The background is widely accepted as the most common and useful tool in building character. (At least for those that realize there is something more then numbers to a character.) A good background generally accomplishes the following:

• Creates current character motivation by explaining the reason behind the motivation
• Builds plot connections usable by the GM and other players
• Creates a tapestry or picture of the character
• Helps define setting and culture for the player and the GM
• Gets the player started into building a character instead of a set of numbers.

But even more importantly, the background creates a communication tool between player and GM. Reading the background communicates all of the above concepts to the GM, so that the player and the GM both can have an understanding of the desired motivations, culture, setting and plot relevance of a character.

This must be the ultimate tool in character creation, right?

Before I answer that, I would like to make one thing clear – all of the advantages of a good character background can be accomplished without actually writing a background. Players can actually talk to their GMs directly about all of parts of their character concept without having to use a background to convey them. In fact, most quality GMs will bring up all of these items during the character creation process and make sure they do get discussed, regardless of character background. The background is just a tool to facilitate this process.

But it has some dangers as well. Some players may consider a character with a three-page background as a good character, until they get it into play and find that it doesn't fit the style, or doesn't have anything to do because the background finished up their story and now they have a character that is really good at telling stories that start with "back when I was young ..." GMs may rely on the background too much, use it as a crutch perhaps, telling their players to write a background as a one-sided character creation process instead of working together to sculpt the character into the campaign or adventure.

The other danger is the GM misunderstanding what the player meant when they wrote their background. The GM is looking at the background through a different glass, and may misunderstand the players desires. The player is trying to paint a picture, but the GM is just the art critic. They don't always get it right.

The background is most useful as a high-context character creation tool. By high-context, I am referring to cultures and environments that use hidden or subtle meaning to communicate ideas. An ancient Japanese woman might write a poem about a tree to communicate her desires, but a modern man would likely be lost to understand her true meaning, because he lacks the context of her culture. Players who have common gaming cultures can communicate characters very effectively through a background.

Players that lack that common gaming culture are operating in a low-context environment. It is likely more efficient for them to communicate using direct questions about a characters motivations and plot rather then relying upon a background. This is especially true as the more different the gaming cultures are, the more different each will view the background.

So, is the background the ultimate tool for character creation? Of course not – if it were there would be a lot less bad characters. It is likely the most comprehensive of the tools available, but not infallible. And, as with everything, it pales in comparison to the true ultimate tool of character creation – GM and Player communication.