Protagonisting

[Quertus]

I don't understand what you mean by "a darn good reason" to know somebody. You know the people you've met. For most of us, the people we usually hang out with are a subset of the people we know. Why would it be any different for adventurers?

If I'm getting into an Ocean's Eleven situation as, say, a driver, then, sure, I might know the con man, or the safe cracker. But, if I've worked with everybody there - especially on the same previous job, when this job is theoretically unrelated? I'm bailing pronto, because something's wrong here.

When I'm given a project in a big company, sometimes I know one or two of the people, sometimes I've worked with one or two of them before. But, unless this is a follow-up to a previous project, I expect that there will be more new faces than old.

I expect it to be the same way for most any team that is being picked for their specific skill set - sometimes, the required skills will overlap such that some people will know each other, but it would be weird for two unrelated teams to require the same skill sets.

Thus, knowing a few members of the team aids verisimilitude; knowing the whole team detracts from it.

On Knowing PCs: I think if it supposed to just be a bunch of chance meetings that just happen to connect everyone yes that is a bit of a stretch. On the other hand I have played a campaign where the opening was "you are on patrol when". The party was the patrol and have been working together for a while. And we had it worked out that one person had almost got another killed previously, two were rivals, two were best friends and one had saved another's life before play even started. I think the

That's fair. Although, as I said, I'm leery of people's ability to pull off, "suddenly, best friends" believably.

On Backstories: I think the best backstory I have ever written was just 3 scenes. An actual story if you will rather than a plot description. Really these didn't establish anything that wasn't in the character description, although it went into more detail on the personality because you got to see it as opposed to read an overview. Other than that I don't do backstories. You (and I?) will figure out who the character is once the campaign begins and I see no reason to rush that.

How about the one I've been conditioned to care about: making sure that the character is a good fit? If you don't know the character, how can you know if they'll be a good fit?

[PhoenixPhyre]

My standard campaign opener (before character generation) is

You are all graduating from the Sanctioned Adventurer Qualification Course tomorrow. Today is your final ranking practical exam. You've been working together for the last 6 months; you've gone through Introduction to Adventuring Tactics, Introduction to Monsters and Dungeons, as well as the rest of the core curriculum. Build characters that will work well together. and then tell me a short description of what they were doing before they started the Course.

This neatly explains

a) why they're adventuring (because they've chosen to become professional adventurers)
b) how they know each other (because they've been a team throughout their training)
c) how they know what each other can do
d) how they'll be a good fit. Because that's a design-time requirement and I'll veto any characters that are bad fits, in personality or mechanics.

The backstories are very very short and the personalities pretty much blank slates with only the lightest of broad brush strokes to be filled in during play. I occasionally ask a question or two so I know how best to place them into the world as far as place of origin, etc. as well as to know what they'd know without a roll.

My current group (all new to the tabletop):

1) human barbarian, apprentice blacksmith in a big city
2) wood elf wizard, urchin in a city who learned her first spells by watching and mimicking the wizardry students in the bars and on the streets.
3) dwarf druid, farmer.

This style doesn't work for all campaigns, but it works well for me and my groups.

[JoeJ]

If I'm getting into an Ocean's Eleven situation as, say, a driver, then, sure, I might know the con man, or the safe cracker. But, if I've worked with everybody there - especially on the same previous job, when this job is theoretically unrelated? I'm bailing pronto, because something's wrong here.

When I'm given a project in a big company, sometimes I know one or two of the people, sometimes I've worked with one or two of them before. But, unless this is a follow-up to a previous project, I expect that there will be more new faces than old.

I expect it to be the same way for most any team that is being picked for their specific skill set - sometimes, the required skills will overlap such that some people will know each other, but it would be weird for two unrelated teams to require the same skill sets.

Thus, knowing a few members of the team aids verisimilitude; knowing the whole team detracts from it.

So it sounds like you're thinking in terms of a situation where people are just picked for one mission by some higher authority? That has not been very common in games I've played, except for Top Secret. It's a fine premise for a one-shot adventure, but it really doesn't work for a campaign. If I'm running that kind of scenario I just provide pre-gens and don't worry about backstory.

What I'm talking about with PCs who know each other is the more stereotypical party who will be together for an entire campaign. They might be looting dungeons, or trying to put the mob out of business, or running their own tramp starship, but the expectation is that they will have many adventures together before the characters are retired.

[Quertus]

So it sounds like you're thinking in terms of a situation where people are just picked for one mission by some higher authority? That has not been very common in games I've played, except for Top Secret. It's a fine premise for a one-shot adventure, but it really doesn't work for a campaign. If I'm running that kind of scenario I just provide pre-gens and don't worry about backstory.

What I'm talking about with PCs who know each other is the more stereotypical party who will be together for an entire campaign. They might be looting dungeons, or trying to put the mob out of business, or running their own tramp starship, but the expectation is that they will have many adventures together before the characters are retired.

Well, the context in which I brought up Ocean's Eleven was me pointing out that there were multiple ways to play the game. Responding to the existence of troop play - or even open tables - with an appeal to a single style of play is a step backwards.

Also, I don't exactly consider Ocean's Eleven to be a one-shot. I was more talking about the idea of a lengthy adventure, in the same system and world as the past 20 adventures - and, oh, look, some of the characters know each other.

But the idea that the characters may know each other when bright together for their particular skills seems much more likely than them knowing each other when brought together by random fate. We all happened to be in this elevator when the earthquake struck? What a coincidence! No, I chose "chosen for their skills" as among the likely premises in which it's reasonable for characters to have known each other.

[MrSandman]

But the idea that the characters may know each other when bright together for their particular skills seems much more likely than them knowing each other when brought together by random fate. We all happened to be in this elevator when the earthquake struck? What a coincidence! No, I chose "chosen for their skills" as among the likely premises in which it's reasonable for characters to have known each other.

Well, it needn't be fate that brought the characters together. It may simply be that they were friends/family/whatever that found something that needed to change (evil lord, goblin raiders, political system) and decided to do something about it together.

I think that it isn't a matter of what premise you use (characters did not know one another before/some knew some/all knew all) but a matter of how you deal with it. Personally I cringe when characters don't know one another beforehand, several of them are the arrogant loner/I'm above that scum type who don't want to work together and only end up adventuring together because there is a label saying "PC" sewn in their clothes (and that happens a lot both in role-playing games and fantasy literature).

[Quertus]

Well, it needn't be fate that brought the characters together. It may simply be that they were friends/family/whatever that found something that needed to change (evil lord, goblin raiders, political system) and decided to do something about it together.

I think that it isn't a matter of what premise you use (characters did not know one another before/some knew some/all knew all) but a matter of how you deal with it. Personally I cringe when characters don't know one another beforehand, several of them are the arrogant loner/I'm above that scum type who don't want to work together and only end up adventuring together because there is a label saying "PC" sewn in their clothes (and that happens a lot both in role-playing games and fantasy literature).

"You're all decided to take down the evil overlord - decide how you've all gotten together" is a fine introduction to a game. But I still cringe at the thought of people playing "old friends".

"This quest is more important than my personal disdain or even hatred of you" is also fine, and rife with role-playing opportunities. And opportunities for character growth, for those who are into such things.

[MrSandman]

"You're all decided to take down the evil overlord - decide how you've all gotten together" is a fine introduction to a game. But I still cringe at the thought of people playing "old friends".

"This quest is more important than my personal disdain or even hatred of you" is also fine, and rife with role-playing opportunities. And opportunities for character growth, for those who are into such things.

I guess we agree that there's good and bad ways to do it. What's the problem with people playing old friends, though? I've played old friends with other people and been in games where people played family and I didn't find it problematic.

[Cluedrew]

How about the one I've been conditioned to care about: making sure that the character is a good fit? If you don't know the character, how can you know if they'll be a good fit?

I don't understand the question. Rather I don't understand how it relates to my comment on backstories. I still have a character, I just don't have their past.

[Quertus]

For my stab at "one size fits most" best practices, I suppose I'd endorse having a series of one-shots before planning a larger campaign.

That way, the players can get a feel for their characters, the GM, each other. They can have a reasonable idea who various characters are, how they'd react, etc. What types of things the GM is good - and bad - at. They can sit down, and make informed decisions to plan a party that they think would work together, and a mission that they'd all be engaged with.

As an added bonus, the characters who have been in one-shots together have a real shared history, rather than having to make something up.

(for those who've asked in other threads, after such a series of one-shots is one of the times when players & GMs who have seen me play several characters often ask me to play Quertus, my signature academia mage for whom this account is named. I've never directly asked why, so I can only make educated guesses on that front.)

I guess we agree that there's good and bad ways to do it. What's the problem with people playing old friends, though? I've played old friends with other people and been in games where people played family and I didn't find it problematic.

Just that I've seen it fall flat many times. One particularly noteworthy example was when I was handed a pregen, and another player was handed the PC who was my wife. Yeah, there was no history, no chemistry there. And, not having time to discuss it, we clearly made different assumptions from the (terrible? lack of?) write-up about what our relationship was like, was based on, etc.

Hopefully, it's easy to imagine how two people could pull off "childhood friends" or some such equally poorly.

I don't understand the question. Rather I don't understand how it relates to my comment on backstories. I still have a character, I just don't have their past.

Oh. Silly me, not really getting this whole "having a character without a past" thing. The two are too intimately bound in my play style for that concept to even register.

You know, I feel like I ought to be able to tie these two conversations together, about having a "childhood friend" with no shared history, because you both have no history whatsoever...

[Cluedrew]

Oh. Silly me, not really getting this whole "having a character without a past" thing. The two are too intimately bound in my play style for that concept to even register.

What is past is gone. It may have left the starting state of a campaign behind but it doesn't mean anything. The character I wrote that backstory for was very dedicated to his work and didn't have many social connections outside of it. Because when his "condition" started showing his teacher reacted better to it than his family. Thing is the whole reason that is true is I wanted a relatively socially isolated character that was skilled in his trade. I created a bit of a history to check the "adulthood test" since it was an odd character. But my back story took place the day he left to go to the tavern where the adventure started.

I actually just made some of that up. I know his family didn't react very well and he is well regarded professionally, but I never decided the relationship he had with the teacher of the time. Yet it fits in quite nicely and in the off chance it did come up I could of made it up as quickly as I did for this post. (Less time than I spent typing it.)

So in conclusion: Yeah I feel I can know who a character is without knowing who they were.

You know, I feel like I ought to be able to tie these two conversations together, about having a "childhood friend" with no shared history, because you both have no history whatsoever...

I did actually do that once, another player and I played siblings one time. We knew what the relationship between them was modeled after the conversation where we tried to figure out there relationship, so we did have them interact with no surprises. On the other hand they were step-siblings and I don't think we ever worked out who had which biological parent or how long the who PCs had known each other. Although from their interactions it had been a while.

[Quertus]

What is past is gone. It may have left the starting state of a campaign behind but it doesn't mean anything.

This is only true if the PC is a static caricature. If the PC is open to change, then knowing why they are the way that they are informs how events can shape them, what the best catalysts for change are, how they can change.

The character I wrote that backstory for was very dedicated to his work and didn't have many social connections outside of it. Because when his "condition" started showing his teacher reacted better to it than his family. Thing is the whole reason that is true is I wanted a relatively socially isolated character that was skilled in his trade. I created a bit of a history to check the "adulthood test" since it was an odd character. But my back story took place the day he left to go to the tavern where the adventure started.

I actually just made some of that up. I know his family didn't react very well and he is well regarded professionally, but I never decided the relationship he had with the teacher of the time. Yet it fits in quite nicely and in the off chance it did come up I could of made it up as quickly as I did for this post. (Less time than I spent typing it.)

So in conclusion: Yeah I feel I can know who a character is without knowing who they were.

I did actually do that once, another player and I played siblings one time. We knew what the relationship between them was modeled after the conversation where we tried to figure out there relationship, so we did have them interact with no surprises. On the other hand they were step-siblings and I don't think we ever worked out who had which biological parent or how long the who PCs had known each other. Although from their interactions it had been a while.

I mean, sure. Just like GMs could make up the underlying facts of the adventure when it comes up, a player could wait until it comes up to make up the underlying facts of their character. Just, both are rife with failure cases, and likely to fall flat, especially to a discerning audience. So why would you ever do that?

EDIT: I have no idea why you peg me as the resident Avatar of role-playing

[PhoenixPhyre]

This is only true if the PC is a static caricature. If the PC is open to change, then knowing why they are the way that they are informs how events can shape them, what the best catalysts for change are, how they can change.

I mean, sure. Just like GMs could make up the underlying facts of the adventure when it comes up, a player could wait until it comes up to make up the underlying facts of their character. Just, both are rife with failure cases, and likely to fall flat, especially to a discerning audience. So why would you ever do that?

EDIT: I have no idea why you peg me as the resident Avatar of role-playing

None of these are consistent with my experience. I've found that filling in the details in advance (whether as a DM or a player) creates rigid structures that don't change easily to fit changing circumstances. They lock you into a path that must be true, else all falls apart. This means that if the character/situation has to change for the observed narrative to make sense, the whole thing must be redone from top to bottom or you risk glaring inconsistencies.

Indeterminate backstories (that become fixed once observed) are much more flexible and responsive. Once something's been observed at the table (once you state a part of the character's history, for example), it's a fixed thing. Before that, it's open. You know the present state, but can choose how they reached that state.

You seem to think that history is destiny. That the past arc of a character defines how they'll be in the future. Nothing is further from the truth, not in real life nor in fiction (good fiction at least). Yes, sudden, jarring changes require explanation. But they happen. I've seen them myself. I've seen people devoted to a life of petty evil change and become pillars of the community over a short time span. I've seen formerly good, upstanding people throw away everything they've believed in and burn their bridges over a petty personal disagreement or disappointment about not getting a promotion.

[RazorChain]

"You're all decided to take down the evil overlord - decide how you've all gotten together" is a fine introduction to a game. But I still cringe at the thought of people playing "old friends".

"This quest is more important than my personal disdain or even hatred of you" is also fine, and rife with role-playing opportunities. And opportunities for character growth, for those who are into such things.

I dont really see the problem here, most of the people I play with are old friends, some of whom I've been playing with for over 25 years. It's not hard to play old friends with an old friend. Is it harder pretending to be an old friend than an Elf for example?

Any way is valid how you want to introduce the group. Meeting at an inn to do some adventure is just as valid as complicated relationships. This is just a matter of what theme you want to explore within the game. I've played friends, rival, lovers, ex lover, children and siblings to other PC's.

The only thing that stands out as being the hardest to play is complete strangers that have nothing in common and the group imploding because the evil necromancer and the paladin are having problems aligning their goals while the greedy CN rogue is waiting on the sideline, hoping it ends in violence so he can stab the survivor in the back and loot them both while everyone maintains that you can't make them compromise their characters concepts and make them work together. Been there, done that, got the t-shirt

[Quertus]

None of these are consistent with my experience.

You nearly lost me right here. Barring things like amnesiacs, most everyone should, in theory, have experience with themselves. So, for this to not match your experience with yourself, you must believe... what? That your personality is "LoL random"? That you are a caricature? That you would be far more believable if you didn't have a past?

I've found that filling in the details in advance (whether as a DM or a player) creates rigid structures that don't change easily to fit changing circumstances. They lock you into a path that must be true, else all falls apart. This means that if the character/situation has to change for the observed narrative to make sense, the whole thing must be redone from top to bottom or you risk glaring inconsistencies.

I dunno - I find that water being wet, or being composed of Hydrogen and Oxygen hasn't caused any glaring inconsistencies in reality that cause the whole thing to need to be reworked from top to bottom.

So, you're a fan of the quantum ogre, who happens to be wherever (and whatever?) the story needs him to be?

Indeterminate backstories (that become fixed once observed) are much more flexible and responsive. Once something's been observed at the table (once you state a part of the character's history, for example), it's a fixed thing. Before that, it's open. You know the present state, but can choose how they reached that state.

But... you don't even have that! You've stated previously that you exclusively want characters who don't know themselves, who discover who they are over the course of play.

But, sure. For those who, unlike you, want to have characters with a personality but no history, I'm still left with a problem. Because their every action is an observed phenomenon, every action is connected. Suddenly deciding some bit of backstory may well subtly conflict with how you've been playing the character. Maybe you won't see it, just like maybe GMs who decide campaign facts mid-game don't see the glaring inconsistencies such behavior leaves in its wake, but that doesn't mean that no-one else can.

So why? Why would you open the possibility for inconsistency rather than start from a solid base? What advantage do you gain by not knowing your character's history to make this tactic worthwhile?

You seem to think that history is destiny. That the past arc of a character defines how they'll be in the future. Nothing is further from the truth, not in real life nor in fiction (good fiction at least). Yes, sudden, jarring changes require explanation. But they happen. I've seen them myself. I've seen people devoted to a life of petty evil change and become pillars of the community over a short time span. I've seen formerly good, upstanding people throw away everything they've believed in and burn their bridges over a petty personal disagreement or disappointment about not getting a promotion.

This makes it sound like you believe that the entire field of psychology is a lie, and humans are composed entirely of whimsy.

Ok, I think I made my reading comprehension roll on my second pass through this. Let me try again.

Contrary to your characterization of my position, we're actually in agreement here. These changes happen, and they happen for a reason.

But where I'm coming from is, they can't have those reasons and therefore can't really believable happen to someone with no history. Thus, it sounds like you prefer, even by your own definitions, to begin play running a caricature rather than a character - someone who is immune to such changes by virtue of not having their reasons defined yet.

Is that what you really enjoy? Starting with a caricature, and turning them into a character? The act of characterizing?

That would be consistent, and would explain a lot. But it's not exactly my cup of tea. I only enjoy the running of a characterized character - the act of characterizing them is, to me, just a required chore on the path to what I enjoy.

[JoeJ]

Well, the context in which I brought up Ocean's Eleven was me pointing out that there were multiple ways to play the game. Responding to the existence of troop play - or even open tables - with an appeal to a single style of play is a step backwards.

Also, I don't exactly consider Ocean's Eleven to be a one-shot. I was more talking about the idea of a lengthy adventure, in the same system and world as the past 20 adventures - and, oh, look, some of the characters know each other.

But the idea that the characters may know each other when bright together for their particular skills seems much more likely than them knowing each other when brought together by random fate. We all happened to be in this elevator when the earthquake struck? What a coincidence! No, I chose "chosen for their skills" as among the likely premises in which it's reasonable for characters to have known each other.

I haven't seen that movie, but I understand that it's about a group of people who come together to pull off a heist and then go their separate ways, right? That sounds like the very definition of a one-shot adventure.

And 20 adventures in the same world but only some of the characters know each other? Are you assuming, then, that the players are constantly creating new characters? Or is it that different players are dropping in and out? Or both?

Either way, I would not run a game like that. The lack of continuity would be too jarring for me to enjoy.

[Quertus]

I dont really see the problem here, most of the people I play with are old friends, some of whom I've been playing with for over 25 years. It's not hard to play old friends with an old friend. Is it harder pretending to be an old friend than an Elf for example?

If you honestly don't see the difference in the way that you treat your different friends - or, perhaps more bizarrely, honestly don't treat them any differently from one another - then, sure, it'd be easy.

But, um, I know that I sure don't work that way, and I strongly suspect that the majority of humanity doesn't, either.

Any way is valid how you want to introduce the group. Meeting at an inn to do some adventure is just as valid as complicated relationships. This is just a matter of what theme you want to explore within the game. I've played friends, rival, lovers, ex lover, children and siblings to other PC's.

Emphasis on "complicated" here. As the man said, "Everything should be as simple as it can be - and no simpler". Most humans, IME, vastly oversimplify things.

The only thing that stands out as being the hardest to play is complete strangers that have nothing in common and the group imploding because the evil necromancer and the paladin are having problems aligning their goals while the greedy CN rogue is waiting on the sideline, hoping it ends in violence so he can stab the survivor in the back and loot them both while everyone maintains that you can't make them compromise their characters concepts and make them work together. Been there, done that, got the t-shirt

I mean, I'm not sure if you're intentionally referencing the party of the Paladin, the Assassin, the Undead Hunter, and his dear friend, the Undead Master, and my character, but, yeah. Of course, being "dear old friends" was perhaps the most jarring part of that arrangement.

[Quertus]

I haven't seen that movie, but I understand that it's about a group of people who come together to pull off a heist and then go their separate ways, right? That sounds like the very definition of a one-shot adventure.

And 20 adventures in the same world but only some of the characters know each other? Are you assuming, then, that the players are constantly creating new characters? Or is it that different players are dropping in and out? Or both?

Either way, I would not run a game like that. The lack of continuity would be too jarring for me to enjoy.

ok, I suspect that, for many people, Ocean's Eleven would be run as a one-to-three-shot. Bad example on my part. I had intended to aim for more of a, say, 20-session adventure.

Still, have you never ran multi adventures in the same world? Have you never heard of troop play, where each player has several characters in the same world? That's the kind of thing that I'm talking about, which, IMO, makes the world have greater continuity, feel more alive.

[Cluedrew]

This is only true if the PC is a static caricature. If the PC is open to change, then knowing why they are the way that they are informs how events can shape them, what the best catalysts for change are, how they can change.

I think PhoenixPhyre covered the other part pretty well, and part of this actually, but I have something to add here. Although more information can help you understand that character and help inform decisions about them. On the other hand the things that are going to cause the character to change are the things that are going to happen, not the ones that have already happened. Those have already had their effect on the character and if I know the summation of those effects on the character, do the particular effects matter? Occasionally in my experience, but uncommonly enough filling them all in would be a massive excess of effort and I've never had problems filling in those occasional details as of this time.

EDIT: I have no idea why you peg me as the resident Avatar of role-playing

That might actually be a separate issue. More about how you form a character than the fact you do. But that is a topic for another thread. Possibly a particular other thread.

[JoeJ]

Still, have you never ran multi adventures in the same world? Have you never heard of troop play, where each player has several characters in the same world? That's the kind of thing that I'm talking about, which, IMO, makes the world have greater continuity, feel more alive.

I usually run multiple adventures in the same world, with the same characters continuing adventure after adventure, like an episodic TV show. That's what I mean when I use the word "campaign." Even if each player has several characters - which is not usually the case - they're still all part of the same small group (a superhero team, for example).

[ImNotTrevor]

The way I've often pulled PCs together is to have them decide which one of them was the one who pulled them all together.

In a Stars Without Numbet campaign I ran a few years back that character was a guy who went by "Fats." He was a very, very large individual with lots of connections to criminal organizations.

So everyone had a connection to Fats, but not necessarily to one another. Some had been with Fats for a while, others were new. Fats wasn't a questgiver, he was just a proactive individual putting a group together.

In Blades in the Dark, whichever character is the Spider will probably have that role. (They're literally the class that has social connections and favors as their primary ability.)

There are many ways to arrange these things, none of which are inherently superior. But as with all things it's highly contextual.

[Quertus]

I think PhoenixPhyre covered the other part pretty well, and part of this actually, but I have something to add here. Although more information can help you understand that character and help inform decisions about them. On the other hand the things that are going to cause the character to change are the things that are going to happen, not the ones that have already happened. Those have already had their effect on the character and if I know the summation of those effects on the character, do the particular effects matter? Occasionally in my experience, but uncommonly enough filling them all in would be a massive excess of effort and I've never had problems filling in those occasional details as of this time.

Barring highly introspective characters, I agree - it's the new stimulus that is the catalyst for the change.

But, yes, knowing what turned the character into X greatly impacts what it takes to get to Y. Otherwise, therapists wouldn't be asking questions like, "tell me about your mother", they'd just ask, "who are you", and "who do you want to be", plug those into a Transformation equation, and tell you what you need to hear to make that happen.

That might actually be a separate issue. More about how you form a character than the fact you do. But that is a topic for another thread. Possibly a particular other thread.

Ah, that wasn't clear - I wasn't referencing the how, just the cares.

I usually run multiple adventures in the same world, with the same characters continuing adventure after adventure, like an episodic TV show. That's what I mean when I use the word "campaign." Even if each player has several characters - which is not usually the case - they're still all part of the same small group (a superhero team, for example).

Sure. Unless they're the only supers in the world, though, one of the most common pitfalls in such a game is, "wait - while we're doing this, what's the rest of the world doing?". This is why, IMO, troop play style games, where the PCs all control multiple (ideally, like 5+) characters in the world have an advantage in terms of verisimilitude - you know what other parts of the campaign world were doing. And you get those cool moments of, "oh, I've worked with you before".

Ok, maybe it's just me.

[Koo Rehtorb]

I've long held the opinion that if you can't play a consistent and interesting character without having an elaborate backstory then you're probably not very good at roleplaying. It's really not very hard. In fact, GMs do it all the time.

Optionally, you can add in like three one sentence statements about defining events in a new character's life to give them something a little more fleshed out, but it's totally not necessary.

[JoeJ]

Sure. Unless they're the only supers in the world, though, one of the most common pitfalls in such a game is, "wait - while we're doing this, what's the rest of the world doing?". This is why, IMO, troop play style games, where the PCs all control multiple (ideally, like 5+) characters in the world have an advantage in terms of verisimilitude - you know what other parts of the campaign world were doing. And you get those cool moments of, "oh, I've worked with you before".

Ok, maybe it's just me.

Probably not just you, but 5 characters for one player is too many for me. That's too many to keep track of, and the lack of consistent characters from one story to the next would make it too hard to do a long story arc. And I've never had a problem deciding what other important things are going on in the world while the PCs are doing their thing.

[PhoenixPhyre]

Barring highly introspective characters, I agree - it's the new stimulus that is the catalyst for the change.

But, yes, knowing what turned the character into X greatly impacts what it takes to get to Y. Otherwise, therapists wouldn't be asking questions like, "tell me about your mother", they'd just ask, "who are you", and "who do you want to be", plug those into a Transformation equation, and tell you what you need to hear to make that happen.

I do believe that most therapists are using traditional, not very well justified methods. So arguments from psychiatry don't do much for me.

Knowing what's happened to someone has very little predictive value about the future. I've seen people who went through absolute crap and are totally healthy, sane, and great people. I've known people who grew up with every advantage, everything "by the book" who were total pieces of work.

Knowing someone's real values, on the other hand, is predictive (to a larger degree). And that doesn't require a huge backstory.

I could see a character backstory written as a list of traits each with an illuminatory event or two. The event is either what brought it on or an example of how they've applied that trait in the past.

Afraid of fire: Saw her parents die in a fire as a kid.
"Never tell me the odds": Habitually takes the high-risk high reward options, as when she doubled down, all in, on a risky bet in <place>.
Etc.

Except for the very major events, only things that are repeated frequently have a significant, lasting effect on character. So only focus on habits and the few, key events. Everything else averages out.

I've long held the opinion that if you can't play a consistent and interesting character without having an elaborate backstory then you're probably not very good at roleplaying. It's really not very hard. In fact, GMs do it all the time.

Optionally, you can add in like three one sentence statements about defining events in a new character's life to give them something a little more fleshed out, but it's totally not necessary.

Agreed.

Probably not just you, but 5 characters for one player is too many for me. That's too many to keep track of, and the lack of consistent characters from one story to the next would make it too hard to do a long story arc. And I've never had a problem deciding what other important things are going on in the world while the PCs are doing their thing.

My players have trouble tracking what happened to their one character in the previous session, and several need frequent reminders about the mechanical abilities (because they're busy adults who don't spend all day thinking about TTRPGs unlike myself). Jumping between characters and scenarios every week would horribly confuse them. Especially since it would then be N weeks (instead of 1 week on average) between times they'd deal with any individual character. So progression is N times slower. And plots are harder to follow and easier to forget. And it would exponentially increase the load on the DM, since you have to juggle interactions between ~N^2 scenarios (since you can have crossovers). Remembering who has done what with whom (and thus who knows what piece of information) scales really really poorly and makes any coherence require a lot more work.

[MrSandman]

This is why, IMO, troop play style games, where the PCs all control multiple (ideally, like 5+) characters in the world have an advantage in terms of verisimilitude - you know what other parts of the campaign world were doing. And you get those cool moments of, "oh, I've worked with you before".

Ok, maybe it's just me.

That may work, if your approach is that characters form adventuring groups exclusively on the basis of skill. Somebody has a mission in mind, puts together a bunch of professionals whom she thinks have the appropriate skills, sends them off to their fate. Okay. But there are loads of other reasons why a group of adventurers might work together: loyalty, duty, friendship, availability, and so on. The characters may be an elite squad that works well together and are sent on missions. As long as no one dies or retires, or unless major personal issues arise, there's really no need for them to work with other people more than on rare occasions when the mission requires it. Or they may be the only powerful vassals of a low-rank noble and have no reason or desire to work with other people. Or they may be in a setting where you can't really just trust anybody, and they are (and should be) extremely wary of other powerful people, especially adventuring parties.

What you say can work and be believable in its appropriate setting. But there are countless other options.

[JoeJ]

That may work, if your approach is that characters form adventuring groups exclusively on the basis of skill. Somebody has a mission in mind, puts together a bunch of professionals whom she thinks have the appropriate skills, sends them off to their fate. Okay. But there are loads of other reasons why a group of adventurers might work together: loyalty, duty, friendship, availability, and so on. The characters may be an elite squad that works well together and are sent on missions. As long as no one dies or retires, or unless major personal issues arise, there's really no need for them to work with other people more than on rare occasions when the mission requires it. Or they may be the only powerful vassals of a low-rank noble and have no reason or desire to work with other people. Or they may be in a setting where you can't really just trust anybody, and they are (and should be) extremely wary of other powerful people, especially adventuring parties.

Groups that are expected to regularly encounter violence - commando squads, SWAT teams, fighter squadrons, etc., usually retain the same members for as long as circumstances permit. Having the people with the highest individual skill is less important in those kinds of jobs than having people who work well as a team. The same reasoning applies to adventuring parties in fiction (although for fiction "work well as a team" means interact dramatically in ways that the audience will find compelling.)

[Max_Killjoy]

That may work, if your approach is that characters form adventuring groups exclusively on the basis of skill. Somebody has a mission in mind, puts together a bunch of professionals whom she thinks have the appropriate skills, sends them off to their fate. Okay. But there are loads of other reasons why a group of adventurers might work together: loyalty, duty, friendship, availability, and so on. The characters may be an elite squad that works well together and are sent on missions. As long as no one dies or retires, or unless major personal issues arise, there's really no need for them to work with other people more than on rare occasions when the mission requires it. Or they may be the only powerful vassals of a low-rank noble and have no reason or desire to work with other people. Or they may be in a setting where you can't really just trust anybody, and they are (and should be) extremely wary of other powerful people, especially adventuring parties.

What you say can work and be believable in its appropriate setting. But there are countless other options.

You beat me to it.

To me, the most plausible answer to "why are these people working together today" is "they worked together yesterday".

Groups that are expected to regularly encounter violence - commando squads, SWAT teams, fighter squadrons, etc., usually retain the same members for as long as circumstances permit. Having the people with the highest individual skill is less important in those kinds of jobs than having people who work well as a team. The same reasoning applies to adventuring parties in fiction (although for fiction "work well as a team" means interact dramatically in ways that the audience will find compelling.)

See, reasons I reject "gaming is storytelling" -- "storytelling" is just too broadly filled with these tropes and cliches about the characters needing to interact in a "dramatic" and "compelling" way. When I'm gaming, I want the characters to be as "real" as possible, not as dramatically contrived as possible.

Anyway, agreed on keeping teams together, not throwing a new team together for each job or mission. If I have to chose between someone who I've worked with for years on black ops, who puts 9 out of 10 in the ten ring, and some guy I just met who puts 10 out of 10 in the ten ring, I'm going to work with the guy who has a feel for how I'm going to react, and mutual, so that one of us doesn't accidentally put a round in the other's ten ring when someone tries to ambush us and we're taking cover while returning fire.

I do believe that most therapists are using traditional, not very well justified methods. So arguments from psychiatry don't do much for me.

Psychiatry is full of people who consider themselves "Freudian" or "Jungian"... which would be like physics departments having a large number of Aristotelian or Newtonian adherents still insisting that the universe works by the exact rules those men laid down.