So I am playing an eldritch knight fighter in a campaign and part of his backstory is that his family and village were murdered by a group of rogue air genasi pirates, this happened 2 years prior in game to the campaign starting where we did session 1.
I had asked my DM that if my character came across one or some air genasi would he be able to recognize them if a roll was made.
I agree with them on them saying it will be a straight INT roll but then said if it HAD to be any other type of dice roll it would be INSIGHT. Which doesn't make any sense to me because insight is all about body language, deception and lies.
Hopefully some veteran DMs can clear this up for me as I don't know what to do.
Personally, I think that if you’ve seen a creature before there will either be a very low DC or no check to determine what it is. This usually depends on how long it has been since you’ve seen the creature in question, but when it comes to humanoids, especially playable races, I think I would rule that no check is required. Adding in the fact that you have close experience with them and it is relatively recent that this event happened, I’d say you shouldn’t need a roll. At the very least you should be able to know if someone is a genasi, and genasi themselves are usually pretty easy to tell apart. When literal elements are part of your body it’s a clear sign that you are a genasi… The int roll would make sense if you absolutely must, but it should be a low DC, probably 5. Even an Intelligence (History) check might make sense, as you’d be trying to remember what air genasi look like to compare them to a creature you’re seeing. Insight could make sense, as it is about detecting things, but Perception would make much more sense if your GM wants to go for a wis check.
It's probably arcana . In my opinion insight is about more personal information.
Arcana
Your Intelligence (Arcana) check measures your ability to recall lore about spells, magic items, eldritch symbols, magical traditions, the planes of existence, and the inhabitants of those planes
Air Genasi are inhabitants of the plane of air or their decedents and so checks about them can be treated like they were magical elementals. If you were to see a genasi what you would see is something looking like a human or another race but with some elemental magical phenomenon like burning hair etc.. so it makes sense to try to identify it as magic.
If your DM says it's an insight check then you roll the insight check. When you're DMing you get to decide what the roll is supposed to be.
I'm not sure exactly what you're trying to determine with the roll. Are you trying to identify them by their race? I'd probably go with a medicine check. They're humanoids.
To see if you recognize them as being part of the pirate crew? Personally I might go with a History check to see if you remembered correctly. Or a Perception check to see if you got a good look at them.
If your DM says it's an insight check then you roll the insight check. When you're DMing you get to decide what the roll is supposed to be.
I'm not sure exactly what you're trying to determine with the roll. Are you trying to identify them by their race? I'd probably go with a medicine check. They're humanoids.
To see if you recognize them as being part of the pirate crew? Personally I might go with a History check to see if you remembered correctly. Or a Perception check to see if you got a good look at them.
Strictly speaking, as this is a narrative component, part of a character's back story that is based on a character's traumatic and dramatic arch, there shouldn't be any roll. When you see your family's killers, you would know.
Rolls are made when there is uncertainty about the outcome of something, and the potential consequences of such an outcome not every time something happens or you try to do something/anything.
I mean what is the plan here? You roll, fail, and then never experience your character's primary story arch? What would have been the point of exposing you to your family's killer if not to trigger a part of your character's personal plot/arch?
I think the golden rule for any good DM is understanding that there is a time to roll dice and its almost never.
Air genasi have a very distinct appearance. I wouldn't make anyone roll to recognize an air genasi after they seen mnamy of them. That said, if i were to, i'd call for Intelligence (Nature, History or Arcana) check with advantage most likely against an easy DC.
Air genasi typically have light blue skin, hair, and eyes. A faint but constant breeze accompanies them, tousling the hair and stirring the clothing. Some air genasi speak with breathy voices, marked by a faint echo. A few display odd patterns in their flesh or grow crystals from their scalps.
As a reminder to everyone, the “my whole family was murdered” background trope is generally a terrible one, because it gives your DM nothing to work with. Everyone you know is already dead, and all it amounts to is a tired old revenge story. If you leave your character’s family alive however, suddenly you have NPCs relevant to your background to interact with. Suddenly things get significantly more interesting and less predictable.
As a reminder to everyone, the “my whole family was murdered” background trope is generally a terrible one, because it gives your DM nothing to work with. Everyone you know is already dead, and all it amounts to is a tired old revenge story. If you leave your character’s family alive however, suddenly you have NPCs relevant to your background to interact with. Suddenly things get significantly more interesting and less predictable.
Okay sure, but D&D narratives are practically glued together by clichés as is, and a simple backstory like that is not only easy to integrate into the campaign as not only a small and simple to wrap-up side quest, but also could even be given larger significance within the main questline like the Genasi Pirates being major antagonists further motivating the party to pursue it. Sure it's not the world's most creative background, but it's an objectively easy one to work with. Plus if a DM really doesn't want to work with a character's backstory, they could discuss this with the player and find a compromise. That's sort of the DM's job.
If your DM says it's an insight check then you roll the insight check. When you're DMing you get to decide what the roll is supposed to be.
I'm not sure exactly what you're trying to determine with the roll. Are you trying to identify them by their race? I'd probably go with a medicine check. They're humanoids.
To see if you recognize them as being part of the pirate crew? Personally I might go with a History check to see if you remembered correctly. Or a Perception check to see if you got a good look at them.
Strictly speaking, as this is a narrative component, part of a character's back story that is based on a character's traumatic and dramatic arch, there shouldn't be any roll. When you see your family's killers, you would know.
Rolls are made when there is uncertainty about the outcome of something, and the potential consequences of such an outcome not every time something happens or you try to do something/anything.
I mean what is the plan here? You roll, fail, and then never experience your character's primary story arch? What would have been the point of exposing you to your family's killer if not to trigger a part of your character's personal plot/arch?
I think the golden rule for any good DM is understanding that there is a time to roll dice and its almost never.
Couldn't agree more! If there's possibility of story progress being hindered by forcing players to make pointless rolls, just don't. It's okay to just let your players have things sometimes.
I have never been a huge fan of character backgrounds, for the very reason mentioned above. Usually, no offense to anyone, people are just crap writers and character backgrounds are generally just terrible, cliched nonsense, I don't want to read let alone integrate into the campaign. I mean every once in a while a player will surprise me, but trust me people 99% are absolute trash writers and should just stop. It's a skill, you have either learned it or you haven't, don't make DM have to read your nonsense when you know you can't write for shit.
Besides, I'm off the mind that new characters entering a campaign at 1st level, should be basically no one important. Like, that is the point of the campaign, this is what D&D is all about, aka... to find out who you are. That is D&D gameplay, aka, a dynamic generation of the story of a character.
Writing a backstory is basically the act of undermining the game before it starts.
I think the golden rule for any good DM is understanding that there is a time to roll dice and its almost never.
Then you probably don't want to be playing a TTRPG. You should probably just be doing a collaborative writing of a novel or screenplay. What happens when combat begins and a player character dies because the NPCs roll nat 20s and the player rolls nat 1s? Was that the plan? No! So do away with dice completely! "You see a lone orc guarding a chest. You draw your sword and with a flourish drive the blade deep into his heart! You are the champion."
Without the risk of failure there is no joy in success. If you want there to be a "golden rule for DMing" then that should be it.
So you "mean what is the plan here?" Think about it. The player asked to roll to identify them. If the plan was that these air genasi were obviously part of the pirate crew then the DM would have said that as part of the description. The DM apparently didn't do that. The player asked to make a roll. As the DM it's your job to determine what the roll is supposed to be and then decide the outcome based on that roll. That's why there's dice.
When you take the "almost never" approach to rolls, then when you finally do make the players roll and they roll low, they know they've missed something.
I have never been a huge fan of character backgrounds, for the very reason mentioned above. Usually, no offense to anyone, people are just crap writers and character backgrounds are generally just terrible, cliched nonsense, I don't want to read let alone integrate into the campaign. I mean every once in a while a player will surprise me, but trust me people 99% are absolute trash writers and should just stop. It's a skill, you have either learned it or you haven't, don't make DM have to read your nonsense when you know you can't write for shit.
Besides, I'm off the mind that new characters entering a campaign at 1st level, should be basically no one important. Like, that is the point of the campaign, this is what D&D is all about, aka... to find out who you are. That is D&D gameplay, aka, a dynamic generation of the story of a character.
Writing a backstory is basically the act of undermining the game before it starts.
The main purposes of character backstory are:
Give an explanation as to why you are doing this, as opposed to anything sensible
Signal to the GM that there are certain plot elements/themes that you're going to bite on
Introduce elements to the game world
Integrate the PCs, helping the party cohere
Aside from #1, they're all optional, but they're all useful to the act of collaborative storytelling.
And yeah, most people don't write well, but that's not important. Most people aren't going to try to write a story; they'll give you something like "a six-fingered man killed my father in front of me, and I'm going to become a great swordfighter and kill him".
And sometimes people are going to get carried away, and you'll have to ask for the quick summary, or ask them to rethink it because that's way too much for a first level character.
But it is collaborative storytelling. The players are not here just to receive story from the GM.
Give an explanation as to why you are doing this, as opposed to anything sensible
Signal to the GM that there are certain plot elements/themes that you're going to bite on
Introduce elements to the game world
Integrate the PCs, helping the party cohere
Aside from #1, they're all optional, but they're all useful to the act of collaborative storytelling.
And yeah, most people don't write well, but that's not important. Most people aren't going to try to write a story; they'll give you something like "a six-fingered man killed my father in front of me, and I'm going to become a great swordfighter and kill him".
And sometimes people are going to get carried away, and you'll have to ask for the quick summary, or ask them to rethink it because that's way too much for a first level character.
But it is collaborative storytelling. The players are not here just to receive story from the GM.
I gave a lot of thought to how I might articulate a response here, because, I don't think I disagree with you, in fact, I don't think you disagree with me either, I think we just see two alternative method of achieving the same thing. This may boil down to a style thing.
The reason I don't think backgrounds should be written are threefold.
First "the campaign" is not designed for your character, its designed for all characters to exist within, it can neither be successful or failed, it is a mileu, an ongoing story that continues with or without your character, regardless of what transpires. Campaigns only end when players stop playing. In a sense the campaign is the world, the setting, and the collective people and monsters in it all with their own ambitions, desires and plots, it is not "the story". The story of the game is driven by the ambitions, choices and the result of the success and failures in those pursuits by the players driving their avatars (PC's). It cannot be a pre-ordained thing, as this would defeat the point of the game. If a player gives "meta" information, hidden behind adjectives in the characters backstory as a set of instructions to the DM of what they wish to achieve, to which the DM designs a destinty that will ultimatetly lead them to their desires, the game is effectively fixed and becomes an excercise of players walking through a story already written. Would you want to participate in a game where the DM has already decided how events will unfold and how your characters story arch will unfold regardless of any decisions you make because he feels obligated to meet the desires defined in your background? I'm quite certain you don't, I can't imagine why anyone would want to play in such a game.
I will concede that jotting a few words about a characters personality, morality or perhaps some mention of family and friends is ok, but those things can easily be portrayed and invented in the course of play and frankly, if you enjoy the drama and theatre of role-playing, its far more entertaining for everyone to discover these things about your character in the course of play than it is for them to read about it before the game begins, this is true for all the players, including the DM.
The second thing is that I don't believe you mean collaborative storytelling, I think you mean emergent stories. Collaborative storytelling suggests that everyone around the table tells a story about events written ahead of time. This is not how D&D actually works, there are no scripts and no one, not even the DM has control over the story. The story emerges from the outcomes of the game, meaning that every choice you make, every success or failure you have, every point in the game is a unpredictable crossroad and what will actually transpire is not in anyone's control, not even the DM's. To try to control, manipulate or force outcomes, or allow anyone at the table to dictate what the story should be, is oppossed by the fact that much of the game is decided by die rolls and players making decisions with limited information most of the time. A character may get struck down and killed by a Goblins arrow in the first combat they engage in, or they may rise to become the ruler of the land, or anything in-between. Emergent storytelling, the act of discovering what happens, discovering what the story becomes, is how D&D stories are written, their is no collaborative storytelling taking place, no one is collaborating to write a script for the events of the game. To allow backgrounds to pre-ordain the outcome or place expectations on emergent stories, I think kind of misses the point of the participating in something that is meant to take on a life of its own.
The third thing is that backgrounds have a finality to them, they create intention and players become bound by what they have written leading to the always unfun "Its what my character would do". D&D avatars aren't their own entities, your not an actor studying your subject so that you can mimic and predict how they would behave to get it "right". They are avatars in a game, in which you steer them to succeed. What your character "would do" is what ever you decide they "will do". D&D is a role-playing experience but it is also a game, you don't fight along side your adventuring party because your character and their character are friends, you do it because the people sitting across from you are on your team, and you are trying to succeed together in comradere over the challenges the DM has placed against you. Can you and your friends complete your ambitions together. That is what the game is about and "in character" you design justifications to ensure that happens.
I guess the point I'm making is that subtle demands, desires or ambitions hidden into your background to try to manipulate the DM to make the campaign about you, is really not in the spirit of the game. The game is about the players ambitions for their character, but its up to the player and presumably his comrades in arms to seek out and achieve those ambitions through play on their own. You might succeed, or you might fail, you might even die, but the attempt is what the game is about, its certainly not about the DM ensuring that you succeed. In fact, quite to the contrary, for all intense and purposes, the DM, though judiciously and fairly, acts as the antagonist trying to stop you from succeeding. Telling them your plans, is a terrible idea.
As a reminder to everyone, the “my whole family was murdered” background trope is generally a terrible one, because it gives your DM nothing to work with. Everyone you know is already dead, and all it amounts to is a tired old revenge story. If you leave your character’s family alive however, suddenly you have NPCs relevant to your background to interact with. Suddenly things get significantly more interesting and less predictable.
You really just need to leave open questions. At least if you keep the death some what ambiguous you can have one pop up as secretly not dead or return as a haunting ghost with important information or something, but if you resolve it completely like "My wife and child were murdered and I personally buried them then avenged them by killing the thug that did it" that's really a story that happened as opposed to something on going. I always advise that you be ambiguous and open ended, do something like " there was a raid on my village and I never saw them again". That leaves open questions like who raided the village and what happened to them.
Same, I've been playing 40 years this year and have recently changed to 5e (3 years ago). A first level character is meant to be some dude who suddenly decided they want to adventure as a particular class. Some of the background suggested would make your character some high level solider or similar that should have excessive HP, AC and other skills which wouldn't be appropriate in a 1st level what ever. A 1st level character is like farmer, who suddenly decides, bugger it, I want to be a fighter, and learns along the way.
Same, I've been playing 40 years this year and have recently changed to 5e (3 years ago). A first level character is meant to be some dude who suddenly decided they want to adventure as a particular class. Some of the background suggested would make your character some high level solider or similar that should have excessive HP, AC and other skills which wouldn't be appropriate in a 1st level what ever. A 1st level character is like farmer, who suddenly decides, bugger it, I want to be a fighter, and learns along the way.
I think that perspective is missing some of the point of backgrounds.
Consider the Soldier background. Soldiers work as town guards, they work as caravan guards, they might be in the army and fight battles. Almost every fantasy world has lots of soldiers BUT these soldiers are NOT fighters, barbarians, or paladins. A holy soldier fighting for a church is not a paladin. A Soldier that decides to pursue extra training, gains the ambition to improve themselves, or is "gifted" beyond average, can become something more than just a soldier.
This all depends on how the DM decides to build their world but unless everyone else is either part of a PC class or just sits around doing nothing then a lot of the roles in the society and a lot of people with a lot of experience have done a great deal before doing things that will result in that character earning class levels and being a PC. In addition, the entire class system in 5e is designed specifically for PCs. Some DMs, including myself, might have NPCs that are a member of a class with class levels but the game is designed around NPCs being differently implemented and it is up to the DM to figure out what the difference in their world might be between a Veteran NPC or Thug NPC and a fighter PC of a specific level.
So, personally, I don't have many issues with a PC having some extensive experiences in various areas. However, from a DM perspective, I also make it clear to the player that whatever they may have done in the past, their character is described by the abilities of their class and level.
Background stories add justifications and reasons for some of the basic features of the character ... they don't impose anything on the DM ... however, if there is a part of a back story that a DM doesn't think fits in their world for whatever reason then the DM can have the player modify it during session 0 and character creation. So, I really don't see backgrounds being an issue and if it helps someone to get a better idea of their character and role play them then it is generally a positive contribution.
Same, I've been playing 40 years this year and have recently changed to 5e (3 years ago). A first level character is meant to be some dude who suddenly decided they want to adventure as a particular class. Some of the background suggested would make your character some high level solider or similar that should have excessive HP, AC and other skills which wouldn't be appropriate in a 1st level what ever. A 1st level character is like farmer, who suddenly decides, bugger it, I want to be a fighter, and learns along the way.
It's one of the harder things for us old-school guys to wrap our heads around, but 1st level characters haven't existed in the game as we knew them in 1e and 2e, since 2e. Essentially when 3e came out, 1st level are 3rd level which has kind of carried over to 4e and now 5e. Essentially 1st level characters in 5e are 3rd level characters by comparison to 1e.
The premise of the farmer who picks up the mantle of adventurer doesn't exist in modern D&D, a 1st level character in modern D&D is an established adventurer with professional training and past experience.
Background stories add justifications and reasons for some of the basic features of the character ... they don't impose anything on the DM ... however, if there is a part of a back story that a DM doesn't think fits in their world for whatever reason then the DM can have the player modify it during session 0 and character creation. So, I really don't see backgrounds being an issue and if it helps someone to get a better idea of their character and role play them then it is generally a positive contribution.
I agreed with everything you said except this last part, though I wish it were true. Players are pretty presumptuous in backgrounds and any mention of something not fitting into the campaign, being out of character for the setting, or a level of narrative experience personal or otherwise is met with immediate conflict. Players do not want to hear "no" on background writing, for them it is a license to infuse the setting/campaign/adventure with their own creation, in fact, this approach is encouraged by the player base and DM's are discouraged from rejecting backgrounds that don't fit their game. In fact, calling it "your game" is discouraged as a whole, the DM is no longer the master and arbitrator of the campaign in modern D&D culture, he is a participant and member of a "collaborative storytelling" venture, seen at best, as an equal to any player.
So I disagree, by allowing backgrounds to be written, you invite instruction and create expectation. It's almost a kind of social contract that says "my character is this and that and will pursue this and that" and it is your responsibility as a DM to see that this comes to fruition or you are a bad DM.
Like I don't oppose traditional backgrounds, traditional being, as they were once written.
For example
"I'm a soldier from Greyhawk, having served in the military for 5 years. I'm married but have no children. I come from poor conditions and entered into the profession as a mercernary out of necessity".
This sort of background Im fine with, its vague and really doesn't require my attention, its a background written more for the player than for me as a DM.
What I don't want to see is.
"i'm a soldier from Greyhakw, having served in the military for 5 years. I was promoted to the rank of Captain and have a lot of clout in the military and in the city of Greyhawk, including veteran soldiers who respect and admire me. I'm personal friends with the major of the city and have helped him out on occasion with different special missions and services. I'm also a leading member of a mercenary guild called the Sparrows where I manage the day to day affairs of the guild and know many of its members personally.. so on and so forth.
You get the idea, one background is a benign premise that really does not require someone to actually write anything down, the other makes a lot of assumptions about who the character knows, positions of authority they hold, perhaps wealth they have acquired etc.. etc..
In modern gaming communities, the latter background is what you will get and often you will get several pages of such material. When you have to work that into your setting/campaign/adventure for 4-5 players, it becomes exceedingly difficult to manage and creates a ton of expectations on the part of the players about their place in the world.
The bigger offense however is that the player has earned non of the perks of such backgrounds through play, its basically like leveling yourself up.
So I am playing an eldritch knight fighter in a campaign and part of his backstory is that his family and village were murdered by a group of rogue air genasi pirates, this happened 2 years prior in game to the campaign starting where we did session 1.
I had asked my DM that if my character came across one or some air genasi would he be able to recognize them if a roll was made.
I agree with them on them saying it will be a straight INT roll but then said if it HAD to be any other type of dice roll it would be INSIGHT. Which doesn't make any sense to me because insight is all about body language, deception and lies.
Hopefully some veteran DMs can clear this up for me as I don't know what to do.
The rules work how your DM say they do. That sucks, but it's true. Back before everyone went rushing to the internet for answers or 'evidence' GMs made a ruling on how they interpreted a rule, good GMs would take thoughts from players and consider those before rule, but that was pretty much it. Sage Advice really wasn't widely read by most playing this type of game.
I think sometimes we need to remember that, both as players and as DMs. If a rule doesn't make sense in the DM's world, or for the group of players, then the DM should interpret it in whatever way is going to make the game most fun for everyone (DM included). That adjudication should be make free of the influence of other DMs or yahoos like Crawford.
You've come here looking for someone to tell you that you are correct and your DM is wrong. That's a really bad trait in a player. A really bad trait. Players with that trait are the ones most common asked to leave tables in my experience. Your DM is responsible for the adjudication. However they say it works is how it works. It's irrelevant what anyone outside of your game group thinks.
So I am playing an eldritch knight fighter in a campaign and part of his backstory is that his family and village were murdered by a group of rogue air genasi pirates, this happened 2 years prior in game to the campaign starting where we did session 1.
I had asked my DM that if my character came across one or some air genasi would he be able to recognize them if a roll was made.
I agree with them on them saying it will be a straight INT roll but then said if it HAD to be any other type of dice roll it would be INSIGHT. Which doesn't make any sense to me because insight is all about body language, deception and lies.
Hopefully some veteran DMs can clear this up for me as I don't know what to do.
Personally, I think that if you’ve seen a creature before there will either be a very low DC or no check to determine what it is. This usually depends on how long it has been since you’ve seen the creature in question, but when it comes to humanoids, especially playable races, I think I would rule that no check is required. Adding in the fact that you have close experience with them and it is relatively recent that this event happened, I’d say you shouldn’t need a roll. At the very least you should be able to know if someone is a genasi, and genasi themselves are usually pretty easy to tell apart. When literal elements are part of your body it’s a clear sign that you are a genasi… The int roll would make sense if you absolutely must, but it should be a low DC, probably 5. Even an Intelligence (History) check might make sense, as you’d be trying to remember what air genasi look like to compare them to a creature you’re seeing. Insight could make sense, as it is about detecting things, but Perception would make much more sense if your GM wants to go for a wis check.
It's probably arcana . In my opinion insight is about more personal information.
Air Genasi are inhabitants of the plane of air or their decedents and so checks about them can be treated like they were magical elementals. If you were to see a genasi what you would see is something looking like a human or another race but with some elemental magical phenomenon like burning hair etc.. so it makes sense to try to identify it as magic.
If your DM says it's an insight check then you roll the insight check. When you're DMing you get to decide what the roll is supposed to be.
I'm not sure exactly what you're trying to determine with the roll. Are you trying to identify them by their race? I'd probably go with a medicine check. They're humanoids.
To see if you recognize them as being part of the pirate crew? Personally I might go with a History check to see if you remembered correctly. Or a Perception check to see if you got a good look at them.
Strictly speaking, as this is a narrative component, part of a character's back story that is based on a character's traumatic and dramatic arch, there shouldn't be any roll. When you see your family's killers, you would know.
Rolls are made when there is uncertainty about the outcome of something, and the potential consequences of such an outcome not every time something happens or you try to do something/anything.
I mean what is the plan here? You roll, fail, and then never experience your character's primary story arch? What would have been the point of exposing you to your family's killer if not to trigger a part of your character's personal plot/arch?
I think the golden rule for any good DM is understanding that there is a time to roll dice and its almost never.
Air genasi have a very distinct appearance. I wouldn't make anyone roll to recognize an air genasi after they seen mnamy of them. That said, if i were to, i'd call for Intelligence (Nature, History or Arcana) check with advantage most likely against an easy DC.
As a reminder to everyone, the “my whole family was murdered” background trope is generally a terrible one, because it gives your DM nothing to work with. Everyone you know is already dead, and all it amounts to is a tired old revenge story. If you leave your character’s family alive however, suddenly you have NPCs relevant to your background to interact with. Suddenly things get significantly more interesting and less predictable.
Okay sure, but D&D narratives are practically glued together by clichés as is, and a simple backstory like that is not only easy to integrate into the campaign as not only a small and simple to wrap-up side quest, but also could even be given larger significance within the main questline like the Genasi Pirates being major antagonists further motivating the party to pursue it. Sure it's not the world's most creative background, but it's an objectively easy one to work with.
Plus if a DM really doesn't want to work with a character's backstory, they could discuss this with the player and find a compromise.
That's sort of the DM's job.
Couldn't agree more! If there's possibility of story progress being hindered by forcing players to make pointless rolls, just don't.
It's okay to just let your players have things sometimes.
I have never been a huge fan of character backgrounds, for the very reason mentioned above. Usually, no offense to anyone, people are just crap writers and character backgrounds are generally just terrible, cliched nonsense, I don't want to read let alone integrate into the campaign. I mean every once in a while a player will surprise me, but trust me people 99% are absolute trash writers and should just stop. It's a skill, you have either learned it or you haven't, don't make DM have to read your nonsense when you know you can't write for shit.
Besides, I'm off the mind that new characters entering a campaign at 1st level, should be basically no one important. Like, that is the point of the campaign, this is what D&D is all about, aka... to find out who you are. That is D&D gameplay, aka, a dynamic generation of the story of a character.
Writing a backstory is basically the act of undermining the game before it starts.
Then you probably don't want to be playing a TTRPG. You should probably just be doing a collaborative writing of a novel or screenplay. What happens when combat begins and a player character dies because the NPCs roll nat 20s and the player rolls nat 1s? Was that the plan? No! So do away with dice completely! "You see a lone orc guarding a chest. You draw your sword and with a flourish drive the blade deep into his heart! You are the champion."
Without the risk of failure there is no joy in success. If you want there to be a "golden rule for DMing" then that should be it.
So you "mean what is the plan here?" Think about it. The player asked to roll to identify them. If the plan was that these air genasi were obviously part of the pirate crew then the DM would have said that as part of the description. The DM apparently didn't do that. The player asked to make a roll. As the DM it's your job to determine what the roll is supposed to be and then decide the outcome based on that roll. That's why there's dice.
When you take the "almost never" approach to rolls, then when you finally do make the players roll and they roll low, they know they've missed something.
The main purposes of character backstory are:
Aside from #1, they're all optional, but they're all useful to the act of collaborative storytelling.
And yeah, most people don't write well, but that's not important. Most people aren't going to try to write a story; they'll give you something like "a six-fingered man killed my father in front of me, and I'm going to become a great swordfighter and kill him".
And sometimes people are going to get carried away, and you'll have to ask for the quick summary, or ask them to rethink it because that's way too much for a first level character.
But it is collaborative storytelling. The players are not here just to receive story from the GM.
I gave a lot of thought to how I might articulate a response here, because, I don't think I disagree with you, in fact, I don't think you disagree with me either, I think we just see two alternative method of achieving the same thing. This may boil down to a style thing.
The reason I don't think backgrounds should be written are threefold.
First "the campaign" is not designed for your character, its designed for all characters to exist within, it can neither be successful or failed, it is a mileu, an ongoing story that continues with or without your character, regardless of what transpires. Campaigns only end when players stop playing. In a sense the campaign is the world, the setting, and the collective people and monsters in it all with their own ambitions, desires and plots, it is not "the story". The story of the game is driven by the ambitions, choices and the result of the success and failures in those pursuits by the players driving their avatars (PC's). It cannot be a pre-ordained thing, as this would defeat the point of the game. If a player gives "meta" information, hidden behind adjectives in the characters backstory as a set of instructions to the DM of what they wish to achieve, to which the DM designs a destinty that will ultimatetly lead them to their desires, the game is effectively fixed and becomes an excercise of players walking through a story already written. Would you want to participate in a game where the DM has already decided how events will unfold and how your characters story arch will unfold regardless of any decisions you make because he feels obligated to meet the desires defined in your background? I'm quite certain you don't, I can't imagine why anyone would want to play in such a game.
I will concede that jotting a few words about a characters personality, morality or perhaps some mention of family and friends is ok, but those things can easily be portrayed and invented in the course of play and frankly, if you enjoy the drama and theatre of role-playing, its far more entertaining for everyone to discover these things about your character in the course of play than it is for them to read about it before the game begins, this is true for all the players, including the DM.
The second thing is that I don't believe you mean collaborative storytelling, I think you mean emergent stories. Collaborative storytelling suggests that everyone around the table tells a story about events written ahead of time. This is not how D&D actually works, there are no scripts and no one, not even the DM has control over the story. The story emerges from the outcomes of the game, meaning that every choice you make, every success or failure you have, every point in the game is a unpredictable crossroad and what will actually transpire is not in anyone's control, not even the DM's. To try to control, manipulate or force outcomes, or allow anyone at the table to dictate what the story should be, is oppossed by the fact that much of the game is decided by die rolls and players making decisions with limited information most of the time. A character may get struck down and killed by a Goblins arrow in the first combat they engage in, or they may rise to become the ruler of the land, or anything in-between. Emergent storytelling, the act of discovering what happens, discovering what the story becomes, is how D&D stories are written, their is no collaborative storytelling taking place, no one is collaborating to write a script for the events of the game. To allow backgrounds to pre-ordain the outcome or place expectations on emergent stories, I think kind of misses the point of the participating in something that is meant to take on a life of its own.
The third thing is that backgrounds have a finality to them, they create intention and players become bound by what they have written leading to the always unfun "Its what my character would do". D&D avatars aren't their own entities, your not an actor studying your subject so that you can mimic and predict how they would behave to get it "right". They are avatars in a game, in which you steer them to succeed. What your character "would do" is what ever you decide they "will do". D&D is a role-playing experience but it is also a game, you don't fight along side your adventuring party because your character and their character are friends, you do it because the people sitting across from you are on your team, and you are trying to succeed together in comradere over the challenges the DM has placed against you. Can you and your friends complete your ambitions together. That is what the game is about and "in character" you design justifications to ensure that happens.
I guess the point I'm making is that subtle demands, desires or ambitions hidden into your background to try to manipulate the DM to make the campaign about you, is really not in the spirit of the game. The game is about the players ambitions for their character, but its up to the player and presumably his comrades in arms to seek out and achieve those ambitions through play on their own. You might succeed, or you might fail, you might even die, but the attempt is what the game is about, its certainly not about the DM ensuring that you succeed. In fact, quite to the contrary, for all intense and purposes, the DM, though judiciously and fairly, acts as the antagonist trying to stop you from succeeding. Telling them your plans, is a terrible idea.
You really just need to leave open questions. At least if you keep the death some what ambiguous you can have one pop up as secretly not dead or return as a haunting ghost with important information or something, but if you resolve it completely like "My wife and child were murdered and I personally buried them then avenged them by killing the thug that did it" that's really a story that happened as opposed to something on going. I always advise that you be ambiguous and open ended, do something like " there was a raid on my village and I never saw them again". That leaves open questions like who raided the village and what happened to them.
I'd be using the History or Perception roll to check if you recognize someone as something from the past?
Enjoy your slop. I'll be enjoying good products elsewhere.
Same, I've been playing 40 years this year and have recently changed to 5e (3 years ago). A first level character is meant to be some dude who suddenly decided they want to adventure as a particular class. Some of the background suggested would make your character some high level solider or similar that should have excessive HP, AC and other skills which wouldn't be appropriate in a 1st level what ever. A 1st level character is like farmer, who suddenly decides, bugger it, I want to be a fighter, and learns along the way.
I think that perspective is missing some of the point of backgrounds.
Consider the Soldier background. Soldiers work as town guards, they work as caravan guards, they might be in the army and fight battles. Almost every fantasy world has lots of soldiers BUT these soldiers are NOT fighters, barbarians, or paladins. A holy soldier fighting for a church is not a paladin. A Soldier that decides to pursue extra training, gains the ambition to improve themselves, or is "gifted" beyond average, can become something more than just a soldier.
This all depends on how the DM decides to build their world but unless everyone else is either part of a PC class or just sits around doing nothing then a lot of the roles in the society and a lot of people with a lot of experience have done a great deal before doing things that will result in that character earning class levels and being a PC. In addition, the entire class system in 5e is designed specifically for PCs. Some DMs, including myself, might have NPCs that are a member of a class with class levels but the game is designed around NPCs being differently implemented and it is up to the DM to figure out what the difference in their world might be between a Veteran NPC or Thug NPC and a fighter PC of a specific level.
So, personally, I don't have many issues with a PC having some extensive experiences in various areas. However, from a DM perspective, I also make it clear to the player that whatever they may have done in the past, their character is described by the abilities of their class and level.
Background stories add justifications and reasons for some of the basic features of the character ... they don't impose anything on the DM ... however, if there is a part of a back story that a DM doesn't think fits in their world for whatever reason then the DM can have the player modify it during session 0 and character creation. So, I really don't see backgrounds being an issue and if it helps someone to get a better idea of their character and role play them then it is generally a positive contribution.
It's one of the harder things for us old-school guys to wrap our heads around, but 1st level characters haven't existed in the game as we knew them in 1e and 2e, since 2e. Essentially when 3e came out, 1st level are 3rd level which has kind of carried over to 4e and now 5e. Essentially 1st level characters in 5e are 3rd level characters by comparison to 1e.
The premise of the farmer who picks up the mantle of adventurer doesn't exist in modern D&D, a 1st level character in modern D&D is an established adventurer with professional training and past experience.
I agreed with everything you said except this last part, though I wish it were true. Players are pretty presumptuous in backgrounds and any mention of something not fitting into the campaign, being out of character for the setting, or a level of narrative experience personal or otherwise is met with immediate conflict. Players do not want to hear "no" on background writing, for them it is a license to infuse the setting/campaign/adventure with their own creation, in fact, this approach is encouraged by the player base and DM's are discouraged from rejecting backgrounds that don't fit their game. In fact, calling it "your game" is discouraged as a whole, the DM is no longer the master and arbitrator of the campaign in modern D&D culture, he is a participant and member of a "collaborative storytelling" venture, seen at best, as an equal to any player.
So I disagree, by allowing backgrounds to be written, you invite instruction and create expectation. It's almost a kind of social contract that says "my character is this and that and will pursue this and that" and it is your responsibility as a DM to see that this comes to fruition or you are a bad DM.
Like I don't oppose traditional backgrounds, traditional being, as they were once written.
For example
"I'm a soldier from Greyhawk, having served in the military for 5 years. I'm married but have no children. I come from poor conditions and entered into the profession as a mercernary out of necessity".
This sort of background Im fine with, its vague and really doesn't require my attention, its a background written more for the player than for me as a DM.
What I don't want to see is.
"i'm a soldier from Greyhakw, having served in the military for 5 years. I was promoted to the rank of Captain and have a lot of clout in the military and in the city of Greyhawk, including veteran soldiers who respect and admire me. I'm personal friends with the major of the city and have helped him out on occasion with different special missions and services. I'm also a leading member of a mercenary guild called the Sparrows where I manage the day to day affairs of the guild and know many of its members personally.. so on and so forth.
You get the idea, one background is a benign premise that really does not require someone to actually write anything down, the other makes a lot of assumptions about who the character knows, positions of authority they hold, perhaps wealth they have acquired etc.. etc..
In modern gaming communities, the latter background is what you will get and often you will get several pages of such material. When you have to work that into your setting/campaign/adventure for 4-5 players, it becomes exceedingly difficult to manage and creates a ton of expectations on the part of the players about their place in the world.
The bigger offense however is that the player has earned non of the perks of such backgrounds through play, its basically like leveling yourself up.
The rules work how your DM say they do. That sucks, but it's true. Back before everyone went rushing to the internet for answers or 'evidence' GMs made a ruling on how they interpreted a rule, good GMs would take thoughts from players and consider those before rule, but that was pretty much it. Sage Advice really wasn't widely read by most playing this type of game.
I think sometimes we need to remember that, both as players and as DMs. If a rule doesn't make sense in the DM's world, or for the group of players, then the DM should interpret it in whatever way is going to make the game most fun for everyone (DM included). That adjudication should be make free of the influence of other DMs or yahoos like Crawford.
You've come here looking for someone to tell you that you are correct and your DM is wrong. That's a really bad trait in a player. A really bad trait. Players with that trait are the ones most common asked to leave tables in my experience. Your DM is responsible for the adjudication. However they say it works is how it works. It's irrelevant what anyone outside of your game group thinks.
DM session planning template - My version of maps for 'Lost Mine of Phandelver' - Send your party to The Circus - Other DM Resources - Maps, Tokens, Quests - 'Better' Player Character Injury Tables?
Actor, Writer, Director & Teacher by day - GM/DM in my off hours.