Background Story Rewards

[Hugh Neilson]

Re: Background Story Rewards

 

Don't the rules tell is somewhere that the Character sheet is NOT your tax delcaration?

(Edit: it's two paragraphs on 6E1 10)

 

The rules also tell me the exact point cost for every item you describe subsequent to this comment. They tell me about complications and their value. They do not tell me that characters get points for fanfic written by their players.

 

You are trying to liken a background to a complication. Complications have that rule that says "if it doesn't complicate the PC's life, it's not a complication". They have gradations such that the more complicating they are, the more points they are worth. If backgrounds are to be likened to complications, they should have similar parameters. If not, then complications are not a good comparable.

 

[/b]So I already have:

Origin Story

Spends time in the library

Was in highschool (wich one?)

And some stuff about his power SFX.

 

Good. Now what will you use them for? Most character sheets will reflect power SFX anyway. His "origin story" is "oh look, he woke up with powers". I gave you your one page background. If you want the name of the high school, I want more CP. We've established that adding 1 page of detail is 10 CP. I'll name the high school and tell you where he sits in the library for another three. Counteroffer?

 

Sean tells so.

Hugh says he has used it, but not what he prefers.

 

I've used it and it works just fine. I Find our group leans to it more and more, as it simplifies matters, in level based games. In Hero, the same leveling is not needed, but having everyone advance at the same pace isn't detracting from the game, and it seems much more consistent with the co-operative gaming activity our group enjoys. I don't need to get paid to play. If I did, it would be a job, not a hobby.

 

Well' date=' you could call them that, but then I feel as if you're trying to be slippery and use the same word to mean significantly different things without acknowledging that difference. Perhaps I'm mistaken, but I thought we were using "penalty" in the sense of "unfair" and Complications that a character takes (barring munchkinism or the like) are not unfair, they are storyhooks. But if you want to use the words interchangeably, then.... maybe a complication is a penalty? I would say it is a penalty taken in return for a reward, so it's more of a trade than a penalty in sum. [/quote']

 

A penalty is a drawback. The fine for filing your taxes late is a "penalty". That doesn't make it inherently unfair. It is a penalty. I would agree with your definition that a complication is a penalty taken in return for a reward. What penalty is imposed on the character who has a background that mandates a reward of 10 (or whatever) extra character points?

 

Now' date=' I suppose it is a penalty that the GM forbids Casual Killers and sci-fi origins in his low fantasy game, at least by that definition.[/quote']

 

I think it's a campaign requirement. Providing a background could also be a campaign requirement (and, I suppose, "then you can't play" becomes its own penalty). If it is that important, make it a campaign requirement. Making a character is a campaign requirement. So is having it fit the campaign parameters.

 

Agreed' date=' and that applies to the background.[/quote']

 

What drawback applies to the CHARACTER for having a background? I see the drawback of 2d6 Unluck or Only has one Arm in play.

 

Every background I've read has contained within additional hooks or unlabled Complications that could be invoked. Regardless' date=' even if it just "tie together" all the bits of the character- the tradeoff is that there is now no wiggle room on certain details of the character. You can't suddenly define an aspect of your character's past mid-play that had previously been undefined or vaguely defined- it's been established.[/quote']

 

Sure I can - a one page background won't sum up the character's entire history. Thousand page biographies leave items out. My "fellow who attended high school", for example - was there a class clown, a teacher he especially respected or disliked, or students he got along with, or didn't? In one page, I'm not covering every person I've spent a semester in a class with.

 

"Hey Bob. I know you really hate writing backgrounds' date=' but I really enjoyed gaming with you in the last campaign, and you seemed to enjoy gaming with the rest of us too- for the next game I'm running, I'm afraid I'm going to require a short background for your character. Around a page, and it's mandatory if you're gonna play. Tell you what though- I'll give you another 10 CP to offset some of the foul taste, eh?"[/quote']

 

"Hey, GM, how about I write the background and Jim has to stop chewing gum in the game, Tony gives up his smoke breaks, Phil showers before he comes over and you stop eating garlic before the sessions? Then we all get something that annoys us removed."

 

You don't get any points for a name. You get points for wanting to play the game.

 

And you don't need a background (or even a name *) to play the game.

 

* "Why that's right, sonny - that's even my name - Strong Guy!"

[Manic Typist]

Re: Background Story Rewards

 

I would agree with your definition that a complication is a penalty taken in return for a reward. What penalty is imposed on the character who has a background that mandates a reward of 10 (or whatever) extra character points?

As an aside, give our previous conversations, why would you even offer points for Complications? They really are just story hooks meant for the GM to use to enhance fun, so any play who wants fun should do that without any point incentive. Further, I've seen players be more resentful of the act of taking Complications than writing backgrounds (of course it's silly for them to be resentful- they don't have to take the Complications! But they want those points.... yet if I call them "bonus" points it somehow becomes more acceptable. Maybe because they are already taking Complications so the background is just a continuation of the same act).

 

The limitation is what I've already described- the character's history has been more defined, and is consequently more rigid. Your orphan who didn't form any particular attachments to anyone and is now seeking his fortune- nope, that teacher doesn't even remember him. He didn't really interact with anyone, remember? Oh, you want Mr. X to be a guy you know at the deli? You may have seen him there once, but there's no way you guys ever had a conversation. There's no indication for anything like that in the background.

 

I don't remember a "fellow who attended high school" example, but just from the name of it- that IS the sort of thing that would allow new developments to arise mid-game. Suddenly the hostage is the bank isn't Mr. Generic By-Stander: it's your old chem teacher, or that strutting jock, whathaveyou. It offers the potential for flavor and enrichment. I don't need you to ever say that there was a strutting jock- it can be easily and REASONABLY interpreted in the narrative by the GM. I wouldn't as GM automatically say "He used to shove you into your locker, remember?" I would leave the details of the relationship to be filled in by the player, and all I would say is "He was a jock at your school- real sense of entitlement, liked to lord it over the other students." Then the player can run with it (or not) as he or she pleases.

 

A 1 page background does plenty to offer structure and, well, background.

 

 

Juxtapose this:

I think it's a campaign requirement. Providing a background could also be a campaign requirement (and, I suppose, "then you can't play" becomes its own penalty). If it is that important, make it a campaign requirement. Making a character is a campaign requirement. So is having it fit the campaign parameters.

With this:

"Hey, GM, how about I write the background and Jim has to stop chewing gum in the game, Tony gives up his smoke breaks, Phil showers before he comes over and you stop eating garlic before the sessions? Then we all get something that annoys us removed."

 

And we get:

"Well, Bob, couple of points. One, I'm not quite sure how you get to something "that annoys us removed" except maybe the foul taste exaggeration I made. Regardless, what I'm talking about is a campaign requirement and what you're talking about is an interpersonal issue that, frankly, you could have addressed in a much more mature way. If Jim's gum chewing bugs you then you need to talk to Jim, since so far you're the only one who has expressed being bothered by it. Tim's smoke breaks haven't proven disruptive to the game so far, he only takes one or two a game and that's when everyone uses the bathroom anyway. My wife put her foot down regarding Phil and he's promised to do better about it. And now that I know my dietary habits bother you, I will try to reasonably accommodate that because you're my friend and my guest. But, again, you've raised completely irrelevant concerns- we're talking about a campaign requirement. If you don't want to play, that's fine, but that's about you and not anyone else. I bowed out of the World of Darkness game that Phil ran because I didn't like some of his campaign requirements- not because he didn't insist that you drop your belittling sarcasm."

 

However, you never did address whether or not players who enjoy writing background should receive any CP while only those who don't should (which has essentially been reformulated into "Why even give CP for Complications at all?").

 

Seriously. Why not just raise the points expectations but divorce points from Complications?

[Hugh Neilson]

Re: Background Story Rewards

 

Psychologically speaking' date=' doing something for a tangible reward is generally less motivating that doing it for other reasons. Offering points for backgrounds is going to result in more crappy backgrounds than if you had simply required a background in order to play.[/quote']

 

Agreed. We can require it, and we get, say, one really good, inspired background, two sorta OK backgrounds and one that really sucks. Of course, everyone will have a different idea what that background should contain. Biographical details, character origins, justification of the mechanics selected, personality, goals and objectives, years pf pre-campaign adventuring or what have you. Should they be technical details or entertainment value (fanfic)?

 

One of the more entertaining backgrounds I ever read was clearly a "you want a background and I don't especially want one" background. It started with "Once upon a time", told a very generic story and ended with the character on the road, looking for adventure. In fact, when offered a Wish later in the game, the player's first inclination was to wish for "a long life filled with adventure". Did the background provide any story hooks? Not really. It did say "hey, don't worry about story hooks for me - toss adventure in his path and he'll bite every time". Did it provide goals and objective? Not really - the character would just bounce from one adventure to another quite happily. Did the background ever appear in the campaign? No - there was nothing that would really appear, and (probably more importantly) nothing the player really wanted to appear.

 

Was the character fun to play and fun to have in the campaign? Absolutely. So who cares whether he had a 1 page background or not?

 

Not really a "crappy background story, but certainly an example of a background that had no real impact on the game. The player treated it as a joke, but did so in a good-natured manner, so it did not become a negative to the game.

 

As an aside' date=' give our previous conversations, why would you even offer points for Complications? They really are just story hooks meant for the GM to use to enhance fun, so any play who wants fun should do that without any point incentive. Further, I've seen players be more resentful of the act of taking Complications than writing backgrounds (of course it's silly for them to be resentful- they don't have to take the Complications! But they want those points.... yet if I call them "bonus" points it somehow becomes more acceptable. Maybe because they are already taking Complications so the background is just a continuation of the same act).[/quote']

 

If we compare characters from 5e to 6e, we have added a bunch of extra points you get without complications. There would be nothing wrong with removal of complications entirely. My players have never had any realm difficulty coming up with 75 points of complications. Sometimes, they have even been "mystery complications" - he's Hunted - he may or may not know it - pull something from your campaign that makes sense. I recently presented a character to the GM who had t 10 point complications listed side by side. One was a 10 point DNPC, and the second a 10 point Hunted. The notes with the character indicated the character named a relative who was either scheming to do him in and take over his inheritance, or was legitimately looking out for his best interests. Either way, he would sometimes appear in the adventures. GM, you decide whether this relative is friend or foe. Would the campaign be more enriched by spelling out clearly which side that relative falls on (like the crystallization of background suggested as an advantage), or leaving that reveal for the GM at some later date?

 

The limitation is what I've already described- the character's history has been more defined' date=' and is consequently more rigid. Your orphan who didn't form any particular attachments to anyone and is now seeking his fortune- nope, that teacher doesn't even remember him.[/quote']

 

Or he does - what's better for the story? Up to the GM. The background doesn't say the character was nondescript and never remembered, but that he formed no real attachments. That teacher is neither a Contact nor a DNPC nor a Hunted - so he's not defined in game and is free for the GM to introduce and use as he sees fit. If he were a Contact, the GM has no choice - he's useful or potentially useful.

 

He didn't really interact with anyone' date=' remember? Oh, you want Mr. X to be a guy you know at the deli? You may have seen him there once, but there's no way you guys ever had a conversation. There's no indication for anything like that in the background.[/quote']

 

So if I instead write "he's gregarious and friendly - to know him is to love him", he suddenly has contacts everywhere? I also love the idea that anyone not named and described in a one page background must be someone that the character would never recognize, and vice versa. Seems this is closing off a lot more hooks than it opens up. "Sorry, your background doesn't mention any copy boys, secretaries, advertising salesmen, distribution agents or print workers at that Major Metropolitan newspaper, so you don't know any, have no idea whether the paper has them and they would not know you from Adam".

 

I don't remember a "fellow who attended high school" example' date=' but just from the name of it- that IS the sort of thing that would allow new developments to arise mid-game. Suddenly the hostage is the bank isn't Mr. Generic By-Stander: it's your old chem teacher, or that strutting jock, whathaveyou.[/quote']

 

I thought they were complete ciphers I could not remember, and who could not remember me, since I didn't detail them in my background. Which is it? And did writing "my character attended high school" cause this possibility to spring into existence? That will be a shock for the player whose background described his character's efforts to enlist in the army, despite being 4F, which culminated in his admittance into a top-secret Super Soldier Program and being physically augmented to become a Super Soldier. His background didn't mention attending elementary, junior high or high school, so I guess he didn't!

 

Or maybe I can reasonably assume any character who does not provide a background, or some other reason, indicating otherwise was born, raised, went to and graduated high school and otherwise has an education consistent with the character sheet (eg. if he's an MD, I suspect he probably went to college).

 

It offers the potential for flavor and enrichment. I don't need you to ever say that there was a strutting jock- it can be easily and REASONABLY interpreted in the narrative by the GM. I wouldn't as GM automatically say "He used to shove you into your locker' date=' remember?" I would leave the details of the relationship to be filled in by the player, and all I would say is "He was a jock at your school- real sense of entitlement, liked to lord it over the other students." Then the player can run with it (or not) as he or she pleases.[/quote']

 

Of course, that's a potential removed if the character's high school relationship was set out in his background. You can enrich the game by using the high school jock described in the background of the character who incorporated such details in his background, or you can use a high school jock who was not in the character's background on the assumption characters went to high school and that the high school had one or more jocks.

 

A 1 page background does plenty to offer structure and' date=' well, background.[/quote']

 

Once upon a time, there lived a man and a woman. They were born to ordinary parents, raised and educated in the ordinary manner, met and fell in love as ordinarily happened, married like ordinary people do and had an ordinary family. Their ordinary children went to ordinary schools, graduated in the ordinary course, and began ordinary jobs.

 

Except that, unknown to them, one of their children was far from ordinary. Through all those ordinary generations of mixing ordinary genetic codes, something culminated with these two ordinary people, and one of their children, to become extraordinary.

 

One day, their son’s ordinary life was disrupted in a most extraordinary way. For he was a mutant! In the course of his ordinary day, an extraordinary event occurred, and his body reacted in an extraordinary way, manifesting powers and abilities far beyond those of any ordinary man.

 

[cue 2 – 3 inches of page length describing the character’s unusual powers, abilities and weaknesses defined from his mutant genetic code – explain the rubber science]

 

Shocked by these newfound abilities, this ordinary man returned to his ordinary residence, where he considered what he should do with these extraordinary powers. Perhaps he could simply hide them, and continue his ordinary life. But today had been truly extraordinary. Could he really return to that ordinary life as if nothing had happened? [ASIDE: If yes, he’ll make a pretty boring PC!]

 

What did ordinary people gifted with extraordinary powers do? Perhaps he could use these extraordinary powers to his own advantage. He could build a better life. He could become a celebrity. He could even, perhaps, use these powers to RULE THE WORLD. But such delusions were quickly discarded in the ordinary fashion, with an ordinary chuckle. Perhaps that was what some ordinary people suddenly granted extraordinary abilities did. But it really didn’t appeal to this ordinary person. [ASIDE: Besides, becoming a selfish or villainous character makes him a poor fit for a Superhero game]

 

Well, if not a villain, why not one of these Heroes? He could create a garish costume as easily as they did. He could come up with a hyperbole name to attach to his extraordinary abilities and his colourful costume. Nothing occurred. Oh well, perhaps the press or the public would come up with something once he appeared in public.

 

In that garish costume.

 

Using bizarre powers.

 

That costume should probably include a mask. After all, this could turn out to be a huge embarrassment, and he may want to just return to his ordinary life, and follow his first inclination to remain hidden in his ordinary life, and ignore these extraordinary abilities. [hence the Secret ID – might be the occasional Psych in there that precludes becoming a Supervillain as well.]

 

So the ordinary man created a costume to suit his extraordinary abilities [insert 1/2 inch description of costume] and waited for something extraordinary to occur for his debut as a superhero.

 

Hitting the return key here results in a page break. I’m using 1” margins and an 11 point font, so I believe this meets the 1 page requirement, even without the discussion of the rubber science behind his powers. I don’t believe I have added much to the game. I haven’t even named the character (although I have created an excuse for having no SuperName).

 

I doubt I've added much to the campaign. I'm still playing the character I designed, with an extra 10 points since I gave you that 1 page background, right?

 

"Well' date=' Bob, couple of points. One, I'm not quite sure how you get to something "that annoys us removed" except maybe the foul taste exaggeration I made.[/quote']

 

It clearly bugs you that I came into the game with no written background for my character. I don't see why that's a big deal for you - it's certainly not a big deal for me.

 

Regardless' date=' what I'm talking about is a campaign requirement and what you're talking about is an interpersonal issue that, frankly, you could have addressed in a much more mature way.[/quote']

 

Sure. How about I just bribe them with extra character points to behave in a manner I find more desirable? It seems like everyone is enjoying the game despite the gaping lack of a background for my character. Tony's character has powers that make no sense to me for his SFX, but he's happy so who cares?

 

Phil's character plays like a cardboard cutout, despite that presumably brilliant background, and is always referred to as "my character". It doesn't stop me playing my character more directly - he plays his way and has fun, and I play mine my way and have fun. I don't see the point giving everyone an extra xp for every game they use first person instead of third person to refer to their character.

 

Jim never bothers to remember the characters' names, so he keeps calling us by our real names (which is especially confusing when your UNTIL Liason, also named Phil, is in the scene). But life goes on. He's happy, and he's not wrecking the game.

 

The game is good because the NPC's are fun to interact with, the combats are creative and challenging, and the other players' strengths more than offset their weaknesses. So what if some of your plotlines have holes big enough to drive a truck through (by the way, radios don't actually work underwater, but pointing that out last week would have screwed up the plot, and it wasn't bothering anyone else).

 

Just like I assume, or had assumed, that the positives I bring to the game are enough to offset my negatives, whether sarcasm or not getting immersed in a background but developing my character as the game progresses. Apparently, I was wrong.

 

So why is my lack of a background such a major flaw that cries out to be fixed, and requires a phony bribe of extra character points (and by the way "extra" CP that everyone in the game gets aren't really extra - they're baseline CP for everyone).

 

However' date=' you never did address whether or not players who enjoy writing background should receive any CP while only those who don't should (which has essentially been reformulated into "Why even give CP for Complications at all?").[/quote']

 

I didn't suggest only the player who would not otherwise write a background should get CP. I suggested this does not merit awarding anyone any CP. If it makes the game better, then why not just raise the points expectations but divorce points from Complications? I've never had a player who chafed under the Complications (or Disadvantages) requirement. Perhaps that's because any potential players who would have simply decided not to play this game. Lots of games work just fine with no mechanics for character negatives.

 

In all honesty, I suspect the reason complications don't get challenged in this regard as often is simply that they are, and always have been, part of the game rules. In the leadup to 6e, there was considerable discussion of complications, including the possibility of linking them to a default Hero Point mechanism rather than to the starting CP (with a cap, rather than a minimum, level of complications per character). The end result was a rephrasing of the existing mechanics, and a sharp reduction to the standard for complications, but the possibility of points for complications vanishing was certainly discussed. And it's easy enough to implement - drop the required Complications number to 0, if you prefer. It's just one more campaign standard requirement to define X points worth of Complications.

 

A campaign requirement for a background, complete with penalties, is also possible. Golden Heroes had a requirement to write a character backstory that explained all those randomly rolled powers. If you couldn't make a case for all your powers, some disappeared. I suspect some really contrived backstories emerged. I also suspect there would have been players explaining their SuperStats, Flight, Blaster Vision, Shapeshifting, Intangibility, Telepathy and Stretching with "He's an alien and his race all have those powers". And I further suspect that many such players eventually gamed in a scenario where that alien race became the adversaries of the PC's - now just imagine the Super members of that race!

[Laundry Knight]

Re: Background Story Rewards

 

All of these philosophical arguments are interesting, but my question pertained to hard science. Who has given out extra points for character backgrounds, and what were the results?

[Manic Typist]

Re: Background Story Rewards

 

One of the more entertaining backgrounds I ever read was clearly a "you want a background and I don't especially want one" background. It started with "Once upon a time", told a very generic story and ended with the character on the road, looking for adventure. In fact, when offered a Wish later in the game, the player's first inclination was to wish for "a long life filled with adventure". Did the background provide any story hooks? Not really. It did say "hey, don't worry about story hooks for me - toss adventure in his path and he'll bite every time". Did it provide goals and objective? Not really - the character would just bounce from one adventure to another quite happily. Did the background ever appear in the campaign? No - there was nothing that would really appear, and (probably more importantly) nothing the player really wanted to appear.

 

Sounds like a solid background to me, which probably helped the GM understand the character. For instance, the GM knew upfront that he didn't have to contrive anything to get the PC to be interested in an adventure hook- all he needed was someone to present the adventure, and this PC would be all aboard! Now he can focus a bit more thought on how he can present the hook so that it seems logical in character that the Knight-Who-Is-Seeking-the-Grail would want to take the bait, even if at first it doesn't seem like it has anything to do with the Grail...

 

The player treated it as a joke, but did so in a good-natured manner, so it did not become a negative to the game.

Perhaps the most essential element in all roleplaying fun. The way you present "Bob" above and below contrasts with this drastically.

 

 

The notes with the character indicated the character named a relative who was either scheming to do him in and take over his inheritance, or was legitimately looking out for his best interests. Either way, he would sometimes appear in the adventures. GM, you decide whether this relative is friend or foe. Would the campaign be more enriched by spelling out clearly which side that relative falls on (like the crystallization of background suggested as an advantage), or leaving that reveal for the GM at some later date?

These notes sound like a character background to me, and I'm used to having backgrounds leaving things for the GM to define. So, no problem on my end so far.

 

 

So if I instead write "he's gregarious and friendly - to know him is to love him", he suddenly has contacts everywhere? I also love the idea that anyone not named and described in a one page background must be someone that the character would never recognize, and vice versa. Seems this is closing off a lot more hooks than it opens up. "Sorry, your background doesn't mention any copy boys, secretaries, advertising salesmen, distribution agents or print workers at that Major Metropolitan newspaper, so you don't know any, have no idea whether the paper has them and they would not know you from Adam".

I love how you misconstrue and alter arguments.

A socially isolated character background designed to prevent anyone from the past being relevant to current game play will do just that- and that works both ways. The PC can't suddenly try to use his background to justify why he can approach a certain NPC as someone from his past since his entire background was written to preclude that possibility.

 

However, yes, Mr. Gregarious and Friendly does have a justification for saying "Hey, wait, I think I chatted with this guy at the bagel shop once while waiting in line for my lox." That NPC isn't suddenly a contact, but the story doesn't get stuck on "Well, he doesn't know you from Adam." So, Mr. Gregarious and Friendly could ask the GM "Do I know anyone at the Metro Paper?" and have a fair shot at the answer being yes (or no). Mr. Socially Isolated, didn't ever get to know anyone in his life ever and didn't let anyone get to know him, ever? Not so much. He's welcome to go out and try to get to know someone, and we can roleplay that out, but it can't be handwaved (or even fingerwaved) in the same way. Perhaps he could go save someone's life, and they just HAPPEN to be a member of that paper. Of course, know his story (which is being "written" during the campaign) has changed to include a relationship with another human being.

 

 

 

I thought they were complete ciphers I could not remember, and who could not remember me, since I didn't detail them in my background. Which is it?

It's the one where you are mixing up two different examples and then claiming that the examples are internally inconsistent. Mr. Orphan that Grew up Alone is not the same as Mr. Average Joe that went to Average High.

 

 

Or maybe I can reasonably assume any character who does not provide a background, or some other reason, indicating otherwise was born, raised, went to and graduated high school and otherwise has an education consistent with the character sheet (eg. if he's an MD, I suspect he probably went to college).

You can. However, it would be nice if the player lays this out for you, just in case they were thinking "He has an INT of 30! He didn't go to high school or college- he just taught himself!" Not going to happen too often since that's an extreme, but lots of smaller things could pop up that could have easily been hashed out in advance.

 

 

 

Of course, that's a potential removed if the character's high school relationship was set out in his background. You can enrich the game by using the high school jock described in the background of the character who incorporated such details in his background, or you can use a high school jock who was not in the character's background on the assumption characters went to high school and that the high school had one or more jocks.

Yeah, that works for me. What's the problem?

 

 

 

Once upon a time, there lived a man and a woman. They were born to ordinary parents, raised and educated in the ordinary manner, met and fell in love as ordinarily happened, married like ordinary people do and had an ordinary family. Their ordinary children went to ordinary schools, graduated in the ordinary course, and began ordinary jobs.... [snipped for brevity]....So the ordinary man created a costume to suit his extraordinary abilities [insert 1/2 inch description of costume] and waited for something extraordinary to occur for his debut as a superhero.

 

Actually, this sounds like a really good background. I know he has parents, he has at least one sibling, and that he is (most importantly) waiting for something extraordinary to occur so that he can debut as a superhero. He wants to be a superhero and just needs the opportunity to come knocking. That's very different from the player who wants to play a character who is reluctantly caught up in events far beyond his previous world (a classic bildungsroman). I have a narrative explaining the origin of his powers, the nature of his powers, and how the player imagines the powers working and interacting with one another. Good thing I saw that text so that I could point out that the first way he tried to build the power didn't achieve the effect he was looking for, but this other way does.

 

I doubt I've added much to the campaign. I'm still playing the character I designed, with an extra 10 points since I gave you that 1 page background, right?

You added tons! And of course you are playing the character you designed- no on wanted anything otherwise. The background was just fine- I even enjoyed the faintly sing-song manner in which it was told. Great length, plenty of details, I feel like I have a better idea of what you're character will play like.

 

 

 

It clearly bugs you that I came into the game with no written background for my character.

"Uh, no- we haven't started the game yet. I'm saying before we start, this will be one of the campaign requirements, just like I'm not allowing a Casual Killer Complication for this game."

 

I don't see why that's a big deal for you - it's certainly not a big deal for me.

"Because the style of game I am going for with this campaign needs a little bit of extra starting detail from the PCs so I can attempt to create an intricately weaved, tightly interwoven plot that hopefully will be a blast for all involved. No guarantees, of course."

 

 

Sure. How about I just bribe them with extra character points to behave in a manner I find more desirable?

"Well, you're not the GM this time so you don't get to give them points. However, you could certainly talk to them like an adult..."

 

The game is good because the NPC's are fun to interact with,

"I certainly hope that will be the case. Part of that comes from my enhanced knowledge of the PC backgrounds, and that's why I'm requiring this game as opposed to last game."

 

(by the way, radios don't actually work underwater, but pointing that out last week would have screwed up the plot, and it wasn't bothering anyone else).

"Actually, in my fictional campaign world, they do, but you keep raising issues that are really outside the scope of this not a big deal we're talking about. You also seem to want to police the other players and their characters, when you really should just leave that sort of thing to the GM."

 

Just like I assume, or had assumed, that the positives I bring to the game are enough to offset my negatives, whether sarcasm or not getting immersed in a background but developing my character as the game progresses. Apparently, I was wrong.

"They do, usually at least. That's why I'm inviting you to the new campaign I'm starting. Of course, if you're not interested in playing in that game, that's fine. We still have Phil's game, and I've got another idea for a future campaign that won't have backgrounds as a campaign requirement, so maybe that will tickle your fancy when we get there."

 

Perhaps that's because any potential players who would have simply decided not to play this game.

That's certainly what I would have expected from Bob in the initial dialogue, rather than a juvenile whine fest where he criticizes other people behind their backs and raises issues that are inappropriate for the topic at hand. "Why should I fulfill this campaign requirement when Phil smells funny, which is not at all related to campaign requirements?" Uh, what?

 

 

Laundry Knight- I already answered your question from my experience, but I'll repeat myself:

I've used them every campaign (both as GM and as player), and every time they've been wonderful additions to gameplay.

[Hugh Neilson]

Re: Background Story Rewards

 

Sounds like a solid background to me' date=' which probably helped the GM understand the character. For instance, the GM knew upfront that he didn't have to contrive anything to get the PC to be interested in an adventure hook- all he needed was someone to present the adventure, and this PC would be all aboard! Now he can focus a bit more thought on how he can present the hook so that it seems logical in character that the Knight-Who-Is-Seeking-the-Grail would want to take the bait, even if at first it doesn't seem like it has anything to do with the Grail...[/quote']

 

Your basis for "this is worth CP" wads the locking in of the character's history. I'm not seeing a lot locked in by this backstory.

 

These notes sound like a character background to me' date=' and I'm used to having backgrounds leaving things for the GM to define. So, no problem on my end so far.[/quote']

 

Personally, I like making a background for my characters. I could just as easily have put both complications on a character sheet with a note "GM to choose one - character does not know". Or I could pass the info on verbally.

 

A socially isolated character background designed to prevent anyone from the past being relevant to current game play will do just that- and that works both ways. The PC can't suddenly try to use his background to justify why he can approach a certain NPC as someone from his past since his entire background was written to preclude that possibility.

 

So now the backstory provides advantages and garners extra character points. Sounds like it's the guy with the background who should be paying points for these benefits his background implies.

 

Will a background provide some plot hooks, some minor drawbacks and some minor advantages to the character in game? Sure, why not? Sounds like that all balances out and there's no need to bribe the player with character points.

 

You can. However' date=' it would be nice if the player lays this out for you, just in case they were thinking "He has an INT of 30! He didn't go to high school or college- he just taught himself!" Not going to happen too often since that's an extreme, but lots of smaller things could pop up that could have easily been hashed out in advance.[/quote']

 

They aren't all going to be covered off in a one page background either.

 

Yeah' date=' that works for me. What's the problem?[/quote']

 

It works just fine with no background provided. So why do we need a background so badly we need to bribe the player with CP?

 

Actually' date=' this sounds like a really good background. I know he has parents[/quote']

 

Your baseline assumption would be that he sprang into existence spontaneously? They could be dead or alive, he may call every week or not have been in touch for years, but sure - he has parents. Apparently, their names are Mom and Dad. Sure added depth to the game.

 

he has at least one sibling

 

Or had. Or still has but never sees him/her/them. Or gets together with them every week. Not a lot graven in stone there. Maybe over the course of the game, at least one might even develop a name - wouldn't that be exciting!

 

and that he is (most importantly) waiting for something extraordinary to occur so that he can debut as a superhero.

 

A crime in progress is extraordinary. Were you planning not to have anything extraordinary happen in the campaign until this character background somehow inspired you to deviate from the planned "9 to 5 workday" campaign you were planning?

 

He wants to be a superhero and just needs the opportunity to come knocking. That's very different from the player who wants to play a character who is reluctantly caught up in events far beyond his previous world (a classic bildungsroman).

 

Sure is. Too bad it's not the character I wrote. He thought about a few possibilities until he got to the one that didn't require him to do anything immediate, and which fit what will be expected of the characters in the game. Or is your usual expectation that you will have to drag the PC's, kicking and screaming all the way, into the adventure?

 

I have a narrative explaining the origin of his powers' date=' the nature of his powers, and how the player imagines the powers working and interacting with one another. Good thing I saw that text so that I could point out that the first way he tried to build the power didn't achieve the effect he was looking for, but this other way does.[/quote']

 

Maybe not - I no longer need it to pad my way up to a full page, so maybe I'll just let the mechanics on my character sheet explain his powers.

 

You added tons! And of course you are playing the character you designed- no on wanted anything otherwise. The background was just fine- I even enjoyed the faintly sing-song manner in which it was told. Great length' date=' plenty of details, I feel like I have a better idea of what you're character will play like.[/quote']

 

Until the actual game starts and you discover you misread that "he really wants to be a superhero!" into the background.

 

"Because the style of game I am going for with this campaign needs a little bit of extra starting detail from the PCs so I can attempt to create an intricately weaved' date=' tightly interwoven plot [/quote']

 

Yeah, that's what Mr. Ordinary's background will facilitate...

 

"Well' date=' you're not the GM this time so you don't get to give them points. However, you could certainly talk to them like an adult..."[/quote']

 

Kinda like you could talk to your players about the requirement they write a background rather than bribing them? Or the way you could discuss alternate approaches for getting a handle on a character build by someone who just doesn't want to write a background?

 

 

"I certainly hope that will be the case. Part of that comes from my enhanced knowledge of the PC backgrounds' date=' and that's why I'm requiring this game as opposed to last game."[/quote']

 

So now last game sucked? Are we assuming the game cratered because Bob didn't have a background for his character?

 

"You also seem to want to police the other players and their characters' date=' when you really should just leave that sort of thing to the GM."[/quote']

 

Here we come to the crux - the GM will unilaterally dictate how the game will run. Players have no say in the matter. To take this to the extreme (as you seem to take my portrayal of Backroundless Bob, why don't you just write up the PC's so you can ensure the mechanics work the way you want and they will fit well into your intricately woven plot? After all, we wouldn't want someone buying off that limitation or complication that's now key to your plot when he gets some xp!

 

That's certainly what I would have expected from Bob in the initial dialogue' date=' rather than a juvenile whine fest where he criticizes other people behind their backs and raises issues that are inappropriate for the topic at hand. "Why should I fulfill this campaign requirement when Phil smells funny, which is not at all related to campaign requirements?" Uh, what?[/quote']

 

Because you presented the "campaign requirement" as an odious extra that you would partially remove the sting of with an xp bribe, rather than selling Bob on the underlying merits of having a background, much less accepting the possibility that he could actually enjoy and prefer developing his character's history (perhaps to better fit with the game world) over time rather than determining it up front?

 

Laundry Knight- I already answered your question from my experience, but I'll repeat myself:

I've used them every campaign (both as GM and as player), and every time they've been wonderful additions to gameplay.

 

How have they been wonderful additions when you have never operated without them? And are we referring here to backgrounds, or point bribes for backgrounds? Finally, how often have you had players say "no - I don't value the extra points enough to provide a background"? Or have they simply been accepted as a campaign requirement, and all that's really happened is that everyone gets a few more points (including the opponents)?

 

I've played with players who write backgrounds but bring no personality to their characters (biography rather than personality fills the background), players who provide details of their character abilities and players who just want to play the character sprung fresh from the void and see where inspiration strikes them to flesh out a personality and perhaps even a history. I've played in games where detailed backgrounds gather dust, yet everyone has a blast anyway, and in games where backgrounds are used to make the characters/players suffer, and in games where something often crops up from the backgrounds.

 

And I've seen both good players and bad, and both good games and bad, with each element present.

 

However, I can't really comment on the question of how providing a CP reward to write a background has worked - I've never been in a game where anyone found it necessary. I have been in some where the GM imposed a background requirement, but never one where a character point award has been offered, or been perceived as necessary, for such.

[Manic Typist]

Re: Background Story Rewards

 

Now you're just being silly.

[bigbywolfe]

Re: Background Story Rewards

 

I think this whole thread became "just silly" a while back with all the hypotheticals. I don't like points for backgrounds. If you want a background make it part of the campaign requirements. That being said, it works perfectly well for some groups and no ammount of made up "that guy" situations or debates over penalty VS bonus is going to change the mind of the people who have given points for backgrounds for years and have had it work just fine.

[Bodkins Odds]

Re: Background Story Rewards

 

To be fair, this discussion started as a critique of an RPG.net thread. It's silly all the way down.

[bigbywolfe]

Re: Background Story Rewards

 

To be fair' date=' this discussion started as a critique of an RPG.net thread. It's silly all the way down.[/quote']

 

I think you're looking for the "GM vs Player Narrative Authority" Thread...

[The Main Man]

Re: Background Story Rewards

 

Not to stir the pot further, but how does requiring backgrounds for no additional bonus solve hypothetical "that guy" problems? If you require backgrounds, and "that player" doesn't like writing backgrounds, how do you justify not letting them play over that singular issue? Why is it acceptable to ban a player from your game for not writing a background but it is unacceptable to offer incentives to any player who does write a background for you? If I understand the discussion thus far, those are the implications. Of course there is the middle ground: no background requirements, no incentives. In the end, different groups regard backgrounds differently.

 

As I said before though, I also give separate rewards to a player if they at least discuss their character with the rest of the group and myself to my satisfaction - no writing, just talking. That said, writing a background becomes easier if you discuss your character with others.

 

I suppose that raises the question of why I want a written background though. The answer is that I can't rely on myself and the player to remember every little detail of their character as verbally discussed in the long term. I like having a record of the character that I can refer to time and again without calling the player and hoping for consistency.

 

Anyways, carry on...

[Bodkins Odds]

Re: Background Story Rewards

 

I think you're looking for the "GM vs Player Narrative Authority" Thread...

 

Doh! Sorry, the two threads blurred together in my head.

[Hugh Neilson]

Re: Background Story Rewards

 

As I said before though' date=' I also give separate rewards to a player if they at least discuss their character [b']with the rest of the group[/b] and myself to my satisfaction - no writing, just talking. That said, writing a background becomes easier if you discuss your character with others.

 

There's a whole 'nother thread - why does everyone in the group know my character's past? I also note that you are now establishing a benchmark "to my satisfaction" which did not appear in the requirements for a 1 page background (not your requirement, so maybe you also set standards for the written background where points are awarded).

 

Not to stir the pot further' date=' but how does requiring backgrounds for no additional bonus solve hypothetical "that guy" problems? If you require backgrounds, and "that player" doesn't like writing backgrounds, how do you justify not letting them play over that singular issue? Why is it acceptable to ban a player from your game for not writing a background but it is unacceptable to offer incentives to any player who does write a background for you?[/quote']

 

Much of the support for offering an incentive was predicated on a GM perceived need for that background. If an incentive is not taken up, there is still no background. So if it's that important, do we keep upping the ante until we get an insipid, under protest background? I have seen this issue be a "let's teach Backgroundless Bob a lesson for not writing a background - everyone gets extra points but Bob". That's the point where I question "is this really that important?" Whether the question is "important enough that he be banned from the game" or "important enough that he should get less CP than the rest of the group".

 

I suppose that raises the question of why I want a written background though. The answer is that I can't rely on myself and the player to remember every little detail of their character as verbally discussed in the long term. I like having a record of the character that I can refer to time and again without calling the player and hoping for consistency.

 

But that hardly ends at character creation, does it? Perhaps this indicates the PC's should get a bonus for keeping a running journal so that the nuances of the characters as developed in play can be fully documented for later reference.

 

Anyways, carry on...

[The Main Man]

Re: Background Story Rewards

 

1. If a player wants to have a secret, they can discuss it with me in private. In my experience, a group gels much better and more quickly when they know about each other's characters at least in general.

 

2. I can't say I ever had such drama over requesting backgrounds. I doubt that anyone in this thread would want this hypothetical player you exemplify in their game because they sound like an immature asshole.

 

3. Players are free to keep records of their characters at their own leisure. I write my own notes by the session for such record keeping. That said, as a written record of events that transpired in game, I wouldn't give additional points to that player. Backgrounds don't happen in-game and you only get one.

[Laundry Knight]

Re: Background Story Rewards

 

I admit. I'm an amateur writer before I am a gamer. Consequently, I write my characters without regards to how many points they cost. Consequently, when I put my characters into a game format, I frequently find myself either having to many or to few points for my concept. Now, I do understand that a game does need some rules for game balance especially if your first concern is the gaming, but if you are more interested in the story telling portion of the game, I find a slavish devotion to balance undermines the story telling portion of the game that I want.

[Manic Typist]

Re: Background Story Rewards

 

Oh, yeah, I totally give out 1 XP every now and then to players who can show me session notes/summaries.

 

Very tyrannical of me.

[Hugh Neilson]

Re: Background Story Rewards

 

Oh, yeah, I totally give out 1 XP every now and then to players who can show me session notes/summaries.

 

Very tyrannical of me.

 

Actually, I'd call it consistent. You value locking down the history and having a documented record of it, so points for the background and points for the summaries fit with that value.

 

For me, I don't see the same value in that written record. If I did, I'd be more likely to set it as a requirement than "pay off" the player for undertaking the task. And I'd be inclined to listen to any player who didn't see the value - not dismiss it with "fine - you get to play a lower point character since everyone who does see fit to do it my way gets bonus points". Of course, my vision sees a "bribe" as well - player enjoyment when their background actually comes up in the game. That intrinsic reward is the one I think is relevant to players who write up that background, and apparently not reward enough to the player who does not write a background.

 

I suppose if I saw it as so crucial to the game that its absence would be a game breaker, then I'd have to put that on the table as well, but I just can't see it as being that important.

[Laundry Knight]

Re: Background Story Rewards

 

Let's look at this another way. You know your own shop. You would like some of your employees to stay 15 minutes over due to business being good. You ask for volunteers. Two guys agree and work over and get paid for 15 minutes they worked. Three other guys decide they don't want to work late; so, you don't pay them the extra 15 minutes. How is paying 15 minutes of overtime to the employees who worked overtime unfair to the employees who did not work overtime?

[Greywind]

Re: Background Story Rewards

 

Now you're going to get the "this is a hobby, not a job" discussion going.

[bigbywolfe]

Re: Background Story Rewards

 

These examples lead nowhere. Chalk it up to a difference in play style and stop acting like there is something objectively wrong or right with the practice. EDIT: Or better yet, bring the thread back on topic. The OP wants to know if you'vedone it and how it worked, not if you're morally opposed to it and why it is hypothetically a game/group breaking problem when it clearly isn't. How about if you don't like it (and I am in that camp) you (we) leave it alone unless you (we) have an actual example of it causing a problem

[Hugh Neilson]

Re: Background Story Rewards

 

Let's look at this another way. You know your own shop. You would like some of your employees to stay 15 minutes over due to business being good. You ask for volunteers. Two guys agree and work over and get paid for 15 minutes they worked. Three other guys decide they don't want to work late; so' date=' you don't pay them the extra 15 minutes. How is paying 15 minutes of overtime to the employees who worked overtime unfair to the employees who did not work overtime?[/quote']

 

Now you're going to get the "this is a hobby' date=' not a job" discussion going.[/quote']

 

Greywind covers it quite adequately. Sean Waters has also hit this extensively in other threads, going well beyond the "background" discussion. As human beings, we tend to operate out of self-interest (hopefully enlightened self-interest). We go to work because we get paid, so getting paid more is our reward for working overtime.

 

So what is the reward for gaming? To me, it is intrinsic - I do this because I enjoy it. What aspects do I enjoy? if I see the game in at least a partially competitive light (ie I want my character to shine and become powerful; I want to be recognized as somehow the 'better roleplayer'), then extra xp, as the yardstick for in game success, may be the appropriate reward. Alternatively, peer recognition may be the appropriate reward. Perhaps I don't care much about the xp reward, but I really like it when my background comes up in play and I get some spotlight time, or I like the GM saying "cool background" and/or the PC's gasping with the cool reveal about my character (much like, as a GM, I get an intrinsic reward when the players clearly enjoyed the session, were surprised by the big reveal, etc.).

 

If my enjoyment is largely derived from co-operative play (the team succeeds; we have a great story) and not from individual success, then the xp reward becomes much less relevant, and I may even enjoy the GM's big reveal, or the glimpses of the other characters' backgrounds, as much or more than I enjoy the attention paid to my own.

 

As bigbywolf says above and below, differences in play style. If your whole group is on the same page, an xp reward for background may be a great idea, may lead to no change in existing behaviour, or may be counterproductive. That's the easy model - you just have to figure out the group playstyle. The more difficult issue arises if the players have different playstyles, and what some players really enjoy chafes on other players - we think we're doing Backgroundless Bob a favour by enticing him to enter the joyous world of backgrounds, but really, Backgroundless Bob (BB) enjoys participation and working with the setting, the NPC's and the other PC backgrounds far more than he enjoys the spotlight shining on his character, so, even with the best of intentions, enticing or forcing him to make a background is making the game less fun for him.

 

Maybe that means we have to choose between BB's enjoyment and that of the other players. Or maybe everyone wins when BB gets what he wants since the GM can focus more attention and spotlight time on the backgrounds of the players who really enjoy that without diminishing BB's enjoyment of the game in any way.

 

These examples lead nowhere. Chalk it up to a difference in play style and stop acting like there is something objectively wrong or right with the practice.

 

I'd say the first step is to evaluate the reason for considering a bonus for backgrounds, and assess whether adding that bonus enhances enjoyment of the group overall, benefits certain players with no impairment to others' enjoyment or is detrimental to some players' enjoyment.

 

As an example, and only as an example, let's say your four player group, Jim, Tony, Phil and Fred (I never named the GM) are all big time immersion role players. You always write backgrounds, you revel in them coming up in play, you enjoy working out the mysteries of the campaign, be they GM created or backgrounds of the other PC's. You;re very much storyteller players. Then along comes Bob, and joins the group. Great - new blood!

 

But Bob's real love is "beating" the scenario - success for his character. He doesn't want to be "clearly the most powerful" character, but he hates being ineffectual - ie the weak link. He revels in solving the mystery, tactically defeating the opposition, even that great die roll that wins a combat through clever and daring tactics. He adds a lot to those aspects of the game. He enjoys the complex backstories of both campaign and other PC's, and comments favourably on how cool that aspect of Phil's background was, or the really well run mystery Fred incorporated into this story arc, or Tony's cool DNPC. But he has no interest in a background for his own character.

 

So Fred starts his new campaign and, having noticed (and discussed with the others) that Bob never has a background, decides he has to entice Bob into the joys of the background. So he suggests that, for the next game, everyone needs a new character with at least X background. Bob is clearly not happy with this requirement. So Fred says "OK, as an incentive to provide that background, an acceptable background nets 10 free xp".

 

So what happens? Phil, Tony and Jim all come up with backgrounds - just as they have always done, because they enjoy doing it, and they get an intrinsic reward from the use of that background by Fred in-game. Bob either writes a background (a task he finds boring, if not arduous), freezes up every time it comes up in play (he'd rather be investigating everyone else's mysteries than his own, and he doesn't really like having the RP spotlight focused on him) or he falls 10 xp behind and feels his character is suffering - becoming a weak link - because he doesn't want to write a background that adds nothing - even detracts - from his enjoyment of the game.

 

Is Bob's playstyle wrong/bad? I don't really know. If his lack of a background, his focus on different aspects of the game and his different playstyle is actually diminishing the enjoyment of the other four, then it is bad for this group. Maybe Bob should be asked to find a group with a playstyle more consistent with what he enjoys. But if he's adding to, and otherwise enjoying, the campaign, then that's a loss for everybody. Even if he's neutral from the others' perspective - he's having a blast, and neither adding to nor detracting from the enjoyment of the others - what's the harm in keeping him in the game on his own terms?

 

So I would suggest looking at the reason these extra points are to be awarded, why we feel the need to entice one or more players to provide a background, and what purpose this new process serves. Often, what one or more players feel will be a positive is a negative for the group as a whole. It's no different than any other house rule we might consider.

 

EDIT: Or better yet' date=' bring the thread back on topic. The OP wants to know if you'vedone it and how it worked, not if you're morally opposed to it and why it is hypothetically a game/group breaking problem [b']when it clearly isn't[/b]. How about if you don't like it (and I am in that camp) you (we) leave it alone unless you (we) have an actual example of it causing a problem

 

I'm with you other than the bolded aspect, and the suggestion that those who don't like it should not indicate why they don't like it. To the latter, the potential problem is what I think the OP is looking for - how might this benefit my game, and how might it harm my game? He has the tough job of assessing how those potential benefits or problems will most likely manifest given his playing group, and assessing whether implementing the rewards he is considering will be a net positive or a net negative, whether a better approach exists, or whether leaving matters unchanged is the best alternative.

 

To the former, for Bob it may be a game breaker. He was having a great time as an active participant in the campaign, but not as a focus of the backstory/setting aspects. By forcing him to be more active in the backstory/setting aspects, we are diminishing his enjoyment of the game (despite our fervent belief we are actually enhancing it), perhaps to the point that the game is no longer fun for him, so (to quote another thread title) he says to hell with this and leaves the campaign. It's a gamebreaker for him, if not for anyone else.

[Sean Waters]

Re: Background Story Rewards

 

Quick thought: what are Character points? That may sound obvious, but there are a number of possible answers:

 

1. A character creation system.

2. A character creation system that allows you to (roughly) balance the abilities of characters with each other and the needs of the scenario.

3. A character creation system that allows you to balance the character.

4. A way of rewarding a character for in-game actions.

5. A way of rewarding a player for in-game actions.

6. A way of rewarding a player for out of game actions.

7. Some of the above.

 

There are probably others but that is where I will stop. My thesis is that, whilst these are all valid definitions, and they are not all exclusive, there is a need for:

 

a. An understanding within the group playing what character creation points are for that group, and

b. That there are some logical inconsistencies i.e. you can not pick "all of the above".

 

I say that () because, for example, balancing a character against other characters and the needs of the scenario is not compatible with rewarding a player for out of game actions, at least in my opinion. I say this because a reward for an out of game action will change the number of character points available to the player for the character and will therefore change the balance between the characters.

 

I'm not suggesting any of those approaches is wrong per se, I'm saying you need to know what you are doing and why. If you look at it like that, if you define your terms, it may be that this argument, or rather the need for this discussion, evaporates. Just as one group might decide that there is a limt on the active points you can put into a power, they can also decide what Character points actually represent.

 

I am adverse to CPs being used as a reward system, but I am cogniscent of the fact that we already, in hero, have a sort of built in 'CP=Reward" system with Complications.

 

I do not think that is inconsistent with CPs being a way of balancing characters and the scenario because there is a clearly defined mechanical system for building Complications, whereas a reward for completing an out of game task is something that is discretionary. For example, if there is a 10CP 'reward' for creating a character background, can the player who simply writes:

 

Mandragore is an amnesiac who can not remember what happened to him prior to the start of the scenario.

 

claim the 10 CP? That is a background, but is not particularly helpful to the GM, no more than not writing a background would be, but if it fits the character conception, what else can you say. being an amnesiac might suggest all sorts of interesting role playing quirks? Are you supposed to go all meta and explain the background that the character does not know? What is the minimum amount of effort for a CP reward? If it is the background above, well, why bother, because it is a mere formality. If it is a lot more, then where is the break point?

 

The thing is that you know how much a frequently occurring strong psychological limitation is worth. You have no real idea what the value of a piece of prose is worth. It may be that this sort of background is exactly what the GM wants because it is a permission to fill in the blanks in a way that fits nicely with the scenario.

 

The flip side of this is that a player could write a short novella that is of little or no use to the GM or the other players and is little more than a vanity piece, bigging up the character, but leaving little wriggle room for the GM to fit it in, and indeed may involve the GM in a lot of work to integrate the character.

 

You have to ask yourself what it is that you are rewarding and why: you can not assume that character histories are of equal value, in the way that you can assume that Complications are of equal value. I think that you can be quite clear to the player though that, if they go to the trouble of writing a background, then they are nailing their colours to the mast, taking that away from the GM, which they are entitled to do, whereas if they choose not to create a background they are, in effect, handing the reins over to the GM and they are giving up at least some of the argument if the GM does something with their background they are not happy about.

 

In any even my experience is that some players write backgrounds because they enjoy writing backgrounds and some players do not write backgrounds because they do not enjoy writing backgrounds. I can tell you this; in editions prior to 6e, I often struggled to come up with enough thought-through Limitations to fill my allocation, and usually ended up chucking in some Unluck or whatever to pad out the points, because I did not want to start at a lower CP level than other characters, or I would just have "Mystery Limitations: up to the GM in play" on there somewhere. I think the balance is much better in 6e. Your mileage may differ.

[Hugh Neilson]

Re: Background Story Rewards

 

A lot of food for thought in that post, Sean. Sadly, can't rep.

 

For example, if there is a 10CP 'reward' for creating a character background, can the player who simply writes:

 

Mandragore is an amnesiac who can not remember what happened to him prior to the start of the scenario.

 

claim the 10 CP? That is a background, but is not particularly helpful to the GM, no more than not writing a background would be

 

The flip side of this is that a player could write a short novella that is of little or no use to the GM or the other players and is little more than a vanity piece' date=' bigging up the character, but leaving little wriggle room for the GM to fit it in, and indeed [b']may involve the GM in a lot of work[/b] to integrate the character.

 

Bolded two items for emphasis - the latter character may well be harder to fit into the GM's vision and campaign than the former. Now, imagine three of the latter, all with elements that are basically mutually exclusive/contradictory and/or will cause considerable friction within the group (for example, an unforgiving vigilante and a reformed criminal - playing the former as written, he would never work with the latter). The amnesiac is looking pretty good. Should we offer an extra CP reward for modifying that carefully crafted background to actually fit the GM's campaign, now that the player is invested in aspects that will impede, rather than facilitate, the game?

 

You have to ask yourself what it is that you are rewarding and why

 

Exactly.

 

To your comments on Disadvantages/Complications, it seems to me a number of experienced gamers noted they sharply reduced the base complications in their games prior to 6e. If a group loved the higher totals of 5e, it's not hard to continue that into 6e. So long as we remember the suggestions in the book are just that, and nothing more.

[Laundry Knight]

Re: Background Story Rewards

 

These examples lead nowhere. Chalk it up to a difference in play style and stop acting like there is something objectively wrong or right with the practice. EDIT: Or better yet' date=' bring the thread back on topic. The OP wants to know if you'vedone it and how it worked, not if you're morally opposed to it and why it is hypothetically a game/group breaking problem when it clearly isn't. How about if you don't like it (and I am in that camp) you (we) leave it alone unless you (we) have an [b']actual example of it causing a problem[/b]

 

I agree with your assessment even though I am guilty of being sucked into the philosophical arguments, also.