We had a GM make his own D&D world once, and it was cool. We got to kill the emperor in the opening game (notably, it was a one shot which occurred 400 years prior to the campaign, the alternative was leaving the island and having to fight a 30 hit die kraken--I asked as the game starts, "who thinks we can take a 30 HD kraken?" The vote was unanimous that 'we could, but lets kill the emperor' who turned out to be a dragon, so...all was good. The gold dragon was too, which really caused a lot of conflict).

Of course, he go one-upped by Silent Pete who not only created his own world, but his own cosmology (inspired by Deathgate, apparently), own magic system, own economy, a second unique magic system, several unique monsters (one of which ate the 15th level NPCs accompanying the 5th level party), and a non-Euclidean dungeon.

Total nitpick, but I think this is a false hope. In some things A may lead to B, but in people and there histories A leads to B1-B10,000. What you think makes sense might be anything between B5-25, what your player thinks makes sense might be B57-99. All are possible since humans don't always work out logically. You may already get this, but I've dealt with GMs who didn't. I get sick or arguing about how my background does or does not make sense. Its one thing to say you can't be a dark elf because there is no logical way one would need up in X part of my campaign world, and another to say that happened to you and you learned what??

I require backgrounds and I work with the players to varying degree depending on how each is at making backgrounds, as I, too, have trouble making them for my own characters.

Agreed, I spoke badly.

What I meant: Show me your logic. Show how A led to B58 led to C99. "Because" is not a helpful answer. It's a very frustrating answer - I'm generally not trying to be a hardass as a GM, I'm trying to figure out where your thinking is coming from.

I will accept a lot of things, but I need to be clear in my head that the path you describe at least doesn't snap my suspension of disbelief. I'll often say to a player "You've got a good start, but some things here don't seen to have any lead up". Backgrounds and stats are, to me, things negotiated between the GM and the player. They're the player's in the final analysis, but often the GM, if you work with them, can find a way to make a good setup better. Often, I've found, I just need something explained to me a bit - "how did B87 happen? Seems unlikely." before I'll accept it. I'm as much a sucker for the cool factor as anyone else, I won't deny that. I hesitate to reward BGs with karma (I'm as concerned about karma inflation as I am monetary inflation), but I won't deny that better-done BGs get a good bit more slack from me. If your overall BG is a good read and makes sense in 90% of things, I'll forgive the niggling 10%.

Or maybe that's just me. *shrugs*

The one thing I...hate as a GM. No, not hate, but it does bug me severely. I realize that spelling, grammar, hell, the English language are sometimes not people's strong points. I look more for the things behind that. But is it too much to ask that you at least *try*? Put your stuff through a spell checker if need be. Draft it a few times if need be. Especially because the game (in my case) is played online, it's a text based medium, dammit. How you write is the first and last chance I get to gather an impression of you.

Especially when I've committed myself to only taking X number of players and there are more than X players looking to play (which is gratifying to my ego, I grant, but very hard to deal with beyond that), spelling and grammar and writing skill does count. Nobody's perfect, but please try.

I see complaints like this a lot. Being dyslexic I am happy when the spell check can figure out what word I was going for, and spell checks do not find my other mistakes like where entire thought patterns and words are out of order. I find it really hard to read something I just wrote, my mind starts shutting down out of boredom and I am lucky if I remember anything I just read or if it made any sense. I try to read things out loud(amusing to your coworkers) but I still make mistakes. So while I understand the effort argument, for some it is an almost insurmountable task. My Dyslexia is fairly mild compared to some people I know for them I wont expect any written background at any point in my games.

which is a fair point. But I can't read minds, I'm not clairvoyant. If someone doesn't tell me about something like that, I will naturally go off the assumption nothing is wrong...except that the person isn't trying.

I always gave out 1 karma per question of the 20 questions answered. So no I dont think wanting a background is odd. I never made them answer the questions though. They could hand in a question at any time through out the campaign to get their 1 karma.

I like this. my main problem with wanting backgrounds is more the timing of it. I frequently don't know my characters personality until I've played them a while. And form the personality I form a better history. I've written plenty of histories that 3 weeks into the game just did not seem to fit in the slightest anymore.

Regardless of the system, I always ask for backstories--largely because I write them compulsively myself. (Even my current SR's contacts all have at least brief backgrounds.) Beyond that, each backstory is like a custom tool the player hands you to craft story elements for their character. I don't necessarily mean things like having old enemies crawl out of the woodwork (unless they took a negative quality that makes that appropriate); it's more often a chance to add minor elements that should resonate with the character, even if they have little gameplay significance--making a random trid program in the background the character's favorite show, or having a run take them to some place one of the characters hung out as a kid.

I reward players for providing decent backstories--I've never awarded karma or edge, since I've never run a Shadowrun campaign, but I've given characters minor magic items, free skill points, and such based on their backgrounds many times. In addition to encouraging them to write, the rewards provide a tangible link between the backstory and the current character.

If a player has trouble writing a backstory, and they're willing, I'll help them. I try to keep my interference to helping flesh out details, rather than writing the whole thing; often, a little nudge or two is sufficient. My usual advice to a player staring at an empty backstory is "Start with a schtick figure." Give the character a distinctive quirk--an excessive fascination with something, an odd expression they like to use, an unusual habit or taste--and build outward from there. Once the character has a schtick, the player has a simple route to get into the character. It reminds me of something Peter Jurasik said about playing Londo Mollari on Babylon 5; he said that no matter how long he'd been away, all he had to do to become Londo again was to say, "Mister Garibaldi!" in Londo's rolling, grandiose style.

As a player I actually have a hard time comprehending how/why you would play a character who doesn't have a background.

And all you need to channel Horatio Caine is to put on sunglasses in slo-mo while throwing a one-liner.

Two thing I actually require:
1. All PCs must have a real name, names for any false IDs, and a street name or handle. It typically scares the heck out of them when an NPC knows their real name.
2. The first time a player uses one of his starting contacts they have to name him/her/it and come up with two personality quirks for the NPC. This has lead to some really funny NPCs over the years.

I ask for character backgrounds...but I don't require them. Some players are simply more invested in gaming than others. For every player who writes up or verbalizes a concise character background full of plot hooks and loose ends there are probably 2 or 3 who couldn't care less. I've found that forcing the issue tends to drive off the more casual players. I try to work with the interested players to include as many elements from their personal story as possible, preferably in a manner that benefits the player as a reward for the effort they put into the character. That's the carrot I use - they get to be the center of attention for a couple of scenes each run. Pretty soon the other players who want the same treatment come up with a quick backstory. I try to make character background as interactive as possible.

That's sort of my mode as well.
I don't require that a player bring a character with a full, detailed background to the table. In fact, that can kind of be a problem when putting together a team. Instead, all I require is a concept and a rough outline for their background, a few lines to start. Then I sit down with the player and together we flesh the character out more. Background, flaws, stats and skills, all as a mutual decision in the finalization process. That way they end up with a character which is theirs, but who inhabits the world which I'm creating. This helps give the character a life outside of just the player's head and helps keep them both distinct from characters they've played in the past and interesting to them since it's no longer just a story which they tell to themselves. The full creation process makes sure that the character isn't just an idea floating in a void, but a person grounded in the world. It's basically a little one-on-one RP where they tell me where they are from, what they want to accomplish and what they've done. In return, I tell them about who they've met and what happened to them along the way.

Also, if you can work with the player to help create a character then you can tie the team together. They all move in similar circles and likely know each other, through reputation and friends of friends. It's not just background, it is history. It makes a character real and it keeps a team alive.

Sacrificing a cohesive story that everyone else is enjoying because a player discovered something newer and shinier isn't fun. The players created the characters. If they find the characters boring, it's their own fault for creating them.

I'm fine with a player who is new to RPGs or a specific system telling me, after several sessions, he's having a hard time connecting with his character and he feels he made a mistake in the creation process. That's fine. I'm not an ogre. But dropping in new PCs every third session is some serious nonsense and is unenjoyable for those trying to get into an immersive fictional environment.

If you're bored that easily you should either be a GM or be more thoughtful during charagen.

I've played in a campaign where a couple of players kept wanting to try out new things, and changing characters. It became really disruptive and annoying.

Well, as a GM I hate it when players change characters, because for some karmic reason they always do it with the characters I had a specific plot in mind.

Yet, I always thought it the lesser of two evils, compared to having a bored player.

But now that I come to think of it: You are right. Players should stick to their characters or quit.

In my games I tend to let the background come to the player gradually. I normally ask a few questions to get a premise for the character. Add input to keep the player from having glaring holes in his idea. During this time I write down the info for later use.

Then I start to develop the characters personalty. I'll grab a random NPC off of my list which includes personalities. Then I have the player answer questions about the character IC. It makes the game a lot more fun when players come to the game having already "met" their own character and can slip into character with an already developed personality. I think that works out better than requiring a strong background.

A good GM requests backgrounds. Conversely a good roleplayer will provide them.

I try to reward players with karma with particularly creative/interesting backgrounds, as I prefer the carrot vs. the stick.

- J.

I must be a bad GM.

I must be a bad role player.

OH WAIT. I already knew that.

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

I don't think it is at all. I realise it comes across arrogant, but I think its a fair call.

Most of the time I've seen craptastic RPing has been from some player who glosses over the personal aspects of their character in favor of firing automatic weapons (or whatever the gun du jour is) and rampant powergaming at chargen. Based on 20+ years of RPing (as a player and GM), infact, I'd go so far as to say that its pretty much a constant which is I insist on it - but I give karma for really good stories or players who go to extraordinary effort.

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) and rather than ask him to leave the group, I simply asked him to respond to the old SR style of 20 questions. He refused so I said "then you do not play". In effect, the problem player self selected out of that campaign which suited me fine (as he chose to "leave" rather than be "kicked" out, which would have invoked an argument).

Like attracts like and I personally love having character backgrounds for my PCs as it means I can create a more engaging campaign setting personalised to them. My players know this and as such, make up a background. Some go above and beyond the call of duty and come up with fantastically rich backgrounds and also help spur the plots and create further arcs through great roleplaying. Not that roleplaying is necessarily synonymous with a character background, but you'll rarely find a character background attached to a bad gamer.

The issue I have is with players having an idea of a concept they want to play (i.e. "I want to play a technomancer") but struggling to find or develop a creative story which allows them to embrace their characters fully. So at which point, the other players usually pitch in and act as a sounding board for ideas and help out. That is a quality problem IMHO.

The reason I also argue that GMs aren't great for failing to ask about character backgrounds is because they're more focused on telling THEIR story rather than embracing the stories of their player characters and weaving them into the main story arc or creating subplots involving the individuals. I think there is room for both.

YMMV.

- J.

I think that pretty much sums up any role playing game ever.

That's just my olive branch. Don't mistake that for me thinking that I could possibly be wrong on this.

- J.

I was only referring to the part that I quoted. The rest seemed pretty reasonable though.

Personally, I like having character backgrounds, but I haven't had enough GM time or even PCing time to really have a set way of doing things.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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?





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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

I wondered the same.

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 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.

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...

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.