Do you prefer to come up with an in-depth description of a character's personality before you start...

Do you prefer to come up with an in-depth description of a character's personality before you start, or do you prefer to let their characterization emerge from play? It's nice to have a game plan, but I think it can be better if you let yourself get used to the character as you roleplay, discovering character traits rather than inventing them.

Which do you think has more potential to produce interesting characters? Which one do you think is harder to do well? Is there anyone in your group who does one when you wish they'd do the other?

A little of both. I like to first pick what the characters abilities are. Usually this means selecting a class. Then I decide where they came from. What their background is. Then, in the process of filling out the character creation I think about the path the character would have taken to get from where they were to where they are. And I think about how that path would have affected them. By the time I am finished filling out the character sheet, I have the character's personality and back story written. Sometimes this makes for very tragic characters. Sometimes this makes for very naive fresh-faced hopefuls.

The former. Allowing a character to develop only according to the game is likely to produce a pretty uninteresting pragmatist.

Something I've started to try out is (largely because i've been playing a lot of crusader kings) Is assign characters traits, such as a couple the seven deadly sins or the opposing virtues, and not make it that these are their entire personality, but a prominent aspect of it. So far I've been having more interesting characters, but then again I could also attribute that to personal experience with character building improving.

Emerge as you go. I can sum up all my characters at lvl 1 in 5 sentences.
I make sure to include
>some strange quirk or angle that sets them aside from the average adventurer
>some desire or task
>a voice and a face
>some personality bullet-points like 'foolhardy', 'hypocrite' or 'delusional'
That's all you need. If you're going to write a story before your story even starts, you're doing it wrong. And it would take a method actor to actually reflect the personality of a character with a vast background story and you're better off writing a novel, in my humble opinion.
As a Gm I'm also a low-prep guy, so.

I always write out as much about my character's history as I can before starting, but that's just cos I enjoy writing. And usually that involves a lot of personality to shape it. I try to keep their personality somewhat vague, because it is going to change as the game progresses. Cowardly characters can gain courage. Frivolous party boy bards can gain a serious dedication to their craft. They've gotta start from somewhere that makes sense, but they aren't gonna stay there

I generally have an idea when I start, but characters can often get away from me. How they end up is rarely exactly how I originally envisioned them, but that's an aspect I rather enjoy, seeing how an idea plays off others and where it comes to fit.

I'm definitely an emerger. Planning the character beyond a sibgle motivation and two or three vices is not my style. Lately, I have even stopped talking about the game outside the game - I dislike it, but my group is big on planning, so that has caused some friction.

When I let them grow only during game-time, I have no problem making the characters interesting, they are often the life and soul of the group. Otoh, when I know the character really well, they quickly grow stale.

I often have an inkling and a general idea, but they can only be described in the vaguest of terms. They click during the session.

I usually make up the character's story -and the traits he got because of it- during character creation.

Why does the character have what he has? Then I go on from there

>all games are D&D
Yeah, any advice you had to give is null and void.

That much was obvious from his generally smug and self satisfied attitude, plus the 'There is one right way to game' implications.

Two paragraphs of description for the GM to use. That's the cover page.

Then I go full Henderson.

I like to decide on a basic personality and concept before building the character, then allow it to develop organically. This is subject to change, depending on the level of the campaign and the quirkiness of the character concept.

For example, in an epic-level campaign (which went on to become a Divine campaign) we were building lvl 20 characters, so my Dragonkin Sorcerer/Shadowmancer needed a pretty detailed backstory and goals. Also, in a Planescape campaign in which I was allowed to build an enlightened wolf psion (not even the quirkiest character, considering we had a sentient potted plant who was afraid of fire but designated himself as the party's cook) required a backstory which could fill a small book.

>all games are D&D
Wat. What makes you think I was referring to D&D in any way, other than mentioning 'adventurers'? I don't even play D&D you assuming cunt.

And fuck you especially.
Did you not see the words "in my humble opinion"? Smug, sure, I'll grant you that. But how can I imply 'there is one right way to game', when I specifically state it's an opinion?
"As a Gm I'm also a low-prep guy, so." Doesn't this imply that I'm strictly referring to myself and my own style of playing, rather than imposing anything on others?

I know I'm getting worked up, but don't impose your twisted image of D&D on perfectly sincere advise and say it's void.

Using the phrase 'in my humble opinion' was part of what made me sure you were an asshole.

Yes fine, asshole, sure. But that doesn't nullify my advise or makes it 'obvious that I play D&D'. I'm not a native English speaker, so I basically just copy phrases I hear on tv and hope they get my meaning across.
How about giving me the benefit of the doubt before calling me names, asshole.

Give how you're acting my assumptions feel entirely justified.

I know who I'm playing before I start. I don't know who I'll be when we finish.

They shouldn't. I'm trying to get an argument, response or a reconsideration here. You're giving me nothing other than "I can tell you're an asshole so your opinion is meaningless".

I generally start with a vague background, a general idea of the type of things the character does, and a simple theme or approach as far as how I want to roleplay them. But I leave details and specifics open, so I can fill them in as I go.

But then, I am pretty good at improvising and coming up with stuff that is interesting and coherent. It's not difficult for me to have a general idea of a personality and then remain close to that, while also adding new stuff all the time and not ending up contradicting myself or just being stupid. I know that most players cannot do that sort of thing. For them, their character is whatever they wrote down ahead of time, because they can't really roleplay spontaneously.

I go in with an idea but whatever comes out in play is always more enjoyable to play than something I crafted fully before anything happens.

You explicitly mentioned level, faggot. Most games do not feature levels.

haha you're such a cunt. I'll bet you're the guy that makes games fall apart before they start just because not playing at all is better than dealing with your pissy ass.

Someone in the thread certainly fits this description.

This. Having a good amount of material for your GM to work with at the beginning can be good.

As long as you're not front-loading your character's story and having the plot go sideways for your character (which is what happened in one campaign with a That GalI was in), you're fine.

Sometimes I think too little is more of a problem than too much.

>This guy thinks all games are D&D
>All games that feature levels must be D&D
You must see the fault in your own logic here, no?
You can't say I'm ignorant about games other than D&D and at the same time not know any other game with levels than D&D. You see that, right?

But almost no systems apart from D&D feature levels, retard.

The vast majority of systems have an "XP as progression currency" mechanic instead. Furthermore, your disgusting behavior and attitude gave you away as a D&Dtwat even setting aside your direct reference of its mechanics.

But I don't actually play D&D. You're defending an assumption that is just plain wrong.
And you're calling me a retard while doing so.

And you're saying that 'almost no system apart from D&D features levels', which mean you know there are some that do. But you're still defending that 'a game with levels' must mean D&D, while knowing you're wrong.
AND you're calling me a retard while doing so.

If you don't play D&D then you're even worse, a parhetic NARPfag.

But it wasn't just your explicit mention of level that made it obvious. Level 1 characters are only pathetic, worthless losers with no backstory in D&D. Every other system I know of that uses levels has level 1 PCs as competent and completely justified in an interesting backstory.

I'll have to ask what you mean by a 'parhetic NARPfag'. Not natively English.

>But it wasn't just your explicit mention of level that made it obvious. Level 1 characters are only pathetic, worthless losers with no backstory in D&D. Every other system I know of that uses levels has level 1 PCs as competent and completely justified in an interesting backstory.
But again, I don't play D&D. You can't say it's obvious that I do a thing, when I don't do that thing. I'm arguing against a wall here.

Protip- That fantasy heartbreaker you love which is totally amazing and innovative is so similar to D&D we don't bother drawing a distinction. D&D, Pathfinder, whatever bullshit variant you prefer, they're all just fucking D&D.

> D&D, Pathfinder, whatever bullshit variant you prefer, they're all just fucking D&D.
You're not even in the ballpark mate. You really can't think of any other game than D&D rip-offs that feature levels? And you're still calling me a retard?

Middle ground, I like to come up with a decently detailed headspace for my character. Attempt to convey it in the game and then drop the traits I feel don't add anything / don't implement well, before adding in traits that I didn't think of that feel natural.