The 1e DMG had secondary skills, most of which were trades of some sort which were kind of backgrounds or at least implied stuff you did before becoming an adventurer.

I don't find background stories useful because I find a lack of symmetry between a player's attachment to a character, and the character's actual longevity in the campaign, to be a net negative.  

My game isn't about characters, it's about players - the choices made and actions taken in the course of play; not stuff that never "happened" outside of the pages of someone's backstory.

Plus, while not perfectly reliable, nixing backstories does weed out of a lot of people who take this shit way too seriously.

Quote from: jeff37923;1046579Were your cats in it?

It would be even better if he dressed the cats up as Henry Tudor and Richard III.

I have two players who will write 50-100 word backgrounds on the back of their sheets... even for one-shots.
Mostly it's notes about their quirks, personality or background on how they came to be with the other party members.
Both players enjoy acting out the character, even to their characters' detriment.
It's never "Mary Sue" crap, so I never have to worry about it.  
It actually does add to the other players fun as they never know what to expect from them.

Quote from: Krimson;1046945The 1e DMG had secondary skills, most of which were trades of some sort which were kind of backgrounds or at least implied stuff you did before becoming an adventurer.

As does DCC, in fact that and your ability scores is ALL you get and there is a strong chance that this potential PC won't make it through the first half of the first adventure.

So there you have "back story" at one end of the curve and at the other you have a 25 page novella which pretty much covers the first book if the PC were the main chatacyer in a trilogy as well as setting the themes and story arc for the next two.

I don't think that I have read anyone on this thread object to the former.

Quote from: S'mon;1046930Lifepaths that players don't control are great and are THE COMPLETE OPPOSITE OF PLAYER-WRITTEN BACKSTORY.

Again, exactly. There you're using prior history, out of your control, as a way to push you into new directions in roleplaying, not as some kind of mary-sue wish fulfillment or venting your energy as a frustrated fan-fiction writer.

Quote from: DocJones;1046950It would be even better if he dressed the cats up as Henry Tudor and Richard III.

I don't dress up my cats. People dress up their pets for their own sake, and cats especially don't tend to like it. I have too much respect for my cats to do that to them.

Note also that as I said in the video, in Lion & Dragon you roll for your social class (and it actually matters) and there's a table for some important earlier life-event. But these are random.

The difference between a system like Lion & Dragon or Traveller, which has some element of randomness to a greater or lesser extent, is that it places every player on a level playing field. Systems that use merits and flaws to build a character in chargen is an alternative but IME it is time consuming and can be mystifying to newcomers. Moreover, it never forces the player to explore new possibilities and I find there is a tendency to get set in your ways.

Then there is the whole "tell the GM who you are" which is favours pushy, attention-hogging prima-donnas that like to call their abrasiveness "being assertive".

I used to think the whole "yes, and" was a good thing until I played with such a person.

Now, I adopt "yes and" with non-pushy people, and the bullies get "no, fuck off".

And that's not just in gaming, either.

Quote from: RPGPundit;1046972Again, exactly. There you're using prior history, out of your control, as a way to push you into new directions in roleplaying, not as some kind of mary-sue wish fulfillment or venting your energy as a frustrated fan-fiction writer.

Yes. The biggest problem with extensive player-written backstory is that it's inward looking; IME it does not add to the enjoyment of the other players at the table. There are occasional exceptions for players with more of a GM's-eye view, who create their PC as if it were an NPC, but players internally focused on backstory are not adding to the enjoyment of others at the table. Very minimal backstory - "He is Conan, Cimmerian. He does not cry" - is different, it provides a jumping off point to develop the character in play, which does add to everyone's enjoyment.

Life Paths as in Traveller, Cyberpunk, White Star companion, are almost akin to playing the character; the player is rolling to see what happens; there is a strong element of exploration, just like in actual play. My new Monday group did our WS 'Serial' rolls at the table, start of first session - it worked really well and created a lot of positive energy at the table.

Quote from: RPGPundit;1046973I don't dress up my cats. People dress up their pets for their own sake, and cats especially don't tend to like it. I have too much respect for my cats to do that to them.

You dont know many cats then.

Let's say I'm playing a pickup game.  There is a certain level of randomness I'll accept.  I'll roll for my stats if I get to arrange them how I want.  I'll come up with some kind of background, and work with the GM to make sure we can make it work in his game.  If the GM replies that I must roll randomly for my character's background and traits in order to "force me out of my comfort zone," then I have better things to do with my time than play in his game.  This is a two way street.  If the GM says I don't get to play what I want to play, then I don't have to play his game.  

I don't find world simulation inherently interesting.  While I see the appeal of sandbox gaming, I don't find it engaging in the long term.  I never get immersed in a sandbox.  It's just a playpen, and the sandbox nature as well as the lack of focus on characters creates a situation where everything is merely a playing piece.  It becomes Boxxle.  I'm just moving my character around and pushing "boxes" into position to keep progressing.

For me, RPGs have only been immersive when there is a story being told.  It's only immersive when the focus is on the characters and the world is just the backdrop for their activities.  You say it about world simulation, but story and character immersion is at least as deep.  There comes a point after a while where the characters are so real and their story is so powerful.

I get the impression you prefer large groups of 6 or more players.  I think I've seen you say before that you don't even think RPGs should be played with fewer than 4 players.  I have a completely different preference.  The opinion I've reached is that RPGs are pointless to play if there are 4 or more people present (1 GM and 3 players).  I've reached the point where I strongly believe if you have that many people then do something else like a boardgame or a fighting game tournament.  I feel RPGs are only fun when they are one GM to one or two player activities.  That alone probably accounts for a large portion of such drastically different viewpoints.

I think having to deal with a large number of people and/or strangers is going to lead to different styles of play than two or three very close people having a private game.  There's the automatic element of catherding no matter what else.  Everyone at the table is going to have different motivations for play, and juggling all those may be impossible.   Meanwhile, in a small or very close knit group, the motivations will all be similar, and by definition should all be compatible, so the juggling would be easier.

Quote from: RPGPundit;1046973I don't dress up my cats. People dress up their pets for their own sake, and cats especially don't tend to like it. I have too much respect for my cats to do that to them.

I've had cats all my life and I've never seen the appeal of putting them in outfits. I'd rather not cause them stress. Certainly there are cats that are chill enough to not care, but that is not common.

Dressing cats is like rubbing their stomachs:  You may get away with it, and avoid a mauling, with some cats all of the time, and most cats some of the time, but keep it up and eventually there will be a reckoning.

I'm fairly indifferent to the random factor, unless there is the potential to gain  or lose. If a back story is going to provide any substantial benefit, money, power, social status then I can see where randomness can be a positive. I've played a lot of point buy systems so have always taken a gains / losses should be balanced approach to a back story, randomness eliminates this need, sometimes you get lucky, sometimes you get a one armed leper with a price on his head.

I've created some fairly detailed backgrounds (a paragraph or two) but am also fine playing a character with minimal past history (left the farm to go adventuring). It can be fun to reveal the PCs past through play discovering the character as you go.