Is backstory really that important?
A character'ss backstory can affect what a character knows, thinks or how he acts like, but this isn't always the case. I feel like people value backstory too much but leave characterization (aka, the thing you see at the table the most) as some secondary element that may or may not change in the table depending on what the player feels like it.
I think both are important, but characterization is more important than backstory.
Nothing is more important than backstory
A character is made up of a lot of different elements, and depending on the game you're playing and the group you're playing with, different ones will be more or less important.
Backstory is a very useful tool for figuring out where you start, but personally I've become less fond of very concrete and absolute backstories over the years. Outlining who the character is, what they care about and their connections to the world is all you really need. Start with that, and then allow the character to develop in play, their characterisation not particularly limited by the backstory, letting you find what feels most natural for them. At that point, you can adjust the backstory to fit, as you've left yourself enough wiggle room, adding in details and specific plot hooks for the GM to make use of. Because giving the GM more ways to connect your character to the world is one of the best things a backstory can do.
I feel it should be more of a balance, you don't need a hyper specific backstory but some general information is nice for the GM to be able to work into the world. You should definitely have a character in mind and how they would act, this can be originally shaped by your backstory or not.
Normally, I'd say no, it doesn't really matter all that much. I usually just want to play a character and that's that. But then I made this noble knight pc, and suddenly his backstory became really important. He has recieved more care than any of my other characters to date. I really want to play him too.
Backstory can inform how you deal with situations so I've always found it useful to integrate into my decision making when roleplaying but rarely does the backstory ever emerge into actual story content in a meaningful or interesting way, so in that sense you're right. But it can help take your choices in a direction you might never go if not for the influence of that backstory - if used well, it can enrich the story you act at the table so much you'd never want to make a character without it again.
>making a backstory for your level 1 characters.
Of course you do, because that someone has a story doesn't mean they're already powerful. Level 1 characters don't just emerge out of thin air, they have a long, full life before they ever qualified to be an adventurer.
My knee-jerk reaction was yes, but when I started thinking about it having a backstory doesn't seem all that necessary. The other players don't care about your tragic/hilarious/edgy/completely normal previous life, they care about what's happening at the table. A backstory can create guidelines and backbone for a character's actions and give the GM a handle to work with, and a write one for every character I play, but they aren't as critical as characterization.
Backstory is useful but not necessary.
It's a tool for the players more than anything else.
It's a tool for the GM as well. They can use a decent backstory to involve the character in the world at large.
Not necessarily?
[citation needed]
Even at the youngest age I could see someone becoming an adventurer, 14 or so, that's plenty of years of experiences, especially for one with the predilection to adventure. There are plenty of stories where the characters are younger than that throughout the whole tale, after all.
Yes necessarily. Everyone everywhere comes from some place and has had things happen to them.
Oh hey it's (You) again.
>don't make backstory
>GM can't introduce NPCs that may know you or interact with the party outside basic jobs/quests
>generic opening, since your characters have no past and have generic reasons for wanting to complete quests
>video game mentality, meta game, and table-talk bullshit are at maximum highs since you're simply controlling a character sheet as opposed to a character
Why even play tabletop then? Why not just play a video game RPG with the whole amnesia/silent protagonist theme to it?
If you are showing to a game with absolutely zero backstory or something you've invented on the spot, it clearly shows you don't give a single fuck about roleplaying at all and you are disrespectful to both your GM and fellow players by not putting any effort into your character.
It doesn't have to be a fucking 10-page long epic story, but having a solid, clear and written down backstory or story in general is pre-requested to fucking play since about late 80s.
Not necessarily interesting experiences. You often don't much care for the lives of protagonists before a story occurs unless it is relevant to the plot. That's why you are inhabiting them now - this is where/when the action is. This is the interesting season of their life, before they die or become obscure.
Backstory is literally ALL a level 1 character has. Not adding that means you are robbing yourself from the only thing you can have.
But that's what I mean, user. Backstory and a character's general background aren't the same thing. Of course showing up with a completely blank character from the get-go is disrespectful, but I see a lot of people that see showing up with just "I come from ____, I learned how to do ____, and do ______, and the reason i'm relevant to the party/campaign is ______" as some kind of huge That Guy move because they didn't show up with 5 full pages of relationships and how they affect the world around them.
Yeah but once again that is done for the benefit of the player. A character w/o a backstory can still engage with the world if the player wants it.
Think really long and hard, if you want to play a roleplaying game, or write a book.
Just because you don't have a backstory doesn't mean you don't have a character.
Backstory are a base to build your character upon.
Backstory is not important. What actually happens in the game matters more.
This this this this this.
But the backstory can be incredibly useful for that, speaking as a GM. I love player backstories because they can give me plot hooks and ways to tie the characters and their personal stories into the larger world. Not all backstories are good for this, so it is very much a playstyle thing, but I always ask new players to write the kind of backstory I'm looking for, not full of exact details but drawing out connections and relationships to different parts of the setting which I can use as a GM to personally involve their character in events in a way that flows naturally from what they've written.
But that doesn't means backstories are bad.
Oh cm'on, you at least need a simplistic one.
Do characters are all amnesiac?
Backstory, in good systems, is the unresolved threads that will come into play for your character during the campaign.
Edge of the Empire does backstory correctly with its Obligation system.
As someone who has played characters with amnesia, as well as GM'd for them, backstory is only more important, even if it's also more minimal.
Amnesia can be an incredibly fun thing to play with, as long as you have an interested and cooperative GM, but the few hints of what came before you begin with, the few vague ideas of character details or themes, are important to act as something the GM can build around, weaving the history of your character into their world.
As a player, slowly discovering and unravelling the mysteries of the past can be an utterly fascinating and compelling experience, while I've found immense joy as a GM coming up with abstract, metaphorical or dream like ways to convey hints and fragments, tantalising them with clues and watching endless hours of discussion play out over what it could all mean.
But if you have someone with amnesia and literally no details whatsoever, it's a lot less interesting in my experience, as well as making the player feel less involved long term. As long as they're provided those seed elements, and you correctly judge the kind of story they'll enjoy or find interesting, they'll feel invested in the backstory elements they discover. If they feel like it's entirely arbitrary, due to not having any input in the base state of things, it's a lot more common for a particular element to not land, or for them to just lose interest long term, at least in my experience.
Character and personality matter more than backstory.
>Is backstory really that important?
No.
Not once in any game that I've ever played has backstory mattered one fucking bit. Every 2bit DM wants a backstory for your character, then it never fucking matters, then the game dies because the faggots underestimated how much work goes into DMing.
Honestly it just sounds like you've had shit luck with GM's. For what it's worth, I hope it improves in the future.
It can be, but isn't necessarily.
I generally decide on the type of character I want to play, think of a few key points for a backstory and leave it with room for improvisation as needed
I think this is a topic that's inextricably linked with system and hobby expectations in general.
People who don't care much for backstories have probably never played a game in which Stories in general where the main selling point. The backstory is important in those games because, as an user up there worded nicely "they're the unresolved threads" that come up later.
The backstory is what lets your character be an individual within a narrative with multiple protagonists right out of the gate. If you don't have one and don't know how to set your character apart (or worse, you're prone to just following what everyone else does) you threaten the potential of the game.
As a GM, and having heard it from other GMs that have run games I've liked, there's nothing more discouraging than a boring story playing out at the table.
Except, if Story, is so important it should be developed as a group during play. As long as you have an idea who the character is, approximation of where they come from you are good to go. The most interesting part of the character's life should be the game anyways.
But you're kind of missing the point.
A backstory is an excellent resource you can use to explicitly inform your GM about what you want for your characters story, the theme and tone as well as any organisations, events or concepts within the setting you're interested in.
Of course, a good GM will also throw things at you you weren't necessarily expecting, although still within the scope of the game, but a GM making use of those predefined hooks can do a lot to quickly and effectively get a character personally invested in the ongoing events of the game.
But that's naive, because it's not that easy. How do you develop individual hooks and reactions when the entire design of the game is peer-pressuring you into going with the flow? Into having all of the PCs present all times and interacting with NPCs in the same way in the name of "fairness"? Backstories are your first line of defense against that set of universal TTRPG flaws.
Backstories let you justify your actions in a way that's acceptable. You can't say "It's what my character would do" without sounding like a cunt, but you can say "This is what my character has done in the past" and reframe the current situation with total impunity.
Well, I'd say a certain degree of compromise goes along with all that. 'It's what my character would do' isn't an excuse for being a disruptive asshole, because unless your character is painfully two dimensional there's plenty of ways they can react in a given situation, and selecting one that isn't going to detract from the experience of other members of the group is just common courtesy, even if that isn't the path of action that feels most immediately intuitive.
I always insist on PCs having minimal and uninteresting backstories. Wife and child is fine but most specific things and absolutely all previous "adventuring" experience goes out the window. Players NEVER play their PCs like the person the backstory is describing anyway, unless it's very cursory. So why bother with it?
If you act like a cunt, the excuse doesn't matter, and as long as you don't act like a cunt "It's what my character would do" is just fine.
Also, what you mean with "the entire design of the game is peer-pressuring you into going with the flow?" because for me it sounds like some kind of issue or problem with the game, not with the idea of backstories.
backstory is only important to the extent to which it influenced the personality and/or motivation of the character.
saying "i worked in retail for 10 years" is not role playing.
being impatient and unwilling to listen to people complain BECAUSE you worked in retail for 10 years is.
A good backstory can add to your character's development during a game.
Ask yourself why are you here? Who brought you? Did you bring yourself? Why did whoever (or yourself) end up here?
Once you have some story, then you can add the charm of personality.
Personally, Im awful at backstory writing, but realized just how useful it really can be!
Because my vampire from (VTM) was a noblewoman who also was accustomed to tavern work, she was able to befriend and get blood from local women who she "connected" with. Idk
Backstory can really add some spice dood
But it's not the most important thing.
My rules for backstory are this:
1) the events of my history should have little impact on anyone but my character
2) I never tell it, I just show. If I play it well, someone will ask about it. Only then do I actually monologue about it.
An example is my human rogue in 5E. As a youth, he was a notorious prankster who stole and drank a wizard's potion. He then accidentally stabbed his sister to death while hallucinating.
Does anyone in my party know this? No, all they know is he's very unwilling to visit a certain village, and he gets very angry at young people who do things recklessly without thinking about those around him. His self-loathing has manifested as anger at people who remind him of his former self. He's terrified his party members will discover his crime and reject him.
Without sucking my own dick too much, I think it's a tasteful, realistic backstory which explains why my characters acts like a hero. That's all it needs to be.
This is basically what I like to do. I do have things in mind when I play a character, but I only share it if it comes naturally during play. Other than that, maybe I do share some vague, broad strokes about where I come from and why I'm here, but nothing too specific unless someone actually asks for it.
I make the players generate their backstories together, then I write them all down and try to figure out how I can introduce parts from their stories into the game.
>characterization
>backstory
>not vigorously editing your character to satisfy the particular needs of the session during play
>not foregoing any tangible traits so as to reduce your weakness to DM plot hooks
>not playing a potential being to its fullest potential by being a quantum superposition of all backstosries on demand
Get on my level.
I never understand people who avoid plot hooks or treat them as bad things. Have you just played with really awful GM's?
Biting on plot hooks and seeing where they go has always been one of the most fun things for me to do. Otherwise you just end up wandering around avoiding things and doing nothing.
No my man, I don't avoid things and do nothing. I brood and ponder about all the potential things I did in my mysterious, undefinable past. Plot hooks and DM control does nothing but bring down the pure cool that is my character. Why would I need to do anything anyway? Whatever the DM wants me to do, I probably did already when I was just a teenager.
backstory explains the frame of mind of the character. how people are satisfied with just a hodge podge mixture of traits with no frame of reference is beyond me. if you're RPing, you're acting even if you've never tried it before, and you need to know more than you might ever use to make sure you're conveying the proper sentiments.
it definitely helps, but it's entirely reasonable to create and play a character without one and develop them almost entirely through play
a backstory might even start writing itself this way - successful and failed knowledge checks and the skills you focus on the most can illuminate more about the character and perhaps how or where they learnt what they know, for instance.
of course, a good pre-written backstory will provide useful information to the GM for making plot hooks and getting your character deeply involved.
I wanna say that they are important, but it depends on the player.
In my current party of 5, 2 have given me backstories with depth, personal hooks, and way to develop their characters.
2 have given me back stories that are pretty nothing generic no-hooks kinda short explanation of them.
One hasn't given me one, but I was kinda over it and just said fuck it but he ended up being arguably one of the most involved with the plot and characters and defining his character in the world Itself.
Later on he said It was because he didn't really understand the world properly, but that's a whole other thing.
Characterisation is more important, Back stories can mean absolutely nothing, or give good insight if they want.
user, which part of "something you've invented on the spot"? Because you've just posted one of the laziest things imaginable and something people do constantly, then get surprised everyone else is angry.
That ain't backstory. That's literally name and occupation. I know SHIT as a GM about your character after reading their job, because in case of playing class-based system, I know that even without the backstory.
Just because you have character doesn't mean it is possible to create any element of a scenario tailored for said character. Read what were the arguments of that user and stop pretending to be dumber than you are.
Do you see a difference between
>I have no backstory
and
>I do have an actual backstory for my character, relationships, events, places and all, only that the character doesn't remember that right now
Because I see a fucking crystal clear difference.
>Being this fucking obtuse
Not even 0D&D did this shit, user. And it was all about being literal nameless nobody.
>Not having a backstory
Exactly what level we should get at? Being a disruptive cunt trying one of the weirdest possible ways of powergaming?
Did what? Had vague backstories on characters?
I think I've seen more games that don't have rules for your character backstory and those that have, and those that have it's part of the character creation, usually through some kind of lifepatch system, that still leaves things very vague.
Never have the written rules mandated me to write an essay for my character before play, and never has a GM done that ether.
>The most interesting part of the character's life should be the game anyways.
My fucking sides... I guess you had to have really bad GMs. Oh, wait, you don't write backstory, so it's your fault, not GM's
>I've seen more games that don't have rules for your character backstory
>don't have rules for your character backstory
>rules for character backstory
And then of course is the rest of your post, but honestly: are you trying very hard, or really are so fucking stupid?
Let me get this straight. You are not making a backstory, because (usually) it doesn't provide mechanical bonus?
Why the fuck you are playing ROLE-PLAYING games then, you dense motherfucker?
If I want to write books, I write books, if I want to play a roleplaying game, I play roleplaying game.
I don't make a backstory, because it's waste of time for something that I don't need.
For me, what I do with the character during the play is important. Not what they did previously.
Also, not tying things down, can keep things open and fluid so if GM asks a question like "has anyone of you been in this city before," I can go, "I could have been there on such and such business, back in the day".
The backstory is only important in ways it comes up during the play, so might as well create it, when it's relevant.
I'm a bit confused by your post. Yes I see the difference? But both extremes seem kinda pointless. Having everything already written up, but the character not knowing it, just feels dull, and denies the GM any room to play with the amnesia. But having absolutely nothing is dull for the reasons I outlined above.
Only without the roleplaying part, since you have a blank slate instead of a character.
Sorry - a character sheet, my bad.
>because it's waste of time for something that I don't need
So you just put your GM in this awkward situation where he or she can't do SHIT with your character, because you don't feel like making one. Splendid!
>Also, not tying things down, can keep things open and fluid so if GM asks a question like "has anyone of you been in this city before," I can go, "I could have been there on such and such business, back in the day".
That's not only shit-tier approach to playing, but also shit-tier GMing.
>The backstory is only important in ways it comes up during the play, so might as well create it, when it's relevant.
It's revelant all the time. In your case, it's not revelant at all, so you might as well not participate at all if you are too big pussy to make a fucking character. Rather than doing it the normal way and having scenarios related with characters, you are playing some retarded monstrosity based on adjusting characters to the scenario.
How old are you? 13?
Yes user, because backstory is a book and not, you know, 10 sentences. And you can't even write that, but insist you are roleplaying.
Good one.
Not him, but you are simply looking for excuse to not make a character pass filling of the character sheet.
>Also, not tying things down, can keep things open and fluid so if GM asks a question like "has anyone of you been in this city before," I can go, "I could have been there on such and such business, back in the day".
>Adjusting character to scenario
That's equal to fucking cheating and you know it. The real problem is that your GM allows that shit.
...What?
Personality/characterisation is far more important than backstory, however they're both important. Backstory FEEDS into the personality, but it's ultimately history (and a few plot hooks for the GM). Personality is what you're going to be 'using' in the present day game.
Also a backstory can be retconned/changed a lot more easily than an established personality, especially if the other players don't know the finer details of it. Personality? Not so much.
Being fair, there are some games and GMing styles which encourage a more improvisational approach to player backstories. There's an interesting indie game called Psi*Run where all the characters start without backstories, and discover who they are or were during play.
But in a more conventional game, using that style isn't incompatible with having a backstory. A loose framework is better than nothing, and it gives the GM a structure to work with. Your PC acted as a caravan guard for a couple of years? Well, he can say that this is one of the cities you went through during that time, as an off the cuff example.
Limitations are better for creativity than a blank slate, in my experience.
>you have a blank slate instead of a character.
You can have a character, without fully written backstory.
Like how you read books or watch movies, as most things don't introduce characters by explaining their life up to the moment of their appearance in the story. Are those not characters?
But they still have a backstory. That it's not onscreen doesn't mean it doesn't exist.
Level 1 characters shouldn't have much backstory. It should basically be "apprentice to Marvin" or "magic school grad"
Reminder that peasents have at least 1 level in something, so your backstory for a level 1 character should amount too
This is what I did when growing up, and this is how I grew up.
>peasants have at least 1 level in something
...No?
Well, depends on the game. But even in the most rigidly class based systems, NPC classes exist for a reason.
But the vast majority of people in the vast majority of games don't have a class, because classes are for people who matter.
Commoner adept expert and noble count as something user.
You've just had a bit of special training.
Those are all NPC classes, yet. But I'm still not sure literally every NPC in the world will have one of those classes. They might be far inferior to PC classes, but they still show some level of mechanical impact and, well, relevance, that most people in the setting simply don't share.
In d&d all commoners typically have one level of commoner.
Yea commoner sucks as a class but you can't count that out.
They've get been trained to be a farmer or whatever, whereas adventures are trained for combat or magic
Outsider just crashing in, but going by the context of the discussion so far, Adjustment user is NOT playing some new-wave game that is all about subverting narrative. He's just playing a boring murderhobo with no backstory.
I focus on characterization and write a paragraph backstory on why they're adventuring and their main occupation before it and maybe family relations or one major event. I then use the rolls I get, etc. rolling 20 on identifying arcane sigils on a wall to determine the rest.
That's only a 3e thing. Prior to that they were level zero.
I've seen this argument countless times before and it's always been totally hollow. Level is almost 100% abstract in DnD, and DnD isn't the only system out there, anyways. You should strive to write an engaging backstory with worthwhile hooks no matter the situation.
Backstory is only important to lazy GM's who expect their players to fill in the blanks for their campaign like a shitty mad lib, rather than presenting an established setting for the players to explore at their leisure.
Have you ever GMd, user? Because you sound like a conceited piece of shit to me.
Make the game interesting for your GM, that's the rule. If someone is nice enough to run a world for you, you pay them back with a story
What about collaboration?
"Rules driven improvised storytelling" is one way I've described tabletop rpgs in the past and while it's obviously not an absolute definition, it works for me. For me the storytelling should happen on the table, and it's responsibilities shared between players, GM and the rules.
>Have you ever GMd, user?
Yes, and if I can come up with a basic setting based off of a few sentences and an afternoon of bullshitting, the rest of these so called "GM's" can do the same, with or without PC backstories.
>Make the game interesting for your GM, that's the rule.
And you know where that isn't going to happen, in some snowflake's backstory where they narrate how they narrate how they grew up in a monastery and killed Satan even though they're a Level 1 Cleric. The most interesting shit always happens during play, not in some moron's backstory!
This guy gets it!
Honestly it just sounds like you're a shitty GM playing with shitty players.
The hooks in a players backstory are an incredibly useful resource for a GM. Making use of those hooks doesn't mean you lack a setting or events in mind already, but it's an important skill to be able to blend the two together, to take those hooks the players give you and blend them with setting elements and ongoing events, intricately tying the PC's to the world and what's happening in it.
It works great because it effectively removes any need for railroading. It doesn't matter where the PCs go or what they do, because there'll be something there to connect them to something else, letting them freely explore the world while also always having a sense of direction and purpose.
Who the fuck said that'd be on the backstories. backstories aren't for that, they're there to leave unresolved threads and shit. If I wanted prior achievements I would ask for those as part of the campaigns premise.
Your argument is based on an obvious strawman, so how about you let it go already.
>The way 'I' run MY games is Perfect and there is no other valuable way of doing things. I'm perfect you're not, suck my dick.
You're the one saying that, chucklefuck.
>Every GM who thinks backstories are important is lazy and bad at their job. DON'T JUDGE ME!1!!!ELEVEN
>There is only one correct way, MY WAY!
Wow user, compelling argument.
You say that, but go on places like Roll20 and make a L4G post and see how many morons will give you pages of achievements if you don't give them a strict limit on how much they can write.
People like treating tabletop games like some sort of brainstorming session for their OC's than a collaborative storytelling session with rules to resolve conflict in an impartial manner.
>I would ask for those as part of the campaigns premise.
How about asking for what motivates characters to do what the campaign is about as the part of the premise.
As long as you have a start, the unresolved threads come naturally. Which hook do you think is actually more interesting and fun for the players A "Let's go save Character's grandma from orks" or B "Let's go save that shopkeepper you befriended from last town from orks"?
As long as the world you paint is lively enough players will always be more invested in that over random backstory elements they came up to fill some "backstory quota".
Except that's a stupid false dichotomy with no basis in reality?
That depends entirely on whether the player is even capable of befriending an NPC and investing themselves in the setting. backstories aren't just useful as a mine for hooks, they're a litmus test, too.
Here's a better situation, why not have them strive to save both from the same orks? Or better yet, the grandmother is the shopkeeper? That's what the backstory lets you do. It's an entirely new ingredient, not a replacement.
If players don't get invested in the world, and let's assume it's not an issue of GMing, which it often probably is, then I don't care how much they get into their backstories, they are a worthless.
The people going on about how backstory is useful for GMs to pull for plot ideas make me wonder if they've ever GMed, or how much they actually payed attention to their players' enjoyment of the game if they have.
A character's backstory is a valid hook for ONE (1) player at the table. Every player can get automatically invested and hooked on mutual goals completely separate from any backstory (adventurers don't need additonal motivation to seek treasure in dungeons) but as soon as you start pulling from someone's backstory you're singling out one guy to be fully invested in any stakes you're setting. I know, on paper, it seems like a really intuitive way to grab people's attention, but I seriously want anyone who's actually played a tabletop game to answer:
When is the last time you, the player, have honestly given a shit about the wizard's old wizarding school rival, when the wizard PC wasn't you? When is the last time you, as a player, gave a single modicum of a fuck about the fighter's ailing sister, or the thief's quest for revenge, or the ranger's secret heritage? You probably cared about YOUR personally tailored hooks, but nobody at the table enjoys sitting down for a weekly game and engaging a narrative where they're effectively the supporting cast to someone else's plot line.
"Backstory" is what happens between levels one and three. Leave it at that.