Quote from: Nexus;969106Its 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.

Within certain constraints, my campaigns are very open to what kinds of characters the players want to play and what kind of goals they will set for themselves (that is what a sandbox is), however, I hesitate to use the term "wide open" because in fact, the constraints for any given campaign actually do narrow things down. We've already started to narrow it down by picking a game system (ok, I've heard of at least convention scenarios where the players are told to bring a character generated for their favorite game system - though I'd be amazed if very much of what's on the character sheet is relevant then to the game, at least in the way the player expected). Then on top of choosing a game system, in my experience most of the time the GM comes to the table with at least some idea of what to play. My current Traveller campaign: I generated a little more than two sub-sectors, they are set at the edge of an undefined "Imperium" (specifically NOT GDW's Third Imperium), the characters will mostly be ex-military (standard 1977 Classic Traveller chargen) though other careers are available (Supplement 4 - Citizens if the Empire), and specifically the characters are not from the sub-sectors of play. And out of two groups to start, one started with a ship and the other didn't (single player rolled a Navy character). My Play by Post OD&D campaign was specified as a Wilderlands/City State of the Invincible Overlord with the 3 LBB as the primary source of characters with option on the Thief and Paladin (and other options open if someone asks about them). In neither campaign would a 10 page back story be particularly appropriate, but even in the OD&D campaign, a player could have written a short back story, and as long as they were open to negotiation, I would have worked with it. On the other hand, the effort put into that could easily be wasted when the PC died 30' into the dungeon...

But the other point I have about 10 page back stories, not only can the be non-collaborative with the GM, but they also leave out the other players. I would much rather we ALL sat down as a group and decided given the constraints of what the GM has brought to the table who the PCs will be and create them together. Then folks could take what was developed in the collaborative session and go back and write a back story. And that would be totally different. On the other hand, if the player then showed up with his back story making his character the heir to the throne when that was not discussed at all in the collaborative session there's a problem (and I have had this happen to me, don't remember details, but I'm pretty sure it's happened to me). Now my recent OD&D and Traveller gaming has not had the luxury of a collaborative character creation system, but then the players have all just rolled up a character (for the OD&D PbP I actually do the rolling... hey, it IS actually in the rules...) maybe written a sentence or two, and jumped on the bandwagon of what was going on. The CSIO campaign started with them entering the city and within an hour they had a lead on an adventure. The PbP Traveller campaign started with a list of rumors, the PCs are chasing one of them. The Hangouts Traveller campaign started with that Navy character choosing between two patrons, recruiting an NPC, and making a delivery. But the Traveller characters could have dismissed the rumors/patrons I handed them and looked deeper or tried to cause trouble.

Frank

BV, some players have an easier time getting in character if they treat the PCs the same way you treat your NPCs. They don't want punchy backgrounds, because then they would spend the first few sessions getting in character. What do you do if you have such a player in your group?

Speaking from experience, some of the best players I've seen don't want a long background, but the rest of the best players I've seen want to write one, even if I don't read it after that:).

Quote from: Nexus;969007This is where I'm puzzled: the intensity of the aversion.

But won't anyone think of all the children that might be mislead about the Right Way (TM) to Play Pretend With Rules, by all those people that are Wrong On Internet;)?

Quote from: Dumarest;969089Backstories are Badwrongfun and no one should use them.  

And now I think I want to play "Backstories and Badwrongfun: The Dorkness Rising RPG"!

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.

I'm pretty intense about not wanting much of a backstory in a game I'm involved in.  It would be a major impediment to me joining a game that otherwise sounded interesting, a hurdle I'd need to clear to get to the presumably good stuff.  If I'm running the game, it's at best a major waste of my time.  If I'm not involved?  I don't care what people do.  It's exactly the same as with any food to which I have a major aversion. You can eat it all day long, but you ain't talking me into taking a bite.  Tried it, didn't like it, got the T-shirt.

Honestly, I don't mind a very brief backstory as long as nothing in it actually affects the game. That is, you can write that you are the long lost prince of Galicia and your long-term goal is to restore your noble heritage, as long as you understand that you don't get a castle or any extra money or servants or even a mule to ride and either no one recognizes your title or defers to your rank when you start the game. At best, I might draw a couple of ideas out of that for the game; at worst, it's fluffy bellybutton lint that gives you an idea of your PC's outlook and desires but doesn't give you ant advantages in the actual game. Just make it snappy. I mean, the soul of wit being what it is and all.

The only backstories I really dislike are (1) those where the player thinks he gets to make his PC the protagonist of a story which will then revolve around that PC for the campaign's duration, (2) those where  the player thinks giving his PC a title gives the PC special privileges and/or access to more money/equipment/underlings than any other starting PC, and (3) those that are just too prolix for me to bother reading.

Quote from: Steven Mitchell;969147I'm pretty intense about not wanting much of a backstory in a game I'm involved in.  It would be a major impediment to me joining a game that otherwise sounded interesting, a hurdle I'd need to clear to get to the presumably good stuff.  If I'm running the game, it's at best a major waste of my time.  If I'm not involved?  I don't care what people do.  It's exactly the same as with any food to which I have a major aversion. You can eat it all day long, but you ain't talking me into taking a bite.  Tried it, didn't like it, got the T-shirt.

I was talking about how some people seem to be getting upset because others don't share their preference.

Quote from: Nexus;969156I was talking about how some people seem to be getting upset because others don't share their preference.

Isn't that what RPG forums are for?

Quote from: Dumarest;969158Isn't that what RPG forums are for?

good point!

Quote from: Nexus;969156I was talking about how some people seem to be getting upset because others don't share their preference.

Oh look, more "some people" bullshit.

Who's upset because others don't share their preferences?

Quote from: Black Vulmea;969172Oh look, more "some people" bullshit.

Who's upset because others don't share their preferences?

The entire Democratic and Republican parties, to name two examples. Or 99.9% of people on the Internet.

Quote from: Dumarest;969278The entire Democratic and Republican parties, to name two examples. Or 99.9% of people on the Internet.

Good examples!

Edit: and brings up how the everyone's combativeness seems amped up about three notches over the last couple of years.

Quote from: Black Vulmea;969172Who's upset because others don't share their preferences?

To name one... you sure seem to be.

Edit: but you seem to be pissed off about something all the time...

And yes, its some people in this discussion, as opposed to all or none of this people in this discussion neither of which is true and I wasn't addressing any specific individual. Surprised I had to explain that. Besides I'm not calling anyone to pick a fight with them over a game.

Quote from: ffilz;969042The thing is sandbox play is about discovering what's out there or what will happen rather than having lots of "this has already happened" or "this is predestined to happen" stuff. A detailed character back story almost always has lots of the "already happened" stuff and sometimes has "predestined to happen" stuff.
...

I agree that "this is predestined to happen" is generally not what I want in my sandbox, but I do want history, at least to the degree that there is some reason or context for things to be as they are.

As a GM, I have never accepted anyone trying to insert a predestiny into their backstory. I even go balancing something when a backstory has convenient/useful stuff, but predestiny is an automatic "that doesn't exist in my game universe". PCs aren't even predestined to not get randomly killed by any lucky weapon attack, so all such predictions are off. Of course, I may just convert it to a PC/player _delusion_ without telling the player it's a delusion until he finds out when it doesn't happen.

Quote from: Dumarest;969148...
The only backstories I really dislike are (1) those where the player thinks he gets to make his PC the protagonist of a story which will then revolve around that PC for the campaign's duration, (2) those where  the player thinks giving his PC a title gives the PC special privileges and/or access to more money/equipment/underlings than any other starting PC, and (3) those that are just too prolix for me to bother reading.

Your view seems entirely reasonable to me. GURPS has built-in systems for people who want extra status and wealth and special starting equipment - they all cost balance points just like every other advantage.

Quote from: Skarg;969297Your view seems entirely reasonable to me. GURPS has built-in systems for people who want extra status and wealth and special starting equipment - they all cost balance points just like every other advantage.

Yes, GURPS does that well. Plus I can always veto certain advantages if they are not suitable for the game in question.

Quote from: Nexus;969282Good examples!

Edit: and brings up how the everyone's combativeness seems amped up about three notches over the last couple of years.

Sometimes I think it's a direct result of anonymous communication via the internet. People are dehumanized when you don't actually have to see or hear them and it makes it much easier to leap to vitriolic extremes you'd be unlikely to say in a tête-a-tête across a table.

Edit: ...and then add people who are already kooky into the mix...