Now in all the years I've run stuff, I've never had more that one or two players interested in reading any backstory about the campaigns I've run. Have you?

     Nor do they care if "Sir Evilton the Really Mean" is terrorizing the countryside. Not that they won't go and kill his minions and henchmen. They just don't really care about it.

     But I have found that if I run a 'backstory' for them, they will. Setting the game back before all the trouble starts, when the characters are relatively young and inexperienced.  Letting them make friends and rivals, exploring the area and getting to know everyone. Making the village/town/city/ect, seem familiar and having the player invested in all, I've run a more satisfying game.

     My biggest success with this was my Ravenloft game. Where I started the characters at the age of 10, ran a session where they tangled with bullies, built a treefort and got to know the town.

     Next session two years passed and they went and explored an abandoned house 'on a dare' where they found indications that something bad had happened. Plus they found 'people bones!' in the cellar (or so they though, no skulls, just ribs and whatnot) and that scared them right back to town.

     The next session a year had passed and it was time for the harvest festival! Old friends of their family's had shown up in town (with news that they weren't allowed to hear). That's when agents of a malign evil struck, attacking during the night of the festival. Killing some, wounding others. The PCs learned that their parents had been once fought against the forces of darkness. Now that darkness had regained it's strength and was coming after them.

     In order to protect them, they where sent to a city, where old allies would watch over and train them. The journey there was yet another session and there they met new members of the party along the way. They then spent the next few years in training and then where sent on the road as the city was no longer safe.

     During the entire 'backstory' arc, there was no combat, no monsters (except for the harvest festival) and yet the players loved it. It strengthened who they where, their relationships to each other, and why they where doing what they where doing. All very important in a horror game I've found.

     Now I wouldn't expect anyone to run as much backstory as I did, but would you think a session or three good enough to get the players invested in an area/world? Run at certain age brackets "when the important stuff is happening" with a brief summary of what went on inbetween?

     Anyone think this might be something you'd try with your groups or suggest to your GM? Any problems you might see and/or fix?

     Thanks for your time in advance.

I think that combat every session actually hurts investiture.

I mean, in the ONline game I run, we probably average combat 1/2 the sessions.  And the in town stuff takes up as much or more playtime than the 'adventure' stuff.  I know that makes me a bit of a mutant, but it works for me, because my PCs do read the game wiki for backstory, etc.

But yes, I like what you did, and I recommend for many GMs to do simialr things.

Quote from: Nazgul;558998Now in all the years I've run stuff, I've never had more that one or two players interested in reading any backstory about the campaigns I've run. Have you?

Years ago, on rec.games.frp.advocacy, there was quite a bit of talk about "Design at Start" (DAS) players and "Develop in Play" (DIP) players.  The Design at Start players want to design their characters and the environment pretty thoroughly up front while the Develop in Play players generally want to start with a rough sketch of their character and play the character a bit to see how things develop as a part of play.  I think that may be at least part of what you are running into.

Quote from: Nazgul;558998Anyone think this might be something you'd try with your groups or suggest to your GM? Any problems you might see and/or fix?

I think this could be useful for Develop in Play players and I think it would work for me (I'm one) and it might be worth a try.  As for the absence of combat, that can actually be a plus for Develop in Play characters.  What can happen with Develop in Play players is that if their characters encounter too much intensity before they've been played a bit, it forces the player to make important decisions with a character they haven't quite figured out yet and it might force choices that don't fit together well as the character develops.  So I consider the low-key non-combat part of your example a plus, personally.

I really like the OP's idea of having the players run through the backstory as an adventure instead of reading it. This is one of those ideas I can hardly wait to implement, although I'll need to start a new campaign first....

Most of my games, I try to get the players involved in creating the backstory as much as possible. They're way more interested in writing/reading each others' character stories than my stuff, with all those NPCs, timelines and vital campaign info. What do I know, I'm just the GM!

I like this idea enough to try it in a some future game I run if you don't mind Nazgul.

I basically never play through backstory or things like that.  Instead, at the start of a game I reveal the information that's absolutely essential for the Players to know for the campaign to make sense, and nothing more than that; and then feed them short bits of backstory or background in actual play as they run into these things.

It is of course risky to use some gimmicky method to give the background info, and lots of times this crashes and burns.
Its likewise a problem if you give a 2-hour lecture of this epic backstory, never keeping in mind that after the first five minutes or so there's hardly anything the players will be able to keep in their heads.

The right method is to give it in digestible portions; and of course it helps if you have experience as a lecturer.

RPGPundit

They say the sign of a great cartoonist is how he can convey a lot expression and meaning with just a few lines and squiggles.  I find this principle of economy applies to roleplaying games too. Whether it's your own PC, and NPC or even the setting itself the trick is to capture a few key details and let everyone's imagination fill in the blanks.

I would not consider running one or more session of background anymore than spending an entire session on character generation. Free time is precious and on roleplaying night we want to actually roleplay.

One thing I will mention is that our concept of "campaign" is actually quite short, maybe 6-12, sometimes even less. I think that kind of conditions you towards a "hit the ground running" style of gaming.

I should also add that doing so is only something I've done for games with horror or mystery as their central concepts. I wouldn't run such for a band of wandering freebooters or a 'superhero' group.


I've found the horror and mystery require greater 'buy in' for my players to get really involved. Perhaps it just gets them to switch gears from "all asskicking mode' to 'investigative/normal person' mode. Which ever, it's something they respond well to.

For any other type of game. I'd only consider running single session of such, and end the session with what ever big event that would the the focus of the campaign.

But if you plan on running a highly political campaign, it might help to introduce the 'political players' to the PC in such a session (We played in a Birthright campaign that did this, help out a lot). Once again, single session.

@Marleycat: Of course, feel free to steal anything I post if you think it'll help you run a good game. Let me know how it goes.

This is one of those edge-of-the-knife type deals.  If done with a light touch, reactive care, and player buy-in then it can be a positive experience.  If done with an iron-fist and engines at full-bore, then it can be a disaster.

As John Morrow pointed out, there are people who like to create the basic character and then let its personality, goals, and motivations emerge out of actual play.  If the DM is creating their character's back story every time, then I think it may become more of a negative than a positive.  I know that I would eventually get tired of the DM making up shit for my characters at some point.  

Also, I think that any back story session should only be one short session, and probably should be directly coupled with the character creation process and first actual play session.  As a GM, I would not consider running more than one short back story session.

Quote from: RPGPundit;559397I basically never play through backstory or things like that.  Instead, at the start of a game I reveal the information that's absolutely essential for the Players to know for the campaign to make sense, and nothing more than that; and then feed them short bits of backstory or background in actual play as they run into these things.

It is of course risky to use some gimmicky method to give the background info, and lots of times this crashes and burns.
Its likewise a problem if you give a 2-hour lecture of this epic backstory, never keeping in mind that after the first five minutes or so there's hardly anything the players will be able to keep in their heads.

The right method is to give it in digestible portions; and of course it helps if you have experience as a lecturer.

RPGPundit

The first para is my approach, I try to integrate these things organically into actual play.

Pundy's doubtless right about lecturer experience, but not having any I can't speak to that.

Three sessions of backstory feels too much to me by the way, though evidently it worked here and I'd likely have enjoyed the OP's game. I wouldn't spend more than half to one session on this myself though if I tried it.

Quote from: Drohem;559561This is one of those edge-of-the-knife type deals.  If done with a light touch, reactive care, and player buy-in then it can be a positive experience.  If done with an iron-fist and engines at full-bore, then it can be a disaster.

As John Morrow pointed out, there are people who like to create the basic character and then let its personality, goals, and motivations emerge out of actual play. If the DM is creating their character's back story every time, then I think it may become more of a negative than a positive.  I know that I would eventually get tired of the DM making up shit for my characters at some point.  

Also, I think that any back story session should only be one short session, and probably should be directly coupled with the character creation process and first actual play session.  As a GM, I would not consider running more than one short back story session.

Good point. I usually give my players a list of starting options and ask if they have any ideas of their own before I start. But I could see how it would look like such if I did it every time.

I would also say not to spring such an event upon your players, but let them know what's up before hand. Not that "The pact the town fathers made will now come due" but "Starting off you'll get a sense of what's going on in your odd little town, before anything big happens".

Quote from: D-503;559566Three sessions of backstory feels too much to me by the way, though evidently it worked here and I'd likely have enjoyed the OP's game. I wouldn't spend more than half to one session on this myself though if I tried it.

I should point out that there where 3 players in the start of the Ravenloft campaign. And that one of the reasons for dragging it out for so long was trying to clear up scheduling conflicts for the other players to join. Six players by the time it all got up and running.

Perhaps 'backstory' isn't the right word. Pre-campaign? Less "here are all the details to the game we're gonna play, just sit and watch" and more of "getting a feel for things, getting to know the town/city/country you live in and make your own decisions on how to react to it all"

My last Amber play by post (thread still up on the Amber forum though the Wiki is dead) I used flashbacks.

When I introduced an NPC I created a flashback that ran in parallel to the main thread tacking similar motifs through a distorted lens.

Worked like a charm and the wiki based amber game is hte idea forum for this.

Quote from: Nazgul;559572Perhaps 'backstory' isn't the right word. Pre-campaign? Less "here are all the details to the game we're gonna play, just sit and watch" and more of "getting a feel for things, getting to know the town/city/country you live in and make your own decisions on how to react to it all"

I'm not sure what the difference is between "pre-campaign" and "campaign".  In my experience, the early part of a campaign always includes getting a feel for things and adjusting to the area.  

In practice, your approach seems like not having combat for the first few sessions.  Someone could view that as "backstory" - but someone else could just as easily view it as just the early campaign.  

In general, I tend to do the opposite.  My campaigns usually start with a simple, clear conflict - fight the pirates, kill the evil sorcerer, etc.  This is kind of like a longer form of the "teaser" fight that some movies start with.  A simple fight against a clear bad guy doesn't take much background knowledge, and so makes a good initial hook.  It's through the process of this conflict that the players first get to know the context and major figures.  Later adventures will features more non-combat interactions, politics, romance, etc.