I thought I would share a quick story about my brother's rpg'ing group. My brother, who only recently got interested in rpg's (specifically DnD), plays typical Illusionist Sim/Gam-stuff. His group has recently started a series of adventures that each focus on individual PC's, with the intent of establishing the background of the PC's. I'm not sure if these are flashbacks, or if they are just adventures that focus of on the discovery of the PC's background.

Anyway, here's the interesting part. Each player tells the GM the general outline of the PC's background, but then leaves it up to the GM to fill in the details. It amazes me that the players will openly trust their GM to essentially create their character's background. I think they do it just because they don't realize there's any other way.

I've been the GM in that position a few times, either with active collaboration from a player, or in lieu of their input. There's nothing necessarily wrong with it, and as a player I think I'd likely enjoy things tossed into the background by a GM. That sort of trust is healthy, isn't it? I mean, the player is still free to play his character any way he desires, and anything he specifically wants (or doesn't want) in his background he can set up... so what's wrong with the GM filling in details?

I think it depends on context. Are the players and GM working in this arrangement cooperativly? I think that could be very functional and add alot of suprise and interest to the story line. Conversly if they are doing this because they feel, "thats the way RPG's are done" than I predict disfunction in their future. I guess what I am saying is that it comes down to the social contract. If this method is accepted in their social contract, explicitly and willingly, than I think it could work. Do you know if this happens to be the case? It would be interesting to see this style of social contract evolve, I assume naturally, because your brother is new to RPGs.

I'm just going to echo good Mr. Cherry's sentiments here; it sounds like they're having a lot of fun.

Hi there,

Trust goes both ways, right? Essentially, this is merely another technique, out of hundreds, that works well if (a) it's aligned with a shared or least with compatible Creative Agenda and (b) that Agenda expresses a functional Social Contract.

Best,
Ron

Hmmm.... I've done this and have found it to work well, although I wouldn't use it in any game. The last game I ran was situation-driven Dark Ages Werewolf, and all three of the players were totally new to Werewolf. So I wrote them emails roughly explaining the situation and some basic stuff from werewolf and had them email me back with character descriptions. But then I had to shape their characters to make sure that they (1) fit with the pre-planned situation and (2) made sense in the broader world of Werewolf. If this works well, the end result is a character that the player wants to play AND that the gm wants to have in his game. Also, I knew that two out of three of the players were very uninterested in the "crunchy" (system) aspects of the game, so I made character sheets for everyone, translating their prose descriptions into numbers with in-game meaning.

I still think that for this particular game, this was a good way to go because the situation and setting were already fixed. Now that I've been exposed to a lot of new (for me) ideas at the Forge, I would want to empower my players more. But in order to empower them in character creation, I think it would be important to also empower them in terms of situation, since it is important for the character to fit the situation. Incidentally, I think "kickers" from Sorcerer is a great way to do this, and I plan on using this technique this for my next game, even if it isn't a Sorcerer game.

I could probably get into this technique myself. As a player, I've always preferred random character generation because the dice inevitably throw curveballs that don't jive with my original character concept. As I incorporate those curveballs, that concept goes from a 2-D stick figure to a 3-D personality, and I always like the final product better. Having a GM dictate elements would give much the same effect, and it would have the added benefit that those details would probably fit into the GM's plans instead of being random.

When I'm a GM, I almost always give players some mandates as far as characters go, though usually I provide give players a lot of room to do their own development as long as they can meet whatever specific conditions I put down for them.

Now, the players may be accepting this just because they don't know of any other way... but I would say that this is still better than the usual D&D method where six totally unrelated and incompatible PCs (generated at home with little or no input from others) meet each other in a bar fight and instantly agree to seek adventure together.

timfire, I have a question for you, in response to this line:

It amazes me that the players will openly trust their GM to essentially create their character's background.

I'll just pipe into say that this sort of thing can be really fun.

I've had players before that didn't want to get intop detailed background, and really liked it when I made suggestions in play. I've never forced the issue too much--usually more of a "how would you like it if..." thing.

In a side note, another similar technique: create a normal human for a superhero game and then have the GM make powers for him that are introduced during play as the character learns about them. I can attest to this technique resulting in big fun in the right circumstances.

Hello,

I'd like to point out that "who creates the PC" is an entirely separate issue from "decision-making power over PC's actions."

In other words, fully player-created characters are compatible with high-Force play, and GM-created characters are compatible with no-Force play. This may be hard for people to grasp if they are thinking too generally about overly-abstract issues such as "player freedom."

To break it out into digestible chunks:

1. "Fly Be Free!" - players make up PCs, GM exerts no Force (common in Gamist play especially)

2. "My Story, Your Color" - players make up PCs, GM exerts Force (all good only if the Social Contract and Creative Agenda permit it; ratehr vulnerable to specific CA conflicts)

3. "Surprise Me" - GM makes up PCs, exerts no Force

4. "Move My Miniatures" - GM makes up PCs, exerts Force (the only really problematic option, but viable in demo circumstances, e.g.)

Best,
Ron

Speaking only for myself, I could never do this, as a player. I much prefer to carefully hand-craft my characters on my own, to make them conform to my vision. Having gotten that tidbit of dubious usefullness off my chest, off the top of my head I can see at least two situations where this approach would be very useful for some play-groups.

Sometimes, the game setting has a rich, full background that takes some time and effort to become familiar with. If the game is just starting out, players will likely not have that familiarity, and so lack the context in which to construct their character's backgrounds. And some players never gain this familiarity, not being really interested in that aspect of them game. In such cases, the player could just farm out the work to the GM, which strikes me as a perfectly reasonable solution.

Then there are players who lack the aptitude, inclination, etc, to create their own backgrounds. Perhaps they've tried and are dissatisfied with the results. If they want a character with a detailed background, again, they could just farm this out to the GM.

Some of my most sucessful gaming has been done in some degree of GM creating background.

Once, I said that three players where 3 brothers born into a crime syndicate family. That their last name was Avery. I told them to work it among themselves who was oldest, middle and youngest son. I let them create any character they wanted, with some suggestions that this was "a fantasy city and adventures oriented around that".

So while I put up the limitation of "you gotta be brothers"... I left the personalities and skills and interests totally up to the players. What I got was great characters from the players who squabbled like brothers and yet could instantly snap to each other's defense vs. outside incursion.

But generally, I like to negotiate with a player. I want them to "plug" into the game quickly, to feel like that they are part of the workings and can affect things around them. So while I might suggest the direction of where I think the story *might* go (I never assume it will go that way), I try to give a lot of room to work within the confines of the game.

And once the game started, my hands are off the PC, it is THEIR character to do what they want with.

As a GM I wouldn't want to create background for PCs - not my style. Players keep startling me with their choices, but as far as I'm concerned that's all good. Although I will make suggestions when a player requests it. This happens with newbies all the time (maybe your brother's case?) and it can be a brilliant thing unless the GM abuses it. Similar with experienced players joining a new campaign. IME background enquiries from veteran 'new' players are generally a good sign, it shows they are trying to pick up the flavour and mood of the game and group.

As a player, I'd let a GM create parts of my PC's background subject to two conditions:
- The same is done for every PC, not just mine; and
- I trust the GM with this, or else see an easy way to bow out of the game quickly if things don't work out.
I'm currently playing in two games (Conan and DnD) with one GM I'd trust more or less blind on this. (Yup, I'd run with a sudden change in social contract because we've established a base of trust.) I can think of others I've played with, whom I wouldn't trust further than I could throw their dining-table-plus-chairs. :)

I'm not sure if I've ever actually posted before, and I know I haven't to the Play Forum. So Hi.

I've seen several variations of this phenomenon. Myself, I generally have trouble coming up with character concepts, so I create a random character, then try to come up with as much background as possible from the stats. As I play and begin to get the "feel" of the character and setting more (or, as I call it, "hear the character voice"), I add more details. If the GM throws in details for me, great. Especially if they tie me into the storyline. I can adapt. I think of myself as storyline fodder. I will sacrifice nearly anything for emersion in the story.

This happened very recently with an Exalted game that I came in on the second session of. I made a character, with a very loose idea of a past. Former slave, dancer, and prize fighter. Obviously, those who owned her were high-class. But at some point, she got away. I didn't have enough time to flesh anything out, as the other players were eager to start playing. So we started, and the GM made up my character's previous master, who bought her when she was 12 and set her free... and now, ten years later, needs her to return the favor by breaking him out of jail, where he waits to be eaten by zombies. Instantly, I have the circumstances and time of my release, as well as my age. It works. I adapt the concept to that, building off it to decide that she's spent those ten years doing street performances and helping other slaves become free.

In a different gaming group I'm with, some players have complete freedom with character creation and background (the more experienced ones), some often need help to the point of making a character for them with their input, and one person often has his character made for him without his input. The last is because he can be trusted to make the same kind of character every time, and that character doesn't generally jive with any of the games we play. He gets slightly annoyed at it, but understands why, and enjoys the challenge of playing something that someone else envisioned.

I think trust is a very important issue, and that if you can't trust the GM to run the game (and possibly character creation and background), then you shouldn't be playing with that GM, because the game will be too filled with distrust for anyone to enjoy it. Sometimes, I wish I could just tell people to shut up when they start telling me that certain aspects of the setting aren't being run the way they are in the book. I don't care. I trust the GM to narrate the setting. The GM trusts me to react the way my character would.

And the feeling of ultimate trust being placed on you as a GM can cause an immense feeling of pride and love for the friends that trust you with so much. I once tried to start a Little Fears game. Like so much I do, it died. But the players liked it a lot, and were willing to keep trying. It was me that ruined it. But I recently found out that, even from just the first session, it left one of the players crying and shaking on the couch after I left. She'd had a bad childhood. Playing a child opened old wounds. But she chose not to tell me, and was willing to continue playing. When I finally found out, I was deeply saddened that I had hurt her in that way... and touched that she would leave herself vulnerable to it again, as long as it was at my hand.

So... I guess what I'm trying to say is, at least for me, trust is everything in gaming. If you don't have trust, you have nothing.

I see nothing strange with this setup. In fact, a more extreme version of this -- totally pre-rolled characters -- can be found at conventions. Since 'con games have an inherent time limit, this helps tremendously as it cuts down the "prep" time and leaves room for the "action" part. There had been no character generation at all around the game table at any of the conventions I attended; the GM arrived with the scenario and the characters prepared in advance. I believe that everyone around here had come to expect that this be the case, and I also believe that many would complain were it otherwise. Why shouldn't it work for a non-'con game?

MarK.

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.

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