I think those bonds, flaws and ideals take quite a bit of work and should only become relevant once the player has come to grips with them.
I ran a wood elf cleric and after time changed those bonds, flaws and ideals to those of the Far Traveller as they came across as more accurate to the character I was running that was an Outlander.
What are some examples you would do to mess with or punish a player that refuses to take the time to write a backstory, or even just goes with "My character has amnesia" (Player doesn't have flaws or anything)
This just comes off as adversarial, regardless of intent or context. I'm not coming up with a good reason for me to "mess with"(see also: harass) or punish a player because they didn't do what I told them to.
Simple answer is usually the best. 1) No backstory, they don't play. 2) No backstory they don't get a character arc customized for them. Either one serves the purpose without creating personal conflict.
Pretty sure I used the wrong term. Allot of people are hung up on the word "punishment" and not really even reading the whole thing.😒🙄
This is a fair determination. The wrong term might have been used, sure. The real issue might be that the term that was used best fit what was intended to be conveyed. This is what a majority of these posts are answering to. It also answers the question posed, just not sure that it has been accepted as a viable answer.
“Travel is fatal to prejudice, bigotry, and narrow-mindedness, and many of our people need it sorely on these accounts. Broad, wholesome, charitable views of men and things cannot be acquired by vegetating in one little corner of the earth all one's lifetime.” - Mark Twain - Innocents Abroad
My players are RL friends. That's plenty of reason for me to mess with them (and vice-versa). But then, 'mess with' doesn't mean 'harass' or 'punish' to me. More like a friendly ribbing. Perhaps it's a regional thing. *shrug*
For online groups or groups of strangers I think the above advice is good. Just keep it simple - backstory is required to play.
if your players refuse to have a backstory for they characters then that might be a indicator that they want more "dungeons and dragons" and less "roleplay stuff"
However if they want to play in a 5e game they are going to need a background and that background will be their back story and if they're not careful their DM will bring that into the game so they might want to prepare for that event!
However if they want to play in a 5e game they are going to need a background and that background will be their back story and if they're not careful their DM will bring that into the game so they might want to prepare for that event!
You don’t have to have a backstory at all, yes you pick a background, scholar etc, but you don’t need to define the back story to that. In addition as a DM I happily let my players pick the background they want mechanically and then name it whatever they like.
But I will say again after 20+ years of playing both sides of the table you don’t need a character to have any background in order to run a campaign.
A fun way to do it, and a good way to make fun of them in a (hopefully) friendly way, is to rule that (within reason) whatever you or the other players say about the person's backstory is true.
Remember that time I had to take you to the priest to have genital warts cured three times in the same month?
You see your parole officer sitting at the bar. You never thought they'd track you down!
"I have come for revenge! Return to me the idol and I will let you live! What idol, you say? Don't play dumb with me!"
It is commonly known how compelling and successful Solo: A Star Wars Story was. Maybe it’s ok to just deal with characters as they are in the story we’re trying to tell and not worry about what happened in the before times. If you want an adventure hook, make it up on the spot without a story behind it. We don’t need to hear the story of Ord Mantell, we just need to know that our characters spent some time between stories bonding.
I might be in the minority here, but I play D&D for frontstory, not backstory.
It is commonly known how compelling and successful Solo: A Star Wars Story was. Maybe it’s ok to just deal with characters as they are in the story we’re trying to tell and not worry about what happened in the before times. If you want an adventure hook, make it up on the spot without a story behind it. We don’t need to hear the story of Ord Mantell, we just need to know that our characters spent some time between stories bonding.
I might be in the minority here, but I play D&D for frontstory, not backstory.
Eh. Rogue One is easily one of the better Star Wars movies and Darth Vader is the character he is because of his backstory. Luke being a scruffy nerf herder while Leia became a diplomat’s daughter, that’s backstory. Han needing to be rescued from being Jabba’s popsicle on display is because of backstory. That yellow lettering scrolling over the screen at the start of the movies? Backstory. The prequels may have done a shitty job of telling those backstories, but that’s the thing: you don’t really tell your character’s backstory during the campaign either.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Want to start playing but don't have anyone to play with? You can try these options: [link].
Agree to disagree. All the backstory reference did was to contextualize the frontstory. No 7000 page novel needed.
Which is exactly what happens if the DM makes the backstory relevant in the campaign, and I've never seen a backstory longer than 3-4 paragraphs in three decades of roleplaying. Also, I'm not sure "Luke, I'm your father" was nothing but the frontstory getting contextualized - but to each their own.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Want to start playing but don't have anyone to play with? You can try these options: [link].
It is commonly known how compelling and successful Solo: A Star Wars Story was. Maybe it’s ok to just deal with characters as they are in the story we’re trying to tell and not worry about what happened in the before times. If you want an adventure hook, make it up on the spot without a story behind it. We don’t need to hear the story of Ord Mantell, we just need to know that our characters spent some time between stories bonding.
I might be in the minority here, but I play D&D for frontstory, not backstory.
Eh. Rogue One is easily one of the better Star Wars movies and Darth Vader is the character he is because of his backstory. Luke being a scruffy nerf herder while Leia became a diplomat’s daughter, that’s backstory. Han needing to be rescued from being Jabba’s popsicle on display is because of backstory. That yellow lettering scrolling over the screen at the start of the movies? Backstory. The prequels may have done a shitty job of telling those backstories, but that’s the thing: you don’t really tell your character’s backstory during the campaign either.
But darth vadar was level 20+ by the end of revenge of the sith :). Look at the hobbit, there is really no backstory for The reader abiut Bilbo before a wizard comes knocking at his door and in fact Tolkien hadn’t written much in the way of backstory for the hobbit, most of his work came after writing the book when he expanded on the world he had written.
Well if he wanted to play in my 5e game, Tolkien would've had to come up with at least a couple paras of Bilbo's backstory. :) I doubt it would've been a big problem for him.
Agree to disagree. All the backstory reference did was to contextualize the frontstory. No 7000 page novel needed.
Which is exactly what happens if the DM makes the backstory relevant in the campaign, and I've never seen a backstory longer than 3-4 paragraphs in three decades of roleplaying. Also, I'm not sure "Luke, I'm your father" was nothing but the frontstory getting contextualized - but to each their own.
That along with Luke and Leia being sisters were obvious retcons from the first movie, so if that doesn’t count as (re)contextualized front-story -- made up on the spot to make the story we're actually watching more interesting -- then I don’t know what might.
And as far as I’m concerned, the idea of “how much backstory should I write?” is an entirely subjective one. I just gave a few reasons why I think that the story we’re telling is far more important than the one we’re not telling.
I remember reading about that Lucas did vision in broad terms all 9 episodes of star wars even before first one was made. (so "I am you father" and Leia/Luke as siblings was know even then). First one (episode 6) was just made work as a single indepent movie because at that point they did not know how succesfull it would be and would they ever make sequels.
Back to topic: I dont need character backgrounds in my campaings because story is what they are doing "now". On other hand, I will reward players if they have made ones. Main story incorprotes mission/story hooks from their past and can lead "side missions". So Those are usefull, but not nesessarely needed.
Well if he wanted to play in my 5e game, Tolkien would've had to come up with at least a couple paras of Bilbo's backstory. :) I doubt it would've been a big problem for him.
I am largely a DM now but can honestly say in 25+ years of roleplaying I have never written a backstory down, I might have an idea in my head, but rarely do I even name my parents until I am specifically asked in game what my parents names where. It is information I don’t need to know.
my last adventure I told my DM This level 1 wizard thinks he is amazingly talented, actually an average student at the academy, knows it deep down and so is desperate to prove himself.
Nothing written down, I didn't come up with a name for my school or an arch nemesis student. That one spoken sentence told me and the DM all we needed to know about how my character would behave session 1. From there on out I discovered things as I roleplayed the character, fleshing out stuff as I interacted with my fellow players and NPCs and the world around me.
As a DM that is all I need from my players for session 1 and I never want more then 6-10 sentences at absolute most, if a player gives me pages of backstory then I ask them to break it down to just a few bullet points for me I don’t need to read it or understand and as a DM I don’t really care what a players parents or siblings are called until later in my campaign when I might start feeding backstory into the adventure, level 5 onwards generally.
I think those bonds, flaws and ideals take quite a bit of work and should only become relevant once the player has come to grips with them.
I ran a wood elf cleric and after time changed those bonds, flaws and ideals to those of the Far Traveller as they came across as more accurate to the character I was running that was an Outlander.
So yes about those.
This just comes off as adversarial, regardless of intent or context. I'm not coming up with a good reason for me to "mess with"(see also: harass) or punish a player because they didn't do what I told them to.
Simple answer is usually the best. 1) No backstory, they don't play. 2) No backstory they don't get a character arc customized for them. Either one serves the purpose without creating personal conflict.
This is a fair determination. The wrong term might have been used, sure. The real issue might be that the term that was used best fit what was intended to be conveyed. This is what a majority of these posts are answering to. It also answers the question posed, just not sure that it has been accepted as a viable answer.
Edit: politeness
“Travel is fatal to prejudice, bigotry, and narrow-mindedness, and many of our people need it sorely on these accounts. Broad, wholesome, charitable views of men and things cannot be acquired by vegetating in one little corner of the earth all one's lifetime.” - Mark Twain - Innocents Abroad
My players are RL friends. That's plenty of reason for me to mess with them (and vice-versa). But then, 'mess with' doesn't mean 'harass' or 'punish' to me. More like a friendly ribbing. Perhaps it's a regional thing. *shrug*
For online groups or groups of strangers I think the above advice is good. Just keep it simple - backstory is required to play.
if your players refuse to have a backstory for they characters then that might be a indicator that they want more "dungeons and dragons" and less "roleplay stuff"
ask then and try it out, it can be fun too
However if they want to play in a 5e game they are going to need a background and that background will be their back story and if they're not careful their DM will bring that into the game so they might want to prepare for that event!
You don’t have to have a backstory at all, yes you pick a background, scholar etc, but you don’t need to define the back story to that. In addition as a DM I happily let my players pick the background they want mechanically and then name it whatever they like.
But I will say again after 20+ years of playing both sides of the table you don’t need a character to have any background in order to run a campaign.
Depends on the game and the edition.
If you have a group and dm willing to run it like that well all the best, but to expect everyone to do the same thats reaching.
A fun way to do it, and a good way to make fun of them in a (hopefully) friendly way, is to rule that (within reason) whatever you or the other players say about the person's backstory is true.
Remember that time I had to take you to the priest to have genital warts cured three times in the same month?
You see your parole officer sitting at the bar. You never thought they'd track you down!
"I have come for revenge! Return to me the idol and I will let you live! What idol, you say? Don't play dumb with me!"
Hehe I like that. With the right group of players that could be really funny and fun.
It is commonly known how compelling and successful Solo: A Star Wars Story was. Maybe it’s ok to just deal with characters as they are in the story we’re trying to tell and not worry about what happened in the before times. If you want an adventure hook, make it up on the spot without a story behind it. We don’t need to hear the story of Ord Mantell, we just need to know that our characters spent some time between stories bonding.
I might be in the minority here, but I play D&D for frontstory, not backstory.
Eh. Rogue One is easily one of the better Star Wars movies and Darth Vader is the character he is because of his backstory. Luke being a scruffy nerf herder while Leia became a diplomat’s daughter, that’s backstory. Han needing to be rescued from being Jabba’s popsicle on display is because of backstory. That yellow lettering scrolling over the screen at the start of the movies? Backstory. The prequels may have done a shitty job of telling those backstories, but that’s the thing: you don’t really tell your character’s backstory during the campaign either.
Want to start playing but don't have anyone to play with? You can try these options: [link].
Agree to disagree. All the backstory reference did was to contextualize the frontstory. No 7000 page novel needed.
Which is exactly what happens if the DM makes the backstory relevant in the campaign, and I've never seen a backstory longer than 3-4 paragraphs in three decades of roleplaying. Also, I'm not sure "Luke, I'm your father" was nothing but the frontstory getting contextualized - but to each their own.
Want to start playing but don't have anyone to play with? You can try these options: [link].
But darth vadar was level 20+ by the end of revenge of the sith :). Look at the hobbit, there is really no backstory for The reader abiut Bilbo before a wizard comes knocking at his door and in fact Tolkien hadn’t written much in the way of backstory for the hobbit, most of his work came after writing the book when he expanded on the world he had written.
Well if he wanted to play in my 5e game, Tolkien would've had to come up with at least a couple paras of Bilbo's backstory. :) I doubt it would've been a big problem for him.
That along with Luke and Leia being sisters were obvious retcons from the first movie, so if that doesn’t count as (re)contextualized front-story -- made up on the spot to make the story we're actually watching more interesting -- then I don’t know what might.
And as far as I’m concerned, the idea of “how much backstory should I write?” is an entirely subjective one. I just gave a few reasons why I think that the story we’re telling is far more important than the one we’re not telling.
I remember reading about that Lucas did vision in broad terms all 9 episodes of star wars even before first one was made. (so "I am you father" and Leia/Luke as siblings was know even then). First one (episode 6) was just made work as a single indepent movie because at that point they did not know how succesfull it would be and would they ever make sequels.
Back to topic: I dont need character backgrounds in my campaings because story is what they are doing "now". On other hand, I will reward players if they have made ones. Main story incorprotes mission/story hooks from their past and can lead "side missions". So Those are usefull, but not nesessarely needed.
I am largely a DM now but can honestly say in 25+ years of roleplaying I have never written a backstory down, I might have an idea in my head, but rarely do I even name my parents until I am specifically asked in game what my parents names where. It is information I don’t need to know.
my last adventure I told my DM This level 1 wizard thinks he is amazingly talented, actually an average student at the academy, knows it deep down and so is desperate to prove himself.
Nothing written down, I didn't come up with a name for my school or an arch nemesis student. That one spoken sentence told me and the DM all we needed to know about how my character would behave session 1. From there on out I discovered things as I roleplayed the character, fleshing out stuff as I interacted with my fellow players and NPCs and the world around me.
As a DM that is all I need from my players for session 1 and I never want more then 6-10 sentences at absolute most, if a player gives me pages of backstory then I ask them to break it down to just a few bullet points for me I don’t need to read it or understand and as a DM I don’t really care what a players parents or siblings are called until later in my campaign when I might start feeding backstory into the adventure, level 5 onwards generally.
Ah sounds very much like the Fourth doctor as played by Tom Baker!
A fine approach.
How did your DM handle that if it came up may i ask?
I really like the ideas that Scarloc presents. An allusion to a thing is sometimes at least as valuable in storytelling as the thing itself.