In-depth characters

[Tech]

I've created in-depth characters ever since I started playing Champions (okay, it took about 1-2 years after but it still counts towards development). Some of you call it 'plumbing your character' or something similar. It didn't occur to me how in-depth characters had become until one gaming evening many years ago...

My friends, brothers and myself were having a game. Someone was doing a college paper on how roleplaying games mimic the storytelling of centuries past and thus, sitting in on the game recording the audio aspect. Someone's character had a susceptibility to processed foods, which was an odd disadvantage but had it his character did. A point came up early in the game when the GM asked what each person's character was doing in their secret id's. Around the table everyone started talking until one player said his character was having lunch with another character. At that point, a minor discussion occurred about what they were eating and cheeseburgers got mentioned. The player character with the susceptibility said he wouldn't eat cheeseburgers because of the cheese to which someone replied, 'Depends on the kind of cheese'. This caused all sorts of laughter and the watching recorder paused the recording in amazement. She was amazed in the details of even what our characters eat, who aren't real. She said that it was like ordinary people talking. By the way, she got an A on the paper.

Having characters with detailed, in-depth lives are simply so much fun! I know many players have been in campaigns where it didn't last long and couldn't develop their characters. However, I'm sure some of you if now alot of you have. I've read many character origins of established characters with 100's of experience and seen the details.

So, I was wondering: how often do you develop detailed, in-depth characters?

[Cassandra]

I use real life people as examples for some of my characters, and put the real identity into a situation that would cause them to become a crimefighter, superhero, villian, etc.. For example, my Lady Liberty character is based somewhat on Amelia Earhart. What if instead of vanishing she discovered an ancient land and was granted superpowers to defend the world against the Axis? Then I create people they know, what skills they have based on the superpersona they have, and so forth.

For example, as Lady Liberty's costume is based on the Statue of Liberty, her weapons are a Book shaped Shield, a Torch that gives off three different colored light based powers, and sandals that allow her to fly. Her crown with all those spikes is a radio. Her costume and hair are red, and her two sidekicks, her sisters, wear white (with blonde hair) and blue (with black hair). Both have the same abilities as her but at a lower power level.

[Doc Shocker]

There should be an option between "Some" and "Every"

I would say MOST of my characters have been plumbed. As the default GM, it usually falls to me to create the NPCs so a lot of them are limited in scope. But when it comes to important characters I can usually give you a good bit of info on them. My personal PCs are almost always thought out, unless I just want to jump in on a combat session. Even then, I have a roster of pre-made characters to choose from.

So I chose "Cheese" because "Some" didn't sound like enough and "Every" sounded like too many. Also, I enjoy most cheeses.

[Hermit]

I have to go with those who say a 'Most' option fits best for me

[NestorDRod]

I chose the first option, since I generally spend as much time (if not more) developing my characters' backgrounds and personalities than their powers and stats.

There have been exceptions. I recently played in a low-powered fantasy game where the survivability of the characters was low (the GM was one of those "the dice decide" types) so I made a point of not wasting time defining a character that might not even survive the first encounter. :rolleyes:

Hey, it's all about the roleplaying for me. :)

Edit: So I guess I'm in the nonexistent "most" category, too.

[Checkmate]

Well it really depends on how "in depth" you mean. For the most part if I create a character from scratch, I create a really in depth personallity. Once I have that down, I can pretty much decide anything else that comes up on the fly:
GM: Okay what is your character eating
Me: Well let's see my character is a health nut, so he'd be eating the grilled chicken.

There are two things I really need to get into a character:
1. Personality, as I just said I have to know how the character will act to get into him/her

2. Something to look forward to. If I'm able to get everything I want on the character, at the level I feel it should be, right out of the starting box, and I don't feel I have anything to spend XP on, I'm pretty disappointed and it makes it tough to play that character. Luckily this doesn't happen very often.

[teh bunneh]

I try to give all my characters some depth and personality. More develops as we play.

[ghost-angel]

I try to give all my characters some depth and personality. More develops as we play.

I choose this response.

[Certified]

When making characters for personal play, not intended as NPCs I normally start with a concept and work out from there.

[Pariah]

I like to have a lot of depth with my characters. One of my biggest frustrations as a player is when I reach a point with my characters when I'm just thinking "Okay, I know what he can do in combat, but who is he, really?" I've got a character like that now; she's a combat monster, but beyond anger and bringing Genocide to justice, I don't feel like she's got a lot of personality and/or motivation. Going to have to work on that....

[steamteck]

I try to give all my characters some depth and personality. More develops as we play.


Same here. They develop tons more meat as they interact with th players.

[GloryFox]

Some seemed too little and All seemed too much. About 90% of my characters have an in depth story of some kind.

I like fresh Mozzarella the kind that is still in water & chilled when you get it. It is just so "OH THANK YOU GOD FOR CHEESE" good.

[assault]

I generally don't start with much depth to my characters, but add it as required, or as I am inspired.

I'm currently eating cheese. The nasty bland type my parents prefer, because I'm at their house.

[Lord Fyre]

I had to go with the "cheese" option. :rockon:

The problem is that the depth I have increased the depth that I give my characters over time. So, my eariest characters had very little actual depth (but have aquired some over time).

But characters I have created more recently have much more depth.

[nexus]

I try to put in depth and personality into all my characters, particularly ways they differ from me. And more usually develops in play when different situations call for it.

[Trebuchet]

I try to at least start with a basic backstory and personality for each character; then build on that with interaction with the other characters. If I get inspired, I'll write a short story or three to further explore the character's personality.

[Vondy]

If its a character I'm going to play I tend to be a detail hound.

I'm also a detail hound with my major villains as entire arcs will deal with them.

Other major villains get a background outline and personality sketch.

Some would call those detailed, I call them a solid beginning.

Other characters a few jotted notes.

[The Monster]

The depth of my characters depends in part on the GM and campaign. For a simple pickup hack-n-slash game, no more than a few stereotype tags and I'm good (hoorah for Angus MacAdder, berserk Scotsman!) For one that aims for more personality and development, I'll go deeper (a bow to Gayle Samantha (Sam) Storm, my female Watcher in our Buffy game).
Most of the time I start with a few basic ideas and develop as play progresses.

[Doomed Prophet]

Picked "cheese" because most of the characters I make are build one of two ways...

When I'm a Player: They're usually about 85% fully fleshed (don't look at the feet! Don't look at the feet!) with the other 15% left open for the GM to modify...

When I'm a Storyteller: Main villains/protagonists are just rough drafted (personality, name, past crimes...) until the players want to know more/interrogate them, then they start to get more backstory... Friendly NPCs get background detail equal to their impact on the story...

The worst though is trying to flesh out enemies/friends from a player's background, nothing like having a player say "<insert enemy name here> would never do that/act that way/say that!"...

[NestorDRod]

The worst though is trying to flesh out enemies/friends from a player's background, nothing like having a player say "<insert enemy name here> would never do that/act that way/say that!"...

Been there. Done that. :)

It's why, if I include an archnemesis, organization (or other important NPC) in my character's background, I go to the GM, explain what I'm doing, and either a) use an established NPC from his game that is close enough to work, or b) give the GM enough info to define what I need for the NPC and let the GM take over.

I'm playing in a current campaign that is a "ten years later" sequel to a previous one. One of the challenges is that a PC from the first campaign (now a NPC) is closely associated with a current PC.

So far, we've avoided any problems by having her firmly in the background, but I can see the temptation to state "She wouldn't do that!" if she appears on screen. The one scene where she did, the GM turned to the player who'd run her and plainly stated, "What would she do?"

[Shoutybloke]

My characters tend to start out pretty much tabula rasa and aquire depth as the campaign progresses

[TheQuestionMan]

I voted for Some and leaned towards Every. When I Role Play my character I try to take into account all his Disadvantages and Continuity. Its important to me that he succeed, but also that he stay in character.

More often than note my Character Journal can be more detailed than the game it details.

QM

[hfergus]

Every character I intend to play for a while gets a pretty good in depth background. Most get more as time progresses and I figure out more of their background, motivation, etc. Olorin the 747 year old unaging mage from another medieval dimension was a real challenge to do his backstory, but I did a broad background on the whole time and extreme details for some things. Some of it is still evolving.

[yamamura]

I choose this response.

Right with you and the bunneh.

[Lord Mhoram]

I like to have a lot of depth with my characters. One of my biggest frustrations as a player is when I reach a point with my characters when I'm just thinking "Okay, I know what he can do in combat, but who is he, really?" I've got a character like that now; she's a combat monster, but beyond anger and bringing Genocide to justice, I don't feel like she's got a lot of personality and/or motivation. Going to have to work on that....

She could always start dating the prettyboy on the team. :)

[Lord Mhoram]

Right with you and the bunneh.

Me too. I have before play a character background about on par with published characters. Sometimes more sometimes less. The longer I play, the more details come up.

Black Cat my longest played character (at about 15 years off and on) - I know her favorite art style, what kind of music she likes, what she reads, how her apartment is decorated, favorite food....

Other more recent characters I don't have quite that level of detail on though. :)

[Theron]

Somewhere between Some and Every. Of course, sometimes what I'd consider a thorough background might seem somewhat sparse to others. Like the guy whose background largely consisted of quotes from movies and songs. It gave me the essentials to hang a character on, but the GM (being rather impaired on matters relating to pop culture) had no idea what I was talking about.

[Plex]

Since I GM more than I play, I always try to flesh out all my characters but the more important ones always get more detail to them sine they will be, in effect, around a lot more. Some get nothing more than a name and motivation, others have detailed ancestor backgrounds with detailed background from the day of birth. (Obviously not a day to day journal, but well thought out.)