Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
As a GM I really don’t want to have to read a several page background. I’ve had a couple of those and I can’t absorb all that information.No, such rules are just as bad as the "you must fill out this four page questionnaire stuff. It's taking a certain preference and deciding that is how it should be for everyone. The amount of background the player creates should be up to the player and what they feel comfortable with. Someone might want a nearly complete blank slate, someone else might want several pages and a family tree. And asking either player to adopt the style of the other is just asking for dissatisfaction with the game.
Well, it mostly a joke...No, such rules are just as bad as the "you must fill out this four page questionnaire stuff. It's taking a certain preference and deciding that is how it should be for everyone. The amount of background the player creates should be up to the player and what they feel comfortable with. Someone might want a nearly complete blank slate, someone else might want several pages and a family tree. And asking either player to adopt the style of the other is just asking for dissatisfaction with the game.
Right, but then you just work the general stuff out with the player, and then they can expand it on their own. The GM only needs to know stuff that probably will come up. Like my Kutulu PC mentioned above. All the GM needs to know is that he's a semi-famous author who lives above his means. So people might know who he is, or they might not. Just like with player preference, there is GM preference too, and if you don't want more than the necessary background stuff, no one should be dumping more on you, even if they've written more.As a GM I really don’t want to have to read a several page background. I’ve had a couple of those and I can’t absorb all that information.
You're right, I misread it as the background should be no longer than a tweet.Well, it mostly a joke...
...but any case I really don't see how it puts a limit on the background. All it does it put a limit on the communication. It's just insisting that's what's important for the game going forward be distilled.
If the player want's to write a 10,000 short story about something that happened to the character when they were 10, then they can have at it. They just shouldn't expect that to be relevant to the campaign beyond any reason they have to bring it up during play.
So one question I have is if you have a long background that the GM isn't reading and absorbing, that background must be specifying setting elements, how do you cope with the GM possibly negating them?Right, but then you just work the general stuff out with the player, and then they can expand it on their own. The GM only needs to know stuff that probably will come up. Like my Kutulu PC mentioned above. All the GM needs to know is that he's a semi-famous author who lives above his means. So people might know who he is, or they might not. Just like with player preference, there is GM preference too, and if you don't want more than the necessary background stuff, no one should be dumping more on you, even if they've written more.
You go through the general stuff, like I said. So if I want a family I’ll quickly mention them, then you can mention the China thing or any rules of inheritance or whatever, then I develop it more on my own. I also think that this is a bit where maybe you have to accept that some things are maybe mutually exclusive. If you as a GM want to have a very detailed and developed setting, then maybe going over some background with a player isn’t too much to ask. And if you as a GM are running it fairly loose, then there probably won’t be much to contradict.So one question I have is if you have a long background that the GM isn't reading and absorbing, that background must be specifying setting elements, how do you cope with the GM possibly negating them?
To borrow again from Vincent Baker's Lumpley Principle: "System (including but not limited to 'the rules') is defined as the means by which the group agrees to imagined events during play."
If the group (or at least the GM) hasn't incorporated the background into play (i.e. absorbed it), then it isn't real within the context of the campaign.
Now certainly notes on your character's personality and opinions don't need to be shared to be useful. But like you said before, if you misunderstand the history of the setting, you might include a sister in China that has a major implication on things. How can you be sure that you haven't included anything, or that the GM won't out of ignorance to your background override something? Or are you comfortable with some details being overridden?
But all of the problems become much less if you don't write a longer background than I can absorb...You go through the general stuff, like I said. So if I want a family I’ll quickly mention them, then you can mention the China thing or any rules of inheritance or whatever, then I develop it more on my own. I also think that this is a bit where maybe you have to accept that some things are maybe mutually exclusive. If you as a GM want to have a very detailed and developed setting, then maybe going over some background with a player isn’t too much to ask. And if you as a GM are running it fairly loose, then there probably won’t be much to contradict.
Couldn't the exact same thing be said about writing up such a deep setting that it can be easily contradicted by minor details of character bacsktories, yet having no interest in letting anyone else know about it beforehand or decide anything about it? Maybe consider writing your own second world fantasy story to show off your worldbuilding. If you say that you can't run the game in such a sketchy and undeveloped world, consider that I can say the same thing about playing a sketchy and undeveloped character.But all of the problems become much less if you don't write a longer background than I can absorb...
So the real question is what does it do for you if I can't absorb it?
If we miss something and you write a contradiction in, no matter what, I'm not just going to automatically bow to your background. And what if your background conflicts with another players? So really to work, everyone has to absorb everyone's background...
So my way of handling it is you are welcome to write a background for your character. Keep it short. The shorter it is, the more likely I can absorb the whole thing and point out anything that doesn't mesh well with my setting, campaign ideas, or the other PCs. And always be open to revision if something doesn't fit, or in play you realize a small change would actually be more cool than what you wrote in isolation.
And I don't know if you're the 10,000 word type, but someone who is, maybe consider writing fiction instead of a background for an RPG character... 10,000 words is more than a couple pages...
I don't write up deep settings... :-) And even though it looks like I run one, my Glorantha is NOT a deep setting. Yes, it's deeper than the Glorantha I started playing in 1978, but if something in play contradicts something I haven't absorbed and internalized, whether it's a detail in the setting information in the 1978 rule book, or tomorrows grand RuneQuest Glorantha campaign published by Chaosium, I'll move on.Couldn't the exact same thing be said about writing up such a deep setting that it can be easily contradicted by minor details of character bacsktories, yet having no interest in letting anyone else know about it beforehand or decide anything about it? Maybe consider writing your own second world fantasy story to show off your worldbuilding. If you say that you can't run the game in such a sketchy and undeveloped world, consider that I can say the same thing about playing a sketchy and undeveloped character.
It really seems like you think "a lot of background" means "a lot of bullshit about how I'm heir to the kingdom". Because if you run a roughly sketched game, that's the only background stuff that can really throw you. The detail about having a sister when you're Chinese and born during the one child policy era? That can only come up in a very detailed settings (of which our own world is one). So the only time that having a lot of background can be a problem because it contradicts the setting is when you have a very detailed setting, in which case banning detailed backgrounds seems messed up to me (we're supposed to read through your info pamphlet on this kingdom but you can't read a page of background?). Because the problems you have? They don't have anything to do with the amount of background written.I don't write up deep settings... :-) And even though it looks like I run one, my Glorantha is NOT a deep setting. Yes, it's deeper than the Glorantha I started playing in 1978, but if something in play contradicts something I haven't absorbed and internalized, whether it's a detail in the setting information in the 1978 rule book, or tomorrows grand RuneQuest Glorantha campaign published by Chaosium, I'll move on.
And my settings are only cooperatively developed with the players to the extent that players can provide details of their family, maybe some close friends or mentors and such, but players don't get privilege to contribute to the grand history of the setting, though if a player suggests something cool that doesn't contradict what I already have figured out, well, thanks player for the cool idea, though maybe I'll bend and twist it.
But when the Traveller players wrote up more background than I had for my Wine Dark Rift setting and wrote stuff up for off-map and then wanted to engage that instead of the content I had already prepared? That was the end. Yea, maybe that doesn't sound like a Sandbox, but tough noogies, I spent a lot of effort setting up the mapped area I had, and thinking how the different worlds interacted, nothing deep mind you, but still, a bunch of effort.
I'm not sure any of my RuneQuest players have much background. The most recent has the most definition I can think of but even that isn't deep. And what the player did do was in conversation with me. One other PC we know where he comes from. We don't even know where the elf comes from (I sort of have an idea...). And there's almost certainly details of THIS Glorantha that are different from the last time I ran an RQ campaign...
Ah, but the short and sweet one, I can read in a moment and say "no."It really seems like you think "a lot of background" means "a lot of bullshit about how I'm heir to the kingdom". Because if you run a roughly sketched game, that's the only background stuff that can really throw you. The detail about having a sister when you're Chinese and born during the one child policy era? That can only come up in a very detailed settings (of which our own world is one). So the only time that having a lot of background can be a problem because it contradicts the setting is when you have a very detailed setting, in which case banning detailed backgrounds seems messed up to me (we're supposed to read through your info pamphlet on this kingdom but you can't read a page of background?). Because the problems you have? They don't have anything to do with the amount of background written.
Here's a short background: "My character Robert was born the eldest son of the high king. When the high king died, he became high king. The rest of the adventuring group are his subjects." Hell, that fits in a tweet. Heres another one: "My character served in the Imperial navy, eventually reaching the rank of admiral, a rank he still holds." That one was even shorter. See, length isn't the problem.
As for playing a character with that little background? No thanks, I would have problems getting into my character's shoes.
And if I say "no, I won't change it"? How is this different from the Arcana Unearthed guy?Ah, but the short and sweet one, I can read in a moment and say "no."
But in the multi-page background? It depends on how much time I have to read it, and then if it DOES have stuff that contradicts something in my thoughts for the campaign, how much time does it take to resolve it and convince you to re-write?
The problem we are going to have with this whole discussion is we are talking theoreticals. I don't KNOW what kind of background you would write up for my RQ campaign. You haven't committed to playing in it and had even a short conversation about the campaign and what kind of character you might want, so you don't know what sorts of things you would want in your background. Be a player in my campaign, present me a background, long or short, and I'll let you know what kind of problem I have with it. But chances are I just don't have the time to read something very long. I run a very low prep campaign, but that doesn't mean the setting doesn't have some depth. And the players are free to read up anything they want on Glorantha. And if it seems like they are about to base a play decision on something they've read about that conflicts with my vision, we'll have a conversation.
And that's what I like about shorter backgrounds that are deepened in play. As things come up, we can have a conversation about them. Want a longer background, don't assume I've read it all and absorbed it. Be prepared to edit if something in it becomes relevant.
But what you DO NOT get to do EVER is force me to change something I've written up. The Arcana Unearthed player I had who wrote the longest background ever submitted to me and didn't want to budge on something? He was negating something I was setting up as a major conflict of the campaign. It would be like I announce we're running a campaign in Middle Earth and a player writes that Sarumun is a cool guy totally on the side of good. That's the kind of thing I don't like about long backgrounds. Or like I said, the Traveller background that demanded I write up a whole new sub-sector and develop a noble family and their intrigues. Nope, not doing it just because you decided that's the campaign you want to play instead of the campaign I offered. Bait and switch is just as bad when done by players as by GMs.
Maybe because I've invested less time with the player who won't change a short background? If you show up, roll up a character, and present me a short background that conflicts with my campaign, and won't back down, we've wasted a bit of time. If I've spent several hours in chat with you about the campaign, and then the time to read and consider a lengthy background (especially a 20,000 word one) and then won't back down on something? I've wasted quite a bit of time.And if I say "no, I won't change it"? How is this different from the Arcana Unearthed guy?
Yes, actually I expect players to invest more time in my setting than I will in their character. I have a limited amount of time. If I have 6 players, it's not fair to expect me to do 6-10 times the reading the players are expected to do. For RQ/Glorantha, I expect players to read the rule book and preferably their cult. Reading about Glorantha in the rule book will set them up decently, especially after I give them a bit of and idea of the setting as I interpret it (mostly that my Glorantha is probably more "generic D&D" than other people's, because that's what I had to go on when I started running RQ.Right, except if the players are expected to read up on Glorantha, why aren't you expected to read up on their characters?
I don't have rules about background length. I have suggestions. And yea, rules never fix stupid or jerk. But my experience is that a lengthy deep background is a strong indicator of disposition to jerkdom...And again, your problems always seem to have to do with people who want to write part of the setting, or have a bunch of special circumstances for their characters, not the length of the background. The Arcana Unearthed player who wrote the longest background? You would have had the same problem with him with a short background as with a long one. Same with the Traveller player. As the saying goes, the rules can't fix stupid, and the rules can't fix asshole. That includes rules about backstory length.
Well, that's a good point, so long as the GM is allowed to nuance something from the character's background. That could be interesting.And as an aside on the Saruman thing, that would work out great, because that is exactly how Saruman presented himself to the world. Gandalf ended up captured by him because he trusted Saruman and went to speak with him. So unless the player is playing Saruman, that's a fitting background detail, as long as everyone is on board with the PCs knowing important characters in the setting.
Maybe because I've invested less time with the player who won't change a short background? If you show up, roll up a character, and present me a short background that conflicts with my campaign, and won't back down, we've wasted a bit of time. If I've spent several hours in chat with you about the campaign, and then the time to read and consider a lengthy background (especially a 20,000 word one) and then won't back down on something? I've wasted quite a bit of time.
Now from what you've shared about your preferences, you want to spend that time to get on the same page as me. If more players who wanted deep backgrounds were like that, I'd be more open to them. The ONLY players I've had who wanted deep background wanted to jerk me around. That tends to get me set against deep background.
Yes, actually I expect players to invest more time in my setting than I will in their character. I have a limited amount of time. If I have 6 players, it's not fair to expect me to do 6-10 times the reading the players are expected to do. For RQ/Glorantha, I expect players to read the rule book and preferably their cult. Reading about Glorantha in the rule book will set them up decently, especially after I give them a bit of and idea of the setting as I interpret it (mostly that my Glorantha is probably more "generic D&D" than other people's, because that's what I had to go on when I started running RQ.
I don't have rules about background length. I have suggestions. And yea, rules never fix stupid or jerk. But my experience is that a lengthy deep background is a strong indicator of disposition to jerkdom...
Hmm, "deep" doesn't even need to be that long... I had a player want to join my Classic Traveller campaign that uses Book 1 character generation. He came in with a concept and it was clear he didn't want to do random chargen... Bye bye. I'll hold out for players who embrace the game I'm running, or at least want to learn it.
Well, that's a good point, so long as the GM is allowed to nuance something from the character's background. That could be interesting.
This part is key really. Context is always important, from the player side as well. Is this a one-shot dungeon crawl? Screw it, I'll play a cliché with a line of background and a motivation like "get rich or die trying". Is it expected to be a long running campaign set in the real world? I'll be researching the time period and putting in an effort to make a believable character who fits into whatever time and place we're starting in, and that's going to mean some background.Really I can't say much more about backgrounds out of the context of a campaign and a player.
That's . . . something.I also will use this if I want the game to have anything like important details
Interesting. My browser is giving me security warnings from Rpgnet.I hope this is acceptable, but here is a link to a similar discussion from RPGNet back in 2003, which I felt was pretty useful. It starts as a rant against long character backstories, then spins off into a discussion of "situation based play".
Detailed character backgrounds. A rant. | Tabletop Roleplaying Open
You've all seen these. Hell some of you may even do this. You know what I'm talking about, the multi page long novella about the history of your character. Why? What's the purpose of these loveingly crafted personal histories. Some will say that it's to get to know the character. To get...forum.rpg.net
That is when I say cool, like your setting you should run that as a Traveller game. Players overwriting the setting is taking away a lot of the agency of the Referee, creation of a setting is half the fun. Like you said though, I try to not have my setting be too deep so there is plenty of room for things.....But when the Traveller players wrote up more background than I had for my Wine Dark Rift setting and wrote stuff up for off-map and then wanted to engage that instead of the content I had already prepared? ...
Exactly, when the back story provides the player with power and resources outside character creation it's a no go; and anything that puts your trip on the other players is also major no-go and frankly red flag to even have the person there......Here's a short background: "My character Robert was born the eldest son of the high king. When the high king died, he became high king. The rest of the adventuring group are his subjects." Hell, that fits in a tweet. Heres another one: "My character served in the Imperial navy, eventually reaching the rank of admiral, a rank he still holds." That one was even shorter. See, length isn't the problem.....