A question on Character Bios/ History

[HeySeuss]

Rule of thumb: When the GM posts their own CS, post yours how they post theirs: long and detailed or short and general.

Totally agree, since it varies from GM to GM and they have a reason for wanting it however they want it.

[Wayward]

As with the majority of everything else I do in role-playing, the character's history is something that winds up dependent on a variety of other factors. Namely, I determine it based on what the world seems to call for, and what others signing up for the RP appear to be putting into theirs. If everyone else is submitting five paragraphs worth of bio, than I see fit to match that, as well the content of that bio. I personally think that, with the exception of the Arena, every character needs to have at least a rudimentary history, like where they were born, who their parents/parent figures were, and a general briefing on why they are and have what they are and have in the time of the RP; for example, if someone's playing a military soldier type of character, they should, by all means, explain how and why they got into military service, and use the bio to support any sort of skills or talents they developed through those means.

[Kagamine]

A lot of times I recycle old characters into new roleplays. When that happens, I tend to ramble on and on and on with the history because the character is so well thought-out in my head... and it clarifies some things up for myself, too, as the character often has to be altered somewhat to fit different thread ideas, and writing a long history helps me come up with the answers to questions I never even thought about. But when I'm making up a new character, whom I wouldn't have thought about as much, my histories are significantly shorter... but usually adequately large, still. I find it's very useful for fleshing out the character.

As for GMing... well I've GMed a lot. And usually in the casual section, which, being the in-between level, means I see a lot of varying apparent skill levels just from looking at the CS's... I see someone who put in a few-liner history with practically no depth and I automatically come to think they're someone who's more used to free/low-casual, but when I see a history that's several extensive paragraphs long, has plenty of depth and thought put into it, I come to think it's a person who's more used to high-casual/advanced. I usually don't exclude anyone based on this, though, since I'm very lenient with CS's and will accept most any character as long as they fit the roleplay, but it helps me see where everyone is and what sort of roleplaying experience they've had in the past, which is helpful to GMs.

[Dorian Gregory]

Greetings..._

As a writer and creator of many characters I personally find the idea of explicitly writing the history of a character unnecessary and overall merely a way to waste some time. Personally, I find that when creating a character there are more important things to be written about and if a little bit of history is divulged in the process it is more appropriate to compose it in the context of things. For example, I often describe what a character fears most in life. If a little bit of history pops up pertaining to why, I find that to be more valuable to a character than a straight historical recollection of the character's life. Of course, this may be the commonality over many of the things I describe when writing a character so a full historical picture may be created. However, it does not appear so lengthy or arduous to read through - at least in my opinion.

Thank you..._

[Foster]

Whichever I feel like at the time, often even disregarding the GM's wishes.

Usually, the amount of detail is inversely proportional to the number of characters.

Everyone still has their shadey and entertaining stories, and it'll be noted that they have one, but unless they have an IC interest, I say fuck it. If they do show interest, and I get shafted with writing their life-story, well then it'd be a tad redundant if it was already in the bio (and in greater detail).

The exception is if I'm trying to get a pair of close-knit characters that are supposed to know each other from before the RP.

[Hansa]

I think that IC-histories are unneccesary and a real pain in the ass. If you really feel like having a really detailed history, add it in pieces as flashbacks in the IC-part of the roleplay. In the CS, you only really need a summary

[Dudel]

I think that IC-histories are unneccesary and a real pain in the ass. If you really feel like having a really detailed history, add it in pieces as flashbacks in the IC-part of the roleplay. In the CS, you only really need a summary

Also clearly label those flashbacks so people who don't care can skip along to the important paragraphs.

[majikseb]

My longest character history for an RP character was over 20 pages in microsoft word....

[Swanmarkedblade]

All depends on the situation. Doing it before creating the character means some things have been laid out, and it can be very tough to change things later without causing a crisis for the character.

The old Advanced Dungeons and Dragons 2nd Edition rulebooks specifically included parts about character alignment, and the potential penalties of changing alignment. Doing so deliberately generally means no problems; the character (and the player) have both made it clear with their actions that they are that different alignment. If on the other hand it was accidental or had not been of the player's free will, then the character has penalties for doing so.

(accidental could mean the player's not really noticing that they had been starting to act chaotic good instead of lawful good for example, or going from a neutral alignment (as in not having any firm ties, not as in always seeking a balance and joining the weaker side) into neutral evil. The formerly lawful good character might have been viewing authorities with scorn, and preferring to go out adventuring. The formerly neutral character might be neutral evil after deciding that they don't want to do anything without some sort of reward. In these cases, changing alignment again means that all future experience points for that specific level of experience will now give half as much progress as they would before (in effect requiring that the character get double the experience points they would have before to gain that level). Changing multiple times means the character's experience points for progression in that level are immediately removed.)

(And not being of the character's free will means being influenced by magick. Becoming charmed means that the character's free will is gone, unless the spell breaks when they are forced to commit something anathema to their alignment. Domination (in the form of psionics or magic) also happens (generally) against the will of the character.)

And even without those penalties, writing a background can sometimes constrain a character. But that can be a good thing in the right circumstances. If the bio/history/background contains vital information about how a character might act or reveal why a character does certain things, that is a good thing. Also with regards to the Advanced Dungeons and Dragons rulebooks, you can be rewarded for properly playing out your character (though it often is a reward in and of itself). I once had a lawful neutral sorceress who was an insomniac, and the way I worked in how little sleep she had as well as her firm commitment to serving the existing order (she had one eye wide open, the other drooping with exhaustion) made a good touch to my character.


On the other hand, sometimes having no such constraints can help if you manage to get firm anchors later. It's almost like sailing the seas or riding the waves for a while, until you find somewhere suitable to settle yourself and your character. Anchors can come in a number of forms. Adopted family members, attraction or aversion to a person or place, natural development of a talent. It can be many things.


Personally, I'm not sure I can answer this poll with any of the answers given. Sometimes it is very appropriate for a background, other times it is not. But doing whatever you like isn't the way I'd do things.

[Nemaisare]

Personally, I like characters that have a history and that I can know about, even if they will be meeting each other for the first time ICly in the rp itself. It lets me play god a little easier, and, while I've never actually been a GM, I find that it is more fun when I can guess at a character's reaction by looking at the context of their history and personality. If I wanted to avoid having the character make a scene, then I could, or if I want a scene, then I could work my way towards that. It can let me plan out threads or short scenarios much easier. And is the best way to come up with comprehensive and not-as-random-as-you-might-think plot twists.

I understand too much detail, but I think, if you're putting effort into an rp, making a world and setting up potential interactions between characters or in their histories, then the characters themselves deserve to be a little fleshed out. Even if no one else is going to read the whole bio. It doesn't need to be journalistically accurate, like they ate oatmeal every monday, unless you think that's important, but to make a character really fit into my mind and the world I'm putting them in, I need to gather up details.

This is, however, only if a history is being written in the first place, otherwise... My char might have some points, but they do tend to develop a history more within the RP that I mesh with their personality. I dunno, maybe it's just because I like telling a good, or maybe absolutely horrific and I'm just kidding myself, story if I'm going to bother writing out a history. They don't have to be long, but I can't really help myself in getting at least longer than three paragraphs.