Backstories
Dec 8, 2013 23:24:43 GMT -8
Post by Karen on Dec 8, 2013 23:24:43 GMT -8
This is an abridged conversation that occurred in the innbox this evening. You may go there for the full version and for Patrick's side-comments.
It contains opinions on the new club league backstory modifications. Please read the whole thing if you are interested.
And later, Gabriel said:
To some extent, backstories are supposed to add flavor. But the thing is that they add types of flavor that can't be added through other means. In theory, anyone can decide that they were raised by bards or had an abusive sibling. And the people who take a flavor backstory and build off of it are the ones who would give themselves flavor and personalities anyways. The problem is that, even in Club League, most people don't care for much flavor unless they have some physical or role play advantage that they can relate it to. A lot of people are only going to bother with the flavor of their backstory if it is to explain some advantage the character has. They don't need a huge advantage, they just need something they can do that makes them unique. Part of the reason for this is that, in every league, most of the time spent in character is combative. People's personalities, backstories and flavor don't usually come out of this unless people see each other doing things and acting in ways that are impressive or out of the ordinary. Because so much time is spent in combat, skills are what is noticed the most unless people act in a really out of the ordinary or annoying way. This means that, outside of the rp/inn chatbox, people using special skills, especially during the journeyman time period is so important, because reaction spurs interaction and interaction leads to role play and the rest of people getting to know each other's character's personality, history and flavor. This does not mean that bonus skills have to be amazing, unique or unobtainable through other means. The best backstory bonuses should be observed during the journeyman time and once people know each other and have classes become obsolete, so only the flavor remains important. Getting a single tier one skill or a few levels in diplomat isn't going to create a huge power gap. Also, on the power gap, LARP is both a game and a classroom. In a classroom people are rarely just more skilled in general, they are better at certain things, they may be the things that arise more frequently in classrooms than other people's talents and skills, but everyone still has some trait that other's don't. This should translate more into the game because while LARP is a classroom, it is primarily meant as a classroom for the players and is only one for the characters in the same sense that the world is. This means that everyone character in the game should have some bonus and that they shouldn't all be directly combative, in fact, most of them shouldn't be. They just have to be something that is noticed in combat or other common situations. Things like specific political connections or a few levels in tracking will come up through natural game situations and be noticed. So, of course everyone should roll for a backstory, but they should all offer some noticeable, though small advantage, trait or history that can't just be decided by the player. On a slightly different point, people are only going to notice a disparity in skill if there is a large divide in ability, not a single bonus skill or a few levels in something. If the backstory chart is built to get rid of Mong-esc scenarios then it won't be as much of a problem from backstories. Much more of both people noticing and feeling bad about ability comes from people's initial plot-ness, history knowledge, diplomatic abilities, ability to get magic items, etc. A lot of these things come from experience and that obviously can't and shouldn't be changed. But, as was already noted, some can also come from descendants. Inherited knowledge can easily amount to 20+ levels in historian and then when the same people inherit magic items… Obviously there has to be a descendant nerd of some kind, whether it be more wealth going into raising them, less inheritance more restrictions on what descendants can know, a greater risk factor in having descendants or something. Though, I don't think having other people playing descendants as a things that is out of your control is a good solution. Yes, knowledge is shared more appropriately, but everything else is out of whack, from personality, to history to relations. This would be especially true outside of Club League. That's another thing, whatever descendant and backstory system is in place needs to work between leagues, not just for us.
It contains opinions on the new club league backstory modifications. Please read the whole thing if you are interested.
Zack:
Did people make new characters?
Allison Paley:
Yes.
Patrick:
OK OK SO
IM A HUMAN
COMMONER
thats it
Zack:
How pissed were people about the backstory stuff?
Allison Paley:
Not.
Dev:
What backstory stuff?
Patrick:
i kinda was
but i didnt say anything
Zack:
You have to roll to see if you can get a backstory now.
Percentages are fairly low, as well.
Dev:
Oh, that.
Patrick:
so dumb
EVEN IN CLUB
Allison Paley:
It's a good thing.
Patrick:
i can understand for like character league
Dev:
Seems like power levels are going down...
Allison Paley:
Yes.
Because they got hugely inflated the past couple years.
Dev:
Not sure how I feel about that.
Jeremy Barnes:
i just liked how you could make the personality around the backstory
even without super op ones
Allison Paley:
I think it's a good and probably necessary thing.
Zack:
The thing is, it doesn't completely solve the problem. Because now you will have some people with awesome backstories, and some people without, and then it creates a power unbalance.
Jeremy Barnes:
i concur
Patrick:
indeed
mm, yes
i concur
Allison Paley:
Club league can deal with that, I think.
Zack:
...
Well.
Zack:
We can *deal* with it, yes, but that doesn't mean it's a perfect way to go about it.
Allison Paley:
There is no perfect way to go about it.
Zack:
Personally I think the best way would be to create another new backstory chart which focuses on RP and not skills.
Allison Paley:
This is the most interesting way to go about it.
Since. You know. Having four people with the same backstory is boring.
Zack:
It would eliminate the whole "he got a cool backstory and I'm just a boring commoner!" thing, while still reducing power levels.
Well, the new one could have pretty bare backstories that don't put too much in, so you can add *flavor*.
Jeremy Barnes:
ye
and hes making it worse instead of better
just sayin
Allison Paley :
Here's the thing.
If you can't deal with power imbalances, I'm not sure how you ever made it to club league and survived this long. They've been there the whole time.
They just haven't always been in the form of backstory.
But before that it was in the form of offspring.
And there's always been imbalance in terms of individual skill.
Zack:
Those are good points, but honestly, I think that either everyone should be able to roll a backstory or nobody should. It's best to prevent power imbalances when you can, and this is a situation where you potentially could.
Karen:
I like it this way.
I thought that at first, but there will be that anyway due to inheritance.
Allison Paley:
Preventing power imbalances is uninteresting in a game which mimics society.
Jeremy Barnes:
thats not fun allison
that just makes the game boring
Allison Paley:
Really?
Jeremy Barnes:
i mean, power inbalance cannot necessarily be avoided, but it should be minimized
Allison Paley:
Because I actually find the fact that you could screw me over in any fight whereas I could beat you at a game of riddles REALLY COOL.
Skill differences are cool and interesting and I like them.
Jeremy Barnes:
see, but thats not imbalance
thats asymmetry
things can be different but still balanced
thats fun
Zack:
Power imbalance is already introduced to an extent with social classes, and is plenty there in terms of player skill.
Karen:
Look:
Some people get cool backstories that give them crazy skills.
Others get debuffs.
Jeremy Barnes:
and so long as they are not too extreme, it still remains fun in my opinion
Karen:
But those who get the latter complain constantly and pd intentionally until they get favorable roles of dice.
Jeremy Barnes:
wait
does anyone actually do that?
Zack:
Yes.
Allison Paley:
Often.
Karen:
It breaks the game.
Zack:
I think it might happen again, with people PDing intentionally until they get a backstory.
Dev:
I think as long as backstories become flavor after level 6, any power imbalance then should be fine.
Jeremy Barnes:
just make all the backstories thematic in my opinion
and maybe a small buff
Zack:
Backstories should be mostly flavor, with minimal skills.
Patrick:
remember when we used to roll on the adult league charts in junior league? *shudders*
Karen:
How can I forget?
Allison Paley:
Can I raise a point that nobody will like?
Patrick:
NO
YOU CANT
Karen:
Yes.
Patrick:
jk lol
Allison Paley:
The interesting conflicts and dillemas don't usually come out of balanced situations.
Karen:
I agree.
Dev:
I mean, you're right.
Jeremy Barnes:
elaborate
Allison Paley:
The interesting conflicts come out of unbalanced ones where people have to come to an agreement and confront the power difference.
Dev:
But, it seems counter to what Chris seems to be going for here.
Jeremy Barnes:
... do you mean the enemies being weaker than us?
Dev:
As I said, I'm not sure I have an opinion.
Allison Paley:
No. I mean by some of us being weaker than each other.
Jeremy Barnes:
i thought you were talking about conflicts with bad guys
Zack:
That is true, but a balance must be struck between "interesting" and "fun". Because ultimately this is a game, and if enough people feel like it is unfair from the get go, then it probably isn't fun enough for everybody.
Allison Paley:
Ultimately, this is a classroom.
It just doesn't look or feel like one.
We learn more when we confront problems like this and work through them as people instead of complaining to the GM.
Zack:
No, it is a game through which we are being taught. Games are used to teach all the time. There are differences.
Allison Paley:
Are there really?
Zack:
See, a classroom is more of a place where you are taught and it is explicitly stated that you are being taught stuff, and you accept that and hopefully enjoy the experience.
Jeremy Barnes:
thats semantics
Allison Paley:
Nah, a classroom is a place where you learn.
Jeremy Barnes:
boring
more semantics
Allison Paley:
This chat is a classroom.
Life is a classroom.
Fanwar is a classroom.
Zack:
This is a game through which we are being taught things, and if the medium of teaching is a game, then it ought to be fun. Good games start everyone on a fairly level playing field, even ones that teach people things.
Karen:
Is it not fun if you can't do snare while someone else can?
Zack:
It is still fun in that circumstance. That is beside the point.
Karen: Then what is the point?
Patrick:
life is the points
Allison Paley:
That's pretty much exactly the point at this point.
Zack:
I'm not saying that everyone ought to have the exact same stuff to start.
Karen:
Then what are you saying?
Allison Paley:
Your lvl 1 commoner is only boring if you decide he is.
Karen:
Yes!
Patrick:
i never said he was boring
GOSH
Allison Paley:
If you develop him and make him a badass who decides to stamp out toadkind or whatever because of a grudge against a toad farmer, you have a very interesting lvl 1 commoner.
Patrick:
the only thing close to flavor i have is hes like a herbalist who enjoys drugs
Allison Paley:
If you take what you're given and stop, you have a boring lvl 1 commoner.
Zack:
I know. But though it is a classroom, it is also a game, and a "take what you're given and make it special" philosophy is not something that is especially fun to many people.
This isn't even for my sake; I have a backstory for this next season that I'm okay with.
Allison Paley:
But it is something that needs to be learned.
Badly.
Zack:
Then make everyone do it, I say.
Patrick:
its a classroom
Zack:
Would you give a classroom of kids an assignment, but randomly say that some of them don't have to do one part of it?
Allison Paley:
Because if you require it, they won't learn to do it on their own elsewhere in life.
Zack:
I didn't say require it, I just meant get rid of backstories.
Karen:
It's like this:
Everyone knows different things. You can't control that.
Allison Paley:
Backstories are seed, not flavor.
You grow them.
Karen:
So you give them an assignment that best suits the majority.
Zack:
Yes they are, and yes you do.
Karen:
It is no one's fault if some are better at first.
Allison:
You take what you're given and run and your backstory CEASES TO BE BETTER.
If you take what you're given and grow a starfruit tree or something, you're awesome just like the toad slayer.
Karen:
Yup.
Zack:
You guys have a way of wearing away at my willingness to argue a point until I give it up for a bad job. It's kinda interesting.
Nick:
I agree with Zack. Backstories should not give ANY BUFF IN THE GAME. They should be completely flavor. Players already have their strengths and weaknesses. By giving in combat (or out of combat) skills, you are giving a player additional abilities that bring power issues into the game. Especially when only certain people get them (regardless of whether some Backstories are considered "bad", i.e. the gambler one that I got today, they make a power difference. I start w/ 15 free levels in Gambler). Backstories should be a way to flavor the character and then let the PLAYER determine the outcome of that character through their own actions.
Karen:
I also agree with that. But they should be worth something, otherwise people won't learn their lessons.
Zack:
What is the point, then, of only giving some people backstories?
Nick:
People learn plenty of lessons without having them be handed them in backstories.
Karen:
Granted.
Zack:
Exactly.
Nick:
The important "learning" that happens with a character doesn't happen with a character having disarm to start out for example.
The important part of their backstory is that they are from a military background, and have that mindset.
*That* is what pushes people in new ways
Not any amount of measurable abilites that are handed to you by the luck of the dice
Karen:
I agree that backstories should be mostly flavor.
Allison Paley:
Indeed.
Karen:
But if you were raised in the military, you should be able to pull some strings.
Nick:
Yes you should. And that can be part of your backstory, that you had military connections.
Karen:
If you were raised by craftsmen, you should know a thing or two about a workshop.
Zack:
See, if they were mostly flavor, then we wouldn't have the issue with power imbalances by only giving some people backstories. Or we shouldn't.
Though people might still complain.
Nick:
Here. A great example of the problem is Mong.
Mong was raised by military.
Karen:
He had what, six skills to start?
Nick:
He started with *six* free skills @ level 1. And not some crap skills, but awesome ones. Martial Arts, Acrobatics, Adrenaline, Snare, Disarm, and Tracking.
At level 1.
For just getting lucky with dice.
THose skills gave me an insane head start and is one of the reasons why i advanced so fast
And the important things to get out of the backstory weren't those.
The important thing was his mindset that forced me to think like a soldier, to think like someone raised to fight from birth
And, back to what you said Karen about pulling strings.
Tau Ku. I had personal conversations and many roleplays with him
That were not tied to my abilities at all
The game is what you make of it.
Karen:
Yes.
I like the part about Tau Ku.
That's fun, right?
And it wasn't hindering anyone's gameplay.
Zack:
Yes it is, and that is what I am saying. Roleplay stuff.
Allison Paley:
This is a point. And I agree with pretty much all of it. But I don't so much think there is a problem with handing someone a few tradecraft levels or a single skill if it makes sense.
Not huge numbers of them and not game breaking ones.
Nick:
But why is it *necessary*?
Tradecrafts I understand
Zack:
All I'm saying is that either none or all should get backstories if they are going to give so many skills like this, because it creates skill imbalances in the party.
Nick:
But skills should be completely eliminated, in my opinion
amen to that
Karen:
Yeah.
I do like the rp aspect.
Zack:
I mean, our current backstory chart is very skill-heavy. If not everybody gets a backstory, then you will have some people who can do unique stuff off the bat that people who don't have backstories will very likely not have a chance at getting.
If it's just RP, you aren't missing out on anything if you don't get a backstory, because in Club at least you ought to be able to make your own flavor.
Karen:
You are allowed to make any flavor you want. I think that the main problem with the whole "only flavor" thing is that you know everyone will ignore it. The GM's won't care that you are a good spice taster even in an investigative food situation. And eventually it will just boil down to nothing.
(Spice tasting was just a example.)
(Feel free to use that custom backstory if you like)
(For the flavor)
Allison Paley:
I want you to ask Connor how many of the people who rolled the ability to have backstories that he got chose to do that instead of making their own.
Because making one's own backstory with skill-based upsides and (severe) skill-based downsides is actually something that seems like a good thing if it comes out of a desire to do an unusual RP type that's hard otherwise.
And that happened even before the chats, that happened.
It was just much rarer.
And it was concentrated in the people who already knew how to do it or had descendants or whatever.
Quinn Morgan:
You make up the backstory when after you role it. Thats what I did with Null.
You have the choice of following your backstory or the plot
Zack:
The thing about characters like Null is that their preexisting skills or special stuff (like his sword) far outstrip any RP stuff in visibility. They become the defining thing, which they shouldn't be.
Quinn Morgan:
(not really what I meant...)
(nvm)
Karen 8:45 PM
That's also what I don't like about physical backstories. People would refer to Null as the "person with the sword."
I don't like that.
Zack:
Yes, absolutely.
Allison Paley:
Yeah that's an issue.
Nick:
My only thing is pointing out that skills shouldn't have anything to do with backstories. Backstories should be purely favor because that is the important thing for them. They can be as intensive or high-stakes background as it can be. There can be contacts that they have, or friends in high places. But skills (especially in combat ones) that certain characters have right off the bat shouldn't be here. The story of a character, as Zack pointed out, shouldn't be something that they start out with. They are their own people in their own world, and while it is important to know *how they got to now* it shouldn't give them anything that separates them from the crop. This is from an in game perspective.
From an out of game perspective, power balance should be maintained. Especially when only some people get backstories, sure, some are bad, but many are good and that creates differences in power level. And in any game, classroom or not, the goal is to have fun. And inequal power levels certainly does not equal fun
Quinn Morgan:
I concur
Zack:
Thank you Nick. That's pretty much what I was trying to say. I'm just not as eloquent.
Karen:
But here's the thing.
If there are going to be physical backstories, I would prefer that only some people got them.
Which is why I like that particular change.
The chart itself still needs to be changed to flavor only, though.
Zack:
They should be done away with altogether.
Nick:
But then that becomes seleciton which is unacceptable (especially in junior leagues). What, you're going to say "you can have this but you can't"?
That's just asking for trouble
Zack:
Exactly what Nick says.
Nick:
I agree with Zack
Just do them in
Zack:
Being selective like that creates strife.
Karen:
It's not selection, it's random.
Zack:
It still amounts to "you can have this but you can't". It's just random who can and who can't.
Nick:
Use me as an example. If I got a physical backstory and you didn't, how would that make you feel? If you saw me at level 1 w/ six skills, ready military contacts, acess to Tri-style Iron Disciple from the get go, and a strong sense of character purpose, and you looked at yourself and saw a human commoner with no special traits (maybe being a gambler or had an abusive sibling or something like that), how would you feel? Hell, that's what happened with Mong and that was completely unfair!
Whether or not it is "random" that that happens (which it isn't truly, because in the end people have the habit of falling into the roles that they are used to. Take me for example ), it still did.
And the perception of inbalance is great and lowers the satisfaction of gameplay
Zack:
It's good to think from a utilitarian standpoint about this stuff. What will make the most people happy while still maintaining the integrity of the game?
I think Nick has the right of it in this case.
Karen:
Look: Last season was the first season where everyone had a backstory. We were super powerful ad pretty much nothing could stop us. I don't like that. No one liked that.
But look on the other hand. The backstories inspired characters to develop. The whole Attano/Torald thing, for example, wouldn't have even existed. But it made the game much more interesting. Brick wouldn't have been our ambassador who worked to start a faming community of ogres. Oliver wouldn't be loud and always tailing Virva in a ridiculous manner.
These are all flavor things that are results of skills.
I really liked last season, not because of the plot (which was mediocre) but because of the roleplay. It was brilliant.
We even made an innbox!
People were inspired by skills to take it to the next level, something that had never been done.
It hadn’t.
Quinn Morgan:
I'm with Karen
Zack:
Flavor like that doesn't have to come from skills.
For example, my backstory for next season has all of one skill based thing involved, and that's *negative courtesan levels*.
And there's a lot of role-play stuff nonetheless.
Quinn Morgan:
I'm with Karen
Karen:
Last season we had triple our usual number of character names.
Do you even know the significance of that?
Zack:
Oh, I know the significance.
Karen:
We never had that much rp.
I gave three examples of things that came purely from skills.
I can dig up more if you like.
Zack:
The point is, can we really say that only some people can have this stuff? Look back at the points Nick made.
Karen:
I read them.
And I agree with some.
I think that there should be a flavor chart that everyone gets to roll on.
Zack:
There's no doubt as to the awesomeness that comes from such skills. It's just the implementation that leaves much to be desired.
Karen:
Yes.
But that will be true of anything.
Zack:
Flavor chart, yes, but the main backstory chart should be changed to RP stuff or otherwise opened back up to everybody.
Karen:
Hm.
I see your point.
Zack:
If you're going to randomly give one person skills and another just flavor, how do you think people will feel, you know?
Nick:
... But that's what's happening.
Karen:
Nonononono.
You miss it again.
The problem isn't that, it's that the latter aren't given anything.
They're just told: "Sure, make up flavor if you like, have fun."
Nick:
That's where having a flavor chart would be a good idea.
Karen:
Yes.
Nick:
But that doesn't solve the issue of ability inbalance.
Which is what Zack and I are talking about.
Karen:
It doesn't need to be solved.
Zack:
Yes it does.
Allison Paley:
I honestly think that was to a large extent solved by the implementaion of a JL chart.
There will be no more Mongs given this chart.
Karen:
Even if everyone had a backstory, they will always have different power levels.
Zack:
Yes, but the fact that some people aren't even getting a chance at a backstory is not ideal.
Nick:
By that thinking you're just going to have more Mongs. or Nulls. Or Auroras.
Karen:
It's not about the skills you're given, it's about the ability to use skills. We all need to be weaned off skills.
Allison Paley:
By this logic we shouldn't let people play descendants though either.
Karen:
Yes.
Allison Paley:
Because INFORMATION is power the same way ABILITIES are power.
SAME ISSUE.
Karen:
Also, $, items, etc.
Zack:
Descendants don't tend to get skills, they get some money and items. That isn't a problem to the same extent.
Karen:
Yes it is.
Are you kidding?
Level six? Have a Neregoth Blade!
Allison Paley:
They get information.
Quinn Morgan:
But information=power is only true for some players
Allison Paley:
No.
Information = power is true for humanity at large.
The more educated you are about your situation, the more ably you can act upon it.
Dev:
On 12/8/13, at 8:58 PM, Allison Paley wrote:
> “By this logic we shouldn't let people play descendants though either.”
This is true.
On 12/8/13, at 8:59 PM, Zack wrote:
> “Descendants don't tend to get skills, they get some money and items. That isn't a problem to the same extent.”
Did you see what Urun started with?
Nick:
Just to point out here, some specific backstories from the JL chart.
“Fae Born (fae traits and abilities)
Baby Giant (STart with Improved Strenght, become mature)
Natural Class (already tier 1)
Sired by Elemental
Deity Competent (+10 Priest)
Sired by Troll
Gifted Fighter (Endure, Adrenaline)
Raised by Barb. (Magic Resist)
Sherlock ((Identify @ sight, PEakekeeper)
Raised by (Class). Start w/ 2 skills
Nemesis (Slay for Darkheroes)
Secret Identify
Necrosavant (Count as Undead, Bury, Spirit Guide)
Random Resistance
Retired Mage (Tier 2 Mage)
Power Singhole
Fate Shield
Sired by Outsider
Unforger (Unforge items no cost)”
etc. etc.
Miranda:
are those seriously from the JL chart?
Zack:
These all give things that are basically *impossible* to have otherwise. In terms of bonus stuff.
Yes, they are.
Imagine if some people had some of those and other people didn't have backstories at all.
Dev:
Well, +10 Preist isn't so far out there.
Karen:
Then take off the crazy ones.
Or leave one or two on.
Just in case of a crazy roll.
Zack:
That leaves us with half as many backstories.
Allison Paley:
Watch.
What do you say if I add +20 lvls selective historian and world lore?
Is that a crazy backstory?
Zack:
That's far too powerful.
Quinn Morgan:
One reason someone picks a backstory is because they want to have a unique skill.
That no one else has.
Karen:
(Allison, thank you for making this point for me, by the way.)
Zack:
And I'm sure a descendant has had it.
Allison Paley:
THAT'S WHAT DESCENDANTS DO.
We just don't QUANTIFY IT.
Karen:
Yeeeesssss.
Dev:
You get it from reading artano.
Zack:
The point is that descendants are not handed to you right off. They come from effort and things you have done in the past.
Karen:
But that also discriminates against new players.
See the issues?
Besides, that particular character didn't do all that, you did as a player.
Dev:
But it encourages people to have stable characters, and gives their actions more meaning over time.
Zack:
Older players are just going to have knowledge already.
So the issue is already there to a lesser extent.
Quinn Morgan:
So you'll give them more advantage?
Allison Paley:
I have X lvls in historian and world lore and philosopher. The number is not small. You give me descendants and I go up at least a tier equivalent in my ability to impact the world.
And YES, it's because I put in many many hours out of game. But it's also a backstory creating the same problem you're talking about.
Dev:
But there is no good reason why you shouldn't be able to do that. In game that is.
Zack:
It also portrays the fact that doing things in game has an impact on the ability of future individuals to do things in game. What Dev said.
Allison Paley:
There's not really a good reason there shouldn't be particularly talented people who already know skills either from a purely in game perspective.
Nick:
Another thing is character plot. Certain backstories (i.e. Ward of the Enemy, In Love, Vendetta etc.) give amazing possible character development while other who either a) didn't get a backstory or b) got one that was not nearly equivalent (i.e. "Not Left Handed", Nearsighted, etc.)
Just putting that out there too
Zack:
Crazy backstories, on the other hand, just give you things without any precedent for *why* you have those things.
Nick:
Not all backstories were created equal
Allison Paley:
Uncomfortable topic time. Not all people were either.
Dev:
Maybe there should be a chance that you don't play your descendants...
That would be interesting.
Karen:
Actually, I like that.
Quinn Morgan:
^
Karen:
Let other people play them.
It encourages sharing.
And you actually need to say all the stuff you pass down.
Quinn Morgan:
^
^
Nick:
That would be interesting...
Zack
I like that. Descendants are playable, but only by others.
Dev:
I think it should be a probability thing though, because you did put in the time.
Nick:
No, if anything it would be chance
Zack:
Yeah.
Karen:
Yeah.
Dev:
Like 1:4 or something.
Karen:
Sure.
Why not?
Dev:
The difference here is that there is a chance of even having a backstory, whereas it would be guaranteed that someone plays a descendant.
Zack:
The guarantee of descendant is only because you put in the work, anyways.
Nick:
You could get skills that are visible in gameplay
Allison Paley:
Information is also visible in gameplay.
Maybe more so in some ways.
Karen:
I agree.
Allison Paley:
It's more visible because we have inclusion issues but it's not why they exist.
Anyway. Moving on.
Nick:
Regardless, descendants are getting away from the point. Backstories are what we were talkinga bout before. Descendants are localized to a few specific people (and even then, are potential problems in even fewer or are rarely problems at all). Backstories are more the general issue that most players have to deal with
So anyone sum up what we've talked about backstories so far?
Karen:
There is a whole discussion.
Allison Paley:
Backstories: More flavor, less skills. Not all the same. Game balance issues.
Did people make new characters?
Allison Paley:
Yes.
Patrick:
OK OK SO
IM A HUMAN
COMMONER
thats it
Zack:
How pissed were people about the backstory stuff?
Allison Paley:
Not.
Dev:
What backstory stuff?
Patrick:
i kinda was
but i didnt say anything
Zack:
You have to roll to see if you can get a backstory now.
Percentages are fairly low, as well.
Dev:
Oh, that.
Patrick:
so dumb
EVEN IN CLUB
Allison Paley:
It's a good thing.
Patrick:
i can understand for like character league
Dev:
Seems like power levels are going down...
Allison Paley:
Yes.
Because they got hugely inflated the past couple years.
Dev:
Not sure how I feel about that.
Jeremy Barnes:
i just liked how you could make the personality around the backstory
even without super op ones
Allison Paley:
I think it's a good and probably necessary thing.
Zack:
The thing is, it doesn't completely solve the problem. Because now you will have some people with awesome backstories, and some people without, and then it creates a power unbalance.
Jeremy Barnes:
i concur
Patrick:
indeed
mm, yes
i concur
Allison Paley:
Club league can deal with that, I think.
Zack:
...
Well.
Zack:
We can *deal* with it, yes, but that doesn't mean it's a perfect way to go about it.
Allison Paley:
There is no perfect way to go about it.
Zack:
Personally I think the best way would be to create another new backstory chart which focuses on RP and not skills.
Allison Paley:
This is the most interesting way to go about it.
Since. You know. Having four people with the same backstory is boring.
Zack:
It would eliminate the whole "he got a cool backstory and I'm just a boring commoner!" thing, while still reducing power levels.
Well, the new one could have pretty bare backstories that don't put too much in, so you can add *flavor*.
Jeremy Barnes:
ye
and hes making it worse instead of better
just sayin
Allison Paley :
Here's the thing.
If you can't deal with power imbalances, I'm not sure how you ever made it to club league and survived this long. They've been there the whole time.
They just haven't always been in the form of backstory.
But before that it was in the form of offspring.
And there's always been imbalance in terms of individual skill.
Zack:
Those are good points, but honestly, I think that either everyone should be able to roll a backstory or nobody should. It's best to prevent power imbalances when you can, and this is a situation where you potentially could.
Karen:
I like it this way.
I thought that at first, but there will be that anyway due to inheritance.
Allison Paley:
Preventing power imbalances is uninteresting in a game which mimics society.
Jeremy Barnes:
thats not fun allison
that just makes the game boring
Allison Paley:
Really?
Jeremy Barnes:
i mean, power inbalance cannot necessarily be avoided, but it should be minimized
Allison Paley:
Because I actually find the fact that you could screw me over in any fight whereas I could beat you at a game of riddles REALLY COOL.
Skill differences are cool and interesting and I like them.
Jeremy Barnes:
see, but thats not imbalance
thats asymmetry
things can be different but still balanced
thats fun
Zack:
Power imbalance is already introduced to an extent with social classes, and is plenty there in terms of player skill.
Karen:
Look:
Some people get cool backstories that give them crazy skills.
Others get debuffs.
Jeremy Barnes:
and so long as they are not too extreme, it still remains fun in my opinion
Karen:
But those who get the latter complain constantly and pd intentionally until they get favorable roles of dice.
Jeremy Barnes:
wait
does anyone actually do that?
Zack:
Yes.
Allison Paley:
Often.
Karen:
It breaks the game.
Zack:
I think it might happen again, with people PDing intentionally until they get a backstory.
Dev:
I think as long as backstories become flavor after level 6, any power imbalance then should be fine.
Jeremy Barnes:
just make all the backstories thematic in my opinion
and maybe a small buff
Zack:
Backstories should be mostly flavor, with minimal skills.
Patrick:
remember when we used to roll on the adult league charts in junior league? *shudders*
Karen:
How can I forget?
Allison Paley:
Can I raise a point that nobody will like?
Patrick:
NO
YOU CANT
Karen:
Yes.
Patrick:
jk lol
Allison Paley:
The interesting conflicts and dillemas don't usually come out of balanced situations.
Karen:
I agree.
Dev:
I mean, you're right.
Jeremy Barnes:
elaborate
Allison Paley:
The interesting conflicts come out of unbalanced ones where people have to come to an agreement and confront the power difference.
Dev:
But, it seems counter to what Chris seems to be going for here.
Jeremy Barnes:
... do you mean the enemies being weaker than us?
Dev:
As I said, I'm not sure I have an opinion.
Allison Paley:
No. I mean by some of us being weaker than each other.
Jeremy Barnes:
i thought you were talking about conflicts with bad guys
Zack:
That is true, but a balance must be struck between "interesting" and "fun". Because ultimately this is a game, and if enough people feel like it is unfair from the get go, then it probably isn't fun enough for everybody.
Allison Paley:
Ultimately, this is a classroom.
It just doesn't look or feel like one.
We learn more when we confront problems like this and work through them as people instead of complaining to the GM.
Zack:
No, it is a game through which we are being taught. Games are used to teach all the time. There are differences.
Allison Paley:
Are there really?
Zack:
See, a classroom is more of a place where you are taught and it is explicitly stated that you are being taught stuff, and you accept that and hopefully enjoy the experience.
Jeremy Barnes:
thats semantics
Allison Paley:
Nah, a classroom is a place where you learn.
Jeremy Barnes:
boring
more semantics
Allison Paley:
This chat is a classroom.
Life is a classroom.
Fanwar is a classroom.
Zack:
This is a game through which we are being taught things, and if the medium of teaching is a game, then it ought to be fun. Good games start everyone on a fairly level playing field, even ones that teach people things.
Karen:
Is it not fun if you can't do snare while someone else can?
Zack:
It is still fun in that circumstance. That is beside the point.
Karen: Then what is the point?
Patrick:
life is the points
Allison Paley:
That's pretty much exactly the point at this point.
Zack:
I'm not saying that everyone ought to have the exact same stuff to start.
Karen:
Then what are you saying?
Allison Paley:
Your lvl 1 commoner is only boring if you decide he is.
Karen:
Yes!
Patrick:
i never said he was boring
GOSH
Allison Paley:
If you develop him and make him a badass who decides to stamp out toadkind or whatever because of a grudge against a toad farmer, you have a very interesting lvl 1 commoner.
Patrick:
the only thing close to flavor i have is hes like a herbalist who enjoys drugs
Allison Paley:
If you take what you're given and stop, you have a boring lvl 1 commoner.
Zack:
I know. But though it is a classroom, it is also a game, and a "take what you're given and make it special" philosophy is not something that is especially fun to many people.
This isn't even for my sake; I have a backstory for this next season that I'm okay with.
Allison Paley:
But it is something that needs to be learned.
Badly.
Zack:
Then make everyone do it, I say.
Patrick:
its a classroom
Zack:
Would you give a classroom of kids an assignment, but randomly say that some of them don't have to do one part of it?
Allison Paley:
Because if you require it, they won't learn to do it on their own elsewhere in life.
Zack:
I didn't say require it, I just meant get rid of backstories.
Karen:
It's like this:
Everyone knows different things. You can't control that.
Allison Paley:
Backstories are seed, not flavor.
You grow them.
Karen:
So you give them an assignment that best suits the majority.
Zack:
Yes they are, and yes you do.
Karen:
It is no one's fault if some are better at first.
Allison:
You take what you're given and run and your backstory CEASES TO BE BETTER.
If you take what you're given and grow a starfruit tree or something, you're awesome just like the toad slayer.
Karen:
Yup.
Zack:
You guys have a way of wearing away at my willingness to argue a point until I give it up for a bad job. It's kinda interesting.
Nick:
I agree with Zack. Backstories should not give ANY BUFF IN THE GAME. They should be completely flavor. Players already have their strengths and weaknesses. By giving in combat (or out of combat) skills, you are giving a player additional abilities that bring power issues into the game. Especially when only certain people get them (regardless of whether some Backstories are considered "bad", i.e. the gambler one that I got today, they make a power difference. I start w/ 15 free levels in Gambler). Backstories should be a way to flavor the character and then let the PLAYER determine the outcome of that character through their own actions.
Karen:
I also agree with that. But they should be worth something, otherwise people won't learn their lessons.
Zack:
What is the point, then, of only giving some people backstories?
Nick:
People learn plenty of lessons without having them be handed them in backstories.
Karen:
Granted.
Zack:
Exactly.
Nick:
The important "learning" that happens with a character doesn't happen with a character having disarm to start out for example.
The important part of their backstory is that they are from a military background, and have that mindset.
*That* is what pushes people in new ways
Not any amount of measurable abilites that are handed to you by the luck of the dice
Karen:
I agree that backstories should be mostly flavor.
Allison Paley:
Indeed.
Karen:
But if you were raised in the military, you should be able to pull some strings.
Nick:
Yes you should. And that can be part of your backstory, that you had military connections.
Karen:
If you were raised by craftsmen, you should know a thing or two about a workshop.
Zack:
See, if they were mostly flavor, then we wouldn't have the issue with power imbalances by only giving some people backstories. Or we shouldn't.
Though people might still complain.
Nick:
Here. A great example of the problem is Mong.
Mong was raised by military.
Karen:
He had what, six skills to start?
Nick:
He started with *six* free skills @ level 1. And not some crap skills, but awesome ones. Martial Arts, Acrobatics, Adrenaline, Snare, Disarm, and Tracking.
At level 1.
For just getting lucky with dice.
THose skills gave me an insane head start and is one of the reasons why i advanced so fast
And the important things to get out of the backstory weren't those.
The important thing was his mindset that forced me to think like a soldier, to think like someone raised to fight from birth
And, back to what you said Karen about pulling strings.
Tau Ku. I had personal conversations and many roleplays with him
That were not tied to my abilities at all
The game is what you make of it.
Karen:
Yes.
I like the part about Tau Ku.
That's fun, right?
And it wasn't hindering anyone's gameplay.
Zack:
Yes it is, and that is what I am saying. Roleplay stuff.
Allison Paley:
This is a point. And I agree with pretty much all of it. But I don't so much think there is a problem with handing someone a few tradecraft levels or a single skill if it makes sense.
Not huge numbers of them and not game breaking ones.
Nick:
But why is it *necessary*?
Tradecrafts I understand
Zack:
All I'm saying is that either none or all should get backstories if they are going to give so many skills like this, because it creates skill imbalances in the party.
Nick:
But skills should be completely eliminated, in my opinion
amen to that
Karen:
Yeah.
I do like the rp aspect.
Zack:
I mean, our current backstory chart is very skill-heavy. If not everybody gets a backstory, then you will have some people who can do unique stuff off the bat that people who don't have backstories will very likely not have a chance at getting.
If it's just RP, you aren't missing out on anything if you don't get a backstory, because in Club at least you ought to be able to make your own flavor.
Karen:
You are allowed to make any flavor you want. I think that the main problem with the whole "only flavor" thing is that you know everyone will ignore it. The GM's won't care that you are a good spice taster even in an investigative food situation. And eventually it will just boil down to nothing.
(Spice tasting was just a example.)
(Feel free to use that custom backstory if you like)
(For the flavor)
Allison Paley:
I want you to ask Connor how many of the people who rolled the ability to have backstories that he got chose to do that instead of making their own.
Because making one's own backstory with skill-based upsides and (severe) skill-based downsides is actually something that seems like a good thing if it comes out of a desire to do an unusual RP type that's hard otherwise.
And that happened even before the chats, that happened.
It was just much rarer.
And it was concentrated in the people who already knew how to do it or had descendants or whatever.
Quinn Morgan:
You make up the backstory when after you role it. Thats what I did with Null.
You have the choice of following your backstory or the plot
Zack:
The thing about characters like Null is that their preexisting skills or special stuff (like his sword) far outstrip any RP stuff in visibility. They become the defining thing, which they shouldn't be.
Quinn Morgan:
(not really what I meant...)
(nvm)
Karen 8:45 PM
That's also what I don't like about physical backstories. People would refer to Null as the "person with the sword."
I don't like that.
Zack:
Yes, absolutely.
Allison Paley:
Yeah that's an issue.
Nick:
My only thing is pointing out that skills shouldn't have anything to do with backstories. Backstories should be purely favor because that is the important thing for them. They can be as intensive or high-stakes background as it can be. There can be contacts that they have, or friends in high places. But skills (especially in combat ones) that certain characters have right off the bat shouldn't be here. The story of a character, as Zack pointed out, shouldn't be something that they start out with. They are their own people in their own world, and while it is important to know *how they got to now* it shouldn't give them anything that separates them from the crop. This is from an in game perspective.
From an out of game perspective, power balance should be maintained. Especially when only some people get backstories, sure, some are bad, but many are good and that creates differences in power level. And in any game, classroom or not, the goal is to have fun. And inequal power levels certainly does not equal fun
Quinn Morgan:
I concur
Zack:
Thank you Nick. That's pretty much what I was trying to say. I'm just not as eloquent.
Karen:
But here's the thing.
If there are going to be physical backstories, I would prefer that only some people got them.
Which is why I like that particular change.
The chart itself still needs to be changed to flavor only, though.
Zack:
They should be done away with altogether.
Nick:
But then that becomes seleciton which is unacceptable (especially in junior leagues). What, you're going to say "you can have this but you can't"?
That's just asking for trouble
Zack:
Exactly what Nick says.
Nick:
I agree with Zack
Just do them in
Zack:
Being selective like that creates strife.
Karen:
It's not selection, it's random.
Zack:
It still amounts to "you can have this but you can't". It's just random who can and who can't.
Nick:
Use me as an example. If I got a physical backstory and you didn't, how would that make you feel? If you saw me at level 1 w/ six skills, ready military contacts, acess to Tri-style Iron Disciple from the get go, and a strong sense of character purpose, and you looked at yourself and saw a human commoner with no special traits (maybe being a gambler or had an abusive sibling or something like that), how would you feel? Hell, that's what happened with Mong and that was completely unfair!
Whether or not it is "random" that that happens (which it isn't truly, because in the end people have the habit of falling into the roles that they are used to. Take me for example ), it still did.
And the perception of inbalance is great and lowers the satisfaction of gameplay
Zack:
It's good to think from a utilitarian standpoint about this stuff. What will make the most people happy while still maintaining the integrity of the game?
I think Nick has the right of it in this case.
Karen:
Look: Last season was the first season where everyone had a backstory. We were super powerful ad pretty much nothing could stop us. I don't like that. No one liked that.
But look on the other hand. The backstories inspired characters to develop. The whole Attano/Torald thing, for example, wouldn't have even existed. But it made the game much more interesting. Brick wouldn't have been our ambassador who worked to start a faming community of ogres. Oliver wouldn't be loud and always tailing Virva in a ridiculous manner.
These are all flavor things that are results of skills.
I really liked last season, not because of the plot (which was mediocre) but because of the roleplay. It was brilliant.
We even made an innbox!
People were inspired by skills to take it to the next level, something that had never been done.
It hadn’t.
Quinn Morgan:
I'm with Karen
Zack:
Flavor like that doesn't have to come from skills.
For example, my backstory for next season has all of one skill based thing involved, and that's *negative courtesan levels*.
And there's a lot of role-play stuff nonetheless.
Quinn Morgan:
I'm with Karen
Karen:
Last season we had triple our usual number of character names.
Do you even know the significance of that?
Zack:
Oh, I know the significance.
Karen:
We never had that much rp.
I gave three examples of things that came purely from skills.
I can dig up more if you like.
Zack:
The point is, can we really say that only some people can have this stuff? Look back at the points Nick made.
Karen:
I read them.
And I agree with some.
I think that there should be a flavor chart that everyone gets to roll on.
Zack:
There's no doubt as to the awesomeness that comes from such skills. It's just the implementation that leaves much to be desired.
Karen:
Yes.
But that will be true of anything.
Zack:
Flavor chart, yes, but the main backstory chart should be changed to RP stuff or otherwise opened back up to everybody.
Karen:
Hm.
I see your point.
Zack:
If you're going to randomly give one person skills and another just flavor, how do you think people will feel, you know?
Nick:
... But that's what's happening.
Karen:
Nonononono.
You miss it again.
The problem isn't that, it's that the latter aren't given anything.
They're just told: "Sure, make up flavor if you like, have fun."
Nick:
That's where having a flavor chart would be a good idea.
Karen:
Yes.
Nick:
But that doesn't solve the issue of ability inbalance.
Which is what Zack and I are talking about.
Karen:
It doesn't need to be solved.
Zack:
Yes it does.
Allison Paley:
I honestly think that was to a large extent solved by the implementaion of a JL chart.
There will be no more Mongs given this chart.
Karen:
Even if everyone had a backstory, they will always have different power levels.
Zack:
Yes, but the fact that some people aren't even getting a chance at a backstory is not ideal.
Nick:
By that thinking you're just going to have more Mongs. or Nulls. Or Auroras.
Karen:
It's not about the skills you're given, it's about the ability to use skills. We all need to be weaned off skills.
Allison Paley:
By this logic we shouldn't let people play descendants though either.
Karen:
Yes.
Allison Paley:
Because INFORMATION is power the same way ABILITIES are power.
SAME ISSUE.
Karen:
Also, $, items, etc.
Zack:
Descendants don't tend to get skills, they get some money and items. That isn't a problem to the same extent.
Karen:
Yes it is.
Are you kidding?
Level six? Have a Neregoth Blade!
Allison Paley:
They get information.
Quinn Morgan:
But information=power is only true for some players
Allison Paley:
No.
Information = power is true for humanity at large.
The more educated you are about your situation, the more ably you can act upon it.
Dev:
On 12/8/13, at 8:58 PM, Allison Paley wrote:
> “By this logic we shouldn't let people play descendants though either.”
This is true.
On 12/8/13, at 8:59 PM, Zack wrote:
> “Descendants don't tend to get skills, they get some money and items. That isn't a problem to the same extent.”
Did you see what Urun started with?
Nick:
Just to point out here, some specific backstories from the JL chart.
“Fae Born (fae traits and abilities)
Baby Giant (STart with Improved Strenght, become mature)
Natural Class (already tier 1)
Sired by Elemental
Deity Competent (+10 Priest)
Sired by Troll
Gifted Fighter (Endure, Adrenaline)
Raised by Barb. (Magic Resist)
Sherlock ((Identify @ sight, PEakekeeper)
Raised by (Class). Start w/ 2 skills
Nemesis (Slay for Darkheroes)
Secret Identify
Necrosavant (Count as Undead, Bury, Spirit Guide)
Random Resistance
Retired Mage (Tier 2 Mage)
Power Singhole
Fate Shield
Sired by Outsider
Unforger (Unforge items no cost)”
etc. etc.
Miranda:
are those seriously from the JL chart?
Zack:
These all give things that are basically *impossible* to have otherwise. In terms of bonus stuff.
Yes, they are.
Imagine if some people had some of those and other people didn't have backstories at all.
Dev:
Well, +10 Preist isn't so far out there.
Karen:
Then take off the crazy ones.
Or leave one or two on.
Just in case of a crazy roll.
Zack:
That leaves us with half as many backstories.
Allison Paley:
Watch.
What do you say if I add +20 lvls selective historian and world lore?
Is that a crazy backstory?
Zack:
That's far too powerful.
Quinn Morgan:
One reason someone picks a backstory is because they want to have a unique skill.
That no one else has.
Karen:
(Allison, thank you for making this point for me, by the way.)
Zack:
And I'm sure a descendant has had it.
Allison Paley:
THAT'S WHAT DESCENDANTS DO.
We just don't QUANTIFY IT.
Karen:
Yeeeesssss.
Dev:
You get it from reading artano.
Zack:
The point is that descendants are not handed to you right off. They come from effort and things you have done in the past.
Karen:
But that also discriminates against new players.
See the issues?
Besides, that particular character didn't do all that, you did as a player.
Dev:
But it encourages people to have stable characters, and gives their actions more meaning over time.
Zack:
Older players are just going to have knowledge already.
So the issue is already there to a lesser extent.
Quinn Morgan:
So you'll give them more advantage?
Allison Paley:
I have X lvls in historian and world lore and philosopher. The number is not small. You give me descendants and I go up at least a tier equivalent in my ability to impact the world.
And YES, it's because I put in many many hours out of game. But it's also a backstory creating the same problem you're talking about.
Dev:
But there is no good reason why you shouldn't be able to do that. In game that is.
Zack:
It also portrays the fact that doing things in game has an impact on the ability of future individuals to do things in game. What Dev said.
Allison Paley:
There's not really a good reason there shouldn't be particularly talented people who already know skills either from a purely in game perspective.
Nick:
Another thing is character plot. Certain backstories (i.e. Ward of the Enemy, In Love, Vendetta etc.) give amazing possible character development while other who either a) didn't get a backstory or b) got one that was not nearly equivalent (i.e. "Not Left Handed", Nearsighted, etc.)
Just putting that out there too
Zack:
Crazy backstories, on the other hand, just give you things without any precedent for *why* you have those things.
Nick:
Not all backstories were created equal
Allison Paley:
Uncomfortable topic time. Not all people were either.
Dev:
Maybe there should be a chance that you don't play your descendants...
That would be interesting.
Karen:
Actually, I like that.
Quinn Morgan:
^
Karen:
Let other people play them.
It encourages sharing.
And you actually need to say all the stuff you pass down.
Quinn Morgan:
^
^
Nick:
That would be interesting...
Zack
I like that. Descendants are playable, but only by others.
Dev:
I think it should be a probability thing though, because you did put in the time.
Nick:
No, if anything it would be chance
Zack:
Yeah.
Karen:
Yeah.
Dev:
Like 1:4 or something.
Karen:
Sure.
Why not?
Dev:
The difference here is that there is a chance of even having a backstory, whereas it would be guaranteed that someone plays a descendant.
Zack:
The guarantee of descendant is only because you put in the work, anyways.
Nick:
You could get skills that are visible in gameplay
Allison Paley:
Information is also visible in gameplay.
Maybe more so in some ways.
Karen:
I agree.
Allison Paley:
It's more visible because we have inclusion issues but it's not why they exist.
Anyway. Moving on.
Nick:
Regardless, descendants are getting away from the point. Backstories are what we were talkinga bout before. Descendants are localized to a few specific people (and even then, are potential problems in even fewer or are rarely problems at all). Backstories are more the general issue that most players have to deal with
So anyone sum up what we've talked about backstories so far?
Karen:
There is a whole discussion.
Allison Paley:
Backstories: More flavor, less skills. Not all the same. Game balance issues.
And later, Gabriel said:
To some extent, backstories are supposed to add flavor. But the thing is that they add types of flavor that can't be added through other means. In theory, anyone can decide that they were raised by bards or had an abusive sibling. And the people who take a flavor backstory and build off of it are the ones who would give themselves flavor and personalities anyways. The problem is that, even in Club League, most people don't care for much flavor unless they have some physical or role play advantage that they can relate it to. A lot of people are only going to bother with the flavor of their backstory if it is to explain some advantage the character has. They don't need a huge advantage, they just need something they can do that makes them unique. Part of the reason for this is that, in every league, most of the time spent in character is combative. People's personalities, backstories and flavor don't usually come out of this unless people see each other doing things and acting in ways that are impressive or out of the ordinary. Because so much time is spent in combat, skills are what is noticed the most unless people act in a really out of the ordinary or annoying way. This means that, outside of the rp/inn chatbox, people using special skills, especially during the journeyman time period is so important, because reaction spurs interaction and interaction leads to role play and the rest of people getting to know each other's character's personality, history and flavor. This does not mean that bonus skills have to be amazing, unique or unobtainable through other means. The best backstory bonuses should be observed during the journeyman time and once people know each other and have classes become obsolete, so only the flavor remains important. Getting a single tier one skill or a few levels in diplomat isn't going to create a huge power gap. Also, on the power gap, LARP is both a game and a classroom. In a classroom people are rarely just more skilled in general, they are better at certain things, they may be the things that arise more frequently in classrooms than other people's talents and skills, but everyone still has some trait that other's don't. This should translate more into the game because while LARP is a classroom, it is primarily meant as a classroom for the players and is only one for the characters in the same sense that the world is. This means that everyone character in the game should have some bonus and that they shouldn't all be directly combative, in fact, most of them shouldn't be. They just have to be something that is noticed in combat or other common situations. Things like specific political connections or a few levels in tracking will come up through natural game situations and be noticed. So, of course everyone should roll for a backstory, but they should all offer some noticeable, though small advantage, trait or history that can't just be decided by the player. On a slightly different point, people are only going to notice a disparity in skill if there is a large divide in ability, not a single bonus skill or a few levels in something. If the backstory chart is built to get rid of Mong-esc scenarios then it won't be as much of a problem from backstories. Much more of both people noticing and feeling bad about ability comes from people's initial plot-ness, history knowledge, diplomatic abilities, ability to get magic items, etc. A lot of these things come from experience and that obviously can't and shouldn't be changed. But, as was already noted, some can also come from descendants. Inherited knowledge can easily amount to 20+ levels in historian and then when the same people inherit magic items… Obviously there has to be a descendant nerd of some kind, whether it be more wealth going into raising them, less inheritance more restrictions on what descendants can know, a greater risk factor in having descendants or something. Though, I don't think having other people playing descendants as a things that is out of your control is a good solution. Yes, knowledge is shared more appropriately, but everything else is out of whack, from personality, to history to relations. This would be especially true outside of Club League. That's another thing, whatever descendant and backstory system is in place needs to work between leagues, not just for us.