Quote from: BedrockBrendan;968227I still let the players do some basic background, but typically the campaigns begin early in their life so it is usually limited.

That's always something to consider. Is began playing RPG with D&D, so it was also the first place I encountered someone who had three pages of backstory. It often felt jarring for this delicate, fledgling 1st-level character to have a whole life's worth of outsized deeds behind him.

I'm playing in one of Brendan's Wandering Heroes of Ogre Gate games, and there is a little more room for believable past exploits in that. My character can mop the floor with back alley pickpockets, but I'm not fooling myself about my ability to take on the heavy hitters in the setting in a fair fight. My character isn't overly concerned with fairness though.

Quote from: Nexus;968250(I imagine several of the people playing together would result in brawls)

There would be a few, but I imagine most of the crap people argue about here in the abstract wouldn't matter if we were sitting around a table. Most of my strongly held opinions are about how I like to run a game. If I am playing in a game with another GM, I can let all my gaming principles slide if the company is good and the game moves at a reasonable pace.

People just tend to be a lot more friendly and polite in person than they are on the Internet anyway.

Quote from: Baulderstone;968257There would be a few, but I imagine most of the crap people argue about here in the abstract wouldn't matter if we were sitting around a table. Most of my strongly held opinions are about how I like to run a game. If I am playing in a game with another GM, I can let all my gaming principles slide if the company is good and the game moves at a reasonable pace.

People just tend to be a lot more friendly and polite in person than they are on the Internet anyway.

I forgot  the ':D'  I don't think I'd enjoy the games from some members very much as their way different from my preferences but I don't seriously think they would be fight about them. So back to lurking. My apologies for the derail.

Quote from: Baulderstone;968256That's always something to consider. Is began playing RPG with D&D, so it was also the first place I encountered someone who had three pages of backstory. It often felt jarring for this delicate, fledgling 1st-level character to have a whole life's worth of outsized deeds behind him.

Yes, but (at least in older editions) a 1st level fighter is a "veteran", and so not the fresh-faced farmboy that's never seen action. That alone built into the game some assumptions of a certain level of experience and competence that seem to have vanished from later editions (and other games with a level progression).

For my part, it's fine by me for players to have a sense of who their character is, where they're from, etc., if that makes them feel more attached to their character, but I really don't care what someone makes up in their head before the game begins: the "real" stuff is happening at the table.

So, sure, you can tell me that your character is the heir to the Duchy of Powerstania, but unless you've taken some in-game steps to be a noble of that standing, don't expect me or any NPCs to care or treat you unlike the people on the street I've met who claim to be Jesus or Napoleon. Trying to powergame your way up in backstory is silliness.

Fortunately, that's not generally an issue with my players. I did, however, once had to decline participating in a 3.5e campaign some friends were doing. The DM had created pre-gen characters for everyone, with lovingly-crafted 10-15 page backstories for each. It became clear very quickly that he was going to Dragonlance the campaign, with a heavily-scripted path for each player. He had put a ton of time and effort into it, but it was definitely going to be more of a play than an RPG, and I had no interest in playing out his storyline.

Quote from: Justin Alexander;9681451. Sandbox IS structure.

Quote from: AsenRG;968243Also, I just thought that this bears repeating.

Yeah, I was going to post something like "But the real question is what Structures are used to make good Sandboxes?" last night. Justin nailed it.

Create a manageable sized setting. Make it big enough that the PCs can't wander off the map by walking for a day and a half. But there's no point in creating a whole world or continent. That's one of the biggest mistakes DMG's make - encouraging DMs to make up histories and political organizations that span vast distances and periods of time. Unless you group plays for years and years, you will not use more than a fraction of that content. At the outset, the sandbox game should be about what is happening in a locality now. An area three days travel by three days travel is plenty big enough for months and months of play.

As for reasons for the party to be together, don't worry about PC backgrounds  unless that's stuff your players are really keen on. What the party needs is common goals, not a shared background. Maybe they sign on as mercenaries for a fledgling barony. Or they join a guild that's tasked with mapping the elder wilds and its ancient ruins. One thing Paizo got right with Pathfinder is the Pathfinder Society. Nobody cares what you're PC did 10 years ago, or who his parents are. Right now you're going to work together in a delve into the ruins of Bagradol because you all share a desire to uncover ancient artifacts.

I don't want backstory, I want "This is what the character wants."

I don't mind a bit of backstory if it's indicative of where the character is heading or what drives him.

It's annoying when it's an essay.

I've read most of the replies since my post, but I have neither the time nor the interest in responding to them all, so I'll just issue a general 'fuck y'all' here, and if you think it applies to you, it probably does.

Quote from: -E.;967733For someone who's group meets six times a year . . .

Wallowing in the same 'more gamer than thou' manure pile as Pundejo?

Quote from: -E.;967733[ . . . you have awfully fucking strong ideas about how those of us who play every week ought to do things.

I have awfully strong ideas about what I like. I don't give a shit what you do.

Quote from: -E.;967733If the people in the game want to scatter . . .

I said exactly zero about scattering. You're replying to the voices in your head, not what I wrote.

Quote from: -E.;967733[The GM -- the traditional RPG model -- is the elected group leader.

Of the many stupid things I've read about roleplaying games, this is one of them.

No one elects me to anything. I wear the Viking hat, and I bring fire, and the sword.

Quote from: Nexus;968004I find backstories help shape an interesting character to role play and generate goals and hooks for the GM to use.

Fuck "hooks" for the referee "to use." I give you a world. What you do with it is up to you. If you want to be spoonfed, go find a babysitter.

Quote from: Gronan of Simmerya;968370I don't want backstory, I want "This is what the character wants."

Bingo.

The person running this website is a racist who publicly advocates genocidal practices.

I am deleting my content.

I recommend you do the same.

Quote from: Justin Alexander;968432The problem with this attitude is that it kind of wipes out the majority of actual human experience.

Black Vulmea is a good reminder of the truth of Aristotle's Golden Mean. There are two vices for every virtue, and even a very good thing (like sandbox campaigns!) can be turned bad when taken too far.

QuoteView Post
I find backstories help shape an interesting character to role play and generate goals and hooks for the GM to use.

Different strokes. What you call "spoonfeeding" I've found creates entertaining games where the players feel involved and like their input matters and they're playing in the type of setting I pitched versus generally poor experiences with the simulation style. Tastes are going to vary and everyone isn't going to fit every table. Every playstyle isn't going to fit type of game or genre, for that matter.

Quote from: Gronan of Simmerya;968370I don't want backstory, I want "This is what the character wants."

But these things are not mutually exclusive and can often feed into each other. A good backstory generates motivation as well as other positive things like connecting the character to the setting and the world. Even if the GM isn't actively using backstories to guide the game the player may find it easier to determine what a person with some grounding 'wants to do'. I know I do.

Can it be overdone? Yeah, anything can be taken too far and done poorly. But the hostile binary, throw the baby out with the bathwater reaction some people are having seems extreme.

Based on the vitriol, I assume you guys are being forced to play together at the same table. Otherwise why on earth do you care how someone else conducts a game? :confused:

Quote from: Haffrung;968276Create a manageable sized setting. Make it big enough that the PCs can't wander off the map by walking for a day and a half. But there's no point in creating a whole world or continent. That's one of the biggest mistakes DMG's make - encouraging DMs to make up histories and political organizations that span vast distances and periods of time. Unless you group plays for years and years, you will not use more than a fraction of that content. At the outset, the sandbox game should be about what is happening in a locality now. An area three days travel by three days travel is plenty big enough for months and months of play.

Giant setting often end up feeling smaller in the long run. For example, Eberron's core book covered the whole damn planet. There is no "edge of the map" for the players to wander off to. There are no empires that only exist as legends. It's all there, and it is all an inch deep. it is also almost above the level of PC interaction.

A well-detailed county gives a PC group all the room they need to start out, and you can easily make it all detail that they can immediately interact with.

Switching topics, it seems weird to consider all hook to "spoonfeeeding". A lot of hooks are simply the result of the sandbox being an active place. If Faction A wants to hire the players to attack Faction B, sure it is a blatant hook, but it also is a case of Faction A doing something. And the players are always welcome to use the hook as they like. Maybe rather than work for Faction A, they decide to go talk to Faction B about it. A simple "Patron Job" hook can set the world in motion in unexpected ways.

Quote from: Justin Alexander;968432The problem with this attitude is that it kind of wipes out the majority of actual human experience. This can work fine if your assumed campaign mode is "wandering adventurer disconnected from the world around them and far from home". Outside of that fairly narrow conceptual band...

Is there any evidence most people who play RPGs are especially interested in moving outside that narrow conceptual band? I know lot of DMs and game designers are eager to explore that space. But we know that DMs and game designers aren't representative of players as a whole.

At the outset of our latest campaign, our DM asked us to submit some background about our characters. Of the six of us players, myself (who is also a DM) and one other gave him a background. The other four couldn't be bothered. Their interest in devoting any time, energy, or imagination to the game beyond what happens organically at the table over beer and pizza is nil. They just want to explore a fantasy world, clobber monsters, and have some laughs.

Quote from: Justin Alexander;968432...however, most people/characters have a network of family and friends; they have a career and responsibilities; they have groups they belong to or enemies which have sworn vengeance upon them -- all of which are elements of the game world that will impinge themselves upon the character; which means that the GM (who controls the game world) needs to use those elements.

The GM only needs to use those elements if most players want them. He shouldn't foist them on the players in an effort to improve the game.