Alright so I want everyone to write a bio about their character

>Wants to write 5+pages of backstory for a level 1 character
>In a game where the most important bits of your characters happens during play.
Fucking Roleplayers. If you want to show off how "unique" your character is and why they're so important go write a book or something.

Nobody outside of some spergs at roll20 are asking for five pages, strawman-senpai. Just a short explanation of your character and what they're about will suffice, which can easily be done with a single paragraph.

Please, I've been in several games where your type comes in with a grossly inflated backstory while going on about how they're awesome and cool and, like, the best X ever.

Fucks like you are why our group has a strict limit on backstories, if you need more than three sentences to answer the following questions...
>Where do you come from?
>How did you learn your abilities?
>What made you become a wanderer?
>What makes you able to work with the party?
>What are your goals as an individual?
then your special snowflake is denied and back to the drawing board you go.

user....if you wrote answers to those questions....you wrote a bio.

I can't answer in three sentences, I'm going to need five. One for each question.

Sounds like you just got a character denied. Better luck next time kiddo.
>Needing one sentence for each question, rather than blending multiple answers together into one sentence.
I don't know what is with roleplayers and being shitty writers.

Different user here. I wrote answers to those questions and got mocked by the GM for "not really writing a backstory". Still got to play in the game, but that's because I'm lucky enough to have friends that are into the hobby.

The problem with backstories is when they're used as a gating mechanism in an online pubbie game. Picking players based on backstories doesn't select for the best players, it selects for the people who can write the best backstories, but most forevergms are insecure nerds who don't like saying no so they need a flimsy reason to allow only five of the six hundred applicants into their game.

>I don't know what is with roleplayers and being shitty writers.

Can you even do that yourself?

>implying

You don't have to be autistic about it. Four or five sentences is all I ask for at my games. Just to give context and perhaps fuel for an encounter or two.

>We're going to be playing 3.5 but core rulebooks are banned. Everything in complete psionics and tome of battle is fine.

Yes, but, it'll be a long, very long sentence that seems to never end, and it'll have a lot of commas, so that user can fit everything in just one sentence to prove you wrong, you see, it'll be great.

hi

>having shit taste

Or it will be totally bland and generic, because a character with any kind of distinctive feature is a "special snowflake" now.

>I want to run spelljammer but I only know pathfinder so we're going to make another pathfinder game instead.

Without knowing anything about the setting proper, I can come up with a fairly basic backstory that I can fill in later on as the GM gives more detail into the world.

>I'm Henry Jazz and I hail from the city of Silva. I learned my musical talents from the famed musician Carlos Hacienda and I decided to take my talents on the road to sample different styles of music from the various cultures that surround me. With my music, I help inspire my allies to triumph in the most trying of circumstance and I hope to one day become an even better musician than my teacher and pass on my gifts to teach others the wondrous power of music.

Sounds good to me.

>Look mom, I'm projecting

>short version
jessica jones but uses magic instead of fists
>long version
fuck you too drunk to type

>Look mom, I'm not proving them wrong.

>Not writing your character as an interloper from another world entirely, so you don't have to memorize the DM's homebrew setting

>Three-sentence MINIMUM backstory and a one-sentence summary are mandatory at my table for anything that isn't a silly one-shot
>Write-happy players are content, players who don't want to read the full story can skim the summary and leave it at that
>Implying my games aren't better than yours

>Actually playing isekai shit
Take yourself and your shitty concept away from my table!

see I guess they're failed readers as well.

So he's just a generic musician. He has no vices, no relatives, no reason to value the company of the other party-members other than "they're murderhobos too"...

Yeah, you really proved us wrong.

If I have to choose between some bard and a German scout for the Großdeutschland Stargate Project, you better believe I'm going to be heiling sieg until the DM gets sick of it.

I do this at the third or fourth session of the games I run (and the first session starts in media res). Haven't had any issues so far and everything seems to be going well.

I see you missed the part where I wrote here >come up with a fairly basic backstory that I can fill in later on as the GM gives more detail into the world.
I mean, I don't particularly know what sort of vices are present within this world. I *should* gain reasons to value the company of my party members through play. And a general rule of thumb is that I don't mention relatives unless they somehow become important later on, due a combination of uncreative GM's having a habit of tossing them into a meat grinder and the tendency of campaign to take us to part unknown, far away from any other family members that we might have had in our various home countries.

So yeah, I proved you wrong, but there's no reason to be a salty bitch about it kiddo.

If he setting was one where such a thing existed and was important to the structure of the campaign, I would've added it to my backstory, rather than going with something that was intentionally generic until I knew more about the GM's setting.

I'm curious why so many people ITT missed the point of the exercise and the line I wrote preceding the backstory. Too many mofos are more interested in saying "gotcha" that they end up playing themselves instead.

Sad...

>Too many mofos are more interested in saying "gotcha" that they end up playing themselves instead.
Modern Veeky Forums in a nutshell.

What? No. There are two circumstances in which you flip the table and make up a wall of bullshit to get past the requirement for a biography of your character.

The first is too little information to work with, and the second is requiring an encyclopedia and a history textbook to get to the point where your characters don't majorly upset the canon.

It's not a "gotcha" to just make some shit up, you mongoloid.

When you meet somebody new, do you immediately know every detail about them? Or do you learn it gradually over time as you get to know them?

>I mean, I don't particularly know what sort of vices are present within this world.

Vices of character(personality) are universal to every character(dramatis persona) played by a human being. If you mean setting-specific common vices like smoking fesh or gambling on tarkattan races then how do you know that this basic concept of a travelling musician is even possible? You might be a bonded servant that cannot move.

>I *should* gain reasons to value the company of my party members through play.

But what reasons do you have to sticking to these characters before you get to value them?

>And a general rule of thumb is that I don't mention relatives unless they somehow become important later on, due a combination of uncreative GM's having a habit of tossing them into a meat grinder and the tendency of campaign to take us to part unknown, far away from any other family members that we might have had in our various home countries.

If you got conditioned to such painful experiences doesn't mean it's someone else's problem but you.
Point is, you didn't make a character. You made a cliche, a template, that needs to be filed before being inserted into any reasonable game.

>The first is too little information to work with
Which was the fucking point genius, without knowing anything about the setting, I can't be more detailed with the backstory proper, yet it answers each question in three sentences anyways.
>It's not a "gotcha" to just make some shit up, you mongoloid.
Dumbass, everything we do in this hobby is made up, the fuck you talkin' about?

No but in any RPG there is a GM aka GOD, who would in fact know everything about your character.

>I don't particularly know what sort of vices are present within this world.

Vices are character flaws. Your character could be naive, or short-tempered, or stupid, or awkward in conversation, or a terrible liar, or compulsive, or tend to jump into situations without a plan, or lack any kind of street-smarts.

Vices are setting-agnostic. Moreover, they make your character actually goddamned interesting and well-rounded, instead of just another vaguely-heroic nobody.

You're detailing a character's past to an omniscient observer, not giving a first-impression to a random stranger. The backstory is supposed to contain information that no-one could possibly deduce at a glance.

So, don't people do Session 0 anymore?

You know, a session dedicated exclusively to introducing the world, making characters that fit and can work together as a party.

>1
Any vices that this bard would have can, and should, be expressed during play, not as a blurb in his backstory.
>2
Presumably the same reasons that anyone of us continue to hang out with people before we get to value them.
>3
If having family is that important, it'll come up naturally during play, not in my backstory.
>4
Congrats on missing the point, yet again. To recap >come up with a fairly basic backstory that I can fill in later on as the GM gives more detail into the world.

Yes people do, but some autists still find shit to whine aboot.

Out of curiosity, and because I'm still newish around here—what are the general thoughts on Book of Nine Swords? Personally, I appreciate the flavor it aims for, but other than handing out Martial Training with specific maneuvers as story-based bonus feats in select situations I haven't found much application for it.

You missed the point of my reply as well. The point is that you can't make an actual character with a three-sentence backstory, as you originaly claimed. You need to expand it, so your statement does not work.

>Vices are character flaws.
Then they should be expressed during play, not during your backstory, wouldn't you agree?

>Any vices that this bard would have can, and should, be expressed during play, not as a blurb in his backstory.

Not him, but that's sketchy. Unless your character is a total unknown they have some sort of reputation. The fat warrior, the hot blooded mage, the almost stupidly loyal. Just like appearance, there's something that makes them stand out compared to a mannequin.

Why not both?

>"You all missed the point," he chided.

Oh. I hadn't realized you were a sophist and didn't want to explain what you meant like a normal human being.

>The point is that you can't make an actual character with a three-sentence backstory
I just did.
>You need to expand it
No, that backstory was the way it is because I, as a player, knew nothing about the setting that this campaign would be taking place in. If the GM gave me a primer and was available to answer questions about the world, my backstory would gain more detail as a consequence.

Also, the original post was talking about how you should only need three sentences to answer the five questions Seriously, work on that reading comprehension friend-o.

Common problem / mistake: assuming that the "three sentences" used for the kind of character design you're talking about need to be well-structured sentences that don't run on, when that's not really the point—at least, not as much getting the gist of the character across quickly and simply.

L2Hemingway, anyone who requires multiple paragraphs to get their level 2 character across is a poor writer.

Because saying "oh my character is clumsy (but in a cute way tee-hee ^__^) doesn't have quite as much impact as having the character stumble around the battlefield, putting themselves (and possible others) in danger.

Not that guy.

Always session 0 and shut the fuck up you autist.

>Not making twenty plus pages of backstory and character information to draw on during play

Don't touch me you filthy casual. I bet you don't even know your character's mom's name.

You're not going to be able to get a read off of someone's flaws based off of what some dude said when he supposedly met them in a tavern a few weeks back.

People can hide their flaws well, but the longer you spend time with them, the more and more of their flaws will come out naturally as a result of them getting more comfortable around you.

>Backed into a corner
>s-s-s-shut up autist!
Every time.

I know my character's mom's name, it's just that it's not that important to bring up as we're in the middle of dealing with a goblin horde at-the-moment.

... Is there something wrong with writing bios about your character? Because not only does it give the GM a bit of backstory so that they can bring those characters up if they wish, but ten it also tells the GM what your character's goals are.

I literally just told you I'm not the guy you're arguing with, and you just confirmed that you're fucking baiting, shut up and go back under your bridge you fucking troll.

For someone with no stakes in this argument, you sure are triggered user. Next time you want to pretend *not* to be someone, do so when you're not acting like a little bitch m'kay?

>Of course the reality is that the length of backstory varies and should vary by player and DM preference and the type of campaign being played, with a very short blurb or even no back story for a beer and chips game, and at least a few paragraphs for a long-running Storyteller game, but its much funner to argue.

No, nothing wrong with it.
In every group I was a backstory was required, and I require one for my game.

>its much funner to argue.
Exactly

>I just did.
You made a cliche. A bad character.

>No, that backstory was the way it is because I, as a player, knew nothing about the setting that this campaign would be taking place in. If the GM gave me a primer and was available to answer questions about the world, my backstory would gain more detail as a consequence.

So what, your group plays only homebrews with no public data available for them that you automatically reject anything non-blatantly generic?

Either you have a terrible RP-experience overall or you're strawmanning. Because what you are arguing against here with that example is "mary sueing", irrelevant to why characters should be fleshed out before or after play.
As to your point - why should it carry the "impact"? The fact that it does not tip the scales of every situation does not make it worthless. There is nothing wrong with mentioning such details beforehand if they don't contradict what happens during campaign.

>funner
Are you trying to rustle me?

>You made a cliche. A bad character.

If you can tell something against that let's hear it.

>You made a cliche. A bad character.
Excuse me if I question the validity of your statement since you've proven time and time again that you have trouble with reading comprehension. The only thing that separates a good character from a bad one is execution.
>So what, your group plays only homebrews with no public data available for them that you automatically reject anything non-blatantly generic?
There's that trouble with reading comprehension again. At this point, I think you're just reading what you want to hear so you actually have something plausible to argue against without making yourself look like a loon you failed btw.
>As to your point - why should it carry the "impact"?
Because what's the point of having a vice if it doesn't fuck you over now and again? If you want "flaws" that are just there for window-dressing then go ahead, but some people aren't failed writers and want better for their characters.

Yeah, if being annoyed is being triggered which considering that being triggered is a symptom of Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder and not being offended or annoyed, i don't think i am "triggered".

I was also not pretending, I am not the user you were arguing with, Session 0 solves literally every problem you brought up, so shut up about bad writing and bad backstories, unless you're gonna share Veeky Forums horror stories about yourself/that guy.

>If I make a claim, it's your responsibility to prove me wrong
Yeah okay user. If that's the way we're playing things, then I hereby declare that you are not a person but a chat robot. It's your responsibility to prove me wrong.

>Because what's the point of having a vice if it doesn't fuck you over now and again? If you want "flaws" that are just there for window-dressing then go ahead, but some people aren't failed writers and want better for their characters.
>Minor flaws that doesn't fuck you up are bad writing

>plan campaign for a group of friends wanting to try out tabletop
>ask them for backstories expecting half a page at most
>receive 6 pages minimum from each, chock full of personal quest hooks, locations, NPCs and all sorts of great stuff
>mffw

You said "vices" not "minor flaws" user. If you're going to argue then at least keep your story straight.

Different user, but that's getting semantic as fuck.

>The only thing that separates a good character from a bad one is execution.
No. "Bland" and "cliche" are derogatory terms for a reason.
Besides, fleshing out a character can be considered a part of "execution". So, in that regard you seem incapable of doing that.
>There's that trouble with reading comprehension again. At this point, I think you're just reading what you want to hear so you actually have something plausible to argue against without making yourself look like a loon you failed btw.
I would still like to hear an answer to my question.
>Because what's the point of having a vice if it doesn't fuck you over now and again?
Because not all things need to have a point. Having a character that is composed of only meaningful parts is the narrative equivalent of "minmaxing" and "powergaming", whether that is done before start or after.

A vice has connotations associated with something like alcoholism or gambling or compulsive liar or some shit like that. The only way it's semantic is if you don't actually know what the word means.

If you (or the "other" user) meant minor flaw, you should've made that clear and said "minor flaw."

Does it even matter who I am? I may be a bot, but that alone does not impact the (in)validity of my points.

>He's gonna trash the "other user" and call it a samefag
>He doesn't notice he talked about flaws in the second part of his post

"Vice" and "minor flaw" are synonimous enough to make this point moot.

>No. "Bland" and "cliche" are derogatory terms for a reason.
Mostly because shit writers don't actually know how to flesh out their characters during the story as well as they do in their backstory.
>Besides, fleshing out a character can be considered a part of "execution". So, in that regard you seem incapable of doing that.
I know you have shit reading comprehension, but I did mention several times that most of the fleshing out can (and should) be done during play, not during your backstory.
>I would still like to hear an answer to my question.
Keep rereading until you understand what I wrote sunshine, it'll help you in the long run, believe me.
>Because not all things need to have a point.
If there's no point then why mention it at all? You're wasting everyone's time mentioning shit that has no point to it user.

Y'know, people might not be jumping down your throat so much if you weren't such a smug fucking cunt.

>Mostly because shit writers don't actually know how to flesh out their characters during the story as well as they do in their backstory.
are you aware that playing doesn't make you a good writer
because if someone do a great backstory and is shit during play, that just means he's a good writer and bad player, not that he's a shit writer

Perhaps the other user should have phrased things differently, but I can find the word "Flaw" listed under synonym for "Vice" in dictionaries so I suggest you stop embarrassing yourself.

No, they really aren't.

Mike Tyson having a lisp is a minor flaw but him, at one point in his life, having horrible anger issues and a ravenous sexual appetite is a vice, especially when it fucked him over at several points in his life, like when he beat up his wife, bit off Holyfield's ear, and got collared for sexual assault.

Learn the difference, it can save your life.

>If you can tell something against that let's hear it.

The people "jumping down my throat" are in dire need of a swift kick to the backside to get their shit straight, so any shade they throw at me just means that they need more truth thrown back at them.

>I hate story and would rather jack off to a theoretical mathematics textbook

>are you aware that playing doesn't make you a good writer
I'm playing out the character's interaction with the world around them, which would count as storytelling since my actions make the story.
>because if someone do a great backstory and is shit during play, that just means he's a good writer and bad player, not that he's a shit writer
From my own experience, shit writers and shit players tend to go hand in hand.

Thesauri disagree with you.

Writing and Improv are different skills. I may write quite well when I sit down to do so, but the same methods I use to review what I write aren't things I can put into practice when playing a game around a table.

Being good at writing doesn't make you a good player, and being good at acting in-character doesn't make you a good writer.

Saying a minor flaw is the same as a vice is like saying that an ice cube is the same as an iceberg.

Sure, they're concepts that are roughly the same but one is magnitudes greater than the other and trying to claim that they're both the same will only make you look like a moron.

>I'm playing out the character's interaction with the world around them, which would count as storytelling since my actions make the story.
Storytelling is not writing too. And playing one character sure as hell isn't equal to writing
>From my own experience, shit writers and shit players tend to go hand in hand.
From my experience, almost everyone is a shit writer. Writing is hard.

>From my own experience, shit writers and shit players tend to go hand in hand.

Someone can easily flip that on you for presenting your template of a character backstory.

>Being good at writing doesn't make you a good player, and being good at acting in-character doesn't make you a good writer.
Being good at one does tend to help you become better than the other though.