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

[Max_Killjoy]

Incomplete to the point of disingenuous. You forgot those that said "'Who am I?' is answer not by a history but rather by a description." (no mention of length or pages).

You further forgot those of us that said that this is all due to multiple schools of thought on what "Who are you?" is asking (again no mention of length or pages).

No intent to be disingenuous.

I'm specifically referring to the multiple repeated comments that paint any backstory at all as if it would have to be on par with "War and Peace" -- despite repeated clarifications that "a short paragraph" or "a bullet list of 10 things about this character's past" also can count as ample backstory. Perhaps an attempt at false dichotomy, perhaps simply internet hyperbole?

Personally I don't care what the length of the backstory requested is. My character will be defined by who they are which to & for me makes a backstory irrelevant. Now I might do the irrelevant writing assignment provided it is short enough, but it would remain irrelevant to my character. Just as it is valid to answer "Who are you?" by reciting your history, so too is it valid for someone to answer "Who are you?" by describing their identity.

So... it doesn't matter whether character has any living family, and how they lost any family that's gone, or if they're an orphan? It doesn't matter if there's a spouse and kids somewhere, or a "friend" in every town, or they've shut everyone out -- or why? It doesn't matter if they're from an isolated fishing village, or the cosmopolitan city that serves as the trading hub for an entire continent?

A character's background might not tell you WHO they are, but it certainly goes a long way in explaining WHY they are who they are, and also provides the GM with working material, and serves to help connect the character with the setting of the game.

Sidenote: I am shocked that nobody has jumped in to mention defining a character by the future in contrast to the past & present philosophies in this thread.

I thought at least one poster had said (paraphrasing) "my character is defined by where they're going, not by where they've been".

[kyoryu]

I thought at least one poster had said (paraphrasing) "my character is defined by where they're going, not by where they've been".

*raises hand*

Backstory is neat, but only to the extent that it impacts gameplay going forward.

Which doesn't necessarily mean "I'm planning my character's future!" but rather that the character has drives to go forward in some direction, and arguably future entanglements from the past.

[Max_Killjoy]

I'm playing a character whose backstory has significant holes in it that I fill as questions are asked. He's quite consistent; I have the personality fleshed out, and I know broad strokes about his family and certain events to use as "hooks" for him to refer back to. The other stuff I make up as I go, and it works because it's in line with the kind of person he is and his loosely-defined family structure. (I know his parents' professions, his older brother's profession, and that he has an aunt with whom he spent some time while his parents were too busy to care for him.)

Right, and that's all I'd ask for as a GM -- "tell me a little about where your character is from and how he got to where and when we are now".

I'm seriously not asking for what the character was doing on exactly X date 10 years ago, and what he had for breakfast on the day his father died... or what exact disease his father died of with the medical analysis of the symptoms.

*raises hand*

Backstory is neat, but only to the extent that it impacts gameplay going forward.

Which doesn't necessarily mean "I'm planning my character's future!" but rather that the character has drives to go forward in some direction, and arguably future entanglements from the past.

Backstory is supposed to be a launching pad, not a boat anchor chained to the character's leg. When a backstory gets to the point of being a straight-jacket on the character, then there's a problem.

Is that what some people are reacting to -- past experiences where their backstory had to be so detailed and precise and so on, that it ended up confining them to a tiny cage?

.

[Max_Killjoy]

Who the character is and how they will be played is always in the mind of the player. Except perhaps to remind a player of who their PC is, the "meaning" is to audition to the GM.
So for me the over 170 word essay of the PC that was rejected, will only be "meaningful" to me, if I can ever reuse it to audition for a different game. Otherwise they are writing assignments I'd rather be spared.

Some other (shorter) PC "back-story" audition essays I've written, were accepted by GM's and I'm having a swell time playing those PC's, and getting to play those PC's is what is "meaningful" to me.

Thankfully in no way so far have the written "back-stories" have yet contradicted how I would choose my PC's actions, had it then that would be a "meaningful" restriction, one that I would otherwise prefer not to have.
I"d rather discover the PC in play.
IRL I served a brutal apprenticeship (effectively a more than 5 year long job interview where I was treated as a human forklift), so I that my experience is vetted, and when I now seek a job, I just wait my turn and go to work without any cursed interview, my performance on the job and how much work there is to do decides whether I stay on or not.
If people enjoy writing a "back-story" great for them, I do not, and I would prefer to be spared that task, and go straight into play.

Your post is longer than 170 words, as something to compare against.


(I do not intend this to be snide or snarky, so please forgive me if comes across that way.)

[2D8HP]

Your post is longer than 170 words, as something to compare against.

Heh.



Good catch!

I guess when it comes to writing I'm much better at venting than I am at creating (funnier to).

If you want some tips on writing a backstory without writing pages of prose take a look at this, effectively it asks for the elements GM's are looking for in character history/personality without having to write it into prose. When I first started I experienced similar setbacks but with experience your writing will get better especially if you are playing with other people who are good writers. Running a dungeon crawl on pbp is hard, it requires active players who post frequently for it to go anywhere since combat heavy games require quick fire posting so as a result games featuring more RP interactions became popular since you could unload a few paragraphs and be good for a day.

That was a really good link. Thanks!

[Max_Killjoy]

If you want some tips on writing a backstory without writing pages of prose take a look at this, effectively it asks for the elements GM's are looking for in character history/personality without having to write it into prose.

Missed this earlier -- that's exactly what I mean. It breaks it down into things the GM would want to know, and doesn't apply pressure on the player to write long-form fiction.

[OldTrees1]

No intent to be disingenuous.

I'm specifically referring to the multiple repeated comments that paint any backstory at all as if it would have to be on par with "War and Peace" -- despite repeated clarifications that "a short paragraph" or "a bullet list of 10 things about this character's past" also can count as ample backstory. Perhaps an attempt at false dichotomy, perhaps simply internet hyperbole?

Sorry for the delayed reply

Simple internet hyperbole does tend to be incomplete to a fault. I did not mean to imply bad intent (for I did not presume bad intent).

So... it doesn't matter whether character has any living family, and how they lost any family that's gone, or if they're an orphan? It doesn't matter if there's a spouse and kids somewhere, or a "friend" in every town, or they've shut everyone out -- or why? It doesn't matter if they're from an isolated fishing village, or the cosmopolitan city that serves as the trading hub for an entire continent?

Honestly? No. Those don't matter to what I mean by "Who are you?" and what "Who are you?" means to me. That is not to say that they don't matter to you when you ask "Who are you?" (a completely different question).

A character's background might not tell you WHO they are, but it certainly goes a long way in explaining WHY they are who they are, and also provides the GM with working material, and serves to help connect the character with the setting of the game.

This is why I stressed that this is caused by a philosophic difference over what the question "Who are you?" means. If a good chunk of what one means by WHO is WHY & HOW they are the way they are, then backstories make perfect sense as an ideal vehicle to describe the causal path to reach that endpoint.

To use hyperbole (<--understatement):
One school - I know the effect every cause has had on shaping the character from the beginning of time
Other school - I know how the character would behave in every possible moment, even ones that cannot happen

To say the same thing but differently:
One school uses the history of an instance of the character to describe that character.
The other school uses the definition of the character to describe the instance.

Both questions have their merits and purposes. If a GM asks for a backstory then clearly a backstory is important to them even if it might not be important to the Player or the Player's character's identity.

I thought at least one poster had said (paraphrasing) "my character is defined by where they're going, not by where they've been".

Oh, nice! Please mentally correct every reference to the 2 schools to be a reference to the 3 schools (adjusting grammar as appropriate).

[ImNotTrevor]

I find that I don't fall into any of the "schools of thought" mentioned above. Maybe I'm eclectic?

I find that the history of a character has merit inasmuch as it affects the story/their actions right now.

Harry Potter has a lot of things that happened before page 1 of book 1 that are important to the story, and important to his character. They are important only inasmuch as they affect the story/his actions when the time comes. To say that Harry Potter is in no way defined by his past is inaccurate. (It is a big part of what ends up defining who he is.) He is not defined by what his favorite kind of cookie is or what his first word was.

But he's also not defined by being a "kind, brave wizard boy" because that is a similarly incomplete picture.

Add on to this that human beings are malleable, inconsistent, hypocritical beings, who you used to be may be vert different from who you are. I used to be obsessed with whales and wanted more than anything to grow up and have a wildlife show like Steve Irwin. This dream went well into my teen years. Now? I'm perfectly content to be an English teacher and maybe write a book eventually and live a fairly domestic life, because of various life events that were important to me. To approach me NOW from the perspective of using the character now to define all instances, I was a fairly unadventurous child who primarily liked to read books and write. Which would not be accurate to reality.

From the other direction, though,

Human beings are fickle, inconsistent, hypocritical creatures and defining their future by their past is equally incorrect. To take my past and use it to define who I ought to be now, I should probably work in a zoo somewhere or for Animal Planet or something. Also incorrect.

I've found that characters CRUCIALLY NEED only 4 things. (5 in a tabletop setting)

1. A name, age, basic physical description.
2. Something they instinctually follow around. (Their eyes, their gut, their nose, their genitals, their instincts, their moral compass, their sense of duty, etc.)
3. Something that they want, and a good reason for wanting it.
4. Something that stands in opposition to them acquiring what they want.
(For TRPGs)5. Some past event(s) that tie(s) them to one or more members of the party. (Ie, I saved his life once, I've been watching her from afar, I've secretly admired his work for years, etc.)

That's it. As a GM, I can work with that much. That's all I want. It tells me everything I need to know.

[GrayGriffin]

From a different thread:
I see that I'm not the only one weary of writing a "back-story" as an audition.
Go on strike?

Oh please. The guy who rejected you has been kind enough to point out that you being rejected had nothing to do with the shortness of your backstory, but the fact that your short backstory did not include the one thing he asked you to include, which you could have done with a backstory of any length. Seriously, knowing that, most of this thread tastes like sour grapes to me.

[Max_Killjoy]

Sorry for the delayed reply

Simple internet hyperbole does tend to be incomplete to a fault. I did not mean to imply bad intent (for I did not presume bad intent).

For clarity, I meant that "backstory is bad, I refuse to write a novel" could be hyperbole, or it could be a false dichotomy...

[OldTrees1]

For clarity, I meant that "backstory is bad, I refuse to write a novel" could be hyperbole, or it could be a false dichotomy...

For clarity, not only did that not describe everyone that was supporting the non backstory side but it even was an incomplete depiction of the main person's position on that side. That is why I said your "We mentioned it could be as short as 10 bullet points but everyone that disagrees with me is using the 20 page novel strawman" was incomplete to a fault (although probably due to internet hyperbole rather than an intent to be disingenuous).

Hence why I took the time to explain the other school of thought on what "Who are you?" can mean. So that you can have a more accurate image of those you are arguing against.

[Max_Killjoy]

For clarity, not only did that not describe everyone that was supporting the non backstory side but it even was an incomplete depiction of the main person's position on that side. That is why I said your "We mentioned it could be as short as 10 bullet points but everyone that disagrees with me is using the 20 page novel strawman" was incomplete to a fault (although probably due to internet hyperbole rather than an intent to be disingenuous).

Hence why I took the time to explain the other school of thought on what "Who are you?" can mean. So that you can have a more accurate image of those you are arguing against.

1) "backstory is bad, I refuse to write a novel" is a thing that more than one other poster DID SAY (paraphrased, obviously).

2) I did not claim that this described everyone "on the other side" (nor would I say that there were only two "sides" )

3) the hyperbole (or false dichotomy) lies in claiming that backstory involves many pages of prose writing

.

[OldTrees1]

1) "backstory is bad, I refuse to write a novel" is a thing that more than one other poster DID SAY (paraphrased, obviously).

2) I did not claim that this described everyone "on the other side" (nor would I say that there were only two "sides" )

3) the hyperbole (or false dichotomy) lies in claiming that backstory involves many pages of prose writing.

But those of us who have been supporting backstory have said things like "even just a short paragraph" or "10 things about this character's past as a bullet list" can make a world of difference...

to which the response has been "backstory is meaningless, I'm not going to write a 20-page essay".

Emphasis added to demonstrate how one might read that post.

Can you see why I felt the need to clarify that "No, the people responding have been more nuanced that that single response. So that characterization is incomplete." and when prompted I went into explaining the parts you left out?

[2D8HP]

Oh please. The guy who rejected you has been kind enough to point out that you being rejected had nothing to do with the shortness of your backstory, but the fact that your short backstory did not include the one thing he asked you to include, which you could have done with a backstory of any length. Seriously, knowing that, most of this thread tastes like sour grapes to me.

Fair enough and probably true.
I still don't enjoy writing them, and I think a list of goals, likes and dislikes would define a character better.
But "reading comprehension test", and "writing sample" make sense to me.
Since the AWESOME result of being spared writing them while still getting to play is unlikely, at least I've learned some good tips on better coming up with them on this thread.
Thanks everyone.

[Morbis Meh]

Fair enough and probably true.
I still don't enjoy writing them, and I think a list of goals, likes and dislikes would define a character better.
But "reading comprehension test", and "writing sample" make sense to me.
Since the AWESOME result of being spared writing them while still getting to play is unlikely, at least I've learned some good tips on better coming up with them on this thread.
Thanks everyone.

That is not necessarily true, I have applied to games that request you fill out the 10 minute background in place of a standard prose based backstory, you just have to keep looking and keep your spirits up. If you're playing 5E I have no idea what they ask for since I am a PF/3.5 bum XD

[Jay R]

Fair enough and probably true.
I still don't enjoy writing them, and I think a list of goals, likes and dislikes would define a character better.
But "reading comprehension test", and "writing sample" make sense to me.
Since the AWESOME result of being spared writing them while still getting to play is unlikely, at least I've learned some good tips on better coming up with them on this thread.
Thanks everyone.

Perfect.

It's worth remembering that we don't have to all end up agreeing for an internet discussion to have been valuable and positive.

[Bohandas]

Regarding requiring backstory at the beginning of the game, while I see its benefit, I can see it as being a potential hinderence even (perhaps even especially) to roleplay-heavy games. Starting with an extensive backstory means that it can't be made up ad hoc, so you may end up writing both yourself and the DM into a corner

[Max_Killjoy]

Regarding requiring backstory at the beginning of the game, while I see its benefit, I can see it as being a potential hinderence even (perhaps even especially) to roleplay-heavy games. Starting with an extensive backstory means that it can't be made up ad hoc, so you may end up writing both yourself and the DM into a corner

The trick is to write enough that you integrate the character into the setting and give the GM something to work with -- while not writing so much that there's no room to breathe.

[HidesHisEyes]

I started with D&D in the late 1970's, and since I'm on "night nurse" duty with my one month old son I'm trying to get some PbP D&D in. I keep getting asked what my PC's "back story" is!!!????
Huh?
How about "Wields sword, searches for Ale, Gold, Monsters, and Wenc charming conversationalists".
What's wrong with such mature and sophisticated themes such as meeting in a tavern. Leaving said tavern to wail on scaly types who occupy underground abodes, collect shiny objects in said underground abodes, avoid bandits who occupy space between underground dwellings and tavern, bring shiny objects to spend in tavern in noble quest for ale and time with hotties.
I'm interested in the Adventure not the prequel!
What is up with this "back story" stuff? Why is it important?
Edit:
Below is an addition that seems appropriate to put here.

I think the style of game you describe playing in the 70s just isn't the mainstream form of RPGs anymore. People still play 2nd edition and presumably some such groups have games a lot more like those simple old-school dungeon-crawls, but I guess there is only so much novelty in such a game and over time people got interested in trying to tell more ambitious stories.

Personally my ideal game is somewhere in between - I'd like a bit more focus on story and character than what you describe, but a lot more arch dungeon-crawling adventure than the "let's pretend we're writing a Netflix show" approach that seems to dominate currently. It's a perfectly valid approach, just not what I'm after. What really bothers me is when the narrativist crowd act like they have some kind of automatic aesthetic high ground, as if their way is just self-evidently better. I might mention that my experience of games that are very narrative- and character-focused, or try to offer the players total freedom, is that they devolve into interminable conversations about what to do next and very little actual adventure takes place. The usual response is along the lines of "if you want mindless hack and slash action play a video game", with varying degrees of smugness in the tone.

So I know to some extent how you feel, and I hope you manage to find a group who share your love of good old-fashioned dungeons, dragons, ale and good conversationalists.

[Red Fel]

Regarding requiring backstory at the beginning of the game, while I see its benefit, I can see it as being a potential hinderence even (perhaps even especially) to roleplay-heavy games. Starting with an extensive backstory means that it can't be made up ad hoc, so you may end up writing both yourself and the DM into a corner

The trick is to write enough that you integrate the character into the setting and give the GM something to work with -- while not writing so much that there's no room to breathe.

This, but I'd like to expand on it in response to Bohandas' points.

First: Starting with an extensive backstory means that it can't be made up on the spur of the moment, it's true. That said, I don't want the DM making up my PC's backstory, because my character is the only thing that I control in this game; similarly, my DM probably doesn't want me making up additional backstory on the fly, on the chance that involves something of which he would not otherwise approve. For instance, when our party runs into a Dragon for the first time, I shouldn't be able to say, "Oh, my home town had a Dragon that watched over it, I learned how to speak to them, let me." If I put it into my backstory in the first place, and the DM approved it, great; but whipping that little nugget out in the moment ruins the "Yes, and" nature of improvisational play, in that it may force the DM to say, "No, I don't approve that." So the ability to make up backstory on the fly isn't inherently a good thing.

Second: You may write yourself into a corner with your extensive backstory, it's true. If you write a backstory where your character was constantly tormented and traumatized by Elves, it becomes incredibly hard to play that character as coming to like Elves. Hard, but not impossible - it's called a character arc. Because that's the thing - personal history defines who a character is, but not necessarily who they may yet become. It merely establishes a trajectory, the curve of which may be severe or smooth. So while your backstory may make subsequent gameplay more difficult, it does not foreclose options completely - it just makes them harder. Which isn't a bad thing at all, when you think about it in a narrative sense.

Third: Your backstory will never write your DM into a corner. Never. The DM is the architect of the universe; if a contradiction or paradox appears, it is within his power and responsibility to resolve it, ideally in favor of fun. Your extensive background does not write the DM into a corner, inasmuch as he has the authority to approve or deny it, in whole or in part, and the capacity to integrate it into his world to whatever extent he so chooses. If he approves your backstory wherein your village was watched over by a Dragon, and therefore you learned how to speak to them, then he is accepting the possibility that you might attempt to do so at some point, and will design his world accordingly; alternatively, if he finds himself in that position unprepared, he can come up with any number of reasons that this particular Dragon might be disinclined to conversation. At no point does a player write the DM into a corner.

But Max is also correct - a backstory that is sufficient without being excessive avoids even these potential problems.

[Jay R]

Regarding requiring backstory at the beginning of the game, while I see its benefit, I can see it as being a potential hinderence even (perhaps even especially) to roleplay-heavy games. Starting with an extensive backstory means that it can't be made up ad hoc, so you may end up writing both yourself and the DM into a corner

Either I misunderstand you, or you've seen something happen in role-playing games that I've never seen, or I disagree with you. I can't tell which.

If you mean that the backstory could put you in a difficult situation, as somebody with a lifelong hatred of goblins being rescued by goblins, then this is a feature, not a bug. It's the DM's job to put you in difficult situations. Using your backstory to do so is excellent story-telling.

If you mean that it's possible for the backstory to never be important to the story, well, yes, that's true. but that's perfectly normal. My personal backstory includes life-saver training, and I've never seen somebody drowning. But in this case the backstory is merely irrelevant. If that's what you mean, then the worst case scenario (backstory irrelevance) is exactly the same as not having a backstory.

If you mean that your backstory can make a situation that cannot be played, then I've never seen it happen, and I've been writing backstories since the 1970s.

Could you please provide an actual example in which the back-story actually made the game unplayable?

[kyoryu]

If you mean that the backstory could put you in a difficult situation, as somebody with a lifelong hatred of goblins being rescued by goblins, then this is a feature, not a bug. It's the DM's job to put you in difficult situations. Using your backstory to do so is excellent story-telling.

I look at it this way - the GM is going to get you in trouble. By providing backstory and other trouble hooks, you get to at least have a vote on what kind of trouble that is.

If you mean that it's possible for the backstory to never be important to the story, well, yes, that's true. but that's perfectly normal. My personal backstory includes life-saver training, and I've never seen somebody drowning. But in this case the backstory is merely irrelevant. If that's what you mean, then the worst case scenario (backstory irrelevance) is exactly the same as not having a backstory.

True, and it's best to have a conversation about how much backstory can/will impact things.

[Max_Killjoy]

Something to keep in mind, is that in systems with Flaws, Disadvantages, or whatever you want to call them, there are two layers to this "backstory".

In those systems, just writing something into your character's backstory/background is detail to inform the character's story going forward, but it's not necessarily something that's going to "get your character in trouble". Having a younger sibling you have to take care of, for example.

Taking a Flaw or Disad or whatever is what "officially" tells the GM "this is something that can come up during play in a major way, threatening something that my character cares about".

[Jay R]

Something to keep in mind, is that in systems with Flaws, Disadvantages, or whatever you want to call them, there are two layers to this "backstory".

In those systems, just writing something into your character's backstory/background is detail to inform the character's story going forward, but it's not necessarily something that's going to "get your character in trouble". Having a younger sibling you have to take care of, for example.

Taking a Flaw or Disad or whatever is what "officially" tells the GM "this is something that can come up during play in a major way, threatening something that my character cares about".

That's an interesting notion, but it doesn't match the actual uses of backstory that I've expereienced. [Or, at best, it's way over-simplified.]

When my 2e Thief/Wizard was an orphan, that meant he had no place in society, and it affected him throughout play. My wife's character's parents were threatened, so we had to go save them. Sir Cornelius's bad family history led to him becoming the heir of an Earl.

It's true that Disads and Flaws are specific rule-driven limitations on your character, but backstory can be used, and often is used, to give my characters both advantages in some situations, and disadvantages in other situations..

[Segev]

Having a broad strokes backstory that you can make up as you go along, with a propensity for tall tales and fibs in the character's personality, could make for a lot of fun improve. Even the player isn't sure if the PC is lying about that dragon that watched over his village. Sure, he speaks Draconic, but maybe he learned it some other, less exciting way. The DM can approve or deny elements even after the PC announces them, by simply stating whether the PC is telling the truth or not.

[Max_Killjoy]

That's an interesting notion, but it doesn't match the actual uses of backstory that I've expereienced. [Or, at best, it's way over-simplified.]

When my 2e Thief/Wizard was an orphan, that meant he had no place in society, and it affected him throughout play. My wife's character's parents were threatened, so we had to go save them. Sir Cornelius's bad family history led to him becoming the heir of an Earl.

It's true that Disads and Flaws are specific rule-driven limitations on your character, but backstory can be used, and often is used, to give my characters both advantages in some situations, and disadvantages in other situations..

Well, keep in mind that in 2e and most other editions of D&Dish, there's no Flaws or Disads, just whatever you write down, so there's no distinct line.

And as noted, in a system with Flaws/Disads/whatever, it's not as if "non-mechanized" backstory can never ever come up in play.

I was just pointing out that as a "repeatedly trouble the PC" item, some systems make a distinction.

[goto124]

I look at it this way - the GM is going to get you in trouble. By providing backstory and other trouble hooks, you get to at least have a vote on what kind of trouble that is.

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...

[ImNotTrevor]

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...

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.

I ain't gonna spend twice the time to attack you personally. Hell, that's not even my job. My job is to make your character's life NOT boring. If it was my job to antagonize and destroy you I'd just drop a Great Wyrm Dragon in the first dungeon. That was hungry. And hated you for no reason. And you'd all die.

But that's not fun, is it?

[goto124]

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.

[Milo v3]

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.

I'd try and go for the stuff my players show interests towards, means I need to work a lot less to create motivation and seed plots.