How close are you to buying the farm?

I actually believe that it's better to run a cliche than an original character. Quite simply, if your character is truly original, no one will "get" him or her but yourself. If you run a cliche, everyone can enjoy because everyone knows what you're talking about.

Unless you explain him well and you run with smart people.

And I got a 1530.

I know what you mean; I was originally going to make a mystical ninja poser whose only social skill is radiating silent menace, but had more fun making Shen instead. And I'm still going to use ninjas.

I have a player who, in a desperate attempt to avoid character development, randomly had bears hate him. I gave him a free point of Knowledge: Bear Studies for that. And random, inexplicable things in his past made for a great run idea. So both ways can be fun.

It seems to me that a player can ... and should ... play any character s/he is comfortable with ... provided that it fits in the context of the game the GM is running. As an example, my current game is a low-mid powered game (PCs were made on 400BP and are currently in the 50karma range now) and do their runs mostly in Auburn, Tacoma, and Pullayup Barren areas in the beginning, currently even reaching Down Town Seattle now. I left it open and came up with several freaky PCs:
The French-speaking Chinese Chef/Martial Artist from hell.
The gun-hating Ork Gangbanger who likes his "big stick" Cyber-punk w/ a staff and taser.
The Japanese Elf Gun-Adept who is saving enough money for surgery so he can "look normal" and go home to his family in Kyoto.
The twin Elven hit(wo)men who think that shooting people is funny. <-- Obviously psychotic.
The Bear-Shaman from CAS who actually stabilizes enemies because of her Hypocratic Oath.

A new campaign in the works is a military SpecForce unit being "lent" to the Justice Department as part of an under-cover operation to gain intel on "underworld" figures. This one requires that the PCs must be:
a.) UCAS Soldiers (SpecForce qualified)
b.) Volunteers for a "dangerous black op" with "extreme danger and risks" for an "extended duration without contact with families and friends."
c.) Must pass the psych profile standards set by the Justice Department.
So in this campaign, the PCs are built on 500BP, but will literally be "hung-out-to-dry" so their cover won't be blown.

Is that the combined score from your 3,625,000 retakes?

Damn it, who told you?

The great god of the Drop Bears. He says that mediocrity in repetition is worse than mediocrity in singularity. Then he teleported and drop-kicked you in the face.

Okay, despite my ginormous SAT score, I'm confused.

Dude, if I was lying, I'd be LOL 1600 LOL!!! And if I was smart enough to hold my lie back, then I'm smart enough to get a 1530.

And smart people don't think like normal people; that's why people think we're insane, and that's why we're smart. Nothing is complicated or convoluted if it's connected; you just don't understand. I tell my family that all the time.

Nah, I think you;re smart enough to tell what you think is abelievable lie. I'm not saying you're lying, I'm just saying that if you were, it wouldn't be a 1600 lie.

I get in all sorts of trouble because I don't think like other people. I won't say my SAT scores, because those actually don't mean anything other than that you test well. Plus, if I did say them after all that you'd be convinced I was lying.

Can we please move the discussion to a vaguely legitimate form of wankery, like IQ scores?

~J

110! I'm not sure if that's my SAT or IQ.

Combined total perhaps?

I have no idea; I took one of those banner ones, but those are designed to make you feel smart so that you buy the real one.

At the risk of approaching the exalted state of being 'on topic' once more, I'd say both the cliche and in-depth approach to characters have their places.

For one off sessions and short campaigns a cliche is an asset, it saves time spent on exposition that can be put into getting on with the game. "Hi, my character is Bok, he's a big dumb troll with more augmentations than natural organs, and he'll be beating the crap out of people a lot. He's not too bright and tends not to say much." Character exposition done, let's play.

The in-depth approach works well when you've got time. The campaign in which Blaze appears has been running for almost a year now, so much of his characterisation and backstory have emerged during play. The fact that we play online is a help as well, because things like that 500 word origins story can be posted for the other players to read at their leisure. In a face-to-face RL situation that wouldn't be quite so convenient because we'd have had to take time out of actually playing during a session to share that information around. There's also the fact that a text only approach to the game means I can include stuff in my characterisation that might be left out in a verbal approach, such as what my character is thinking and feeling when he acts. "Blaze casts a 6D stunbolt at one of the opponents" vs "Blaze opens himself to the astral and draws the power to him. He channels his horror and pain at seeing his ally spirit injured into a single incoherent cry of rage and uses this to channel his power into a bolt of fury at one his enemies."

For myself, I prefer the more in-depth approach with original characters. The fact that I know so much about my character informs how he's played. My GM seems to like it too, as a detailed character gives him more plot hooks to hang story points from. One of Blaze's main worries at the moment for example, is a shift in the balance of power among the local gangs. Is that going to lead to a turf war in which his tribe will become involved? Only the GM knows, but it means Blaze has recently donated another large chunk of change to make sure the tribe's warriors are suitably cannoned up, just in case.

Dude... why doesn't his tribe shadowrun?

i take the opposite approach from Wounded Ronin--though, that said, i'm in complete agreement about the whole thing with longass, disjointed backstories. i play some truly disjointed and weird characters, who don't fit very well into the standard categories. what i don't do is bore everyone with their backstories. i'm probably in the minority in thinking that a big backstory, even a well-written one, is not the best way to define a character.

see, to me? a character only really comes alive when they hit play. all the stuff that happened before the game starts is just, well, background. it doesn't need to jump out with lots of vibrant detail. get a few basics in and get out. the important parts of the character's life are not what has happened, but what is about to happen.

most of my character backgrounds are a few short lines, or even no lines at all--just a vague idea tumbling around in the back of my head. i know the character's personality, i know how they'll react to given stimuli. background details i toss in as i go along, when they're needed.

it doesn't matter if the other players don't 'get' my characters right away. experience has shown me that the guys i most enjoy playing with will enjoy the process of figuring my characters out during play, or at least won't mind it.

Hey, you guys don't do it the same way I do! You must be WRONG! And subject to ridicule...

I never took SAT's, but Myers-Briggs says I'm INTJ. (Everybody whip 'em out, and we'll see who's is bigger!)

Seriously. There's also a fine line between archetypes and cliches. It makes sense to fill a role, but I encourage some depth to personality. And who cares if the other players know everything you've come up with. Just play the guy, or girl, or whatever, and if they're interesting, that discovery will come through play.

(edit: and I'll agree with Dogsoup above. A lot of nothing doesn't make a good character, and sometimes less is more.)

Your SAT score does not bother me, for I have never taken the actual exam! I only did my ACT!

I got a 1460 on my SAT: 660 Math, 800 Verbal. Even though I've never had a good head for numbers, I'm certain I could have gotten a better math score had I not been so nervous during the first section of the test, but who the hell am I to complain?

I got a 32 on my ACT; not nearly as good as my SAT.

I once took a drug test. I'm pretty sure i got a pass...or a fail. One of those two. I'm not sure, which is the "good one" again?

It depends on if you're trying to prove to the drug lord that you're not a cop or the bank manager that you're not a junkie.

Well, I got a 1600 on the drug test. That means that even if I take a ton of cocaine, I'll still pass an hour later, but I also can't buy cocaine, ever.

Well this thread certainly has degenerated since my last visit.

This is Dumpshock man, do you expect anything less.

You also suck at math. 790 math, 740 verbal. Apparently this means my english is 73|-| su><><orZ. Which is why I fall back on 1337 every so often to convey my stronger emotions.

You'll be the first one to do it, I'm sure.

It would be a fake. Ms. Schmit, later Mrs. Harley, was a fairly competent teacher. And more a rye & coke drinker. I had a few wingnuts teachers, but most were ok. If only a bit short on the uptake. I got lucky and missed out on the choicer ones, like the lady my brothers got who would through chalk at kids that weren't paying attention. Curiously she later came out of the closet (not sure if that was the reason she "retired"), and i found in dealing with her adult to adult that she was fairly easy going, not sure what that all means.

My Algebra teacher up until grade 11, when she retired, was pretty good. Tough, scary old bat, but she'd been doing it so many years that she had it right down pat. I was still better than her though once you left the beaten path of the text book, but she can take at least some credit for that.

The vice pricipal came in to teach Algebra in Grade 12, now that was a real joke. I sat in the back and doodled and worked out mole calculations for making explosives while keeping an eye on his work on the board in case he needed my help. Shit man, i can only imagine what kind of trouble that notebook would get me in these days. Likely would have got me in trouble even back then if anybody had noticed what it was.

In grade 12 physics (which i took a year early because our school alternated years of teaching Physics and Chemistry) i typically got more answers right on the test than the teacher did in his answer key. Seriously. Welcome to school in small town Nowhereville.