Character prologues - Going beyond backgrounds

[Halivar]

I have an upcoming campaign for 5 that I'm currently planning, and something I have been very keen on is enhancing player ownership of characters. I tend to run on the method actor side of things, and I'll admit a certain bias towards my own play style. One of the problems I have in games I run is that players aren't as attached to their characters as I feel they could be, and will often switch out characters when they get bored with them.

So, I came up with a plan that (I hope) will give their respective characters a compelling raison d'etre, and give them to desire to see their characters fulfill it.

The first 5 weeks of the campaign, we'll be doing character prologue sessions, one session for each player. Everyone sits down with the campaign world write-up, picks out their race/class/background and stuff, and then fills out a quick questionarre about how they became a hero (specifically, the first 5 steps of "the hero's journey"). Then we draw straws, and the lucky winner goes first.

For each session, the character in focus plays a "level 0" version of their character, either in childhood, or at the very threshold of adulthood, but definitely not "heroic" yet. The session covers the epochal event that drives that character onto their personal hero's journey. The other players at the table will portray characters important to this event, whether they be mentors, family members, servants, or childhood friends. These ancillary characters will be described in handouts (with stat blocks for combat), with a description, personality, and disposition to the main character. Other than that, the player fleshes out the character and plays them as they wish. Each ancillary character has a couple (two or three at the most) scripted responses to important events, such as characters that die, betray the main character, or perform some important sacrifice for the main character.

Hopefully, each session should end with players having compelling reasons to see their characters through to the end ("So the next time we meet, I will not fail. I will go up to the six-fingered man and say, 'Hello. My name is Inigo Montoya. You killed my father. Prepare to die.'"). Especially so, since I will be weaving these back stories into the campaign threads. Also, there is the possibility that background characters could even accompany the PC on their adventures, if that is the logical conclusion of the character prologue.

NOW... my concerns. I'm afraid that by handing out ancillary character write-ups I will be overbearing in my GM duties, and perhaps a little railroad-ish. On the other hand, everyone gets their chance to shine. On the other-other hand, that doesn't change the fact that each person spends 4 weeks being an ancillary character.

What do you guys think?

 

[The Shaman]

What do you guys think?

I'd rather shoot myself in the face with a jackhammer.

Nothing about this sounds appealing to me.

But I'm not one of your players, or potential players, so you should probably be asking them what they think.

 

[Kzach]

What do you guys think?

Unless all your players are SUPER enthusiastic about this concept and are all on the EXACT same wave-length as you then don't do this.

I say this from experience. I've been in dozens of groups where I've either tried something similar myself as the DM or been subject to it from another DM, and it universally never works. In fact, it's never even worked in the few groups I've had that were stable and where everyone was friends and knew each other well.

The best way to get players to love their characters is to engage them through play at the table. If they enjoy playing their characters and can do a lot of cool stuff that they'll remember and associate with that character, then they won't get bored of it. In fact, it's a good indicator of how the game is fairing and how well you're doing as a DM. If the players don't want to dump their characters or they get the party to resurrect them instead of using it as an opportunity to roll up something new then you know you've succeeded in running a great game.

 

[Bullgrit]

What do you guys think?

Kzach says it well:

Unless all your players are SUPER enthusiastic about this concept and are all on the EXACT same wave-length as you then don't do this.

Personally, my initial reaction is like The Shaman's.

As a DM and a Player, written character backstory means little or nothing to me. I like to consider the first game session, or the first adventure, as the "prologue" to a campaign. Have a short first adventure, (that can be completed in 1-3 game sessions), for the group as a team, with some clue at the end to more and greater stuff. The greater stuff can be a bigger campaign plot, a bigger bad guy, more treasure, more discovery, etc.

Sort of like Lareth the Beautiful at the end of the Moathouse dungeon, which should lead the PCs on to the greater Temple of Elemental Evil adventure.

I've had DMs run short, individual, introductory game sessions, and they have always felt flat. (Felt, not fell.)

One of the problems I have in games I run is that players aren't as attached to their characters as I feel they could be, and will often switch out characters when they get bored with them.

Be careful, here. Are you sure this idea is "aren't as attached to their characters as I feel they *could* be," or is it, "aren't as attached to their characters as I feel they *should* be"?

Bullgrit

 

[Umbran]

I have seen prologues done well, but only as one-on-one with each player, as opposed to your suggested full-group approach.

 

[Halivar]

Hrmmm... I'm glad I asked. I suppose there will be no need for jackhammers, after all.

 

[Sammael]

One session with this approach might work. But, then again, I've rarely encountered players who care much (or at all) about their characters' backgrounds - which is perfectly fine, since it leaves the door open for the DM to incorporate into the campaign at a later date.

Five sessions of this sort of stuff at the beginning of the campaign is going to be a campaign killer.

If I were your player, I'd much rather jump into the campaign right away.

Perhaps occasional flashbacks (once every 5-6 sessions) that deal with the background stuff when thematically appropriate would work better?

 

[howandwhy99]

Be careful, here. Are you sure this idea is "aren't as attached to their characters as I feel they *could* be," or is it, "aren't as attached to their characters as I feel they *should* be"?

Bullgrit

I gotta agree with this.

Prologues can be fun, but you might want to try doing them individually as solo play. The hard part is getting them to all end together at the same place or towards the same objective. You could start the actual campaign later than the prologues, making them a kind of played history moment. That way you fast forward to a time and place the PCs begin together.

I must say though, my preferred method is group PC creation though. It allows players who want to have shared histories to create them together. This build bonds between PCs and players and allows for the group to begin learning how to work together. It also continues to allow individual and partial or whole character creation for players. They have almost total control over what they did before they started adventuring.

Whatever the case, having some PC definition prior to play will help to bond the players to their characters.

Lastly, it sounds like you very much prefer an actors group of role players. One where all the focus is on characterization rather than strategy or something else. That's cool, but the easiest route to this is simply seek others with similar interests. Be vocal and hopefully you can put together such a group. You might want to look at other games that focus on your preferred POV too.

 

[Vyvyan Basterd]

I've had a prologue 'session' work well once. It was PbP so how many sessions is harder for me to tell. The first problem I see is that you are asking four players to not play their character each week. I wouldn't want to sit through someone else's solo play and would leave to do something more enjoyable. It would frustrate me though, because even with leaving I'd miss a whole month of play. The group needs to play together whether the session is prologue or not, IMO.

Edit: The players who aren't attached to their characters enough for your tastes will probably be no more attached after a prologue session or five. They have a different style of play than you do.

 

[(Psi)SeveredHead]

I've only seen it work in FATE: the prologues are short, still heroic, establish how the PCs met each other (you meet one or two other PCs per prologue) and determine some aspects (sort of like feats; it has an in-game effect).

Most people aren't authors, can't write well, and hate it when others "mark" their work (which is bound to happen; some of your players wouldn't put much effort into this).