Quote from: Steven Mitchell on January 27, 2025, 08:56:17 AMThe exact limits are not critical--only that there are some and that they have some bite to them.  In some ways, an arbitrary limit is even better for this purpose than one that seems to fit, because it's clear it serves no purpose but to say, "You can play X or Y but not X and Y in the same character."  Take early D&D wizard weapon restrictions.  "Gandalf had a sword.  Why can't I?"  If the GM wants wizards to have swords, there's no real harm in it, as long as the GM replaces that restriction with some other one that will cause someone to chafe.

BTW, this is also true in more generic system.  Which is why GURPS and Fantasy Hero, to name two, produce better campaigns when the GM puts some hard limits on who can buy what.  Hero 4th edition even tells you to do precisely that.  I remember a Champions GM who had a hard rule of "No more than 1 messed up psychological disadvantage per 4 characters."  It's arbitrary in the game world, but excellent for making the 1 or 2 messed up characters stand out--and given the rest of the party and the GM fodder to work with and bounce off of.  That's "Minor Hero to Major Hero" arc, and it still has the same issues.

I'd say that limits are useful as one creative tool to end up with characters that work well for the game. However, what helps the creative process best varies a lot from player to player. Also, limits can come from the GM setting hard limits in advance to prescribe what the PCs should be like, but they can also come from the group or even from oneself during chargen. For example, I will sometimes do things like roll a die to decide on chargen options, even though I could make a choice - that's a self-imposed limit.

For me, a good session zero and brainstorming ideas usually makes a big difference, much moreso than GM-imposed hard limits.

Regarding your Champions example - that sounds like the limit could work fine. Still, one of my favorite Champions games from undergrad had a party who almost all had messed-up psychological disads. The result was a group who were terrible at working together, but fascinating and hilarious to interact in play - a bit like the early New Mutants or the short-lived TV show "Alphas". I still remember vividly the crazed action as they all struggled to get through the adventure.

Quote from: Steven Mitchell on January 27, 2025, 08:56:17 AMSeparately, there's no requirement that a character with little or no back story, playing for a short time, need be a "cardboard" character.  Learning to focus on what is happening and make the character live in that, is a skill like any other.  Relying on back story and pre-planned characterization all the time will make most players precisely 1-dimensional as the "actor"--always leaning on the crutch of their back story.  That is, all of their characters are different on paper but the same in play.  I'd rather have a cardboard character than a cardboard player, not least because a player that avoids being cardboard will not stay cardboard in their characterization for long.

What this implies is that games like Traveller produce cardboard play because the characters inherently have backstory. I strongly disagree. I think seeing the character as someone with a home and a past is generally a positive thing.

Is it possible for back story to be a crutch? Sure. Obviously, a player can create bad back story. Even if it isn't inherently bad, a common problem is that the player creates a back story that fails to connect to the campaign, at which point they are stuck. This is a case where no back story would be better, because the player can improvise sides to the character that connect better. But a poorly-fit back story is easily addressed during a decent session zero.

Quote from: jhkim on January 27, 2025, 08:02:09 PMWhat this implies is that games like Traveller produce cardboard play because the characters inherently have backstory. I strongly disagree. I think seeing the character as someone with a home and a past is generally a positive thing.

Your ability to torture non-existent implications out of what other people write is truly impressive.  It's like you read it, think about it, and still manage to completely miss the point.

Traveler characters barely have any back story as the term is usually used, at least not automatically.  The mechanics of the character creation implies what has come before, but with a very light touch. 

To answer other points made earlier in this topic, the same can be said for a light tough with, say, social status, or family, etc.  Quick, I'm the 5th child of a retainer of a poor, landed knight.  That doesn't intrude on the game's ability to develop in play at all, nor does it get in the way of the player running with it however they want.  There's no back "story" there at all, merely background details. 

Contrast that with the whole push of the several paragraph back story where someone practically fills in the fan fiction version of the funnel, working out the way they imagined.  That does actively get in the way of playing the character reacting to the emergent story, because the story of that character is already well along, and worse, the future is starting to jell in the player's mind, if only subconsciously.

Before using Traveller as an example, it should be noted which version of Traveller is used for character creation. Classic Traveller created skilled characters, but was pretty bare bones in character backgrounds and prior events. It wasn't until Mongoose Traveller that events were detailed during the 4-year term of service. Homeworld backgrounds didn't start coming into play until Megatraveller came out.

Quote from: jeff37923 on January 28, 2025, 08:59:25 AMBefore using Traveller as an example, it should be noted which version of Traveller is used for character creation. Classic Traveller created skilled characters, but was pretty bare bones in character backgrounds and prior events. It wasn't until Mongoose Traveller that events were detailed during the 4-year term of service. Homeworld backgrounds didn't start coming into play until Megatraveller came out.

No version of the zero-to-hero game was specified either (although D&D is implied), so the whole range is applicable even if the specifics vary (just as with D&D).

The majority of classic rpgs, and I include things like Champions, World of Darkness and Call of Cthulu here, have you begin as weak but competent enough for an initial adventure within their setting.

There's fundamentally no difference in the competence level for the expected initial adventures of a 1st level Wizard, A starting Superhero, a 13th Generation Vampire, or a Professor of Obscure languages in Cthulu.

There's two big things that gave the illusion everything after the Fighter is more competent..

Point buy, and the fact very few players used the rules as RAW in those other games.

Point buy is a big thing. In Vampire I get to choose my little dots and be exactly as competent in something as I want to be.

I can max out my Dexterity attribute and my Brawl score and be at the top level of fighting for the system! Obviously I'm better than that 1st level fighter!

Except.. No you can't. Because you actually ignored the rules as written which state the maximum you can have a skill at character creation, is 3.

And if you don't want a completely lop sided character, you need to spread some points to Strength so you can actually do damage, and Stamina so you can take damage.

So really you're about as good as a 1st level fighter within the system.

And if you're following the rules as written, when it comes to xp, you're getting like 1 pt a session, 3 if you had a capstone to a story arc.

So you're advancing about as fast as that 1st level fighter in an OSR game.

But most people who played these games, ignored these rules. They gave more points for character creation in Champions. They gave way more xp out in Vampire.

The only people who tended to follow RAW with slow progression and weak characters was CoC players because that was the point of the game.

Level based systems seemed slower and more restrictive because you had less freedom in creation and you went up in competency all at once.

But the reality is, all of these core original foundation rpg games assumed you were going to meet every single week for years and had time to slowly grow your characters.

They were just easier to start at a higher power level or achieve power faster because of being point buy vs level.

Now of course we have games that start you as ultra competent from the get go. But I truly believe every one of those original core games was zero to hero, it's just the point buys were easier to get stronger, faster since you could ignore the rules on xp and starting points easier.

Quote from: Steven Mitchell on January 27, 2025, 09:42:19 PM

Quote from: jhkim on January 27, 2025, 08:02:09 PMWhat this implies is that games like Traveller produce cardboard play because the characters inherently have backstory. I strongly disagree. I think seeing the character as someone with a home and a past is generally a positive thing.

Your ability to torture non-existent implications out of what other people write is truly impressive.  It's like you read it, think about it, and still manage to completely miss the point.

Traveler characters barely have any back story as the term is usually used, at least not automatically.  The mechanics of the character creation implies what has come before, but with a very light touch. 

To answer other points made earlier in this topic, the same can be said for a light tough with, say, social status, or family, etc.  Quick, I'm the 5th child of a retainer of a poor, landed knight.  That doesn't intrude on the game's ability to develop in play at all, nor does it get in the way of the player running with it however they want.  There's no back "story" there at all, merely background details. 

Contrast that with the whole push of the several paragraph back story where someone practically fills in the fan fiction version of the funnel, working out the way they imagined.  That does actively get in the way of playing the character reacting to the emergent story, because the story of that character is already well along, and worse, the future is starting to jell in the player's mind, if only subconsciously.

A Traveller character has far more detail than just "5th child of a retainer of a poor, landed knight". If I were to write out in sentences all the details, it would be a whole page or more - particularly for Mercenary or High Guard in classic Traveller where each year's assignment is treated separately. That history frequently involves the character seeing combat action - including being wounded and/or decorated for their part.

So it seems like what you have an issue with is not the amount of detail, or even whether the character has been in combat action, but rather some other quality about what is written into the background.

To get to more specifics, here's the backstory for a sample PC in 1st edition Champions (1981):

QuoteCRUSADER was trained by the CIA, and assigned to infiltrate VIPER. The organization found out he was a CIA agent, and brainwashed CRUSADER into becoming an assassin for them. He killed one victim, but the psychological strain broke the conditioning. However, both the CIA and VIPER are now looking for him. CRUSADER's Code against Killing and his hatred of Killing Attacks all stem from the brainwashing and his reaction against it.

Is this the sort of back story that you consider a problem? If not, then can you give a specific example of what is?

Quote from: jhkim on January 28, 2025, 02:59:56 PMSo it seems like what you have an issue with is not the amount of detail, or even whether the character has been in combat action, but rather some other quality about what is written into the background.

To get to more specifics, here's the backstory for a sample PC in 1st edition Champions (1981):

QuoteCRUSADER was trained by the CIA, and assigned to infiltrate VIPER. The organization found out he was a CIA agent, and brainwashed CRUSADER into becoming an assassin for them. He killed one victim, but the psychological strain broke the conditioning. However, both the CIA and VIPER are now looking for him. CRUSADER's Code against Killing and his hatred of Killing Attacks all stem from the brainwashing and his reaction against it.

Is this the sort of back story that you consider a problem? If not, then can you give a specific example of what is?

Like I said before, that example is borderline.  Of course, any Champions character is likely to be borderline, because hunted and psych disadvantages lend themselves to that sort of thing.  Not to mention that Champions is halfway to soap opera.

Let's break it down:

- Trained by the CIA - fine.

- Assigned to infiltrate VIPER - better would be "undercover operative" and leave it at that, but that's quibbling.

- The organization found out he was a CIA agent - just say "blown cover" and be done.

- and brainwashed Crusader into becoming an assassin for them - just plain stupid, leave some mystery here, "turned"

- He killed one victim, but the psychological strain broke the conditioning - the player can think it, but you don't need this detail, before the game starts.  This is exactly the kind of thing that ought to happen after play.

- However, both the CIA and VIPER are now looking for him - oh, really.  Just put the hunted down and be done with it.

- Code against killing and his hatred of killing attacks all stem from the brainwashing and his reaction against it - again, the disadvantages are on the freaking character sheet.

BTW, this kind of nonsense is a great example of why in our Develop in Play Hero System games, we tended to have a GM-assigned hunted and a psychological disadvantage that was filled in after the first adventure or two.  (Also caused a bundle of points to drop fast, which meant the player got a chance for some quick tweaking after they tested the character.)

With that in mind, we are left with "Crusader trained by the CIA, cover blown in operations against VIPER" ... and adventure starts here with a great hook.  Will he get caught and turned?  Will he become an assassin? Will he break the the strain and kill someone?  Maybe.  Or it could go some other way that will be meaningful to everyone at the table, and not just in the wanker's head.

OK, I'm gone for a couple of days and suddenly I'm saying all these things and meaning all these things that I don't remember saying or meaning.  I feel like Adm. Stockdale, "Who am I, and what am I doing here?"

First, just to be blunt and honest, I have a hard time responding in good faith to this kind of thread, primarily because of the people involved.  This isn't the first time jhkim has started a thread based off my replies, and I sometimes feel like these threads (and some replies in other threads) are just jhkim trying to outsource disagreement ("Hey, this guy said something I don't like.  Would anyone else like to dogpile on him with me?").  Of course, the king of low value commentary is ready to agree with him (that's you, HappyDerp).  And Chris, while you tend to say some intelligent stuff once in a while, you've had a disturbing trend of agreeing with those two lately.  If I found myself on the same side of an argument with jhkim and HappyDaze more than once or twice, I'd be doing a serious self-evaluation of my opinions...

But, against my better judgement, I'll take this thread as a legitimate attempt to have a meaningful conversation (not the HappyDerp part of it, though... he's just a low-effort troll).  So, to clarify, my original statement was a comment based on the evolution of D&D.  I couldn't give a crap about Call of Cthulhu (there's enough existential horror in the real world for me to want to roleplay it... Kamala Harris was a heartbeat away from the presidency!) or the incoherent mess that passes for Palladium systems (my group recently tried to play Beyond the Supernatural again, which we hadn't played since the late 80's.  It was so bad I almost suggested switching over to the Savage Worlds implementation of Palladium... but then I came to my senses! Love ya, TB!).  I'm talking about Dungeons and Dragons.

So, I'll cut to the chase and make my absolutist statement right here (just so jhkim can get to his whining and gnashing of teeth early... this dude is so allergic to strong statements spoken with conviction he'd argue with "Cancer is bad."):

Without zero to hero (i.e. the growth of a character from a relatively low-power/low-status individual into a hero), it's not Dungeons and Dragons anymore.  Period.  Full Stop.  End of F'ing Story.

This character arc is so much a part of D&D's deoxyribonucleic acid that you cannot play D&D without it.  Sure, you can play fantasy RPGs (or any other kind of RPG) without this arc.  But it's NOT D&D.  And no, jhkim, just because you played a "campaign" of what you called D&D in March of 1992 where you all dressed up like French maids and spanked each other with carrion crawler tentacles (Has anyone else noticed that he always has some decades-old campaign he played for a couple of sessions that exactly contradicts whatever point anyone is making that he also remembers perfectly clearly?  Do you keep a hyper-extensive journal or something?  With the number of games you have purportedly played, how do you have time to eat?  Things that make you go "hmmm..."), that isn't "evidence" of what D&D is.  And this is one of the reasons that WotC "D&D" isn't real D&D, because they have steered hard away from that arc.  Every character starts as a pansexual demi-goddess who everyone loves, and who has had all of these wonderful adventures proving that she was perfect all along long before the first session starts.  Blehhh... 

Steven Mitchell, your post is spot on about limits and their creative possibilities.  That post alone almost made having to read posts by HappyDerp tolerable (almost).

As for "emergent story," the definition is not obscure or difficult.  In fact, I think Prof Dungeonmaster has a pretty good video out recently that describes that style of play well (jump to about 2:45 into the video):



Snowflake characters are completely incompatible with emergent story in RPGs, simply because there is no guarantee that any particular outcome will happen to (or for) the players.  They may defeat the villain, they may lose, they may die in a meaningless skirmish long before the villain is even revealed.  The characters' stories come from the stories of what happened once play starts, not some onanistic pre-written fan fiction.  They are nobodies who might become somebody.

The sort of (good) DMing that leads to emergent stories in games?  Well, it's about setting up challenges and not solutions.  I may decide that some villain has taken up residence outside a small town, hoping to resurrect the worship of a fallen evil god in the ruins of a temple razed decades before.  He needs the town (and its people) for supplies, cover, and sacrifices.  He may have hired orcs to waylay caravans to and from the town.  He may have coopted the local trading post to help smuggle supplies and weapons.  He may be building a force of bandits in a nearby abandoned building, preparing for wholesale slaughter and kidnapping.  So, when the PCs roll into town, maybe on a mission to deliver goods or dispose of the orcs, I have no idea how this is going to end.  No set-pieces or "plot points."  The players tell me what they do, and the town (and villain) reacts.  Maybe they kill the orcs and bandits, and the villain sneaks away to try again.  Maybe the PCs get sidetracked and never meet the villain's forces, in which case the next time they pass the village it is a ghost-town with an evil temple nearby.  Whatever happens to the characters (because of their choices), it becomes part of their "story."

I think that both zero-to-hero and emergent story are intertwined.  It's hard (not impossible, just hard) to let the story emerge from play when the players already have a ton of mental baggage and expectations for who and what their PCs are.  It's much easier to let the story happen from play when the characters aren't already bound by twenty pages of backstory.  And they are both important parts of D&D.  Which is why recent WotC sucks at making D&D adventures and games...

One RPG I've played, recommends:

+2, +1, +1, +0, +0, -1

For the 6 Ability Scores, for Starting Characters.

Not a Hero, but Not a Zero either.  Just someone trying to make a difference, in their world.  You don't excel, but you don't suck either.

Quote from: Eirikrautha on January 28, 2025, 05:32:01 PMWithout zero to hero (i.e. the growth of a character from a relatively low-power/low-status individual into a hero), it's not Dungeons and Dragons anymore.  Period.  Full Stop.  End of F'ing Story.

I agree... but is anyone advocating otherwise?   Admittedly I've been skimming longer posts that are fully detailed recaps of progression systems in games I've never played nor have any interest in so I may have missed it.   We're mainly discussing the pros and cons of different systems both in theory and practice and not specifically D&D.

Quote from: jhkim on January 28, 2025, 02:59:56 PMTo get to more specifics, here's the backstory for a sample PC in 1st edition Champions (1981):

QuoteCRUSADER was trained by the CIA, and assigned to infiltrate VIPER. The organization found out he was a CIA agent, and brainwashed CRUSADER into becoming an assassin for them. He killed one victim, but the psychological strain broke the conditioning. However, both the CIA and VIPER are now looking for him. CRUSADER's Code against Killing and his hatred of Killing Attacks all stem from the brainwashing and his reaction against it.

Is this the sort of back story that you consider a problem? If not, then can you give a specific example of what is?

Quote from: Steven Mitchell on January 28, 2025, 03:54:38 PMBTW, this kind of nonsense is a great example of why in our Develop in Play Hero System games, we tended to have a GM-assigned hunted and a psychological disadvantage that was filled in after the first adventure or two.  (Also caused a bundle of points to drop fast, which meant the player got a chance for some quick tweaking after they tested the character.)

With that in mind, we are left with "Crusader trained by the CIA, cover blown in operations against VIPER" ... and adventure starts here with a great hook.  Will he get caught and turned?  Will he become an assassin? Will he break the the strain and kill someone?  Maybe.  Or it could go some other way that will be meaningful to everyone at the table, and not just in the wanker's head.

Thanks for the clarification.

I think I understand what you're saying, but my experience is different - so it seems like a "Your Mileage May Vary" issue. I played a lot of Champions especially in the 1980s and 1990s, and we never used the "Develop in Play" rules you noted, and I didn't feel a need for them. We would generally allow some editing of a character during the first few sessions of play, to fix problems that came up. However, there was always an initial version.

If someone introduced a PC like Crusader, we'd probably discuss how he fits with the group and campaign during session zero - but most likely it would be fine. We might tweak some things based on how he relates to the other PCs, but I wouldn't foresee it being a problem that he was briefly a brainwashed assassin.


I've had designed characters that didn't work out well in play. Still, usually designed characters were fine, so my usual solution has been to adjust the character to work how others worked.

Quote from: RNGm on January 28, 2025, 06:11:43 PM

Quote from: Eirikrautha on January 28, 2025, 05:32:01 PMWithout zero to hero (i.e. the growth of a character from a relatively low-power/low-status individual into a hero), it's not Dungeons and Dragons anymore.  Period.  Full Stop.  End of F'ing Story.

I agree... but is anyone advocating otherwise?   Admittedly I've been skimming longer posts that are fully detailed recaps of progression systems in games I've never played nor have any interest in so I may have missed it.   We're mainly discussing the pros and cons of different systems both in theory and practice and not specifically D&D.

Yeah. For this thread, discussion of what counts as D&D or not isn't what I was responding to. I was more interested in the quality of play across different systems. We can make a separate thread to discuss what counts as D&D if people want to discuss that.

Quote from: jhkim on January 28, 2025, 07:20:01 PMYeah. For this thread, discussion of what counts as D&D or not isn't what I was responding to.

Well, that's what I was responding to in the thread you quoted.  So why quote me if you're not interested in that?

Quote from: Eirikrautha on January 28, 2025, 05:32:01 PMAnd this is one of the reasons that WotC "D&D" isn't real D&D, because they have steered hard away from that arc.  Every character starts as a pansexual demi-goddess who everyone loves, and who has had all of these wonderful adventures proving that she was perfect all along long before the first session starts.  Blehhh... 

I agree with pretty much everything about your Post except for this right here. This is blatantly wrong. There is nothing inherent within the core books of Dungeons and Dragons put out by WotC from 3.0 to 5.5. that says this. Nothing, none, notta, zilch, Zero.

You are blatantly wrong, prejudiced, or just lying. I own most editions of D&D, Several OSR books and both editions of Pathfinder.

All of them, every single one of them, is Zero to Hero. Some of them start you off, slightly stronger at 1st level (5th edition and Pathfinder 2 giving you full Hit points at level 1 instead of rolling) but all of them, even the WotC ones, assume your first level character does not have some great story attached to them yet, and is just starting their career.

You guys really need to stop telling these blatant lies about 5th edition. It doesn't help anyone's case to go around saying things that are NOT in the fucking books.

Quote from: Orphan81 on January 28, 2025, 08:14:35 PM

Quote from: Eirikrautha on January 28, 2025, 05:32:01 PMAnd this is one of the reasons that WotC "D&D" isn't real D&D, because they have steered hard away from that arc.  Every character starts as a pansexual demi-goddess who everyone loves, and who has had all of these wonderful adventures proving that she was perfect all along long before the first session starts.  Blehhh... 

I agree with pretty much everything about your Post except for this right here. This is blatantly wrong. There is nothing inherent within the core books of Dungeons and Dragons put out by WotC from 3.0 to 5.5. that says this. Nothing, none, notta, zilch, Zero.

You are blatantly wrong, prejudiced, or just lying. I own most editions of D&D, Several OSR books and both editions of Pathfinder.

All of them, every single one of them, is Zero to Hero. Some of them start you off, slightly stronger at 1st level (5th edition and Pathfinder 2 giving you full Hit points at level 1 instead of rolling) but all of them, even the WotC ones, assume your first level character does not have some great story attached to them yet, and is just starting their career.

You guys really need to stop telling these blatant lies about 5th edition. It doesn't help anyone's case to go around saying things that are NOT in the fucking books.

So, let's compare survivability of characters in AD&D to 3e, 4e, and 5e.  You are asserting that it's the same danger of death (I must have missed the "death saves" in AD&D)?  You are asserting that AD&D had a mechanical process of determining backgrounds that gave skills and bonuses?  Gave 1st level characters feats?  Gave Magic Users spells to cast every round?  The attributes gave the same level of bonuses?

I'm not responsible for your lack of perception.  Sure, the book doesn't say "make them superheroes" (even though the designers have said exactly that).  But the rules say that.  The characters in the latest editions start with way more power and ability than earlier editions.

So let's go to the actual text of 2024, shall we?

QuoteDetermining your character's origin involves choosing a background, a species, and two languages.

A character's background represents the place and occupation that were most formative for the character. The combination of background, species, and languages provides fertile soil for your imagination as you ponder your character's earliest days.

QuoteImagine Your Past and Present
Let your character's background and species inspire how you imagine their past. That past fed into the character's present. With that in mind, consider answers to the following questions as your character:

• Who raised you?
• Who was your dearest childhood friend?
• Did you grow up with a pet?
• Have you fallen in love? If so, with whom?
• Did you join an organization, such as a guild or religion? If so, are you still a member of it?
• What elements of your past inspire you to go on adventures now?

All of those directives occur before you determine ability scores.

QuoteAs you finish creating your character, consider whether you'd like to make up any other details about the character. Here are the sorts of things you might ask yourself as the character:

• What's your gender?
• What person or people do you care most about?
• What's your deepest fear?
• On your adventures, will you seek knowledge, wealth, glory, enlightenment, justice, mercy, power, or something else?

From the DMG:

QuoteEngage players who like acting by...

• Giving them opportunities to develop their characters' personalities and backgrounds.
• Allowing them to interact regularly with NPCs.
• Highlighting the roleplaying elements of combat encounters.
• Incorporating elements from their characters' backstories into your adventures.

QuoteEngage players who like storytelling by...

• Using their characters' backstories to shape the stories of the campaign.

QuoteCharacter Arcs
Like most protagonists in film and literature, D&D adventurers face challenges and change through the experience of overcoming them. By incorporating each character's motivations into your adventures and setting higher stakes through play, you'll help characters grow in exciting ways. You can use the DM's Character Tracker sheet to keep track of key information about each character. See "Getting Players Invested" in this chapter for more ideas.

Character Motivations. For each character, think about what motivates them to adventure. Motivations generally fall into the following categories:

Goal. A character's goal is a short-term reason for the character to adventure. At the start of a campaign, this might be a desire for treasure, a thirst for excitement, or some need from a character's backstory. As characters continue to adventure, they'll find different goals to pursue, such as finding a lost relic, honoring an ancestor, avenging a fallen mentor, or defeating a villain.

Ambition. A character's ambition is a broad, personal aspiration the character hopes to achieve through a lifetime of adventuring. A character might dream of becoming a legendary knight or bringing peace to their homeland. Ambitions might be unrelated to the character's current goal.

Quirks and Whims. Quirks and whims are a character's preferences, impulses, or other traits. They often emerge during play, such as a character's tendency to one-up a rude innkeeper or their oft-expressed fondness for displacer beast fur.

...

Family, Friends, and Foes. A character's origin (species and background) implies some amount of backstory, suggesting the character's family and what the character did before becoming an adventurer. Take note of specific background characters—friends, foes, family members, and others—who might appear in the campaign.

Should these background characters become important to the campaign, work with the player to develop them in detail. Revealing a character's lost sibling or childhood rival midcampaign should be handled carefully to avoid straining credulity. Make sure a player is comfortable with new developments about their character before introducing them.

Character-Focused Adventures. Adventures should occasionally highlight character motivations or elements of their backstory. Here are a few examples of character-focused adventures:
...

Setting New Goals. Characters can change their goals whenever they please, but you can encourage them to do so by giving them significant victories roughly every 5 levels. When characters accomplish their goals, consider the following questions:

• How does completing this goal create a new challenge?
• How is this victory only part of what the character wants to achieve?
• Who might be upset by the character completing this goal?
• What is a reward the character will be excited to receive that also moves them closer to their ambition?

Use the answers to these questions to develop new character goals and to inspire further adventures.

Yeah, you're right.  There's nothing in the new books that suggest the characters' backstories are really important or have a big impact on the direction of the campaign...