PC "Back story", why is that a thing?

[Mr Blobby]

As a DM, I generally go by the rule 'if the player mentions it in backstory, it means they'd like to explore it further in RP'. While I can't and won't promise I'll use them in the very first plot I'll run, if you play long enough I will use them eventually.

DM plots are quite often 'one size fits nobody perfectly'. Every player want different things from a game, and sometimes it's damned hard to accomidate them all. Sometimes, you'll have a big plot which you [as DM] suspect/know some of the players aren't jumping up and down with anticipation with [if you don't.. you bloody should]. In cases like that, the backstory is a godsend; have a little root through it, see if you can't add a little solo side-plot for them. This is where pbp really has the edge over tabletop; you could run this side-plot in tandem to the main story.

From the other side of the table, used backstory bits says 'DM understands your needs'. As I've said before, a novel-length backstory is not needed in my opinion; simply a few things which allow all to see the character as an actual character, not a bunch of stats on a sheet.

[Red Fel]

Don't GMs typically have a lot of their own things in their setting that they want to run, and take precedence over a player's stuff? From my experience, anyway.

As GM, I'm the opposite. While, yes, I create a world and various plots and events for the players to play with (or not play with, at their discretion), I generally prefer to use a PC's backstory as a basis for events that will involve that PC, and the party. In my ideal game, I use elements from the backstories of each PC, woven together to give each one a personal stake in the game. By doing this, it's not just a case of, "Okay guys, your characters are in the dungeon," throwing the PCs into one event after another. The PCs want to be there, they are personally invested. Moreover, the players feel invested, because in their own way, they have created a tiny part of the world; they get to enjoy the fruit of their labor.

That, and it makes things easier for me. One less plot hook to invent. Your father vanished when you were young? Great, I can work with that. You were born with a strange tattoo? That sounds like fun. You're searching for the ruins of a lost civilization? That's beautiful.

When players give me backstory, they're giving me plot hooks. When players give me plot hooks, (1) it means I have to come up with fewer plot hooks on my own, which makes things easier for me, and (2) it means that these are things that interest them, which makes it more likely that my players will stay engaged longer. Because at the end of the day, two things guide me as GM: How little work I can put in to produce maximum result, and how much engagement and enjoyment my players feel. If I can do next to nothing, and produce an immersive world that my players love, I'm at the top of my game, no pun intended.

[OldTrees1]

All these time I figured that the trouble from my backstory is on top of whatever trouble the GM/the setting/the plot is going to give me anyway...

Don't GMs typically have a lot of their own things in their setting that they want to run, and take precedence over a player's stuff? From my experience, anyway.

As a GM I do have things already in motion. I try to tailor those things to the players' preferences prior to session 1. As character personality/backstory is revealed I will try to incorporate it into the setting.

So yes, at some tables (like mine), you can request extra trouble (trouble on top of the campaign trouble) via your character's backstory/personality.

Why would I as a GM make twice as much trouble?
Making up new kinds of all-new trouble while also making up personalized trouble is just more work than I want to do. And I imagine most GMs will feel similarly. It all either gets integrated in, ignored, or provides about half the trouble.

"Why would you" is a question I cannot answer. "Why would I" / "Why would I not" is a question I can answer.

Creating for me tends to involve creativity and construction, when a Player provides the creativity the energy barrier for me to add the content is lowered (unless time for construction is my limiting factor). Since personally I can construct faster than I can inspire creativity I have little reason not to incorporate some of this player inspired content. By adding player inspired content on top of my own ideas I can reach 100% efficiency with my prep time.

[kyoryu]

Don't GMs typically have a lot of their own things in their setting that they want to run, and take precedence over a player's stuff? From my experience, anyway.

Honestly, depends on the GM and the particular game.

If someone's running an Adventure Path, there's a lot of predetermined stuff - and same goes if a GM has written their own Adventure Path.

But, in a lot of games, the problems that happen revolve around the characters in a very intimate way.

It's just a matter of knowing what type of game you're in.

Besides, in a given session, there's only so many hours. Time spent resolving issues that revolve around the characters is just that much more time spent *on* the characters.

[Malfarian]

My apologies for not reading the previous 8 pages to see if this was already suggested, but here is my thought on backstory.

I love the early concept of who your character is and where they come from, but I dislike the 5 pages of written story before you begin. I've found that once a game is underway, people "discover" who their characters are. So I prefer a fluid backstory, that is during play as you have good ideas about the past of your character, or if you're in a town and think, I'd know someone here, we take a pause and write it into your history.

I'd suggest that to your group.

Mal

[Jay R]

All these time I figured that the trouble from my backstory is on top of whatever trouble the GM/the setting/the plot is going to give me anyway...

That's actually not possible. I'm going to almost kill you every adventure. Twice that doesn't really mean anything.

Don't GMs typically have a lot of their own things in their setting that they want to run, and take precedence over a player's stuff? From my experience, anyway.

When I can, I use the backstory to tie the PCs more closely to my plot, by attaching the two. If I'm going to have the party try to rescue a noble lady, I'll use one from their backstory. Rescuing the lady is my contribution, but it's nice if she's somebody you already care about.

One of my players is a priestess of Athena. OK, the Death Lord's magic is hurting owls. Another is a half-Fair Folk. OK, the Death Lord wants to wipe out the Fair Folk. The druid grew up in a forest he really loves; that forest is the center of the Death Lord's first plot.

This isn't twice as much trouble. Just the the trouble you're going to have anyway will be based in part on something that already matters to you.

[Bohandas]

Another issue is level. Assuming you're starting at level 1, that means that the character both hasn't done anything big and in fact also lacks that capacity

[Milo v3]

Another issue is level. Assuming you're starting at level 1, that means that the character both hasn't done anything big and in fact also lacks that capacity

Another reason why I don't bother with level one.

[2D8HP]

Another issue is level. Assuming you're starting at level 1, that means that the character both hasn't done anything big and in fact also lacks that capacity

Another reason why I don't bother with level one.

In 1970's D&D the levels had "titles" (a 6th level Ranger was a "Pathfinder").
A first level Fighter was a "Veteran", so presumably the PC had skill, also compared to the first level PC's I played then, current edition D&D PC's seem very powerful indeed!

The old Treasure Hunt adventure module, has the PC's start at 0-level and without a class, or even an alignment, which you earned through play, which I thought was cool.

[Âmesang]

Even a 1st-level character must have done something since said character will typically have weapon and armor proficiencies, training in various skills, sometimes spells, and equipment.

You don't just wake up as a 1st-level fighter or a 1st-level wizard; that character built up to that point throughout his life. How did he build up to that? Who taught him, if anyone? Did he develop friends in training? Did he develop rivalries, friendly or otherwise? &c., &c…

You're not Jerry the Vampire.

[Milo v3]

In 1970's D&D the levels had "titles" (a 6th level Ranger was a "Pathfinder").
A first level Fighter was a "Veteran", so presumably the PC had skill, also compared to the first level PC's I played then, current edition D&D PC's seem very powerful indeed!

Crappiest veteran on the planet then.

Also, I never liked those title things ever since people have told me about them. Don't seem to add anything to the game aside from trying to steer players towards a pretty boring generic flavour.

[Mr Blobby]

I agree; even at L1 a character does have a little backstory; the most obvious being 'why did they start on the path to [insert whatever they are here]'. After all, stats-wise two soldiers PC's might be identical, but would act different if #1 was a wannabe-hero and #2 a young mercenary. A L1 wizard might have been professionally trained in a large city, or self-taught in the back end of beyond etc.

It also explains the stats on the sheet; I once played a Mage who was a half-decent tank [so good physicals etc]. Their backstory covered this by mentioning they'd already started down the path of a brusier before discovering their skill in magic.

[D+1]

My experience with backstory for PC's is that a big reason for a DM asking players to create backstory is that they have players who run appallingly one-dimensional characters. Every PC that every player creates is an orphan whose life to the point of beginning the game is uneventful and unimportant and now they are murderhobos. DM's then ask for players to create backstory as a means to get them to create characters who have SOMETHING to encourage a player to develop a personality for their PC's which they otherwise do not do. This effectively just highlights a disconnect between what the players want (or think they want) and what the DM wants out of the game. The players just want to get together, roll dice, and be murderhobos while the DM wants Great Drama, Moral Conundrums, and explorations of the Human Condition and Great Truths.

I've seen DM's ask for PC backstories OSTENSIBLY to be able to better weave the detailed lives of the PC's into the fabric of the campaign, but in reality they just use them to build a few adventures off of ideas written into backstories by the more creative players - that is, the DM lets players write a few adventure ideas so the DM won't have to. The fact that this will generally come at the expense of twisting and manipulating what the PLAYER was taking from the backstory is not considered. So, a PC who includes a long lost father as an element in his backstory just to give the character some emotion and concern regarding issues of fatherhood will find that the DM has chosen to make the BBEG of the campaign turn out to be the long-lost father the player mentioned. Whether the player MEANT for the DM to use and abuse the backstory they wrote in whatever way suited them, the DM nonetheless does use and abuse the backstory in whatever way suits them. Another reason why players dislike having to write backstory because they fear DM's who will only mess with it and make it something utterly different than what the player wanted it for.

I do encourage players to write backstory for their characters but I do not FORCE them to comply in any way, shape or form. Creation of backstory is FOR THEM, not me. If they are willing, or even DESIRE for me to incorporate their backstory directly into the game I'll do so - but by THEIR request, not mine.

I often enjoy creating backstory for my characters - but I keep it to myself. If a DM were to ask for a backstory I'd give them as harmless a backstory as I could devise to keep the DM from abusing it or perverting it to their own ends. Meanwhile, if _I_ wanted more then I'd create more, but would be unlikely to then reveal any of it to the DM if I had even the least suspicion they'd do anything to make me regret having done so.

[Amphetryon]

I've seen DM's ask for PC backstories OSTENSIBLY to be able to better weave the detailed lives of the PC's into the fabric of the campaign, but in reality they just use them to build a few adventures off of ideas written into backstories by the more creative players - that is, the DM lets players write a few adventure ideas so the DM won't have to.

How are you differentiating between what you say the DMs are "OSTENSIBLY" doing and what they're doing "in reality?" How would the former seem different from the latter, from the POV of the other Players at the table?

I ask because this reads as dismissive of a DM attempting to craft a campaign arc that actually resonates with the Players' goals and motivations for their PCs as nothing but laziness. It leaves very little room for a DM to collaborate with the Players in telling the story without being dismissed as lazy; your emphasis of the loaded term "ostensibly" and contrast with "in reality" (because you've asked the DMs, I assume?) underscores this.

[Pugwampy]

I only ever made one back story in my life . This is not essential for the game or your PC . My other PC,s without back stories are no better or worse , nor do they feel less substantial or less integrated into the "world" . A DM has no right to harass players for a silly story .

Getting some traits or a magic goodie for your extra effort seems like a reasonable motivator in my opinion . If you love your character enough to add more fine tuning onto him , then go for it .

[Max_Killjoy]

Wow...

Some of the raw overblown vitriol directed at even the concept of backstory...

[Milo v3]

A DM has no right to harass players for a silly story.

I've never actually heard of a DM harassing their players for a backstory..... Let alone a "silly story".

[Mr Blobby]

I know a DM who harrasses for a backstory...

Me.

I'm sorry, but my imagination can't do much with nothing more than a bunch of dots on a sheet. And who says what I *do* come up with will be anything like what the player is thinking of?

Is doing say 100 - 150 words in bullet points of 'their life to date' and say the same again for details of their kit / magic / goals / whatever else needs detailing *really* all too much? Hell, I help players do this part anyway if they so wish / need it.

[Mr Blobby]

You don't have to be a brilliant writer to be an excellent RP'er. One I played with was frankly on the dodgier end of writing ability, but their characters were always 100% believeable, interesting people which you could actually have a conversation with in character with on utterly random subjects [just like most real life people].

[2D8HP]

I've never actually heard of a DM harassing their players for a backstory..... Let alone a "silly story".

It can only be "harassment" if it's an already existing game and only some of the players are required to write them.
"Back story" seems to just now be a standard audition/interview for a game.
As a player I don't like it, but considering how much more work being the GM is, it's become understandable.

Thankfully a few DM's have been kind enough to let me play, which has great fun.
I can definitely tell that the other players are better fiction writers than I am, but what is puzzling is how often they write long impressive introductions of their PC's (typically to illustrate how badass/quirky/tormented/intense the PC is), then a few more posts, and then silence. No more posts.
I just don't get it.

Maybe my bad role-playing is driving the others away?

Or maybe for some writing the "back-story" is the game?

[flond]

It can only be "harassment" if it's an already existing game and only some of the players are required to write them.
"Back story" seems to just now be a standard audition/interview for a game.
As a player I don't like it, but considering how much more work being the GM is, it's become understandable.

Thankfully a few DM's have been kind enough to let me play, which has great fun.
I can definitely tell that the other players are better fiction writers than I am, but what is puzzling is how often they write long impressive introductions of their PC's (typically to illustrate how badass/quirky/tormented/intense the PC is), then a few more posts, and then silence. No more posts.
I just don't get it.

Maybe my bad role-playing is driving the others away?

Or maybe for some writing the "back-story" is the game?

Honestly, neither of these. Because it's not a scheduled event, something you HAVE to show up to, PbP is often the first thing to get shunted when people feel stress. And often, even if you WANTED to get back to it, by the time you do, you're too embarrassed to try and get back in.

[RazorChain]

I only ever made one back story in my life . This is not essential for the game or your PC . My other PC,s without back stories are no better or worse , nor do they feel less substantial or less integrated into the "world" . A DM has no right to harass players for a silly story .

Getting some traits or a magic goodie for your extra effort seems like a reasonable motivator in my opinion . If you love your character enough to add more fine tuning onto him , then go for it .

Well in that case the players have no right to request that the GM makes up "silly" adventures, plots, scenarios or campaigns. Many GMs started their GMing career because the responsibility was thrust upon them and use lot of time to prepare for sessions to keep the whole group entertained. Many of us that are GM's like to play but are get stuck behind the GM screen because they are the best GM in the group.

So when snotty punks can't be bothered to write 10 lines about their characters even when I have sent them questioneers or offered to help them then they can just leave my table and take their pretzels with them.

Most GM's that want a little backstories from their PC's are not asking for a novella. An example

Joe Bob was raised on a small farm in Happy Valley by a loving parents. He has a sister and a brother and had a normal upbringing. Happy Valley was ruled by King Herman who imposed the law that everyone who wasn't happy should be hanged by the neck until they cheer up. Joe Bob's father was a dour man and was caught by the king's men and hanged until he cheers up and he's still hanging from that big tree with the other unhappy louts. Joe Bob left after his father's death and learned the ways of the warrior and swore he would return and take vengeance on King Herman.

Joe is a big man always seen with a forced smile on his face, he has a hard time not smiling because of a habit. When he's not adventuring he likes to go fishing and read poetry. He's constantly worried that his family can't keep their smiles up.

That took a whole of 5 minutes of my time.

[Mr Blobby]

Honestly, neither of these. Because it's not a scheduled event, something you HAVE to show up to, PbP is often the first thing to get shunted when people feel stress. And often, even if you WANTED to get back to it, by the time you do, you're too embarrassed to try and get back in.

Agree 100% with that. I'd say every DM of a pbp game needs to put in place a system where AWOL PC's are faded out fairly promptly, all players know they can ask for a hiatus when RL is too much and make it clear that you [the DM] are willing and able to bring said PC's back to life later; be it a few weeks or a year later. Oh, and to actually tell players about this too.

[OldTrees1]

I know a DM who harrasses for a backstory...

Me.

I'm sorry, but my imagination can't do much with nothing more than a bunch of dots on a sheet. And who says what I *do* come up with will be anything like what the player is thinking of?

Is doing say 100 - 150 words in bullet points of 'their life to date' and say the same again for details of their kit / magic / goals / whatever else needs detailing *really* all too much? Hell, I help players do this part anyway if they so wish / need it.

Something to consider:
Is doing say a 100 - 150 word essay on the color orange too much? Probably not, however it would have little bearing on the character. A character's history can be vitally important, or completely irrelevant to the character (or anywhere in between ).

100-150 words is not too much to ask even if it is completely irrelevant. However in the cases where it is completely irrelevant, one can understand if the writer considers the exercise to be pointless.

[goto124]

That took a whole of 5 minutes of my time.

I can't even do that in 5 years! And that's with a pre-existing character who I've already RP'd!

[tsj]

Backstories often also explain unusual PC builds

[D+1]

How are you differentiating between what you say the DMs are "OSTENSIBLY" doing and what they're doing "in reality?" How would the former seem different from the latter, from the POV of the other Players at the table?

This is what's called an anecdote or anecdotal evidence. It's something I've personally experienced. I've seen/heard many similar instances.

I ask because this reads as dismissive of a DM attempting to craft a campaign arc that actually resonates with the Players' goals and motivations for their PCs as nothing but laziness.

It doesn't matter to ME what an individual DM does or fails to do in creating their campaign. I'm sure it matters to the players at their table. I am dismissive of those DM's who ARE lazy and use it to save themselves effort at the EXPENSE of the PC's backstory. There is a difference between "resonating" with a players goals and motivations for their PC's and by insisting on a player providing goals and motivations in a backstory, effectively forcing players to give to you the ammunition to abuse, pervert, and actually completely thwart those very goals and motivations.

It leaves very little room for a DM to collaborate with the Players in telling the story without being dismissed as lazy; your emphasis of the loaded term "ostensibly" and contrast with "in reality" (because you've asked the DMs, I assume?) underscores this.

When a DM TELLS you one thing and then does another then you have what they OSTENSIBLY are going to use backstory for and what they use it for IN REALITY.

I've had few good experiences with DM's who insist on backstory. In fact, IF the DM asked or strongly encouraged backstory the best experiences were when they then just completely ignored it.

I never said it was impossible to use it and use it well. The OP asks, "Why is backstory a thing?" MY experience has now been related. Please feel free to have a different experience and opinion than I. My opinion is not about you - unless you see something in it that hits uncomfortably close to home.

[Max_Killjoy]

That's not an issue with GMs asking for character background... that's an issue with bad GMs.

[Pugwampy]

Many GMs started their GMing career because the responsibility was thrust upon them and use lot of time to prepare for sessions to keep the whole group entertained. Many of us that are GM's like to play but are get stuck behind the GM screen because they are the best GM in the group.

I totally agree with that part . Correction all of us want to play .

I am sure you were quite aware this was a thankless task when you chose to be DM . Some players understand but most do not . I disagree it is your job to make a silly story for them regardless if they make one for you or not . We need players to interact with our la la land .

Its enough for me that they sit down and play with me for hours on end . Not every player is a competing hard core dead loyal gamer . I wont kick anyone who does not want to make a background story and in the bigger picture it does not matter . If someone does go the extra mile for me , I will reward their dedication .

DM and players create a story together in that present time and space . My start off village "hub" and their "life" stories have little if any influence .

[Jay R]

A DM has no right to harass players for a silly story

Correct; the DM can't "harass" players. But he can certainly insist on a backstory, or anything else.

D&D is a cooperative venture, and every person, DM or player, has the right to insisit on anything.

A DM can insist on a backstory.
A player can insist that there won't be a DMPC.
A DM can insist that there will be a DMPC.
A player can insist that the DM always rule according to RAW.
A player can insist that other players take spellcasters.
A DM can insist that the players bring the pizza.
A player can insist that the game take place on alternate Saturday afternoons.
A DM can insist that all characters must be left-handed underwater barbed-wire weavers.
A player can insist that the DM invent a long-lost tribe of great apes who raised his character.

And if we all agree to a certain set of conditions, then we play.

In the most recent game I ran, I insisted that all PCs be human, that they all come from the same isolated village, that every male character have a food=producing skill (hunting, fishing, farming) and that each female character have one of sewing, cooking, leatherwork, etc.

If any player had refused these conditions, they wouldn't play. If they all had refused, then the game wouldn't have happened. But I can certainly insist on them.