This is why this debate about "how it was done in the old school days vs. new school" is also kind of a generalization at absolute best because old school D&D also had its various sub-cultures and methods, as well as eras of play (big difference between 70', 80's, 90's for example).
Without the internet, there was much less of a continuity of practice in the old days. Many groups played in complete isolation, and connections among groups were often loose at best. Even when I was in college, there must have been groups there outside of the one I was in, but I have no idea who they were and how they played.
Even with the various forms of the internet, I think you'd find that most playgroups are more self-contained than you think.
There is no denying though that the most prevalent and most widely accepted way the game is played today is with a square focus on character-centric narrative play. It's so established that if you walk into a 5e group and you tell them "I don't want to write a backstory", chances are that you won't be allowed into the game and/or the DM for that game is going to be complaining about it on these forums. Like, writing a detailed backstory for your character is non-negotiable at most tables, its the main part of creating a character.
Yeah, I don't think this is a very likely scenario. Any group that you can walk into, as opposed to the more common playing with people you know, seems like they'd be used to pick-up play and its lowered character investment.
And demanding a "detailed backstory" is something that I doubt happens anywhere. I personally think that usually, characters should have:
A reason why they're doing this
A connection to at least some of the rest of the group
Because those two things help avoid some of the major failure modes of play.
But I haven't yet insisted on it, and it's a far cry from a detailed backstory.
This is why this debate about "how it was done in the old school days vs. new school" is also kind of a generalization at absolute best because old school D&D also had its various sub-cultures and methods, as well as eras of play (big difference between 70', 80's, 90's for example).
Without the internet, there was much less of a continuity of practice in the old days. Many groups played in complete isolation, and connections among groups were often loose at best. Even when I was in college, there must have been groups there outside of the one I was in, but I have no idea who they were and how they played.
Even with the various forms of the internet, I think you'd find that most playgroups are more self-contained than you think.
There is no denying though that the most prevalent and most widely accepted way the game is played today is with a square focus on character-centric narrative play. It's so established that if you walk into a 5e group and you tell them "I don't want to write a backstory", chances are that you won't be allowed into the game and/or the DM for that game is going to be complaining about it on these forums. Like, writing a detailed backstory for your character is non-negotiable at most tables, its the main part of creating a character.
Yeah, I don't think this is a very likely scenario. Any group that you can walk into, as opposed to the more common playing with people you know, seems like they'd be used to pick-up play and its lowered character investment.
And demanding a "detailed backstory" is something that I doubt happens anywhere. I personally think that usually, characters should have:
A reason why they're doing this
A connection to at least some of the rest of the group
Because those two things help avoid some of the major failure modes of play.
But I haven't yet insisted on it, and it's a far cry from a detailed backstory.
Interesting observation, I would be curious where the community lands on that topic. I made a poll, lets see if we can find out
Only a DM since 1980 (3000+ Sessions) / PhD, MS, MA / Mixed, Bi, Trans, Woman / No longer welcome in the US, apparently
Wyrlde: Adventures in the Seven Cities .-=] Lore Book | Patreon | Wyrlde YT [=-. An original Setting for 5e, a whole solar system of adventure. Ongoing updates, exclusies, more. Not Talking About It / Dubbed The Oracle in the Cult of Mythology Nerds
A modern player will create a 3 page background on all the events of their character's life up to that point, they produce detailed accounts of things they were involved in as well as plot hooks for the DM to use based on those backstories and their is a clear expectation that the DM will take those backstories and infuse it into their setting and into their campaign plots to ensure that character has a pre-ordained purpose in the game. Its even common for players to list magical items they wish to find along their adventures, create NPC's, even entire towns sometimes even entirely new classes, races and cultures to support their characters' backstories.
That sort of thing never existed in old-school D&D and even today the OSR is adamantly opposed to any such concept. This type of approach is just a hard no from old-school gaming. If you don't believe me, pop over to Dragonfoot Forums and suggest it, see what kind of response you get.
I just covered my current set up for creating characters elsewhere, but some notes.
In 1981, I had a 125 question character building packet. That packet expanded over time.
That was a standard for us in my home game.
In the Open Game, I couldn't ask that -- it was played in a public space under the proviso of no turning folks away. I could turn their character's away, but it was rare. Those PCs always had histories and backstories and they usually wanted me to work in things into the dungeon (because it was a dungeon crawl) and I would if if they stayed long enough (shoot yor monks, they say). That was 80 to 83/84.
So it did exist -- it just wasn't formalized. I recall Dragon Magazine articles about doing it -- it's why we had that stuff.
And I wasn't the only one doing it. Might not have been common among all the possible groups, but it was pretty standard to have a background and all that as part of your character everywhere I did encounter, including conventions. Kuntz might not have cared, but Zeb Cook had a liking for it.
I do believe you that the OSR community doesn't see it that way, though. It *was* the 80's and I was not the most common kind then by a long shot. And the OSR community has a very twisted view of that era, heavily colored not just by nostalgia, but by their own collective experience -- and I note I am not the sort that fits into any of the big leadership sorts of demographics for that community.
My experience, as a member of my demographics at the time, was significantly different from theirs. I strongly doubt a majority of them ever got told they couldn't play in a game because of their race, gender, sexual orientation, politics, or demo factor other than age. Which happened a LOT.
Whereas I and most of the folks I still play with today, all did experience that, and frequently -- something that makes the whole pride of my having run that open game a big deal for me.
So when they say "it wasn't like that", what they are saying is that for a certain set and group of people -- who absolutely were the norm in terms of playing the game -- it wasn't that way, and then they generalize it out to everyone.
Which is where they run into me and why I will look them in the eye every time and call them full of shit and ******* ********.
So it did exist in old school D&D -- not the revival of it, but the reality of it. But, again, it wasn't as formalized as it is today -- we didn't have a "background" to choose. That had to wait until 2e AD&D -- and I don't know if they ever managed to get it into the BECMI set, that's more your side of things. But we still had those things.
Only a DM since 1980 (3000+ Sessions) / PhD, MS, MA / Mixed, Bi, Trans, Woman / No longer welcome in the US, apparently
Wyrlde: Adventures in the Seven Cities .-=] Lore Book | Patreon | Wyrlde YT [=-. An original Setting for 5e, a whole solar system of adventure. Ongoing updates, exclusies, more. Not Talking About It / Dubbed The Oracle in the Cult of Mythology Nerds
A modern player will create a 3 page background on all the events of their character's life up to that point, they produce detailed accounts of things they were involved in as well as plot hooks for the DM to use based on those backstories and their is a clear expectation that the DM will take those backstories and infuse it into their setting and into their campaign plots to ensure that character has a pre-ordained purpose in the game. Its even common for players to list magical items they wish to find along their adventures, create NPC's, even entire towns sometimes even entirely new classes, races and cultures to support their characters' backstories.
That sort of thing never existed in old-school D&D and even today the OSR is adamantly opposed to any such concept. This type of approach is just a hard no from old-school gaming. If you don't believe me, pop over to Dragonfoot Forums and suggest it, see what kind of response you get.
Yep. When I decided to look into 5e, I was befuddled as to why so much emphasis was put on backgrounds. Even watching some of the campaign videos on Youtube, the DM's seemed to get some kind of gratification from how robust the players spoke of their background.
Hey. I am a fighter and an Army Veteran. When I get to 9th level Lord, attract followers and build a stronghold, then maybe my background is worth writing about.
So it did exist in old school D&D -- not the revival of it, but the reality of it. But, again, it wasn't as formalized as it is today -- we didn't have a "background" to choose. That had to wait until 2e AD&D -- and I don't know if they ever managed to get it into the BECMI set, that's more your side of things. But we still had those things
Oh, I don't doubt that people wrote backgrounds back in the day, but there was a kind of natural built-in discouragement in the game, especially in BECMI. 1st level characters were basically irrelevant minions, they were never more than a hit away from death, and dying on your first adventure had a pretty high probability. A typical 1e BECMI character would have on average 3-5 hit points, meanwhile, even the weakest monsters were dealing 1d6 to 1d8 damage. BECMI encouraged writing up a short personality and some brief notes on the characters history, but spending a lot of time writing for a character was not worth the effort as the risk of death early on was exceedingly high. If people were writing elaborate backgrounds for 1st level characters, man, they probably spent a lot of time writing backgrounds cause... yeah... death was ..... likely.
With BECMI the game kind of leveled out pretty fast. By the time you were 4th-5th level, an adventuring party made up of 4-5 characters would have an additional 4-5 followers, they would likely have good gear, a few magic items, some wealth and generally be a lot more prepared and harder to kill.
So really the principle of the game was that those first couple of adventures, that was really the act of writing your character's backstory.
In 5e terms, if you go outside of the culture, it kind of works the same way. At 1st level, you "choose a background" and this is kind of a default built-in history for our character and maybe you jot down some notes about their personality. But realistically a 5e character's first adventure or two are going to define them, that's their real backstory and its quite nice that its at that point, when you reach 3rd level when your character's and party's strength comes together you choose your sub-class.
It's under this guiding principle that I published The Book of Backgrounds on the DM Guild. Basically, if you just take the "background concept" in 5e and elaborate on it a bit, give it a bit more flavor, and make it a bit more specific, create some background-specific feats, you can eliminate the need to write a lot of stuff before you play and still have a really well-defined character concept.
Without the internet, there was much less of a continuity of practice in the old days. Many groups played in complete isolation, and connections among groups were often loose at best. Even when I was in college, there must have been groups there outside of the one I was in, but I have no idea who they were and how they played.
Even with the various forms of the internet, I think you'd find that most playgroups are more self-contained than you think.
Yeah, I don't think this is a very likely scenario. Any group that you can walk into, as opposed to the more common playing with people you know, seems like they'd be used to pick-up play and its lowered character investment.
And demanding a "detailed backstory" is something that I doubt happens anywhere. I personally think that usually, characters should have:
Because those two things help avoid some of the major failure modes of play.
But I haven't yet insisted on it, and it's a far cry from a detailed backstory.
Interesting observation, I would be curious where the community lands on that topic. I made a poll, lets see if we can find out
https://www.dndbeyond.com/forums/d-d-beyond-general/general-discussion/209631-how-important-are-written-background-stories-in
I'd note that that poll isn't asking about a detailed backstory. A backstory can be as little as a few sentences.
Only a few sentences?!?! Are you crazy?
No way...
Only a DM since 1980 (3000+ Sessions) / PhD, MS, MA / Mixed, Bi, Trans, Woman / No longer welcome in the US, apparently
Wyrlde: Adventures in the Seven Cities
.-=] Lore Book | Patreon | Wyrlde YT [=-.
An original Setting for 5e, a whole solar system of adventure. Ongoing updates, exclusies, more.
Not Talking About It / Dubbed The Oracle in the Cult of Mythology Nerds
I just covered my current set up for creating characters elsewhere, but some notes.
In 1981, I had a 125 question character building packet. That packet expanded over time.
That was a standard for us in my home game.
In the Open Game, I couldn't ask that -- it was played in a public space under the proviso of no turning folks away. I could turn their character's away, but it was rare. Those PCs always had histories and backstories and they usually wanted me to work in things into the dungeon (because it was a dungeon crawl) and I would if if they stayed long enough (shoot yor monks, they say). That was 80 to 83/84.
So it did exist -- it just wasn't formalized. I recall Dragon Magazine articles about doing it -- it's why we had that stuff.
And I wasn't the only one doing it. Might not have been common among all the possible groups, but it was pretty standard to have a background and all that as part of your character everywhere I did encounter, including conventions. Kuntz might not have cared, but Zeb Cook had a liking for it.
I do believe you that the OSR community doesn't see it that way, though. It *was* the 80's and I was not the most common kind then by a long shot. And the OSR community has a very twisted view of that era, heavily colored not just by nostalgia, but by their own collective experience -- and I note I am not the sort that fits into any of the big leadership sorts of demographics for that community.
My experience, as a member of my demographics at the time, was significantly different from theirs. I strongly doubt a majority of them ever got told they couldn't play in a game because of their race, gender, sexual orientation, politics, or demo factor other than age. Which happened a LOT.
Whereas I and most of the folks I still play with today, all did experience that, and frequently -- something that makes the whole pride of my having run that open game a big deal for me.
So when they say "it wasn't like that", what they are saying is that for a certain set and group of people -- who absolutely were the norm in terms of playing the game -- it wasn't that way, and then they generalize it out to everyone.
Which is where they run into me and why I will look them in the eye every time and call them full of shit and ******* ********.
So it did exist in old school D&D -- not the revival of it, but the reality of it. But, again, it wasn't as formalized as it is today -- we didn't have a "background" to choose. That had to wait until 2e AD&D -- and I don't know if they ever managed to get it into the BECMI set, that's more your side of things. But we still had those things.
They didn't just fall into the game from nowhere.
Only a DM since 1980 (3000+ Sessions) / PhD, MS, MA / Mixed, Bi, Trans, Woman / No longer welcome in the US, apparently
Wyrlde: Adventures in the Seven Cities
.-=] Lore Book | Patreon | Wyrlde YT [=-.
An original Setting for 5e, a whole solar system of adventure. Ongoing updates, exclusies, more.
Not Talking About It / Dubbed The Oracle in the Cult of Mythology Nerds
Yep. When I decided to look into 5e, I was befuddled as to why so much emphasis was put on backgrounds. Even watching some of the campaign videos on Youtube, the DM's seemed to get some kind of gratification from how robust the players spoke of their background.
Hey. I am a fighter and an Army Veteran. When I get to 9th level Lord, attract followers and build a stronghold, then maybe my background is worth writing about.
Oh, I don't doubt that people wrote backgrounds back in the day, but there was a kind of natural built-in discouragement in the game, especially in BECMI. 1st level characters were basically irrelevant minions, they were never more than a hit away from death, and dying on your first adventure had a pretty high probability. A typical 1e BECMI character would have on average 3-5 hit points, meanwhile, even the weakest monsters were dealing 1d6 to 1d8 damage. BECMI encouraged writing up a short personality and some brief notes on the characters history, but spending a lot of time writing for a character was not worth the effort as the risk of death early on was exceedingly high. If people were writing elaborate backgrounds for 1st level characters, man, they probably spent a lot of time writing backgrounds cause... yeah... death was ..... likely.
With BECMI the game kind of leveled out pretty fast. By the time you were 4th-5th level, an adventuring party made up of 4-5 characters would have an additional 4-5 followers, they would likely have good gear, a few magic items, some wealth and generally be a lot more prepared and harder to kill.
So really the principle of the game was that those first couple of adventures, that was really the act of writing your character's backstory.
In 5e terms, if you go outside of the culture, it kind of works the same way. At 1st level, you "choose a background" and this is kind of a default built-in history for our character and maybe you jot down some notes about their personality. But realistically a 5e character's first adventure or two are going to define them, that's their real backstory and its quite nice that its at that point, when you reach 3rd level when your character's and party's strength comes together you choose your sub-class.
It's under this guiding principle that I published The Book of Backgrounds on the DM Guild. Basically, if you just take the "background concept" in 5e and elaborate on it a bit, give it a bit more flavor, and make it a bit more specific, create some background-specific feats, you can eliminate the need to write a lot of stuff before you play and still have a really well-defined character concept.