I can see Monte Cook's reasons for not liking character generation, and by and large I agree. But Pre-generated characters is not the answer. There is no immersion, there. To paraphrase earlier posts, I agree that he has lost touch with a player's perspective.

//Panjumanju

Quote from: Black Vulmea;541753I think it's players conditioned to think of telling a story rather than playing a game.

D'Artagnan's backstory is that he grew up on a farm, the son of a soldier. He leaves for Paris with two goals: fight duels, and become a King's Musketeer.

And we don't get much more of an origin story for Sherlock Holmes, Cyrano de Bergerac, Athelstan King, Tuco the Bandit, Baron Münchhausen or a lot of other fictional characters. There are protagonists with detailed life stories (like the Count of Monte Christo). They are not the only way to depict someone. In adventure stories, characters are first and foremost defined by their actions, the way they interact with their environment. That's a good lesson for RPGs.

(Also, I uploaded a new, less rosy avatar)

You didn't have to do that sir. But I do like it because it's a better view.

I agree with your above post also.

Throw me into the pool of people who prefer a very brief backstory, and that the adventures are what makes your character.  Then again, I've never really like the "start as a hero" style that showed up in WOTC editions, and preferred the "zero to hero" style.

Quote from: Sacrosanct;541779Throw me into the pool of people who prefer a very brief backstory, and that the adventures are what makes your character.  Then again, I've never really like the "start as a hero" style that showed up in WOTC editions, and preferred the "zero to hero" style.

Actually I have no issue with 3/4e's Hero baseline. The deal is like OHT I can't be arsed to read a bunch of useless crap. And as a player I just want to play already!  I like that word ""arsed" though.

Quote from: Melan;541775In adventure stories, characters are first and foremost defined by their actions, the way they interact with their environment. That's a good lesson for RPGs.

It's also key to playing a game.

Players who write backstories 'full of adventure hooks for the DM!' remind me a guy standing on a pitch waiting for someone to kick the ball to him. You have to get open, pass, steal, tackle to play the game, otherwise you're as useful as the goalpost.

I will be happy to add a character with an interesting background/odd item/dark secret into the campaign, myself, and work with that, just keep it sensible.

Quote from: Melan;541794I will be happy to add a character with an interesting background/odd item/dark secret into the campaign, myself, and work with that, just keep it sensible.

I love Black Vulmea's football reference. Enough about that, I usually do a short paragraph but if the GM wants more I will add obvious story hooks. I'm much more reasonable than what TBP thinks.

@Melan, who is the actor in your avatar? It looks like Peter Sellers, but I'm too lazy to Google it.

Quote from: Melan;541794. . . just keep it sensible.

From noisms' blog: You are responsible for your own orgasm.

That's an... interesting analogy.

Quote from: Melan;541824That's an... interesting analogy.

That post is why I gave noisms a pass for standing up for kent.

Quote from: Black Vulmea;541753I'm sure young d'Artagnan had friends and loves and rivals and disappointments and successes while growing up on the family estate in Gascony, but once he leaves for Paris, that period of his life is behind him and plays no part in his subsequent adventures.

I don't think there is a necessary condition there. D'Artagnan might have have to left home to find adventure but for Spider-man or Buffy adventure happens much closer to home and neither have any need to leave their past behind. If anything being close to home often gives a face and meaning to what the hero is fight for.

Quote from: Soylent Green;541832I don't think there is a necessary condition there. D'Artagnan might have have to left home to find adventure but for Spider-man or Buffy adventure happens much closer to home and neither have any need to leave their past behind.

You're taking the example far too literally. Leaving home isn't the point.

Let me drop the analogy to make it explicit. My point is that stuff that never happened except in your own imagination means fuck-all compared to what happens once actual play begins. Trying to create conflict out-of-game out of nothing sucks compared to the conflicts that arise out of the shared experiences of actual play.

In other words, don't write a sworn enemy into your character background, 'cause it sucks jagged rocks compared to the enemy you make in actual play, with everyone else participating.

Quote from: Soylent Green;541832If anything being close to home often gives a face and meaning to what the hero is fight for.

There's vastly more meaning attached to the things you fight for that arise out of actual play than the fanwank on your character sheet.

Character backgrounds are used to shortcut actual play. They shift the burden for making actual play fun from the player's shoulders to the referee's. As a player and a referee, I abhor player passivity.

All in my opinion, experience, and so forth.

I love Burning Wheel's lifepath system, and Traveller is fun.

I like Basic D&D/T&T's 3d6 down the line, pick race, class, buy equipment.

I also like FATE's optional chargen where you make up aspects as you play until you hit your max, and the ability to swap out aspects as you see fit if your character changes in some way.

I dislike games where you're asked to make decisions without understanding how those decisions will affect play.

I also dislike games where the math or subsystems could be boiled down to something simpler and still achieve the same effect, whether aesthetic or functional (calculation for its own sake is weird, IMO).

Depends on the game, honestly, and I can't think of any good reasons for prescribing one method of chargen over another, it's just based on the needs of the game.

Quote from: Black Vulmea;541847You're taking the example far too literally. Leaving home isn't the point.

Let me drop the analogy to make it explicit. My point is that stuff that never happened except in your own imagination means fuck-all compared to what happens once actual play begins. Trying to create conflict out-of-game out of nothing sucks compared to the conflicts that arise out of the shared experiences of actual play.

Except when they're the same thing. The best role-playing groups I've had the pleasure of gaming with made it a requirement to write up a complete character background, which the GM put to good use in the campaign. The world-building wasn't all up to the GM; it was a cooperative effort with the full participation of the players.

Quote from: Black Vulmea;541847In other words, don't write a sworn enemy into your character background, 'cause it sucks jagged rocks compared to the enemy you make in actual play, with everyone else participating.


There's vastly more meaning attached to the things you fight for that arise out of actual play than the fanwank on your character sheet.

This distinction is meaningless: background material IS for use during actual play, with everyone else participating. See above; the campaigns in which our GM actually put our backgrounds to use in creating our campaign were the most immersive that I've been in, and they had the best role-playing. In contrast, I've been in more games than I can count where character backgrounds weren't required, and if offered were seldom used; most of them were dull and uninspiring.

I'll just let the "fanwank" thing slide for now.

Quote from: Black Vulmea;541847Character backgrounds are used to shortcut actual play. They shift the burden for making actual play fun from the player's shoulders to the referee's. As a player and a referee, I abhor player passivity.

All in my opinion, experience, and so forth.

My experiences have been just the opposite, so I must disagree. I do agree that the players and GM share responsibility for making the game fun. However, it's my opinion that a "passive" player is one who puts little to no effort into the creative process: he can't be bothered to come up with a character story, even if it would be useful and fun for himself and the GM.