Quote from martintheactor >>

Quote from Harralander >>

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. 

 
Werd*

As most people in the thread have pointed out, your DM chooses how the game is run. Understandably it is supposed to be collaborative so making you roll a check to see if you recognize the person who killed your family or whatever is a little extreme but then again there are plenty of DMs who believe the dice are what tell the story. If it bothers you i would talk to your DM and tell them how you feel. As a final note to anyone else reading this in a similar situation i would also like to mention that its a good idea to collaborate with your DM when you create a faction or gang or something. Maybe this DM wasnt ready to add a group of air genasi? i know in my campaign that would be like finding out that bigfoot is actually real but has been pretending to be the loch ness monster.  

This may well be a bit of an aside but putting my DM cap on i could see an insight check working, namely to see if the Air Genasi you spotted were of the correct demeanor. Do they look, act and talk like the pirates that killed the family? Its kind of the first step towards an investigation into their motivations, so maybe this is something to be followed up by some roleplay between PC and NPC's and some charisma based checks to glean info out of them as you butter them up with drinks and flatter them into telling stories of their past escapades etc.

However, to paraphrase a certain wizened old man, these may not be the Genasi you are looking for. In this type of instance, failing a roll maybe as important and interesting as succeeding on a roll. Succeed and you might get a flat "yes that is definetly someone you are looking for" but failing a roll might also give you a flat "yes this is definetly someone you are looking for".

The difference become once the situation is resolved if you succeeded in correctly identifying one of the genasi you are after you get a sense of job done, one step close to completing their revenge but if you failed to identify them correctly then the character has to come to terms with their actions, possibly legal consequences etc maybe they even have a realisation they have become that which they hate; a cold blooded killer.

There could be lots of very intersting roleplay oppotunities on the horizon.

A couple people have said insight, so let me clarify something.

Insight is a wisdom based skill and is used to understand facial expressions, body language, the quiet mistaken messages in someone’s voice, it’s a skill that interrogators or just people with a high EQ would have.

To recognise somebody in particular is absolutely not a Insight check, for it is nothing mentioned above and it’s also Wisdom based, when the check should surely be Intelligence.

I’m not gonna go on a huge tirade to narrow down to specifically which Intelligence skill it is, because I don’t want to make a mess of this thread, but it is one of them and as long as your DM chooses one of those? You should be fine :)

Quote from OSR4Ever >>

Quote from David42 >>

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.

 Just a couple of additional comments ... I don't disagree with what you have said though.

1) Although D&D has always been "collaborative", unless the group takes the next step and everyone contributes to world building (which in y experience is very uncommon) then it may be "our" game but it is the DM's world and they have full control over the content of the world they are creating, including anything that might touch on detailed backstories.

2) You specifically mentioned "collaborative" story telling. However, a player that provides an exceptionally detailed background that grants them special abilities and contacts based on world building and then tells the DM this is how it goes is NOT being collaborative. A DM who reads such a background explains how it won't fit the world or isn't fair to other players and then suggests modifications that capture the spirit of the intended background but not the implied mechanical benefits is actually being collaborative ... a player who insists on a particular version of their background is not collaborating.

3) There are several special features of the published backgrounds in the PHB that can easily be substituted for the contacts described in a detailed background ...

"Feature: Position of Privilege

Thanks to your noble birth, people are inclined to think the best of you. You are welcome in high society, and people assume you have the right to be wherever you are. The common folk make every effort to accommodate you and avoid your displeasure, and other people of high birth treat you as a member of the same social sphere. You can secure an audience with a local noble if you need to."

"Feature: Criminal Contact

You have a reliable and trustworthy contact who acts as your liaison to a network of other criminals. You know how to get messages to and from your contact, even over great distances; specifically, you know the local messengers, corrupt caravan masters, and seedy sailors who can deliver messages for you."

"Feature: Military Rank

You have a military rank from your career as a soldier. Soldiers loyal to your former military organization still recognize your authority and influence, and they defer to you if they are of a lower rank. You can invoke your rank to exert influence over other soldiers and requisition simple equipment or horses for temporary use. You can also usually gain access to friendly military encampments and fortresses where your rank is recognized."

The above Military Rank feature which is part of the Soldier background in the PHB is very similar to the more detailed background except it doesn't mention names. Any benefits are up to the DM but a character with a soldier background interacting with the soldiers they used to serve with does have some benefits.

---------

Anyway, I don't usually find character backgrounds or back stories to be much of an issue and if a player comes up with a backstory that contains a lot of world building elements then I usually don't mind including them if they fit the game world. However, I won't allow a backstory to provide a mechanical advantage. A player who writes a backstory of a character that comes from a very wealthy family and raids the family vault for magic items to start their adventuring career and then tries to give the DM a list of magic items that they have from their "backstory" deserves a hard NOPE, no matter how "confrontational" it might sound.

 

 Just a couple of additional comments ... I don't disagree with what you have said though.

1) Although D&D has always been "collaborative", unless the group takes the next step and everyone contributes to world building (which in y experience is very uncommon) then it may be "our" game but it is the DM's world and they have full control over the content of the world they are creating, including anything that might touch on detailed backstories.

2) You specifically mentioned "collaborative" story telling. However, a player that provides an exceptionally detailed background that grants them special abilities and contacts based on world building and then tells the DM this is how it goes is NOT being collaborative. A DM who reads such a background explains how it won't fit the world or isn't fair to other players and then suggests modifications that capture the spirit of the intended background but not the implied mechanical benefits is actually being collaborative ... a player who insists on a particular version of their background is not collaborating.

3) There are several special features of the published backgrounds in the PHB that can easily be substituted for the contacts described in a detailed background ...

"Feature: Position of Privilege

Thanks to your noble birth, people are inclined to think the best of you. You are welcome in high society, and people assume you have the right to be wherever you are. The common folk make every effort to accommodate you and avoid your displeasure, and other people of high birth treat you as a member of the same social sphere. You can secure an audience with a local noble if you need to."

"Feature: Criminal Contact

You have a reliable and trustworthy contact who acts as your liaison to a network of other criminals. You know how to get messages to and from your contact, even over great distances; specifically, you know the local messengers, corrupt caravan masters, and seedy sailors who can deliver messages for you."

"Feature: Military Rank

You have a military rank from your career as a soldier. Soldiers loyal to your former military organization still recognize your authority and influence, and they defer to you if they are of a lower rank. You can invoke your rank to exert influence over other soldiers and requisition simple equipment or horses for temporary use. You can also usually gain access to friendly military encampments and fortresses where your rank is recognized."

The above Military Rank feature which is part of the Soldier background in the PHB is very similar to the more detailed background except it doesn't mention names. Any benefits are up to the DM but a character with a soldier background interacting with the soldiers they used to serve with does have some benefits.

---------

Anyway, I don't usually find character backgrounds or back stories to be much of an issue and if a player comes up with a backstory that contains a lot of world building elements then I usually don't mind including them if they fit the game world. However, I won't allow a backstory to provide a mechanical advantage. A player who writes a backstory of a character that comes from a very wealthy family and raids the family vault for magic items to start their adventuring career and then tries to give the DM a list of magic items that they have from their "backstory" deserves a hard NOPE, no matter how "confrontational" it might sound.

 

 
Let me put it this way.  I don't have an issue with backgrounds if the purpose of the background is to define a character, be it their personality, family, living arrangement or whatever aspect of the character the player believes is important to help them portray that character. 

With that said, what I would say is that the best backgrounds are the ones that the DM doesn't need to read, there shouldn't be anything that is relevant to the plot of the campaign or relevant to the design of the adventure/campaign and/or setting.  That information is a guide for the player, not the DM.

If the background requires me to read it, because it needs me to adapt the plot, adventure or setting, and/or adapt to some instruction, obvious or hinted at, then I would say that is not a good background in my view.  Its not what I want to see from players because the setting, campaign and individual adventures are already written by the time I say "hey guys, I'm starting a new campaign", I have already spent countless hours preparing it. I don't want to see a bunch of stuff in backgrounds that's going to force me to adapt, change or cut stuff to make it work for X or Y characters.  A campaign I write does not have specific characters in mind, and nor do published adventures or campaigns for that matter beyond very high-level stuff like "if you have a Wizard... "

So for me its sort like, it's not a big deal or anything, you want to write a background, go for, by all means be creative, but if you NEED me to read it, then I know there is going to be a problem and inevitably, there always is. Don' get me wrong, I love reading backgrounds I really do and I always hope players create cool and creative characters, but yeah, if you need me to adapt rules to make it work, change the setting to make room for whatever crazy species you made up, figure out why a billionaire would take mercenary work or what have you.. its really problematic and I just don't like dealing with it as a DM.

D&D is a game, not a theatre show.. make a character, give them a name and lets see who they became through the emerging story, I don't like pre-ordained stuff and I swear to god every background I read basically says "I'm the chosen one".

Quote from OSR4Ever >>

 
Let me put it this way.  I don't have an issue with backgrounds if the purpose of the background is to define a character, be it their personality, family, living arrangement or whatever aspect of the character the player believes is important to help them portray that character. 

With that said, what I would say is that the best backgrounds are the ones that the DM doesn't need to read, there shouldn't be anything that is relevant to the plot of the campaign or relevant to the design of the adventure/campaign and/or setting.  That information is a guide for the player, not the DM.

If the background requires me to read it, because it needs me to adapt the plot, adventure or setting, and/or adapt to some instruction, obvious or hinted at, then I would say that is not a good background in my view.  Its not what I want to see from players because the setting, campaign and individual adventures are already written by the time I say "hey guys, I'm starting a new campaign", I have already spent countless hours preparing it. I don't want to see a bunch of stuff in backgrounds that's going to force me to adapt, change or cut stuff to make it work for X or Y characters.  A campaign I write does not have specific characters in mind, and nor do published adventures or campaigns for that matter beyond very high-level stuff like "if you have a Wizard... "

So for me its sort like, it's not a big deal or anything, you want to write a background, go for, by all means be creative, but if you NEED me to read it, then I know there is going to be a problem and inevitably, there always is. Don' get me wrong, I love reading backgrounds I really do and I always hope players create cool and creative characters, but yeah, if you need me to adapt rules to make it work, change the setting to make room for whatever crazy species you made up, figure out why a billionaire would take mercenary work or what have you.. its really problematic and I just don't like dealing with it as a DM.

D&D is a game, not a theatre show.. make a character, give them a name and lets see who they became through the emerging story, I don't like pre-ordained stuff and I swear to god every background I read basically says "I'm the chosen one".

 You must play with an "interesting" group of folks. Other than people surviving unlikely situations to be pushed into their adventuring career, I've never played with anyone with a character background that said "I'm the chosen one". Also, if someone says that they come from the village of Hommlet in their backstory then 99% of the time, the game world has lots of room to name a village Hommlet. If the party ever ends up somewhere near where I placed it, it can open up some interesting role playing options.

I guess that we might have different world building philosophies. It sounds like you 100% create your entire world with all the villages/cities/sites/places of interest/locations of temples, forts, bad guys, good guys - all pre-decided. In such a situation, I can see that there is little room to incorporate a character backstory element without re-writing something you've already created.

However, when I go into world building, I tend to hit the high points, the major factions, politics, schemes and plot lines that are in motion and which the party might encounter. The area near where the party starts is typically more detailed but if someone wants to have originated in the "Village of Hommlet" which is 1000 miles away near some unusual temple, I don't usually have an issue with it. If the character ever decides to convince the party to investigate the "temple", there is a decent chance that they find a run down ruin with nothing in it since it isn't part of the world and plot lines I have created. On the other hand, if the temple fits into one of the world plot lines and I decide to make use of it then I don't have a problem incorporating a backstory with a character starting near a site that becomes a plot element later.

Quote from David42 >>

Quote from OSR4Ever >>

 
Let me put it this way.  I don't have an issue with backgrounds if the purpose of the background is to define a character, be it their personality, family, living arrangement or whatever aspect of the character the player believes is important to help them portray that character. 

With that said, what I would say is that the best backgrounds are the ones that the DM doesn't need to read, there shouldn't be anything that is relevant to the plot of the campaign or relevant to the design of the adventure/campaign and/or setting.  That information is a guide for the player, not the DM.

If the background requires me to read it, because it needs me to adapt the plot, adventure or setting, and/or adapt to some instruction, obvious or hinted at, then I would say that is not a good background in my view.  Its not what I want to see from players because the setting, campaign and individual adventures are already written by the time I say "hey guys, I'm starting a new campaign", I have already spent countless hours preparing it. I don't want to see a bunch of stuff in backgrounds that's going to force me to adapt, change or cut stuff to make it work for X or Y characters.  A campaign I write does not have specific characters in mind, and nor do published adventures or campaigns for that matter beyond very high-level stuff like "if you have a Wizard... "

So for me its sort like, it's not a big deal or anything, you want to write a background, go for, by all means be creative, but if you NEED me to read it, then I know there is going to be a problem and inevitably, there always is. Don' get me wrong, I love reading backgrounds I really do and I always hope players create cool and creative characters, but yeah, if you need me to adapt rules to make it work, change the setting to make room for whatever crazy species you made up, figure out why a billionaire would take mercenary work or what have you.. its really problematic and I just don't like dealing with it as a DM.

D&D is a game, not a theatre show.. make a character, give them a name and lets see who they became through the emerging story, I don't like pre-ordained stuff and I swear to god every background I read basically says "I'm the chosen one".

 You must play with an "interesting" group of folks. Other than people surviving unlikely situations to be pushed into their adventuring career, I've never played with anyone with a character background that said "I'm the chosen one". Also, if someone says that they come from the village of Hommlet in their backstory then 99% of the time, the game world has lots of room to name a village Hommlet. If the party ever ends up somewhere near where I placed it, it can open up some interesting role playing options.

I guess that we might have different world building philosophies. It sounds like you 100% create your entire world with all the villages/cities/sites/places of interest/locations of temples, forts, bad guys, good guys - all pre-decided. In such a situation, I can see that there is little room to incorporate a character backstory element without re-writing something you've already created.

However, when I go into world building, I tend to hit the high points, the major factions, politics, schemes and plot lines that are in motion and which the party might encounter. The area near where the party starts is typically more detailed but if someone wants to have originated in the "Village of Hommlet" which is 1000 miles away near some unusual temple, I don't usually have an issue with it. If the character ever decides to convince the party to investigate the "temple", there is a decent chance that they find a run down ruin with nothing in it since it isn't part of the world and plot lines I have created. On the other hand, if the temple fits into one of the world plot lines and I decide to make use of it then I don't have a problem incorporating a backstory with a character starting near a site that becomes a plot element later.

Well, that is a good point, at least in the world-building aspect.  I have run the same campaign, in an ongoing historical chronicle since 1988.  Since then countless players have had huge story impact on the world/setting and its history with super famous, rich and powerful characters who are now permanent NPC's of this chronicled world.  In fact, there are characters that live in my world created and run by players that have passed away in the real world.  

For me, my world, a term I use loosely as it really is a kind of shared memory with all the wonderful players I have had who made an impact on it is kind of a sacred thing. I believe its for this reason that, new characters who enter this world, they don't get a free pass and have an impact on this world by simply writing it into their backstory, they, like so many before them enter the game essentially nobodies and its through gameplay that they earn their story and legacy in the setting.  They make a name for themselves through their action, acquire wealth, fame, glory, and power and some of them in fact do become chosen in a way, not because they were destined to, demanded it or were promised it, but because they committed themselves to the games setting, cared what happened in it and took action through their own ambitions to sort of earn that right through role-playing.

So yeah, I suppose my situation might be a bit unique and might explain why I see backgrounds beyond the basics a bit presumptuous.  It almost feels disrespectful to the other players that traverse my game who earn their backstories through gameplay, if I simply give it away to others by letting them pencil it in into their backgrounds before they achieve anything in the game.

Quote from OSR4Ever >>

Well, that is a good point, at least in the world-building aspect.  I have run the same campaign, in an ongoing historical chronicle since 1988.  Since then countless players have had huge story impact on the world/setting and its history with super famous, rich and powerful characters who are now permanent NPC's of this chronicled world.  In fact, there are characters that live in my world created and run by players that have passed away in the real world.  

For me, my world, a term I use loosely as it really is a kind of shared memory with all the wonderful players I have had who made an impact on it is kind of a sacred thing. I believe its for this reason that, new characters who enter this world, they don't get a free pass and have an impact on this world by simply writing it into their backstory, they, like so many before them enter the game essentially nobodies and its through gameplay that they earn their story and legacy in the setting.  They make a name for themselves through their action, acquire wealth, fame, glory, and power and some of them in fact do become chosen in a way, not because they were destined to, demanded it or were promised it, but because they committed themselves to the games setting, cared what happened in it and took action through their own ambitions to sort of earn that right through role-playing.

So yeah, I suppose my situation might be a bit unique and might explain why I see backgrounds beyond the basics a bit presumptuous.  It almost feels disrespectful to the other players that traverse my game who earn their backstories through gameplay, if I simply give it away to others by letting them pencil it in into their backgrounds before they achieve anything in the game.

I completely agree with you here :). If I was running such an intricate and storied world that has been in play for decades and many campaigns have contributed to the lore and NPCs that already exist in that world then any more detailed character background would have to be fitted into the world itself in consultation with the DM at character creation. 

If the DM wasn't interested in the work involved then I'd ask for generic backgrounds that guide the character development and could be potentially tied to the existing world if the opportunity comes up.

However, I'd also agree that you may be almost unique that way (though I've heard of others with long term game worlds). I've had several different game worlds for different campaigns over the years. Without the level of history and detail you have it is generally easy to fit in most backstories so I only really worry about mechanical impact and not world building elements.

Quote from David42 >>

Quote from OSR4Ever >>

 

I completely agree with you here :). If I was running such an intricate and storied world that has been in play for decades and many campaigns have contributed to the lore and NPCs that already exist in that world then any more detailed character background would have to be fitted into the world itself in consultation with the DM at character creation. 

If the DM wasn't interested in the work involved then I'd ask for generic backgrounds that guide the character development and could be potentially tied to the existing world if the opportunity comes up.

However, I'd also agree that you may be almost unique that way (though I've heard of others with long term game worlds). I've had several different game worlds for different campaigns over the years. Without the level of history and detail you have it is generally easy to fit in most backstories so I only really worry about mechanical impact and not world building elements.

 

 

 The thing to is that I wasn't always that stubborn about backgrounds, there was a time back in the day around the 2nd edition AD&D days when writing backgrounds started to kind of become a normalized thing and so I started basically giving players some freedom and it was actually other players who had already at that point spent years playing in my game that would be like "hell no!!".  Like it was Civil War in the group regarding whether players should or shouldn't be allowed to pencil stuff in like new races, cultures, gods etc..

So yeah, it really wasn't just me that sort of led to this "limited backgrounds" approach.  Though I do like the D&D background mechanic, I altered it in my game a bit and instead of background stories like Soldier, Acolyte etc.. your background is your culture which sort of identifies where in the world you were born and raised.  Works kind of the same in many respects, but I find it more interesting to know that a character is Darokin then that they were a solider for example as it says a lot more about the character's actual background sort to speak.

D&D is a diverse game, people have all sorts of personal experiences, especially DM's that drive them to function and run their games in certain way.  It's actually only in the last 10 years or so that there has been a sort of normalization of sort of common approaches to the game.  I think probably Critical Role had a lot to do with that.  When we started back in the late 80's we really didn't have a whole lot to base styles of play on, in fact the only people you really had to discuss how to run D&D was local groups that you might interact with outside your own gaming crew.  These days you can get an endless stream of advice and examples on how to run D&D, how the game is played from youtube so I don't think people really think about stuff like this the same way as old timers like me.  I don't think it's good or bad, but D&D culture and D&D games in modern day are definitely becoming very harmonized into kind of a common style of play. 

Quote from OSR4Ever >>

Let me put it this way.  I don't have an issue with backgrounds if the purpose of the background is to define a character, be it their personality, family, living arrangement or whatever aspect of the character the player believes is important to help them portray that character. 

With that said, what I would say is that the best backgrounds are the ones that the DM doesn't need to read, there shouldn't be anything that is relevant to the plot of the campaign or relevant to the design of the adventure/campaign and/or setting.  That information is a guide for the player, not the DM.

If the background requires me to read it, because it needs me to adapt the plot, adventure or setting, and/or adapt to some instruction, obvious or hinted at, then I would say that is not a good background in my view.  Its not what I want to see from players because the setting, campaign and individual adventures are already written by the time I say "hey guys, I'm starting a new campaign", I have already spent countless hours preparing it. I don't want to see a bunch of stuff in backgrounds that's going to force me to adapt,

 

 Well, that's certainly one way to run a game. It's not the only one, nor is it the best one. (There are countless ways to run D&D, and every single one of them is right.)

It has a particular fail mode, which is when you've prepared the adventures, and the characters just slide right off, because, while they're functional D&D characters, they're not the right characters for the game you planned. Now, there are other ways to avoid that, but making use of player backgrounds is still a way.

Take the background that started this thread. Murdered by pirates isn't just good; it's great. You can lead the character around by the nose with that hook, for the low, low cost of having air genasi pirates. Even if you don't need them, linking the pirates to your main plot makes it personal to that character. (And it's hardly "preordaining" a result. Give most GMs a character with a thirst for revenge, and we start thinking about how to test that desire to the breaking point.)

Backgrounds are also a great way of helping to cohere the party, whether by deliberate construction by the players, or by the GM linking elements together. 

In the game I'm running now, what's currently the primary plot thread literally didn't exist until a late-added player gave me her background. I answered the questions it raised, and the party bit hard on the plot hooks that resulted. If they hadn't, something else would be the current main thread, and this would be a side plot.

That level of plotting on the fly is not for everyone, of course (I do it because I'm lazy :), but it (and lesser levels of adjustment) are just as valid as the way you're advocating.

Quote from jl8e >>

Quote from OSR4Ever >>

 

 Well, that's certainly one way to run a game. It's not the only one, nor is it the best one. (There are countless ways to run D&D, and every single one of them is right.)

It has a particular fail mode, which is when you've prepared the adventures, and the characters just slide right off, because, while they're functional D&D characters, they're not the right characters for the game you planned. Now, there are other ways to avoid that, but making use of player backgrounds is still a way.

Take the background that started this thread. Murdered by pirates isn't just good; it's great. You can lead the character around by the nose with that hook, for the low, low cost of having air genasi pirates. Even if you don't need them, linking the pirates to your main plot makes it personal to that character. (And it's hardly "preordaining" a result. Give most GMs a character with a thirst for revenge, and we start thinking about how to test that desire to the breaking point.)

Backgrounds are also a great way of helping to cohere the party, whether by deliberate construction by the players, or by the GM linking elements together. 

In the game I'm running now, what's currently the primary plot thread literally didn't exist until a late-added player gave me her background. I answered the questions it raised, and the party bit hard on the plot hooks that resulted. If they hadn't, something else would be the current main thread, and this would be a side plot.

That level of plotting on the fly is not for everyone, of course (I do it because I'm lazy :), but it (and lesser levels of adjustment) are just as valid as the way you're advocating.

 
For clarity and in the interest of communication, I'm not judging or advocating anything, I'm just sharing my method and experiences, essentially participating in an evolving conversation.  While I'm interested to hear how other DM's do things, It honestly has very little influence on me these days so I totally agree, whatever your way is, is the right way.  It doesn't make the conversations any less interesting.

That said, this forum is overflowing with people having problems in their games, looking for advice and as an experienced DM you would be hard-pressed to name a problem in your game, that I didn't solve decades ago in mine.  When I answer a question with how I do things, it's something that has been field tested for decades, across hundreds of players.  I was solving problems at D&D tables when Matt Mercer, Chris Perkins, and the majority of the people on this forum were somewhere between liquid form and grade school.  This is not to say that you should listen to me because of that and follow my advice, but I do have quite a different experience with D&D than most people on this forum which means that my advice is going to trend away from what has normalized in modern D&D culture.

A good example is this comment, which I find actually quite interesting.

It has a particular fail mode, which is when you've prepared the adventures, and the characters just slide right off, because, while they're functional D&D characters, they're not the right characters for the game you planned.

What you describe never happens in my game, it's physically impossible for you to create a character that would slide off as you say.  For two reasons.  First, I don't "prepare for adventures", that is not a thing that happens.  I have a game world populated with cultures, locations and people good and bad, all with different motivations in the midst of a variety of plots and events.  The characters enter the game world in the timeline of the game, which sets the current stage but I have no idea what they are going to do in it, it's entirely up to them.  Players in my game may explore this world in whatever fashion they see fit.  They create/find their own motivation, form their own plans, and follow their own leads and desires for what they will do in it, which inevitably results in their character's story emerging from this interaction.  I don't prepare adventures, I have spent 4 decades fine-tuning a campaign world.

The result is that players may very well seek out treasure and become dungeon delvers, or they might get involved in local politics, or they might open a tavern or a blacksmith shop.  Like, everything is on the table, which addresses the other kind of common "premise" you describe that is a none issue in my game.

Backgrounds are also a great way of helping to cohere the party, whether by deliberate construction by the players, or by the GM linking elements together. 

In the game I'm running now, what's currently the primary plot thread literally didn't exist until a late-added player gave me her background. I answered the questions it raised, and the party bit hard on the plot hooks that resulted. If they hadn't, something else would be the current main thread, and this would be a side plot.

I don't need to create backgrounds and find reasons for people to adventure together or create collective groups or create plot threads.  At any given moment there are about 20-25 active players in my game world and when a new player wishes to join the game, long before they create a character and join there first session, these active players are going to ingratiate that player into the group, bring them up to speed on events past and present (as they understand them), they will learn all about existing characters in the game and various characters ongoing plans, maps players have created will be shared as well as other notable information.  When they join their first game session they are likely to be overwhelmed with possibilities and invitations.  Often the first question they ask is, can I have more than one character because they want to do it all? (the answer is no by the way, each player can only have one character)

So forming groups and reasons for player characters to get together, hasn't been a problem in my game in years.  There is always stuff going on in my campaign world at all times and people are tripping over themselves to form groups and schedule sessions to achieve their campaign, group and individual goals and ambitions.

As a small disclaimer to this post I will say i thought this up at about 3am this morning during a bout of insomnia so feel free to point out holes etc.

To the OP, maybe see if your DM would allow the following as a roleplaying aid.

Rather than making skill checks calculate your characters Passive History score, this would normally be a base of 10 + Int modifier + Prof bonus (if applicable) + Expertise or similar (if applicable). This then serves as the base line for your recollection of the event surrounding the air genasi and the death of the characters family. A score of 9 or less means you have a really foggy memory, 10-12 you have a vague recollection, 13-14 means you have a good recollection, 15-16 means you have a very good recollection, 17-18 means you have a near perfect recollection and 19+ means you have a perfect/photographic recollection of events.

As the player you then balance that against your chracters Passive Insight, Investigation and Perception skills. This then influences how you roleplay the character.

For instance; Assuming the following passive scores: History 13, Insight 12, Investigation 13, Perception 12. You know the character has a good recollection of the event but you don't have the skills to see when someone is lying ot you (insight) or to notice genasi movng throw a crowded place (perception) but you might be able to piece together some clues if you find them (investigation).

So when you come to roleplaying rather than sitting in a tavern and making skill checks to see if you notice the genasi in the area you can just say "My character thinks he see a familiar ship in the bay, he leaves the tavern to investigate and returns some time later having mistaken the ship for the one the pirates used" or "I go down to the harbour masters office to see if there are any reports of pirate activity in the area, she would only sell me the info for d3 gp, I paid and she directed me to a tavern, I follow her directions but got lost so came back to join the party (roll a d3 and the say) I lost 2gp paying for the info!".

This would enable you to build up a few random stories that your character does inbetween whatever other plot is going on or before bedding down for the night, it requires almost no imput from anyone else until such a time as your DM decides to pull on the thread and say "actually...roll (insert skill)".

As long as you keep these little narrative beats to no more than 5 mins of describing what you character does and you always end up back with the party then you should'nt disrupt sessions to much. Then should your passive scores change, through feats, spells, training etc, then you can tweak those stories. The rest of the players then have these little asides that they might find interesting and just gives another layer of story that can be referenced.

I hope that might me somewhat useful.

Quote from OSR4Ever>>

For clarity and in the interest of communication, I'm not judging or advocating anything, I'm just sharing my method and experiences, essentially participating in an evolving conversation.  While I'm interested to hear how other DM's do things, It honestly has very little influence on me these days so I totally agree, whatever your way is, is the right way.  It doesn't make the conversations any less interesting.

I'll just say that you come off as very proscriptive in tone, and, in a hobby that's got a lot of "one true way"-ism floating around, that's going to get people's hackles up.

For instance, when you say things like:

Writing a backstory is basically the act of undermining the game before it starts. 

That said, this forum is overflowing with people having problems in their games, looking for advice and as an experienced DM you would be hard-pressed to name a problem in your game, that I didn't solve decades ago in mine.  When I answer a question with how I do things, it's something that has been field tested for decades, across hundreds of players.  I was solving problems at D&D tables when Matt Mercer, Chris Perkins, and the majority of the people on this forum were somewhere between liquid form and grade school.  This is not to say that you should listen to me because of that and follow my advice, but I do have quite a different experience with D&D than most people on this forum which means that my advice is going to trend away from what has normalized in modern D&D culture.

As you describe it, the way you run games is one that almost nobody else does, so your advice may be less applicable to most people's experience, and even counterproductive to some.

What you describe never happens in my game, it's physically impossible for you to create a character that would slide off as you say.  For two reasons.  First, I don't "prepare for adventures", that is not a thing that happens.  I have a game world populated with cultures, locations and people good and bad, all with different motivations in the midst of a variety of plots and events.  The characters enter the game world in the timeline of the game, which sets the current stage but I have no idea what they are going to do in it, it's entirely up to them.  Players in my game may explore this world in whatever fashion they see fit.  They create/find their own motivation, form their own plans, and follow their own leads and desires for what they will do in it, which inevitably results in their character's story emerging from this interaction.  I don't prepare adventures, I have spent 4 decades fine-tuning a campaign world.

Even in your particular idiom, there's no reason that you can't let the players get more involved at the creative level. Clearly, you don't want to, and that's your call, but it's far from impossible.

Take the air genasi pirates again: you could look at that background, and say "I don't have air genasi, but how about elves?" And the player will probably say "sure", because the air genasiness was peripheral to the basic idea. Maybe there weren't elven pirates operating there before, but it makes a certain amount of sense, because the elven kingdom has long wanted to expand that way, and covertly sponsoring raiders lets them further that goal. Now the character is hooked in to ongoing events in the world, and long-term plot is moving forward.

And that's the far end of involving players in the creative loop; most background introductions are going to be much more personal stuff that fits in without you having to break a sweat. A six-fingered man killed your father? Boom. He's now the main advisor to the King of Florin. You're the lost heir of a fallen noble house? You've got twelve of those lying around. And so on, and so forth.

Quote from jl8e >>

Quote from OSR4Ever>>

For clarity and in the interest of communication, I'm not judging or advocating anything, I'm just sharing my method and experiences, essentially participating in an evolving conversation.  While I'm interested to hear how other DM's do things, It honestly has very little influence on me these days so I totally agree, whatever your way is, is the right way.  It doesn't make the conversations any less interesting.

I'll just say that you come off as very proscriptive in tone, and, in a hobby that's got a lot of "one true way"-ism floating around, that's going to get people's hackles up.

For instance, when you say things like:

Writing a backstory is basically the act of undermining the game before it starts. 

People are going to push back on it.

That said, this forum is overflowing with people having problems in their games, looking for advice and as an experienced DM you would be hard-pressed to name a problem in your game, that I didn't solve decades ago in mine.  When I answer a question with how I do things, it's something that has been field tested for decades, across hundreds of players.  I was solving problems at D&D tables when Matt Mercer, Chris Perkins, and the majority of the people on this forum were somewhere between liquid form and grade school.  This is not to say that you should listen to me because of that and follow my advice, but I do have quite a different experience with D&D than most people on this forum which means that my advice is going to trend away from what has normalized in modern D&D culture.

As you describe it, the way you run games is one that almost nobody else does, so your advice may be less applicable to most people's experience, and even counterproductive to some.

 

What you describe never happens in my game, it's physically impossible for you to create a character that would slide off as you say.  For two reasons.  First, I don't "prepare for adventures", that is not a thing that happens.  I have a game world populated with cultures, locations and people good and bad, all with different motivations in the midst of a variety of plots and events.  The characters enter the game world in the timeline of the game, which sets the current stage but I have no idea what they are going to do in it, it's entirely up to them.  Players in my game may explore this world in whatever fashion they see fit.  They create/find their own motivation, form their own plans, and follow their own leads and desires for what they will do in it, which inevitably results in their character's story emerging from this interaction.  I don't prepare adventures, I have spent 4 decades fine-tuning a campaign world.

Even in your particular idiom, there's no reason that you can't let the players get more involved at the creative level. Clearly, you don't want to, and that's your call, but it's far from impossible.

Take the air genasi pirates again: you could look at that background, and say "I don't have air genasi, but how about elves?" And the player will probably say "sure", because the air genasiness was peripheral to the basic idea. Maybe there weren't elven pirates operating there before, but it makes a certain amount of sense, because the elven kingdom has long wanted to expand that way, and covertly sponsoring raiders lets them further that goal. Now the character is hooked in to ongoing events in the world, and long-term plot is moving forward.

And that's the far end of involving players in the creative loop; most background introductions are going to be much more personal stuff that fits in without you having to break a sweat. A six-fingered man killed your father? Boom. He's now the main advisor to the King of Florin. You're the lost heir of a fallen noble house? You've got twelve of those lying around. And so on, and so forth.

 
I don't think I'm proscriptive at all, quite to the contrary, I share my experience with the game in hopes that others will do the same with theirs, I don't feel threatened by someone doing things differently or having an opposing opinion, I can't imagine why anyone would feel threatened by mine.  I have no vested interest in trying to instruct anyone about what they should do, I'm describing what they could do.  I have strong opinions about the game that is true, but I'm not sure I would care to have a discussion with a D&D player who didn't have a strong opinion, strong opinions are a mark of experience, for which I have a great deal of respect for.  

I don't know what you mean by push back, I don't see anyone pushing anything, just a lot of experienced players sharing their opinions and experiences, some disagree with mine and they explain how and why, as you did.  I don't see that as pushing back, I see that as the purpose of this forum as less experienced DM's can read our discussions, consider them and then decide what they want in their own games.  So far as I can tell that is how good discussions like this one are supposed to work.

As far as the whole Genasi thing, switching it to Elves and adding elements to the game from player backgrounds.  It's not the addition of Elven pirates that is the issue for me, at least not entirely and its perhaps this part I have been unclear about.  It's the fishing for a plot, a story, that I have to invent for this player so that they may at some point resolve that infused narrative.  When you have 4-6 players in your game, that is 4-6 stories, aka.. one guy has a revenge story, another is the bastard child of the king, another has made a deal with a demon etc.. etc... then you have 4-6 unique setting stages you have to create, one guy needs pirate elves, another needs a king and kingdom to be a bastard child of, another needs a demon and definition on how deals with them work.. etc..

Now imagine you have 20-25 player characters you are managing and everyone has these in-depth back stories, each requiring plot setup, setting changes and all the stuff that comes with trying setup a stage for them.  It's frankly pretty overwhelming and the game becomes about executing the infusions of backstories and not about the campaign or the setting.

I understand your point, I don't want you to think I missed it. I have seen critical role, but it's just not for me and I actually think it's terrible advice for new DM's.  It's tough enough to just prepare sessions, run adventures, create or read and run published campaigns while learning the rules.  Infusing all of that with all these personalized details I think creates way more problems than DM's, especially new DM's need.

Consider that according to countless polls done about modern games and modern gaming groups, the average campaign is lucky to survive for a year and campaigns almost never get past 10th level.  That is shockingly short.  My campaign has been ongoing without interruption for well over 3 decades and frankly, that is pretty common for old-school gamers, there is nothing particularly unique or special about that.  I think there are many reasons for that discrepancy between old-school and modern gamers, but I think mostly it boils down to experience with the game, especially experience through trial and error, assessment and coming to an understanding of what works and what doesn't through practical play and measuring that success in the long term.  If you find yourself "looking for players for a new campaign" all the time, at some point it might be a good idea to ask why your last campaign ended rather than starting a new one with the same conditions and approach.

I think there is a lot to be learned from a successful campaign and DM like me and I'm not shy or feel any need to be humble about that success, I earned it through decades of dedicated effort.  I can't imagine why someone reading my advice would feel the need to push back or feel threatened by it, its just advice from a guy that has been doing it successfully for a very long time.  

Quote from OSR4Ever>>

Consider that according to countless polls done about modern games and modern gaming groups, the average campaign is lucky to survive for a year and campaigns almost never get past 10th level.  That is shockingly short.  My campaign has been ongoing without interruption for well over 3 decades and frankly, that is pretty common for old-school gamers, there is nothing particularly unique or special about that.  I think there are many reasons for that discrepancy between old-school and modern gamers, but I think mostly it boils down to experience with the game, especially experience through trial and error, assessment and coming to an understanding of what works and what doesn't through practical play and measuring that success in the long term.  If you find yourself "looking for players for a new campaign" all the time, at some point it might be a good idea to ask why your last campaign ended rather than starting a new one with the same conditions and approach.

I don't think it's anything like as common amongst the old-school as you make it out to be. Life happens. People move. They get married or divorced. They have kids. They change jobs. They get too busy. Groups die natural deaths through no fault of the GMing.

More importantly, why do you think all those campaigns are failures? The game that goes on forever, or at least to level cap, is not the platonic ideal of D&D. The group that plays through Curse of Strahd and then ends did not fail. Stories end. Frodo goes to the Grey Havens eventually. Luke Skywalker defeats the Emperor and redeems his father. Some people run new games in the same world as their previous one. Some don't.

I probably would have gone with an Intelligence (Arcana) or (History) check and let you decide which one. The first would reveal more about the planar origin of the race. The second would reveal information about where the regions with higher populations of water genasi in the world.

Quote from jl8e >>

Quote from OSR4Ever>>

Consider that according to countless polls done about modern games and modern gaming groups, the average campaign is lucky to survive for a year and campaigns almost never get past 10th level.  That is shockingly short.  My campaign has been ongoing without interruption for well over 3 decades and frankly, that is pretty common for old-school gamers, there is nothing particularly unique or special about that.  I think there are many reasons for that discrepancy between old-school and modern gamers, but I think mostly it boils down to experience with the game, especially experience through trial and error, assessment and coming to an understanding of what works and what doesn't through practical play and measuring that success in the long term.  If you find yourself "looking for players for a new campaign" all the time, at some point it might be a good idea to ask why your last campaign ended rather than starting a new one with the same conditions and approach.

I don't think it's anything like as common amongst the old-school as you make it out to be. Life happens. People move. They get married or divorced. They have kids. They change jobs. They get too busy. Groups die natural deaths through no fault of the GMing.

More importantly, why do you think all those campaigns are failures? The game that goes on forever, or at least to level cap, is not the platonic ideal of D&D. The group that plays through Curse of Strahd and then ends did not fail. Stories end. Frodo goes to the Grey Havens eventually. Luke Skywalker defeats the Emperor and redeems his father. Some people run new games in the same world as their previous one. Some don't.

 
I did/do not assume these campaigns were failures, I'm simply pointing out that they run for a very short time and essentially end at around 10th level.  It illustrates a lack of longevity in campaigns, as well as an incredibly fast level-up cycle and I suspect may be the reason why people feel a need for such brevity of character backgrounds as the games they play in, lack the time and commitment to allow stories to unfold more naturally, its all kind of rushed. 

Consider that when you enter my game, as a mere nobody, all you need is a quick depiction done at the table and you are ready to rock"I'm an apprentice mage that just graduated from the Gilantri School of Evocation".  It's really all that is needed, your character is a blank page, your canvas that will be filled with stories that emerge through gameplay. That is the game in essence, you, through gameplay, writing your character's evolving background.  By the time you are 3rd-4th level you are going to have enough material to write a countless pages for your chronicle about all the stuff that has happened in your character's career to that point and that is just the tip of the iceberg.  Your career has barely begun and typically reaching the 3rd-4th level in my game takes the average player a year to achieve.  Really active and or very successful characters might reach 5th or 6th level. 

At that point, your character has a background, has established themselves in the world, will have a reputation, knows many things about it and likely have been involved in its developing history.  They probably have friends and enemies alike.

Modern games so far as my experience goes are games in which players essentially pencil in the 1st year of play (as I see it in my campaign) and that becomes the starting point.  Then they enter a pre-written story which starts and resolves inside of a year at which point the character is 10th level and is retired.  I don't think that is a failed state, but it definitely feels simultaneously rushed and ultimately unfinished.  Though I can understand why you would want to end it.  The story has ended and the character has achieved what by all appearances seems to be the end game level in modern D&D.  Like DM's are very reluctant to run characters after 10th level and so they essentially reset.

Again, I'm not saying it's a failure but, yeah, I find the desire for someone to go into a campaign knowing that this is how it's going to go down kind of baffling. I personally would have no desire to run or play in such a game, it feels so rushed and unfinished. I feel like it kind of misses the point of the game's ongoing nature.  

This is also a very strange attitude from modern gamers,  given that modern players are always talking about how important it is to be invested in the story, in the narrative of the character, how they want to have these robust and epic campaigns, yet, despite talking about the game in this fashion which I actually think is great and exactly as it should be, no one seems actually follow through and do it, at least if the polls are to be believed. 

And regarding the longevity of old-school games, of course I'm sure there are many groups that fall apart and drift away, this is normal, but I can tell you that among old-school gamers, the biggest commonality you will find among players is the dedication to long-term campaigns.  This probably stems from the AD&D DMG which essentially instructs you that this is the way the game is meant to be played.  Gygax was quite specific about that instruction and intent for the game, so its kind of a base mentality for old-school gamers of that era that was instilled through the games they played.  Of course its a generalization, but its at least the culture of old-school gamers to believe that this is what is meant by campaign.. aka, a long term running of a setting/world by a DM where players essentially live a second life.

And I know (believe) from personal experience given that the majority of the players in my campaign are modern, new-school players that this desire for long-running, dedicated campaigns is sought after in this community and modern D&D culture as well.  Like, I don't think this desire is unique to old-school gamers, I just think it's only old-school gamers that have the culture of normalizing that sort of approach to running campaigns.

What your DM says is what goes.

If you don't trust your DM, you shouldn't play with him or her.

If you want to make your own judgment calls, you should DM your own games.

As for the call, Intelligence is the ability related to critical thinking and recall. Wisdom is for the senses and intuition.

There's multiple ways to do what is being attempted, but insight would be the best to try and judge a character by wisdom. There's not really a "recall" ability in intelligence, despite memory being part of the intelligence ability, hence why it's not a history or arcana skill. (you're not trying to discern this perso from the historical text you might have read, and you aren't trying to reference him against some arcane magical text you may have read).

The rolls chosen are quite apt. Honestly, I can't think of anything that would suit better, and your DM knows his or her stuff.

Stop trying to second guess them.

Quote from OSR4Ever >>

 

 Just a couple of additional comments ... I don't disagree with what you have said though.

1) Although D&D has always been "collaborative", unless the group takes the next step and everyone contributes to world building (which in y experience is very uncommon) then it may be "our" game but it is the DM's world and they have full control over the content of the world they are creating, including anything that might touch on detailed backstories.

2) You specifically mentioned "collaborative" story telling. However, a player that provides an exceptionally detailed background that grants them special abilities and contacts based on world building and then tells the DM this is how it goes is NOT being collaborative. A DM who reads such a background explains how it won't fit the world or isn't fair to other players and then suggests modifications that capture the spirit of the intended background but not the implied mechanical benefits is actually being collaborative ... a player who insists on a particular version of their background is not collaborating.

3) There are several special features of the published backgrounds in the PHB that can easily be substituted for the contacts described in a detailed background ...

"Feature: Position of Privilege

Thanks to your noble birth, people are inclined to think the best of you. You are welcome in high society, and people assume you have the right to be wherever you are. The common folk make every effort to accommodate you and avoid your displeasure, and other people of high birth treat you as a member of the same social sphere. You can secure an audience with a local noble if you need to."

"Feature: Criminal Contact

You have a reliable and trustworthy contact who acts as your liaison to a network of other criminals. You know how to get messages to and from your contact, even over great distances; specifically, you know the local messengers, corrupt caravan masters, and seedy sailors who can deliver messages for you."

"Feature: Military Rank

You have a military rank from your career as a soldier. Soldiers loyal to your former military organization still recognize your authority and influence, and they defer to you if they are of a lower rank. You can invoke your rank to exert influence over other soldiers and requisition simple equipment or horses for temporary use. You can also usually gain access to friendly military encampments and fortresses where your rank is recognized."

The above Military Rank feature which is part of the Soldier background in the PHB is very similar to the more detailed background except it doesn't mention names. Any benefits are up to the DM but a character with a soldier background interacting with the soldiers they used to serve with does have some benefits.

---------

Anyway, I don't usually find character backgrounds or back stories to be much of an issue and if a player comes up with a backstory that contains a lot of world building elements then I usually don't mind including them if they fit the game world. However, I won't allow a backstory to provide a mechanical advantage. A player who writes a backstory of a character that comes from a very wealthy family and raids the family vault for magic items to start their adventuring career and then tries to give the DM a list of magic items that they have from their "backstory" deserves a hard NOPE, no matter how "confrontational" it might sound.

 

 
Let me put it this way.  I don't have an issue with backgrounds if the purpose of the background is to define a character, be it their personality, family, living arrangement or whatever aspect of the character the player believes is important to help them portray that character. 

With that said, what I would say is that the best backgrounds are the ones that the DM doesn't need to read, there shouldn't be anything that is relevant to the plot of the campaign or relevant to the design of the adventure/campaign and/or setting.  That information is a guide for the player, not the DM.

If the background requires me to read it, because it needs me to adapt the plot, adventure or setting, and/or adapt to some instruction, obvious or hinted at, then I would say that is not a good background in my view.  Its not what I want to see from players because the setting, campaign and individual adventures are already written by the time I say "hey guys, I'm starting a new campaign", I have already spent countless hours preparing it. I don't want to see a bunch of stuff in backgrounds that's going to force me to adapt, change or cut stuff to make it work for X or Y characters.  A campaign I write does not have specific characters in mind, and nor do published adventures or campaigns for that matter beyond very high-level stuff like "if you have a Wizard... "

So for me its sort like, it's not a big deal or anything, you want to write a background, go for, by all means be creative, but if you NEED me to read it, then I know there is going to be a problem and inevitably, there always is. Don' get me wrong, I love reading backgrounds I really do and I always hope players create cool and creative characters, but yeah, if you need me to adapt rules to make it work, change the setting to make room for whatever crazy species you made up, figure out why a billionaire would take mercenary work or what have you.. its really problematic and I just don't like dealing with it as a DM.

D&D is a game, not a theatre show.. make a character, give them a name and lets see who they became through the emerging story, I don't like pre-ordained stuff and I swear to god every background I read basically says "I'm the chosen one".

The new stuff is very role play oriented, and yet, if you look at what changes they propose it's very player oriented and very combat driven, which is paradoxical.

At the heart though, D&D is *edit* NOW *edit* the haven for theater kids, not the old school war strategist nerds. (I don't think games like outdoor survival or the pen and paper war games my uncles used to play even exist anymore).

I remember characters being easily drawn up in a few minutes and then most of your time was dungeon delving, and you didn't need much in the way of your character having a back story or the game itself needing that much of a story.

These days, it's about story. I love it, and to avoid some of the issues you are all discussing it's good to have conversations with your players regarding what they want to play and how your story is going to go.

The biggest drawback is that players have an idea as to what they want to play as and a fabulous backstory and how they think their character's story needs to play out, and they get REALLY REALLY REALLY upset when they roll crap (and i get it. consecutive bad rolls SUCK, but a player should be able to role play weaknesses and occasional screw ups), and most of it comes from not understanding what a GOOD character is (the flaws), and part of it is being so invested in that one character, that it's hard to let them fail or die.

That failure and death is built into AD&D and original Basic, but in expecting it, it also doesn't do much role play. The hard part of any edition is finding balance.