Post by galakan on Nov 28, 2016 23:21:51 GMT
This episode really stuck with me.
I am one of those players that definitely falls within the developmental category. I usually have like maybe a paragraph to a page of notes on my character, but I always feel best developing the details of my character as I go.
One thing that I think is worth mentioning (and maybe you did & I just didn't hear) is that DM's should be sure to warn their PCs if their particular character background doesn't mesh with the campaign story ideas.
I had an Eberron cleric that the DM basically said "go nuts" with my background and details. So I decided to make a cleric whose goal it was to start something like "The Reformation" and go against some of the ideals of the "Silver Flame" church in that setting. I put a lot of effort into this character. Spending a lot of my gold to buy pamphlets sharing my views and handing them out to like every NPC we met.
The main problem was that after the beginning of the game, our party never really went back to the continents where the Silver Flame was present, making my idea kinda a moot point.
Now his story was a TON of fun, and looking back I still love that character. But I always will be a little bit sad that I never got any sort of conflict against his plot or any real closure on what he was doing. I feel like, had I been told I would have been going places that the Silver Flame didn't reside in for most of the game, I wouldn't have made it such a focus and worked around that.
I think what I am going for is that players won't get mad at you as a GM shifting their ideas slightly to make sure it isn't out of whack with what your story ideas are. So long as you are not too heavy handed, working together will help make catering to players' backgrounds easier.
Do any of you have times when your background played out really well or really poorly with a story?
I am one of those players that definitely falls within the developmental category. I usually have like maybe a paragraph to a page of notes on my character, but I always feel best developing the details of my character as I go.
One thing that I think is worth mentioning (and maybe you did & I just didn't hear) is that DM's should be sure to warn their PCs if their particular character background doesn't mesh with the campaign story ideas.
I had an Eberron cleric that the DM basically said "go nuts" with my background and details. So I decided to make a cleric whose goal it was to start something like "The Reformation" and go against some of the ideals of the "Silver Flame" church in that setting. I put a lot of effort into this character. Spending a lot of my gold to buy pamphlets sharing my views and handing them out to like every NPC we met.
The main problem was that after the beginning of the game, our party never really went back to the continents where the Silver Flame was present, making my idea kinda a moot point.
Now his story was a TON of fun, and looking back I still love that character. But I always will be a little bit sad that I never got any sort of conflict against his plot or any real closure on what he was doing. I feel like, had I been told I would have been going places that the Silver Flame didn't reside in for most of the game, I wouldn't have made it such a focus and worked around that.
I think what I am going for is that players won't get mad at you as a GM shifting their ideas slightly to make sure it isn't out of whack with what your story ideas are. So long as you are not too heavy handed, working together will help make catering to players' backgrounds easier.
Do any of you have times when your background played out really well or really poorly with a story?
