Hey all, a couple of people have expressed opinions about the way I handle character creation. So i thought i would elaborate a little more and try to answer some or there feeling on this matter...
All4BigGuns said:
"I disagree on a couple of points. The two that placed concept and background entirely above the stat block of the character. I feel that the basic concept should come together as the attributes, skills and what-not do. As to background, perhaps one or two sentences at first, and let the rest come along as play progresses. It might work the other way for some, but, in my opinion, expecting both in full detail before any stats are assigned is asking too much and bogs things down."
The intent of having the players come up with a back story and concept first is to get the "creative juices flowing". I don't really have a set amount a player has to write up in both regards. As you say, a simple 1 or 2 sentence idea is usually enough to get the idea of the character started, and from there, they can work on the back story a little bit at a time until play begins. Believe it or not, it can help with alot of little "intangables" of character creation and open up options that a simple "STATS, GEAR, GO" build style could over look.
Some players actually have gone all out in the concepts and backstory, giving me multiple page write ups and detailed histories about what their characters did, where and how they grew up, educational options when they were younger, past lovers... the whole nine yards! (They make for excellent reading!)
As a GM the concept and backstory serves a couple of little points I didn't mention. First, it gives you an insight into exactly what type of game your players are going to be expecting from you (trenchcoat, Pink Mohawk, Gun and Run, etc) so you can use them to tailor your runs to help suit your player expectations. The other thing that the backstories do is help players come up with contacts, or people that they could turn into contacts. For example, Mike's character is an ex-military commando, and the run requires some explosives... sadly the team has flubbed their fixer roles and can't get anything from their usual source in time for the mission. As a GM, you could mention to Mike "Hey Mike, you character is an ex-Commando, and you mentioned you still had a buddies in the service in your write up, want to see if you can get a hold of them and see if you can work out a deal?" Of course, this person doesn't become a contact per say rigth off the bat, but if mike works at it, then sure. Also you could plant the seeds for an upcomming adventure as Mike's Commando buddy comes calling with a favor for the explovies he aquired for the team....
The idea of the concept and backstory first is to act as a guide for the player his building his character and as a tool for me to come up with more involved plots, storylines as well as a general feel for the level of involvement (and future potential for player/GM Agro/hassell/whine) I can expect from the player(s). Since I introduced these guidelines to character creation, it is amazing how many "problem players" I have been able to spot and correct BEFORE a problem grinded a group to a halt. that's not to say that the player who gives me a 3 sentence write up is going to be a problem (some of them are FANTASTIC players!) but it is usually a sign that I am going to have to work a little harder as a GM to break them into the "Scene" of the game and get their creativity and imagination flowing. And lets face it, one of the greatest things about RPG is the creative and imaginative forces that go along with RPGs.
Lurkeroutthere said:
"No, it's really not. You can't argue for player agency and players being the center of the story later and then insist that the GM should control the character makes. Sure some veto power should be used, but it should be used sparingly. Got a guy wanting to play a ghoul in a Docwagon campaign? You gotta give him the bad news. But otherwise making sure the team rounds out the bases isn't your problem, sure you can suggest they might have a shrotfall but otherwise your forcing folks to play things they don't want. Likewise it's not my job to make sure that because someone's playing an elf someone else doesn't take Prejudiced: Elves."
I think I may have given you a false Idea. I apologise. by GM involvement in the character creation process you can avoid alot of things that eventually grind a group to a halt through player on player animosity. As well as help a player avoid a "broken" character right out of the gates. Its not a case of me/you standing there say "no, no, no, no, NO!!!" but more of a case of saying "Hey that's cool, but you might want to consider "X" skills as well for they help your concept out as well." or "Hey you know those to pieces of cyberware/bioware are incompatable right? a better choice would be.... "
Lets face it, some of us are not good at making characters, some of us are good at making characters... and of us are REALLY good at making characters... and some can only make UBER characters. Have you seen what happens when you get a group of players together, 3 of them are not good character creators and 1 can only make UBER characers? It isn't pretty; it only takes a few games sessions before there is a lot of player resentment running around the table, disrupting the game. By taking a direct hand in the creation of a character with your players, you can help those that make crappy characters, make better ones. And as for the UBER character creator, you may be able to get him to tone his build down a little to fit into the group better (but not always).
Now that said, there is the "fluff" side of the game. meaning the ol' "I hate Orks/elves/dwarfs" or the "I smoke everything that burns!" or other player made fluff to be creative. I could usually care less about most of this stuff... until it starts dirsrupting the game (and sometimes it can/has) by being involved in the creation of the character, you can see it coming before it lands on your doorstep in the middle of play (so you'll be ready for it). In fact, I encourage some of these things as it gives me an avenue (again) for good story telling! Nothing gets a player's interest more then when his coke-head whormongering character is offered a job as a guard on a shipment of Nova-coke to the local Bunraku parlour (heck, a properly played Addict might forgo cash for a share of the coke and a few hours credit at the parlour... to the fury of the rest of the team!!)
But it also lets you keep an eye out for "Mr.Disruptive" Player. You know the ones I am talking about.... He's the guy in D&D who HAS to play the evil thief who pick pockets from the team, steals party treasure and then gets all whiny and launches into a tirade when the lawful good paladin catches him and smites his ass all the way to the grave. I am sure we have all seen this type of player at one time or an other (and if you havn't.... you have been blessed!) These players seem to get their enjoyment solely out of creating player animosity, and then act mortally wounded when the rest of the party turns on them. A shadowrun annalogy would be the player who KNOWS the rest of the team is playing elves (per your example) and then Deliberately makes a character that spends his free time stomping elf newborns into the pavement.... Can you honestly see any type of group/player cohieson here? Better to nip it in the bud before it happens then spend your time trying to get this team to work together.
Note I said PLAYER animosity... Character animosity is in the realm of the players.... I could care less if two characters spend the entire night screaming profanities at each other while in the middle of a fight fire... as long as the PLAYERS are having a great time! It's the players enjoyment (as well as my own) that I care about. As long as the PLAYERS can keep that "level of distance" between themselves and their characters, and still have FUN as a group, I am open to sorts of character posibilities.
I will admit, that sometimes (and I stress SOMETIMES) you will encounter a player that can pull off this "Mr. Asshat" character in a group and make it a rewarding, enjoyable experience for all. But that is a rare thing, and unless I know that that player is capable of it (and the other players are capable of it) I would rather have advanced warnig of it through interactive character creation then have the players make their characters at home, show up and drop the mess on my doorstep to clean up.
It is my belief that by being active in the character creation with your players you can help the game as a whole. By working with your players, you can overcome short comings in their creation, you can head off future problem players/characters, and you can start to see exactly what type of runs you should be offereing to the group to keep things fun, rewarding and challenging to the team as a whole. By being involved you open up yourself to the posibilities your players are creating for you step by step by step. By being involved you are also helping to enhance all your players enjoyment of the game, as opposed to the 1 or 2 who "know" how to make a character. By being involved, you open your eyes to the potentials of player animosity can guage what exactly you are going to have to do to run an enjoyable game for all. By being involved, you are opening yourself up to a host of potental runs/missions that the players themselves hand to you in their character concepts and backstories. Your players are an other tool you have on hand to create adventure and fun for the entire group; use them as the resource that they are!!
