an entire thread on this forum, like 38 pages or so deep, worth of people who have requested a backstory from me)

Recently one of my players mentioned he wants to (briefly) swap his character in the main campaign with another (reason being his main character's wife is currently pregnant and he wants to be there for the childbirth) - so he was going to bring in another character while that was happening. And I was very OK with that - but when he came at me and had a backstory already (it needed SOME work), I told him I was impressed with what he'd written, because he wasn't known for writing backstories (but was an excellent RP person - one of my favorites, as a matter of fact, from my main game). So I thought, "Oh, these ... six... seven years of RP through my D&D campaign taught him how to delve into a character history! Very cool."

Was not the case. He used ChatGPT and fed it some information about the new character, and what he wanted and it spit out a backstory. Again, needed some work, but overall was still pretty solid.

It was, admittedly, a little heart breaking because he didn't write it himself, and didn't come to me to ask - he used AI.

I don't hate AI, but for myself - creating campaigns is what helps my brain calm down, because it's a maelstrom of ideas (not just D&D, but writing in general whether it's D&D, stories, lyrics, poems, whatever the case may be). But I know not everyone has the thousand voices screaming in their head keeping them up at night.

So DMs (or heck, even players!) - how do you feel about using AI to generate backstories? Or, perhaps some DMs use AI to generate campaign ideas?

The most I've used AI for when it comes to RPGs is to generate a few phrases when creating a mechanical description. I don't trust it for narrative, or even to give me factual information. It is like a very well-trained monkey on a typewriter.

But, as much as I dislike AI, I also hate writing backstories. I always have, especially when I was young and all the roleplay I did was on free-form RP forums. I hate trying to fit a still-nebulous idea of a character into a socially expected amount of paragraphs or pages. Were I a less scrupulous individual, I might very well use AI to vomit something onto my character, simply to fill the space.

I guess it's all about expectations. I don't expect my players to make a long or detailed backstory (I'm fine with a few phrases, or just a general vibe), so there isn't that pressure to use AI in order to make something that's up to my standards. I'm sure you don't have huge requirements of your players in that regard, either, yet by putting a significant amount of focus on that aspect of their characters, it's not hard for a perceived necessity of "detailed backstory" to be constructed, even if it is an erroneous perspective. Apologies if you've already considered this point, though.

The use of AI as a shortcut, of course, ties back to psychology and reward systems and things of that nature (something, something, operant conditioning). No one is born knowing how to use AI to do their tasks for them, yet it becomes preferential to use it because it has such a low barrier to entry. Almost all progress or creation begets some form of suffering, if you consider things in their most abstract sense. It would be time consuming to write a backstory by oneself. Someone might be embarrassed by having to ask someone else to do this work for them, or if they present something that wasn't sufficiently dense. Yet the cost of using AI is primarily just the shame of cutting corners (a negative that depends greatly on one's own morals/ethics). I think until it becomes more socially acceptable to shame people for using AI in these types of tasks, it's just best to specifically ban it from one's tables.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tawmis

So DMs (or heck, even players!) - how do you feel about using AI to generate backstories? Or, perhaps some DMs use AI to generate campaign ideas?

---

What is known as "AI" for marketing purpose is meant to kill artists.

That is to say, it's made by techbros and corporate suits to make artists unable to ask for money for their work, by providing a cheap, easy-to-use and good-enough-in-quality-we-triple-swear alternative.

It's meant to depower artists, removing the means they have to ask for better work conditions and wages.

It's meant to discourage artists, making them either take worse deals or just stopping altogether.

So what I feel about using AI to generate backstories or campaign ideas is the same I feel about using AI for anything else: the individual may be using it for convenience, but each time they use it normalize it a little more.

And that's what the people who push for the removal of artists are banking on.

Beyond what Unoriginal said ...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tawmis

So DMs (or heck, even players!) - how do you feel about using AI to generate backstories? Or, perhaps some DMs use AI to generate campaign ideas?

---

With the former, I look at the player and say "give me three to five sentences, in your own words, on why you are an adventurer. Put yourself in your character's shoes and do that.
If you can't put forth that much effort, why should I put effort into building and running a world for you?
Help me out here. I need it to come from you, since you are the one playing in our game...and it's you that I want to work with and play with for this game...you, not some soulless algorithm.

And if you want to give me some more later, as you get to know your character better through play, we can add to it ... "

As to the latter: if that reduces DM workload, OK, but edit and scrub as needed just as you do with published adventures.

I don't care what tools someone uses, as long as they know and agree with what they're handing me - and agree that what they're handing me is what they want to play. If someone has a few ideas but isn't good at connecting them and wants to use ChatGPT to do that work, its fine, as long as they've actually read what comes out and are interested in playing that character.

What would be bad would be if a player assumed that I was trying to assign them homework or get them to prove their commitment to the campaign or something, generated a bunch of stuff, didn't bother to read it closely, and handed it to me as 'here, assignment done'. If e.g. I then make reference to something in that backstory and they're like 'huh?' or RP totally differently than their backstory suggested for their motivations or relationships, then that's worse than if they just didn't hand me anything.

I don't need or want a book, I don't need or want prose. If the LLM gives them inspiration, great! If running a few ideas through an LLM makes it more readable and organized, that's useful. If it turns what could have been a bullet point summary into a page of filler, well, I'd rather they just not bother but its not like it will offend me.

For me the point of the backstory is player engagement, so when backstory tie ins come up if the player is engaged I don't really care if they wrote it themselves. I don't see much difference between using AI or coming to a forum like this and asking for a backstory.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sorinth

For me the point of the backstory is player engagement, so when backstory tie ins come up if the player is engaged I don't really care if they wrote it themselves. I don't see much difference between using AI or coming to a forum like this and asking for a backstory.

---

Another point, making a player who doesn't give half a crap about how their character ties into the world submit a backstory just creates annoyance when you toss them a hook and they're all "meh, whatever".

I'll work with whatever backstory I'm given, but my only requirement on my players is that they can explain why this character is in this dangerous line of work. They can give me as much as they want as long as they can answer that question. I've gotten everything from a single line to a full page. I engage with the players who are engaged, I work with the players who want to deepen their engagement, and I let the players who want to be on the world but not really in it have their fun.

I happen to know some people who are great roleplayers and fun to be around who really struggle with creative writing. I have no interest in delving into the greater issues at play here, not the time and place IMO--but for the purposes of this thread I don't care that much about the tools, I care about how they're used.

If a player uses an LLM to generate a backstory:

• I do not want them to pass it off as their own work, because that would be dishonest
• Provided they are not otherwise detrimental to the experience of everyone else, I would rather them play a character they didn't make than not play at all
• I don't want them to create writing work for me that they will not engage with, so I would also rather have no backstory than one they didn't read or write
• I would hope they at least do some editing work, as that's indicative that they understand the points above

So if you are able to find a player who demonstrates that they understand what they're getting into, then it could be fine.

I think a blanket ban makes sense if you're trying to filter a little more carefully. Consider the subset of potential D&D players who do not otherwise raise red flags but would use an LLM for backstory. My suspicion is that that subset of players would likely thrive in shorter-form stories like oneshots and individual adventures rather than a grand, cohesive campaign--and so if your style is more the latter, it's probably not worth the extra cognitive overhead to think any harder about LLMs than "please don't bother."

On the other hand, if you're setting up a game that's like "we're just gonna run a different oneshot every week, don't expect to play the same character twice," it's a lot more understandable that someone might want to phone it in some weeks. But that format also probably doesn't require more than one or two points of characterization anyway.

So overall, the legitimate use cases are narrow, but I am also not that unsympathetic to players who would do this, because (again) I know people who are those people that roleplay well but have a rough time sitting down and writing. I would rather more people play D&D, not fewer.

IMO the current state of these advanced search engines are like a really eager toddler trying to help you cook. Give them a really simple task they can probably execute it as long as the instructions are clear enough but you're still going to want to double-check everything and not leave it unattended under any circumstances unless you are specifically looking for comical results.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TrueAlphaGamer

But, as much as I dislike AI, I also hate writing backstories. I always have, especially when I was young and all the roleplay I did was on free-form RP forums. I hate trying to fit a still-nebulous idea of a character into a socially expected amount of paragraphs or pages. Were I a less scrupulous individual, I might very well use AI to vomit something onto my character, simply to fill the space.

---

Which is totally fair. I get not everyone (maybe even most?) don't enjoy writing backstories.
For me, that's always given me a feel for the character - to flesh it out, beyond the Bonds, Flaws, etc., that can be selected during character creation.
Why do I have the flaws that I have? What makes me want to ensure I protect my friends at all costs?

For example, I am currently playing in a "Delta Green" (https://www.delta-green.com/) - I'd never played (or even heard of) this game until a month ago. But it's essentially X-Files meets Cthulhu (with character deaths and insanity a common place). My first character died (no shocker) by the second session. No shocker, but also, no loss. I didn't care that he died. Rolled up a second character, and he's survived now a few sessions - so on my own, I wrote a backstory for him (based on his profession, his bonds, and how he got into Delta Green, what he found that interested them). Now, as I am playing him in the game, I definitely care more about him - but I also get way more into character with him (he's very, very, very, very close to going utterly insane when we ended the last session), but I've enjoyed playing that up.

Now everyone may not be a psycho and need that extra story bit to really feel like they're stepping into their character.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TrueAlphaGamer

I guess it's all about expectations. I don't expect my players to make a long or detailed backstory (I'm fine with a few phrases, or just a general vibe), so there isn't that pressure to use AI in order to make something that's up to my standards. I'm sure you don't have huge requirements of your players in that regard, either, yet by putting a significant amount of focus on that aspect of their characters, it's not hard for a perceived necessity of "detailed backstory" to be constructed, even if it is an erroneous perspective. Apologies if you've already considered this point, though.

---

Oh, I never expect my players to do it, either. I've always enjoyed doing it - and they've told me it's helped them (same idea, I mentioned - adding the depth to step into that character's personality and leave their own behind during the game).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by KorvinStarmast

Beyond what Unoriginal said ...
With the former, I look at the player and say "give me three to five sentences, in your own words, on why you are an adventurer. Put yourself in your character's shoes and do that.
If you can't put forth that much effort, why should I put effort into building and running a world for you?
Help me out here. I need it to come from you, since you are the one playing in our game...and it's you that I want to work with and play with for this game...you, not some soulless algorithm.
And if you want to give me some more later, as you get to know your character better through play, we can add to it ... "

---

And that makes sense. Again, not everyone is a psycho like me. :D

What's been fun - so, one of my regular players - his wife, and her two brothers (and his own brother) have all wanted to play D&D. They've heard (one side) of the conversation often when he's been playing - and so I said I'd run a game for them. Now rather than use my own homebrew world - I knew they're all familiar with the Dragonlance novels (especially Chronicles, the first trilogy). So I wove an adventure around the same time frame as the first book (but taking place in a different area of Ansalon, the main continent) - and it was supposed to be a one shot (but the psycho I am, wrote an adventure that's already 53 pages long, in case - with my hope, it'd go beyond that first session). So they all created characters on D&D Beyond through my campaign I made - I went into their characters, created backstories that tied to the campaign I had written (tying some people to NPCs I knew would be in the adventure and such). And they were all really surprised by the first session, and how much they enjoyed it - so now we got a monthly game going.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by NichG

I don't care what tools someone uses, as long as they know and agree with what they're handing me - and agree that what they're handing me is what they want to play. If someone has a few ideas but isn't good at connecting them and wants to use ChatGPT to do that work, its fine, as long as they've actually read what comes out and are interested in playing that character. What would be bad would be if a player assumed that I was trying to assign them homework or get them to prove their commitment to the campaign or something, generated a bunch of stuff, didn't bother to read it closely, and handed it to me as 'here, assignment done'. If e.g. I then make reference to something in that backstory and they're like 'huh?' or RP totally differently than their backstory suggested for their motivations or relationships, then that's worse than if they just didn't hand me anything.

---

True, but hopefully your players read what they kick out (even if using ChatGPT), even if it's just a page long. :) If they don't have the attention span for that, I would question if they have the attention span for a long adventure or waiting for you to finish describing the scenery around them without shouting, "I just attack them!" :D

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sorinth

For me the point of the backstory is player engagement, so when backstory tie ins come up if the player is engaged I don't really care if they wrote it themselves. I don't see much difference between using AI or coming to a forum like this and asking for a backstory.

---

And that is a fair point (ChatGPT vs going to a forum) - except going to a forum, at least it's another human helping you out. lol

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JonBeowulf

I'll work with whatever backstory I'm given, but my only requirement on my players is that they can explain why this character is in this dangerous line of work. They can give me as much as they want as long as they can answer that question. I've gotten everything from a single line to a full page. I engage with the players who are engaged, I work with the players who want to deepen their engagement, and I let the players who want to be on the world but not really in it have their fun.

---

I do the same - some players are there to "pew pew pew" everything, some are there for the social, some are there to do the most damage; I try to accommodate for everyone at the table. In one example, one of my players is a huge fan of Dragonlance (see above) - and their character is pretty much designed very close to Tanis (if you're familiar). So the background I wrote for him using his flaws, traits, etc., I intentionally made to mimic closely to Tanis. So when the ex-girlfriend comes calling on her blue dragon, there was a chance for some RP and discover what she's been up to, why she's riding a blue dragon, etc. The player didn't bite, so that whole segment was pretty much cut very short, and she's not surfaced again (I had plans if he did partake, but since that wasn't his cup of tea, that story went out the door, no harm, no foul).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dalinar

On the other hand, if you're setting up a game that's like "we're just gonna run a different oneshot every week, don't expect to play the same character twice," it's a lot more understandable that someone might want to phone it in some weeks. But that format also probably doesn't require more than one or two points of characterization anyway.
So overall, the legitimate use cases are narrow, but I am also not that unsympathetic to players who would do this, because (again) I know people who are those people that roleplay well but have a rough time sitting down and writing. I would rather more people play D&D, not fewer.

---

Yes, for Oneshots - yeah, there's no need for fleshed out backgrounds (unless they want to). For example, above I mentioned the Delta Green I am in; literally each one can be a one shot (because your character may die or go insane in one session). So my first character, I didn't bother - and he died. lol Second character, after he survived more than one session, I took it on myself to write a backstory, never sure if it's the next session he's gonna die or go insane. But not everyone is the psycho that I am. :D

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by stoutstien

IMO the current state of these advanced search engines are like a really eager toddler trying to help you cook. Give them a really simple task they can probably execute it as long as the instructions are clear enough but you're still going to want to double-check everything and not leave it unattended under any circumstances unless you are specifically looking for comical results.

---

Trying to treat them as search engines is working against what they're actually okay at. They work best if you think of them as translators or rephrasers - I want to turn this bullet point list into paragraphs, I want to turn this natural language pseudocode into a specific formal programming language (but less good if its 'I want code that does X' rather than a step by step description of an algorithm, etc). They're also not terrible if you want to tap into the random generation aspect for inspiration, but this is a more complicated thing - basically the newer generations give more and more generic answers because of the way they're refined through feedback, whereas the older generations produced more crazy, creative outputs that IMO are better for deriving inspiration.

If you approach them as search engines then there's this premise that what they are supposed to be doing is to reference actual knowledge that exists or existed somewhere, which is not actually what they're trained to do - its a pure side-effect of them being trained *extremely well* for an otherwise unrelated task that doesn't actually care about factuality. When an LLM 'hallucinates', that's actually what it's supposed to do at least according to its loss function - generate linguistically plausible sentences and continuations that are sampled from the distribution of what could possibly be written by someone, rather than the distribution of what actually was written by people. When it does the latter rather than the former, that would be considered overfitting, meaning 'add more data until it can't remember everything' or 'noise its neurons until it can't remember everything' or other sorts of regularizations.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by NichG

Trying to treat them as search engines is working against what they're actually okay at. They work best if you think of them as translators or rephrasers - I want to turn this bullet point list into paragraphs, I want to turn this natural language pseudocode into a specific formal programming language (but less good if its 'I want code that does X' rather than a step by step description of an algorithm, etc). They're also not terrible if you want to tap into the random generation aspect for inspiration, but this is a more complicated thing - basically the newer generations give more and more generic answers because of the way they're refined through feedback, whereas the older generations produced more crazy, creative outputs that IMO are better for deriving inspiration.

If you approach them as search engines then there's this premise that what they are supposed to be doing is to reference actual knowledge that exists or existed somewhere, which is not actually what they're trained to do - its a pure side-effect of them being trained *extremely well* for an otherwise unrelated task that doesn't actually care about factuality. When an LLM 'hallucinates', that's actually what it's supposed to do at least according to its loss function - generate linguistically plausible sentences and continuations that are sampled from the distribution of what could possibly be written by someone, rather than the distribution of what actually was written by people. When it does the latter rather than the former, that would be considered overfitting, meaning 'add more data until it can't remember everything' or 'noise its neurons until it can't remember everything' or other sorts of regularizations.

---

Would you trust that the translate something from bullets to the paragraph without proofreading it?

I agree it's pretty good at reformatting information but I don't trust it to understand that information you're what I take anything that gives me as factual because it doesn't have the capacity to tell the difference.

Maybe it's particularly good at the coding support that you mentioned but since I'm currently learning how to code I'm not touching it for this type of application because I want to learn how to code not produce code.

If I'm having a dry spell I might use AI to give me ideas, but it's usually just the headlines, and it often generates disappointing and boring stuff so I don't think I've ever gone with it. The only thing I've found AI to be any good at is generating names for people and stuff.

How do I feel about players using AI? Bad. I used to ask players to write backstories, I don't anymore. If a player doesn't feel inspired to write a backstory then they shouldn't write one. Instead I'd rather pose some leading queries and get a backstory that way. Simple questions like "where is your character from?", and "why is your character in this quest?", and "from the party, name at least one that your character already knows".
When a player has cool ideas I'll basically always use it, either build something around it or find a way to incorporate it. Some players do this often, some never.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by stoutstien

Would you trust that the translate something from bullets to the paragraph without proofreading it?

---

For something that's going to be published, no, I wouldn't trust that. But I wouldn't trust a colleague with a PhD to do it either. I have actually made that mistake (with the colleague not the LLM) and been burned by it, so...

For something that's for my own consumption? Like asking the LLM to explain an equation or something? Well, I guess proofreading is just going to happen anyhow because how else will I use the output?

For something like dynamic NPC dialogue in a video game based on a short list of things the NPC knows? That's low enough stakes that yeah, I'd test it and maybe put a few hard wordlist filters depending on the intended audience, but I wouldn't be too worried that I have to see every single sentence before it gets in front of a player.

For something like a wildsurge table or Deck of Infinite Randomness as a gimmick? Well, having to run with random nonsensical junk that comes out would be part of the fun of that. And, again, really low stakes...

Quote:

---

Maybe it's particularly good at the coding support that you mentioned but since I'm currently learning how to code I'm not touching it for this type of application because I want to learn how to code not produce code.

---

There are probably good strategies for using LLM code assistance for teaching programming conceptually, since a lot of the stumbling blocks I found with learning to program had to do with boilerplate code you just have to know and never change - like, you just need these 8 arcane lines to make an OpenGL context and window and initialize stuff and so on, and while they do have some meaning its hardware level stuff that's not relevant if you're at the stage of learning data structures and loops and such. But of course you don't have to use LLMs for anything if you don't want to.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tawmis

Which is totally fair. I get not everyone (maybe even most?) don't enjoy writing backstories.

---

As you know, I like to create back stories. :smallbiggrin:

Quote:

---

And that makes sense. Again, not everyone is a psycho like me. :D

---

Or me.

Quote:

---

Spoiler: The Campaign

Show

What's been fun - so, one of my regular players - his wife, and her two brothers (and his own brother) have all wanted to play D&D. They've heard (one side) of the conversation often when he's been playing - and so I said I'd run a game for them. Now rather than use my own homebrew world - I knew they're all familiar with the Dragonlance novels (especially Chronicles, the first trilogy). So I wove an adventure around the same time frame as the first book (but taking place in a different area of Ansalon, the main continent) - and it was supposed to be a one shot (but the psycho I am, wrote an adventure that's already 53 pages long, in case - with my hope, it'd go beyond that first session). So they all created characters on D&D Beyond through my campaign I made - I went into their characters, created backstories that tied to the campaign I had written (tying some people to NPCs I knew would be in the adventure and such). And they were all really surprised by the first session, and how much they enjoyed it - so now we got a monthly game going.

---

That is completely awesome! Envious.

I used AI to make a backstory for my back-up character, since I needed something that would be easy to put out and run with, but it might not ever see playtime so I didn't want to spend a huge amount of time (as I am known to do) creating a long backstory.

I spent about an hour with Chat GPT, giving it details of the character (a tabaxi whisper bard/swashbuckler), tabaxi culture, a few character traits, and a scenario (a tabaxi traveling troupe of performers and traders, whose leader is actually a whisper bard who collects secrets for a shadowy organization that the DM had created for the world we play in).

I had to ask for changes, and elaborations, etc. and I had to take what GPT gave me and edit some things. But after an hour or two I got something detailed, fun, with a family location, details about the members of the troupe I travel with, my history as a performer pretending to be a swords bard, and so on, that would have taken me many hours or even days to write and edit.

And I did get to play this character for a few sessions, after my current warlock character was captured by the enemy and the new character was assigned by his leader to help the Party with their mission and rescue plan.

The DM could read over the backstory and character during the game session, tweak a couple of things, and we were off will little loss of playtime.

I told the DM that it was created with the help of GPT. But I knew it, and committed to it, and given that, I think this bit of GPT-assisted world-building ad character-detailing was possibly richer and more interesting than I would have come up with myself. And so it was also more fun to play, and fun for everyone at the table.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mastikator

I used to ask players to write backstories, I don't anymore. If a player doesn't feel inspired to write a backstory then they shouldn't write one.

---

Strong agree. Nobody should be forced to do something they don't want to do. If you make them do something they don't want to do (that is supposed to be for fun), you can't be mad when they use AI to do it way faster.

In my experience, most people just tend to play themselves. It's the easiest way to do things. There's no need for a backstory. Your character is you, but fantasy. Done. We did it. You're in a tavern, you see people. What do you want to do?

Quote:

---

Simple questions like "where is your character from?", and "why is your character in this quest?"

---

Does your character like helping people, or harming people? (Are you good or evil?)
Are you altruistic, or selfish? (Are you Lawful or Chaotic?)
If your character had 5000 gp, why would they not stop adventuring? (What's your Bond?)
What's a positive trait you see in other people? (What's your Ideal?)
What's a negative trait you see in yourself? (What's your Flaw?)

If you need more than like, two sentences to answer each question...Congratulations your character probably does need a backstory.

Quote:

---

When a player has cool ideas I'll basically always use it...

---

If you want to write a backstory? I'm happy to read it if it's not too long. More than a page is too long.

But, I'm not going to ask you to write a backstory. That's up to you. Always will be. If you use AI? I probably don't care because I'm going to ask you one or more of the five above questions at the table at some point, and AI can't help you at the table - not really.

Ultimately, I don't see it as much different than when I open Xanathars and throw some dice to generate family and background data that I then loosely stitch together and give to the GM to play with.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sigreid

Ultimately, I don't see it as much different than when I open Xanathars and throw some dice to generate family and background data that I then loosely stitch together and give to the GM to play with.

---

Well, see, the difference between randomly generated plots that someone else wrote is different to using AI because...Umm...Yeah. :smallwink:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by KorvinStarmast

As you know, I like to create back stories. :smallbiggrin:

---

Aye! And I've enjoyed the stuff posted in that backstory thread you've added to check out!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by KorvinStarmast

That is completely awesome! Envious.

---

Thank you! Our second session is this coming Saturday. Very much looking forward to it. Something about having new players enthralled in the game!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Cheesegear

Strong agree. Nobody should be forced to do something they don't want to do. If you make them do something they don't want to do (that is supposed to be for fun), you can't be mad when they use AI to do it way faster.

---

and...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Hiro Quester

I used AI to make a backstory for my back-up character, since I needed something that would be easy to put out and run with, but it might not ever see playtime so I didn't want to spend a huge amount of time (as I am known to do) creating a long backstory.
I told the DM that it was created with the help of GPT. But I knew it, and committed to it, and given that, I think this bit of GPT-assisted world-building ad character-detailing was possibly richer and more interesting than I would have come up with myself. And so it was also more fun to play, and fun for everyone at the table.

---

Absolutely! However, what if your DM said, "Hey if you need a character backstory, let me know and I will work with you to write it."
Would you still use ChatGPT or would you use your DM?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Cheesegear

In my experience, most people just tend to play themselves. It's the easiest way to do things. There's no need for a backstory. Your character is you, but fantasy. Done. We did it. You're in a tavern, you see people. What do you want to do?

---

And that's absolutely fine! I am not saying there's a wrong or right way. If people just play as themselves, but fantasy and don't need a backstory (or even if they're not really using their own personality and created a new one, but no backstory, that's fine too, just to be clear).

As long as folks have fun at the table, then it's all good. :)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sigreid

Ultimately, I don't see it as much different than when I open Xanathars and throw some dice to generate family and background data that I then loosely stitch together and give to the GM to play with.

---

Which if that works, awesome!
For me, ... like... if we think of Luke Skywalker. He's a moisture farmer. Lives with his aunt and uncle.
That's, admittedly, all we really know or need to know in Star Wars.
However, later when Luke is reunited with Biggs...

Imagine if this was a D&D campaign. You're playing Luke.
And your DM says, "And you see your old friend, Biggs."

You might be like, "Oh? What's my connection to him? How long have I known him?"

Where as if this was generated in the backstory ("... growing up, your Uncle was harsh, your aunt more forgiving, you spent the better part of the last 10 years, getting to know Biggs, someone your same age, and same ideas, as to one day, getting off this forsaken desert and joining the rebellion. Together, the two of you often spoke of how you would be the one to make a difference, and deliver the crippling blow that would bring the Empire down to their knees."

Even just that small bit, would give you, the player, more fuel to understand your relationship to Biggs (which is known between you and the DM) and could make any conversations with Biggs the NPC feel more sincere.

I would never use an AI to create a backstory, because to me, creating the backstory is part of the fun. Why would I want to ask a computer to have fun instead of me? But I also recognize that that part isn't fun for everyone, and so if someone else finds that asking an AI for help makes it more engaging for them, sure, go for it.

My characters usually end up with way more backstory than ever comes to light to anyone but me. One of my recent characters, for instance, was a gladiator, until he organized a slave rebellion and freed himself and a bunch of others. I know who all of the key figures were in that rebellion, including a few non-slaves who decided to join their cause, what they did with their lives afterwards, the town on the edge of the wilderness they established, the form of government of that town, and their entire code of laws (to be fair, their government and code of laws is very simple, as befits a newly-established wilderness town populated by people who have a problem with authority).

Another character, it was important that he come from a nation of gnomes, and the DM said that he didn't already have a nation of gnomes in his game world, so I created that. I know the queen (including her full, formal list of titles) and the full High Council, plus a few extras who aren't officially on the Council but have as much influence as if they were, their demographics, their recent history and its consequences, including how that recent history fit in with the recent history of the nation of one of the other PCs (my character knew of him specifically as an enemy combatant from a recent war, but since the Empress signed a peace treaty that both sides could pretend was in their favor, he was fine).

AI's are tools. I see no difference between using a LLM to write a backstory and using a spreadsheet to plan out a build.

The current crop of AI writing tools are not sufficiently powerful to write me a PC backstory, but for me a PC backstory is something quite carefully crafted to ensure that I can have said PC do what I want. In other words justification for what they know, what they can do, and how they will act.

Writing an NPC backstory with an AI (all 15 words of it) is more possible although it would still need hand holding.

An AI planning out an adventure to my own standards seems unlikely right now, but it could help with specific elements such as complications or background events.

AI can be useful in writing descriptions, if the setting is sufficiently vague or generic, but even then, it needs some hand holding.

All that said, this is just the situation in 2024, in 5 years, things will likely be different.

I certainly wouldn't recommend banning AI tools, since enforcing said ban is already very difficult, and is likely to become more so over time as models improve.