Note to DMs: Giving your players some general knowledge about your setting; its history and the like can be a huge help. Far too many times have I gotten into a campaign where the DM doesn't tell us jack beyond the "Combat / RP split" type of info, which ends up with players making characters that end up not fitting well (or feeling good) in the campaign during play. Having enough information to be able to make something that will work for us AND the setting is honestly massive for game enjoyment long-term. Not everything needs to be a surprise or "reveal".
haha, good luck getting the players interested in that. 🥲 my first dnd campaign i ran was pirate themed. i told the players they would be pirates and to make characters that fit into that role. one of them showed up with a tiefling from an alien planet who's afraid of water and can't swim. 💀 she had a very cool backstory but it took a lot of work to include it into the campaign. so i guess it depends on the group whether it works or not.
@HugaMoga Yeahh I mean, usually it shouldn't be too much of a problem. Tends to only really cause that sort of thing when a campaign setup is more specific than usual, like the pirate example, but when it comes to those campaigns, I don't think there's anything wrong with accepting that not all players work in that sort of campaign. many want to do what they want, and use the directives as a guide on what NOT to do. That doesn't necessarily make them a problem player, but it defo can be a sign that they might not be a good fit for that game. Ultimately, it's a group game though. as much as their fun is valid; the collective comes first. I they can't accept that, it might be necessary to ask them to sit that game out
Iroh isn't a static character he grows from "hurting people is always wrong and I will not participate in this war" to "hurting people is wrong, so I'll fight in this war against those causing pain"
Pretty much every scene with Iroh is him being a mentor/father figure to other characters. If you were to seek the scene where he decides to get in direct combat, you would find that it happens off-screen. It's also arguably dictated by "Firelord should have been defeated by now but he hasn't.", which isn't character growth but merely a shift in circumstance.
@@Argosentral-88 No, the active member into a passive observer of the war happened before the show, but the passive participant into actively anti war change happened in the show, specifically around the time he got arrested
@@averagefan164 He was always anti war. He was white lotus from the start to the end. Even though he plays a more active role at the very end, that's because Zuko switched sides and, frankly, the war was coming to a head.
I 100% sympathize with adding to your backstory. I tend to learn more about my character WHILE I'm playing them. Example: I'm playing a tiefling swashbuckler rogue who is a bit of a player. One night an npc was having a crisis of faith and opened up to my character about their own tragic past. He became very uncomfortable as he tried to comfort them as they slept off their drunken stupor brought on by their crisis. A few days later, I decided to tell the dm that my character had a relationship that went VERY BAD years ago that left him emotionally and psychologically scarred. So while he's fine with physical intimacy, he can't bring himself to be vulnerable emotionally with anyone and I'm looking forward to seeing the dm implement that.
I do that all the time ^^ on top of that, as a larper, if I can't remember a detail in the moment, then that detail is useless, so I'd rather just use the spur of the moment to come up with things that are anchored in play and, therefore, I'll remember much better
I don’t mind if a player adds a few “missing details” or “forgotten memories” to their backstory, but I have seen too many people want to change their mechanics instead of just their flavor text.
As a dm I often have this approach too. I’ll have rough outlines of factions, threats, locations etc. and keep them mysterious. Then I’ll have them connected more to my players actions mid game and their backstories. If you wanna tell an interesting story you gotta leave some space for spontaneity and collaboration
I mean as long as you do it right, altering your backstory is fine. I once played a character who's backstory included a tragedy where a witch abducted my character as a child and burned down the village he lived in. He grew resentful towards her and ran at the first opportunity. During the campaign the party encountered a creature that makes you relive the worst part of your past. So in that moment I decided to alter my backstory, and what he saw was that he was the one who burnt down his village and the witch was saving the town from my character. He had essentially gaslight himself into viewing the witch(who might not have been a witch) as the bad guy. It's a shame that that never came up later as the gm at the time didn't really do much involving backstories, but the possibilities the could have come out of that one moment give me goosebumps. And it was all because I added to my backstory.
I always like to address this problem anecdotally. I used to overthink things a lot. Plan out character concepts, build; tie it all together. But I also found my best received character was one I didn’t think much about, and was for a really short Dungeon World game. Didn’t RP much, but dropped a single line that became unintentionally super depressing in the second session, and that became the whole character afterwards. To the point “sad, smol tragedies” is what they know me for. “Yeah, I used to be able to sing.” Didn’t elaborate, didn’t go into a long winded explanation where I trauma dumped the whole character background. Just dropped that off hand in a conversation as a joke for her really awful high and off-key valley girl accent. It became tragic when my GM noted one of the core gimmicks of the Immolationist is burning away parts of themselves and their memories in return for magic power, so that one line became incredibly depressing for such a sweet kid.
For me personally I've found a pretty good way to keep myself engaged with my character. In a recent campaign I've began to play in, I'm playing a young sheltered Elf and my backstory is mostly just his upbringing and childhood, the campaign begins with him leaving home with his new companions and starting his journey of self discovery. Meaning everything he encounters is brand new and exciting to him, he's learning to come out of his shell and grow into the kind of character that people usually start a campaign as. I think a lot of the fun and engagement within a campaign is the wonder and excitement of diving into a new and unknown fantasy world, if he's already jaded to all of these adventures and mythical creatures he might encounter then it removes a crucial part of what makes dnd such an amazing game
Adding to the backstory is a thing that I feel 100%. For me something became crystal clear over the years. The idea of your character will adapt over the first four sessions. You should know where you come from on session one - which means an idea of who your character is. Within the first four sessions the idea will adapt because of party dynamic, the campaign setting etc and by session four I usually got it figuered out for the most part, which is when I usually conclude my backstory. Let me use my Blood Domain Cleric as an example: We play in a homebrew setting using the Critical Role pantheon (because it's the most flashed out), Tieflings have been accepted as a part of society by now but some older folks tend to be a little wary of them. She is the daughter of a Tiefling mother and a halfelven father so she has visual characteristics of them both (mechanic wise I went halfelf). Halfelven ears, a casual skintone, yet taurus like horns and her eyes have an orange glow. So folks usually think she is a Tiefling which she always answers with "I'm a halfelf actually" because people in her hometown didn't treat her well because of the visual features. I planned her to be Chaotic/Neutral which for me made sense as a blood cleric praying to the Matron Of Ravens but what became clear over the first four sessions: The group was clearly lacking a moral compass so she became that for the party. So she went from "I'll do it as long as you pay me enough" kinda asshole to "I'll do it when I see a need for action" out of the world optimist and I love playing her SO MUCH. I'm pretty sure the original concept wouldn't have been nearly as much fun as she is now. After a year of playing the party even looks to her when tough decisions are visible on the horizon or even for guidance (see what I did there? No I don't use that cantrip xD) during their character arcs and she became the face of the party through natural development not because I planned her to be. Needless to say I had to adapt my backstory a lot to make it fit. From "I'm an asshole because of how people treated me as child" I went to "I don't want people to be treated the way I was back in the day."
Iroh definitely changes over the course of the series. He loses any semblance of faith in The Fire Nation and his brother, realizes he has to fight them, becomes more serious, etc.
The problem, for me, in not planning so much of the backstory is that I'm just awful at making decisions on the spot, I always get nervous and then proceed to take the mildest boring option or opinion, and at the end of the session I feel like I didn't do my character's justice. Idk how to avoid that aaaah
It sounds like you do. That remark right there, that you play it safe. Just don't do that. Do the opposite. The only thing you get for not taking risks is regret.
I have a character that I intended to be shaped by the rest of the party. They found her in the brig of a pirate ship, and I had planned out her backstory with the DM. A tiny orphan girl whose village had been slauggtered and pillaged, and she was to be sold into slavery. I wanted to start her off with no class, and as she leveled up, she'd gain aspects of whichever party member she liked the most. And NOBIDY CARES ABOUT HER. They recruited the captain! Who slaughtered my village! She's practically still a prisoner, just on a new ship and she's allowed out of the brig. It's infuriating to have my cool concept so utterly dismantled
Oof, yeah; that sounds incredibly frustrating. Sounds like a cool concept but the wrong group of PCs for it to work with. Did you discuss the concept and what you were hoping to do with the other players and GM before starting?
That's really sad, I hope the other players will give your character a chance. Someone in the game I'm in is doing something similar. They do have a class chosen already, but they're playing a robot trying to become more human and learn about human society. They know nothing about human social norms and only do as they're directed precisely to the letter. As such, their knowledge and personality is being shaped by the characters that interact with them, and I think that's pretty cool. Someone already taught them a bunch of curse words...
It's an interesting character concept, but I'd say there were two issues that your DM probably should have picked up on. Firstly, in my experience at least, whenever a player wants to place the burden* of their character's growth on the other players' characters, it almost always fails. I call this a burden because, if sprung suddenly on a bunch of unsuspecting players, you're basically telling them that they're responsible for your fun with this character. The few times this trope has worked, it's because the entire party talked about it beforehand and agreed to be that character's mentors. The second, and somewhat related, is that there is no rule in D&D that forces PCs to like one another. Perhaps the "tiny orphan girl" just wasn't what the other players were expecting as a party member? Something I've found as a GM is that lot of players tend to dismiss damsels in distress (regardless of gender) and overlook the meek and mild; they lean instead toward characters who act like they're competent and have a "loud" personality. It might simply be that your character wasn't loud enough to grab their attention and they gravitated to the DM's portrayal of the captain instead. In the end, however, nothing in the rules says that the other players are obligated to like or care about your character. Part of your job as a player is making your character interesting and engaging enough that the other players actually want to adventure with them. While I wouldn't say your fellow players aren't at fault (I know about three sentences worth of the situation, after all), it may be worth shifting gears, considering things from their perspective, and talking to your DM about how you could make your character really spring to life.
This is a prime example of why you should never start a campaign until all of the players have discussed their characters with each other. Like, I get the allure of "well, our characters are meeting for the first time, so we should all be going in blind," BUT THAT IS A TERRIBLE IDEA. You are not just making your own character; you are making a member of a party. So many D&D horror stories could have been avoided if the player group decided what the adventuring group looked like prior to the start of the campaign, instead of each player making it a ME ME ME show. I will say, however, your idea can still work; you just need to be more aggressive about it. You're playing a little child; that gives you a pass to ask the other characters ANY question. Have her dig into their backstories, what they care about, etc. Once YOU initiate the conversation, then she can emulate whoever shows her the most attention.
What you could do is have the character resent the party for what they've done. It's risky, and you should probably talk with them beforehand about all this and how you're feeling left out, but make a plan to have your character change and become more assertive due to being fed up with her new circumstances. Maybe discuss the possibility of her hatching a plot to kill the NPC captain and prove herself as a competent member of the party, whether the other PCs care or not. If you're feeling like your character has been ignored and overlooked for too long, turn her into somebody who _can't_ be ignored anymore, for one reason or another. Just don't make her inherently hostile to the other players and an obstacle for them to overcome, instead let her be shaped by them like you wanted her to in the first place, but the aspects she gains should reflect the lack of attention they paid her as a group rather than what little attention they might have paid her so far individually. Maybe if she shows the party that she _won't_ be overlooked and actively _wants_ to be a part of their crew, they will be a little more willing to take her under their wing and teach her what they know. I think the reason she went ignored in the first place is because no dnd player wants to babysit another player character, they're often far too preoccupied with their own characters and their own ideas, so if they see a PC that doesn't benefit them in any way, they will likely leave that character to fend for themselves if they don't get attached to them based on what they bring to the table emotionally. Starting out with no class definitely exacerbates that issue, so I would personally recommend you work towards getting a class that your PC can confidently call hers. With nothing to define her like the other players have other than being a blank slate, other players aren't going to see much value in helping her find her place in the world _unless_ it explicitly benefits _them._ You might want to consider making her a Rogue. If you change your character from a timid, seemingly useless girl into a crafty, resourceful, and ambitious person, you might be able to flip a horrible start on its head and turn it into the foundation for a _very_ interesting and even beloved character.
My favorite character I’ve ever played was like this. No backstory going in, because I changed class and vibe last minute, so I only had some pieces of the old backstory to try to put together while the game was happening. Through some natural happenings in game, I took the big picture stuff from the old character’s backstory and put the it together into something that explained the new one’s outlook, and how why this was what made him change for the better
I get what your saying in 6:33. I’ve never looked at it that way. That is a very interesting point and, in hindsight, makes a lot of sense. Thanks! Good information for characters building, you explained it well. Good video!
With some fluid storytelling especially when figuring out the world and how your character lives in it, there is always the one big word that everyone needs to keep in mind whenever they are trying to do this: COMMUNICATION!!! Obviously with your DM as they're the ones trying to make the game for everyone engaging, but also with the other players so that some meta knowledge is shared and boundaries are set. Everyone being in the know about some key points allows for everyone to be on the same page of when to interact, when to take a backseat, and good to help develop moments of cooperation in various different scenarios. A good player knows how to separate themselves from their character so that when they have knowledge that they know their character wouldn't understand, they'll play it out and question things or start a fun kind of conflict to spice the story, or if their character should pick up a hint of something they know they can help with, the player doesn't miss their chance to form more interactions. So my suggestion is to, by all means, play meta to a certain extent. Allow a couple of secrets to be shared above-table so when push comes to shove, everyone gets to play a fantastic game together.
Many of the problems mentioned here would be avoided if GMs and players collaborated during character creation instead of making them in a void and then feeling they need to shoehorn the character into a game or group that won't suit them. GMs, tell the players enough about the world and the basic premise of the campaign for them to make a character that fits. Players, talk to your GM and fellow players about the concept you have in mind.
I'll confess I'm the type of person that makes detailed backgrounds for my character even for a level 3 character. Admittedly a lot of that is bulletin points for hobbies, bonds, etc and a lot of that is me thinking of associates, friends, family, people or factions they don't like, etc, and my actual backstory text tends to be not as long. I tend to collaborate with the GM to make sure it makes sense for the setting and campaign along the way. I do it because I like a strong ground to start off of but I always treat it as that. The first session or two end up being my moment to really refine it. "Does this tic work or is it actually not that interesting in execution?" "Is there a certain dynamic that comes up with other characters I want to lean into or emphasize"? I'll communicate it to the GM if the change is more concerning too.
I've had a similar method for years and I'm taking notes. What I would do is create that outline with key characters and events and a TON of blank space and just let the DM fill in the blanks. They don;'t need to, and they don't always do it. But when they do something with it, it's magical. I as a player get to be surprised by my characters backstory sometimes. and the DM gets a coupon to connect anything they feel like to the party. I personally have side character syndrome so any extra attention to me specifically isn't a big problem but I could definitely try filling in more of the blanks myself.
The second picture in the thumb nail is literally the art i used for an old character years ago. One that i very much got bored with, although that campaign was genuinely bad, so that might have had way more to do with it. But seeing Fela, staring back at me was wild.
I usually make my characters by starting with a vibe. After I have a vibe established then I create a backstory that explains why/how the character became the way they are. Having a solid vibe for my character really helps with roleplay
I think it says something as a dm that while I like my players to give their backstory to me I'm more interested in their ideals, bonds and flaws as that can be another way to challenge a character outside of combat. It bugs me when they don't give me those. And Those things can change over time. They could go from thinking that it's best to great the world with open arms to thinking that ruthlessness is mercy for themself because of experiences that they went through.
while i never felt that too i had the polar opposite of that feeling:the character that i had the most fun playing was the one that i had literally done 0 backstory on and their entire backstory was result of a series of one shots that followed the (short lived) campaign he first appeared
One added perk to a not fully formed backstory at game start can come from having the DM insert things for you that maybe you only hinted towards but the DM saw something in it and had a cool idea to integrate it into the narrative/setting. You do need a DM you trust for this to really work though and ideally there will be some discussion out of character between the two of you before it comes up in character.
I have always said that I’m getting to know my characters as I play them. One of the things I learned from a character I play sometime after I started playing them is that they were pan. This was not my intent back during the creation process. I only wrote they had a fiancé who passed and the incident behind that is something traumatic for my character that they still blame themself for. It was later that I realized my character was pan, and not only that but, before the fiancé, my character was very casual about their relations and who they took to bed. This was an interesting contrast I felt, especially since the party had gotten to know my character as the romantic widow/widower who still mourned their beloved’s death over a decade later, and still tries to live up to the legacy of that loved one. Basically they met a far more grounded and mellow version of my character which isn’t something they always were except in a very few aspects of their life (aka raising their siblings, takes that very seriously). This contrast is going to come home to roost soon in the campaign as the party will soon return to the hometown and learn of my character’s old reputation there and the true colors of their relationship with their family, not to mention just how “scandalous” it would be considered by their family members that their late fiancé was a dark elf (yes we do play with some themes about bias, to put it “nicely”). I’m honestly looking forward to the party being introduced to the arrogant and cold-blooded version of my wood elf (via reputation) and get an understanding as to why my elf is who they are now, why it’s so so so important to them, and why the changes their fiancé inspired into them mean so so so much to my character now that he is gone. It should be fun! Lol especially with the backdrop of other family drama (another party member shares that hometown) and just how rampant the corruption in that city is, why those who live there have to develop the personalities and quirks they do, just to survive.
As a dm, i actually prefer the idea of players having a simple backstory with some hooks in it and 5 or 6 sessions in expand on the backstory as if discovering who this character is. Sometimes, i throw out a random suggestion, and my players will sometimes take it and run or just leave it.
Here's a fun storytime moment. Our very first campaign, I was the DM. Jay was one of my players, and at this point we had known each other for a couple of months. His first PC with our play group (you've heard him talk about Dartanyon) was something of a black box in backstory for a while, and then after a couple of sessions he sent me, the DM, a message explaining that his backstory involved a criminal organization. That organization wound up becoming a major antagonistic force to the party. And it wouldn't have happened if I had demanded a backstory earlier.
You know one of my favorite characters i ever played was from this race if interplanetary conquerors who was timid and weak because he was born with ice magic and his race was resistant to ice magic so he couldn’t fight really. I planned for him to be a joke character that was constantly running from fights. His name reizoko ment refigerator. But what I didn’t plan was that he’d never loose a fight. That he’d grow into a leader. That was all spontaneous. So when the game ended and he returned to his people and stood against his former bullies it was nice but it wouldn’t have happened if it wasn’t for the spontaneous rp of the other players
I like coming up with a skeleton of the backstory rather than listing feats. I'm currently playing a Vampire Vengeance Paladin (+ Celestial Warlock) of Sarenrae in Curse of Strahd, I literally had just played this character in a short-term PF2 game (and a few years ago made him for a short-lived 5e game set in Golarian that ended due to COVID). He is OOOOOOOLD, a monster hunter (closer to Geralt than Trevor Belmont), and I just wrote the events of his turning/the origin of his oath, why he is called what he is called, and left it at that. Everything else is blank to let Kurson decide if and when he decides to let someone close enough to find out his past.
Here's how to avoid all of the problems mentioned in the video: 1) The GM tells the players what the story premise of the adventure is and gives some basic info on the setting. 2) The players now make their characters together. 3) You now have a well-rounded party (mechanically and narratively) that fits the adventure. Enjoy!
my current character, I am playing. I wrote the experiences she went through, and the DM came up with the rest. Like her husband had died, did I know how? No. It was a great reveal. How I got to where the party found me? Nope. It has been great so far
For me, when creating a character as a player, I have to take my character's starting level into consideration when joining a game. Are we level 1? Well then the backstory shouldn't be so involved. I haven't slayed a dragon, I haven't had my own adventure yet, so I shouldn't have anything THAT amazing happen to my character. Now if I am joining and need to make a level 10 character? Well yeah....then my character is going to have a larger backstory. He has gone through some shit in order to get to that level 10 and the GM should reflect that in the story telling. I am not just a nobody joining an established group, my character would be infamous in their own right. Most people grow bored with their character due to the GM not making their character feel part of the world, and not cause our character wasn't tailored to the game.
As a GM, when creating NPCs I start with their personality then think about what's happened in their past to shape that. I get from this video this might be an interesting approach for PCs too.
As having been in this for a while, my War Domain Cleric Dragonborn has always been called blant until I added Oath of Conquest as secondary Class to his Character since it doesn't conflict much with the War Domain of the Cleric.
I have an interesting situation going currently where I have like reverse main character syndrome and the main character role and hero's journey are choosing me instead.
I always prefer to design characters to fit the story. I've never had to redo or abandon a character, but I got a buddy with a consistent problem with that. I just make characters with enough backstory to know who the character is and what s/he wants, and then make decisions in the game. Some things the character won't budge on, but others are more malleable. Nothing too complicated.
My favourite way to play a character is just "I am the Shield, and I will act as such", might be because I like playing tanks or making a character who takes it upon themself to keep the others safe, why they are that way varies depending on the class(I am often the healer since no one likes to play them regardless of the medium)/race I'm playing or what the campaign is. I tend to make the backstory up as I go via off hand comments, and once I've made a comment about something I stay with it, or at least try to but my memory is not great. Any one know what a Character Arc that is a circle is called? I don't think it's a Static Arc because they do change over time it's just they end up where they started at the end of it.
I think that, generally speaking, your character should have their Class, Species, Background, and the inciting incidents that led them to their background and class. If there are a few other moments in their past that can fill out the "highlight reel" up to session 0 , awesome. Also, you will be well served to put that in outline form. It will allow you to organize your thoughts, and give both the DM and yourself something that is easy to refer back for relevant information. Another thing to consider is that, like the expression about "a plan not surviving contact with the enemy", your character should not survive contact with the world or party. At least not completely. I think people tend to cement things about their character and forget that it's about momentum. Few people think in the same way as literary authors, screen writers, and actors who are all used to considering CHARACTER DEVELOPMENT. That development can be either big or small. Which means that you might have to fill in parts of your backstory once a campaign starts. That is perfectly fine as long as it doesn't upend the main points established for the character.
Favorite character was in a Icewindale conversion to CR’s Eiselcross. I made a Dwendalian Empire soldier background focusing on War Wizard/ Eldritch Knight Fighter. It was a game that started with 3 players and it grew, but he was the only character who survived from the first session. He lived by the laws of the Empire. So, he did not know the other gods, he believed necromancy was evil and wouldn’t take a spell from the school because it was illegal, and I enforced the crap out of his thoughts. He was such an obstacle to some other characters, particularly a former criminal who lied to him, and a Paladin and Cleric duo, one portraying a strange version of one of the empire’s gods and the other representing an outsider god. Also, he didn’t like the gods due to an upbringing from one of his members. IT WAS SO FUN. It was unique and I felt I created him in the world and I could picture him.
I’m at the point of just doing a Goliath monk with a bit of a neutral-good thing going on. Yes his origin is rooted in combat, but he’s found peace and, while he isn’t opposed to taking a life, he only seeks conflict when it will better the lives of others. Just enough flexibility to let me help people, but just enough inner conflict to feel remorse once the blood has been spilled.
Sounds like my current character. Goliath Monk, and defender of the monestary... Except merchants and trade have been dwindling. Forcing my character to be sent out into the world, to find truth from the rumors, discover what's going on, and if possible, fix it.
Im going to take ellie real quick. Put her in a situation where the character in game has to make s choice: follow the rules they always have and lose their conection to the divine, effectively rendering their devotion a waste or break their strict code and still follow their god. They may get shunned for this choice, but they wont lose their connection and still be able to follower their god. They may also need to rethink how strick their god is. In the first instance they lose their connection. In the second they dont and must now contemplate if the strict code they followed was placed by themselves
In my first and only ttrpg campaign, a Pathfinder 2e dungeon crawler campaign, I made an emotionless android gunslinger bounty hunter, whose personality is basically that she's greedy for money and loyal to her customers. I did even justify why she's not a murderer hobo, that being that she won't do anything extreme if she's advised not to do it. But sadly I basically had to change everything, because it turned out people simply mistook it for me lazily ripping off 2B, and using this character as an excuse to not seem bored and uninterested. It was pretty upsetting but I basically just threw away the whole being emotionless and having no moral compass, which at least made people like my character now. Edit: We had a smug, charming purple skinned devil sorceress who took a former human into her service, and scammed multiple PCs.
I had a high level cleric from a previous campaign that traveled to another planet so she lost a large amount of her power and had to rebuild her order from the ground up to begin regaining her power so she had the experience but lost her power ad had to regain it. I find it funny as several other characters are pure science type characters like sci fi lv so the mix of magic and science is funny like one guy has an AI and she thinks it’s some sort of machine spirit
I have a problem right now actually with a character. Im two sessions in and im not feeling the character. I dont know how to get the backstory straight. Its all over the place and confusing.
played an ancient white dragon reincarnated as a white kobold since a frozen dead kobold happened to be the only body for the soul to enter couldnt speak since he gave his throat lungs and vocal chords frostbite with a few seconds of breath weapon it was fun playing a mostly mute character with maxed Charisma
I am bipolar which just in general make me just bored easy and want to move on. Which is annoying when I feel like my character is good and I feel like I should keep playing them. But whoops! Suddenly my brain just made a new character that I am obsessed with. (Until i get bored of them too)
I think it's better to bring the rules of improve into character building, where you don't need to have every detail figured out, I instead give my DM little hooks they can use to connect their plot to and I will simply accept those as character developments
If you're the type of player who loses interest in your characters often, try GMing. Problem solved and all the fellow perma-GMs out there would love you for it
"If you're a decent human being, you should subscribe." And if you're not a decent human being, you should subscribe to maybe learn how to be one. 😁 I think Grog is the closest to a static character that you can get. Most of his character growth was accomplished off screen when he left his herd. Every example you gave of static characters aren't static - they've just reached the point in their arc where they plateaued. We're seeing them at the end of their arc, where they're pretty much set in their ways. It shouldn't be called "backstory". It should be called "back moments". Backstory should be the framework of a house, not a fully furnished mansion. Just a few key events that inform who your character is. Basically look at your character sheet, and anything on your sheet, ask yourself if it's important to know how it got there, and if so, add that to the backstory. Things like how did your character become whatever class they are? How did they get the abilities & skills they have? And what was the inciting incident that started their adventure? Then make sure you have enough hooks to give the DM to connect you to the story.
6:40 Maybe the best thing to do with characters like this is discover why they are the way they are; not the cause of it, but the reason. If Ellie believes in law and order because her god wants it, then why does she believe her god's wants are more important than her own? What kind of fear drives her to stick so rigidly to get beliefs?
Ellie's player has a bad GM. Either her ideas need to have a workable place in the story, or the GM should not have okayed the character. This is so obvious to me that I am concerned about what it implies about the presenter. I don't come here except when sent by a friend, but this seems like the kind of thing someone with 5 years in the hobby should catch.
In my professional unlicensed opinion I feel/think/believe the backstory of a character in a ttrpg should be limited to beliefs, personality traits and ideals or flaws. Tell the story that shaped them to have those values and or why they are adventuring now. If you lock your back story it dosent leave room for your GM to pull shape or tweak the game/story around your character and their experiences if you're into that. Ive too many times gotten back stories that were a locked off tale of a hero that solved the problem of why they are an adventurer.
I think, the way to probably do this static character design; I guess I would call this the flawed static character. A character who has these ideals and struggles desperately to live up to them. Like it’s funny you say some of these things because they describe the character, she’s a 550ish year old elf who fought in a war in her youth and is a scarily competent caster. She’s also level 10. Why can’t she cast as high anymore? Licensing and atrophy of her magic skills as she no longer uses the higher level magic, she doesn’t need it to teach. And adding things to backstory is basically, was I there for that (basically just history checks).
When you mentioned Goku, I thought you were confusing the character, but then I remembered that in America, you were first introduced to the Z series before the real start of the story. Even so, I believe Goku has a character arc - just think about how he changes from before to after the Namek saga.
Oh I've watched all of original Dragonball. Here's the deal: He DOES go through a character arc in original dragon ball, but the original is also a comedy. Thus, there is not much emotional weight put on his growth and while it does occur it is not largely used to inform his character. Goku at the beginning of the series, and the end, is largely the same individual. When it comes to Z, he does not change. At all. He has already completed the arc he wanted to go on within the original series and while his POWER grows, his morals, ideals, values, and flaws never change once. He is at the end of the series the exact same individual as he was at the beginning. And that is NOT a bad thing! I LOVE his character for it! But he does not change.
@PlayYourRole I hope I’m not disturbing you, but I believe Goku does change, even in Z. Just think about how he let Mr. Satan take credit for saving the world or how he decided to train Uub because he knew he wouldn’t be around forever. Also, consider the Cell saga - he let his son fight instead of taking on Cell himself. The Goku from the original Dragon Ball would never have let someone else fight in his place. i mean, i know this is not a video about goku, but i do like to debate
People think of their characters as heros. They are not at level 1. In older DnD editions they started very young and were called adventurers. Nowardys, players want to start ay princess, royalty, successfull buisness men/women. In addition, people invent long backstories. They are mostly in the way. Back in the beginning of DnD, there were no backstories. You are about to play the adventures, not have had already adventures. Maybe I am to old for this 😅
I quit all the campaigns i was in, i think im just too creative for dnd that i usually like being a DM much more than being a player. All my characters were really well done and had amazing ideas but then it usually just doesnt end up fitting into the story so i get bored quickly since in a way my characters end up becoming nothing and basically it literally feels like a really boring game.
Note to DMs: Giving your players some general knowledge about your setting; its history and the like can be a huge help. Far too many times have I gotten into a campaign where the DM doesn't tell us jack beyond the "Combat / RP split" type of info, which ends up with players making characters that end up not fitting well (or feeling good) in the campaign during play. Having enough information to be able to make something that will work for us AND the setting is honestly massive for game enjoyment long-term. Not everything needs to be a surprise or "reveal".
This is a true problem.
100% this. Surprise can be valuable but is vastly overrated, leading to exactly these problems.
I've had trouble with DMs like that as well and it ALWAYS ends up with half the party not really meshing and feeling out of place.
haha, good luck getting the players interested in that. 🥲
my first dnd campaign i ran was pirate themed. i told the players they would be pirates and to make characters that fit into that role. one of them showed up with a tiefling from an alien planet who's afraid of water and can't swim. 💀 she had a very cool backstory but it took a lot of work to include it into the campaign.
so i guess it depends on the group whether it works or not.
@HugaMoga Yeahh I mean, usually it shouldn't be too much of a problem. Tends to only really cause that sort of thing when a campaign setup is more specific than usual, like the pirate example, but when it comes to those campaigns, I don't think there's anything wrong with accepting that not all players work in that sort of campaign. many want to do what they want, and use the directives as a guide on what NOT to do. That doesn't necessarily make them a problem player, but it defo can be a sign that they might not be a good fit for that game.
Ultimately, it's a group game though. as much as their fun is valid; the collective comes first. I they can't accept that, it might be necessary to ask them to sit that game out
Iroh isn't a static character he grows from "hurting people is always wrong and I will not participate in this war" to "hurting people is wrong, so I'll fight in this war against those causing pain"
Pretty much every scene with Iroh is him being a mentor/father figure to other characters. If you were to seek the scene where he decides to get in direct combat, you would find that it happens off-screen. It's also arguably dictated by "Firelord should have been defeated by now but he hasn't.", which isn't character growth but merely a shift in circumstance.
@itap8880 idk I felt they made it pretty clear that he grew from active participant in the war to passive observer and then actively anti war
Yeah but that growth already happened when we meet him so his arc becomes teaching Zulu that thus becoming a force that changes the world
@@Argosentral-88 No, the active member into a passive observer of the war happened before the show, but the passive participant into actively anti war change happened in the show, specifically around the time he got arrested
@@averagefan164 He was always anti war. He was white lotus from the start to the end. Even though he plays a more active role at the very end, that's because Zuko switched sides and, frankly, the war was coming to a head.
I 100% sympathize with adding to your backstory. I tend to learn more about my character WHILE I'm playing them. Example: I'm playing a tiefling swashbuckler rogue who is a bit of a player. One night an npc was having a crisis of faith and opened up to my character about their own tragic past. He became very uncomfortable as he tried to comfort them as they slept off their drunken stupor brought on by their crisis. A few days later, I decided to tell the dm that my character had a relationship that went VERY BAD years ago that left him emotionally and psychologically scarred. So while he's fine with physical intimacy, he can't bring himself to be vulnerable emotionally with anyone and I'm looking forward to seeing the dm implement that.
I do that all the time ^^ on top of that, as a larper, if I can't remember a detail in the moment, then that detail is useless, so I'd rather just use the spur of the moment to come up with things that are anchored in play and, therefore, I'll remember much better
I don’t mind if a player adds a few “missing details” or “forgotten memories” to their backstory, but I have seen too many people want to change their mechanics instead of just their flavor text.
As a dm I often have this approach too. I’ll have rough outlines of factions, threats, locations etc. and keep them mysterious. Then I’ll have them connected more to my players actions mid game and their backstories.
If you wanna tell an interesting story you gotta leave some space for spontaneity and collaboration
I mean as long as you do it right, altering your backstory is fine. I once played a character who's backstory included a tragedy where a witch abducted my character as a child and burned down the village he lived in. He grew resentful towards her and ran at the first opportunity.
During the campaign the party encountered a creature that makes you relive the worst part of your past. So in that moment I decided to alter my backstory, and what he saw was that he was the one who burnt down his village and the witch was saving the town from my character. He had essentially gaslight himself into viewing the witch(who might not have been a witch) as the bad guy. It's a shame that that never came up later as the gm at the time didn't really do much involving backstories, but the possibilities the could have come out of that one moment give me goosebumps. And it was all because I added to my backstory.
I always like to address this problem anecdotally. I used to overthink things a lot. Plan out character concepts, build; tie it all together.
But I also found my best received character was one I didn’t think much about, and was for a really short Dungeon World game. Didn’t RP much, but dropped a single line that became unintentionally super depressing in the second session, and that became the whole character afterwards. To the point “sad, smol tragedies” is what they know me for.
“Yeah, I used to be able to sing.” Didn’t elaborate, didn’t go into a long winded explanation where I trauma dumped the whole character background. Just dropped that off hand in a conversation as a joke for her really awful high and off-key valley girl accent.
It became tragic when my GM noted one of the core gimmicks of the Immolationist is burning away parts of themselves and their memories in return for magic power, so that one line became incredibly depressing for such a sweet kid.
For me personally I've found a pretty good way to keep myself engaged with my character. In a recent campaign I've began to play in, I'm playing a young sheltered Elf and my backstory is mostly just his upbringing and childhood, the campaign begins with him leaving home with his new companions and starting his journey of self discovery.
Meaning everything he encounters is brand new and exciting to him, he's learning to come out of his shell and grow into the kind of character that people usually start a campaign as.
I think a lot of the fun and engagement within a campaign is the wonder and excitement of diving into a new and unknown fantasy world, if he's already jaded to all of these adventures and mythical creatures he might encounter then it removes a crucial part of what makes dnd such an amazing game
Adding to the backstory is a thing that I feel 100%. For me something became crystal clear over the years. The idea of your character will adapt over the first four sessions. You should know where you come from on session one - which means an idea of who your character is. Within the first four sessions the idea will adapt because of party dynamic, the campaign setting etc and by session four I usually got it figuered out for the most part, which is when I usually conclude my backstory.
Let me use my Blood Domain Cleric as an example:
We play in a homebrew setting using the Critical Role pantheon (because it's the most flashed out), Tieflings have been accepted as a part of society by now but some older folks tend to be a little wary of them. She is the daughter of a Tiefling mother and a halfelven father so she has visual characteristics of them both (mechanic wise I went halfelf). Halfelven ears, a casual skintone, yet taurus like horns and her eyes have an orange glow. So folks usually think she is a Tiefling which she always answers with "I'm a halfelf actually" because people in her hometown didn't treat her well because of the visual features.
I planned her to be Chaotic/Neutral which for me made sense as a blood cleric praying to the Matron Of Ravens but what became clear over the first four sessions: The group was clearly lacking a moral compass so she became that for the party.
So she went from "I'll do it as long as you pay me enough" kinda asshole to "I'll do it when I see a need for action" out of the world optimist and I love playing her SO MUCH.
I'm pretty sure the original concept wouldn't have been nearly as much fun as she is now. After a year of playing the party even looks to her when tough decisions are visible on the horizon or even for guidance (see what I did there? No I don't use that cantrip xD) during their character arcs and she became the face of the party through natural development not because I planned her to be.
Needless to say I had to adapt my backstory a lot to make it fit. From "I'm an asshole because of how people treated me as child" I went to "I don't want people to be treated the way I was back in the day."
Iroh definitely changes over the course of the series. He loses any semblance of faith in The Fire Nation and his brother, realizes he has to fight them, becomes more serious, etc.
The problem, for me, in not planning so much of the backstory is that I'm just awful at making decisions on the spot, I always get nervous and then proceed to take the mildest boring option or opinion, and at the end of the session I feel like I didn't do my character's justice. Idk how to avoid that aaaah
It sounds like you do. That remark right there, that you play it safe. Just don't do that. Do the opposite. The only thing you get for not taking risks is regret.
Yeah, just had it happen recently with a druid barbarian shaman. Played her for a session, didn't vibe, ditched her for a cleric druid plague doctor.
I have a character that I intended to be shaped by the rest of the party. They found her in the brig of a pirate ship, and I had planned out her backstory with the DM. A tiny orphan girl whose village had been slauggtered and pillaged, and she was to be sold into slavery. I wanted to start her off with no class, and as she leveled up, she'd gain aspects of whichever party member she liked the most.
And NOBIDY CARES ABOUT HER. They recruited the captain! Who slaughtered my village! She's practically still a prisoner, just on a new ship and she's allowed out of the brig.
It's infuriating to have my cool concept so utterly dismantled
Oof, yeah; that sounds incredibly frustrating. Sounds like a cool concept but the wrong group of PCs for it to work with. Did you discuss the concept and what you were hoping to do with the other players and GM before starting?
That's really sad, I hope the other players will give your character a chance.
Someone in the game I'm in is doing something similar. They do have a class chosen already, but they're playing a robot trying to become more human and learn about human society. They know nothing about human social norms and only do as they're directed precisely to the letter. As such, their knowledge and personality is being shaped by the characters that interact with them, and I think that's pretty cool. Someone already taught them a bunch of curse words...
It's an interesting character concept, but I'd say there were two issues that your DM probably should have picked up on. Firstly, in my experience at least, whenever a player wants to place the burden* of their character's growth on the other players' characters, it almost always fails. I call this a burden because, if sprung suddenly on a bunch of unsuspecting players, you're basically telling them that they're responsible for your fun with this character. The few times this trope has worked, it's because the entire party talked about it beforehand and agreed to be that character's mentors.
The second, and somewhat related, is that there is no rule in D&D that forces PCs to like one another. Perhaps the "tiny orphan girl" just wasn't what the other players were expecting as a party member? Something I've found as a GM is that lot of players tend to dismiss damsels in distress (regardless of gender) and overlook the meek and mild; they lean instead toward characters who act like they're competent and have a "loud" personality. It might simply be that your character wasn't loud enough to grab their attention and they gravitated to the DM's portrayal of the captain instead.
In the end, however, nothing in the rules says that the other players are obligated to like or care about your character. Part of your job as a player is making your character interesting and engaging enough that the other players actually want to adventure with them. While I wouldn't say your fellow players aren't at fault (I know about three sentences worth of the situation, after all), it may be worth shifting gears, considering things from their perspective, and talking to your DM about how you could make your character really spring to life.
This is a prime example of why you should never start a campaign until all of the players have discussed their characters with each other. Like, I get the allure of "well, our characters are meeting for the first time, so we should all be going in blind," BUT THAT IS A TERRIBLE IDEA. You are not just making your own character; you are making a member of a party. So many D&D horror stories could have been avoided if the player group decided what the adventuring group looked like prior to the start of the campaign, instead of each player making it a ME ME ME show. I will say, however, your idea can still work; you just need to be more aggressive about it. You're playing a little child; that gives you a pass to ask the other characters ANY question. Have her dig into their backstories, what they care about, etc. Once YOU initiate the conversation, then she can emulate whoever shows her the most attention.
What you could do is have the character resent the party for what they've done. It's risky, and you should probably talk with them beforehand about all this and how you're feeling left out, but make a plan to have your character change and become more assertive due to being fed up with her new circumstances. Maybe discuss the possibility of her hatching a plot to kill the NPC captain and prove herself as a competent member of the party, whether the other PCs care or not. If you're feeling like your character has been ignored and overlooked for too long, turn her into somebody who _can't_ be ignored anymore, for one reason or another. Just don't make her inherently hostile to the other players and an obstacle for them to overcome, instead let her be shaped by them like you wanted her to in the first place, but the aspects she gains should reflect the lack of attention they paid her as a group rather than what little attention they might have paid her so far individually. Maybe if she shows the party that she _won't_ be overlooked and actively _wants_ to be a part of their crew, they will be a little more willing to take her under their wing and teach her what they know.
I think the reason she went ignored in the first place is because no dnd player wants to babysit another player character, they're often far too preoccupied with their own characters and their own ideas, so if they see a PC that doesn't benefit them in any way, they will likely leave that character to fend for themselves if they don't get attached to them based on what they bring to the table emotionally. Starting out with no class definitely exacerbates that issue, so I would personally recommend you work towards getting a class that your PC can confidently call hers. With nothing to define her like the other players have other than being a blank slate, other players aren't going to see much value in helping her find her place in the world _unless_ it explicitly benefits _them._ You might want to consider making her a Rogue.
If you change your character from a timid, seemingly useless girl into a crafty, resourceful, and ambitious person, you might be able to flip a horrible start on its head and turn it into the foundation for a _very_ interesting and even beloved character.
My favorite character I’ve ever played was like this. No backstory going in, because I changed class and vibe last minute, so I only had some pieces of the old backstory to try to put together while the game was happening. Through some natural happenings in game, I took the big picture stuff from the old character’s backstory and put the it together into something that explained the new one’s outlook, and how why this was what made him change for the better
I get what your saying in 6:33. I’ve never looked at it that way. That is a very interesting point and, in hindsight, makes a lot of sense. Thanks! Good information for characters building, you explained it well. Good video!
With some fluid storytelling especially when figuring out the world and how your character lives in it, there is always the one big word that everyone needs to keep in mind whenever they are trying to do this:
COMMUNICATION!!!
Obviously with your DM as they're the ones trying to make the game for everyone engaging, but also with the other players so that some meta knowledge is shared and boundaries are set. Everyone being in the know about some key points allows for everyone to be on the same page of when to interact, when to take a backseat, and good to help develop moments of cooperation in various different scenarios. A good player knows how to separate themselves from their character so that when they have knowledge that they know their character wouldn't understand, they'll play it out and question things or start a fun kind of conflict to spice the story, or if their character should pick up a hint of something they know they can help with, the player doesn't miss their chance to form more interactions.
So my suggestion is to, by all means, play meta to a certain extent. Allow a couple of secrets to be shared above-table so when push comes to shove, everyone gets to play a fantastic game together.
Many of the problems mentioned here would be avoided if GMs and players collaborated during character creation instead of making them in a void and then feeling they need to shoehorn the character into a game or group that won't suit them. GMs, tell the players enough about the world and the basic premise of the campaign for them to make a character that fits. Players, talk to your GM and fellow players about the concept you have in mind.
I'll confess I'm the type of person that makes detailed backgrounds for my character even for a level 3 character. Admittedly a lot of that is bulletin points for hobbies, bonds, etc and a lot of that is me thinking of associates, friends, family, people or factions they don't like, etc, and my actual backstory text tends to be not as long. I tend to collaborate with the GM to make sure it makes sense for the setting and campaign along the way.
I do it because I like a strong ground to start off of but I always treat it as that. The first session or two end up being my moment to really refine it. "Does this tic work or is it actually not that interesting in execution?" "Is there a certain dynamic that comes up with other characters I want to lean into or emphasize"? I'll communicate it to the GM if the change is more concerning too.
I live static characters because they can easily be the catalyst for change in others... Also, because I don't like playing protagonists xD
I've had a similar method for years and I'm taking notes.
What I would do is create that outline with key characters and events and a TON of blank space and just let the DM fill in the blanks. They don;'t need to, and they don't always do it. But when they do something with it, it's magical. I as a player get to be surprised by my characters backstory sometimes. and the DM gets a coupon to connect anything they feel like to the party. I personally have side character syndrome so any extra attention to me specifically isn't a big problem but I could definitely try filling in more of the blanks myself.
Galinda’s “RIGHT! 👹” broke me😂😂
The second picture in the thumb nail is literally the art i used for an old character years ago. One that i very much got bored with, although that campaign was genuinely bad, so that might have had way more to do with it. But seeing Fela, staring back at me was wild.
I usually make my characters by starting with a vibe. After I have a vibe established then I create a backstory that explains why/how the character became the way they are. Having a solid vibe for my character really helps with roleplay
I think it says something as a dm that while I like my players to give their backstory to me I'm more interested in their ideals, bonds and flaws as that can be another way to challenge a character outside of combat. It bugs me when they don't give me those. And Those things can change over time. They could go from thinking that it's best to great the world with open arms to thinking that ruthlessness is mercy for themself because of experiences that they went through.
while i never felt that too i had the polar opposite of that feeling:the character that i had the most fun playing was the one that i had literally done 0 backstory on and their entire backstory was result of a series of one shots that followed the (short lived) campaign he first appeared
One added perk to a not fully formed backstory at game start can come from having the DM insert things for you that maybe you only hinted towards but the DM saw something in it and had a cool idea to integrate it into the narrative/setting. You do need a DM you trust for this to really work though and ideally there will be some discussion out of character between the two of you before it comes up in character.
I have always said that I’m getting to know my characters as I play them. One of the things I learned from a character I play sometime after I started playing them is that they were pan. This was not my intent back during the creation process. I only wrote they had a fiancé who passed and the incident behind that is something traumatic for my character that they still blame themself for. It was later that I realized my character was pan, and not only that but, before the fiancé, my character was very casual about their relations and who they took to bed. This was an interesting contrast I felt, especially since the party had gotten to know my character as the romantic widow/widower who still mourned their beloved’s death over a decade later, and still tries to live up to the legacy of that loved one. Basically they met a far more grounded and mellow version of my character which isn’t something they always were except in a very few aspects of their life (aka raising their siblings, takes that very seriously). This contrast is going to come home to roost soon in the campaign as the party will soon return to the hometown and learn of my character’s old reputation there and the true colors of their relationship with their family, not to mention just how “scandalous” it would be considered by their family members that their late fiancé was a dark elf (yes we do play with some themes about bias, to put it “nicely”). I’m honestly looking forward to the party being introduced to the arrogant and cold-blooded version of my wood elf (via reputation) and get an understanding as to why my elf is who they are now, why it’s so so so important to them, and why the changes their fiancé inspired into them mean so so so much to my character now that he is gone. It should be fun! Lol especially with the backdrop of other family drama (another party member shares that hometown) and just how rampant the corruption in that city is, why those who live there have to develop the personalities and quirks they do, just to survive.
As a dm, i actually prefer the idea of players having a simple backstory with some hooks in it and 5 or 6 sessions in expand on the backstory as if discovering who this character is. Sometimes, i throw out a random suggestion, and my players will sometimes take it and run or just leave it.
Here's a fun storytime moment. Our very first campaign, I was the DM. Jay was one of my players, and at this point we had known each other for a couple of months. His first PC with our play group (you've heard him talk about Dartanyon) was something of a black box in backstory for a while, and then after a couple of sessions he sent me, the DM, a message explaining that his backstory involved a criminal organization. That organization wound up becoming a major antagonistic force to the party. And it wouldn't have happened if I had demanded a backstory earlier.
You know one of my favorite characters i ever played was from this race if interplanetary conquerors who was timid and weak because he was born with ice magic and his race was resistant to ice magic so he couldn’t fight really. I planned for him to be a joke character that was constantly running from fights. His name reizoko ment refigerator. But what I didn’t plan was that he’d never loose a fight. That he’d grow into a leader. That was all spontaneous. So when the game ended and he returned to his people and stood against his former bullies it was nice but it wouldn’t have happened if it wasn’t for the spontaneous rp of the other players
I like coming up with a skeleton of the backstory rather than listing feats. I'm currently playing a Vampire Vengeance Paladin (+ Celestial Warlock) of Sarenrae in Curse of Strahd, I literally had just played this character in a short-term PF2 game (and a few years ago made him for a short-lived 5e game set in Golarian that ended due to COVID).
He is OOOOOOOLD, a monster hunter (closer to Geralt than Trevor Belmont), and I just wrote the events of his turning/the origin of his oath, why he is called what he is called, and left it at that. Everything else is blank to let Kurson decide if and when he decides to let someone close enough to find out his past.
Here's how to avoid all of the problems mentioned in the video:
1) The GM tells the players what the story premise of the adventure is and gives some basic info on the setting.
2) The players now make their characters together.
3) You now have a well-rounded party (mechanically and narratively) that fits the adventure. Enjoy!
my current character, I am playing. I wrote the experiences she went through, and the DM came up with the rest. Like her husband had died, did I know how? No. It was a great reveal. How I got to where the party found me? Nope. It has been great so far
For me, when creating a character as a player, I have to take my character's starting level into consideration when joining a game. Are we level 1? Well then the backstory shouldn't be so involved. I haven't slayed a dragon, I haven't had my own adventure yet, so I shouldn't have anything THAT amazing happen to my character. Now if I am joining and need to make a level 10 character? Well yeah....then my character is going to have a larger backstory. He has gone through some shit in order to get to that level 10 and the GM should reflect that in the story telling. I am not just a nobody joining an established group, my character would be infamous in their own right. Most people grow bored with their character due to the GM not making their character feel part of the world, and not cause our character wasn't tailored to the game.
As a GM, when creating NPCs I start with their personality then think about what's happened in their past to shape that. I get from this video this might be an interesting approach for PCs too.
As having been in this for a while, my War Domain Cleric Dragonborn has always been called blant until I added Oath of Conquest as secondary Class to his Character since it doesn't conflict much with the War Domain of the Cleric.
I have an interesting situation going currently where I have like reverse main character syndrome and the main character role and hero's journey are choosing me instead.
I always prefer to design characters to fit the story. I've never had to redo or abandon a character, but I got a buddy with a consistent problem with that. I just make characters with enough backstory to know who the character is and what s/he wants, and then make decisions in the game. Some things the character won't budge on, but others are more malleable. Nothing too complicated.
My favourite way to play a character is just "I am the Shield, and I will act as such", might be because I like playing tanks or making a character who takes it upon themself to keep the others safe, why they are that way varies depending on the class(I am often the healer since no one likes to play them regardless of the medium)/race I'm playing or what the campaign is.
I tend to make the backstory up as I go via off hand comments, and once I've made a comment about something I stay with it, or at least try to but my memory is not great.
Any one know what a Character Arc that is a circle is called? I don't think it's a Static Arc because they do change over time it's just they end up where they started at the end of it.
I think that, generally speaking, your character should have their Class, Species, Background, and the inciting incidents that led them to their background and class. If there are a few other moments in their past that can fill out the "highlight reel" up to session 0 , awesome.
Also, you will be well served to put that in outline form. It will allow you to organize your thoughts, and give both the DM and yourself something that is easy to refer back for relevant information.
Another thing to consider is that, like the expression about "a plan not surviving contact with the enemy", your character should not survive contact with the world or party. At least not completely. I think people tend to cement things about their character and forget that it's about momentum. Few people think in the same way as literary authors, screen writers, and actors who are all used to considering CHARACTER DEVELOPMENT. That development can be either big or small. Which means that you might have to fill in parts of your backstory once a campaign starts. That is perfectly fine as long as it doesn't upend the main points established for the character.
Favorite character was in a Icewindale conversion to CR’s Eiselcross. I made a Dwendalian Empire soldier background focusing on War Wizard/ Eldritch Knight Fighter. It was a game that started with 3 players and it grew, but he was the only character who survived from the first session. He lived by the laws of the Empire. So, he did not know the other gods, he believed necromancy was evil and wouldn’t take a spell from the school because it was illegal, and I enforced the crap out of his thoughts. He was such an obstacle to some other characters, particularly a former criminal who lied to him, and a Paladin and Cleric duo, one portraying a strange version of one of the empire’s gods and the other representing an outsider god. Also, he didn’t like the gods due to an upbringing from one of his members. IT WAS SO FUN. It was unique and I felt I created him in the world and I could picture him.
I’m at the point of just doing a Goliath monk with a bit of a neutral-good thing going on. Yes his origin is rooted in combat, but he’s found peace and, while he isn’t opposed to taking a life, he only seeks conflict when it will better the lives of others. Just enough flexibility to let me help people, but just enough inner conflict to feel remorse once the blood has been spilled.
Sounds like a normal adventurer
Sounds like my current character. Goliath Monk, and defender of the monestary... Except merchants and trade have been dwindling. Forcing my character to be sent out into the world, to find truth from the rumors, discover what's going on, and if possible, fix it.
Im going to take ellie real quick.
Put her in a situation where the character in game has to make s choice: follow the rules they always have and lose their conection to the divine, effectively rendering their devotion a waste or break their strict code and still follow their god. They may get shunned for this choice, but they wont lose their connection and still be able to follower their god. They may also need to rethink how strick their god is.
In the first instance they lose their connection. In the second they dont and must now contemplate if the strict code they followed was placed by themselves
In my first and only ttrpg campaign, a Pathfinder 2e dungeon crawler campaign, I made an emotionless android gunslinger bounty hunter, whose personality is basically that she's greedy for money and loyal to her customers. I did even justify why she's not a murderer hobo, that being that she won't do anything extreme if she's advised not to do it.
But sadly I basically had to change everything, because it turned out people simply mistook it for me lazily ripping off 2B, and using this character as an excuse to not seem bored and uninterested.
It was pretty upsetting but I basically just threw away the whole being emotionless and having no moral compass, which at least made people like my character now.
Edit: We had a smug, charming purple skinned devil sorceress who took a former human into her service, and scammed multiple PCs.
I had a high level cleric from a previous campaign that traveled to another planet so she lost a large amount of her power and had to rebuild her order from the ground up to begin regaining her power so she had the experience but lost her power ad had to regain it. I find it funny as several other characters are pure science type characters like sci fi lv so the mix of magic and science is funny like one guy has an AI and she thinks it’s some sort of machine spirit
I have a problem right now actually with a character. Im two sessions in and im not feeling the character. I dont know how to get the backstory straight. Its all over the place and confusing.
played an ancient white dragon reincarnated as a white kobold since a frozen dead kobold happened to be the only body for the soul to enter couldnt speak since he gave his throat lungs and vocal chords frostbite with a few seconds of breath weapon it was fun playing a mostly mute character with maxed Charisma
@13:20 oh my god that's how I've been playing my charecters this whole time??
I am bipolar which just in general make me just bored easy and want to move on. Which is annoying when I feel like my character is good and I feel like I should keep playing them. But whoops! Suddenly my brain just made a new character that I am obsessed with. (Until i get bored of them too)
I think it's better to bring the rules of improve into character building, where you don't need to have every detail figured out, I instead give my DM little hooks they can use to connect their plot to and I will simply accept those as character developments
If you're the type of player who loses interest in your characters often, try GMing. Problem solved and all the fellow perma-GMs out there would love you for it
I love the implication if someone murdered you but it was after you put in the time recording you’d still get this last vid uploaded
Would you benefit from a video editor? I currently edit for DnDBuilds and I'd love to do some for you too
Short & Long term goal, what does the character Need (Different from what they Want!).
Its not hard people!
"If you're a decent human being, you should subscribe." And if you're not a decent human being, you should subscribe to maybe learn how to be one. 😁
I think Grog is the closest to a static character that you can get. Most of his character growth was accomplished off screen when he left his herd. Every example you gave of static characters aren't static - they've just reached the point in their arc where they plateaued. We're seeing them at the end of their arc, where they're pretty much set in their ways.
It shouldn't be called "backstory". It should be called "back moments". Backstory should be the framework of a house, not a fully furnished mansion. Just a few key events that inform who your character is. Basically look at your character sheet, and anything on your sheet, ask yourself if it's important to know how it got there, and if so, add that to the backstory. Things like how did your character become whatever class they are? How did they get the abilities & skills they have? And what was the inciting incident that started their adventure? Then make sure you have enough hooks to give the DM to connect you to the story.
6:40
Maybe the best thing to do with characters like this is discover why they are the way they are; not the cause of it, but the reason. If Ellie believes in law and order because her god wants it, then why does she believe her god's wants are more important than her own? What kind of fear drives her to stick so rigidly to get beliefs?
Ellie's player has a bad GM.
Either her ideas need to have a workable place in the story, or the GM should not have okayed the character.
This is so obvious to me that I am concerned about what it implies about the presenter. I don't come here except when sent by a friend, but this seems like the kind of thing someone with 5 years in the hobby should catch.
In my professional unlicensed opinion I feel/think/believe the backstory of a character in a ttrpg should be limited to beliefs, personality traits and ideals or flaws. Tell the story that shaped them to have those values and or why they are adventuring now. If you lock your back story it dosent leave room for your GM to pull shape or tweak the game/story around your character and their experiences if you're into that. Ive too many times gotten back stories that were a locked off tale of a hero that solved the problem of why they are an adventurer.
I think, the way to probably do this static character design; I guess I would call this the flawed static character. A character who has these ideals and struggles desperately to live up to them. Like it’s funny you say some of these things because they describe the character, she’s a 550ish year old elf who fought in a war in her youth and is a scarily competent caster. She’s also level 10. Why can’t she cast as high anymore? Licensing and atrophy of her magic skills as she no longer uses the higher level magic, she doesn’t need it to teach. And adding things to backstory is basically, was I there for that (basically just history checks).
When you mentioned Goku, I thought you were confusing the character, but then I remembered that in America, you were first introduced to the Z series before the real start of the story. Even so, I believe Goku has a character arc - just think about how he changes from before to after the Namek saga.
Oh I've watched all of original Dragonball. Here's the deal:
He DOES go through a character arc in original dragon ball, but the original is also a comedy. Thus, there is not much emotional weight put on his growth and while it does occur it is not largely used to inform his character. Goku at the beginning of the series, and the end, is largely the same individual. When it comes to Z, he does not change. At all. He has already completed the arc he wanted to go on within the original series and while his POWER grows, his morals, ideals, values, and flaws never change once. He is at the end of the series the exact same individual as he was at the beginning.
And that is NOT a bad thing! I LOVE his character for it! But he does not change.
@PlayYourRole I hope I’m not disturbing you, but I believe Goku does change, even in Z. Just think about how he let Mr. Satan take credit for saving the world or how he decided to train Uub because he knew he wouldn’t be around forever. Also, consider the Cell saga - he let his son fight instead of taking on Cell himself. The Goku from the original Dragon Ball would never have let someone else fight in his place.
i mean, i know this is not a video about goku, but i do like to debate
I subscribed before she said "if you like women", however, I will have it be known that I do in fact like women.
People think of their characters as heros. They are not at level 1. In older DnD editions they started very young and were called adventurers. Nowardys, players want to start ay princess, royalty, successfull buisness men/women. In addition, people invent long backstories. They are mostly in the way. Back in the beginning of DnD, there were no backstories. You are about to play the adventures, not have had already adventures. Maybe I am to old for this 😅
Oohh. I was like #666
Great end!
I quit all the campaigns i was in, i think im just too creative for dnd that i usually like being a DM much more than being a player. All my characters were really well done and had amazing ideas but then it usually just doesnt end up fitting into the story so i get bored quickly since in a way my characters end up becoming nothing and basically it literally feels like a really boring game.