One of my current characters is an exiled ruler who is on a quest to prove that the prejudices against him are misplaced so he can win his people back. I could go into detail, name names of those who deposed him, mention specific details of the plot that overthrew him, I could speak about dates, and times, the various factions involved. I could go on and on about the various fights he had, the various allies who tried to aid him, and their fates. I could talk about the various adventures he went on prior to meeting the party. But that all constrains the DM. If the DM decides his kingdom tries to reach out to him, that has to be done by certain people now, using appropriate methods Do they use magic, and could they send it magically? Gotta sift through that 3 page background to remember. Or would they be sending the captain of the guard? Well, he probably played a part in the plot, so what was his name again? Did he side with the character? As contrasted with the short brief summary, where the DM can just make it up and make an appropriate encounter. His name is Robert, he's pissed at the character and spoiling for a fight. Done, no need to spend ages making sure everything squares up with someone's story...and doesn't contradict someone else's either. Or maybe the DM wants to just get the message there and done, so a message is sent magically. No lore beyond the DM's world to contradict, so he's free to use what he wants.
This is utterly baffling to me
The DM is going to have to come up with all that information anyway -- if the player does it in their backstory, the DM's job gets easier, not harder. The only time that wouldn't be true is for a DM who does literally no prep work at all and just wings it every session
Like, if you were joining my campaign and came up with three pages of royal history and political intrigue for your stolen kingdom, I'd think that was marvelous. I might tell you to change the name of the kingdom and its capital city to match what was on the world map I already had, but otherwise that's a whole lot of stuff that's now off my plate if I ever want to take the campaign in that direction. You've already laid out the major players, possible allies, where things stood when you were exiled, etc. None of that "constrains" me, either -- it's backstory, emphasis on the 'back', so if some details have changed since you were last at home, that's just the way the world works (and it keeps you on your toes as a player). If someone from home reaches out to you, it doesn't have to "be done by certain people, using appropriate methods". It could be by someone you'd never even heard of before, who offers some token to prove their genuineness. Wait, your now-dead royal chancellor had an entire network of spies you knew nothing about, and someone claiming to be their leader has sent you a message via magic asking to meet? Is it for real? Is it a trap? Gosh, sounds like an adventure
I also find it weird that you, as a character/player, wouldn't even know the names of the people that plotted against you and usurped your throne. Like, shouldn't that be integral to your whole concept, the vengeance you have sworn against those who have stolen your birthright? "Hey Bob, who stole your throne again? I dunno, some guy". You not coming up with even those basic details would tell me, as a DM, that none of that was actually all that important to your character, it's just your excuse for being out adventuring with certain skills and abilities, so I wouldn't worry about incorporating any of it into the campaign
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Active characters:
Carric Aquissar, elven wannabe artist in his deconstructionist period (Archfey warlock) Lan Kidogo, mapach archaeologist and treasure hunter (Knowledge cleric) Mardan Ferres, elven private investigator obsessed with that one unsolved murder (Assassin rogue) Xhekhetiel, halfling survivor of a Betrayer Gods cult (Runechild sorcerer/fighter)
I think the real problem with the first backstory is that it's so cut and dry that it encourages one of two outcomes:
1. The Silver Templars catch up to you in-game, and with the party's help you defeat them. Your reason for adventuring is resolved, you can go home now.
2. The DM, knowing that resolving your backstory would effectively end your character, delays that confrontation. Eventually the character thinks, "why am I out here with this unrelated party doing this unrelated quest? My mission is to defeat the Silver Templars, why am I not doing that??" The character has no motivation to continue and the player loses interest in the character.
That's the real danger with too much specificity in your background. If your backstory doesn't include a reason/enthusiasm/desire for questing about and searching the land for treasure, glory, etc, then you're going to have problems justifying why your character is doing just that with a party of strangers for most of the game, and the character falls apart.
I see this argument a lot, and to me, it just seems like lazy DMing
There are all kinds of ways to extend that story for the length of the campaign, even beyond tying the Silver Templars directly to the eventual BBEG. They're an organization, for pity's sake -- there's always another wave of them to send, another layer of the onion you can unpeel
Who were your parents being told to scried on? Who ordered the Templars to scry on them? What's happened to the Templars' power structure in the years since that incident? Are they really after you because you killed some lowly company captain where you were a kid, or do they have other reasons for wanting to capture you? What about those vampires? Did your mother escape them, or is she now leading them? Etc etc etc etc etc
Your player's backstory is a road map, or maybe just a set of clues, for the story they want to tell/experience. You should be working with them to tell it
As for the whole "you need an open-ended, unresolvable reason for questing" argument, it's ultimately on the player, but characters can evolve. The motivation a character had for going out into the world adventuring at level 1 doesn't have to stay exactly the same for their entire adventuring career. Maybe they discover while trying to deal with the Silver Templars that what they really wanted wasn't vengeance, but a family, and they have that now with their adventuring party. Maybe "dealing with the Templars" evolves into "exploring the mystery of their sorcerer powers", something they can only do by testing those powers as they grow and emerge under stress
I said it encourages those outcomes, not that it guarantees them. But they are still prominent pitfalls a DM could accidentally slide into if they're not paying attention.
I just think the more work you have to do for it to make sense for the character to work with the party, the harder it will be to keep the character in the party. Open-ended motivations for adventuring (seeking riches, seeking power, seeking to do good, etc) are more useful to players than specific ones. Especially if this is already a problem for them as it seems to be with OP.
I think the real problem with the first backstory is that it's so cut and dry that it encourages one of two outcomes:
1. The Silver Templars catch up to you in-game, and with the party's help you defeat them. Your reason for adventuring is resolved, you can go home now.
2. The DM, knowing that resolving your backstory would effectively end your character, delays that confrontation. Eventually the character thinks, "why am I out here with this unrelated party doing this unrelated quest? My mission is to defeat the Silver Templars, why am I not doing that??" The character has no motivation to continue and the player loses interest in the character.
That's the real danger with too much specificity in your background. If your backstory doesn't include a reason/enthusiasm/desire for questing about and searching the land for treasure, glory, etc, then you're going to have problems justifying why your character is doing just that with a party of strangers for most of the game, and the character falls apart.
I see this argument a lot, and to me, it just seems like lazy DMing
There are all kinds of ways to extend that story for the length of the campaign, even beyond tying the Silver Templars directly to the eventual BBEG. They're an organization, for pity's sake -- there's always another wave of them to send, another layer of the onion you can unpeel
Who were your parents being told to scried on? Who ordered the Templars to scry on them? What's happened to the Templars' power structure in the years since that incident? Are they really after you because you killed some lowly company captain where you were a kid, or do they have other reasons for wanting to capture you? What about those vampires? Did your mother escape them, or is she now leading them? Etc etc etc etc etc
Your player's backstory is a road map, or maybe just a set of clues, for the story they want to tell/experience. You should be working with them to tell it
As for the whole "you need an open-ended, unresolvable reason for questing" argument, it's ultimately on the player, but characters can evolve. The motivation a character had for going out into the world adventuring at level 1 doesn't have to stay exactly the same for their entire adventuring career. Maybe they discover while trying to deal with the Silver Templars that what they really wanted wasn't vengeance, but a family, and they have that now with their adventuring party. Maybe "dealing with the Templars" evolves into "exploring the mystery of their sorcerer powers", something they can only do by testing those powers as they grow and emerge under stress
I said it encourages those outcomes, not that it guarantees them. But they are still prominent pitfalls a DM could accidentally slide into if they're not paying attention.
I just think the more work you have to do for it to make sense for the character to work with the party, the harder it will be to keep the character in the party. Open-ended motivations for adventuring (seeking riches, seeking power, seeking to do good, etc) are more useful to players than specific ones. Especially if this is already a problem for them as it seems to be with OP.
I agree that open-ended motivations are easier than limited ones--and that, based on OP's posting history, that is likely a problem with OP's characters. That is not to say a limited motivation cannot be successful or work with a party--just that it is harder to accomplish and requires a particularly skilled pilot and DM able to work with the limitation to make work.
However, I think it is important to note that open ended motivations and open ended backstories are distinct from one another. You could have a novel of a backstory that is explaining why "My character wants to travel the world and be a hero"; you can have a single sentence backstory that boils down to "My character only wants to get revenge on the person who killed his father and will pursue that at the expense of everything else (including the party)." The former could work fine; the latter could also work fine, but is a lot harder to implement in a fun way.
One of my current characters is an exiled ruler who is on a quest to prove that the prejudices against him are misplaced so he can win his people back. I could go into detail, name names of those who deposed him, mention specific details of the plot that overthrew him, I could speak about dates, and times, the various factions involved. I could go on and on about the various fights he had, the various allies who tried to aid him, and their fates. I could talk about the various adventures he went on prior to meeting the party. But that all constrains the DM. If the DM decides his kingdom tries to reach out to him, that has to be done by certain people now, using appropriate methods Do they use magic, and could they send it magically? Gotta sift through that 3 page background to remember. Or would they be sending the captain of the guard? Well, he probably played a part in the plot, so what was his name again? Did he side with the character? As contrasted with the short brief summary, where the DM can just make it up and make an appropriate encounter. His name is Robert, he's pissed at the character and spoiling for a fight. Done, no need to spend ages making sure everything squares up with someone's story...and doesn't contradict someone else's either. Or maybe the DM wants to just get the message there and done, so a message is sent magically. No lore beyond the DM's world to contradict, so he's free to use what he wants.
This is utterly baffling to me
The DM is going to have to come up with all that information anyway
No, he's not. He comes up with information as needed. The difference is whether he has to conform the world to the story (and everyone else's), or whether he can conform your story to the world.
-- if the player does it in their backstory, the DM's job gets easier, not harder.
That is baffling. If the player comes.uo with with the details, the DM has to learn it all and play out according to that script. If it's vague enough to provide a hook but not dictate the details, he is free to shape it according to the needs of the moment. If I suddenly find it would be convenient to introduce that it point, I don't have to try dig through to find out all the details my story I'll be starting needs to conform to. I can just make up what would work well in the moment.
The only time that wouldn't be true is for a DM who does literally no prep work at all and just wings it every session
Nonsense. Somethings work well on the spur of the moment. For example, the part unexpectedly resolves Charlie's arc by ending up in a royal court. Oh, wouldn't that be an excellent place to run into the ambassador from the Exile's kingdom looking for help with some woe that threatening. Shane the DM didn't know that they'd end up there, he might have prepared something. On the other hand, even with prepped work, it gives me a cleaner canvas to work with. I need inspiration, not a novel. I'm meant to be weaving the various backstories together, and that works best when I have flexibility and room to move.
Like, if you were joining my campaign and came up with three pages of royal history and political intrigue for your stolen kingdom, I'd think that was marvelous. I might tell you to change the name of the kingdom and its capital city to match what was on the world map I already had, but otherwise that's a whole lot of stuff that's now off my plate if I ever want to take the campaign in that direction. You've already laid out the major players, possible allies, where things stood when you were exiled, etc.
Great...if your world is blank slate, and the backstory fits nicely with that. Not so great if you need to change things. And things always change. If there is a particularly important ally or enemy, then they can be included within that paragraph. Not giving them several paragraphs gives me as DM space to have new developments occur in the PCs absence that the player might not have thought about or allowed for in their backstory.
None of that "constrains" me, either -- it's backstory, emphasis on the 'back'
The point of a backstory is to constrain the DM to a degree. The Exile doesn't end up with a plotline about dragons wanting a bargain paid, they get one about their kingdom needing their help. The question is of degree.
, so if some details have changed since you were last at home, that's just the way the world works (and it keeps you on your toes as a player).
The developments are constrained by the history. If the kingdom exiled him because they hate dragons and he's recently developed dragonskin since hes draconic sorceror, then they're not going to have the plot point of allying themselves with Old Gnawbones. How much detail in a backstory is given is key. Too much, and you tie the hands of the DM. Too little, and there's not a lot of inspiration to work with. However, pages of backstory really constrains how things play out.
If someone from home reaches out to you, it doesn't have to "be done by certain people, using appropriate methods". It could be by someone you'd never even heard of before, who offers some token to prove their genuineness. Wait, your now-dead royal chancellor had an entire network of spies you knew nothing about, and someone claiming to be their leader has sent you a message via magic asking to meet? Is it for real? Is it a trap? Gosh, sounds like an adventure
Great, if that's the adventure you want to build. On the other hand, if you want a more mundane introduction because for time constraints you want to dive right into the actual story (because there is an overal campaign to run and there are several other players who want their backstories explored too), you're having to work harder. Without the detailed backstory giving a biography.of everyone, both methods are possible. With the detailed backstory,.one becones more burdensome.
I also find it weird that you, as a character/player, wouldn't even know the names of the people that plotted against you and usurped your throne. Like, shouldn't that be integral to your whole concept, the vengeance you have sworn against those who have stolen your birthright? "Hey Bob, who stole your throne again? I dunno, some guy". You not coming up with even those basic details would tell me, as a DM, that none of that was actually all that important to your character, it's just your excuse for being out adventuring with certain skills and abilities, so I wouldn't worry about incorporating any of it into the campaign
That is bizarre. Of course you would mention the biggest players. You don't need three pages to do that. Even other characters...it's really not hard. DM: "You're traveling down the road, and Alex notices a familiar figure heading towards the group. As they get closer, you recognise him as Robert, captain of the guard who sided against you in the coup that overthrew you." It's a lot less effort than having to look it all up in a three page essay.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
If you're not willing or able to to discuss in good faith, then don't be surprised if I don't respond, there are better things in life for me to do than humour you. This signature is that response.
The point of a backstory is to constrain the DM to a degree.
I... wow. No. Just flat no
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Active characters:
Carric Aquissar, elven wannabe artist in his deconstructionist period (Archfey warlock) Lan Kidogo, mapach archaeologist and treasure hunter (Knowledge cleric) Mardan Ferres, elven private investigator obsessed with that one unsolved murder (Assassin rogue) Xhekhetiel, halfling survivor of a Betrayer Gods cult (Runechild sorcerer/fighter)
Man, y'all have just come up with close to every scenario possible for why OP's struggling. We don't even know what or how or why things are falling apart yet.
As for my piece, I'll just say it's mainly luck. I was lucky I've had a number of characters be in campaigns that ended as intended. I think of all the characters I've made and played in campaigns (around ~20), only 3 have lasted over a year. Why? Because those campaigns actually lasted that long. Other characters, sadly, have seen their campaigns die out due to real life stuff. And that's just life, that's the norm. Understand the norm is for a campaign to fizzle out.
So, learn to enjoy your character in the moment, play it, love it, but accept their existence is all too ephemeral. Kinda like us.
Basic Problem 1: How does a back story influence and relate to the PC and the math and or rules of the game? If your PC fights off a wild dog trying to attack you baby sister does that mean you suddenly gain the fighter class? Or if you are in a backstreet brawl and pick up a short sword and look to attack someone in the back and aim for a weak point, does than mean you gain the rogue class? Or if I live on a farm and look after, fields, animals as well as hunt, does that mean I get the skills animal handling, nature, stealth and survival?
In general each game system deals with this issue differently or in fact does not deal with it at all.
Basic Problem 2: Players creating detailed backstories that do not fit or are tough fits for the GM's game world and or adventure.
Basic Problem 3: Players often expect "things" based on their backstory that the GM may or may not agree with or are of relevance to the game.
Basic Problem 4: Often GM's used a players backstory to generate "Woe". As an GM I have does this in the past and I expect that I will do so in the future but IMHO how and why it is done is very important. If it is simply a case to "mess" with the players every game then players will learn to not have anything the GM can use against them.
Basic Problem 5: What type of RPG game are you playing in and or running? If you are playing in a "Theater of the Mind" everything id drama vs "War Game" everything is abstract those are vastly different play experiences and expiations.
If its a DM and one or two players then a real detailed back story could work well.
The DM can work his campaign around the players background. But the more players you get the less chance he will get to incorporate EVERYONES background into his campaign. Now you run into problems with the player feeling that their character is not part of the campaign. The other problem is that even if the player stays engaged until the campaign turns his way, now he might just be way too high of a level for the challenge of his backstory and now the DM has to make the challenge just that much harder and subsequently historic.
Does my backstory fit with the rest of the group? Why are we together? Do we know each other from our youth? If there is no real reason for us to be together then our backstories will all take hugely divergent directions. Why are we all together now?
No one has much notable happen to them in any ten year span. No ten year old is going to swear an oath of vengeance. In his impetuous youth he will try to do something about it and thus die long before he even gets to first level. How long would Batman have lived without his billions? And seriously if you take too long in finding vengeance then you are just making a new life without doing it.
I always work my background in with the rest of the group. I try to find a reason we are all adventuring together. The place we are from is not important, I leave it blank. The bad guys I might be working against I leave it blank. Those are things I let the DM fill in. He gets to choose the details so things all fit together in HIS campaign, its not MY campaign.
I always think of my character as just starting their adventuring life. I actually dislike starting a character at anything over 3rd level. My characters are always in their youth, anything from 16 to 22. Anything younger and they still need mommy to feed them and if they are older they are working a normal day job.
Keep your backstory short simple and with a few real details as possible. Then hand it to your DM to detail the way they need. If they want more from you they will ask for it. In one campaign I left my parentage up to the DM. 15 sessions later we worked it out over the phone and I found out something that changed my whole adventuring reason. I had a whole new direction and goal and it fit perfectly with every one in the party. You work on growing a character you like and leave the detailed backgrounds to the DM.
I never write an elaborate backstory, I specifically leave holes in my PC’s backstories for the DM to fill in. That gives me things to discover about my character as the game progresses, it keeps things interesting.
Especially, if you are starting out at level one or other low levels! I try to just have a couple of paragraphs for the backstory. No more than a page, less preferable imo. Nobody is going to read your backstory novel of your level one character! I have seen elaborate backstories that went on for pages and pages, how their character was a soldier, did all these great deeds and events...yet are now a level one sorcerer? You haven't done much, you are level one!
I try to explain who my character is and why they became an adventurer. Usually, the backstory just explains the background i.e. character grew up in the temple of Lathander, but idolized the temple guards and paladins. When he was older, he trained was trained in religion by the temple priests and worked on martial skills with the guards. That explains why my character is both an acolyte and a paladin.
My one character who has really developed started with an ultra-simple backstory, an orphan found in the woods by a Monk from a remote Monastery in the forest. We were an isolated spot, with travelers coming and going from time to time, but without direct, ongoing contact with the surrounding world.
This character entered the campaign with no true friends to speak of and learned about friendship, camaraderie, working as part of a team and more as the adventure progressed. His learned ways of the world and wisdom has helped him experience and adjust his understanding of how things truly are, compared to what he had learned, giving him an open mind and a lot of insight into how things are and or could be. He has become the "Dad" of the group, with the other members coming to him for advice and guidance. I have enjoyed his evolution and to me, that is what makes your character memorable. the DM presents situations you never really expect, then you decide how your character, with their personality, quirks and beliefs handles or faces the situation. Allowing them to develop organically like that, to me, offers the greatest rewards.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Talk to your Players.Talk to your DM. If more people used this advice, there would be 24.74% fewer threads on Tactics, Rules and DM discussions.
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
This is utterly baffling to me
The DM is going to have to come up with all that information anyway -- if the player does it in their backstory, the DM's job gets easier, not harder. The only time that wouldn't be true is for a DM who does literally no prep work at all and just wings it every session
Like, if you were joining my campaign and came up with three pages of royal history and political intrigue for your stolen kingdom, I'd think that was marvelous. I might tell you to change the name of the kingdom and its capital city to match what was on the world map I already had, but otherwise that's a whole lot of stuff that's now off my plate if I ever want to take the campaign in that direction. You've already laid out the major players, possible allies, where things stood when you were exiled, etc. None of that "constrains" me, either -- it's backstory, emphasis on the 'back', so if some details have changed since you were last at home, that's just the way the world works (and it keeps you on your toes as a player). If someone from home reaches out to you, it doesn't have to "be done by certain people, using appropriate methods". It could be by someone you'd never even heard of before, who offers some token to prove their genuineness. Wait, your now-dead royal chancellor had an entire network of spies you knew nothing about, and someone claiming to be their leader has sent you a message via magic asking to meet? Is it for real? Is it a trap? Gosh, sounds like an adventure
I also find it weird that you, as a character/player, wouldn't even know the names of the people that plotted against you and usurped your throne. Like, shouldn't that be integral to your whole concept, the vengeance you have sworn against those who have stolen your birthright? "Hey Bob, who stole your throne again? I dunno, some guy". You not coming up with even those basic details would tell me, as a DM, that none of that was actually all that important to your character, it's just your excuse for being out adventuring with certain skills and abilities, so I wouldn't worry about incorporating any of it into the campaign
Active characters:
Carric Aquissar, elven wannabe artist in his deconstructionist period (Archfey warlock)
Lan Kidogo, mapach archaeologist and treasure hunter (Knowledge cleric)
Mardan Ferres, elven private investigator obsessed with that one unsolved murder (Assassin rogue)
Xhekhetiel, halfling survivor of a Betrayer Gods cult (Runechild sorcerer/fighter)
I said it encourages those outcomes, not that it guarantees them. But they are still prominent pitfalls a DM could accidentally slide into if they're not paying attention.
I just think the more work you have to do for it to make sense for the character to work with the party, the harder it will be to keep the character in the party. Open-ended motivations for adventuring (seeking riches, seeking power, seeking to do good, etc) are more useful to players than specific ones. Especially if this is already a problem for them as it seems to be with OP.
I agree that open-ended motivations are easier than limited ones--and that, based on OP's posting history, that is likely a problem with OP's characters. That is not to say a limited motivation cannot be successful or work with a party--just that it is harder to accomplish and requires a particularly skilled pilot and DM able to work with the limitation to make work.
However, I think it is important to note that open ended motivations and open ended backstories are distinct from one another. You could have a novel of a backstory that is explaining why "My character wants to travel the world and be a hero"; you can have a single sentence backstory that boils down to "My character only wants to get revenge on the person who killed his father and will pursue that at the expense of everything else (including the party)." The former could work fine; the latter could also work fine, but is a lot harder to implement in a fun way.
No, he's not. He comes up with information as needed. The difference is whether he has to conform the world to the story (and everyone else's), or whether he can conform your story to the world.
Nonsense. Somethings work well on the spur of the moment. For example, the part unexpectedly resolves Charlie's arc by ending up in a royal court. Oh, wouldn't that be an excellent place to run into the ambassador from the Exile's kingdom looking for help with some woe that threatening. Shane the DM didn't know that they'd end up there, he might have prepared something. On the other hand, even with prepped work, it gives me a cleaner canvas to work with. I need inspiration, not a novel. I'm meant to be weaving the various backstories together, and that works best when I have flexibility and room to move.
Great...if your world is blank slate, and the backstory fits nicely with that. Not so great if you need to change things. And things always change. If there is a particularly important ally or enemy, then they can be included within that paragraph. Not giving them several paragraphs gives me as DM space to have new developments occur in the PCs absence that the player might not have thought about or allowed for in their backstory.
The point of a backstory is to constrain the DM to a degree. The Exile doesn't end up with a plotline about dragons wanting a bargain paid, they get one about their kingdom needing their help. The question is of degree.
The developments are constrained by the history. If the kingdom exiled him because they hate dragons and he's recently developed dragonskin since hes draconic sorceror, then they're not going to have the plot point of allying themselves with Old Gnawbones. How much detail in a backstory is given is key. Too much, and you tie the hands of the DM. Too little, and there's not a lot of inspiration to work with. However, pages of backstory really constrains how things play out.
Great, if that's the adventure you want to build. On the other hand, if you want a more mundane introduction because for time constraints you want to dive right into the actual story (because there is an overal campaign to run and there are several other players who want their backstories explored too), you're having to work harder. Without the detailed backstory giving a biography.of everyone, both methods are possible. With the detailed backstory,.one becones more burdensome.
That is bizarre. Of course you would mention the biggest players. You don't need three pages to do that. Even other characters...it's really not hard. DM: "You're traveling down the road, and Alex notices a familiar figure heading towards the group. As they get closer, you recognise him as Robert, captain of the guard who sided against you in the coup that overthrew you." It's a lot less effort than having to look it all up in a three page essay.
If you're not willing or able to to discuss in good faith, then don't be surprised if I don't respond, there are better things in life for me to do than humour you. This signature is that response.
I... wow. No. Just flat no
Active characters:
Carric Aquissar, elven wannabe artist in his deconstructionist period (Archfey warlock)
Lan Kidogo, mapach archaeologist and treasure hunter (Knowledge cleric)
Mardan Ferres, elven private investigator obsessed with that one unsolved murder (Assassin rogue)
Xhekhetiel, halfling survivor of a Betrayer Gods cult (Runechild sorcerer/fighter)
Man, y'all have just come up with close to every scenario possible for why OP's struggling. We don't even know what or how or why things are falling apart yet.
As for my piece, I'll just say it's mainly luck. I was lucky I've had a number of characters be in campaigns that ended as intended. I think of all the characters I've made and played in campaigns (around ~20), only 3 have lasted over a year. Why? Because those campaigns actually lasted that long. Other characters, sadly, have seen their campaigns die out due to real life stuff. And that's just life, that's the norm. Understand the norm is for a campaign to fizzle out.
So, learn to enjoy your character in the moment, play it, love it, but accept their existence is all too ephemeral. Kinda like us.
Basic Problem 1: How does a back story influence and relate to the PC and the math and or rules of the game? If your PC fights off a wild dog trying to attack you baby sister does that mean you suddenly gain the fighter class? Or if you are in a backstreet brawl and pick up a short sword and look to attack someone in the back and aim for a weak point, does than mean you gain the rogue class? Or if I live on a farm and look after, fields, animals as well as hunt, does that mean I get the skills animal handling, nature, stealth and survival?
In general each game system deals with this issue differently or in fact does not deal with it at all.
Basic Problem 2: Players creating detailed backstories that do not fit or are tough fits for the GM's game world and or adventure.
Basic Problem 3: Players often expect "things" based on their backstory that the GM may or may not agree with or are of relevance to the game.
Basic Problem 4: Often GM's used a players backstory to generate "Woe". As an GM I have does this in the past and I expect that I will do so in the future but IMHO how and why it is done is very important. If it is simply a case to "mess" with the players every game then players will learn to not have anything the GM can use against them.
Basic Problem 5: What type of RPG game are you playing in and or running? If you are playing in a "Theater of the Mind" everything id drama vs "War Game" everything is abstract those are vastly different play experiences and expiations.
If its a DM and one or two players then a real detailed back story could work well.
The DM can work his campaign around the players background. But the more players you get the less chance he will get to incorporate EVERYONES background into his campaign. Now you run into problems with the player feeling that their character is not part of the campaign. The other problem is that even if the player stays engaged until the campaign turns his way, now he might just be way too high of a level for the challenge of his backstory and now the DM has to make the challenge just that much harder and subsequently historic.
Does my backstory fit with the rest of the group? Why are we together? Do we know each other from our youth? If there is no real reason for us to be together then our backstories will all take hugely divergent directions. Why are we all together now?
No one has much notable happen to them in any ten year span. No ten year old is going to swear an oath of vengeance. In his impetuous youth he will try to do something about it and thus die long before he even gets to first level. How long would Batman have lived without his billions? And seriously if you take too long in finding vengeance then you are just making a new life without doing it.
I always work my background in with the rest of the group. I try to find a reason we are all adventuring together. The place we are from is not important, I leave it blank. The bad guys I might be working against I leave it blank. Those are things I let the DM fill in. He gets to choose the details so things all fit together in HIS campaign, its not MY campaign.
I always think of my character as just starting their adventuring life. I actually dislike starting a character at anything over 3rd level. My characters are always in their youth, anything from 16 to 22. Anything younger and they still need mommy to feed them and if they are older they are working a normal day job.
Keep your backstory short simple and with a few real details as possible. Then hand it to your DM to detail the way they need. If they want more from you they will ask for it. In one campaign I left my parentage up to the DM. 15 sessions later we worked it out over the phone and I found out something that changed my whole adventuring reason. I had a whole new direction and goal and it fit perfectly with every one in the party. You work on growing a character you like and leave the detailed backgrounds to the DM.
Don't start as Batman but work to become Batman.
Especially, if you are starting out at level one or other low levels! I try to just have a couple of paragraphs for the backstory. No more than a page, less preferable imo. Nobody is going to read your backstory novel of your level one character! I have seen elaborate backstories that went on for pages and pages, how their character was a soldier, did all these great deeds and events...yet are now a level one sorcerer? You haven't done much, you are level one!
I try to explain who my character is and why they became an adventurer. Usually, the backstory just explains the background i.e. character grew up in the temple of Lathander, but idolized the temple guards and paladins. When he was older, he trained was trained in religion by the temple priests and worked on martial skills with the guards. That explains why my character is both an acolyte and a paladin.
My one character who has really developed started with an ultra-simple backstory, an orphan found in the woods by a Monk from a remote Monastery in the forest. We were an isolated spot, with travelers coming and going from time to time, but without direct, ongoing contact with the surrounding world.
This character entered the campaign with no true friends to speak of and learned about friendship, camaraderie, working as part of a team and more as the adventure progressed. His learned ways of the world and wisdom has helped him experience and adjust his understanding of how things truly are, compared to what he had learned, giving him an open mind and a lot of insight into how things are and or could be. He has become the "Dad" of the group, with the other members coming to him for advice and guidance. I have enjoyed his evolution and to me, that is what makes your character memorable. the DM presents situations you never really expect, then you decide how your character, with their personality, quirks and beliefs handles or faces the situation. Allowing them to develop organically like that, to me, offers the greatest rewards.
Talk to your Players. Talk to your DM. If more people used this advice, there would be 24.74% fewer threads on Tactics, Rules and DM discussions.