Character Design Theory

[nexus]

Re: Character Design Theory

 

I think a balance has to be found. There's nothing wrong with an exciting background with plenty of hooks, but once it gets to the point its lie you're writing everything interesting in the character's life as having already happened. Well it can get annoying. I try not to judge on length though. People have different styles what it takes one person a paragraph to say takes others a page. I confess to preferring shorter background overall...

[OddHat]

Re: Character Design Theory

 

It depends, but generally I like a background to explain why the character is who he or she is, and to give me a picture of at least a few powers, tactics, and psych limits in action. I don't want to read a short novel about the character (unless the player is Skaramine), and I don't care about the character's favorite breakfast cereal (unless it's the source of his powers) or his best friend when he was 12, but I do want a good clear picture of who this character will be. Sometimes that's a paragraph or two, sometimes it's 1500 words.

 

If it's 20+ pages, the player had best be a darn good writer.

[Kristopher]

Re: Character Design Theory

 

It depends, but generally I like a background to explain why the character is who he or she is, and to give me a picture of at least a few powers, tactics, and psych limits in action. I don't want to read a short novel about the character (unless the player is Skaramine), and I don't care about the character's favorite breakfast cereal (unless it's the source of his powers) or his best friend when he was 12, but I do want a good clear picture of who this character will be. Sometimes that's a paragraph or two, sometimes it's 1500 words.

 

If it's 20+ pages, the player had best be a darn good writer.

 

Take a couple of characters I've posted, for example -- War Angel and T'Shenk Kennet. Judged by RDU Neil's standards as presented here -- "from a GM's POV, I hate backgrounds that are more than a couple paragraphs" -- both of their background sections are far too long. Would you agree with that?

[OddHat]

Re: Character Design Theory

 

Take a couple of characters I've posted' date=' for example -- War Angel and T'Shenk Kennet. Judged by RDU Neil's standards [i']as presented here[/i] -- "from a GM's POV, I hate backgrounds that are more than a couple paragraphs" -- both of their background sections are far too long. Would you agree with that?

 

By my standards, they were well done character backgrounds. They gave detail and perspective, without precluding further development. However, that "without precluding further development" thing is a serious issue for me, and I think it would be a serious issue for Neil or any good GM.

 

Your War Angel was on a path, with a clear past and a strong motivation, and it would have been well worth it to follow that path through her adventures in a campaign. However, had you covered everything down to the decorations on her bedroom wall and foreshadowings of her ultimate destiny, complete with appearances by every major Cosmic Entity in the game world, I'd have worried about accepting that character.

[David Blue]

Re: Character Design Theory

 

There are problems with an overly long character background.

 

One of them is that some characters should have little or no background.

 

"I'm an android. My background is: my pod opened one second ago, activating my self-awareness system and my "Fight crime!" program."

 

Half the fun with a character like that is that everything is a first.

 

But there are also problems with a character background that's too short.

 

Anything that is vital to the character that belongs to their original culture will be filled in with cliches if it is left blank. That can easily overwrite the character.

 

It seemed from the movie "Alexander" that to Oliver Stone, Alexander the Great was "a gay guy," (or if you prefer, bisexual) and the rest got filled in from there with modern cliches, much to the detriment of a portrait of Alexander.

 

If you want to describe Greek customs on sexuality at the time, it will run to more than a paragraph.

 

That doesn't mean that if you were playing a dimension-hopping analogue of Alexander you'd need pages of information on Greek sexuality because it should be coming up all the time. (The issues that would come up all the time might relate to being a violent glory-hound.) But you would need something to say what he really thinks, because otherwise you'll likely get to a point like this:

 

The gamemaster has a plot hook that he's devised that assumes Al the Alien is going to be repulsed by an offer of mature female companionship, and will chase a pretty boy. The player naturally says, no way: Al will concentrate on his plans for war, pretty boy will be rejected with contempt, and a princess if she's politically useful or just good-looking may well get a yes and a good time. The gamemaster sees his plot derailing, and demands the player play in character (a "character" that is mostly blanks filled in by assumptions and cliches about gays).

 

Not good, but it can easily happen.

 

If the campaign description includes player characters having no psychological issues that don't conform to knee-jerk current assumptions, then fine.

 

But if you want player characters to be ably to have genuinely different approaches to sex, or religion, or politics or anything else, you need room for the player to define what this is about, not have it filled in by lowest common denominator assumptions.

[atlascott]

Re: Character Design Theory

 

I usually just go alphabetical.

 

Like if I buy a high Strength, then Ill also buy Stretching.

 

Or if I buy Growth, Ill also buy Gliding.

 

One the one hand, it makes char gen fast and easy.

 

On the other hand, all the chars are really useless stiffs.

 

Sometimes I go 'random.' There are exactly 60 pages of powers in 5th Ed, so I roll a d6 and a d10. Then, I turn to the appropriate page, and randomly choose a power. I do this three times if I want an average hero, but five times if I want a tough one. Sometimes villans are 7 times.

[Sean Waters]

Re: Character Design Theory

 

Really, I think you're using far too broad a brush here, maybe based on some bad personal experiences. If the player puts that much effort into the character, I can't see that as a de facto bad thing.

 

It is: the GM has to read it and is expected to change their campaign to incorporate all the brilliant plot hooks. Cynical? Maybe. True....

 

I'm just not bright enough to concentrate on running too many threads and stories at once: the ones I've come up with ususally take up about 110% of available processing resources.

 

Anyway, players, for all their enthusiam, rarely bother with accurate spelling, appropriate punctuation or even the most rudimentary stab at grammar. Moreover they're PROUD of all the work they've put in and sulk if you don't refer back to their history at least once a session.

 

As a GM I'm happiest when I've written the characters for the players, and as a player, I'm (usually) happiest when the GM has written the character for me.

[Sean Waters]

Re: Character Design Theory

 

Champions, unlike virtually any other game (well, until they started copying) has disadvantages.

 

I'm often keen to have a SHORT explanation as to why those disadvantages exist, or at least why they've been built in that form and combination, but frankly, a well crafted set of disadvantages give more useful information to a GM than a 20 page essay complete with illustrated family tree: they cover the important stuff that comes up a lot in the game.

[Sean Waters]

Re: Character Design Theory

 

I usually just go alphabetical.

 

Like if I buy a high Strength, then Ill also buy Stretching.

 

Or if I buy Growth, Ill also buy Gliding.

 

One the one hand, it makes char gen fast and easy.

 

On the other hand, all the chars are really useless stiffs.

 

Sometimes I go 'random.' There are exactly 60 pages of powers in 5th Ed, so I roll a d6 and a d10. Then, I turn to the appropriate page, and randomly choose a power. I do this three times if I want an average hero, but five times if I want a tough one. Sometimes villans are 7 times.

 

Perfect: if I hadn't drunk half a bottle of wine and repped half the board, I'd click those scales right now: remind me sometime

[Trebuchet]

Re: Character Design Theory

 

Champions, unlike virtually any other game (well, until they started copying) has disadvantages.

 

I'm often keen to have a SHORT explanation as to why those disadvantages exist, or at least why they've been built in that form and combination, but frankly, a well crafted set of disadvantages give more useful information to a GM than a 20 page essay complete with illustrated family tree: they cover the important stuff that comes up a lot in the game.

I think any character bio should as a matter of course explain the character's Disads. That kind of info is often very useful to a GM ("Yes, I know Hyper Gal is afraid of heights; it says so under her Disads. But why is she afraid of heights, Jim? Oh, her parents were killed in a tragic elevator accident? That's good to know."

 

And I resent any implications that my character's bio is 20 pages long and contains her entire family tree. It's only 2¾ pages of single spaced 9 point text, and no more than five relatives are mentioned within it.

[Sean Waters]

Re: Character Design Theory

 

I think any character bio should as a matter of course explain the character's Disads. That kind of info is often very useful to a GM ("Yes' date=' I know Hyper Gal is afraid of heights; it says so under her Disads. But [i']why[/i] is she afraid of heights, Jim? Oh, her parents were killed in a tragic elevator accident? That's good to know."

 

And I resent any implications that my character's bio is 20 pages long and contains her entire family tree. It's only 2¾ pages of single spaced 9 point text, and no more than five relatives are mentioned within it.

 

No slur intended: I've entered it for the Turner prize on your behalf

[Lamrok]

Re: Character Design Theory

 

When I write character backgrounds, I do it because it is fun. It gives me a chance to write some playful prose, and hopefully entertain the GM or the group. If I go more than about two pages, most people won't even read the first paragraph, so with that in mind, I tend to follow "Lemming's first rule of RPGs: Don't annoy the GM." When I'm done, I generally have a rough outline for the character, and, more importantly, a good place to start working out how I'm going to actually play the character.

 

I'm more than happy to work with the GM if I want a character embedded into the campaign background. I'm also happy to keep things entirely generic.

 

When, as a GM, I receive backgrounds, I like them to be either entertaining, concise, or, preferably, both.

[OddHat]

Re: Character Design Theory

 

Generally, I want character backgrounds to be entertaining and well written, and to give me some insight into the character. If they're concise as well, bonus, but it's not a requirement. OTOH, I've turned down players for badly written backgrounds; they bug me more than min-maxed builds.

[Dr. Anomaly]

Re: Character Design Theory

 

When' date=' as a GM, I receive backgrounds, I like them to be either entertaining, concise, or, preferably, both.[/quote']

The longest character background I ever received from a player was 49 typewritten pages. It was also a great story!

[Kristopher]

Re: Character Design Theory

 

It is: the GM has to read it and is expected to change their campaign to incorporate all the brilliant plot hooks. Cynical? Maybe. True....

 

Or the GM and the player sit down, treat the background as a rough draft, and work to make it fit within the world the GM has in mind -- or refine the world a little so that it takes advantage of all that work the player has put into something. Some of the best ideas come from the players.

 

I'm just not bright enough to concentrate on running too many threads and stories at once: the ones I've come up with ususally take up about 110% of available processing resources.

 

Personally, I find any hook potentially useful.

 

Anyway, players, for all their enthusiam, rarely bother with accurate spelling, appropriate punctuation or even the most rudimentary stab at grammar. Moreover they're PROUD of all the work they've put in and sulk if you don't refer back to their history at least once a session.

 

Who are you playing with?

 

As a GM I'm happiest when I've written the characters for the players, and as a player, I'm (usually) happiest when the GM has written the character for me.

 

Ugh.

 

Never. If I want to play the character someone else hands me, I'll go play a video game or something.

[Super Squirrel]

Re: Character Design Theory

 

There is a reason why it is called background that many people forget. First there is the aspect of back which is where a character came from, not where a character is going. Then there is the definion of background which is that which is not in the foreground.

 

Backgrounds should not include things such as "he will hunt his enemy down to the ends of the earth" but rather "He will go out of his way to hurt his enemy at every convienience". The first statement is declaring that a player is going to spend game time doing something background related. The second statement is declaring that when the background comes up in game, he will be reacting in a way that isn't normally like him. The first is bad for backgrounds, the second is good so long as the player reconginzes convienience won't happen that much.

 

In the case of my Null background, the GM had been given a clear understanding to two NPCs and an entire business. Sure it wasn't a traditional hunted but what he did was thought about his world a little bit and made the business an affiliate to one of the major businesses he already had planned.

[RDU Neil]

Re: Character Design Theory

 

Funny this thread should come up now, because I just happen to have to create a character to PLAY rather than be the GM. So I needed a background. I spewed this out last night in an e-mail... probably the most I've ever written for a background that wasn't online/story driven.

-------

 

Here stands The King's Man. A knight of honor who has spent a very long

lifetime fighting other people's wars. He has served so many kings he has

lost count. He knows nothing but fighting... but wonders what the fighting

is for. Gifted with strength and fortitude and mighty weapons, he fears no

foe on the open battle field.

 

What he fears most is that all his efforts and honor are for nothing.

 

The King's Man is known by everyone, commoner and noble. He has no other name, and he has no

other purpose but to serve. He is cursed thus, by the only King he

failed... his one public shame. His one private honor.

 

The King Under The Mountain was his liege then... a cruel and twisted little man who knew

nothing but greed. It was an unnamed war... some petty slight, probably

imagined by the King. A slight from the Earl of Thornwood at the Midsummer's Festival, and now the poor Earl's

woods were burned, his castle sacked, and he was on his knees paying homage

and suing for peace before the King Under The Mountain.

 

"Kill them all..." muttered the King, and the Earl blanched and a gasp of

horror went through the crowd.

 

This was not how it was done. The battle was won, the wounded tended to, the dead honored. Peace was sued and gold

would be paid. That was the way.

 

"Kill them. Cut them down and let everyone know that the King Under the Mountain is not to be trifled with!"

 

The King's Man hesitated... all his men's eyes on him.

"KILL THEM!" screamed the king!

 

 

"I will not," said The King's Man... and thunder pealed in the distance. "I will not, nor will any of my men, be your executioner."

 

The King's Man looked up at the shock and rage on the King's face and said again, "I will not."

 

"YOU BREAK YOUR VOW!" screamed the King Under The Mountain. "Your very

existence is forfeit! You are The King's Man! You cannot refuse!"

 

"I will not," said The King's Man.

 

The King Under The Mountain raised his fist, then, high above his apoplectic face!

Searing power blazed from his hand, the lawgivers power, the power to smite those who break their vow... the

divine power of all Kings.

 

It was his ultimate dissolution he faced, and no little fear gripped his heart, but The King's Man stood his ground.

 

The King Under The Mountain began to lower his hand...

 

Then thunder shook again. Mighty winds and lightning forked across the sky.

Torents of water... flash floods... suddenly ripped through the kingdom under the mountain, sweeping away The King's Man, his soldiers, the Earl and his people... sweeping them into the Black River... cold and dark... the echoing curses of the the King Under The Mountain falling behind.

 

The King's Man felt himself sinking under the weight of his armor, but he was at peace. It was as it should be for a vow-breaker. He closed his eyes and let the deep black take him.

----------

 

But The King's Man did not die that day. He awoke on the banks of the river, cold and alone... but alive. His armor and sword by his side, but all else gone.

From that day forth, he had nothing but his arm and skills to offer. Never could he earn the life of nobility he had before, and moreso he found that he could not refuse even the slightest request of royalty. The King Under The Mountain had cursed him as he escaped... cursed him to serve forever...to know no peace... cursed him so that all would know him and he would ever after serve the whims of all kings.

 

But he was alive. Someone... something... had saved him. He's never learned who or what or why... but he is alive, and the wars go on, and at least in the heat of battle he knows a measure of peace.

[OddHat]

Re: Character Design Theory

 

Funny this thread should come up now, because I just happen to have to create a character to PLAY rather than be the GM. So I needed a background. I spewed this out last night in an e-mail... probably the most I've ever written for a background that wasn't online/story driven.

-------

 

Well done. Good quick look at his skill and power set and where they came from, as well as a bit of his personality and his major disads. Some clear adventure hooks as well.

[Susano]

Re: Character Design Theory

 

My design theory has no set rules. I often build characters based on certain things that intrigue me. When Oddhat started his Pics for Supers, and Supers with Pics threads, I found it great fun to create characters based off of just an image, and a static image at that. So I used what clues I could find in the picture to develop a brief character concept. Then, when I found a concept I liked enough to turn into a character sheet, I then thought a bit more about the brief I had written, and how to expand it.

 

Having written characters for publication (NH, DH, et al), I try to keep things brief and to the point. No 20 page background for me -- unless I'm really digging the design process, but even than, said 20 page background might have material on DNPCs, equipment, and other items of interest.

 

If creating a concept from scratch, I think about the world the GM has presented me (case in point, Grenadier). I then think about what I'd like to play, and often ask other people what they are playing. This will often result in players switching characters to avoid overlap and each fill a desired niche. I will also send the GM a brief character concept and see if it works. For example, I sent Proditor a few ideas, settled on Grenadier, and then sent him a mostly competed character sheet.

 

If stuck on the build part, I will often write the color text (Background, Personality, Appearance) and so on and see if that will help me decide on what other powers and/or skills to give the character. Then I total everything up and either add material or trim (the likely result).

 

The big thing for me is to talk to the GM. That's the most important part. I hate it when people say "I have a character for your game" and have no idea what the game is like.

[RDU Neil]

Re: Character Design Theory

 

The big thing for me is to talk to the GM. That's the most important part. I hate it when people say "I have a character for your game" and have no idea what the game is like.

 

 

DING DING DING! Give that man a CEE-Gar!

 

That is it exactly! The player who assumes their idea of a character is perfect... without stopping to check first.

 

A good player's first question should be, "I heard you GM Champions. Would you tell me what your game is like? Would you describe the world, and give me examples of some session play?"

 

Then the player comes to character creation AFTER they have absorbed at least a "feel" for the world... if not the details.

 

Next, the player should come forth saying, "Based on what you described, here is an idea I came up with. Would this work? I'm sure I'd have to change some details, but is the concept sound for your game?"

 

All of this happens WAY before they decide to write a background... and if they do write one, it should be WITH the GM, and should have plenty of open/gray space that can retcon little background bits that come up during game play.

[OddHat]

Re: Character Design Theory

 

DING DING DING! Give that man a CEE-Gar!

 

That is it exactly! The player who assumes their idea of a character is perfect... without stopping to check first.

 

A good player's first question should be, "I heard you GM Champions. Would you tell me what your game is like? Would you describe the world, and give me examples of some session play?"

 

Then the player comes to character creation AFTER they have absorbed at least a "feel" for the world... if not the details.

 

Next, the player should come forth saying, "Based on what you described, here is an idea I came up with. Would this work? I'm sure I'd have to change some details, but is the concept sound for your game?"

 

All of this happens WAY before they decide to write a background... and if they do write one, it should be WITH the GM, and should have plenty of open/gray space that can retcon little background bits that come up during game play.

 

I agree with all of this.

[RDU Neil]

Re: Character Design Theory

 

Group Character Design

 

How many of you do this?

 

We have moved toward this over the years, and for 99% of the games run, I think this is a really good thing.

 

It is not just between the GM and Player... but ALL Players have a say in the creation of all other characters. Everyone puts their character out for the GROUP to discuss, before anything is finalized.

 

For the character I came up with above, I through out four different ideas... five actually... and allowed players and GM to vote on which one they thought worked best. The King's Man won out, so I wrote him up. I actually built him, after seeing other characters, so that he would have significant differences, and not step on the toes of others. He's the low SPD, low DEX tough guy fighter, so as not to compete with the fast and quick guys like the Last Lost Boy.

 

This makes the game a group effort long before we come to the table to play... in fact one evening was just the group of us sitting around talking about "What is this world going to be like? What would make for interesting characters? What concepts are acceptable... and what don't work?"

 

This to me is truly essential for effective group Play Experience... and Hero System demands this, because so many things are possible with the system, what becomes VERY important, is the GM and group agreeing AHEAD OF TIME what is NOT to be done... as much as what IS to be done.

[Susano]

Re: Character Design Theory

 

Group Character Design

 

How many of you do this?

 

We've done this for a long time in my group. Maybe not everyone building their characters together, but discussion of ideas and such. Sometimes suggestions will be given for someone else's character, and if they work well, are greedily taken and incorporated into the build.

[OddHat]

Re: Character Design Theory

 

We've done this for a long time in my group. Maybe not everyone building their characters together' date=' but discussion of ideas and such. Sometimes suggestions will be given for someone else's character, and if they work well, are greedily taken and incorporated into the build.[/quote']

 

Yup. My groups have always done this as well, at least in terms of the players getting to provide feedback on new characters as they're bought in.

[Mentor]

Re: Character Design Theory

 

Yup. My groups have always done this as well' date=' at least in terms of the players getting to provide feedback on new characters as they're bought in.[/quote']

Agreed. Tailoring the game universe to the specific player characters which has to be more fun for everyone involved. Who doesn't want to feel special?