I role-played the F&&& out of a AD&D character for 15 years including fighting with the GM for a year to bring him back to life and his back story was "" I met the party in the lair of a dragon and decided to tag along"
OSR is highly influenced by the stories in 'Appendix N' and that approach to adventure and story building has almost nothing to do with character interaction and drama. The characters arrive similar to the hero in an old cowboy movie. You know that the person that rides into town is the good (or bad) guy and the story unfolds.
Genuinely always frustrates me when influencers start trying to denote “x way to play is Incorrect” on the internet. Obviously, toxic and abusive behavior isn’t a valid play style, but I’m talking just ways of play. I would never play a character without a fleshed out backstory. However, in the same way that I don’t want a power gamer lecturing me on my suboptimal choices, it’s not good to tell someone without a fleshed out backstory for their character that they’re not rollplaying. All you need is a basic personality you want the character to have and a few quirks.
Agreed. After watching BLG's video I got thinking about how traits will inform the player who their character is to start. I think that is where BLG gets it wrong about the sandbox or mega dungeon campaign.
Whether click bait or honest experience, it is anecdotal to them. No matter the system, I always push story and RP first. The audacity of saying OSR does not have RP or backstory is an absolute or objective truth is troll shit. As far as backstories, I tend to leave them in the background unless it offers things to bring back around. Anyways, have a great day everyone!
That's what it'll do when it's doing its job. They do address the overwrought backstories that include stuff like prophecies and etc in their videos, so I have to give them the credit there.
The higher the level you start at, the more important that details of a backstory are! The best backstory is made by playing, if back story is so important, then start at 0 level and let how you play your character decide what class and most skills you get! When i played, you had to practice the new skill you wanted to take at level up while playing your character!
I definitely agree that a player does NOT need a massive backstory in order to play their character with depth. In even the most basic game, as long as the player has a concept for who their character is and how they behave, a backstory isn't necessary. I view backstories like I view toppings on a burger; if the burger itself is good, then you don't need a bunch of toppings or sauces, because the taste of the meat itself is solid.
Did it really “Need” a healer? I mean of course at some point they’d probably need healing. But the concept that a party “needs” a healer makes the assumption that you’re going to be playing in a MMO Battle-game(like FF14) style. If the party didn’t have an active magical healer, then maybe they’d have to play differently. Set traps instead of running straight into combat. Play dirty, Rig the conflict, minimize risk of injury.
The DCC party just proved this to be true. Guy who plays the Cleric was out, and I was sweating them going into this dungeon without him.. but they only lost two level-0 characters and a sheep. They slew 4 killer frogs, four freak cat-bee chimeras, and a troll. All in a good day's work!
My group learned to play on our own just from one player playing a single game of dnd at lunch during school. He then ran a freeform game he made himself with dice for us around 12-14 years old. Black lodges style has always come naturally to our group, and we did not pick up any published games for years.
We played a homeruled simple d6 Cyberpunk game not that long ago and it was some of the most fun I've had at the table before. Roleplaying is just a hell of a good time.
Different strokes for different folks, right? I think that going with traits has served me well since I mostly DM, but I don't begrudge people for backstories. We've had some pretty fun games where I actually incorporated backstories into the campaign. It's just not quite as feasible with the kind of bodycount we have in a lot of my games nowadays.
@@AaronthePedantic - I get it. I see the "trait" approach work excellently for fictional characters in books and media all the time. I'm just one of those weirdos who, when seeing a character with interesting traits, starts thinking, "Now, what in their background would cause _that_ particular combination of traits in one individual...?" And then I work out a few possible backgrounds as potential headcanons. ;)
Some people can RP just fine from nothing but the mechanical data on their sheet. As a player, I have always found writing 2 or 3 sentences of backstory to be helpful. As a GM, I tell players not to bother writing more than that.
Hi! I think I’m having a disconnect here regarding the definition of “backstory”. For example, you describe thinking about traits, titles and who the teacher of the M-U is… isn’t that a backstory? Of sorts? Of course you should consider all the character info, but it seems you’ve still created a backstory. You say your fighter is a Veteran… probably served in the army of the king. That’s a backstory! Isn’t it? Maybe my disconnect pertains to the amount of info required to qualify as backstory. Anyways, great topic! I think it merits further discussion! Loved the BLG videos as well!
You're right! That's kind of what I'm trying to suggest, that the character mechanics have an implication of at least certain types of events or character connections having occurred. Especially when the game spells them out quite a bit. What kind of life you would have lived to become a level1 Thief is fairly nebulous, but the kind of life you'd have lived to become a Paladin is pretty specific to an extent. The proper nouns might change, but the gist is pretty similar. There are some traits that are derived from the more specific things, though. My point is that you CAN (though whether you should or should not is a different story) just go with the traits rather than the more explicit events to achieve a similar effect. We usually only talk about what makes us the way we are with our closest friends, and maybe you want to roleplay that at the table. That's where a backstory is useful. But for those who want to spend our table time just making the choices and living the life, it's enough to just have an idea of who they are at that more basic level.
BLG clearly posted just for clicks and to build his channel. I've played and run bs and non-bs. They both work and people can enjoy them both, neither is better. In OSR systems your character's story builds as they adventure with the party, anticipating that lower level characters won't last very long. Modern (not better/worse, just different) versions make survival easier, so it allows for greater investment in bs at the beginning. There's no discussion or debate here, because neither group espousing their "preference" is wrong (Pepsi v Coke). I was doing a good job of ignoring this until your video Aaron. ;)
@@blacklodgegames I get it, it's a time-tested strategy for building a channel. No need to deny it. "We are crossing the clickbait Rubicon today. Won't you join us?" Peace and health.
My thanks, Sente! Going in hot isn't really my style anymore, but if I do the livestream with them as planned, we may be a little more spicy. Doing it "behind the back" just isn't what I want to do though.
@@AaronthePedantic I prefer to describe my pathological commenting from anonymity as cowardly and inconsequentially pretentious, actually. Or perhaps "in passing". As here, my point was that others were using extremely simplified exaggerations to strawman their otherwise nuanced contributions to the conversation... perhaps for the clicks, or perhaps for putting the "twit" in Twitter. But yeah.... well past any illusion that confrontational crusades are making any beneficial difference, myself. Nevertheless, a "Mission from Gawd" to "save all roleplaying" sounds kind of cool.
My experience with them on Twitter and the comments of their channel is that they are not interested in a dialogue. They are interested in clicks and follows.Stirring people up with negative emotion is how they do that. I don't have time for that and see zero value in further engagement or drawing attention to their channel by commenting on what is largely a bad faith argument.
It's an effective tactic, even if I try to avoid using it myself. My compulsion to respond to things I don't agree with makes it very hard to not shine a light on it. May be one of my weaknesses.
@@AaronthePedantic It is an effective tactic for what? Short term gains in views, likes, and maybe some subscribers. If that's what they are after, go for it. They are welcome to the sort of people that strategy attracts. My goals are long term. Oriented toward positive, creative collaboration and reciprocity. "Shoulding" all over the place is not conducive to building long term relationships or trust from an audience.
Depending on the style of the game, I can see your point being true. Optimally, the player should be working with the DM to make it happen, or they should be working within what the book prescribes if there is an implied setting. It is possible to make a backstory that doesn't impose, assuming it uses setting assumptions properly and isn't specific about proper nouns. Thing is, I can get the same result roughly with less work, so I opt for that 9 times out of 10.
I role-played the F&&& out of a AD&D character for 15 years including fighting with the GM for a year to bring him back to life and his back story was "" I met the party in the lair of a dragon and decided to tag along"
OSR is highly influenced by the stories in 'Appendix N' and that approach to adventure and story building has almost nothing to do with character interaction and drama. The characters arrive similar to the hero in an old cowboy movie. You know that the person that rides into town is the good (or bad) guy and the story unfolds.
"OSR is highly influenced by appendix N"
God how much I wish that was true
Genuinely always frustrates me when influencers start trying to denote “x way to play is Incorrect” on the internet. Obviously, toxic and abusive behavior isn’t a valid play style, but I’m talking just ways of play. I would never play a character without a fleshed out backstory. However, in the same way that I don’t want a power gamer lecturing me on my suboptimal choices, it’s not good to tell someone without a fleshed out backstory for their character that they’re not rollplaying. All you need is a basic personality you want the character to have and a few quirks.
Agreed. After watching BLG's video I got thinking about how traits will inform the player who their character is to start. I think that is where BLG gets it wrong about the sandbox or mega dungeon campaign.
Gyagx said "It's not about your backstory, its about your forward story"
Whether click bait or honest experience, it is anecdotal to them. No matter the system, I always push story and RP first. The audacity of saying OSR does not have RP or backstory is an absolute or objective truth is troll shit. As far as backstories, I tend to leave them in the background unless it offers things to bring back around. Anyways, have a great day everyone!
Personally - a good backstory defines the characters personality and not their 'story arch'. Most well done created personalities are fun to RP with
That's what it'll do when it's doing its job. They do address the overwrought backstories that include stuff like prophecies and etc in their videos, so I have to give them the credit there.
I love the idea of traits. I never really thought of that and I want to implement it in my next character
The higher the level you start at, the more important that details of a backstory are!
The best backstory is made by playing, if back story is so important, then start at 0 level and let how you play your character decide what class and most skills you get!
When i played, you had to practice the new skill you wanted to take at level up while playing your character!
I definitely agree that a player does NOT need a massive backstory in order to play their character with depth. In even the most basic game, as long as the player has a concept for who their character is and how they behave, a backstory isn't necessary. I view backstories like I view toppings on a burger; if the burger itself is good, then you don't need a bunch of toppings or sauces, because the taste of the meat itself is solid.
Well said!
I just finished a year-long 5E game, my characters backstory was "The party needs a healer"
Did it really “Need” a healer? I mean of course at some point they’d probably need healing. But the concept that a party “needs” a healer makes the assumption that you’re going to be playing in a MMO Battle-game(like FF14) style. If the party didn’t have an active magical healer, then maybe they’d have to play differently. Set traps instead of running straight into combat. Play dirty, Rig the conflict, minimize risk of injury.
The DCC party just proved this to be true. Guy who plays the Cleric was out, and I was sweating them going into this dungeon without him.. but they only lost two level-0 characters and a sheep. They slew 4 killer frogs, four freak cat-bee chimeras, and a troll. All in a good day's work!
My group learned to play on our own just from one player playing a single game of dnd at lunch during school. He then ran a freeform game he made himself with dice for us around 12-14 years old. Black lodges style has always come naturally to our group, and we did not pick up any published games for years.
We played a homeruled simple d6 Cyberpunk game not that long ago and it was some of the most fun I've had at the table before. Roleplaying is just a hell of a good time.
I'm more of a backstory person myself, but I can see your approach working just fine for many people.
Different strokes for different folks, right? I think that going with traits has served me well since I mostly DM, but I don't begrudge people for backstories. We've had some pretty fun games where I actually incorporated backstories into the campaign. It's just not quite as feasible with the kind of bodycount we have in a lot of my games nowadays.
@@AaronthePedantic - I get it. I see the "trait" approach work excellently for fictional characters in books and media all the time. I'm just one of those weirdos who, when seeing a character with interesting traits, starts thinking, "Now, what in their background would cause _that_ particular combination of traits in one individual...?" And then I work out a few possible backgrounds as potential headcanons. ;)
Some people can RP just fine from nothing but the mechanical data on their sheet. As a player, I have always found writing 2 or 3 sentences of backstory to be helpful. As a GM, I tell players not to bother writing more than that.
Solid advice! A little bit never hurts. A lot doesn't even hurt if you know what you're doing.
Hi! I think I’m having a disconnect here regarding the definition of “backstory”. For example, you describe thinking about traits, titles and who the teacher of the M-U is… isn’t that a backstory? Of sorts? Of course you should consider all the character info, but it seems you’ve still created a backstory. You say your fighter is a Veteran… probably served in the army of the king. That’s a backstory! Isn’t it? Maybe my disconnect pertains to the amount of info required to qualify as backstory. Anyways, great topic! I think it merits further discussion! Loved the BLG videos as well!
You're right! That's kind of what I'm trying to suggest, that the character mechanics have an implication of at least certain types of events or character connections having occurred. Especially when the game spells them out quite a bit. What kind of life you would have lived to become a level1 Thief is fairly nebulous, but the kind of life you'd have lived to become a Paladin is pretty specific to an extent. The proper nouns might change, but the gist is pretty similar. There are some traits that are derived from the more specific things, though. My point is that you CAN (though whether you should or should not is a different story) just go with the traits rather than the more explicit events to achieve a similar effect. We usually only talk about what makes us the way we are with our closest friends, and maybe you want to roleplay that at the table. That's where a backstory is useful. But for those who want to spend our table time just making the choices and living the life, it's enough to just have an idea of who they are at that more basic level.
BLG clearly posted just for clicks and to build his channel. I've played and run bs and non-bs. They both work and people can enjoy them both, neither is better. In OSR systems your character's story builds as they adventure with the party, anticipating that lower level characters won't last very long. Modern (not better/worse, just different) versions make survival easier, so it allows for greater investment in bs at the beginning. There's no discussion or debate here, because neither group espousing their "preference" is wrong (Pepsi v Coke). I was doing a good job of ignoring this until your video Aaron. ;)
We post what we think. If we simply wanted clicks there is a lot we would be doing different.
@@blacklodgegames I get it, it's a time-tested strategy for building a channel. No need to deny it. "We are crossing the clickbait Rubicon today. Won't you join us?" Peace and health.
Ahh... that characteristic lack of hyperbole. Good to see it.
My thanks, Sente! Going in hot isn't really my style anymore, but if I do the livestream with them as planned, we may be a little more spicy. Doing it "behind the back" just isn't what I want to do though.
@@AaronthePedantic I prefer to describe my pathological commenting from anonymity as cowardly and inconsequentially pretentious, actually.
Or perhaps "in passing". As here, my point was that others were using extremely simplified exaggerations to strawman their otherwise nuanced contributions to the conversation... perhaps for the clicks, or perhaps for putting the "twit" in Twitter.
But yeah.... well past any illusion that confrontational crusades are making any beneficial difference, myself. Nevertheless, a "Mission from Gawd" to "save all roleplaying" sounds kind of cool.
We'd be happy to join a stream and talk about this stuff sometime. Appreciate the response.
didn't know your channel before this vid, it's a joy on discovering another awesome channel about roleplaying!
@@amelio7737 thanks!
My experience with them on Twitter and the comments of their channel is that they are not interested in a dialogue. They are interested in clicks and follows.Stirring people up with negative emotion is how they do that. I don't have time for that and see zero value in further engagement or drawing attention to their channel by commenting on what is largely a bad faith argument.
It's an effective tactic, even if I try to avoid using it myself. My compulsion to respond to things I don't agree with makes it very hard to not shine a light on it. May be one of my weaknesses.
@@AaronthePedantic It is an effective tactic for what? Short term gains in views, likes, and maybe some subscribers. If that's what they are after, go for it. They are welcome to the sort of people that strategy attracts.
My goals are long term. Oriented toward positive, creative collaboration and reciprocity. "Shoulding" all over the place is not conducive to building long term relationships or trust from an audience.
Backstories impose on the DMs world building. No PC at level 1 should have that privilege imo.
Depending on the style of the game, I can see your point being true. Optimally, the player should be working with the DM to make it happen, or they should be working within what the book prescribes if there is an implied setting. It is possible to make a backstory that doesn't impose, assuming it uses setting assumptions properly and isn't specific about proper nouns.
Thing is, I can get the same result roughly with less work, so I opt for that 9 times out of 10.