Quote from: ffilz;969045Sure, but I've had players be really resistant to my saying no to their long back story... Or I've been put in a trap, I had an idea that I wanted to reveal in play, but you just wrote your back story to contradict my idea, so I either spoil the mystery, or I will invalidate your back story as the mystery is exposed. Even in a sandbox, or especially in a sandbox, the GM should be able to have some ideas of how things MIGHT play out, the key is that the players should be able to disrupt those ideas through play, not because they wrote some backstory that contradicts the idea before dice have even hit the table.

I may be a bit hot about this because the last time I had a pages long back story (that I couldn't make myself read in detail), the player did just that. In the end, the campaign really didn't last that much longer...

Frank

If you are going to allow pages long backstory, you have to read the thing.

If you and your players disagree on what should be permissible in terms of background, that is an issue between you guys. I can't say what you should do in your own group, but that sounds like either a lack of flexibility on the part of you or them, or a lack of compatibility if flexibility is out of the question. It isn't something that gets resolved because people on a forum said "no backgrounds".

Quote from: BedrockBrendan;969048If you are going to allow pages long backstory, you have to read the thing.

And that's part of why I don't allow them.

QuoteIf you and your players disagree on what should be permissible in terms of background, that is an issue between you guys. I can't say what you should do in your own group, but that sounds like either a lack of flexibility on the part of you or them, or a lack of compatibility if flexibility is out of the question. It isn't something that gets resolved because people on a forum said "no backgrounds".

All I've ever maintained here in this discussion is my preference for short concise backgrounds that are easy for us to reach consensus on, and shared my experience when folks have tried to dump a long back story on me. I don't have the patience to read a long back story. And yes, I am prepared to have a discussion about background, but it needs to be a discussion, not a drop of 10 pages of back story on me and expecting me to accept it because that's what the player wants. And the player needs to be ready for me to say "I'd prefer that be something that is discovered in play not written into your background." But that's hard to do when presented with an already written 10 page back story.

See the thing is, a pre-written 10 page back story is NOT a collaborative effort. Sure, we can edit it, but it's much better to develop all that material in a collaborative way. The back story that comes out of a collaborative effort will be much more interesting, and will prepare us for play, leaving questions open to be determined in play.

Frank

Something that's important, and is relevant to the sandbox vs structured debate (which really back stories are part of):

As GM I get to offer the game I want to run. As player, you get to decide if you're interested. There is room for us to discuss, but at some point I get to say "that isn't a game I'm interested in running". And the players get to say "and that isn't a game I'm willing to play." I've said goodbye to players. I've decided not to run a game after all.

Frank

Quote from: Black Vulmea;969038I recall a conversation with one of my Flashing Blades players years ago, when he asked how I came up with so many intrigues and kept them all straight: it was insanely easy I replied, because every time I added a non-player character to the campaign, I asked myself, who is his uncle? his brother? his sister? his in-laws? his best friend? his romantic rival? and from those kinds of questions connections simply radiated outward into the setting through personal and professional connections.

Well that's good advice. I do it in my Wilderlands game to a large extent, and it works great.

Quote from: ffilz;969042Too much setting detail can also create similar problems.

For example?

Quote from: Black Vulmea;969068

QuoteToo much setting detail can also create similar problems.

For example?

For example, take many commercial settings. There is so much stuff there no one can keep it straight, and sometimes the history and stuff in there can feel like all the exciting stuff has already been done.

So that's one danger, the GM's cool setting detail instead of laying out a setting ready for the players to come along and trash, there is all this stuff the players are expected to conform to and the most exciting stuff has already happened.

Then there's any setting that is still actively published. Some of those settings have an ongoing "story" which now either the GM has to force on the players, or the new setting materials quickly become useless. Even if the setting doesn't have too much story, the GM is left with a decision when a new setting book comes out that contradicts stuff detailed during play.

The biggest danger though to too much setting detail is just the sheer weight of it. I've tried to run RuneQuest using the post-3e Glorantha materials (HeroQuest and various fan materials) and it was very frustrating trying to find things and how to interpret all the detail, and how to make it relevant to the players.

Settings I've followed and used in play that I have had various issues with: Harn, Mystara, Glorantha, even Wilderlands of High Fantasy to some extent.

Now those settings (other than maybe Mystara) I can use today, but there are ways I would use them:

Harn: If I ever decided I wanted to use Harn again, I'd pick up the original Harn module (or modern equivalent) and MAYBE some of the country modules, but really I think I'd just stick with the original.

Mystara: I'd probably just use the map and any details available in the BX modules.

Glorantha: I'll stick to Chaosium 2e materials, supplemented by Avalon Hill 3e materials, and gee, if something really grabs me from something else, cool. But be careful of what of that material actually holds, if I have a cool idea that contradicts something in that material, I'll go with it (with sufficient warning to the players).

Wilderlands: I use the original materials, I'll look into the D20 stuff if something is too vague to see if the D20 stuff provides inspiration.

Other settings I have that I would use:

Blackmoor: Really just the map, I use the maps from the TSR modules. First Fantasy Campaign as a source of a bit of information.

Talislanta: Some day I might run something using the Talislanta system. I've tried with other systems, but if I revisit, I'd stick with one of the house system editions (probably 1e, 2e, or 3e).

Tekumel: Some day I might run EPT. I would make judicious use of the material I have and ignore anything else.

For my own settings, background is pretty minimal and developed in play.

Frank

Quote from: ffilz;969033I suspect the folks who are getting their boxers in a wad have been burned by players producing back stories that have conflicted with the GM's ideas and then expected the GM to honor their back story over the ideas the GM had. Worst is when those back stories are so long the GM doesn't really take the time to read them.

I have been burned by such back stories, and one thing I observe that can happen with them is that the player is trying to write the success or position of their character into the back story rather than finding out in play (or supporting background that is bought with points in chargen).

Although it wasn't that long, we just had a Traveller player storm off because the GM wanted him to roll up a character in front of the GM, rather than take the character he carefully crafted (by re-rolling when the dice gave him something that wasn't part of his conception for the character).

Creating a character with back story is fine if that's part of the game the GM is offering to run and the players are choosing to play, but when a player tries to bring that into a game that has a different attitude, it's a problem, and people react strongly to it.

Frank

I get that some people have had bad experiences that have shaped their opinions. We all have; mostly our attitudes aren't formed in a vacuum.  The difference is that its coming across less "I don't care for backstories and don't use them" and more "Backstories are Badwrongfun and no one should use them." Its not the idea people dislike something I like but the intensity and degree that seems a little much for the subject.

Quote from: Nexus;969083I get that some people have had bad experiences that have shaped their opinions. We all have; mostly our attitudes aren't formed in a vacuum.  The difference is that its coming across less "I don't care for backstories and don't use them" and more "Backstories are Badwrongfun and no one should use them." Its not the idea people dislike something I like but the intensity and degree that seems a little much for the subject.

Sorry if I'm emoting "badwrongfun"... If back stories work for you and the folks you play with, cool!

I'm just sharing why they aren't something that is of interest to me, and the issues I've had when people have written them.

I guess something I haven't expressed from a player point of view is how much I would dislike playing in a game where the GM expected more than a few paragraphs of back story...

Frank

Quote from: Nexus;969083The difference is that its coming across less "I don't care for backstories and don't use them" and more "Backstories are Badwrongfun and no one should use them." Its not the idea people dislike something I like but the intensity and degree that seems a little much for the subject.

There is also always that tendency to throw the baby out with the bathwater with gaming advice. That is how you end up with the stupid storytelling advice we got in the 90s (we threw out the dungeons and hexcrawls with the bathwater). It is like when people take some sound writing suggestions and it becomes this thing you always have to do (like "Don't ever use the passive voice"). It makes sense to think about why you are using a particular voice, and it makes sense to consider the downsides of character backgrounds. But no character backgrounds, ever, can become a rule people cleave to without considering the upsides of using them.

Quote from: BedrockBrendan;969086There is also always that tendency to throw the baby out with the bathwater with gaming advice. That is how you end up with the stupid storytelling advice we got in the 90s (we threw out the dungeons and hexcrawls with the bathwater). It is like when people take some sound writing suggestions and it becomes this thing you always have to do (like "Don't ever use the passive voice"). It makes sense to think about why you are using a particular voice, and it makes sense to consider the downsides of character backgrounds. But no character backgrounds, ever, can become a rule people cleave to without considering the upsides of using them.

Well, I certainly can't get on a high horse about this. I've chucked a few damp infants out the window in my time.

Backstories are Badwrongfun and no one should use them.  

Quote from: BedrockBrendan;969086There is also always that tendency to throw the baby out with the bathwater with gaming advice. That is how you end up with the stupid storytelling advice we got in the 90s (we threw out the dungeons and hexcrawls with the bathwater). It is like when people take some sound writing suggestions and it becomes this thing you always have to do (like "Don't ever use the passive voice"). It makes sense to think about why you are using a particular voice, and it makes sense to consider the downsides of character backgrounds. But no character backgrounds, ever, can become a rule people cleave to without considering the upsides of using them.

I'm not advocating no background. I'm happy with a concise background that provides color, personality, and informs the game we are about to play. What I dislike is dense background that either will get ignored in play, or attempts to resolve the game before we play it. Now given what I like to see out of a back story, it's hard for me to see how a 10 page back story would ever be applicable to the type of game I like to play. It sounds like a lot of stuff that will get ignored, or an attempt by the player to resolve things before we play. On the other hand, if someone showed up with a 10 page back story that I was able to read through, and was open to feedback from me, and that back story left me with tons of adventure ideas and somehow didn't shut down anything I already had in mind for the setting, I guess that would be cool.

Frank

Quote from: ffilz;969090I'm not advocating no background. I'm happy with a concise background that provides color, personality, and informs the game we are about to play. What I dislike is dense background that either will get ignored in play, or attempts to resolve the game before we play it. Now given what I like to see out of a back story, it's hard for me to see how a 10 page back story would ever be applicable to the type of game I like to play. It sounds like a lot of stuff that will get ignored, or an attempt by the player to resolve things before we play. On the other hand, if someone showed up with a 10 page back story that I was able to read through, and was open to feedback from me, and that back story left me with tons of adventure ideas and somehow didn't shut down anything I already had in mind for the setting, I guess that would be cool.

Frank

Its probably a key point to our difference in preference. I usually don't make major choices about what might happen in a game until I get at least some idea of what sorts of PCs the players are considering and often work from their backgrounds when deciding about what may occur.

Re: character backstories-

Our system of choice is ACKS. Lately I've been having players just roll those dice, in order, and build their character as they choose from there.  I haven't yet had a player who didn't or couldn't think of something fun which hooked them into the setting in the ten minutes that character creation takes in that system.

I suppose that says something for building a rapport between players and GM. Also for easy character generation systems.

Seems to me there is a big separate problem when someone other than the GM is writing the backgrounds for the world and characters, and the GM isn't reading or tracking it all, unless the GM defines what exist as only what he says and the stuff others wrote is just suggestions.

As GM my approach has been to allow background suggestions but let players know that I may overrule/change any of it (only letting them know of changes their PCs would know about) including also letting them know I haven't read it all yet. I almost always do read it all, and don't hesitate to  edit or veto anything I don't like for whatever reason. Generally I will have a world background and if they mention various characters/places/situations, I'll have some idea whether they make sense or not. Often I've found them pretty interesting and useful to give context for use in the game. In many games, I and other GM friends have asked players to list their PCs' relevant relatives and friends so that the game can start with an established community in place. It doesn't have to be pages of prose.

Another approach is to do almost no PC background until a PC survives long enough that the player starts to become interested in their family and background, and/or it comes up during play and gets established.

After all, if it's needed for play, or if the players want to know, then it's relevant and interesting to at least one player. It's when the detail has nothing to do with play, players don't care and/or can't even muster the attention to remember it or read it in the first place that it's clearly overmuch.

Personally, I almost very rarely used published or historical settings partly because ya I don't want to buy and read and memorize it all. I can much more easily remember and manage gameworld details when I made them up myself and I know there are no other sources.

Also, as much as I love detailing campaign worlds, in play I stick to what the PCs are doing and seeing at the moment, and a big part of play is them exploring and discovering things and having to do it by investigating whatever they're interested in. My players do tend to get quite interested in discovering stuff, and it'd be a bit tempting and silly if they could go buy or browse some published book rather than having to learn in-character.