Am I strange for wanting backgrounds?, A GM checks against his peers Options

[Whipstitch]

I had one player who was notorious for bad RPing and it was always evidenced by the lack of a background for most of his characters (ironically, he played well when he actually developed one)

See, my problem here is that you're rather mixing up causation and correlation. A lack of a formal background for a character doesn't make people bad roleplayers-- the inability to proactively play an interesting and engaging part in a campaign does. In other words, backgrounds are at best an extension of what players already intend to do with their characters to begin with. That's why a background is a mere formality and easy exercise for many roleplayers out there. They don't even really need to write that crap down to be ready to roll (or role, as it were); they're already in the swing of things and the background is just a warm up.

When I read your example, I see a person who needed to essentially be assigned a part in order to bother playing out a coherent character. Ultimately, the problem wasn't a lack of a background, it was a lack of giving a damn. He could play a part if pushed into a corner, but in the end, what you described was an attitude and table chemistry problem.

I mean, hey, if you want to call a background a useful tool for many people, that's something I won't argue. Some people see assigning themselves (or even being assigned) a particular role to be an interesting exercise or even a crutch (in the best sense of the word) that they can lean upon until they get their feet wet. But on the other hand, I know too many good roleplayers who essentially just wing it and then build upon campaign events to think that backgrounds are in anyway a requirement for a good session.

As an aside, I also think that roleplaying isn't necessarily always the best thing to emphasize in every group, either. Some people want to approach RPGs as an exercise in collaborative problem solving as opposed to a drama, and that's fine too.

[Mendrian]

Yeah.

Also, don't forget the tendency for bad roleplayers - but, say, good writers - to provide you with a portfolio outlining their character's last three years of life in excruciating detail. I like backgrounds as much as the next guy, but I've seen a fair number of players try to make up for shoddy playing with excessive writing, and I've seen good players play a little more fast and loose with their history, inventing more in depth backgrounds as they come to understand their character better and as the story unfolds.

I think what constitutes "a background" should probably be canvased before you make a statement like, "Good roleplayers provide backgrounds." Every character I've ever had in any game I've ever run as provided enough of something to qualify as a background, even if it's just a quick, oral summary of their character's important bullet points. Is that a "background"? I've seen players write 10 or more pages for their characters, and then clam up when they get to game, or worse, powergame, thinking that 10 or more pages fulfills their RP quota or something.

Backgrounds are a roleplaying tool, as well as a tool for the GM to tell a good story. A good GM can turn anything into an engaging story. PC backgrounds are especially engaging because they tend to connect the story and the world, to the actual characters, which can make for a more 'personal' game. But there are other ways to achieve a similar feel; it might be more difficult, or you might come at it in a different way, but it can come to the same end.

[Ascalaphus]

Well, I'm giving the following a try; people can write me an answer to one of the 20 questions to refresh a point of spent Edge. Yesterday they went through Edge like crazy, and managed to locate their target after a lot of difficult legwork. So I expect I'll get a lot of answers..



As for whether people are good RPers for writing backgrounds or not.. I recruit people to play from my friends, so I have some idea of what to expect. It's not such a big issue, I just wanna know how they see their character; I imagine in their heads their character is cool and awesome. I want a glimpse of that picture; RP is all about sharing awesome pictures.

[Draco18s]

Yeah, it's a stretch to imply that a formal background is in any way necessary or an indicator of quality.

Quite. I'm not even sure I can answer all of the 20 Questions about my real life. I'm not a social person; when I've met new people and they're like "Tell me about yourself" I kinda shrug and list of the 3 most important things for the last week (aka "I do flash programming for a living, its a lot of fun, better than my last job where the guy wouldn't pay me.")

In the other end of the spectrum (which is not a line) a friend of mine started running a World of Darkness pbp game (Mortals) and got this one character, with background. The two didn't line up at all. IIRC it was a priest character who had a mere 1 dot in occult, below the standard morals, 4 dots in knives of all things, and was a very physically fit character with low mental stats, points in breaking and entering skills, and a few other WTFs. It was a really nice character and a really nice background. But the two didn't match.

[pbangarth]

I understand the point about thought put into character background translating into good role playing. On the other hand, with many years of experience in the old RPGA (before it got rid of all games but AD&D), I encountered many players who could pick up a new PC with a sketchy background and within five minutes present a coherent, believable, enjoyable PC.

[Saint Sithney]

I know people who can juggle torches and chainsaws.
I expect that it's a skill gained through practice and aided by aptitude.
I wouldn't assume it in just everyone.

Like I said, if a player can't provide a barebones background, then they don't have a character yet. Once they've got a character I'm going to help them develop that background by placing them in the world. Once you've got a character and a world to inhabit, then you're making stories, and then you've got mutual interest. It's always interest that drives games. Without interest, without focus, you've just got a bunch of dicking around that wastes everyone's time.

[Draco18s]

I encountered many players who could pick up a new PC with a sketchy background

Oh sure, give someone a few sketchy details and they can fill in the blanks pretty easy. It's the blank slate most of us have problems with.

[Whipstitch]

See, and I think people can easily come up with those sketchy details without having to write anything down or even dedicating an entire session to group character creation. Frankly, sometimes I like not knowing much about the PCs. It's easier for them to surprise me that way.

[zephir]

I have handled this variously in my GM career. Now I generally require and reward it. It tends to make the role-playing better and makes the players respect my work, too.



I'm pondering the implementation of Spiritual Attributes à la The Riddle of Steel to create a game economy making my storytelling more interactive. Has anyone tried that?

I had one player who was notorious for bad RPing and it was always evidenced by the lack of a background for most of his characters (ironically, he played well when he actually developed one)

See, my problem here is that you're rather mixing up causation and correlation.

Note The Jake used "evidenced" not "caused."
If it reduces bad role-playing I'm very okay with only correlation.

[Shinobi Killfist]

Note The Jake used "evidenced" not "caused."
If it reduces bad role-playing I'm very okay with only correlation.

People see what they want to see, I doubt backgrounds reduce bad-role playing at all.

[Karoline]

I know people who can juggle torches and chainsaws.
I expect that it's a skill gained through practice and aided by aptitude.
I wouldn't assume it.

Chainsaws are sooooo heavy.

That aside, I personally prefer to have a 'vauge idea' of where my character came from rather than having to figure out every last detail. Among other things it lets me change things up a bit. Maybe I had an idea that my character would sell her own mother for a few nuyen, but decide against that. Well, if I wrote the background where she did that to emphesize the point, well, now I'm stuck with her being that cold, and it seems exceedingly odd if I ever want to play her less so.

[Saint Sithney]

Chainsaws are sooooo heavy.

That aside, I personally prefer to have a 'vauge idea' of where my character came from rather than having to figure out every last detail. Among other things it lets me change things up a bit. Maybe I had an idea that my character would sell her own mother for a few nuyen, but decide against that. Well, if I wrote the background where she did that to emphesize the point, well, now I'm stuck with her being that cold, and it seems exceedingly odd if I ever want to play her less so.

Programmable Assist Biofeedback means that all backgrounds can be multiple choice. Besides, who really understands their own thinking?

Also, those pole saws aren't but 3-4 kilos or so, and they get the point across. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/rotate.gif)

[Karoline]

Also, those pole saws aren't but 3-4 kilos or so, and they get the point across. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/rotate.gif)

That's still alot to be juggling. I think pins and torches are... like maybe half a kilo? Maybe if I was a big guy it wouldn't be as much of an issue, but I'm not. Also blades are less forgiving than torches.

[pbangarth]

Also blades are less forgiving than torches.

Whirring, chain blades that bring dozens of tiny sharpnesses per second to any surface they contact. Swirling around the part of the chainsaw that most looks like a handle or a bowling pin.

I don't know if they still say this in the manual, but I saw a Husqvarna chainsaw instruction manual that said the blade should not be brought into contact with "hands, face or genitals". I don't want to know the kind of person for whom this message is necessary.

[Karoline]

I don't want to know the kind of person for whom this message is necessary.

What I do want to know though, is why they mention those three areas in particular and not, say, your torso or legs. Those are safe from chainsaws? I smell a Darwin award and a big lawsuit.

[pbangarth]

I wondered the same.

[Draco18s]

I smell a Darwin award and a big lawsuit.

Or. You can't have an "and" there. Not unless its a relative who's filing.
(By definition, a survivor of an accident of stupidity with no children can only win an Honorable Mention in the Darwin Awards)

[underaneonhalo]

I want about about one page telling me some basics about a character's life and why they're in the shadows, it helps me come up with ideas on how to make the game world more interesting for the player by throwing in some things that are specific to his character.

I do find that (especially with D&D players) sometimes you end up with people coming up with these grandiose stories about themselves. It's kind of like when you pay a psychic to tell you about your past lives and they talk about how you were part of so-and-so's royal court as their most trusted adviser, or you were the hero of the battle of such-and-such. I'm sorry people but some of you spent your past lives shoveling pig shit. Sure there are drek hot assassins who are best friends with Lofwyr and dive into the shadows in an attempt to hide from the AAA megacorp that's more than willing to spend a billion nuyen to see them dead, but I think they might be out numbered by the people who turned to the shadows simply because they got tired of shoveling pig shit.

So yes, I love to get backgrounds but I also dread getting "that" background. If I do get "that" background then I simply sigh and start the game.


On the topic of naming, I generally think of musicians or actors that I like and go from there. I had a character when I played Top Secret years ago named Antonio Prizetti, he went by the name "Anthony Price" and was obsessed with Vincent Price. I had a long list with the names of characters Vincent Price played in movies that I used for aliases. IMDB can be your friend when coming up with names.

On a side note; Antonio was a very adept interrogator and his agency codename was Dr Phibes. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/grinbig.gif)

[CollateralDynamo]

Or. You can't have an "and" there. Not unless its a relative who's filing.
(By definition, a survivor of an accident of stupidity with no children can only win an Honorable Mention in the Darwin Awards)

I thought all you had to do was make yourself incapable of producing offspring, not necessarily die. I believe a hand chainsaw to your genitals would make it substantially more difficult for you to have offspring...just supposing here...not like I would know... (IMG:style_emoticons/default/sleepy.gif)

[Shinobi Killfist]

What I do want to know though, is why they mention those three areas in particular and not, say, your torso or legs. Those are safe from chainsaws? I smell a Darwin award and a big lawsuit.

Almost every time you see a warning it is because of a past lawsuit. Read a ladder some day and be amazed.

[Draco18s]

I thought all you had to do was make yourself incapable of producing offspring, not necessarily die. I believe a hand chainsaw to your genitals would make it substantially more difficult for you to have offspring...just supposing here...not like I would know... (IMG:style_emoticons/default/sleepy.gif)

It's been a while since I checked. You may be right.

In any case, hitting something other than one's 'nads and still winning the award does kind of preclude survival.

[Karoline]

Almost every time you see a warning it is because of a past lawsuit. Read a ladder some day and be amazed.

Right, which is why I'm surprised it only mentions hands, face, and genitals. It doesn't make mention of any other part of the body, which of course for the sake of a lawsuit means that it should be perfectly safe.

Also, I thought the Darwin award was just for people who shouldn't reproduce, not that couldn't.

[Draco18s]

Also, I thought the Darwin award was just for people who shouldn't reproduce, not that couldn't.

Winning one requires that you remove yourself from the genepool through an act of stupidity. You can't win if you've already had children.

See The Rules.

[X-Kalibur]

Darwin awards require you to remove yourself from the gene-pool. Honorary mentions go to those who can still reproduce, but had really stupid incidents and probably shouldn't breed.

<edit>Beaten to it.

[The Jake]

See, my problem here is that you're rather mixing up causation and correlation. A lack of a formal background for a character doesn't make people bad roleplayers-- the inability to proactively play an interesting and engaging part in a campaign does. In other words, backgrounds are at best an extension of what players already intend to do with their characters to begin with. That's why a background is a mere formality and easy exercise for many roleplayers out there. They don't even really need to write that crap down to be ready to roll (or role, as it were); they're already in the swing of things and the background is just a warm up.

When I read your example, I see a person who needed to essentially be assigned a part in order to bother playing out a coherent character. Ultimately, the problem wasn't a lack of a background, it was a lack of giving a damn. He could play a part if pushed into a corner, but in the end, what you described was an attitude and table chemistry problem.

I understand your argument and can see how that perception could be created. What I am saying is that the inability (or lack of desire, whatever the cause) to create a background is symptomatic of a larger problem. A player with a strong concept in mind can often quickly write a response to the 20 questions. However someone playing something other than a sheet with numbers (and this is more often than not the case with rampant powergamers) are the ones that struggle the most with this concept.

Don't get me wrong, I've had poor roleplayers and powergamers that can produce answers to those same questions. Its not bulletproof (hrm perhaps there is something to your causation/correlation argument), but I'm just saying I've avoided more instances of bad RPing by insisting on a background.

- J.