Quote from: GeekEclectic;832912This has happened to me as a player on occasion. A single plot thread would get dangled in front of the characters with nothing to make following it actually enticing from an in-character perspective. I'd end up saying something like "Ok, I as the player realize this is a plot thread you're hoping we'll follow, but in-character, what reason are we being given to care about what was just mentioned beyond just the fact that it was mentioned?"

If nothing about the dangling plot thread is enticing for any of the characters, then that's a lame thread. One of three things should happen: (1) the GM comes up with a better rationale, (2) the GM and players together come up with a better rationale, or (3) those characters ignore that thread and the group grabs onto some other thread or decides to spin their own. I've seen all three work. Any of those choices are better for me (as player or as GM) than just going along with a lame thread.

I've found that the GM coming clean and just saying out of game, "Look people, I thought your characters would (investigate the mystery, look for the McGuffin, help the lost child, protect the heir, want to show up your rival, protect the village from bandits, or whatever). Can you help me figure out reasons why your characters do that?"

Sometimes the thread works for some PCs but not all. In that case the other players and their PCs should be actively working to get the reluctant PC on board. That situation is one reason I want the PCs to know why they are together as a group. The reluctant PC may bow to peer pressure, agree to help out a friend, intend to earn a favor to be redeemed later from the other PCs, owe the other PCs a favor that they just called in, is just following orders, is unwilling to turn down a challenge or a dare...if none of those reasons can apply to your PC then I submit that the group has an odd dynamic, especially in regards to your PC, and I'd start to wonder why the PCs do hang out together or the player of the reluctant PC's player just isn't trying hard enough to cooperate with the group...or you know...both.

Quote from: Shipyard Locked;832497I confess, even in an Eberron game if a player comes at me with more than two sentences of backstory I tune it out. It's usually second-rate special snowflake drama cliches that they'll forget about soon enough. Once in a while a single backstory detail will actually end up mattering a great deal in play, and that's only because the player pushed it as an issue, making it "real" enough for me to care.

What was that Gygax quote again?
"Backstory? The first three levels are your backstory."

I really don't get this attitude. When I'm GMing a game, getting that level of engagement from a player, enough that they care to write something down about their character that they don't have to, is a good thing. Why would you piss on the effort of your friends by dismissing anything they're trying to contribute to the game?

As for Gygax, he was full of shit, on this as well as other issues. Backstory is what you write to get your character oriented in the gameworld and connected to some people and things before it begins.

Quote from: Kiero;832945I really don't get this attitude. When I'm GMing a game, getting that level of engagement from a player, enough that they care to write something down about their character that they don't have to, is a good thing. Why would you piss on the effort of your friends by dismissing anything they're trying to contribute to the game?

I have to agree with this.

Quote from: Kiero;832945As for Gygax, he was full of shit, on this as well as other issues. Backstory is what you write to get your character oriented in the gameworld and connected to some people and things before it begins.

He was a wargamer first, and even D&D had a lot of war game influences at the start, the less he got involved, the more that aspect waned.

A good backstory weaves the PC into the setting.

I am not interested in more than 1/2 page (250 word) personality and backstory. I use the 250 word limit because it focuses players to the core concepts for their character. Also, since I run lethal RPGs, who knows if that PC is going to be around in a few weeks or months.

In my OD&D game, PCs begin at 4th level so I guess their 1st-3rd levels would be their backstory.

So Fate's kinda cool because you do the backstory generation together, which also helps people get on the same page as far as "what's the game about".  That of course only works if you're doing "the Big Four Heroes on their Big Damn Quest", and it'd be a bit silly for an open table game.

5 page backstories?  Cool, I guess?  I'd take them as something of a flag.  Nothing wrong with them inherently, but they often go hand-in-hand with people that expect things will go a certain way and already have "their story" in mind and will get upset if things don't go the way they want.

One problem with backstories is with a lot of them you get stuff like "after the orcs killed my family I swore vengeance against the orcs and dedicated myself to protecting my people from them...and them promptly got an a boat and spent years tangling with dwarven pirates and trying to loot the lizardmen infested ruins in the jungles. Orcs? Um, I think I saw a half-orc once?"

Often there`s a limited amount of headspace that a player can dedicate to a character so if there`s a lot of big picture stuff it can sometimes distract players from interacting with whatever is in front of their character`s nose in an interesting way.

Quote from: robiswrong;8329595 page backstories?  Cool, I guess?  I'd take them as something of a flag.  Nothing wrong with them inherently, but they often go hand-in-hand with people that expect things will go a certain way and already have "their story" in mind and will get upset if things don't go the way they want.

That's certainly my experience. It tends to be a warning indicator of selfishness - this player isn't interested in contributing to the group and making a fun game for everyone, and they're not interested in forming strong relations with the other PCs, or NPCs who weren't created by them in their backstory.

OTOH a player who is working closely with GM and other players may create a long backstory that is brilliant. Even then it's rarely over a page or so. The Thief Claudia Morrigan in my Mentzer campaign has a cool lengthy backstory tied to the setting, the hints I gave, & the other PCs - her story is maybe 1.5 to 2 pages - http://www.meetup.com/London-DnD/messages/boards/thread/48852155/40#128042374

Quote from: Kiero;832945As for Gygax, he was full of shit, on this as well as other issues. Backstory is what you write to get your character oriented in the gameworld and connected to some people and things before it begins.

It's been several decades since I've regarded a Gygax quote as generally indicative as to how the game ought to be played as opposed to something at which to roll my eyes.

And for how many pastimes do we want to do things exactly the same as in the beginning?  We don't play baseball by the 1860s rules, we don't pay to hear bands to do concerts in plainchant, boxing matches don't allow eye-gouging or kneeing in the groin, we don't sun ourselves at the beach wearing 1920s bathing costumes, TV shows don't go by 1950s-era formats and morals, and movies these days are usually in color and have sound.  Gaming's advanced since 1974.

Quote from: Bren;832829Probably one reason I have less trouble with "my character wouldn't do that" is because I never, ever say "just create what you want."

Yep.  It's one of the many, many problems that boil down to the GM not having the guts to say "Nice try, but no."

And that's what's missing in much of this conversation.  5+ page backstories aren't responsible for players refusing to embody character change § ‡; players who refuse to embody character change are responsible.  Backstories aren't responsible for players balking at the way a GM plot is going; GMs refusing to require that characters be designed to conform with the rest of the group and the plots he plans on running are.


§ - Even as a GM who strongly encourages backstories and welcomes written ones, in the 37 years I've been doing this, I've had exactly ONE player write a backstory longer than 4 pages, just the once.  I'm having a hard time picturing this sort of thing as an ongoing problem with any GM in creation.

‡ - While we're at it, can someone tell me what's wrong with a PC refusing to change his or her opinions, views or morals?  Lots of people are like this.  Hell, the entire concept of alignment involves the player locking in an ethical and moral code for the character at startup, permanently.

I have a legit question:  How do you form a personality without a sense of character history that helps inform how they will react to any given situation?

Now this is MY perspective on this, but there are something I can claim are from my parents, like the fact that I'm the oldest child, one of two brothers.  And that informs how I think and react to certain things.

That is part of my personal backstory, so for me, even that tiny detail changes how a character I'm playing is also a older sibling will view the world, and how that changes the personality to a certain bent.

Quote from: Christopher Brady;833051I have a legit question:  How do you form a personality without a sense of character history that helps inform how they will react to any given situation?

Through play. I've been meaning to post this example from Mass Effect.

http://masseffect.wikia.com/wiki/Rachni_Queen

For those who haven't played Mass Effect, spoilers.

Spoiler

The Noveria scenario culminates in a decision to either destroy the Rachni Queen or let it escape. I think it's one of the best decision points in the ME series, because either decision can (and has been) argued to be the "correct" one.

Now, a player can make that kind of decison with or without any backstory. But after that point, we'll know a little more about the character. That decision will tell us how ruthless or pragmatic or optimistic or empathetic that character is.
How would a player make that kind of decision without backstory? I'd argue that like in Mass Effect, it's emergent from the decision itself. I decided to kill the Rachni Queen? Maybe I decide from that point that my character is ruthless and has a xenophobic streak, and that's how the character justifies the decision. Though the player made it on a whim.

Quote from: Ravenswing;833049
‡ - While we're at it, can someone tell me what's wrong with a PC refusing to change his or her opinions, views or morals?  Lots of people are like this.  Hell, the entire concept of alignment involves the player locking in an ethical and moral code for the character at startup, permanently.

I've never seen a D&D game not run by a 12 year old where alignment was used in a prescriptive rather than descriptive way.

I still think old-school, open table games are fun.  But they're not how most people play these days, and the techniques that work for them are not necessarily the same techniques that work for "the Big Damn Heroes on their Big Damn Quest."  So I think we agree on that.  I don't necessarily consider it "advanced", though, any more than I consider cake more advanced than pie.

Quote from: Ratman_tf;833060Through play. I've been meaning to post this example from Mass Effect.

http://masseffect.wikia.com/wiki/Rachni_Queen

For those who haven't played Mass Effect, spoilers.

Spoiler

The Noveria scenario culminates in a decision to either destroy the Rachni Queen or let it escape. I think it's one of the best decision points in the ME series, because either decision can (and has been) argued to be the "correct" one.

Now, a player can make that kind of decison with or without any backstory. But after that point, we'll know a little more about the character. That decision will tell us how ruthless or pragmatic or optimistic or empathetic that character is.
How would a player make that kind of decision without backstory? I'd argue that like in Mass Effect, it's emergent from the decision itself. I decided to kill the Rachni Queen? Maybe I decide from that point that my character is ruthless and has a xenophobic streak, and that's how the character justifies the decision. Though the player made it on a whim.

That's problematic though.  Simply because that's not a personality choice, that's a PLAYER choice.  Because until that sequence in the game, the only way we (the player) know anything about the Rachni is if we'd bothered reading the lore.

Our 'Sheppard' doesn't actually have any investment until WE the PLAYERS decide he or she does.  In fact, I would argue (without facts) that most people who played Mass Effect 1, didn't even have any feelings about the choice, other than something that happened immediately.

It's like me saying, "I hate ice cream." No context, no reason as to why.  That's not personality to me, that's just an arbitrary exclamation.

Your past (the general not any one poster specific) defines who you are today.  Whether or not you want to be tied to it, or are trying to get past it, it's part of who you are, and it defines how you see the world.

Again, though, I want to stress this is my belief, and it's also why I'm having a hard time seeing how someone can suddenly sprout with convictions and desires whole cloth, without having any sort of knowledge of their own parents, siblings or even city block they grew up from.

I once ran a character in AD&D 2e who was an Orphan with no parents.  Who ended up in a state run orphanage.  And it burnt down, almost everyone died, removing any 'ties' he might have had.  I decided, that during the time he was there, he got attached to a few of the fellow orphans, and when his best friend there died in the fire, that he was going to live his life the way his little friend would have wanted him to:  Being a hero.

That experience shaped him, it informed me as to how I should run the character.

This is how I see back story.

Quote from: Christopher Brady;833067Your past (the general not any one poster specific) defines who you are today.  Whether or not you want to be tied to it, or are trying to get past it, it's part of who you are, and it defines how you see the world.

For real people? Sure. For RPG people? Sometimes.

I don't find it difficult to think of a character's persona sans family backgrounds. I don't think I am unusual in that sense. Sometimes I add family info, which adds details to my characters. But I'm vastly more likely to add a family background that fits a persona I invented than I am to invent a family background and then contemplate what sort of person would result from that background. For an RPG character, the family supports the persona, but causally it does not determine personality.

QuoteAgain, though, I want to stress this is my belief, and it's also why I'm having a hard time seeing how someone can suddenly sprout with convictions and desires whole cloth, without having any sort of knowledge of their own parents, siblings or even city block they grew up from.

Because I have lived life, read books, watched plays, TV shows, and movies for over 5 decades, I have a lot of character types, real and imagined, that I can draw on to create personalities and convictions for my characters.

To use examples from fiction, we remember Hamlet's mother and father because they are central to his story. I can't recall who Othello's parents were or even if they are mentioned at all. Same for his nemesis Iago. And yet both have memorable personalities. To use a more contemporary example, Captain Alatriste's family is never mentioned. By the author's explicit intent. Alatriste has a backstory, a fairly extensive one that is mentioned throughout the various stories. But so far as the reader knows, Alatriste's history starts after he leaves home to join the Tercios. A lot of people play their PCs just like that.

Quote from: Christopher Brady;833067That's problematic though.  Simply because that's not a personality choice, that's a PLAYER choice.  Because until that sequence in the game, the only way we (the player) know anything about the Rachni is if we'd bothered reading the lore.

#1. Technically, aren't all character choices player choices as well?

#2. The event in the game does give an infodump at the choice event. I suppose a player could skip that convo, and just choose RED or BLUE, but then, I don't have to have a backstory or make any choices in table top RPGs from a role playing standpoint either.

https://youtu.be/IymgIxeRskw

QuoteOur 'Sheppard' doesn't actually have any investment until WE the PLAYERS decide he or she does.  In fact, I would argue (without facts) that most people who played Mass Effect 1, didn't even have any feelings about the choice, other than something that happened immediately.

I would disagree. I've seen a lot of internet discussion on the choices made in the Mass Effect games. I'd argue that's what made them so compelling and sucessful.

QuoteIt's like me saying, "I hate ice cream." No context, no reason as to why.  That's not personality to me, that's just an arbitrary exclamation.

Your past (the general not any one poster specific) defines who you are today.  Whether or not you want to be tied to it, or are trying to get past it, it's part of who you are, and it defines how you see the world.

Again, though, I want to stress this is my belief, and it's also why I'm having a hard time seeing how someone can suddenly sprout with convictions and desires whole cloth, without having any sort of knowledge of their own parents, siblings or even city block they grew up from.

I once ran a character in AD&D 2e who was an Orphan with no parents.  Who ended up in a state run orphanage.  And it burnt down, almost everyone died, removing any 'ties' he might have had.  I decided, that during the time he was there, he got attached to a few of the fellow orphans, and when his best friend there died in the fire, that he was going to live his life the way his little friend would have wanted him to:  Being a hero.

That experience shaped him, it informed me as to how I should run the character.

This is how I see back story.

Let's say for argument that I'm playing ME as a table top RPG.

If I say my character is a xenophobe and ruthless about it because of my run-in with the Rachni Queen before the game started that's backstory.

If I say my character is a xenophobe and ruthless about it because of my run in with the Rachni Queen during an adventure, how does that make it arbitrary compared to saying it because of backstory?

Quote from: Ratman_tf;833098Let's say for argument that I'm playing ME as a table top RPG.

If I say my character is a xenophobe and ruthless about it because of my run-in with the Rachni Queen before the game started that's backstory.

If I say my character is a xenophobe and ruthless about it because of my run in with the Rachni Queen during an adventure, how does that make it arbitrary compared to saying it because of backstory?

Fair point, I'll grant, but just because you decided (let's just say for the sake of argument) as part of your back story, that does inform your choices and your personality.

The second point, it's only arbitrary if the player (you in this case) decided to effectively flip a coin, not decide that your characters personal history (the back story) has a hand in the choice.

What I'm trying to say is that how Sheppard in the RPG game deals with the Rachni Queen, is often dependent on how the player wanted to go for in terms of how their history, their story led up to it.  Whether or not Sheppard (to continue this example) had personal experience with the Rachni would inform his/her choice on how to deal with it, in terms of a character.

Often people cite actors and how they somehow create characters/personalities whole clothe, but that's not how a lot of actors work.

Actually, let me pick on a fictional character that's seen a lot of activity of late:  Batman.  Whether you're going by the 'original' 1989 movie, the earlier Silver Age 1960s, to Nolan's Bat-Thug, we ALL know his back story.

At around 8 years old, Bruce Wayne died.  All his hopes, dreams and childhood washed away with two clicks of a pistol's hammer.  He then spends a good chunk of his family's fortune and at least 15 years of his life to preventing such tragedies from ever happening again.

That above shapes his worldview, what he will and won't do, and generally what he feels he needs to be to people.  His personality, in and out of the suit, is determined by what he's experienced.

His back story informs his personality, and every single writer (comic or screen), comic artist and actor has to determine how their portrayal of the character is informed by his history.  Yes, Clooney's is different than Bale's but they all come from the same start point, and that start point is how they determine the Batman's personality.

That's why I personally cannot make a character's personality without knowing who or what they did before.

Let me give an example of how I work, maybe you can see my point a little better.

I have a character in the current Encounter's season.  Gurdek Skullbreaker, Dwarf Barbarian.  I took the Dwarf leaping down onto the Fire Giant image and decided that was going to be the character I played.

So I sat down and decided, why Barbarian?  What makes a normally 'Lawful' creature like a dwarf go a rather violently chaotic combat path?  I decided, that he had Anger Management issues.  His family life and the fact that there were smiths made him feel restrained, unable to 'breath'.  So he resorted to lashing out.

His family, being nice traditional dwarves, had not idea how to deal with Gurdek.  So they shipped him off as a fostering to a Mining clan, maybe being around more down to earth and violent type would straighten him out.

No dice.  In fact, he got worse, and no one, not even he knew how to control himself.  And he hated it.  He didn't want to hurt his friends, but bottling up his feelings wasn't working either, so one day, when they were close to the surface, this Mountain Dwarf ran into the open sky, into the wilderness that was the Dalelands.  And for several lean weeks, he learned how to survive, how to thrive, and he didn't have one incident where he so much as snapped at a squirrel!  (Background:  Outlander)

One day, when he was out, playing his bagpipes and scaring the living piss out of every animal in a 20 mile radius, he got snookered by a gang of Orcs.  Now, these Orcs fancied themselves as somewhat 'civilized', and so if Gurdek could survive the 'gladiator's pit' that they dug out, they wouldn't kill him.

He spent weeks in that camp, fighting for his supper against other Orcs and beasts that the tribe through at him, and when his life was on the line, his anger sharpened, focused, and HE controlled it, it did not control him any longer.  So impressed where his captors with his new ability, they gave him the name "Skullbreaker" for what he could do with his bare hands, and then gave him an Orcish great ax.

And just when he was ready to break free and escape, a group of adventurers came out and cleaned the camp, rescuing him.  They met, talked and decided to take him with them until Red Larch (the starting town this season's Adventure League) and now, Gurdek Skullbreaker was a level 1 adventurer, a Dwarven Barbarian, with the Outlander background.

He doesn't much like orcs, hates being underground for too long, and plays his bagpipes to scare...  Well, everyone.  But underneath it all, his heart is true, loyal and wants to help others, perhaps even make some new friends along the way.