I'm one of those GM's who really likes to see characters be involved in the plot of the stories. "Go here, stop this guy, learn this, then go here to stop this guy." plots get old fast.

I like how SR encourages players to grow a character with the "20 questions" bits and info on contacts. But I'd like to expand on that with some tried and true tricks to make good characters.

1) Do not entirely flesh out your character before playing him. Give yourself room to create events in his history, or aspects of his life that will give cause to interact with other PC's or NPC's that you meet later. Example: If you don't list every job he's ever had, you leave yourself and your GM a chance to justify why you might know an obscure piece of info, or why somebody from your past turns up to ask for your help. A good GM should appreciate this. This can prevent what in improv terms is called blocking: "Your ex-girlfriend calls you in tears, needing your help." "I don't have an ex-girlfriend..."

2) Spread yourself out. Okay, so you're a street-sammie and you have a knowledge skill in Bushido, and spend 3 hours a day cleaning guns and sharpening blades. What else do you do?
Try this, think of someone you know and describe them in a two or three word phrase, like "She's a small town politician." Next time you talk to that person, tick off all the things they refer to that has nothing to do with that description. -likes woodworking, an experienced butcher, knows tons of dirty jokes. This is what real people are like, and real people are way more interesting. Make it clear to your GM that you are not trying to cop extra knowledge skills out of this, just trying to make a more interesting character. (The example that I used in this paragraph is my mom.)

3) Give your character a goal, the goal he thinks he wants. Pass this on to the GM. Make it clear that acheiving the goal is not important to you the player, but it is important to the character. Sub-plots can go on for years over this.
While you're at it, create a short-term goal for you the player to strive for. Don't pick something that is cause for your character to retire, make it the next thing to shoot for. For fun, don't pass this on to your GM, but see if you can acheive it anyway. Avoid goals that directly empower your character in terms of game mechanics. Chances are your GM is already on top of that part. Be prepared to come up with a new goal once this one is reached.

4) Give your character a character flaw. Not one that has anything to do with points, just something that makes him human. Example: He doesn't like to accept help from people, or he is ashamed of his history. Make this flaw clear to your fellow players, and assure them as a player that this character can and will outgrow this flaw. Do not use the flaw to impede other players, only use it to impede yourself and only in non-critical circumstances. Watch as other characters approach yours to try to help him through this.

5) Don't be shy of romance, sex is perhaps the strongest motivator in the world. To keep things at a comfortable level, remember that attraction between people can be pretty unpredictable. So at some random point when there doesn't seem to be anything else going on, tell your GM that your character is taking a romantic interest in an NPC, maybe his contact or someone else's. In turn, let the GM make this determination for you as well. After all, you can't help who you fall in love with. This could be a total writeoff as far as plot, but a good GM will do something with it.

6) Play 'character in a minute'. That is, while someone watches the clock, you are bombarded with random questions about your character by other players. You must answer, which usually means making the answers up on the spot. Avoid "what is your favourite....?" questions and use a lot of whys and hows.

7) Cultivate relationships among PC's especially without a GM around. After the characters have hung around a bit, make a point of determining what they've learned about each other. Haven't your characters spent a couple of hours on a plane together at some point? Characters that always keep to themselves and don't share personal information are just indications of lazy roleplayers. Besides, no one is "always" something or "never" does something.

Anyway, that's the advice. Hope it helps.

Yes, give the GM plot hooks. He will apriciate this. And you can excape the 'meet Johnson, do run, get paid, repeat' trap.

Wish I'd had the benefit of your post, Dog, back when I was re-writing the LitS guidelines. Would have saved us a lot of work, trying to figure out how to word the equivalent of "don't create and 'freeze' your character, but leave room for development: give your GM some kind of developmental character hook to work with!"

I've also found that rewording the Twenty Questions into a definite "what are ...?" form (as opposed to the open-ended "do you have ...?" form) tends to promote the creation of developmental openings. In effect, the easy cop-out of "none" is no longer implicitly available.

I agree, although you should consider that "none" is still a valid answer in some circumstances.

I get a lot of my plot hooks from players by having them go into their past. Their old enemies, family members, previous employers and in some cases previous lives.

I've got "Another 20 Questions" hiding somewhere on my shelves somewhere, I'll post it when I find it. In case I can't, it's essentially questions to be asked a couple of runs into a campaign for each character to answer about his teammates.

True ... but past experience here suggests that you might answer in such a thread regardless

If it'll make you feel better ...

I wanna bash in the door and shoot everything that moves and quite a few that don't. I don't need no stinkin' background!

yeah but the movie never looks right without the backgorund

As a GM, i love character hooks. It gives me something to throw at my players where they might have to do something for reasons other than money.

However, as a player, i hate GMs who never utilize hooks in character's stories. I spend time making a decent character background, and nothing comes of it.

I always found the technique that works for me is to take a character and start actually writing. I'm a very intuitive writer, I can just start and keep going and churn out a page or two of character history..

I know with my Sam, he's ex-military, from a relatively affluent family, has younger siblings, and was genius level. He joined the military because he didn't want to go into medicine or law or physics, and his family blew up (and hasn't calmed down enough to talk to him since). He joined a special division in the military and wound up with smartlinks, boosted reflexes 2 and handblades.. he was the demolitions expert on his squad as well. He even got his code-name from it.. Damian (Divine power) because he was really, really good at blowing things up. You thought the wrath of God had come down on you after he blew up one of your buildings.

He wound up with cyberarms and bone lacing after a rather unfortunate mission when the person guarding his back got sniped while he was setting the detonators -- and if he'd been any less tough and fast, he'd have been killed in the blast. Then he wound up with defective gear and got blinded by flares. His last mission ended up with him holding onto a troll in the middle of the ocean for a few hours, completely deaf. By this time, his charisma 2 was justified -- he was not the most social to begin with, and he didn't look particularly human anymore after all the damage. He deserted after -- he was sure they were trying to kill him. Sold stories to an old acquantence who became a reporter, and eventually got hired on by a small corperation.

That's the condensed version of his initial history. If I wrote the rest out.. well, I think the word count would quadruple -- but it actually sets up the character, and leads into how he got all of the starting cyberware, and several of the skills and stats. It also set up his personality, including a few of the traits that are purely roleplay -- he's moved up in the ranks of the corp to head of security and 'special projects', and he despises leaving people behind or people being dead. He also ended up torturing and executing the general who'd been in charge of his division in the military.. they found out he wasn't dead, wanted to hang him and take the experimental cyber out of him. It was dumb luck (aka, GM mercy) that the paperwork wasn't filled out and everyone who knew he was alive in the chain of command died. He had to come out of hiding later when he was put on trial for other stuff (won the case) and the military upgraded him from deserter to dishonourable discharge.. His only contact with his family has been one phone call from his grandmother that went 'You're a disgrace to the family name *click*'.

As for his personality, he's overprotective, vindictive, violent, unforgiving, and has found a little mental switch that can turn him cold enough that he could pull the trigger on almost anyone, or do immensely stupid and hard to counter stuff, like letting the mage hit him with the venomous snake-whip, just so he can take the whip away. He's also walked into rooms for 'negotiations' with a duffel bag containing a kilo of CXII and a radio detonator, perfectly willing to blow himself and the other person up.. without having his heavier armour on, so a good chance he wouldn't survive.

...

My method of character generation is to write first and assign numbers later. Some people on these boards will have read my character backgrounds before (the most recent one being for my "Living in the Shadows" character, Tenmou) and know that my backgrounds end up being between ten and twenty pages.

Call it overkill if you like...

Once I have the 20 Questions complete I like to elaborate. Develop him from his birth to the present day. Leave unresolved issues from his/her past and obvious obstacles in his/her future. I'm the primary GM in my group and while I don't require my players to emulate my dedication to background, I do require a background. I require it to be of a certain calibre as well.

Now this is a matter of personal preference, so take no offence to this Dawnshadow, but the character background you've supplied would be rejected by me. It's not because it's poorly written or the like, but because I reject the "heartless killer" archetype on sight. Chalk it up to me liking characters with morals, or being a storyteller at heart, but I've seen and done the "HK" style character several times before and find that they destroy any attempt at character socialization and carrying on any form of tension between PC's and villans.

A solid background with a three dimensional character is key to a good game. So from my point of view, background far exceeds the character stats in terms of importance. However, I do hear DeadNeon's problem as well. You can write an in depth history about your favourite character and have it go to waste if the GM won't use it. Lord knows I've been guilty of this myself... I get so caught up in running my own ideas that character history gets forgotten.

My answer would be to simply ask the GM if they could throw a run involving your background into the mix. Not necessarily the next run, but to spring it on you soon. I always do my best to fill in those requests and any reasonable GM shouldn't have a problem with it. Every runner should have their turn in the spotlight.

My God, I rambled. Sorry to all that I've bored with my prattle.

SR13

Indeed.. the character background is usually the key to a good game -- not necessairily to the plot, but just to the way the character reacts and deals with others. The first character I ever roleplayed in any RPG had I think it was a 13 page character history.. was my best work at the time, but I really should redo it now that I've improved.

That being said, I hate grouping character personalities and so on into archetypes. For some reason, characters tend to spring to mind fully formed for me, more than being developed. Some of them are "almost" as real as I am, because I've played the character for so long in so many different places.

And of course no offense taken Shadowrunner13 Damian was/is a character that just sprang out, he's not one of my classics, although you'd probably dislike most of them. I've only played a few that wouldn't be described as 'heartless killers', even if they all have a lot of depth beyond that. The ability (or, with one, the need) to just outright kill is almost always part of them somehow. Not always in the same degrees, but I can only think of one that doesn't have it to a fair degree, and he's just 15 and fairly new. They're usually fairly moral throughout as well -- just, not quite the same morality. Never really had any problems with characters not socializing either.. in fact, only one doesn't socialize with (meta)humans.

Out of curiousity, do any other GMs have problems/dislikes for some character concept or personality trait?

Like I said, I can't abide "always" or "never" in a character description. I don't necessarily think more is better. ("Oh yeah? My character history is twenty pages long! See this week he killed this guy and the next week he killed this guy and the week after that he killed....")

Another mistake that's made is when you decide how other people react to the character in your description: "People invite him to parties because he's a laugh a minute." Is wrong. "Likes to go to parties and tries to keep people laughing." is better.

For the heartless killer described above, he'd be very cliche in my experience. I would prefer to see him one day decide that he can't throw that coldness switch. That he's in a situation where he suddenly realizes he can't shoot an innocent person, preferably when a few people who know him can see it occur. I notice all of the points in his description are about justifying the notes on his character sheet, and he has no Achiles heel.

Off the top of the my head, if I were your GM, I'd offer you this: Say the character joined the military because he was a weiner kid and wanted to toughen up, and it worked. The only thing that stuck with him from his wimpy days was a very bad stutter. As a result, he seems tight lipped and stoic because he's deathly embarassed about speaking in front of people he doesn't entirely trust. However, sometimes he just has to. (I know a street kid like this.)

Then one day, I'd have the corp scientist he just rescued turn out to be his old biology lab partner. Just to see what happens. I'd also decide that he only thinks that his family hates him because of the angry grandmother matriarch, and his siblings don't get why he won't talk to them.

I do hope that you haven't detailed every job he had in the military. If you left several years unexplained, you could let your GM decide what you were doing. And for gawd's sake, give him a hobby!

The characters in my campaign are: Billy, who is currently torn between his old girlfriend and a new beauty who has taken an interest in him. Jack, who struggles to keep his bar running, has a collection of t-shirts with stupid sayings and logos, and drinks to forget about being abused as a kid. And Herman, a recent immigrant who was unfulfilled as a handyman and is still trying to figure out what he's going to do with his future. They all have a fondness for gothic-funk music and drive-through sushi. Oh, yeah ... and they're shadowrunners.

I don't mean to get into a pissing contest about who's characters are better. I'm just offering a possibility if you wanna try it. If you like what you're doing, game on!

Let's see. My characters tend to have backgrounds ranging from 1-2 pages, unless a lot of explanation is required. Usually all it details is the basics of what they've done in the past, how they got their money (if any), their skills, their cyber/magic/whatever, and the major incidents that have formed them into who they are. A 20 page description is over the top for me, unless I was writing out entire scenes from their past (not necessarily something I wouldn't do), there's just not enough important information on a character's life to fill that much paper.

My first (and favorite) character was created without a background at all beyond a few sketchy details (Born in New York, large trust fund, has a Masters from MIT&T), and evolved one as play went on. His background as it stands now would take several pages to fill properly, and include a great deal of interesting details (was born Awakened, is a raging megalomaniacal psychopath with a messiah complex, attracted to unattainable women, has died on three seperate occasions, etc, etc).

Every character since him has been created with a fully fleshed out background that still leaves enough room for improv when that works best. From the corporate-brat Sorceress to the 40-contact ex-CAS black ops sniper, all have been developed as concepts and people before a single stat hit a page, and the stats used to reflect the capabilities outlined in their background and personalities.

@Dog: I don't see your problem with 'always' and 'never' in character descriptions. Some characters 'always' check their locks when they leave the apartment, some 'never' give a thought to somebody jimmying the maglock. That's acceptable, and roleplayable. It might come back to bite them in the ass one day, but it's not wrong.

As to Dawnshadow and his beautiful little killing machine. I'm his GM, and I allowed it, even knowing that the Heartless Killer concept has been done and done and done. He brings a fresh and interesting perspective to it, and the character has many layers beyond the HK veneer. Even as a starting character he showed he wasn't always willing to throw that mental 'switch', hell the very first run he hesitated in shooting an enemy because they were holding his teammate hostage. As to no Achilles heel... well, that's not in any way true. What Dawnshadow doesn't tell you is that this character has an obsession with self-improvement, to the point where he's willing to do stupidly dangerous things to push the envelope just a little more. These decisions are even now coming back to haunt him. And above everything else, this heartless killer isn't as heartless as he seems, especially not where his girlfriend is concerned.

As to offering him that stutter thing... that would be the GM writing the character background for the player. I would not do this (though I am not above suggesting things, where appropriate). If I have to say 'no, you cannot have this in your background' then I'll do it, but I will not write a different background for them to suit what I think their character should be like. It's not my character, it's theirs.

It usually takes me a few sessions with a character to figure all that stuff out.

What I'll usually start with is a kicker: why is my character running the shadows? Once I've got that kernel, it flows from there.

Well, good for you, Sharaloth. In response to the comment you directed to me, absolutes are unrealistic, is all. I find real people more interesting. I hope you don't think I'm shooting somebody's ideas down. I just started this thread to present my favoured way of character development and showed you how I would apply it to the example your buddy presented. Do what works for you.

As EF31415 does, I like determining a lot of background during game play.

Fortune:

Talia: You wishing you could refer to something I wrote (in your earlier post) is a compliment indeed.

Personally Dog, I've always found a background should be more than just the "why", but also the "how".. if the background is everything but what's on the character sheet, then it's kindof useless I tend to find. Having the explanation of the character sheet as next to last in priority is almost as bad, I've found. I wrote a different one for another character, and while I was satisfied with the history, it doesn't build the character as well as Damian's.. partly because he's got some skills that aren't well explained, partly because it doesn't touch on how he got his foci, or why the specific powers developed that did. It's more personality based and less justification based, and, to be honest, I don't like it as much.

Also, remember, I did condense the history. If I instead wrote out all the trivial little one-two line sections that AREN'T major parts of the background, but make the personality more apparent, then you wouldn't actually grasp the major history of the character. The little details that people really want (or so I'm gathering from reading the responses), aren't major parts of the background -- I'd hate playing a character that it's the little things about his/her life are the 'defining' events-- or worse yet, the background doesn't explain the character at all. So you've got this wonderful personality and lots of plot hooks.. so why does your character have boosted 2, aluminum bone lacing and 2 obvious cyberarms? Why all those military knowledge skills? Why is the character so physically powerful and intelligent, but so lacking in charisma? It's even more helpful to have that type of info -- it gives large portions of the history as explained, and that can give so many plot hooks for an inventive GM that it's not funny. I'm almost expecting Sharaloth to have him run into the troll he was clinging to in the ocean at some point.

Personal opinion: character background should be just that, a background.. a lot of the personality should be able to be found in it, but not all of it. Some of it should be hinted at, some of it shouldn't have come up. It's not a psych profile, it's more a history-in-brief. It should give some plot hooks, it should explain the character, but unless you're starting out with a long-term runner, it doesn't make sense for it to have all the details about his personality. It should have some -- Damian's full background hinted at his loyalty -- he trashed a bunch of punks that were going to ambush someone he knew from school, and was on friendly terms with. It implied military discipline and dedication to teammates. It didn't hint at his vindictive streak, that became apparent later. It also didn't hint at what would happen when he finally fell in love -- turns out that he becomes overprotective, and willing to do almost anything for her. Whether or not he's possessive hasn't come up yet -- although I doubt he is, because he still can't believe she's actually with him, let alone living with him.

Beyond that, character weaknesses and so on are usually easier to find after some roleplaying is done -- you get more into the personality, and the vulnerabilities start to come out. It wasn't until much after the background was written that his self-improvement issues came to the forefront. He ran into people that were tougher, faster, better than he was... and he managed to really tick them off. And then he found out that there were worse things to come, so he made a very, very desperate deal with someone to get a lot of high end cyberware. It worked -- he became tough enough to survive what came, but it may very well kill him over the next few months. Either directly, or indirectly -- and because of the circumstances with two of his friends, it's entirely his own fault.

Also, as Sharaloth said, just because he can turn into a cold killer, doesn't mean he does. He's only done it twice in the game that I can think of. Once was when someone tried to kill the girlfriend (and she faked dying to get away), and the other was when his girlfriend's initatory group leader threatened to haul him away to study.. but, because of the interruption of a few different events, nobody died that time. And as Sharaloth said, he did hesitate on that shot in the first run. For moral reasons, and for practical reasons (he had 2 rounds left in his slivergun, he needed to make the shot count).

"How" is dead-easy. It's "why" and especially "who" that's hard

To me, at least, the concept of the PC must involve "strengths" and "weaknesses" right from the moment of conception -- or else the character is nothing but a bunch of numbers and an explanation of those numbers.

But perhaps more important than any of these is whether you can sustain what you've written in background into play ...?

One thing about a character background is that it needs to be functional. Some people seem to write a character like they are writing a novel. But you are creating a character that will be used to play, with others, in a game, where you are all professional criminals, and where there are game mechanics dictating your success or failure at a given task, and where there are game mechanics for using Karma points to improve your character.

So first off, your background should give your character a motivation, preferably a long-term one, for running the shadows. Give your character a reason, or better yet, more than one reason, to be a shadowrunner. Even if you are playing the "civilian who is forced into shadowrunning by circumstances", you should detail why it is will be impossible for that character to return to his or her former life (except maybe as a long-term goal).

Secondly, give your character a mindset and/or skills that will be actually useful to the group. You aren't creating this character in a void - the other PCs should have a reason to work with your character. They shouldn't have to metagame (working with someone their characters have no logical reason to keep around).

Finally, plan your character's potential advancement. You can make tough starting characters, but don't make one who is so "complete" that you don't know what to spend your Karma points on. Think about how the character can grow and develop, not only roleplaying-wise, but point-wise.

I'm not saying that game mechanics are more important than roleplaying, but things like the rules, the setting, and the premise of the game need to be factored to at least some extent to get not just a well-written character, but a playable one.

The setting, cooperation with characters, and the campaign's premises, yes. the rules? Hell no. I won't build any character of mine around the assumption that he will be maxed out rules wise in terms of cyber; all his abilities as a startup char will be tied to his background, and if that makes him less than optimal, so be it.

Background is more important for roleplaying, much more than stats. Hence, stats should reflect the character's general attributes as outlined in the background - someone who's been in the jungle with Yucatanian rebels, is a cabon-copy of that guy in Predator I with a minigun ("You're bleeding!" "Ain't got time to bleed.") and ends up with Int 6 and Will 3 because this min/maxes better in some way makes no sense; neither does a fragile elf "good looks and knows" face type with body 6 and str 7 (extraordinary attribute) and cha 3. Point is, make the stats fit the character, and not the character fit the stats.

Also, not every character needs to have consciously made shadowrunning their life's first and last goal. Some may have gotten into the shadows to pay back some dues to their fixer (Mafia association), and found that, after having shot up ten people, five accounts of trespassing, seven accounts of theft and robbery and one account of treason, they cannot just go back to their old life. In fact, I'd expect the majority of shadowrunners to stay with the job because they have no choice, not because it's the career they were looking for. Shadowrunning is a dangerous, stressful, and dirty line f work. Nothing a sensible person would choose as chareer of a lifetime.

Personal goals are just fine, but I see nothing wrong with "drifter" type characters who live by the day either, provided it's not an excuse to not think of the character's motivation.

Yes. But that character ain't gonna appear in any game of mine.

Why would you want to play a character like that, Toturi?

Now, now, guys.
Toturi, if that's what you like, go for it. But I don't think it would be fun to play a character who (as your character implied) can handle anything. I mean, what do you shoot for? (No pun intended.)

AE. I kind of agree with you, but only kind of. If he really would enjoy that character's story, it can't be crappy. If he's demonstrating that that's how some players would think, then I agree with him. That is how some players think when making a character. Which is why I started this thread, to give them some new ideas.

(I'm feeling very serene today...)

Well, what can I say, some people are coprophiliacs.
Seriously though, I've got nothing against supermegaüberherocharacters in principle, I just think it's a bit sad that you need to play that kind of characters to have fun, and I certainly never want to GM for people that powerhungry. I certainly won't stop you from playing like that, though, and if a character like that is what it takes for you to have fun in an RPG then, yeah, you're going to need the stats to go with that backstory.

Yes, but the books say you have to enjoy it. tsk tsk, not canon here.

You mean other than "keep the game fun for everyone involved" (SRComp p92)?

Hmmm, but that is not exactly the job of the GM though... his job is to over see a game or campaign. Oh well...

Yes, but it could just end up with only the GM having fun, because he made sure that everyone who's not having fun isn't involved in the game. Ends up he is the only one involved.

Yes, that is a possible outcome, and indeed the only decent one if the GM and the players simply cannot all have fun playing the same game.

Talia, I think we both said almost the same thing.. "how" determines "who" and "who" determines "how". One gives a far clearer picture of who -- but which is better is up to individual roleplayers. Not even the GM can really determine that. Ideally, the GM and player should agree, but both I would say are fairly valid.

You're quite right with the psychological patterns -- but that's fairly supportive both ways. GMs overestimating the internal parts of the PC, players overestimating the external parts. Somewhere in the middle is the real reasoning.. because, hey, even if he's got the personality to turn into a psycho-avenger-against-Ares, doesn't mean he WILL, until the external circumstances put him in the position that the facets of his personality are used -- and really, there shouldn't always be a lot of hints about that type of facet of the character until it's actually happened (and personally, I think that's an in game development more than a backstory part, unless you're starting with fairly advanced characters). There may be, but there may not be.

About the railroading vs events-in-backstory.. that particular charge I plead not guilty to. Most of the stuff that's gone on with the character has not been railroading, it's been perfectly consistent with the character. I could probably argue the other way just as easily, because Sharaloth knows the character really well so can set up events to make him go in a direction, but it's always 'x situation, character responds with y'. He could always respond differently -- but I'm in character, and will always respond as the character. A lot of the stuff that's happened to Damian has happened because of personality traits. His worst injury happened because of his self-improvement obsession and sense of responsibility (he was the one who could, so he had to).

About family and personal relationships: Friends and girlfriend developed in game. Far better to do it that way then to saddle your poor GM with a specific girlfriend/fiance with her own style for him to play (in my opinion). Family? Unless they're dead, it's always still a plot hook. It's sometimes restricted though, which isn't a bad thing.

Incidentally, we're now both beginning to return to that entire concept of not "freezing" a PC prior to starting the game that Dog raised in the first place. Maybe that's another reason why there seems to be much more general reluctance to explore the "who" than the "how": "how" is readily "frozen" (after all, these facts of the PC's life can't be changed now), while "who" should never be -- guideline definitely yes, but not a concrete, unchanging form. I think we generally are much more comfortable with things set in stone: and so, when asked to develop personality, we often seem to think we should set that in stone as well.

Re railroading:

Your comment tells me that I wasn't clear with the edit. What I was trying to get at -- and again, it's a curiosity thing about a possible trend, not absolute IF you keep seeing this, THEN you've already done that -- was the question as to whether players who prioritise the "how" in their backgrounds to near exclusivity are more likely to see themselves as being railroaded by the GM. Again, even if the trend might exist, it won't -- can't! -- be an absolute: as your example demonstrates.

I'd be curious about other people's thoughts re family/girl[boy]friend/spouse as well? Because I think, proportionately, not that many players do explore this angle at all: in-game or out. You mentioned that unless they're dead, it's a plothook: but I'm guessing the GMs among us have seen far, far more character outlines with dead families than any other variants. (As well, those variants include "kicked out of the family", "rejected by the family", and "haven't spoken to the family in ...": all of which are alternate ways to avoid this potentially powerful character Achilles heel.)

As a background thing, you're giving the GM an existing plothook. (Heh -- something "fixed in stone"! at least in its outline and in its plothook certainty.) As something that started in-game, you're potentially giving the GM more leeway in creating the character ... although I'll say that I've never yet felt any GMing constriction in running a contact handed to me. Personally, I've usually found so much leeway in the types of contact descriptions I've been handed in any case that it's almost impossible not to build and build on it.

I know in my case I tend to discuss characters quite a bit with Sharaloth? He certainly doesn't have equal rights as far as development, but he can suggest, discuss, be a sounding board, and veto anything that doesn't fit with the world. He doesn't usually -- but he can, if they really really don't fit in the slightest.

Now.. onto character freezing. That's actually exactly why I don't like writing the "why" out so much. If I set the why, then I've set at least a certain amount of the character personality in stone. Not all of it certainly, and it can change over time, but it becomes set that he does have that tendency. But, I haven't written the life story and life reasoning, so that may have been a fairly bad mistake on his part.. he went down the wrong thought path and did something he wouldn't normally have done. Until I've played a character for a while, I personally won't know.

Railroading/relationships:

I bet you're right about the 'dead' family. But, the more I think about it, the more I wonder if that can't be a plot hook in itself.. if you're inventive enough. It depends on the death. Car crash? Hmm.. Maybe it was a side-accident caused by a hit and run.. and the PC works with someone involved -- and eventually find out. Wouldn't be easy, and shouldn't be done often, but it probably can be.

I know in our group, 2 of the 3 PCs have serious relationships, and have built up some strong friendships. The third isn't as involved, but he has trust issues. He DOES have the dead family, but that was built up as part of the plot hook. They were burned at the stake, and he nearly was as well. Turns out the person who was doing the burning thinks Kincade is a devil-worshipping monster, is chasing after him to send him back to the devil. He's got hobbies, and his best friend is his ally spirit -- but he also has started building friendships with some other NPCs and one of the other PCs.