I've long been a fan of not fleshing out characters before play begins. I usually find that when someone has made a big, involved background for their character that it's mismatched to the character in play by the end of the first session or two, and that the player isn't interested in most of the details they've committed to paper. I'd much rather leave those things to emerge during play. Front story is greater than back story, as I used to say in D&D.
But I've struggled with the sort of character development that you're talking about here. Your post here makes this much clearer, and seeing it in action in your game of Miskatonic Shoreside Conservatory illustrates the techniques nicely. I really like your methods of teasing out details in play conversationally toward the beginning, defining the characters early without having the players write essays in isolation. I'm eager to try this myself!
From personal experience, this is a very fun way to build characters and relationships through roleplay. It's actually very low pressure if you have a good table and really lends itself to being a more natural way of helping players get into the roleplay.
As a player (especially in short or one-shot scenarios) I like to get a handle on the character in the first 30 minutes or so of play. Even thinking about this approach makes me feel ‘under pressure’ to be more creative quickly! I’m sure that it doesn’t work out like that in practice though.
You've got a point: that's the danger of systems like this, that they put people under pressure to be creative. I try to avoid this - with things like giving people a cue line to start the scene - but it's hard to avoid totally. (It does create characters in 30 minutes, though.)
I'd like to share a fun ritual that works like a charm at our monthly table of Swords without Master:
After a round of introductions that include all things that must be named (the character's name, their nemesis, their heritage, their life goal or the name of weapon, or any other thing that will make us say cool things about them later in play), we do a round of "I see..."
"I see..." is each of the other players offering a bit of detail about the character in the spotlight, with the character's player responding thusly: "I see that, and also this other thing is true: ..." Or, "I don't see that, but this other related thing is true instead: ..."
We finish off character creation with each of the characters striking a pose and delivering a typical line of dialogue, as if they were part of a crew montage at the start of an episodic TV series.
This usually gives us enough creative input for the overplayer/GM to frame an engaging first scene for us to get the action rolling.
I think Psi*Run does a good job of character creation.
So Graham, what I do before traditional character creation is this, I have everyone secretly write down a word or two that best describes their character. Usually it's the most obvious thing. Then I have them reveal these words all at once. Then I ask them to create opposites for all these traits. It doesn't much matter how it's done, you could assign who comes up with what word, or just come to a consensus. Some words can be approached differently, from multiple angles. Then I have them choose one of these new words, with the only rule being that you can't choose a word of your opposite. If your character is Foolish, they can also not be Wise or Serious. Yes, the last player doesn't get much of a choice. So make sure the next time they get to go first. Then finally, I have each player give one trait/word to a player of their choice. This trait must be role played in good faith.
That's lovely, I must think about that more. I'd guess it's good for creating variety, it's good for creating drama and I can see it being good for comedy if you handle it right.
I think to work really well, you'd have to talk a bit about theme before doing chargen. Character oftentimes showcases various aspects of a theme, approaching it from many angles, lending the illusion of reality. Like all these characters are just aspects of who we are, they're not fully formed, complicated nuanced people, I mean sometimes, oftentimes they have conflicting views and desires, but they're not as faceted as an actual person. We're all Luke, Han, Princess Leia and Darth Vader(and much more).
I've long been a fan of not fleshing out characters before play begins. I usually find that when someone has made a big, involved background for their character that it's mismatched to the character in play by the end of the first session or two, and that the player isn't interested in most of the details they've committed to paper. I'd much rather leave those things to emerge during play. Front story is greater than back story, as I used to say in D&D.
But I've struggled with the sort of character development that you're talking about here. Your post here makes this much clearer, and seeing it in action in your game of Miskatonic Shoreside Conservatory illustrates the techniques nicely. I really like your methods of teasing out details in play conversationally toward the beginning, defining the characters early without having the players write essays in isolation. I'm eager to try this myself!
From personal experience, this is a very fun way to build characters and relationships through roleplay. It's actually very low pressure if you have a good table and really lends itself to being a more natural way of helping players get into the roleplay.
As a player (especially in short or one-shot scenarios) I like to get a handle on the character in the first 30 minutes or so of play. Even thinking about this approach makes me feel ‘under pressure’ to be more creative quickly! I’m sure that it doesn’t work out like that in practice though.
You've got a point: that's the danger of systems like this, that they put people under pressure to be creative. I try to avoid this - with things like giving people a cue line to start the scene - but it's hard to avoid totally. (It does create characters in 30 minutes, though.)
I'd like to share a fun ritual that works like a charm at our monthly table of Swords without Master:
After a round of introductions that include all things that must be named (the character's name, their nemesis, their heritage, their life goal or the name of weapon, or any other thing that will make us say cool things about them later in play), we do a round of "I see..."
"I see..." is each of the other players offering a bit of detail about the character in the spotlight, with the character's player responding thusly: "I see that, and also this other thing is true: ..." Or, "I don't see that, but this other related thing is true instead: ..."
We finish off character creation with each of the characters striking a pose and delivering a typical line of dialogue, as if they were part of a crew montage at the start of an episodic TV series.
This usually gives us enough creative input for the overplayer/GM to frame an engaging first scene for us to get the action rolling.
I think Psi*Run does a good job of character creation.
So Graham, what I do before traditional character creation is this, I have everyone secretly write down a word or two that best describes their character. Usually it's the most obvious thing. Then I have them reveal these words all at once. Then I ask them to create opposites for all these traits. It doesn't much matter how it's done, you could assign who comes up with what word, or just come to a consensus. Some words can be approached differently, from multiple angles. Then I have them choose one of these new words, with the only rule being that you can't choose a word of your opposite. If your character is Foolish, they can also not be Wise or Serious. Yes, the last player doesn't get much of a choice. So make sure the next time they get to go first. Then finally, I have each player give one trait/word to a player of their choice. This trait must be role played in good faith.
That's lovely, I must think about that more. I'd guess it's good for creating variety, it's good for creating drama and I can see it being good for comedy if you handle it right.
I think to work really well, you'd have to talk a bit about theme before doing chargen. Character oftentimes showcases various aspects of a theme, approaching it from many angles, lending the illusion of reality. Like all these characters are just aspects of who we are, they're not fully formed, complicated nuanced people, I mean sometimes, oftentimes they have conflicting views and desires, but they're not as faceted as an actual person. We're all Luke, Han, Princess Leia and Darth Vader(and much more).
I love the way this evolves.