Quote from: Nexus;87742825 words... really?

Yes, really, that's Gronan you're talking to/about:).

Quote from: Christopher Brady;877453The older style treats characters like glorified Monopoly pieces.  They're expendable, and a lot of the old adventures (if you used them) challenge the player's skill of deduction and reasoning.  The stats were just there for mechanical reasons, not personality ones.

Remember, we're from the 'New School' (Whatever the fuck that means) which OG loves to remind us about, over and over and over, about how the game is meant to be played, because he was there.

Or, for a better representation of thisplaystyle, your character only becomes important if you survive. Which is basically what levels are in the first place, if you ask me;)!

Quote from: AsenRG;877456Yes, really, that's Gronan you're talking to/about:).


Or, for a better representation of thisplaystyle, your character only becomes important if you survive. Which is basically what levels are in the first place, if you ask me;)!

Survives what, 1st level? 3rd? 10th? At what point in a character's level-span is he/she considered important enough for a more articulated backstory?

Quote from: AsenRG;877456Or, for a better representation of thisplaystyle, your character only becomes important if you survive. Which is basically what levels are in the first place, if you ask me;)!

In my limited experience, it doesn't matter how high you get, because there's always chance that all that 'work' at leveling becomes pointless in one random chance, so very rarely do you get that attached to any one character.

My analogy stands.

Quote from: Batman;877438Well when they die in the first hour of play, there's less attachment for the player to be upset about. Heck in these sorts of games, character names are practically optional.

Quote from: Christopher Brady;877453The older style treats characters like glorified Monopoly pieces.  They're expendable, and a lot of the old adventures (if you used them) challenge the player's skill of deduction and reasoning.  The stats were just there for mechanical reasons, not personality ones.

Remember, we're from the 'New School' (Whatever the fuck that means) which OG loves to remind us about, over and over and over, about how the game is meant to be played, because he was there.

That's true. I didn't take playstyle into account. Thanks for the reminder. It was just such an odd ideo (to me) it prompted a knee jerk response.

Quote from: Batman;877460Survives what, 1st level? 3rd? 10th? At what point in a character's level-span is he/she considered important enough for a more articulated backstory?

By the time the character is 10th level, they should have had such a rich adventuring life, that the backstory (whatever it was) would be meaningless.  Hell, that should be true at 5th.  What was Conan's backstory (authored by Howard)?

25 words doesn't mean sentences of 25 words.  You can fit a lot of description in a list of 25 nouns/adjectives.  If you have a detailed backstory, keep it to yourself and tell it in game if a PC or NPC ever asks you "So, how did you wind up here?" while you're on night watch.

Try leaving the GM/author hat on the shelf when you play.

Quote from: Batman;877460Survives what, 1st level? 3rd? 10th? At what point in a character's level-span is he/she considered important enough for a more articulated backstory?

I feel like the response of those in favor of less initial character detail would be that the character's "story" is really the sum of his/her adventuring career, which begins at the start of actual play. So, I think everything that happens to the character goes into her "story."  Your backstory is your character's play history, I'm thinking?

I think some of the argument about how much time to be put in depends, as always, on style of play and expectations In Gronan's view (I can't suppose to speak for him, so I'm guessing here), the thinking is, "you can write down all the stuff you want -- don't expect it to change what I'm doing as the GM."  So, it's a practical consideration, as well--reams of detail is a waste of time, for his part.

On this point, I mostly have to side with shorter is better. I think I can work in from a brief list of hooks much easier than a 2-page backstory. Now, if a players WANTS to spend a great deal of time on who their character is prior to play, more power to them. Go for it. But give me a condensed version, if you want me to work with you. Further, know that, once we start, I roll in the open.  So, if the dice fall the wrong way, and all that thought and story goes to waste, I'm sorry--stuff happens. Nothing personal.

Based on the results of this poll, my next character MUST be a half-vampire half-drow clinically insane brooding loner type. Roll your eyes all you want, I can totally make that work!

Quote from: Xavier Onassiss;877473Based on the results of this poll, my next character MUST be a half-vampire half-drow clinically insane brooding loner type. Roll your eyes all you want, I can totally make that work!

Done deal, but you still have to work in Stripper-Ninja.:-)

Quote from: Batman;877460Survives what, 1st level? 3rd? 10th? At what point in a character's level-span is he/she considered important enough for a more articulated backstory?

I really don't get why some people get bent out of shape on this topic.

What Gronan prefers and refers to is a style of play where the only important character history occurs in play, not before play. History is what the character has done, failed to do, and survived in play not something the player made up as background.

Quote from: cranebump;877472I feel like the response of those in favor of less initial character detail would be that the character's "story" is really the sum of his/her adventuring career, which begins at the start of actual play. So, I think everything that happens to the character goes into her "story."  Your backstory is your character's play history, I'm thinking?

I think some of the argument about how much time to be put in depends, as always, on style of play and expectations In Gronan's view (I can't suppose to speak for him, so I'm guessing here), the thinking is, "you can write down all the stuff you want -- don't expect it to change what I'm doing as the GM."  So, it's a practical consideration, as well--reams of detail is a waste of time, for his part.

On this point, I mostly have to side with shorter is better. I think I can work in from a brief list of hooks much easier than a 2-page backstory. Now, if a players WANTS to spend a great deal of time on who their character is prior to play, more power to them. Go for it. But give me a condensed version, if you want me to work with you. Further, know that, once we start, I roll in the open.  So, if the dice fall the wrong way, and all that thought and story goes to waste, I'm sorry--stuff happens. Nothing personal.

On the other hand, you get it.

Quote from: cranebump;877484Done deal, but you still have to work in Stripper-Ninja.:-)

Been there, done that.

Quote from: Bren;877499What Gronan prefers and refers to is a style of play where the only important character history occurs in play, not before play. History is what the character has done, failed to do, and survived in play not something the player made up as background.

Bingo.

Don't tell me how cool your character was.  Show me how cool your character IS.

Also, it's been my experience that the longer the backstory, the more time the player spends bitching that the rules don't "allow them to build their true character," which in a class-based game means having a multiclass character that does everything with no disadvantages, or in a point-based system having twice as many points as the game gives.  If I say we're starting D&D at first level, don't give me the backstory for an eighth-level character.

Quote from: Batman;877460Survives what, 1st level? 3rd? 10th? At what point in a character's level-span is he/she considered important enough for a more articulated backstory?

"Backstory" is what happened BEFORE the game started.

I don't CARE.  The game isn't about what happened BEFORE the game started, it's about what happens IN the game.

A tenth level character should have one hell of an in-game character history.

Quote from: Gronan of Simmerya;877526A tenth level character should have one hell of an in-game character history.

Which was earned, unlike backstory.

Quote from: Gronan of Simmerya;877526"Backstory" is what happened BEFORE the game started.

I don't CARE.  The game isn't about what happened BEFORE the game started, it's about what happens IN the game.

A tenth level character should have one hell of an in-game character history.

Ok? All I'm saying is that if the player wants to invest in a sheet or two of history and doesn't expect it to affect the current game or somehow give him/her an advantage, whats the problem? I'm certainly not going to discourage a player who wants to get more involved in the setting to establish his/her character.

Quote from: Batman;877460Survives what, 1st level? 3rd? 10th? At what point in a character's level-span is he/she considered important enough for a more articulated backstory?

For me at least the characters background grew from their adventures and interactions. In BX, AD&D, and probably 2e and O as well, a character was supposed to be near absolutely fresh off the farm, militia, tower, monastery, gutter, forest, whatever.

Personally I like to have the players think on who in town their character might know or have trained with beforehand. Assuming the character is local. But am fine with the players detailing as they go and ideas spring fourth. Or being blanks and developing from their adventures. Or even a detailed past.

Lots of different approaches.