... because if they do, they get kidnapped, tortured or killed.

One old cliche GMs seem to be overly fond of is, "oooh look, this player wrote up a nice background for their character with all these significant NPCs. Oh no I left my brain at home and only broght my dice bag and can't think of a plot, what can I do?! I know, I'll have one of the PCs' friends or relatives kidnapped. Awesome! Everyone will be staggered by my brilliance! Dodge that plot hook, little fishies!"

Am I being too harsh? Or do some GMs really want us to all create the Loner Badarse?

I think it depends a lot on the type of game you are running.

In some cases, the Genre itself may be a barrier. In my Roman campaign, the characters are all immortals out of Highlander, so by default they have no biological family (highlander-immortals can't have children); but they have all kinds of "family ties" in the sense of connections to NPCs (and in a few cases, literal adopted family members) in the game.

In other cases, the type of game being run might just not be one where the family of a PC is really important as anything other than distant background.  In my Warhammer campaign, a character who made a lengthy family background info with lots of members and backstory would really be seen as something of a troll, disrupting the point of the game.

In others, its practically required. In my Qin campaign, and my forthcoming Pendragon campaign, you NEED a dynasty if you want to be able to effectively keep playing the game throughout the whole (multi-generational) campaign.  

In my Legion campaign, some characters can be orphans, others can have a couple of significant family members that, yes, may end up being used as kidnap-victims, assassination-attempts, etc etc. because that's pretty well what happens to family in a superhero story.

So its a question of what's appropriate.  Someone wants to make a character with no background or family in an historical campaign, and I'd say at the very least they are putting themselves into a difficult position, if not failing to grasp the point of the game.
On the other hand, someone makes a huge background story for a dungeon crawl, and I'd say they're probably being a shithead who's definitely missing the point.

ESPECIALLY if they've made said background story without consulting the GM first and then expect, nay DEMAND that the GM incorporate all 31 pages of backstory into his campaign.

RPGPundit

In the German LARP scene we were (haven't played for a while) usually joking about the allegedly high amount of characters whose parents were killed by orcs, i.e. "Orcphans".

And then there's the DMs who don't necessarily want to screw you, but think that any background without a totally filled out genealogy won't allow for the necessary thespian hijinks. Meh.

I kinda like the way GURPS did it. You may have as many relatives as you want, but the GM is only supposed to involve them if you take it as a flaw. And the target number for including them per adventure (which no one I know really uses that way) is a built-in "fuck me harder" indicator.

If family members are entirely detrimental to a PC, then they probably won't have any. I suppose the trick is to make the family members an interesting part of the story that can benefit or harm the PC without attempting to predetermine either one.

Quote from: SosthenesI kinda like the way GURPS did it. You may have as many relatives as you want, but the GM is only supposed to involve them if you take it as a flaw. And the target number for including them per adventure (which no one I know really uses that way) is a built-in "fuck me harder" indicator.

This is pretty much the only reason I include significant relationships in my characters backgounds. If they're not an asset or complication then they're dead weight, as far as I see it.

There's "complication", and then there's "kidnapped, tortured or murdered." Kidnap, torture and murdering are kinds of complications, but there are many, many more possible.

Quote from: JimBobOzThere's "complication", and then there's "kidnapped, tortured or murdered." Kidnap, torture and murdering are kinds of complications, but there are many, many more possible.

Absoloutely. A GM who unfailingly resorts to the worst case scenario is imaginatively stunted, in my opinion.

Quote from: DrewThis is pretty much the only reason I include significant relationships in my characters backgounds. If they're not an asset or complication then they're dead weight, as far as I see it.

Hmm? I usually think at least about who my parents were. Whether I'm the son of Duff the cobbler or Prinz Argon might influence my behavior a bit.

Quote from: SosthenesHmm? I usually think at least about who my parents were. Whether I'm the son of Duff the cobbler or Prinz Argon might influence my behavior a bit.

Indeed, but I'd say that your parents are only significant in the degree that they influence play.

"I have a bad relationship with my brother" signifies little to other players or the GM in terms of plot or characterisation.

"I have a bad relationship with my brother because he's a violent usurer and I owe him money" is better, but still occupies the fluff category.

"I have a bad relationship with my brother because he's a violent usurer, I owe him money, and that's why I'm stealing your share of the treasure" is where it's at for me.

Quote from: Drew"I have a bad relationship with my brother because he's a violent usurer, I owe him money, and that's why I'm stealing your share of the treasure" is where it's at for me.

Certainly, but this isn't background anymore. Up to the "...owe him money" part it is, but the stealing stuff is how this influences me in play. I might not even have made the decision to steal stuff until this actually happens in play. To me, a background doesn't just contain stuff where I know from the start where I'll use it, but is a source of all those "flaws" during game play. Which is why most ad/disad systems are a bit too top-down for me...

Quote from: JimBobOzThere's "complication", and then there's "kidnapped, tortured or murdered." Kidnap, torture and murdering are kinds of complications, but there are many, many more possible.

I think that having family members kidnapped and threatened by big bads is...  uncreative.

A supporting cast of characters for the PCs lends context and vectors from which to drive conflict in the game.  At least that's what I look at it as lately.  Just having them be "easy victims" does them a disservice, and in turn does the players a disservice.

Perhaps a PCs' father is the Duke and he's first in succession.  If only his elder brother hadn't died of a mysterious illness years earlier...  but wait, the land is invaded by a new army under command of an armored figure who looks awful familiar...  Perhaps a PC is an aspiring industrial spy, and his childhood girlfriend designs all his Batman-esque intrusion gadgets.

I mean the PCs' backgrounds and relationships are a chance for both the GM and the players to let their imaginations go wild.  It's part of the fun.

Quote from: SosthenesCertainly, but this isn't background anymore. Up to the "...owe him money" part it is, but the stealing stuff is how this influences me in play. I might not even have made the decision to steal stuff until this actually happens in play. To me, a background doesn't just contain stuff where I know from the start where I'll use it, but is a source of all those "flaws" during game play. Which is why most ad/disad systems are a bit too top-down for me...

Understood. The point I'm trying to make is that until background influences play it occupies a null space in gaming terms. Individual players can derive immense satisfaction from the tiny psychological motivators behind their characters slightest inflection, but until their backstory has an appreciable impact on others in-game experience it's effectively nonexistant.

Background is there to be used in a way that doesn't just complement the immersive tendencies of the individual. That's how I run with it, anyway.

Quote from: RedFoxI mean the PCs' backgrounds and relationships are a chance for both the GM and the players to let their imaginations go wild.  It's part of the fun.

Exactly.

Quote from: DrewUnderstood. The point I'm trying to make is that until background influences play it occupies a null space in gaming terms.

In the same way that a unused weapon or skill does, certainly. Your original "dead weight" just made it seem like you'd say that such background is altogether useless.

For a few NPCs, I used some kind of impromptu "cornell notes", writing the background on one side and added margin notes for possible in-game use...

Quote from: SosthenesIn the same way that a unused weapon or skill does, certainly. Your original "dead weight" just made it seem like you'd say that such background is altogether useless.

Not quite. Backgrounds in many games are the province of player creativity. NPC's that sit redundantly on the sheet are of zero use in an actionable sense.

QuoteFor a few NPCs, I used some kind of impromptu "cornell notes", writing the background on one side and added margin notes for possible in-game use...

Cool.