GM's creating PC backgrounds...

[timfire]

A few things. First, I didn't really communicate this in the first post, but the GM was adding details that had the potential to change the character concept. For example, one of the players was playing an elf some-or-other, and the GM added that one of their parents was a celectrial (ie, they were half-celestrial). My brother didn't communicate how the player took this, but that's something that can change the character concept.

This made it seem that there wasn't much communication going on between the players and the GM.

Also, I believe they had been playing the characters a little bit before they started these "background" adventures, so these adventures weren't inherently part of the character creation process, but they were something tacted onto the characters at a later point.

Though I can see it working out if the players were properly communicating their expectations to the GM, the idea still makes me nervous, especially since these were already established characters. It might be fun, but I can also see it being going sour pretty easily. Like I said in the first post, I think they did this because they thought they had to, not because they were choosing to play that way.

[Ron Edwards]

Hello,

Tim, this thread demonstrates why actual play posts really need to be about actual play ... what's ended up happening is kind of a poll, resulting in (a) some kneejerk responses, (b) some relatively theoretical responses, and (c) some good play-based responses which aren't connected to one another.

Can you describe how well the technique is working for the group? Have you observed them playing? Do you know the system well enough to evaluate whether they're playing it, or whether they're adapting it at the table?

Without a solid sense of those issues, getting anywhere coherent is going to be difficult in this thread, and the topic might be better suited to a focused and comparative inquiry in RPG Theory.

Best,
Ron