Rotwang's got it right. By far most memorable fictional characters are "high concept" in this sense--meaning you can sum up what they're "about" in a line or two. The rest is window dressing and can be made up (and may even suggest itself) as you go along. In case you haven't guessed, I'm one of those folks who develops a character in play rather than beforehand, often starting with little more than a cool image. But I would argue that my characters become just as 3-dimensional and compelling as any others. And aside from major life-altering events, I couldn't give a fuck about personal history, genealogy, etc.

Maybe I'm justifying my laziness. But to me ultra-detailed character background is pure wankery. The idea that the past determines the present is a philosophical proposition that has little to do with making memorable fictional characters. One might just as easily say that the present defines the past. You are who you are now. Your past is interpreted through the lens of who you are now. If something significant happened before, its effects should be immediately evident in the present. Otherwise, it's not so significant, is it?

Example 1: Brooding vigilante whose struggle for vengeance began when his wife was murdered--that's a part of who he is.

Example 2: Brooding vigilante who has two first cousins and an uncle in Fresno that he really doesn't talk to anymore and who initially majored in Physics but later switched to Journalism due to the influence of his first crush Jenny, with whom he later broke up due to her having cheated on him with his best friend Todd, with whom Jenny now lives in a trailer in Alabama with their kids Rudy, Jesse, and Todd Jr.--that's a bunch of wankery and forms no discernible part of who he is at present, serving as yet another example of why gamers should be kept away from soap operas and Tolkein.

Well said, Chandler's Marlowe comes to mind. He doesn't seem to have much of a past, except he used to wrk for the DA and got fired for insubordination, but he is one of the most fully realized characters in 20th centurey fiction. He is defined by his actions and attitudes.

Everyone go and read "Farewell My Lovely" Friday we're having a quiz.

Most gamers aren't Raymond Chandler. They need a bit more to work with to bring their characters to life beyond, "wow, he has Sword 165%!"

I disagree. PCs do things, within a few sessions what they chose to do and how they go about it defines them. Of course I game with Hemmingway, Melville, Pynchon, Chandler and Faulkner- so all my guys want to do is get drunk, fistfight, repeat themselves, indulge in self loathing, make incomprehensible intellectual wordplay jokes and fight bulls and big marine animals.
But really isn't that what's it's all about?

It all depends. Prospective campaign length plays a role, as I said, and so does the chargen of the game in hand. A Fuzion-type lifepath or a complex template/package chargen like Blue Planet will produce PCs that come to the game with a personal history and a range of competences acquired over time. Chargen = backstory in the making.

Of course, that still doesn't mean composing a novel about their lives or setting their motivations in stone before the game actually starts.

Quote from: David RSo, he gives me his character's name and "have a wife and two kids and my uncle lives with us...no other family and I joined the Road Wardens when I reached the required age and have been doing this ever since". And this my friends is all he wrote.

I'd just like to take a moment to say that that's a really really great background.  Normal people can be adventurers (heros?) as well

I've found this useful when thinking about character backgrounds.  I wouldn't ask my players to fill it in, but I've used it for major NPCs and novel/comic character backgrounds

Quote from: David RWhat's your name ? Got any family? What is your character currently doing and how long has he been doing it?

I just wanted to say, those are a great set of questions. Just enough to get things rolling, and focused on the area that in my experience gets most neglected in gaming: Who are you? As a human being (or elf, or whatever, same diff)? What's your relation to the world around you?

So often a character is a set of abilities and a wierd-ass motivation. A motivation that has fuck-all to do with the way real people relate to each other. Everyone, from a cutpurse to a necromancer, grew up somewhere. For some reason, the question, "Got any family?" laid out so casually, really struck a chord with me. It's not even "So were your parents killed by Vampires/Space Pirates/Red Claw Circus Acrobats?" or whatever melodramatic hook family serves for characters (mine included). It's just "Got any family?" Y'know, like you got a brother who apprenticed to a blacksmith in the next town, and your cousin squired for Sir Rutherford and met the king once. You visit a village and the tanner's wife is like, "Heeey, I know you, you're Hob the Miller's kid from down Nor'haven way; my Will sold 'im the leather straps fer 'is newfangled pulley system, how's that holding up?"

It takes a character, humanises him. Makes him relateable. And hey, when he still goes on to be the Dread Necromancer of the Haunted lands, isn't it all the cooler that he was the Miller's kid and all these people knew him when?

I guess maybe I'm gushing a bit, but I really like what you did here. Especially for new players or folks with "character block," it's a great, non-daunting prompt for developing a "background skeleton." And I really feel like these particular questions would lead one to to a significantly different game than another set of questions. It's a kind of "gentle nudge" that promotes, as you saw, a nice develop-in-play dynamic without the attendant difficulties, like putting off developing background indefinitely.

I may want to steal this someday.

Peace,
-Joel

Quote from: MelinglorAnd I really feel like these particular questions would lead one to to a significantly different game than another set of questions. It's a kind of "gentle nudge" that promotes, as you saw, a nice develop-in-play dynamic without the attendant difficulties, like putting off developing background indefinitely.

Yeah this is what I was trying to get at. Admittedly my original post was drenched with the required hyperbole normally seen when a gamer discovers something new - by this I mean has probably been done before by so many gamers - about his game/playstyle

As the characters/themes in my games become more complex, which seems to be a trend for some time now, I've found that I have to adjust my style to a more strip down version of what I normally do. This means cutting down on prep, which is a problem I face and seriously looking at character backgrounds as more then just fluff. When you are beginning a campaign with so little, what you have becomes very important.

Everyone here as I said has raised some interesting points. JimBob's point about motivation in particular is something that has preoccupied most of my time as a GM. What I'm kind of getting at, is that the setting/campaign seems more "real" if the characters discover their motivations duing play. Now the problem here is what the hell are the players doing if in the beginning of the adventure they don't have any motivation?

I don't really have a good answer for this. For some players...most?... elements in character backgrounds do indeed provide a convenient motivation for going on "adventures". But I think just as players slowly get into the groove of the campaign the same can be done with "motivation". Players slowly discover during play their character's motivations for "being" there.

I can honestly say, that my players are pretty intrigued with this idea of stripped down character backgrounds. The "in the heat of the moment" type play as opposed to "stuff" that happens ...stuff that is linked to your character background, seems attractive. I always pay attention when these "ideas" strike me., because I know I'm turning a corner and I have to be careful in case...

Hastur, very nice link. It's going in my big book of player "Stuff"

Regards,
David R

Quote from: David RYWhat I'm kind of getting at, is that the setting/campaign seems more "real" if the characters discover their motivations duing play. Now the problem here is what the hell are the players doing if in the beginning of the adventure they don't have any motivation?

My experience is that players who say they'll develop their characters and motivations in play end up just going for action-movie stereotypes. They search for gory glory, loot and h4wt chixxorz.

In the beginning, with no motivation to join the adventure, they often roll to dodge the plot. "Yes, I created a character with no background or personality... what has that to do with me saying we have no reason to join this adventure?"

:rant:

Quote from: David RBut I think just as players slowly get into the groove of the campaign the same can be done with "motivation". Players slowly discover during play their character's motivations for "being" there.

I think what's needed is "from little things big things grow." To go from a couple of things - like "law-abiding" and "loyal to family" together in one character - to more complex things is easy; to go from nothing at all to complex things is hard.

When the player's put on the spot, if they've just got a blank character sheet in terms of personality and background, they'll just go for the cliches, and for the same kinds of characters they've played a hundred times before. That's fine if that's what you want, but don't let it take you by surprise. If you want more complex stuff in play, they've got to have something to work with.

Quote from: JimBobOzMy experience is that players who say they'll develop their characters and motivations in play end up just going for action-movie stereotypes. They search for gory glory, loot and h4wt chixxorz.

Hey haven't you just described the raison d'etre for most characters in D&D ? :rimshot:

QuoteWhen the player's put on the spot, if they've just got a blank character sheet in terms of personality and background, they'll just go for the cliches, and for the same kinds of characters they've played a hundred times before. That's fine if that's what you want, but don't let it take you by surprise. If you want more complex stuff in play, they've got to have something to work with.

Well actually IME most background stuff is archetype material anyway. Not that there's anything wrong with this and not that playing without much background material in any way guarantees that players won't fall back into cliches. But I have found that I'm playing a different kind of game with players who are discovering motivations as they go along....it does not seem so contrived.

Regards,
David R

Quote from: MelinglorY'know, like you got a brother who apprenticed to a blacksmith in the next town, and your cousin squired for Sir Rutherford and met the king once. You visit a village and the tanner's wife is like, "Heeey, I know you, you're Hob the Miller's kid from down Nor'haven way; my Will sold 'im the leather straps fer 'is newfangled pulley system, how's that holding up?"

It takes a character, humanises him. Makes him relateable.

And IME, makes the player less likely to have his PC burn down the village in a fit of pique because the tavernmaid spilled beer on him. Or otherwise act like a sociopathic loner in a coordinated team of sociopathic loners.

Quote from: balzacqOr otherwise act like a sociopathic loner in a coordinated team of sociopathic loners.

Someone has been talking to you about my Hunter campaign, right?

Regards,
David R

JimBobOz, you're sad and angry and need a hug. Mate, come on, if someone can't just take a "Half-Elven Bard" or "Aging Lawyer" or "Fat biology professor" or whatever and make it 3-D in a few sessions at most, well, then 1. they're not really up to gaming; or 2. the campaign is really not that interesting. E.G., one of the most original characters I ever played (and I'm good at  chargen, I'm not a terrific GM but I'm good at playing) started as a bare OtE char. You now, 3 virtues and one defect, or whatever they are called.
One more E.G.: My OD&D elf got quite famous here, so I'll tell you how he started: Brace yourself... An elf!!! That was the whole background. Well, sure he's got a low Wis, that's something, too...
My take as a player? I'll play whatever dice give me. Everything else is on the spot. My take as a GM? Do whatever you confortable with. And play. Roleplay, mate, that's what I want. Some people need to think a lot about their characters, some people don't. It's purely personal. For GMing, most of the time I just need to know who they are, where they are and why they're there. If the answer is "Human fighter. Sunbathing anywhere" or "Well, it all started when I was 4...", well, it just makes no difference if the bloke's up to good roleplaying. Or willing to buy me a beer.

Quote from: JimBobOzThat's good that this guy comes up with stuff in play, but my experience is that usually players don't. If they're not imaginative about their character before the campaign, they won't be during it, either. The player who says, "I know the character has no friends, relatives, enemies, personality traits, or history - but these will develop in play!" - no, they don't. The blank character remains blank.

 I find myself in total agreement.

 Just one example I have comes from a long TRoS campaign I was in with 3 guys, one of which was new to the group.

 At Cargen we asked him what type of PC he wanted. His reply: "a Fighter."
And yes, that's all we could get out of him.

As things turned out he was a good guy, but...

His PC was totally transparent. No panashe. All the story elements resulted from other players actions. Quite frankly, aside from the occasional timely dismemberment of an enemy, he really had nothing to contribute.

It was way to easy to write his PC out of the game when he missed the odd session.

 Now in my games I don't expect a full write-up. In fact if you hand me pages of background I'll hand them right back and ask you to bring back the rest of your novel when it's finished.

But I ask at least a soild character concept (NOT a "build".)

Throw at me something from a few sentences to a few paragraphs (no more than half a page though) And then run through the game system chargen to create the PC you just described.

I've seen many a PC rounded out and filled in during the course of a campaign. But in my experience if they start the campaign blank they tend to leave it that way.


.

Quote from: balzacqAnd IME, makes the player less likely to have his PC burn down the village in a fit of pique because the tavernmaid spilled beer on him. Or otherwise act like a sociopathic loner in a coordinated team of sociopathic loners.

Fuck, yeah!

Peace,
-Joel