Quote from: Xavier Onassiss;832767I had a former player who did the "my character wouldn't do that" thing all the damn time, and his character didn't really have a backstory.

And on the flip side, I've had players who wrote long-ish backstories who never caused issues like that.

In my experience this is more of a player problem than a backstory problem.

I am quite sympathetic to "my character would not do that" issues. Sure it can be used in bad faith, but it can also be a sign the players getting into the spirit of things. If a  player cares enough about this character's motivations to make risk an ooc social faux pas surely that's a good sign?

The "my character wouldn't do that" issue can also be a GM issue. If players have created incompatible characters the GM bears some responsibility for not communicating the campaign premise and guiding the players towards a more cohesive concept.

I've encountered a lot of GMs who at character generation say "just create what you want" and then act surprised when the characters don't bite at any of their adventure hooks or end up with a group of characters with nothing in common and no shared goals, values or reasons to stick with each other.

Sure the individual players can self-organise and frequently do, but the buck stops at the GM.

Quote from: Soylent Green;832798I am quite sympathetic to "my character would not do that" issues. Sure it can be used in bad faith, but it can also be a sign the players getting into the spirit of things. If a  player cares enough about this character's motivations to make risk an ooc social faux pas surely that's a good sign?

I don't think the problem was that this happens at all, but rather that with the one player it's habitual to the point of being disruptive.

Quote from: Ravenswing;832794Hell, the number of times a player's been troublesome with "My character wouldn't do that" because of alignment has to outnumber the times it's happened because of a backstory about a thousand to one.

Given the millions of quickly rolled up characters in the seventies and eighties that probably aligns with the ratio of D&D characters who have little to no backstory but have alignment to D&D characters with fuller backstories.

Quote from: Soylent Green;832798I am quite sympathetic to "my character would not do that" issues. Sure it can be used in bad faith, but it can also be a sign the players getting into the spirit of things. If a  player cares enough about this character's motivations to make risk an ooc social faux pas surely that's a good sign?

No that isn't a good sign. It also isn't a bad sign.

I think characters should have things they would not do. But the intersection between the set of annoyingly disruptive players and the set of players who have concerns about committing social faux pas during a game is pretty close to a null set.

I've had players say something like "my character wouldn't do that" lots of times. With one exception, I don't recall that ever being a problem in game. The exception was one guy who created a character in D&D who didn't want to venture into the dungeon. Since the party was setting out from town and traveling a couple of days specifically to go to the dungeon and venture inside it, that was a problem. I'm not sure what he thought was going to happen, but clearly there was some problem in communicating expectations. I don't recall the exact details, but I believe I told him his character could sit outside alone essentially doing nothing until he perhaps got eaten by something, he could decide that this character actually did want to venture into the dungeon with the rest of the group, or he could roll up a new character who would venture into the dungeon with the rest of the group. Unstated, was the other choice of not letting the door hit him in the ass on his way out. I don't actually recall which choice he made.

Also sometimes "my character wouldn't do that" is actually a very poorly worded request for help in finding a motivation for their character to do that. It would save a lot of needless sturm und drang at the table if the wording was more clear.

QuoteI've encountered a lot of GMs who at character generation say "just create what you want" and then act surprised when the characters don't bite at any of their adventure hooks or end up with a group of characters with nothing in common and no shared goals, values or reasons to stick with each other.

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

Quote from: Soylent Green;832798I am quite sympathetic to "my character would not do that" issues. Sure it can be used in bad faith, but it can also be a sign the players getting into the spirit of things. If a  player cares enough about this character's motivations to make risk an ooc social faux pas surely that's a good sign?

The "my character wouldn't do that" issue can also be a GM issue. If players have created incompatible characters the GM bears some responsibility for not communicating the campaign premise and guiding the players towards a more cohesive concept.

I've encountered a lot of GMs who at character generation say "just create what you want" and then act surprised when the characters don't bite at any of their adventure hooks or end up with a group of characters with nothing in common and no shared goals, values or reasons to stick with each other.

Sure the individual players can self-organise and frequently do, but the buck stops at the GM.

This is one of the reasons I like back stories -- it's an opportunity for the player to tell me about their character: who they're playing, how they want to play, and why. I think in this case it actually might have helped us communicate. I always ask for at least a little backstory (a paragraph or two doesn't seem like too much to ask) but some players just don't like to write. So if it's going to ruin their fun, I don't press the issue.

Quote from: Xavier Onassiss;832830This is one of the reasons I like back stories -- it's an opportunity for the player to tell me about their character: who they're playing, how they want to play, and why. I think in this case it actually might have helped us communicate.

I like short backstories to help remind me about the character. But I'd rather have the player tell me about their character verbally because that can be a conversation and the back and forth lets me understand the character much better than a backstory ever will.

Quote from: Xavier Onassiss;832830This is one of the reasons I like back stories -- it's an opportunity for the player to tell me about their character: who they're playing, how they want to play, and why. I think in this case it actually might have helped us communicate. I always ask for at least a little backstory (a paragraph or two doesn't seem like too much to ask) but some players just don't like to write. So if it's going to ruin their fun, I don't press the issue.

Backstory definitely helps with this. I'm torn on the "My character wouldn't do this"

Quote from: Bren;832832I like short backstories to help remind me about the character. But I'd rather have the player tell me about their character verbally because that can be a conversation and the back and forth lets me understand the character much better than a backstory ever will.

Of course, there's no reason you can't do both.

I think you need some backstory, both to inform the personality but also so you have a sense of where the character came from and how the character fits into the setting. The danger is too much backstory. There is only so much you can easily remember so I think its best to keep the background simple, stuff you don't necessarily need to write down.

Let me restate that a bit. You don't need backstory. Technically you don't really need anything to play your character. But I think having one helps. It just isn't everything. I've seen well thought out backstories that were great, but without a personality or sense of what the character wants, it doesn't really help you play the character. Still things like knowing whether your character is the son of a black smith rather than a castle lord, is helpful. A key event or two can be handy as well.

What a lot of people lose sight of, and what I think the OP may be alluding to, is a lot of what people consider background, can happen during the campaign. You don't have to hash out all the major personality and history details at the start of the game.

Quote from: BedrockBrendan;832856I think you need some backstory, both to inform the personality but also so you have a sense of where the character came from and how the character fits into the setting. The danger is too much backstory. There is only so much you can easily remember so I think its best to keep the background simple, stuff you don't necessarily need to write down.

Let me restate that a bit. You don't need backstory. Technically you don't really need anything to play your character. But I think having one helps. It just isn't everything. I've seen well thought out backstories that were great, but without a personality or sense of what the character wants, it doesn't really help you play the character. Still things like knowing whether your character is the son of a black smith rather than a castle lord, is helpful. A key event or two can be handy as well.

What a lot of people lose sight of, and what I think the OP may be alluding to, is a lot of what people consider background, can happen during the campaign. You don't have to hash out all the major personality and history details at the start of the game.

All true. Another point I'd add to this: a great backstory isn't much help if it's not relevant to the campaign the character is in. The responsibility of making it relevant is shared by the player and the GM.

I'm in the camp that believes that the backstory should inform and support the character personality.

Quote from: Xavier Onassiss;832863All true. Another point I'd add to this: a great backstory isn't much help if it's not relevant to the campaign the character is in. The responsibility of making it relevant is shared by the player and the GM.

Yes. That's one of the reasons I like to start with a conversation with the player rather than a document. I'd love the player to give me a document afterwards that captures the agreed part of the conversation about their character.

Quote from: mAcular Chaotic;832594I've seen more players succeeding with a small backstory than a long one.

What always happens when someone gives me like a 20 page backstory is that they get overly attached to it and the character itself becomes calcified, too defined already to bend enough to fit with the whims of the party.

You need wiggle room when you play to end up justifying your character going on whatever quests turn up. But you can't do that if 100% of that room is already set in stone.

Yup, agree 100%. A half page backstory can be great, but 5+ pages is a detriment to the game IME.

Quote from: Ravenswing;832727If we were to sit down at a coffee house and get to know one another, how many of you would respond with "What I've done, what I've seen, what's happened to me, who I am; none of that matters worth a damn. All any of you need to know about me is what you observe from this moment forward."  

To which I'd likely respond with an "Ooookay" and back slooowly towards the exit, hoping that the next new person I met wasn't quite so much of a whackjob.

But if you met in Basic Training that might well be the expected attitude - as a new soldier you're a cypher to be molded by the instructors.
So I think it depends a lot on the campaign - is it Coffee House or is it Boot Camp.

Quote from: Bren;832829Also sometimes "my character wouldn't do that" is actually a very poorly worded request for help in finding a motivation for their character to do that. It would save a lot of needless sturm und drang at the table if the wording was more clear.

This 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?"

This has thankfully become much less of an issue over time, but I'll never forget that feeling of frustration when your character is just expected to drop everything for something just because it was mentioned. I'm not expecting the perfect motivation or anything, but come on, if the GM has been paying attention to my character at all, they can come up with something.

And I agree about the poor wording. I'm sure I wasn't as articulate when making my concerns known when I first started as I am now. New players in particular might just end up with a vague sense that something's off without being able to pinpoint it, much less knowing how to communicate it to the GM.

Quote from: S'mon;832909Yup, agree 100%. A half page backstory can be great, but 5+ pages is a detriment to the game IME.

If it's unsolicited, yes.

I played in a campaign where everyone participated in the world-building, and played a character from a continent/society the GM hadn't really developed yet. I showed him where I was going with the character and he liked it. Then I wrote up 6 pages of back story, which explored lots of his homeland's history, and the GM loved it. Enough to make that stuff become "canon" for the campaign setting.