"What" you are versus "who" you are.

[Cergorach]

One of my most memorable characters was the result of starting at 'what' instead of 'who'. I started DMing in the campaign and then someone wanted to replace me, so i had to fill that persons role (a wizard), eventually someone else wanted to DM and i multiclassed into a rogue because we were missing that (eventually going into the wizard/rogue prestige class). I started with a very shallow character (personality) end ended up with something very unique...

To be honest, i think D&D is less about the initial background a character has and more about how it develops during play...

 

[shilsen]

"Wait a minute", I'd say, "you're going about this all wrong. Think about *who* you want to make first, and then figure out which class best represents that. Not the other way around."

Am I just a grognard, or have others encountered this phenomenon?

You're going about it all wrong. You shouldn't consider yourself a grognard. First consider what kind of person you are and then figure out whether the grognard class best represents that.

Or just let players make characters how they prefer and don't tell them that their method is all wrong and yours is right.

 

[Hussar]

I was flipping through some WoTC books today, filled with the requisite prestige classes, feats, and all the other crunchy bits we've come to expect from those books.

And it struck me - the game has become more about "What" the PC is, versus "Who" the PC is. I had to beat this into the head of a former player of mine. When it came time to make a character, he'd instantly blurt out things like "ooh, I want to make a Warlock", or "I've got it! A whispergnome scout!" or "Can I play a stone child?"

"Wait a minute", I'd say, "you're going about this all wrong. Think about *who* you want to make first, and then figure out which class best represents that. Not the other way around."

Am I just a grognard, or have others encountered this phenomenon?

Umm, dude, back in the day, my characters were George, George the Second, George the Third etc. Role play? What was that? Role Play was what I learned to do after about ten or fifteen years of killing stuff and taking their treasure. Then, after getting rather tired of amateur thespianism, I went back to killing stuff and taking their treasure.

It's a heck of a lot more fun.

 

[Barak]

Id on't even like knowing all of my character's personality before the first session. I have a general idea, sure. But I don't like it being overly detailed. Then during the first 3-4 sessions, it develops naturally, and voila.

That way avoids a lot of inter-PC conflicts, too. Not all of them, and some is fun, but too much is no good.

 

[Tsillanabor]

I've had great characters come from brainstorming a strange concept (hmmm-I think I'll play an insane psionicist who believes his powers are the result of him being the last member of an ancient race of powerful beings) and I've also been inspired by entertaining rulesets (hmmm-I think I'll play an Al-Qadim merchant-thief and make him a fat, greedy, manipulative, yet still loveable and charismatic guy). Either way works.

 

[pawsplay]

In my opinion, the interesting things are what happen after you start play. I could give a rat's ass about your PC's richly detailed family history and life story, because most of it is not going to come up. And in games like Vampires? Make that double. It's incredibly frustrating as a GM or a player to deal with players whose best stories are all behind them and whose dangling threads dominate the story, to the extent there is hardly any dynamism in the game.

 

[Crothian]

In my opinion, the interesting things are what happen after you start play. I could give a rat's ass about your PC's richly detailed family history and life story, because most of it is not going to come up.

What though for DMs who do have the stuff come up? It doesn't have to be ignored.

 

[pawsplay]

Just because a character's family history comes up doesn't mean five pages of backstory are justified. If you involve a character's sister, what happens during the game with her is much more important than whether she once urged the PC not to marry someone who ended up becoming an evil warlord and was then killed by the PC.

Sure, the evil warlord ex-girlfriend could come back as a death knight or something, but you're not going to do this for each and every background detail included.

There is a line between hooks and trivia. While you can elaborate as much as possible, if the charater's life so far, in summary, can't be comfortably encapsulated in a paragraph, then something has gone wrong.

 

[Crothian]

Sure, the evil warlord ex-girlfriend could come back as a death knight or something, but you're not going to do this for each and every background detail included.

As long as there are only a few background hooks for each PC and the campaign lasts long enough to use them, I will. Plkayers can go overboard with backgrounds but I never found a reason to tell a player he can't have 5 pages of background if he wants to.

 

[pawsplay]

I have. The more there is, the more I have to look it over and ensure it's acceptable. The more detail there is, the higher the likilhood I have to say, "Wait a minute, this is not really going to work."

Just as an example, years ago I went round and round with a player about his "ninja killer" from Tibet in a Torg game. I just couldn't see killing ninjas in Tibet as a full time occupation. I didn't have any basic problem, however, with his "badass martial artist" character class. It was the "who" that was problematic.