My group's next campaign is Curse of Strahd, and I've been hard at work creating a good dark fantasy hero for this story. One option I've been playing around with, is that I have a character who comes from a Noble or Royal family that has some history with the Zaroviches. Ideas for relationships I've tossed around have included business partners, rivals, and even usurpers who took their name, land, and crest. Either way, we have a scandelous history with Strahd's family, played an important role in their downfall, and thought we had been rid of them for 200 years. Then I get that invitation for dinner, and it comes with a warning. If I don't come to the dark lands that Strahd rules, he'll reveal our families dirty history with his family, which could ruin us. Is this connection too strong?
That sounds like an awesome idea! I love when players write some juicy connections to the world for me to play with. Bring it up with your DM early, though, so they have a chance to work it in. Not all DM's like that level of collaboration in "their" world, so bringing it up early will also give you a chance to see if your DM will enthusiastically go along with you or will mostly ignore your backstory.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Canto alla vita alla sua bellezza ad ogni sua ferita ogni sua carezza!
I sing to life and to its tragic beauty To pain and to strife, but all that dances through me The rise and the fall, I've lived through it all!
Ultimately it's the DM's call, but it sounds good to me. I recommend discussing it with your DM; unless they have something specific in mind I suspect they can work your ideas into the game. It's nice that you're keeping it open enough to be tweaked to the game while still having a solid and simple central theme (Strahd having a reason to hold a grudge against your house).
Funny, I was in another thread writing about how a player works with a DM to establish "buy in" to the game's world.
Just as others say, a character background going this rich should be run by the DM before committing. To play off Ophidmancer's response, sometimes "juicy" can oversaturate the game.
The big thing to contend with is a big part of CoS is unlocking the mystery of Strahd. Your player may have knowledge "presumed by backstory" that short circuits the discovery that takes place in game. There's also the risk that asserting this sort of association may overshadow other PCs and center the drama over your character.
Lastly, a character with this background puts a PC with roots in Barovia ... and CoS as written is more strangers in a strange land than natives who know the lore and present power dynamics. There's a lot of discovery taking place in the game. I'm not saying a DM couldn't tailor the game to players who want characters more grounded in Barovia; but as written the adventure is more "Scooby Doo drawn to mystery types who are sort of passing through" meaning there's more discovery than roots.
For a more "unbound" CoS campaign where the DM is using the adventure more as a sourcebook to run some sort of battle against Strahd the character is more compelling, and arguably could fill in roles occupied in the adventure as written by NPCs.
This last doesn't ruin the adventure but putting it under spoiler lock because it does go a bit more in depth:
There's a particular economy of souls, plus domain of dread thing going on with Barovia where having a character with blood ties the land may not make a lot of sense, less the DM is willing to apply handwavium and just keep it a shrug off or invest even more into this hypothetical PCs background. Though just free styling, I have an idea how to address that, though it would put another stressor on your character, but in a background rather than front and center way, at least until this hook plays out. Don't want to spoil the module in this space, but can talk about it offline.
we have a scandelous history with Strahd's family, played an important role in their downfall, and thought we had been rid of them for 200 years.
Also be careful with this -- you do not want to set it up so that your character is the star of the show or more important/significant than the rest of the party.
D&D is a team sport.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
WOTC lies. We know that WOTC lies. WOTC knows that we know that WOTC lies. We know that WOTC knows that we know that WOTC lies. And still they lie.
Because of the above (a paraphrase from Orwell) I no longer post to the forums -- PM me if you need help or anything.
we have a scandelous history with Strahd's family, played an important role in their downfall, and thought we had been rid of them for 200 years.
Also be careful with this -- you do not want to set it up so that your character is the star of the show or more important/significant than the rest of the party.
D&D is a team sport.
True, but this is another example of "it depends." Some people don't want to have the pressure of being pivotal to the storyline and just want to do stuff. Some player like to spectate a lot of the story and social interactions. Others want to be involved in the story. Maybe everyone could have some sort of backstory tie-in. That would also give equal screen time to the other players. I know that's what my DM tries to do with the games we play.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Canto alla vita alla sua bellezza ad ogni sua ferita ogni sua carezza!
I sing to life and to its tragic beauty To pain and to strife, but all that dances through me The rise and the fall, I've lived through it all!
we have a scandelous history with Strahd's family, played an important role in their downfall, and thought we had been rid of them for 200 years.
Also be careful with this -- you do not want to set it up so that your character is the star of the show or more important/significant than the rest of the party.
D&D is a team sport.
True, but this is another example of "it depends." Some people don't want to have the pressure of being pivotal to the storyline and just want to do stuff. Some player like to spectate a lot of the story and social interactions. Others want to be involved in the story. Maybe everyone could have some sort of backstory tie-in. That would also give equal screen time to the other players. I know that's what my DM tries to do with the games we play.
You're right, but working with the DM helps mitigate unintentional pulling of focus/ centering. There are players that are mostly "supporting" characters backing up players who like taking the main stage. But even those preferences can vary depending on player mix and player/DM chemistry and world design. In the OP's instance, there's some great thought, and definitely demonstrates a player who wants to play full bore with both barrels .., but DMs who know CoS could see those specific background elections being a bit problematic to the way CoS is generally designed to be played. I think a background ask like that shows enthusiasm a lot of DMs would appreciate and work with, even if some departures have to be made to accommodate the adventures designs and in this case the game world's metaphysics.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Jander Sunstar is the thinking person's Drizzt, fight me.
we have a scandelous history with Strahd's family, played an important role in their downfall, and thought we had been rid of them for 200 years.
Also be careful with this -- you do not want to set it up so that your character is the star of the show or more important/significant than the rest of the party.
D&D is a team sport.
This. While the DM in me would be inclined to allow this backstory, I’d ultimately not, because I know the player in me would be upset if someone else showed up with this “main character” background. I think most people would.
So don’t just talk to your DM, but talk to your fellow players. Not just a “is this okay?” because then they’ll probably just say yes to be polite, but bring up this specific concern and ask for their brutal honest thoughts. Or better yet, work with them and the DM to build their characters equally relevant backgrounds!
I think this is an extremely important point. If you ask other players "is this outrageous thing in my background OK," they will almost always say yes, even if they privately don't like it, because no one wants to be the spoil sport and ruin your fun. DMs are not the only ones who take it on the chin for the table -- players will often do so as well. Don't be the person who convinces everyone else to sacrifice their fun so that you can enjoy your character more. Try to find a way that everyone can enjoy the game.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
WOTC lies. We know that WOTC lies. WOTC knows that we know that WOTC lies. We know that WOTC knows that we know that WOTC lies. And still they lie.
Because of the above (a paraphrase from Orwell) I no longer post to the forums -- PM me if you need help or anything.
I don’t want my players having stupid deep intricate backstories. I do want them to have ties, and motivations, and like a generic “This is who my character is”, but the fact being most campaigns start around level 3, some lower? Constantly worrying about those imaginary ties are going to hinder the roleplay of the future. Not only that, but if they are so important? They probably aren’t going to be adventuring.
I do want players to be involved in the story, and the OP clearly wants that. Kudos there, definitely. This isn’t meant to discourage it, but to kind of temper it. I think I’ve seen 2 DMs out of about 50 that I’ve interacted with on more than a forum presence level take a backstory that was 3+ pages and actively work it into a setting. Most will pick four things out of it and toss the rest.
Just ran a session 0 for a homebrew world, and here’s what I asked my table for a custom setting, but could be done with any. With Curse of Strahd, most of this would come in the form of the Dark Powers tempting the players:
Who is the person you are closest with?
You is the person you are most at odds with?
Why are you doing this?
What’s your biggest flaw?
What’s your biggest strength?
What’s a personal rule you’d never break? Now give me a reason you’d break it.
That’s really all I want. This will in general give me motivations for a character, how they might mesh together, and gives me some flavor to work with in the beginning. The rest will happen as the world and sessions evolve. If someone says they are related to the big bad? I toss that shit out. I think the main character should evolve naturally, not be pre-ordained at session 0. Inspiration is awarded for good roleplay in those specific facets, and then for good evolution of characters.
To add to the BioW and Naivara, a player coming to me with a developed backstory is welcome, even if it only exhbits willing to work with the game. Two or more players coming together saying "this is how we think our characters will work" is even better. The whole party saying "based on what we know of the world, this is what we think we want to be coming from" would be amazing. I've never had the fortune of a whole party organizing in this way, but I've had a few players sort of pre game character stories to give them starting relations.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Jander Sunstar is the thinking person's Drizzt, fight me.
I don’t want my players having stupid deep intricate backstories. I do want them to have ties, and motivations, and like a generic “This is who my character is”, but the fact for most campaign start around level 3, some some lower? Constantly worrying about those imaginary ties are going to hinder the roleplay of the future. Not only that, but if they are so important? They probably aren’t going to be adventuring.
This is actually a really important point. Someone here once said, 'The most important thing that happened to your character shouldn't be in its backstory.' The goal is to set up a character who can play in the campaign *now*, and get involved in *this story*. That should be more engaging and important than anything in its backstory.
And as Spidey says, making up too involved a backstory can actually hinder you from getting your PC involved "in the now". Never have a story so important to the character that it would make them not want to go on this adventure, in the here and now -- because THAT is The Story, which is more important than the backstory.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
WOTC lies. We know that WOTC lies. WOTC knows that we know that WOTC lies. We know that WOTC knows that we know that WOTC lies. And still they lie.
Because of the above (a paraphrase from Orwell) I no longer post to the forums -- PM me if you need help or anything.
This is actually a really important point. Someone here once said, 'The most important thing that happened to your character shouldn't be in its backstory.'
I think that might have been me, actually. And I still agree with it, but I do still like a player that comes to the table with a back story that has a plot hook or two in it. As long as they're flexible enough for me to tweak it to fit my campaign.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Canto alla vita alla sua bellezza ad ogni sua ferita ogni sua carezza!
I sing to life and to its tragic beauty To pain and to strife, but all that dances through me The rise and the fall, I've lived through it all!
I think intricate backstories or simple backstores can work, but the main thing is to make sure the most important thing is met: giving them motivation to go on the adventure.
You can be a farmer dreaming of bigger things who took up a sword to seek his fortune, or an exiled noble with a blackstory filled with political intrigue etc, so long as it gives your character motivation to go on the adventure and you're working WITH the DM not AGAINST the DM to get your character involved, I find either approach can work just fine. So long as the backstory is written with the goal of getting you out the door on that adventure and not a self contained story that doesn't give your character that motivation.
Oh and also, leave room for character development. Backstory is the start of their story not the whole story.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
My group's next campaign is Curse of Strahd, and I've been hard at work creating a good dark fantasy hero for this story. One option I've been playing around with, is that I have a character who comes from a Noble or Royal family that has some history with the Zaroviches. Ideas for relationships I've tossed around have included business partners, rivals, and even usurpers who took their name, land, and crest. Either way, we have a scandelous history with Strahd's family, played an important role in their downfall, and thought we had been rid of them for 200 years. Then I get that invitation for dinner, and it comes with a warning. If I don't come to the dark lands that Strahd rules, he'll reveal our families dirty history with his family, which could ruin us. Is this connection too strong?
That sounds like an awesome idea! I love when players write some juicy connections to the world for me to play with. Bring it up with your DM early, though, so they have a chance to work it in. Not all DM's like that level of collaboration in "their" world, so bringing it up early will also give you a chance to see if your DM will enthusiastically go along with you or will mostly ignore your backstory.
Canto alla vita
alla sua bellezza
ad ogni sua ferita
ogni sua carezza!
I sing to life and to its tragic beauty
To pain and to strife, but all that dances through me
The rise and the fall, I've lived through it all!
That's really a question only your DM can answer.
WOTC lies. We know that WOTC lies. WOTC knows that we know that WOTC lies. We know that WOTC knows that we know that WOTC lies. And still they lie.
Because of the above (a paraphrase from Orwell) I no longer post to the forums -- PM me if you need help or anything.
Ultimately it's the DM's call, but it sounds good to me. I recommend discussing it with your DM; unless they have something specific in mind I suspect they can work your ideas into the game. It's nice that you're keeping it open enough to be tweaked to the game while still having a solid and simple central theme (Strahd having a reason to hold a grudge against your house).
Funny, I was in another thread writing about how a player works with a DM to establish "buy in" to the game's world.
Just as others say, a character background going this rich should be run by the DM before committing. To play off Ophidmancer's response, sometimes "juicy" can oversaturate the game.
The big thing to contend with is a big part of CoS is unlocking the mystery of Strahd. Your player may have knowledge "presumed by backstory" that short circuits the discovery that takes place in game. There's also the risk that asserting this sort of association may overshadow other PCs and center the drama over your character.
Lastly, a character with this background puts a PC with roots in Barovia ... and CoS as written is more strangers in a strange land than natives who know the lore and present power dynamics. There's a lot of discovery taking place in the game. I'm not saying a DM couldn't tailor the game to players who want characters more grounded in Barovia; but as written the adventure is more "Scooby Doo drawn to mystery types who are sort of passing through" meaning there's more discovery than roots.
For a more "unbound" CoS campaign where the DM is using the adventure more as a sourcebook to run some sort of battle against Strahd the character is more compelling, and arguably could fill in roles occupied in the adventure as written by NPCs.
This last doesn't ruin the adventure but putting it under spoiler lock because it does go a bit more in depth:
There's a particular economy of souls, plus domain of dread thing going on with Barovia where having a character with blood ties the land may not make a lot of sense, less the DM is willing to apply handwavium and just keep it a shrug off or invest even more into this hypothetical PCs background. Though just free styling, I have an idea how to address that, though it would put another stressor on your character, but in a background rather than front and center way, at least until this hook plays out. Don't want to spoil the module in this space, but can talk about it offline.
Jander Sunstar is the thinking person's Drizzt, fight me.
Also be careful with this -- you do not want to set it up so that your character is the star of the show or more important/significant than the rest of the party.
D&D is a team sport.
WOTC lies. We know that WOTC lies. WOTC knows that we know that WOTC lies. We know that WOTC knows that we know that WOTC lies. And still they lie.
Because of the above (a paraphrase from Orwell) I no longer post to the forums -- PM me if you need help or anything.
True, but this is another example of "it depends." Some people don't want to have the pressure of being pivotal to the storyline and just want to do stuff. Some player like to spectate a lot of the story and social interactions. Others want to be involved in the story. Maybe everyone could have some sort of backstory tie-in. That would also give equal screen time to the other players. I know that's what my DM tries to do with the games we play.
Canto alla vita
alla sua bellezza
ad ogni sua ferita
ogni sua carezza!
I sing to life and to its tragic beauty
To pain and to strife, but all that dances through me
The rise and the fall, I've lived through it all!
You're right, but working with the DM helps mitigate unintentional pulling of focus/ centering. There are players that are mostly "supporting" characters backing up players who like taking the main stage. But even those preferences can vary depending on player mix and player/DM chemistry and world design. In the OP's instance, there's some great thought, and definitely demonstrates a player who wants to play full bore with both barrels .., but DMs who know CoS could see those specific background elections being a bit problematic to the way CoS is generally designed to be played. I think a background ask like that shows enthusiasm a lot of DMs would appreciate and work with, even if some departures have to be made to accommodate the adventures designs and in this case the game world's metaphysics.
Jander Sunstar is the thinking person's Drizzt, fight me.
This. While the DM in me would be inclined to allow this backstory, I’d ultimately not, because I know the player in me would be upset if someone else showed up with this “main character” background. I think most people would.
So don’t just talk to your DM, but talk to your fellow players. Not just a “is this okay?” because then they’ll probably just say yes to be polite, but bring up this specific concern and ask for their brutal honest thoughts. Or better yet, work with them and the DM to build their characters equally relevant backgrounds!
Wizard (Gandalf) of the Tolkien Club
I think this is an extremely important point. If you ask other players "is this outrageous thing in my background OK," they will almost always say yes, even if they privately don't like it, because no one wants to be the spoil sport and ruin your fun. DMs are not the only ones who take it on the chin for the table -- players will often do so as well. Don't be the person who convinces everyone else to sacrifice their fun so that you can enjoy your character more. Try to find a way that everyone can enjoy the game.
WOTC lies. We know that WOTC lies. WOTC knows that we know that WOTC lies. We know that WOTC knows that we know that WOTC lies. And still they lie.
Because of the above (a paraphrase from Orwell) I no longer post to the forums -- PM me if you need help or anything.
I don’t want my players having stupid deep intricate backstories. I do want them to have ties, and motivations, and like a generic “This is who my character is”, but the fact being most campaigns start around level 3, some lower? Constantly worrying about those imaginary ties are going to hinder the roleplay of the future. Not only that, but if they are so important? They probably aren’t going to be adventuring.
I do want players to be involved in the story, and the OP clearly wants that. Kudos there, definitely. This isn’t meant to discourage it, but to kind of temper it. I think I’ve seen 2 DMs out of about 50 that I’ve interacted with on more than a forum presence level take a backstory that was 3+ pages and actively work it into a setting. Most will pick four things out of it and toss the rest.
Just ran a session 0 for a homebrew world, and here’s what I asked my table for a custom setting, but could be done with any. With Curse of Strahd, most of this would come in the form of the Dark Powers tempting the players:
Who is the person you are closest with?
You is the person you are most at odds with?
Why are you doing this?
What’s your biggest flaw?
What’s your biggest strength?
What’s a personal rule you’d never break? Now give me a reason you’d break it.
That’s really all I want. This will in general give me motivations for a character, how they might mesh together, and gives me some flavor to work with in the beginning. The rest will happen as the world and sessions evolve. If someone says they are related to the big bad? I toss that shit out. I think the main character should evolve naturally, not be pre-ordained at session 0. Inspiration is awarded for good roleplay in those specific facets, and then for good evolution of characters.
To add to the BioW and Naivara, a player coming to me with a developed backstory is welcome, even if it only exhbits willing to work with the game. Two or more players coming together saying "this is how we think our characters will work" is even better. The whole party saying "based on what we know of the world, this is what we think we want to be coming from" would be amazing. I've never had the fortune of a whole party organizing in this way, but I've had a few players sort of pre game character stories to give them starting relations.
Jander Sunstar is the thinking person's Drizzt, fight me.
This is actually a really important point. Someone here once said, 'The most important thing that happened to your character shouldn't be in its backstory.' The goal is to set up a character who can play in the campaign *now*, and get involved in *this story*. That should be more engaging and important than anything in its backstory.
And as Spidey says, making up too involved a backstory can actually hinder you from getting your PC involved "in the now". Never have a story so important to the character that it would make them not want to go on this adventure, in the here and now -- because THAT is The Story, which is more important than the backstory.
WOTC lies. We know that WOTC lies. WOTC knows that we know that WOTC lies. We know that WOTC knows that we know that WOTC lies. And still they lie.
Because of the above (a paraphrase from Orwell) I no longer post to the forums -- PM me if you need help or anything.
I think that might have been me, actually. And I still agree with it, but I do still like a player that comes to the table with a back story that has a plot hook or two in it. As long as they're flexible enough for me to tweak it to fit my campaign.
Canto alla vita
alla sua bellezza
ad ogni sua ferita
ogni sua carezza!
I sing to life and to its tragic beauty
To pain and to strife, but all that dances through me
The rise and the fall, I've lived through it all!
I think intricate backstories or simple backstores can work, but the main thing is to make sure the most important thing is met: giving them motivation to go on the adventure.
You can be a farmer dreaming of bigger things who took up a sword to seek his fortune, or an exiled noble with a blackstory filled with political intrigue etc, so long as it gives your character motivation to go on the adventure and you're working WITH the DM not AGAINST the DM to get your character involved, I find either approach can work just fine. So long as the backstory is written with the goal of getting you out the door on that adventure and not a self contained story that doesn't give your character that motivation.
Oh and also, leave room for character development. Backstory is the start of their story not the whole story.