Cool Backstory Syndrome

[Agemegos]

Originally Posted by Ze'Manel Cunha

Though farmers in the middle of nowhere are notorious for not knowing much...

In 1746 the British government sent troops to St Kilda (in the Outer Hebrides of Scotland) to see whether Prince Charles Edward Stuart had fled there after surviving the Battle of Culloden. It turned out that the locals hadn't heard of the Battle of Culloden. Or of the uprising of The '45. Or of Prince Charles Edward Stuart. In fact, they hadn't even heard of King George II, who had been their king for nineteen years.

[Anders]

Do twelve-step programs help? The AA staunchly refuse to release any statistics...

But I get the feeling Kromm spends more time on crunch than fluff when starting a new campaign. I, personally, am firmly in the "that GM" camp.

[Vagrant]

I've always found that the more fluff a gaming system gives you the easier it is to ad lib and go off at interesting tangents. That said the kind of fluff i'm on about isn't dry history and a long list of useless dates but instead the organisations, personalities and traditions of the current campaign setting.

I really liked the way White Wolf would do the stereotyped profiles of their 'classes' and then a list of how they regarded the other stereotypes. Werewolf, Vampire and Changeling all had this approach. A quick hook for the players and there was plenty more information for the Storyteller to play too or against expectations.

In my own games I really try and get a straw poll of the kind of game the players want. I always thought we'd get more mature as we aged but games seem more and more likely to be a session to let of steam and little more than a gun-bunny combat-wombat rampage through the scenery and really the fluff tends to be focused on the equipment and character design, world concept tends to fall back into the vague and generic. And when i say fluff for equipment it tends to be along the lines of "My zombie hunter only uses sig sauer automatics cause that's what Agent Scully uses".

[Agemegos]

Originally Posted by Hans Rancke-Madsen

Yeah, Hi Brett. And remember to take one day at a time. Have you got a sponsor?

Today I cut the cool backstory in the current draft of my setting from 11,300 words to 1,530 words.

It's still going in the front half of the book, directly after "Introduction" (554 words) and "Astrography" (347 words). "Where" and "when" will tell you "who" and "why".

[MKMcArtor]

Originally Posted by Brett

Today I cut the cool backstory in the current draft of my setting from 11,300 words to 1,530 words.

It's still going in the front half of the book, directly after "Introduction" (554 words) and "Astrography" (347 words). "Where" and "when" will tell you "who" and "why".

I really hope you didn't just up and delete all those words and not save them elsewhere for later use... O_o

[GoodGame]

Originally Posted by darksaba

Does anyone ever find this stuff usefull in their games?

Oh and theres is a second type of Cool Backstory Syndrome (CBS[ii]). The one that is know to the players but requires them to read an entire telephone book of information to be able to understand what their charcaters should be doing.

Some of your examples just sound like filler. I also just read the story of Kult on wikipedia for the first time, and that just sounds like the description of Neo-Platonism.

I'd take the philosophy that RPGing is all about unleashing the imagination of all the participants, including the GM, so if any material (e.g. game mechanisms, NPC descriptions, world setting material, etc...) helps in that regard, then it's not a waste of space.

E.g. mechanistic rules that say at level 10, my character gets to design a castle of up to 250 square feet, and then has a nuts and bolts chart for the cost of that castle, vs. a setting that describes all the counties and inns and innkeepers.
Both are useful if that turns on the participants.

In the case of material that inspires no one, not even the GM, then it's just filler. It's kind of subjective though, dependent on who the participants are.
Backstory/Setting info to be discovered may spark players of an inquiring nature, but probably won't turn on hack n slashers.

[Anders]

Originally Posted by GoodGame

Some of your examples just sound like filler. I also just read the story of Kult on wikipedia for the first time, and that just sounds like the description of Neo-Platonism.

Gnosticism, not Neo-Platonoism, but yeah basically.

[Crispythemighty]

Hello. My name is Crispy and I am That GM.

I've been developing, mapping, writing, rewriting, plotting, running, house ruling, modifying, and sucking the last burning light of fun out of MY setting for about 12 years now.

[Anders]

I don't do it because I think it'll become useful. I do it because I think it's fun.

[pyratejohn]

Originally Posted by Ze'Manel Cunha

but the truth is most players get information overload if we give them a brief which is intended for a GM...

True. But some of them, my wife for instance, will skim that information, and come away with a 5 page character background. I'd guess my players form a bell curve. Some read some of the information I give them. One or two won't read any. And one or two read it, and actually act upon it.