Skills - maybe this game isn't what I'm looking for

[RedMattis]

Originally Posted by Stormcrow

All right, let's separate backstory from personality, appearance, and goals. Because we're talking about backstory here. Let's also extract anything costing character points, my guesses based on how strong the trait seems to be described.

PERSONALITY
Luke: cold, calculating, ruthless, cutthroat-seeming.
Kim: Doesn't care about people outside her "clan," eager, excitable.
Anastasia: Dashing, charismatic, rapier wit.

APPEARANCE
Luke: ?
Kim: ?
Anastasia: Elegantly-dressed.

GOAL
Luke: Steal and kill to get rid of "rotten" people.
Kim: Make elaborate heist plans, prove her skills.
Anastasia: Keep wealth, but give some to children or handsome men.

CHARACTER POINTS
Luke: Sadism.
Kim: Sense of Duty (her "clan").
Anastasia: Rapier skill.

BACKSTORY
Luke: thief from pirate-infested docks district, life has been miserable.
Kim: thief forced to leave the thief's guild of her hometown.
Anastasia: thief and scam-artist, used to steal from the upper class.

Are these interesting characters? Sure. Are their backgrounds unique? "Miserable thief from the docks," "thief forced from guild," "thief and scam-artist of the upper class." They're not very different. Mostly, the difference is their Social Class.



But no one is suggesting that. We're talking about backstories, not keeping personality out of characters. And even then, we're not talking about having no backstory information at all, just not producing any more of it than would usefully inform the adventuring choices of the character, because the stated point of the hypothetical game in question is to focus attention on the adventure itself, not the past lives of the characters.

I think you're taking this far beyond adaman14's intention.

I've never seen a backstory which split the character's personality from the rest backstory. The story is supposed to tell us about the character after all. Yes, a one-paragraph backstory is going to end up 70% personality. A longer one would have added more actual background by answering the "why"-questions.

My examples were, as I said initially, an example of an extremely minimalist background, which, as you noted, is really more of a character summary; but only because that is what you get when you summarize a character and their backstory.

I really dispute that the biggest difference is their social class. For example, it is implied Luke acts like a complete psychopath, that's pretty much the polar opposite of a Anastasia manners by just that trait alone, and very unlike the other two as well. I could go on, but I really don't think these characters have terribly much in common aside from all being thieves. Heck most of them would probably mutually hate each other. (Aside from Anatasia who would probably be able to work with Kim and Kat.)

Kim is a scheming team-player. Kat is a reckless thrill-seeker. etc. etc.

[Rupert]

Originally Posted by adaman14

...and one must know the DX of the horse and the training of the animal...

I don't think you do unless the rider's skill is notably low and their chances of success are of great interest. It's a trained mount, so it gives +1 to just about all skilled riders. Most of the time that's all one needs to know.

If the game involves lots of horse riding in high stakes situations, you'll need to know more, but at that point you should probably want to know more, just as you need/want to know more about your character's car when they're racing it than if they're just using it to get to and from their job in a nice safe city each day.

[Rupert]

Originally Posted by maximara

Actually it was only Easy to Hard mental skills that were cheaper. Except for the 1/2 point option the cost all DX skills and the Very Hard Mental skills cost the exact same in classic as in 4e. This makes conversion somewhat easier as you only have to worry about IQ skills and 1/2 points.

You forget that physical skills in 3e capped out at 8/level, making them more expensive than they are now (and vastly more expensive than 3e's easy - hard mental skills).

[Rupert]

Originally Posted by Kromm

I experience a profound disconnect when I hear "war stories" or read blogs about others' campaigns, and they're on about how it's crucial to resolve each session in full and get all the PCs back to their home base or other "safe space" by the end just in case not all the players can show up next time. In 42 years of gaming, it has always been the case – with no exceptions – that scenes, acts, adventures, and arcs could span multiple game sessions, and that even long combats could pause in bullet time between sessions. And if a player who was involved last time can't show up this time, their PC just goes on autopilot, controlled by player vote.

When that happens, it's never, ever the case that the players say, "Well, let's look at their backstory and see what they would do." It's without exception the case that they say, "Well, let's look at how so-and-so has been playing them lately and continue down that path." It's about ensuring that the PC continues the same path toward some targeted future, not about ensuring that the PC follows some trajectory established prior to the start of the campaign.

That's how it's always worked in my experience too. "What would K do?" is answered by considering their behaviour in the last session, then the last time they were in a similar situation, then their general behaviour in-game, and if these shed no light, by checking their character sheet for relevant character traits.

In the last session I ran, player M had no character 'on stage' and player K was unavailable, so player M ran K's character (with input from the rest of the table).

Also, for many of the PCs their pre-campaign backstory is worthless for determining behaviour in-game because they've been in play for years of weekly sessions, and are quite different from the character described on their original sheets.

I think the issue I have is that "I have tons of plans in the present, and serious goals for my PC's future" isn't perforce mindless merely because those plans and goals don't stem from some point in time prior to the campaign start. My experience is that most players develop those plans and goals in play, as they see what the other players are doing, what the GM is throwing in the group's path, and even as they watch movies and read comics exterior to the campaign and decide, "Huh, cool . . . I'm going to try that!" Such gaming can be extremely cerebral and well-planned; it just establishes a different starting point for the "interesting" part of the characters' arcs. The players are mindful of what's going on and doing a lot of very thoughtful analysis about where that's leading.

As a player I've found that if I'm required to come up with a detailed backstory for my character there's a very good chance I'll never be comfortable playing them. Assigning disads during chargen is about as much as I'm comfortable with doing before I play them, and even then I'm keen on the idea that you can change round character traits during the first few sessions if they turn out to just not suit the character.

[Stormcrow]

Originally Posted by RedMattis

I've never seen a backstory which split the character's personality from the rest backstory.

Okay, you're just taking what I say out of context and attacking straw men now. I'm out.

[lordabdul]

Originally Posted by Kromm

I experience a profound disconnect when I hear "war stories" or read blogs about others' campaigns, and they're on about how it's crucial to resolve each session in full and get all the PCs back to their home base or other "safe space" by the end just in case not all the players can show up next time. In 42 years of gaming, it has always been the case – with no exceptions – that scenes, acts, adventures, and arcs could span multiple game sessions, and that even long combats could pause in bullet time between sessions. And if a player who was involved last time can't show up this time, their PC just goes on autopilot, controlled by player vote.

When that happens, it's never, ever the case that the players say, "Well, let's look at their backstory and see what they would do." It's without exception the case that they say, "Well, let's look at how so-and-so has been playing them lately and continue down that path." It's about ensuring that the PC continues the same path toward some targeted future, not about ensuring that the PC follows some trajectory established prior to the start of the campaign.

FWIW: exactly the same here.

[AlexanderHowl]

I am confused why Kim and Anastasia do not kill Luke, take his stuff, and leave his corpse for the vultures. The issue is that they are one dimensional characters, so there is no reason why the two women would not kill off the man and split everything. By the way, Luke sounds like a Power/Control Serial Killer, so he is likely to be a very bad person who will turn on the women as soon as they anger him.

Now, if Luke possessed Appearance (Handsome), Charisma, and/or Voice, then it might make sense for the women to not kill him off because his reaction bonus from his advantages would offset the reaction penalty from Sadism, at least until he turns against them. The charming murderer is an established trope, and it occasionally shows up among serial killers in real life. They might even rationalize his torture, rape, and murder of his victims, as he may convince them that his victims 'deserve' their fate.

Such a trio might end up as villains in an adventure, as the women would loot the house while the man would 'take care' of any occupants (including the children and pets). Investigators would find horror scenes awaiting them, as none of the occupants would escape 'punishment' at the hands of Luke. Of course, a child might have managed to escape, so the three would be frantically trying to silence them before they can lead the authorities to them.

[Inky]

Interesting discussion, but haven't most of you got rather a long way off-topic?
adaman14, if you have any other questions about your original topic, feel free to ignore the other discussion and ask them. It may look as though everyone's long forgotten about that and moved on to a different subject, but in fact if you ask more questions about that, they probably will get answered. We're just giving our favourite hobby-horses a bit of exercise while we're waiting.
This is just how the GURPS forum is, and it's all right if you're expecting it.
It's a well-known glitch here - new player comes in with questions, questions get answered for a bit, then something someone mentions sparks a huge debate in which the new player and their question appear to get forgotten about entirely, new player departs bemused!

[adaman14]

Originally Posted by Inky

Interesting discussion, but haven't most of you got rather a long way off-topic?
adaman14, if you have any other questions about your original topic, feel free to ignore the other discussion and ask them. It may look as though everyone's long forgotten about that and moved on to a different subject, but in fact if you ask more questions about that, they probably will get answered. We're just giving our favourite hobby-horses a bit of exercise while we're waiting.
This is just how the GURPS forum is, and it's all right if you're expecting it.
It's a well-known glitch here - new player comes in with questions, questions get answered for a bit, then something someone mentions sparks a huge debate in which the new player and their question appear to get forgotten about entirely, new player departs bemused!

I'm feeling pretty good about moving forward with GURPS. This forum has been and is very helpful. I mentioned what type of game I want and for sure some don't understand it. There are basically four human approaches to life as studied by behavioral science. There are drivers, analytics, expressive, and amiable. The later two will love to build characters and backstories and love to game the relationships, etc. while the drivers and analytic type normally will like the adventure and world approach. No right or wrong, it just is what it is. I'm good with the thread and thrilled with the instructive input. Thanks all!!

[borithan]

Originally Posted by Kromm

Computer games.
How many people really bother with a backstory for their, say, Diablo 3 character? Now ask how popular such computer games are, and how many people they bring to tabletop gaming; the answers are "very" and "lots." And whether or not we on the tabletop side like it (I don't, especially, so be very aware that I'm not taking sides, just reporting facts), these games are called "computer roleplaying games" . . . the little person running around killing monsters is the role in its entirety.

Hmm... I wouldn't say that it is computer games that drove this. I think a bigger modern driver of new players getting involved in RPGs is more things like watching games being streamed and the like, and those actually often focus primarily on the character side of things (because it is made as entertainment, and watching people act out their characters is more fun than "so that is +2 for flaking, which gives me 26, A HIT"). I think it is more down to:
1) characters without much background and their stories being created by their adventures have been the main for games like D&D, and for a lot of people D&D defines their expectations of what a RPG is. I was introduced to RPGs at a younger age than most players I know, by a family whose dad didn't like D&D, but most players I know either started in the 2000s with 3.x or more recently with 5th edition D&D, and those set some expectations I never had (3.x players particularly having an expectation of gear progression, for example).
2) I personally think it mirrors what happens in fiction (particularly genre fiction) a lot better than detailed backstories. In novel series and tv series we often get presented with a character we have to take in in a matter of a page or two, or a few seconds of screen time and understand who they are. That is usually defined by what they *do*, not their backstory, which we *might* get introduced to as the book/series goes on, but is rarely fleshed out in advance. For example, my first RPG character that I actually made (rather than rolled up, or created for me) was just "I want to be Han Solo" (to the extent that I just called him Space Smuggler, messed writing it up and so he was Space Smaggler). What do we know about Han Solo when we meet him? He is a cocky smuggler guy with a fast ship and a hairy co-pilot, who owes money to some guy called Jabba. That's literally it. He is defined by what he does, not where he came from. We don't need to know his backstory (and aside from his debt, I don't think it ever comes up in the films at all). Other heroic characters are similar. Another big one for me as a kid was Tintin. His backstory: he's a journalist, and that is pretty much just an excuse for his international travel. Kirk: Quick thinking action man captain. We get more as the series went on, but I doubt they had decided he was bullied at university, had been witness to crime against humanity as a child, and had seen his crew mates killed by a weird cloud thing before they wrote the first script. Probably his most infamous 'backstory' action (cheating at the Kobayashi Maru) was a projection of how he had been portrayed until that point, rather something that had informed how he was portrayed. Thinking of other Star Trek captains we have Picard: Older, more cerebral, dislikes children, allegedly French. Sisko was actively unusual at that point for having much of a back story: "has a son, wife killed by Borg, considering leaving Starfleet because of that trauma", and the third part is resolved by the end of the pilot. I can't remember much of early Voyager, so I can't remember if they gave more to Janeway other than "New Captain, woman" in the first episode or not, and Enterprise and Discovery did both put more time into the background of their leads.

This is hugely important. Setting computer gamers aside completely, there is a not-so-small school of gamers who believe "my character is defined by what's going on now and what happens from this point on, not by whatever happened before we started this game." That is, the character comes into being when the campaign does, and the past is irrelevant; the PC is the sum of what the player does in actual play, nothing more but also nothing less.

I very much think I fall into this category.

I experience a profound disconnect when I hear "war stories" or read blogs about others' campaigns, and they're on about how it's crucial to resolve each session in full and get all the PCs back to their home base or other "safe space" by the end just in case not all the players can show up next time. In 42 years of gaming, it has always been the case – with no exceptions – that scenes, acts, adventures, and arcs could span multiple game sessions, and that even long combats could pause in bullet time between sessions. And if a player who was involved last time can't show up this time, their PC just goes on autopilot, controlled by player vote.

Didn't know this was even a thing... we *generally* try to finish off combats before ending a session, but the idea of trying to wrap every session up in a neat bow is just odd. And even worse, you miss out on the chance of a cliffhanger! We don't usually have characters featuring if the player is not there, and we *might* try to come up with some excuse ("they're back at camp"), but if necessary we just treat them as if they are just "out of shot". If they were essential to something we would have the character there, but yeah, would probably similarly come to a consensus based on how they have been played up until that point.

Originally Posted by whswhs

I wanted to create the character as they were when the camera first tracked them across the scene.

I think this is *mostly* how I envision characters when making them, and as I said, I think actually reflects leading characters in popular culture (which I think will inform many players' visions of their characters) a lot better than detailed backstories do.

Originally Posted by Rupert

As a player I've found that if I'm required to come up with a detailed backstory for my character there's a very good chance I'll never be comfortable playing them.

I feel similarly. I think I (and I certainly know a couple of players in my group) often feel we haven't got to know our characters yet *until* we get a chance to play them. I can't give you much of a backstory yet, because I don't know it. My last character (a 5e D&D game) was a rogue, but I was playing them as being an ex-soldier. They were not a thief, they just had the relevant skills because they were useful for his military experience... All that really meant was that I wasn't always on the look out for things to nick and/or dick around with out of curiosity, and if that had been it it would have been fine. However, I actually found the fact I had thought more about some other elements of their background a bit more inhibiting to gelling with the character than if I hadn't, and had determined them at the time they became relevant.