Do we really need character backgrounds for roleplaying?


Made quite a large a post on IrishGaming.com forums about this. And there is at least one equally long reply!

Had a bit of a ‘heated’ discussion last night after our regular game about character backgrounds.

Recently I’ve been doing some thinking about histories and backgrounds and I used to be of the opinion they were invaluble to both players and GMs.

Now I think they should be very short and probaly optional.

Hear me out.

The purpose of a background or history is

1. A context for the behaviour and motives of the character your about to roleplay
2. A collection of possible story hooks for the GM
3. An explanation of the character sheet

Now this is my thinking.

Number 3 is irrelvant. You do not need to explain your character stats, thats part of the system. Also having to ‘justify’ all your choices can mean that you stick stuff in your background just for that reason. Yet the GM sees these as character hooks, even though your not bothered. So therefore it introduces ‘noise’ into the player-gm communication.

Number 2 is important but I think it should be entirely explicit. The player, at their own option, should set down a list of possible story hooks including NPCs, bits from their past, relationships to groups, possible story seeds, etc. In fact during the course of the player should update and add to this. With a fixed background this is impossible, so to speak.

Number 1 is the big one. The system and setting should provide enough for you to roleplay your character otherwise, IMHO, the system fails. A short paragraph giving a more concrete understanding of the concept is always good (should as “I’m an Irish Vampire who lived through the Easter Risings”) but… with writing a big background this is saying: this is the way my character is going to be. Yet, and I guess this is IMHO, you don’t know exactly how your going to be able to play that character once the game kicks off. The other players, the GM style and the setting can, no scratch that: does, drastically change your perception of the original character. Having a fixed completle background then creates a schism between the way you play the character and the character concept. I believe it’s better to fully flesh out the character during the course of play. Bits and pieces that I want the GM to include, I’ll add to the ‘Story Hooks’ that way the history can also grow narrativily with the character.

I’m not going to present the counter arguments, i’ll let others do that (Mr. Xavier_Goone are you going to present your player-character divide theory again?). Am I that far out? Looking at recent systems that I’ve read like Nobilis and Fate, they actually provide both the ‘motivations’ (via Bonds and Goals) which are Story hooks practically as i’ve described, and enough of a character to play via the character creation process. The history/bg drops out of the characters during play.

Of course this lead to another discussion which I think is interesting to present here too, to get ppl’s reactions.

But, before I begin presenting this I’ve gotta define my terms. I’m quite tired of people misreading my opinion and then attacking something thats totally irrelvant.

When I say ’system’, I don’t just mean the dice. I mean the complete system i.e. the maths, skills, flavour, feel, granualirty, concepts behind the system, names and also the spirit of the system. The concept behind Fudge is very different to D&D and has very different motivations.

When I say ’setting’, I mean all the narrative elements. Antagnoists, protanganists, groups, the world, theories, magics, technology, etc. (I believe there is a strong overlap between system and setting and here it shows, character types are often a distinct part of the system too).

When I say ‘game’, I mean the whole thing. The Setting and System but also the feel of how they work together. D20 Call of Cthulhu is a different game to standard Call of Cthulhu.

I don’t think there can be any disputing that a system integrated with a setting is always going to be better that a generic system with a setting plonked on top. IMHO, a good system has to be influenced by its setting.

Yet my friend believed that any system can be literally dropped in and out of a setting. Of course his perception of setting and system may be different to mine and so explaining the disagreement. I think perhaps he saw a system as being the bare bones of the system, i.e. the core mechanices. Which for very similar types of ‘games’, they are often very much the same.

The only way to really explore this is to contrast very different systems.Vampire: Redemption’s system wouldn’t feel right with Nobilis and likewise World of Darkness Core System would just not work with Nobilis. Castle Falkenstien with D&D’s system would be a very different (and not necessarily bad) game.