Help - Search - Members - Calendar
Full Version: Which character fluff format do you like more?
Dumpshock Forums > Discussion > Shadowrun
Abbandon
Feb 16 2008, 09:58 PM
Which of the two following character fluff pieces do you like more? As a gm which gives you a greater sense of the character??

Format #1:
[ Spoiler ]


Example #2:
[ Spoiler ]


Or do they both suck? Whats missing.
Stahlseele
Feb 16 2008, 10:06 PM
they are both good and legit, but i'd probably place the first one just on the character sheet and use the first paragraph of the second one for in game introductions . .
Ravor
Feb 17 2008, 12:08 AM
I have to agree I like them both.
Glyph
Feb 17 2008, 12:29 AM
They are both good - I think I would like the first one a bit more as a GM, and the second one a bit more as a character introduction to other players.
masterofm
Feb 17 2008, 12:43 AM
The one thing I would have a problem with is that Gamma-Scopolamine is a drug that you have to inject into someone for it to take effect. It would be a tough sell to just coat your cards in the drug for it to take effect (at least if I was the GM) when generally you use a fairly large amount of G-S on someone.
Kagetenshi
Feb 17 2008, 12:46 AM
Not really thrilled with either of them. From #1, the two-line summary of appearance/personality is great, but it should be in its own section near the top. Role should probably be near the top and should be more concise. You could add in a concept section after this if you want, though it isn't really necessary and as a GM I'd probably skim it once and then forget it, relying more on your portrayal of the character when the game starts. The background from #1 would probably fit in at the end here.

For this sort of thing, I'd tend to suggest avoiding in-character-style prose (like #2's description), and don't be afraid to use more pronouns or implicit references—for example, instead of, say, "Cherry grew up in a […]", just "Grew up in a […]" is more concise and no less clear—after all, it's not like we're wondering whose backstory this is wink.gif

~J
Abbandon
Feb 17 2008, 01:19 AM
Thanx for the feedback. @Kage what dont you like about in character prose? You just like the cold hard facts and dont need the fluff? Honestly I feel inspired to do the opposite lol. I want to make the description more of like an action scene where I also describe them using some of their skills.
Ryu
Feb 17 2008, 01:36 AM
I like the second option better, but I like my answers in out-of-character bullet points. The first version is more what would be talked about while the character is created, or what the player would tell me about his char. For my GM duties the second version contains very useful information for the first few sessions with the char. Missing is a section with three-liners about the contacts of the PC, those are hard to bring into play out of memory.
hyzmarca
Feb 17 2008, 01:48 AM
The second option is missing enemies, the most important part of any background. Even if its just somebody who your character teased in elementry school, it is a potential GM plothook. You can't go through life without pissing someone off, even if it is just slightly.
Sir_Psycho
Feb 17 2008, 02:45 AM
What about 20 Questions?
Kagetenshi
Feb 17 2008, 05:36 AM
QUOTE (Abbandon @ Feb 16 2008, 08:19 PM) *
Thanx for the feedback. @Kage what dont you like about in character prose? You just like the cold hard facts and dont need the fluff? Honestly I feel inspired to do the opposite lol. I want to make the description more of like an action scene where I also describe them using some of their skills.

For things like this, I'm big on cold hard facts. There are two reasons for this, one of which is general and the other I believe to be general but may be more the result of my own playstyle.

For the first, a very concise format permits use as a quick-reference. As a GM, I don't always remember the appearances of all characters who cross my table, and I like being able to glance at a description and see anything that's been decided on (hair colour, eye colour, mass, height, etc. etc. etc.); reading through a short "scene", not so much.

The second is that the facts are what you have. Sure, maybe you have a character personality in mind, but at least in my experience it usually undergoes significant modification in the first few sessions—I don't consider my characters to be "finished", concept-wise, until several sessions in, because how I envisioned the character and how they actually play with the stat, team, situation, etc. they end up with may differ. Thus, a lot of fluff early on almost seems like a waste of time, and at least for me as a GM I probably wouldn't read the fluff until after the first session, and would probably stop if it described a character meaningfully different from the one I saw at the table.

~J
Simon May
Feb 17 2008, 06:31 AM
I'd really rather see a background written in first person than in 3rd. There's something about actually putting yourself into the characters shoes to tell their story that really helps get a feel for the character across. It also provides a reason for the nuances of speech that appear.

Really, only a GM should be talking in 3rd person.
DocTaotsu
Feb 17 2008, 09:12 AM
I like both formats but I prefer the second because it gives a GM fast pertinent facts about your character. A lengthy backstory is always nice to have for plot hooks but it's something I send to the GM is an email and not something I'd include with my initial character sheet/concept.

Hyz is right though, no enemies in the second form. That's a major minus for me as a GM, no enemies listed means I have to make up enemies and all that "extra" work makes me ornery.

Ornery GM"s are dangerous GM's... wink.gif
Cardul
Feb 17 2008, 09:12 AM
Well, believe it or not, if I were GMing..I would not approve either version. Face it: she is just a female Gambit..and blatantly so. Seriously, 2 X Cromosomes is nt a siginificant enough departure. I would want to know how she is DIFFERENT from the archetype she is mirroring.

That said, I tend to look at it like this: whatever the player's prefered style, I can live with. I have had players write their backgrounds in poetry, for instance. While strange, I allowed it. I prefer backgrounds where the person is speaking in 1st person, or is limiting themselves to only what their character knows/has experienced. Then again, I also award a couple karma at start for really cool backgrounds wink.gif
Ryu
Feb 17 2008, 11:37 AM
Fluff can contain much information, but that information is not easily accessible. If I GM, you want me to tell&listen, not to read. The char background info has to be easily accessible and short. I as a GM like to have a short writeup sheet for the whole group - street name(s), speciality, race, faction ratings (per player). Any player that wants to have some special aspects of his/her background used ingame needs to provide me the infos(Duh!). Paper forgets less than my brain.

The 20 questions are a player tool. Much to long for fast reference.
Glyph
Feb 17 2008, 11:45 AM
I agree, which is why I don't agree with Simon May about first person. While it can be a good narrative tool, it also traps you within the POV of the character. An omnicient POV which lays out the facts works much better for a character introduction, and lets you talk about motivations and character flaws that might not be apparent to the actual character.

First person narrative can supplement third person prose - either a description from a third party showing how the character is perceived on the streets, or a few quotes to give a feel for the character. But first person is usually too clunky to clearly and concisely detail a character.
ElFenrir
Feb 17 2008, 12:30 PM
When i do backgrounds, for the GM nowadays i like to assemble 7-10 bulletpoints, and i can usually tell them everything they need to know. I sometimes then if im really into the character do a writeup(i do like the 3rd person way) that's a couple to a few pages long to keep with the character sheets; the GM can read this if he or she wishes.

And i think both of the descriptions are pretty decent; i think i'd use the physical descriptor of her as an intro. True that the character is veery close to Gambit, but at the same time, i try not to shut down characters who were heavily influenced. (In Shadowrun, since it takes place in a sort of Future Earth, i'd be willing to let ''she herself is very inspired by Gambit'' count.)

Ive made characters with alot of influence(had an old detective who i pictured alot like Brisco from the old Law and Order series, for example). And i think it's cool to borrow a few things from characters too; i have a friend who also had a private-eye type borrowed from Sam Spade and had a couple of background points similar to some happenings in the Maltese Falcon.

But honestly, i don't mind this as long as it's not a cut and paste, 95% or more copy of the character, background and personality included. Looks aren't anything, you can have your character look like however you want, from completely original, to a cross between Cloud and Sephiroth as long as they have an original background and personality.

I think the reason why im lean here is that sometimes there seems to be a double standard. A GM might not mind a character borrowed heavily from, say, Travis Bickle of Taxi Driver, but they'd mind if a person borrowed heavily from Naruto.
Abbandon
Feb 17 2008, 03:54 PM
Not really interested in what you think of the character lol..that was another thread. I just picked this character first to try and rework her background section and see what the best way to lay out information was.
DocTaotsu
Feb 17 2008, 04:31 PM
Another layout I've liked it is an interview method. Basically it's 20 questions but answered from the characters POV. Due to the evasive nature of most runners I'd probably hack it down to 5-10 questions.

I'm also a fan of the dossier format in which a player describes their char as if a profile is built up by a corps or government. All the impersonal details laid out in pigeon holded sections like "Known Associates", "Training/Previous Occupation", "Personality Profile", "Likely Motivation".
Connor
Feb 17 2008, 07:59 PM
QUOTE (DocTaotsu @ Feb 17 2008, 10:31 AM) *
I'm also a fan of the dossier format in which a player describes their char as if a profile is built up by a corps or government. All the impersonal details laid out in pigeon holded sections like "Known Associates", "Training/Previous Occupation", "Personality Profile", "Likely Motivation".


Dossier files are usually how I lay things out. Either for PCs I'm playing or NPCs I'm keeping track of over the course of a campaign. It works well and let's me add in fluff as needed/desired.
Fuchs
Feb 17 2008, 08:12 PM
I do it like that:

[ Spoiler ]
bibliophile20
Feb 17 2008, 11:02 PM
I like both setups, personally; I would personally prefer #1 for a PC being submitted to me for approval, while I would and will probably use #2 for pregens that I hand out to players at cons, one-shots and the like.
Kyoto Kid
Feb 17 2008, 11:54 PM
...I tend to follow this Format:

[Name (real, street, other aliases, nicknames)]
.
[Characteristics (race, archetype ht, wt, complexion age etc..)]
.
[Lifestyle (residence, origin, activities, etc)]
.
[Outstanding traits (dress, mannerisms, personality quirks, etc...)]
.
[Associates (contacts, friends, enemies, affiliations, etc..)]
.
[Backstory]
Simon May
Feb 18 2008, 12:06 AM
When you're discussing a physical description, it has to be third person, but background alone isn't enough to truly give a feel for a character. If you're going to take the time to write out a character history, I'd rather have it be narrative. Of course, I also include bullet points of the important stuff and a timeline of events for easy reference.

Speaking of enemies or contacts, knowing who they are is one thing, but knowing how the player interacted with them is something completely different. That is what is useful. Far too often, GMs have bullet points, but the knowledge doesn't synergize with the way each side imagines things.

So really, what it comes down to, is what the purpose of the background is. If it's purely a GM tool and completely a GM-centric game, then screw the narrative in any sense; bullet points are fine. But if you're actually creating a character, rather than a flimsy structure you plan to flesh out later, narrative can't be beat. Quite frankly, I still think it's more an exercise for the player than the GM, but that doesn't mean it can't be enjoyable or useful for the GM.
Kyoto Kid
Feb 18 2008, 01:12 AM
...this is is why I use both styles. The narrative is generally reserved for the backstory in which I set the background for who the character is and why she does what she does. The "Bullet Points" are supplied more as a quick reference tool. If the GM sees the need, he has the option to refer to the backstory for more detail on a particular facet of the character. This also allows the GM to fill in some details that the character shouldn't necessarily know about.

Some facts are also pretty straightforward and lend themselves better to a outline structure such as physical characteristics, where the character lives, names of friends/contacts etc.
This is a "lo-fi" version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.
Dumpshock Forums © 2001-2012