How much do you like to collab on backstories (players and DMs)

[Zhorn]

Just a general question on people's opinions on it, from either side.

A few of my players are emailing me their drafts of their backup characters for me to workshop with them on how to fit them into the world and story, fine tune their goals and past experiences, all the nitty-gritty stuff.

Do other DM's enjoy this? Do some try to avoid it?
Do players like their DM's working with them on character creation, or do they rather it be a solo affair?

As a DM I enjoy it because it give me a view into the kind of content that can be made to fit the character and what to tweak in the modules to make the campaign have that more unique and personalised feel.

[DMThac0]

I like the players in my games to try to, at the very least, answer three questions:

What in your past made you want to adventure?
Did you lose a loved one? Was there a quest that's been past down each generation? Did you find yourself destitute and adventuring was the only way to survive?

What motivates you currently to continue adventuring?
Are you trying to reclaim your rightful place in an order? Did you find the name of the creature/person who destroyed your tribe? Is the money and fame worth the risk?

What is your ultimate goal before you retire?
Obtain a status where no one can challenge your authority? Lay your family to rest and know you've done them proud? Gain enough money to own your own land and rule?

Then, if the players are of a mind, if they want to detail more, they can. It's up to them to put all the extra fluff into their background. I'll simply look it over and, if necessary, make adjustments or ask more questions to fill in any blanks or inconsistencies.

[MrSandman]

I like it when everyone collaborates in creating everyone's stories. It tends to create parties with better cohesion and aligned goals.

[Jay R]

It's crucial to coordinate, at least on the basics, or someday you'll be running a character who was raised by elves on a world in which elves don't exist.

I tend to write a first draft, or a set of ideas, and then run it by the DM. He can throw out the things that don't fit the world, suggest modifications that make it more a part of his background, and work out the aspects of it that my character doesn't know about.

By the time I get to the table,. I want to have gone back-and-forth with the DM several times, so my character is one the DM believes in, and his backstory is one the DM can use.

I once wrote a backstory for Flashing Blades in which my character had earned a Favor from the Bishop of Lucon years ago, but when he went back there, the bishop was nowhere around. Since my character was a smuggler who had done a little political work for him, he didn't dare ask about him. The DM grinned and said, "Well, you are likely to see the Bishop again when you get to Paris." He knew as well as I did that the Bishop had been promoted, and was now Cardinal Richelieu.

My current gnome illusionist has been given a quest, but he doesn't know who it came from, where he's suppose
d to go, or what he is supposed to do. Obviously, this sort of puzzle requires the cooperation of the DM.

[RedMage125]

I agree that some coordination is crucial. If nothing else, to prevent someone attempting things that do not exist in your world. Or violate some of your house rules.

Me? I have a list for all PC options (races, [sub-]classes, and so on), that delineates these options as Green Light (no restrictions), Yellow Light (there's a special consideration or restriction for this option), or Red Light (my default answer is "no", unless you can really impress me with a great backstory and concept).

Drow, for example, are a Yellow Light race. That had mostly to do with my own idiosyncrasies. I detest the "driz'zt clone". I've seen too many. There are 2 communities on the surface that a drow PC could have come from. One is a largely drow-occupied small town, and one is a large (mostly human) city which, for story reasons relating to something that occurred in a game I ran in college, is accepting of drow, and has a small population thereof. Drow PCs in my world grew up their entire lives on the surface. They are not "chaotic rebels striving against their evil kin". they of course know of the spider queen, but have never even met a priestess of her.

Dragonborn have a Yellow Light consideration. If they are Draconic Origin Sorcerers, their class and racial Dragon Ancestry types must match. Just for the sake of consistency. OTOH, maybe you've got a great story to support your Gold Dragonborn who is a Silver Draconic Origin Sorcerer. Let's hear it.

Hobgoblins are Red Light. Almost all of them are evil and are primarily a "monster race". But...story trumps restrictions. Maybe you've got a great backstory and character concept that I could make work.

Tabaxi, Tritons, and Aaracokra right now are Red Light. I simply never had them in my world previously, and haven't bothered figuring out how they fit in yet. That's a bit of laziness on my part, admittedly.

Warforged are straight-up Red Light because they do not exist in my world. No exceptions.

But I also like to work with my players, especially when they come up with great new stuff. Once, when I ran 4e, for example, I had a marine come up with an entirely innovative idea for a Shaman. Now, if you're not familiar, 4e Shamans were Primal Leaders, and they were usually accompanied by some kind of spectral animal. World Speaker Shamans, OTOH, were accompanied by a spirit that coalesced rock, dirt, plant matter into a physical form for itself. Flavor-wise, Shamans were the ones who spoke with Primal Spirits, as opposed to druids who commanded them, or barbarians, who invited them into their bodies. So short version is his character was middle aged. As a young man, his wife and child were killed by gnolls, but he survived. He became a hermit for 15 years, living alone in a shack in the woods, talking only to a rock, and believing he was going mad when the rock spoke back to him. Eventually, the rock convinced him that they were speaking because the Primal Spirits had chosen him to be a World Speaker, to be a voice for them in the mortal world. The convinced him to actually try going out in the world, and showed him how he could help it call more power into itself (his World Speaker companion). He took up his old spear and armor, and left to re-enter the world for the first time in over a decade. It helped that the first people he ran into were a druid and barbarian, who immediately recognized his gifts as shamanistic power, and thought nothing odd about it. So here he is, a middle-aged man, been a hermit for years, believing he was mad, and just now starting to realize he might not be crazy after all. Radically different, right? I loved it. I was mostly only involved to narrate that he ran into the druid and barbarian first, as they would re-enforce his clarity and sense that he was not crazy.

[Quertus]

Just a general question on people's opinions on it, from either side.

A few of my players are emailing me their drafts of their backup characters for me to workshop with them on how to fit them into the world and story, fine tune their goals and past experiences, all the nitty-gritty stuff.

Do other DM's enjoy this? Do some try to avoid it?
Do players like their DM's working with them on character creation, or do they rather it be a solo affair?

As a DM I enjoy it because it give me a view into the kind of content that can be made to fit the character and what to tweak in the modules to make the campaign have that more unique and personalised feel.

As a player, I want "single author fiction" backstory. Just as I want no input on the world*. Because I enjoy *discovering* the world in game.

However, I enjoy collaborating on what has happened to bring my character to the world, what happened to make them appropriate for the adventure, what has happened to make the adventure appropriate for them.

I am opposed to changing published modules, and to GMs using my backstory elements in the game. The former because it detects from both the shared experience and the "fairness" of the module; the latter because, as they are not the authors of the characters in my background, it is not the GM's place to run them, and any attempt to do so will invariably fail, badly.

However, outside that? Including new magical secrets for Quertus to learn, and people who have read his books? Crazy Cthulhu monsters for Balteus to try to befriend, and loot for him to donate to the church? Riddles for Armus to solve, and secrets for him to uncover? Moral lessons for Raymond to ignore, and Deus ex Machina / plot device level allies for him to assist right out of the game? Innocents for Xyzzy to beat to a bloody pulp to protect them, and scary monsters for him to run away from? Sounds awesome!

OK, so most of my characters aren't as thematic / focused as Quertus, so it's not as easy to add stuff "just for them" - and not as hard to find things that they'll engage. Shrug.

That said, I've often seen GMs include things "just for player X", or "just for character Y", and then watched the GM be sad when those things were ignored. Further, I've watched GM's whole plotlines crumble when they were hinged on a particular PC doing a particular thing that they included "just for them", and then they… didn't.

So, I would advise following rules of good adventure design (like the Rule of Three, at a minimum) first, and considerations of "just for you" content as a distant second.

* Or whatever the scope of the adventure is

[Pauly]

I’m all for collaboration to answer the question of “why is this adventuring party working together?”.

Apart from that I prefer for the players to work on their own character’s back story. Once they have worked out the connections that bind them I want the players to be the author of their character.

One thing I try very hard to avoid is shoehorning a player into a particular party role because the other members chose first. The “We need a healer and everybody else is fighter, rogue, mage so you’ll have to be the cleric” kind of input to another player’s character.

[Jay R]

Apart from that I prefer for the players to work on their own character’s back story. Once they have worked out the connections that bind them I want the players to be the author of their character.

Yes, of course. But they are not the authors of the rest of the world. And a backstory includes aspects of the rest of the world.

I had a player who wanted to make the local village priest evil, and prejudiced against non-humans. But that NPC priest already had a very important role, and that wasn't it.

[PhoenixPhyre]

I don't require much backstory for my player characters. I care about current motivations more than anything else: 5e's Personality/Bond/Ideal/Flaw. That said, I like to collaborate on backstory. I've run a couple 1-person sessions where we narratively play through the backstory of the character, working together to find them a place. In two cases, the players (unprompted) ended up being woven together (with trauma and changes to explain why they didn't know each other) and then those two (who were the only ones by that point) got woven into the plot in a way that made everything more meaningful for them. I leave large gaps in the world for players to fill and will take lots of suggestions.

Since PCs are always graduates of the Sanctioned Adventurer school, they all have that in common. They adventure because that's their job, if for no other reason. But why did they accept the offer to join the SA? That's up to them.

That said, I have a lot more restrictions on races/origins than most. Not on classes[1], but on racial origins. If you're a dragonborn, you're from #Culture2. As an option, you can use Variant Backgrounds, trading a bit of control over the details in exchange for an extra proficiency or so. I also have variant races that are optional. You can be the "standard" ones, or you can be a variant by tying yourself to a specific region.

[1] There is one culture who will need some good explanation as to why you're a cleric, because it's a culture that does not worship the gods (instead venerating ancestor spirits and practicing vaguely shinto-esque animism). But being a Byssian cleric is possible, just unlikely.

[Quertus]

Yes, of course. But they are not the authors of the rest of the world. And a backstory includes aspects of the rest of the world.

I had a player who wanted to make the local village priest evil, and prejudiced against non-humans. But that NPC priest already had a very important role, and that wasn't it.

Which is one reason my characters "aren't from around here", so that this problem doesn't come up. My village priest can be evil without wrecking the GM's world.

[Great Dragon]

As the DM, I really love working with Players on backstory.

There are some steps that I tend to use.

1) I'll do my best to explain my Game World, providing information about it where needed.
Players are always welcome to ask for more.

1a) I explain any Rule Changes (especially to New Players) and if any of these are still in Playtesting.

2) I provide all Character Creation options.

There are some limitations on Races, but mostly on why these became "Adventurers" and how they got to wherever the Game is starting/continuing.

I let the Players pick Backgrounds; with Traits, Ideals, Bonds, and Flaws - and I'll offer to help them to better define the Concept for their Character. I will ask if they want me to use Bonds as "Plot/s".
I do use Inspiration.

3) Now, (sub)-classes are a little trickier.
For the most part, all of these that are in an official book, are allowed.

Players that want to try a UA, DM's Guild, DnD Beyond, or Homebrew Class/Subclass can bring a printed copy, and I'll give it a shot.

So far, the only Subclass that I have really felt needed to be changed, is Hexblade Warlock. For reasons posted in other Threads.
(Some Playtesting still needed to find best Hexblade option that works for my games)

*****

Then, I'll offer to help flesh out Backstory.

Listening to their Ideas, and seeing what already exists that at least comes close to that. If nothing does, then I'll work with the Player/s to get as close as possible with the Rules.

*****

When I'm the Player, just flip the process.

Sure, I want my Character to be as Unique as possible - within the Rules, but still be plausible in the DM's World.

*****

Thanks for reading.

[Ventruenox]

I think collaboration at the very beginning makes for a better campaign, from pre-session zero and onward.

I start with the DM's description of the campaign setting. I read up a little bit on the available areas, races, and cultures. Then I go to my stable of character concepts I have just lying in wait. I pick out one and hold it up like a suit in the mirror, in this case the mirror being the campaign setting document.

I will pull a few details or NPCs from the setting and craft a first draft of a backstory. I'll send that up to my DM and ask his opinions for his game, and also ask if another player has something that seems to tie in with what I wrote. At this point I'll either loop in the other player or revise my backstory to more accurately fall in line with his setting. Submit 2nd draft to DM and repeat process.

By the time session zero comes around, I should feel like I have an entertaining character who belongs in the world. As part of session zero, all participants will collaborate on how or if they know each other, and why they might be adventuring together. We will share highlights of our respective backstories (and allot at least 20 minutes for our one player who wrote 10 pages) and enjoy the new voices we will be listening to over the next few months. We are not opposed to RP inter-party conflict, but we will avoid any PvP situations.

[Honest Tiefling]

As a player...Well, I'm probably the type to pester the DM for every single detail regarding the home region of my character. I mostly play in homebrew, so I want to hear the cool ideas DMs have for the world that they have so lovingly created. Probably have annoyed a few for asking for such details, but I can only try to be less annoying next time.

I think that parties that have cohesive reasons to stick together work best. This does mean that usually, workshopping everyone's backstory together makes it so you can have an actual singular story instead of the 'tale of those five guys who all faffed about in different directions' type thing. However, sometimes you get THAT backstory that while not made with the party, still meshes with it and provides interesting conflict and really adds something to the party. Like the dashing smuggler who is working with a party of nobles, but the roleplay itself is working out quite well and everyone is on the same page as what to do next. So working together works best most of the time, but sometimes someone going off on their own with that can work out quite well.

Or you can get that idiot who while being told of the alignment, motives, and general theme of the campaign will show up with something stupid. Maybe your mounted charger should be shelved for the political game taking place on a chain of islands...

[geppetto]

As a player I do a backstory only to explain who my character is and motivations. I dont really care if it gets worked into the campaign or not, most of the time I would prefer not.

As a GM i just want a vague explanation of why you chose a dangerous career and how got to the starting location of the game. I will probably not be setting up any adventures using your backstory and am not all that likely to include anything specifically from it.

I'm open to players pointing out reasons why their background might help them for reason X in whatever situation though occasionally. Nothing hugely game changing but its good for lore about the world and the occasional NPC connection.

All in all I feel like backstories should basically be an afterthought and occasional non mechanical advantage token for non combat situations.

[jjordan]

Do other DM's enjoy this?

Love it. I'd like it more if I didn't have to pull teeth to get it.

[Quertus]

I think that parties that have cohesive reasons to stick together work best. This does mean that usually, workshopping everyone's backstory together makes it so you can have an actual singular story instead of the 'tale of those five guys who all faffed about in different directions' type thing. However, sometimes you get THAT backstory that while not made with the party, still meshes with it and provides interesting conflict and really adds something to the party.

So, both IME, and from talking to other Playgrounders, I of course agree that "parties that have cohesive reasons to stick together work best", but quibble that known, well-defined characters will tend to work better for producing that desired state than a bunch of new characters - even if you're "workshopping everyone's backstory together".

However, that is a minimal difference, in most cases, and not terribly interesting to me compared to asking just how you accomplish this task.

See, whenever I've tried it, things have gone horribly wrong. Characters who supposedly were best friends have almost immediately grown to hate each other, players have made horrific assumptions like assuming characters have XYZ relationship just because they are married / siblings / whatever, etc. Most of the attempts at this technique that I have witnessed or been a part of, it has been not just bad but horrible for the game.

So, I know it *can* be done right. My question is, do you have any advice for how to make it work? Because, at my tables, and at "adjacent" tables, it almost always guarantees that the campaign will go down in flames.

[Honest Tiefling]

So, I know it *can* be done right. My question is, do you have any advice for how to make it work? Because, at my tables, and at "adjacent" tables, it almost always guarantees that the campaign will go down in flames.

I uh...Am not going to admit that I really know how to make it work, as sometimes it's gone well, and other times, no. Sometimes the game just doesn't gel for other reasons.

But I am going to ask how in the nine unholy abysses is this actually going worse!? Going to need some examples here, but let me pitch some ideas:

A bit of it might just be player mindset. The type of player who enjoys making stuff up on the fly and putting their own spin and coming up with crazy plans in the nick of time might not work well with this approach. They might need a read of how the table goes to decide what they are going to do. Not having an idea of the energy or how the players work together might really not work for them. Some people aren't just good with improv, it's their element. Now, if you assemble a group of people who will write you five pages of backstory, memorize the map, and have highlighted passages in the player handout, then you might have a better time of things during session 0.

So...In essence, get wizards not bards.

Another idea might be to not allow people to connect backstories in very close ways UNTIL session 0. Yes, they might all be Dragonborn from the City of Paladinsville, but no making siblings/rivals/lovers out of characters of other players (this includes NPCs in the backstory). Be especially careful if the people haven't roleplayed together before, as they don't have an idea of what the other person is going to want. Perhaps have people indicate which NPCs in their backstory can be altered and which can't. For instance, if one of our example Dragonborn is born from a powerful sorcerer and wishes to achieve the same level of magical might, other players can't just decide things of that NPC due to their importance to the character. A cousin, on the other hand, from a distant branch of the family might be fair game if the player so chooses.

[Pauly]

So, both IME, and from talking to other Playgrounders, I of course agree that "parties that have cohesive reasons to stick together work best", but quibble that known, well-defined characters will tend to work better for producing that desired state than a bunch of new characters - even if you're "workshopping everyone's backstory together".

However, that is a minimal difference, in most cases, and not terribly interesting to me compared to asking just how you accomplish this task.

See, whenever I've tried it, things have gone horribly wrong. Characters who supposedly were best friends have almost immediately grown to hate each other, players have made horrific assumptions like assuming characters have XYZ relationship just because they are married / siblings / whatever, etc. Most of the attempts at this technique that I have witnessed or been a part of, it has been not just bad but horrible for the game.

So, I know it *can* be done right. My question is, do you have any advice for how to make it work? Because, at my tables, and at "adjacent" tables, it almost always guarantees that the campaign will go down in flames.

The way I’ve done it, and it hasn’t been a real problem with player and/or character relationships is

Step 1) players arrive with their character concepts. At this stage they aren’t fully fleshed out, but a skeleton on which you can hang details from. (Eg I want to be a stealthy backstabbing rogue, or I want to be strong fighter)

Step 2) The DM gives a briefing of the world/campaign. For example, I might say the starting adventure is set in Seville Spain in the early 1700s. The main NPCs are mid to upper level nobility. The party is expected to be able to handle diplomacy and combat. Your characters will start the game with little money.
(From this briefing the players should understand that they need to develop characters with enough social status to engage with nobility socially and that can speak Spanish and be rounded to to handle non-combat RPing.

Step 3) Ask the players to explain their character concepts and to come up with reasons as to why the party is working together. For example characters with a soldiering background may be in the same regiment. Other PCs may share a rural background and know each other from childhood. At a pinch you can use ye olde distant relative. One character may be an apprentice to a contact of another character.

Step 4) At this point players suggest to each other what skills may be important to the group and which characters should prioritize which skills.

Step 5) Develop the character properly, generate stats and abilities. Write a more detailed backstory. Establish character quirks/flaws.

The only time this approach has had issues is when someone drops in with a pre-written character and refuses to modify it in light of other player’s and the DM’s input.

[PhoenixPhyre]

The only time this approach has had issues is when someone drops in with a pre-written character and refuses to modify it in light of other player’s and the DM’s input.

This. Very much this. The keys to making characters that work well together are
a) being flexible. Have a character concept, but keep it broad.
b) talk about it before solidifying anything.
c) lean into the campaign concept.
d) character first, then backstory that matches. Heck, you can even just establish basic characterization/motives, start play, then solidify the backstory as it becomes apparent who the character really is. Let the character speak to you.

[Pelle]

So, I know it *can* be done right. My question is, do you have any advice for how to make it work?

Mostly by everyone playing in good faith and being mindful of each others enjoyment during play...

[farothel]

We Always have a session 0 to do character creation together. While the full backstories are often done afterwards, the basics have to be agreed upon at the table.

As GM I've done mostly roleplays where people are part of an organisation (Alternity Dark Matter's Hoffman institute, Star Trek), so that has to be in the background of course.

As Player, I'll like to write backgrounds. How close we are as party depends on the type of roleplay. In the last L5R campaign for instance, the GM said that the party had to have connections before we started. In a lot of roleplays we often have parties that have some friction, but that's all part of the fun, right?

[Tanarii]

Recently, exactly not at all. I don't want to see the players written backstory. Any parts that are relevant can be boiled down into a motivations & hooks summary or a narrative mechanic. And I usually only want to see that if it's relevant to my part, running the game, which means a hook or a narrative mechanic.

Right now I mostly run 5e, which has personality trait. Those include a narrative mechanic (inspiration) and hooks (most commonly the Bond trait.). I'm also setting up a trial run of a Forbidden Lands campaign, which has Player Relationships, Prides, and Dark Secrets. The latter matters the most to me, since it's my Hook trait.

Most decent RPGs seem to be going this direction recently. Back stories, thank god, appear to be going the way of the dodo. Except they never really will, because so many players and GMs are secretly (or openly) aspiring writers, with all the baggage and negative impact on gaming that comes with it.

[Wuzza]

Just a general question on people's opinions on it, from either side.

A few of my players are emailing me their drafts of their backup characters for me to workshop with them on how to fit them into the world and story, fine tune their goals and past experiences, all the nitty-gritty stuff.

Do other DM's enjoy this? Do some try to avoid it?
Do players like their DM's working with them on character creation, or do they rather it be a solo affair?

As a DM I enjoy it because it give me a view into the kind of content that can be made to fit the character and what to tweak in the modules to make the campaign have that more unique and personalised feel.

TTRPG's are a collaborative game. You should thank your stars that your players are invested enough to make an effort to work with you at it.
I asked all of my players to come up with some sort of back story, even if it's just a few lines of text. I don't need specifics, that I can change/amend to fit in with the background of my world. It also gives you a pretty good idea of where they see their characters coming from, and where they fit in with the world. It can also gives you pointers on where to direct the story. The more your players are invested, the more they will "buy in".

[Quertus]

@Pauly - your step 3 is exactly what I would recommend to bind existing characters together, and to the adventure. And it works great!

But nothing you've said addresses tying the characters backgrounds together - making them parents, siblings, lovers, slaves, teachers, and patrons of one another. From your omission, should we infer that your response is "don't"?

@Honest Tiefling - in my biased opinion, things fell apart from assumptions - people assumed that being parents, siblings, lovers, slaves, teachers, and patrons of one another meant one particular type of relationship.

Because I love blaming GMs, imagine the GM whose plot demanded that Zoe have a hard time choosing between Mal and Wash, because he just *assumed* that their relationships would make that a difficult decision. Or, worse, a GM whose plot *demanded* that she chose differently than she did, because that GM was just that type of idiot. In that scenario, having those pre-established relationships is not the actual problem, but exacerbates and can serve as a focal point for those problems.

However, I think a better answer is, people were lazy. Because they already had "existing relationships", they just assumed that the strength of those would be enough, and therefore just ignored the "be good to each other" / relationship / party dynamic minigame.

This all ties in to why I prefer to build relationships during the game. But I know that the alternative *can* work.

Still, I'm biased, and you, having seen both success and failure, are in a better position to tell what the difference was than me, biasedly blaming what I saw, and potentially missing the bigger picture.

From my biased recounting, do you believe that minimizing improv or delaying choosing connections would have helped?

@PhoenixPhyre - your point "a" - and, arguably, all your points - seem the opposite of Honest Tiefling's advice to minimize improv.

Would it be a complete mischaracterization of your stance to describe it as the marriage of "choose differently" and "Participationism"?

Mostly by everyone playing in good faith and being mindful of each others enjoyment during play...

This… I mean, it's bloody great advice in general. So I decided to keep your very short quote. But… would that help with the GM who assumed things based on stated relationships? Would it help when characters suddenly feud over politics, undead, slavery, murdering prisoners? I think… maybe? But what do you think?

[PhoenixPhyre]

@PhoenixPhyre - your point "a" - and, arguably, all your points - seem the opposite of Honest Tiefling's advice to minimize improv.

Would it be a complete mischaracterization of your stance to describe it as the marriage of "choose differently" and "Participationism"?

Yes, to a degree. Because those points were in chronological order.

That is, before the game begins you should be flexible and not insist on a particular implementation of a concept. What the first principle warns against is pre-generating a character before discussing it with everyone and then refusing to modify that.

The rest speak to how you should go about implementing that broad concept into a specific character
* choose an implementation (including personality and motivations) that works with the campaign premise & party
* choose an implementation that works and is grounded in the particular world
* once you've adapted to those constraints, then begin writing a backstory that results in the chosen character.

That is, instead of writing a backstory and then creating a character, build a specific character and then write a backstory to justify those meta-inspired choices.

[Pauly]

@Pauly - your step 3 is exactly what I would recommend to bind existing characters together, and to the adventure. And it works great!

But nothing you've said addresses tying the characters backgrounds together - making them parents, siblings, lovers, slaves, teachers, and patrons of one another. From your omission, should we infer that your response is "don't"?

i

I’ve always done it that the character comes first then the backstory. So the character and a rough iteration of their stats and abilities are created first, then the backstory second.

I have always felt the backstory first then the character method lends itself to generating incompatible parties and/or parties missing vital elements.
Also having the party roles defined first gives the players some idea as to the natural power/relationship links that will happen during play.

NB by ‘character’ I mean the mechanical stats and abilities to play the game, what goes on the “character sheet”.

The biggest problem I see with people arriving at session zero with a complete pre-generated character, however, is that it forces players who didn’t pre-generate a character to play a character that addresses the unfilled party needs. If I want to play a rogue but there are already 2 rogues in the party and no healers then I feel an obligation to play a cleric even if I don’t want to be a cleric.

[Malphegor]

I should probably tell my DM before I roll up a huge strength barbarian in a party with a barbarian already (I was kinda on the spot as my wizard character is technically dead and I didn’t want to ruin people’s fun by having them seek a way to revive him (we were literally one level away from stopping petrification effects. One level! hah) barbarians are relatively easy to build in a hurry)

Hm. I might send him some of my future character ideas. Just so he’s forewarned of what horrors I will do to his table if he lets me.

[MrSandman]

@Pauly - your step 3 is exactly what I would recommend to bind existing characters together, and to the adventure. And it works great!

But nothing you've said addresses tying the characters backgrounds together - making them parents, siblings, lovers, slaves, teachers, and patrons of one another. From your omission, should we infer that your response is "don't"?

Is your list supposed to be comprehensive or are these the first examples that came to mind?
Either way, I find it a really odd list. Although I've had people play siblings once or twice, usually when people tie their characters' backgrounds together - in my experience - they go for friends, co-workers, disciples of the same master, people who got together through some event, acquaintances, people who met because they were pursuing a similar goal or got attacked by the same enemy, or other such things.

[Quertus]

Yes, to a degree. Because those points were in chronological order.

That is, before the game begins you should be flexible and not insist on a particular implementation of a concept. What the first principle warns against is pre-generating a character before discussing it with everyone and then refusing to modify that.

The rest speak to how you should go about implementing that broad concept into a specific character
* choose an implementation (including personality and motivations) that works with the campaign premise & party
* choose an implementation that works and is grounded in the particular world
* once you've adapted to those constraints, then begin writing a backstory that results in the chosen character.

That is, instead of writing a backstory and then creating a character, build a specific character and then write a backstory to justify those meta-inspired choices.

I don't want to sound dismissive, but that sounds like exactly the formula I've watched fail repeatedly. So maybe, having seen it work, you can listen to my stories, and tell me the step that's so obvious, that you didn't bother including it.

So (as I think we've discussed before), new characters are much more prone to sudden, erratic growth as the player is "trying them on" for the first time. They are unpredictable, and may unexpectedly become incompatible with each other, or the adventure.

Worse, when they have preexisting connections, there's this strange behavior I've observed, where, to my biased perception, it feels like the players are counting on the strength the connection to handle potential intra party conflict. "Of course your character should be fine with me killing the hostages - he's my brother."

I’ve always done it that the character comes first then the backstory. So the character and a rough iteration of their stats and abilities are created first, then the backstory second.

I have always felt the backstory first then the character method lends itself to generating incompatible parties and/or parties missing vital elements.
Also having the party roles defined first gives the players some idea as to the natural power/relationship links that will happen during play.

NB by ‘character’ I mean the mechanical stats and abilities to play the game, what goes on the “character sheet”.

The biggest problem I see with people arriving at session zero with a complete pre-generated character, however, is that it forces players who didn’t pre-generate a character to play a character that addresses the unfilled party needs. If I want to play a rogue but there are already 2 rogues in the party and no healers then I feel an obligation to play a cleric even if I don’t want to be a cleric.

OK, let's take a step back. I (and, say, everyone at my table) arrives with a portfolio of existing characters. We pick ones that go together, both mechanically and "socially". I'm not seeing where your stance would consider that a problem (which is good, because it works great).

So, suppose everyone cane to your table with a portfolio of backgrounds… ah, how would they link to one another? OK, fine, I come to the table with a portfolio of backgrounds like… one that's the master of one (potential) PC and trained with a second; a background that's the lover of one (potential) PC; a background that's the sibling of one (potential) PC, etc. And everyone else has been playing email / text tag, creating character background together in pairs (or more). Sounds odd to my ears, but if the players then play Tetris with these combinations to find a workable party, what's the problem?

Or, alternately, why can't I decide that I want to play your little brother, swept away by a storm & raised by wolves… and then, when we get to the table, pick what class(es) I learned between them and now, based on the needs of the party?

Is your list supposed to be comprehensive or are these the first examples that came to mind?
Either way, I find it a really odd list. Although I've had people play siblings once or twice, usually when people tie their characters' backgrounds together - in my experience - they go for friends, co-workers, disciples of the same master, people who got together through some event, acquaintances, people who met because they were pursuing a similar goal or got attacked by the same enemy, or other such things.

Not at all comprehensive. I avoided "friends" because of my party of the Paladin, the Assassin, the Undead Hunter, and his childhood friend, the Undead Master. And my character.

See, most of your list, existing characters could easily qualify for - they could meet and become friends before the adventure; they could attend the same cooking class; they could both get jobs at Destroido. They could have all seen the star of Bethlehem or been attacked by rabid flamingos. This is exactly what I encourage people to do when making existing characters work together.

My list was things that you can't just add to existing characters (outside a soap opera or something) without it getting horribly contrived. It was the unique "strength" of bonds one could choose in backstory that I had seen people use.

[Faily]

I like it when everyone collaborates in creating everyone's stories. It tends to create parties with better cohesion and aligned goals.

Pretty much this for me.

I like it when the players are on the same page of what the group-dynamic might be like (to avoid the Paladin teaming up with the evil Rogue trope), and that the GM can keep in mind what the theme of the game will be so players can create characters with that in mind.