I was just curious as to what you guys personally do when deciding how to play one of your characters. Do you use their background to pick a personality, maybe even a different voice, right from the start. Or do you just pick a few character traits and as the game unfolds, see what their actions would create their personality.
Personally, I've had experiences with both. I had one guy who I planned to be the honour bound dude, but he ended up being a little gun crazy and pretty much threatened everyone he came across.
I usually create a initial idea in my head and then flesh it out as the campaign goes on. Now after I played that character for a bit I will write down a few key traits so I can easily get back into their mindset if I replay them.
Definitely both. In character creation I know what the character cares about, and a little bit about why they became an adventurer. My druid wants to find a strong pack so that she can became an apex predator, so she left her weaker family in order to travel with those stronger than her. My sorcerer cares about money first, and money last, and those that money lead her to somewhere in the middle, so she got into adventuring for the paycheck. In game, that can then motivate little details about the characters that make them feel more fleshed out. It'll feel natural if you know what the 'core' of the character is.
From the DM’s point of view I like the players to have some basic traits worked out for their character. I use these threads to weave the character into the story and give them some objectives that fit with what they have provided. But I don’t like a huge, written in stone, backstory. I think it actually gets in the way of character development as players try to fit the character into the story rather than let the story and the character develop dynamically together.
For my own characters I generally find that they never turnout being what I initially planed. So I only jot down a few key points and add to it as the game progresses. But I do understand that others like to know their characters story and motivations and play out how that initial vision interacts with the world.
Both. The background I create, general attitudes, biases, etc. Then every session I think if something affirmed a point of view, rejected it, or created a new one. They always evolve...
Well, usually. I did create a dwarf that never changed and saw stuff in black and white. He was based on Rorshach from the Watchmen comic, so NOT changing was the point.
I was just curious as to what you guys personally do when deciding how to play one of your characters. Do you use their background to pick a personality, maybe even a different voice, right from the start. Or do you just pick a few character traits and as the game unfolds, see what their actions would create their personality.
Personally, I've had experiences with both. I had one guy who I planned to be the honour bound dude, but he ended up being a little gun crazy and pretty much threatened everyone he came across.
I usually create a initial idea in my head and then flesh it out as the campaign goes on. Now after I played that character for a bit I will write down a few key traits so I can easily get back into their mindset if I replay them.
Whynotboth.gif
I know what you're thinking: "In that flurry of blows, did he use all his ki points, or save one?" Well, are ya feeling lucky, punk?
Yeah usually a combination of both. Starting with the basics informed by whatever background I developed and then details through play and time.
"No boom today. Boom tomorrow. There's always a boom tomorrow"
"No power in the 'verse can stop me"
Definitely both. In character creation I know what the character cares about, and a little bit about why they became an adventurer. My druid wants to find a strong pack so that she can became an apex predator, so she left her weaker family in order to travel with those stronger than her. My sorcerer cares about money first, and money last, and those that money lead her to somewhere in the middle, so she got into adventuring for the paycheck. In game, that can then motivate little details about the characters that make them feel more fleshed out. It'll feel natural if you know what the 'core' of the character is.
From the DM’s point of view I like the players to have some basic traits worked out for their character. I use these threads to weave the character into the story and give them some objectives that fit with what they have provided. But I don’t like a huge, written in stone, backstory. I think it actually gets in the way of character development as players try to fit the character into the story rather than let the story and the character develop dynamically together.
For my own characters I generally find that they never turnout being what I initially planed. So I only jot down a few key points and add to it as the game progresses. But I do understand that others like to know their characters story and motivations and play out how that initial vision interacts with the world.
Both. The background I create, general attitudes, biases, etc. Then every session I think if something affirmed a point of view, rejected it, or created a new one. They always evolve...
Well, usually. I did create a dwarf that never changed and saw stuff in black and white. He was based on Rorshach from the Watchmen comic, so NOT changing was the point.
Even in the face of Armageddon.