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

[demiurge1138]

I don't think you can make a value judgement of one type of character design over the other. And telling your players that they're doing it all wrong seems to me to be potentially dangerous to your game's health.

Demiurge out.

 

[Driddle]

I don't think one method is inherently superior to the other.

No, you're wrong. One is definitely better than the other.

 

[argo]

And it struck me - the game has become more about "What" the PC is, versus "Who" the PC is.

As opposed to back in the day when "Elf" was a class? :\

I will also vote that neither method is superior. Personally I tend more towards the "What" metod. The first thing I usually do when making a character is imagine a cool visual, an image of him doing something that gets me excited to be that person. Then I work on the mechanics.

The character's name is usually the last thing I come up with.

 

[Barak]

Gah I hate coming up with character names. Of course, it means that when I DM, the problem is multiplied a hundredfold. And yeah, I know about name generators and whatnot, but it still annoys me to have to name everybody, and then remember their names. Probably related to the fact that I'm really bad at remembering people's name IRL to begin with, so...

 

[Squire James]

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.

I agree. The character's background should be LESS interesting than his adventures! When their grandkids ask them about their adventures, Grandpa Retired PC* should be talking about what they did, not what they wrote down...

* OK, pretend that PC's actually retire for purposes of this discussion. Most of them seem to start out at 16 and rise to their terminal level by age 18, and then abandoned for other characters.

 

[LostSoul]

What your character is really matters in D&D. If you're a Fighter or a Wizard or whatever, there's a big mechanical difference in the kind of things that you are going to be doing while you play.

What you are will always be important in defining how you are going to play.

Who you are... can be as important (in the sense of what you do while you are playing), but that depends on how much importance your group puts into that sort of thing.

Who you are may or may not be important, depending on your group's style.

 

[Marchen]

In a game designed like D&D, what you are is just as important as who you are when you look at the game mechanics as a whole. Of course a player should try to develop and role-play there character to the best of their ability, but having a good idea of what you want your character to be able to do is essential as well.

 

[Aus_Snow]

Just because a character's family history comes up doesn't mean five pages of backstory are justified.

Justified? Muh? Yeah. Sure. Because after all, creating a fully fleshed out, living, breathing character who actually existed prior to play could of course be seen as a criminal act. Therefore, justification should naturally be attempted, just in case.

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.

Uh-huh. Obviously. Terribly wrong. "OMG!" "This character came from somewhere and did things in the early parts of their life, just like a. . . a. . . living being would! Nooooooooooo!"


Eh, don't mind me. I just found it funny, is all.

 

[Glyfair]

Justified? Muh? Yeah. Sure. Because after all, creating a fully fleshed out, living, breathing character who actually existed prior to play could of course be seen as a criminal act. Therefore, justification should naturally be attempted, just in case.

Justified or unjustified, a lengthy background for a character can be distracting for a GM when using a background. Each GM is different in how much backstory they are likely to use for a character (with lots that ignore the entire thing and leave it up to the player). A bit more than that is probably to be recommended, because that gives more for the GM to ignore (there are always bits that a DM isn't interested in developing).

However, if a DM is likely to use a few paragraphs and you give him ten pages of backstory, you are possibly giving him so much he'll ignore it all. Ultimately, that's less satisfying for you.

I find it to be a style difference. Personally, I prefer to come to a game with a page or so of backstory. Everything else I find to be unwieldy to the game, with comments similiar to what some have said here (having a backstory that's more detailed than the first 4 sessions seems to devalue to play experience in favor of writing stories about your character).

 

[Umbran]

I think it is a false dichotomy. The character becomes what they are because of who they are. They have aptitudes, and have made choices. So, the two are not really separable.