PDA

View Full Version : What makes a game fun?



weenie
2009-04-29, 12:03 PM
So, what makes a game fun for you? A good story, interacting with other player's characters? Having a lot of options on what to do? Dynamic battles?

Also, what kind of stuff can ruin a campaign for you?

For me I guess a compelling story is a good thing, but I tend to enjoy sandbox-style campaigns better. Interacting with other PCs is also a big part of what I look for in campaigns where I play, and this includes both, friendships and conflicts. Party imbalance isn't necessarily a bad thing, but I usually try to avoid it. At least when I DM, when I play I tend to over-optimize. Not because I want my character to be the best at everything, I just like making strong characters.. Oh and I despise obvious railroading. And uber level NPCs, that make you do stuff for them "or else" even if they coul probably do it all in less time than it would take them to explain the party what they have to do. If the game world isn't consistent I just can't bring myself to enjoy it.

What about you?

Morty
2009-04-29, 12:10 PM
Well, the main source of enjoyment for me is the feeling of immersion in a living, breathing world that exists and works indepedently from my character. I also admit that I like number-crunching, trying out stuff to see how it sticks together to make a character. Otherwise, I enjoy what everyone else enjoys in an RPG game. What I don't like is playing powerful characters - power levels above 10th level in D&D and its equivalents aren't my thing.

valadil
2009-04-29, 12:19 PM
I like leaving my own unique mark on the game world. I don't need a pure sandbox necessarily, but I want to leave a trace of the character passing through a story. Prepublished games that account for any situation and ignore deviant characters tend to bore me.

FinalJustice
2009-04-29, 02:01 PM
Kicking asses and taking names. =D

No, seriously now. Immersion in a good story (don't mind being railroaded into contrived plots, as long as I have some degree of freedom, I play along). Interacting with other players characters, even some degree of conflict, as long as it stays in RP (PVP usually destroy the fun). It also has to have a good dosage of action. Pure talk/investigation in D&D tend to bore me. Outside of D&D, I can adapt to it.

Power is important to me, I'm not very fond of the whole 'wet behind the ears' thing. I like starting off with some degree of kickassitude and escalate from there. =D

Least, but not least, number crunching. I love optimizing (and tend to overoptimize too). In my not-so-frequent group, I'm the only one who thinks the build is part of the fun.

TheThan
2009-04-29, 02:36 PM
To me a fun game is a game where everyone at the table is having fun. The only real way of “doing it wrong” is when only one or two people at the table are having fun. I’ve been in lots of different types of games and the ones that are my favorite are the ones where people come to me and say that they really enjoyed the game.

oxybe
2009-04-29, 03:53 PM
the group.

a good group is the game breaker. the DM could be the most railroadiest, heavy-handed, d-bag out there but a good group can still make it quasi-enjoyable. and i've yet to meet a DM who can makeup for having a bunch of mule-headed jerks around the table.

my group is pretty awesome in that respect. we've got a good variety of people sitting at it: historians, tech guys, artsy folks, chefs, university students, call center agents, ect... and we're all pretty enthusiastic about the game and we can each bring out own brand of insanity to it.

sure we've got a few powergamers but nothing horrible and a few "new" guys (well not new anymore :smallsmile: ) but all in all, it's the group that makes it or breaks it for me.

Pink
2009-04-29, 04:31 PM
As a Player

What makes it enjoyable: The ability to do anything and have no limits within a game. Now, this doesn't mean I'm one of those guys who goes off and does something completely random. I play my characters true. However it's the fact that I can have those characters do what they'd actually do, that they become a real character within a reactive world. It's being in a gaming situation where it's imagination playing off of imagination. I could care less about the mechanics and rules determining how the game is governed (Though obviously there does need to be some rules and these rules should be fair and relatively sturdy.) and more about how there's no limits to what actions a character can attempt. Now of course, this is entirely dependent upon a good dm, because...

What I dislike: Railroad plots. Places where no matter what you do, no matter what your character would do, you're stuck with them. It's not bad if it's handled in a way that the characters actually want to do the quest, but for example, the DM is playing an NPC as well, a jerk. The party tries to reason with him but it seems that this guy has basically set of a chain of events that will be destructive to him, completely ignores any logic and warnings that the party gives him, and is fairly deserving of what is coming to him. Even a good party may be stressed to go up and beyond their call of duty to help this person, but a neutral party isn't giving it a second thought and moving onto the main quest. Serves the guy right for not heading the warnings and accepting the help with a little gratitude. However when circumstances just prevent the party from continueing on with the main quest unless they help protect and make peace for the guy. Well...Simply put, I'd rather have there be consequences for choices made, than not actually be able to make the choice.

As A DM.

I enjoy: Being able to come up with logical and interesting reactions and such for Player actions. Subtly laying the seeds of a larger plot with clues here and there. Making them second guess what may seem the obvious choice of actions. Enjoying it when players make a plan and course of action that is just completely not what I was thinking of, yet seeing that it could very well work.

I dislike: Players that are there for the dice rolls. I play with 3.5 rules and I understand it's a fairly dice heavy game. I don't mind the players who enjoy combat, that's just a matter of taste, but rather those who let the dice do the roleplaying for them.
I'm more of the school that says, say and ask whatever you can, and then if the DM asks you, you roll a skill check. This leads for more attempts at creative actions which the DM can determine the appropriate responce (possibly a combination of skill checks).
For example, I like the following situation:
Player: Alright, I'm going to try and be diplomatic with the bandits. I'm going to raise my hands to show that I haven't drawn my weapon and slowly step forward, then say "We do not have much to offer you. We wish only for safe passage. We do not want to fight you, we're not just traveling merchants. I do not threaten you, but we are adventurers of some skill, and a battle between us would only cause both of us wounds and casualties."
DM: Roll a diplomacy check.

I dislike the following situation.
Player: Alright, I'm going to try and be diplomatic with the bandits. *rolls* that's a total 22, that should be pretty good. I'll convince them to let us pass.

But I suppose that varies with different people.

Rhiannon87
2009-04-29, 04:32 PM
To add onto oxybe: a good group that generally shares my view of what's fun. For me, it's roleplay, no question. I enjoy combat as well, but I build in-depth characters and I like interacting with the world and the other members of the group as that character. I'm lucky to have a group where majority of the people put primacy on roleplay, and the min-maxers still are good at roleplay and make sure that their insanely optimized characters have some backstory too.

arguskos
2009-04-29, 05:01 PM
As a Player:
I like: when the DM works with me to do something outside the bounds of the rules. Really, this is my big one. I dislike following the rules strictly. I use them as much as possible to make my character designs work, but if I need to step outside of those rules to make my guy come to life, I want a DM that can work with me to make it happen.

I also like: The freedom in-game to make my own damn decisions. If I want to flip the main quest the bird and go off adventuring in a distant land, I want a DM that is like "alright then, lets do that!" and somehow works the main plot in anyways, in a realistic, clever way that isn't just "herpderp choochoo time".

I dislike: herpderp choochoo time. If I really need to explain why....

As a DM:
I like: players that challenge me. I've been DMing and playing for over half my life (since I was 8; I'm currently 20). I've seen and done nearly everything that can be done in D&D 3.5, and yet, my players still manage to surprise me somewhat frequently. I love that feeling, that "...wait... what?" feeling that players can evoke sometimes. I crave it almost, it's like a drug of some kind, something I have to have to feel like I've done my job as a DM. If I can evoke that reaction from my players, I've done a good job creating an environment and a game they can really enjoy and get into.

I dislike: Stagnation. I hate it when I present a big wide open world, and my players look at it, look at me, and shrug. If I put the damn work into making a world that makes sense, will react when you interact with it, and has a bunch of cool **** in it, the LEAST you can do is ****ING ROLEPLAY DAMNIT! I'm not askin' much here (note that much of my anger on this point is triggered by one of my players). :smallfurious:

Ravyn
2009-04-29, 06:32 PM
I like strong characters who could be people in their own right, whether I'm playing them myself, interacting them, or creating them for my players to deal with. I want them to grow and change whether they're onscreen or offscreen, to react to things (I love rereading those nice juicy emotions!) And I want there to be interesting PC/NPC dynamics, not just 'oh, you again'.

I like deep, intense situations that require (and allow) a number of unique responses. The unique responses are important; for me, half the fun of the average game is seeing how far I can get with just my wits.

I like worlds that people can reasonably interact with and explore, where just about everything is hiding something. When I'm in one of these worlds, I want to get a chance to see how they actually work; when I'm creating such a world, I want the players to go forth and interact with it.

I like people reacting to what I do, no matter which side of the screen I'm on.

As a player, I like teamwork; some of my favorite moments have been collaborating with some or all of my fellow group members on a crazy, in-depth new plan.

And speaking of players--I run a semi-sandbox style, at least for now, and like a group that can give me some idea what it is they plan on doing the following session so I can plan properly. It isn't necessary, sure, but it'd save a lot of stress.

Kurald Galain
2009-04-29, 07:07 PM
So, what makes a game fun for you?
The players. A good background story and interesting characters to play it with.


Also, what kind of stuff can ruin a campaign for you?
Railroading. DMs who godmode mary sue NPCs. Also, munchkinry and associated rules lawyering (although it doesn't really ruin it for me, I just kick the munchkin out).

Calinero
2009-04-29, 08:59 PM
For me, it's all about balance. I like some realism, but not so much realism and number crunching that it stifles the game. I like people to be in character and roleplay well, but I also appreciate OOC joking sometimes. I like to have some fighting, but a bit of intrigue as well. I suppose I'm a bit picky....

Also, I like having power, but not too much. I want, in pretty much any given situation, to be able to succeed if I do well, but also have the possibility of failure.

Oracle_Hunter
2009-04-29, 11:40 PM
Does anyone like railroad plots? :smallconfused:

Obviously a Power DM who doesn't let the players have any input is going to wreck any game. Likewise, I dislike systems which don't work the way they're supposed to - thieves who are bad at avoiding traps, for example. But aside from that, I'm happy with most things.

A really good game would have an enjoyable group, comfortable atmosphere (and snacks!), and a personable DM. And, of course, a table of engaged players - both as a DM and a Player, that is probably the secret to Good Gaming. A player who doesn't even try to RP or pay attention to the plot is just a drag on everyone.

Pink
2009-04-29, 11:46 PM
A player who doesn't even try to RP or pay attention to the plot is just a drag on everyone.

Hear Hear!

...or is it Here Here...In any event, QFT.

Satyr
2009-04-30, 04:23 AM
As a player, I want to have a persistant, plausible world that follows a strong inner logic and were the different plots feel as an organic outgrowth of the setting. Immersion and character representation/ method acting are more important than mechanical aspects, but most important is a dense and intense atmosphere.
I also want to be challenged and have to think and work to succeed, because granted wins are basically worthless and ruins the suspense of the game. Likewise I think that an intellectual stimulation is necessary and that a certain complexity and intellectual discurse are great - or even necessary if a player (e.g. me) should not get bored after a while.


As a GM, I want dedicated and passionate players who care about the game, its setting and plot and are willing to spent time, work and attention to the game. When I create campaigns I try to create the elements I like as a player described above, but are willing to collect the player's opinions and wishes into the draft process, to make sure that the players can identify themselves with the game and are willing to dedicate themselves to it.


Things I really don't like are contrived plots, dumbed-down plots and motivations (often euphemistically called "simplified"; the most obvious example are infantile black and white morals) and obvious breaches of the character level.
People who don't take the game serious enough -or too serious - irritate me.
And people who break character in game are equal to people who let their phones ring during movies in cinema.
I also have an irational hatred for people who are unreliable with the gaming sessions and regularly come to late or not at all. Even though this is not limited to roleplaying games.

DigoDragon
2009-04-30, 09:52 AM
For me, a fun game is when no one fusses over the rules.

Jarawara
2009-05-01, 04:34 PM
Does anyone like railroad plots? :smallconfused:

Well, I doubt you'll get a yes from anyone else, so I'll belly up to the bar

Yes, I like railroad plots.

I'll explain why in a moment, but first I'll try to answer the original question.

*~*

What makes a game fun for me? Hmmm... oddly enough, I find that extremely hard to answer. It's strange, really: I probably games more than... well... anybody. I currently have five different boardgames set up around the house that I'm playing solitare, while running a D&D game online and preparing two more campaigns beyond that. I'm in the preparation stage of at least a half dozen long term games of various kinds and when I drive to work, my mind is on gaming and when I go to sleep my mind is on gaming and when I wake up my mind is on gaming. To answer this post distracts me from from my valuable gaming time. (Don't even mention stuff like dating, too marginal of benefits to take away from gaming time!) And yet, while I clearly enjoy all of that gaming... I'm not really sure what makes it the most fun for me. It just is.

But to keep the answer more towards the game of D&D (as I'm sure the question was intended, and not about games of all kinds)... I think the storyline would be a major factor. You see, with my wargames, I see it as much as a story as it is just a game. It's not just the blue counters vs the red counters, it's a desperate final push of the German army to try and survive the brutal winters and overwhelming numbers of the Soviet army. I see the individual commander's decisions, I can feel the frantic desperation of the common soldier. If I can put that much roleplay into a game with little blue and red pieces, well, I'm most certainly going to demand the same from a D&D game. So story is the key item.

There are other key points, of course. I play most of my games solitare; I can do that anytime. If I'm going to join a group to play D&D then I'm doing that for interaction with the group - so the group's gotta be good. No backbiting, no casual insults, I gotta be able to like these guys in real life. But having friends in a game without a story gets old, while having a story with people I don't like... I can actually tolerate for a time. So story wins over people for me. (I'm embarrassed to say that, but I do believe it's true.)

I like low level gaming, because the higher level stuff doesn't feel believable to me. I can see a group of characters setting a trap to defeat that marauding Giant, overcoming the natural advantages of the massive humanoid and turning his sheer size against him. But a group of high level people slugging their way in and slaughtering a few score of Giants on a spare afternoon... nah, I just can't see that. And if I can't suspend my disbelief, then I can't enjoy the 'story' of it.

I like emmersive games. That one should be obvious, really. The more in-depth the world is, the more I can emmerse myself in the story. Yep, we're back to story again.

What I don't like... anyone or anything that breaks the versilimitude, or otherwise breaks the atmosphere of the game. Powergaming, rules lawyers, player-vs-player oneupsmanship, that kind of thing. But the worst of those is the player who looks at plot hooks and instead sees "DMing errors". If I've established that the goblins to the south never attack this far north, then suddenly the caravan is ambushed by goblins, that's my cue to the players that something has happened to drive the goblins north. If a player looks at that and simply mutters "So much for consistancy, he just wanted to attack us with goblins", then all my efforts have gone to waste. I'm developing a story here, and I'd love it if my players at least took notice of the story, even if they chose not to do anything about it for now. /End rant :smalltongue:

*~*

So it all comes back to 'story' as my primary motivator. But one can have 'story' without railroading, right? So why do I say I like railroading? Well, to clarify, I don't like heavyhanded railroading, but I do believe that the term is way overused. If the DM can edge the game back onto the story, doing so subtly and allowing for variations, 'sidetracks' if you will, then the story can stay on the tracks and still allow for personal freedom.

But if it came down to a choice of two extremes, one where the DM forces the story down a particular path and the other where the players just wander off wherever they wish to go, do whatever they wanna do, well, I am reminding of one key point:

I've been playing D&D since 1980, and in over 28 years of playing, I have never, never, not once, ever, seen a 'sandbox' game amount to a hill of beans. Every single time the players are free to just wander off and do whatever they please, they have pretty much done... nothing. They wander around, they kill various things, they find various treasures, they do nothing significant, they matter little. They do not make their own story; there is no story.

Conversely, I have had times where the DM heavy-handedly forced us down a single unwavering path, and it's still turned out ok. (Sometimes it wasn't, but usually it's because the DM was forcing the game, yet still had no story for his game. Lesson: Railroading= acceptible, No Story= not acceptable.) It's obviously been better if the DM can push the game in the direction of the story, not just force it, and even better if the DM can allow for variation and side-treks, but ultimately I want the DM to present his story and I'm willing to be railed back to the plotline if necessary.

So, story is what I want, the players never seem to present a story (not in 28 years of gaming, at least), and so if the DM needs to force the action to present the story, then I have my boarding pass ready! Can I ring the bell?

Eldariel
2009-05-01, 04:41 PM
What makes a D&D game fun for me:
-Following a story.
-Making a story.
-Overcoming problems.
-Failing to overcome problems on our own account and suffering the consequences.
-Interacting with the world: this is the biggest thing I care about - I want what I do matter in the world, to however small degree, and I want to receive what my actions buy me, be it favor of deities, fear of peasants, hunt of the police forces, enmity of the thieves' guild, hatred of the innkeeper or whatever my actions buy me. Also, the reactions have to be rational within the context of the game world - that is, the game world needs to react to me predictably*.


If the world is not interactive, chances are I'm not going to be having fun (unless we're talking about arenas, but those have a completely different allure, and I'd frankly consider them a different game altogether even if they use the same rules set).


*That is, the reactions should be based on something. I needn't know why something happens, but there does need to be a reason for it. And the ultimate arbiter needs to be the dice. Rules and dice are what makes D&D a common project between the DM and the players so the rules the group agreed to before the game need to be abided to.

PaladinBoy
2009-05-01, 08:03 PM
As a player:

Something interesting to do is the big thing here. I don't mind a dungeon crawl every once in a while. Sometimes it's fun just to test the power I have. Still, I want to feel like I'm doing something important for the world I'm in... I generally prefer intrigue, mystery, and politics to straight-up combat, since that's more intellectually involved work. I usually do pretty well at it, too.

As far as power levels go, I prefer the mid-levels... about 5 to 15. I like to be able to do something more than a simple attack, or a single magic missile, but high level play starts to get ridiculous quickly. Not that it isn't fun to watch the DM's face as we absolutely destroy yet another supposedly deadly NPC, or as we destroy an entire city with weather magic (both of which actually happened), but still.

I tend to optimize some, but not a lot. I come up with weird character designs, usually requiring some degree of optimization to actually work in combat, and I do enjoy watching all the different powers I want come together to form some useful tactics.

I don't really like people who don't bother to roleplay at all, but I'll still play with them. I tend to roleplay a lot... I enjoy coming up with a personality and motivation for my character. I also enjoy working with the DM to tie my character's backstory into his campaign's plot.

As a DM:

Really, so long as my players are having fun, I'm happy. I've run complex plots and mysteries, dungeon crawls, sandbox-style stuff, and so on. I enjoy creating complex stories and people to work in them, but I can quite easily have fun with a simple mission to kill goblins, particularly since the latter means less work for me. It's not like I can't add a few extra twists in the goblins' lair or something, if I really want to.

AslanCross
2009-05-01, 08:15 PM
As a Player
1. The sense of danger and being able to overcome it with heroics, wit, and luck. There has to be a balance---if there is no danger, there is nothing to overcome, and if it's too dangerous such that nothing I can do can overcome it, it's also pointless.

2. I like learning things about the campaign world, so consistency in the lore works well. I don't necessarily dislike it when the DM deviates from the norm---it can work in the right amounts. However, if all of a sudden there's an empire of Lawful Good Drow that rules the world, someone's going to get teeth knocked out.

3. Party cooperation. I like it when the players can execute elaborate "combos" that actually work and take down threats or solve problems. I can't stand it when somebody just sits around doing nothing---even if said player actually does contribute. This is a mix of both roleplaying and crunch.

4. An actual plot. I don't mean a railroad (which I define as you only having one course of action, ever); players should be allowed to act as they please, but I always want parameters and reasons for my character to act. Of course, actions should always have appropriate consequences. Running away from the hydra may seem like a good idea, but the hydra can run for longer than any of the party can, and it may follow the party all the way to the village.
I'm just not fond of random wandering and time-wasting---gaming time in my experience is too precious to just squander on not accomplishing anything.

5. The DM should play fair. One of my more mature players became a good DM in her own right when she ran Eyes of the Lich Queen for us.

Unfortunately, one of my other players (he only lasted a few sessions), was not as good a DM when he ran Prisoner of the Castle Perilous for us. He was always aware that another guy in our party was an optimizer, so he optimized the random mooks for THAT GUY. The original groups of Cleric 6/Wizard 6 cultists in the adventure became parties of 2 Crusader 14s, 1 Cleric 14 and 1 Wizard 14. (Mooks that have 7th level spells?!?)
They even had nasty magic items like Spiralburst Vials (basically a black hole in a bottle, from BOVD), which almost killed half the party. He only let us live by DM fiat. :P In the end, we wasted so much time killing the mooks that all of us got bored, and the DM skipped us ahead to the final battle just so we could say we accomplished something other than killing faceless mooks.

As a DM:
1. PROPER SCHEDULING AND ATTENDANCE.
Bolded and capped for emphasis. I'm a control freak when it comes to attendance, especially when sessions are meant to be long and meaty (hence, a missed session would imply missing much more). People should come when they say they come, and on time.

2. Attention. This is both in-game and OOC (chargen, keeping track of gear, etc). I spend a lot of time putting together the encounters and thinking about loot and plot relevance, so it really gets on my nerves when players space out or don't RP, or don't even create their characters properly. (ie, no hard character sheet)

3. Party cooperation. I love seeing the PCs overcome my challenges; when they're happy with their accomplishments, I'm happy too. It's best when the players do something to make the threat vulnerable to another player and go "Hey dwarf, it's your turn!"

As such, I can't stand it when characters just hang back during combat and do nothing---sadly, in an old FR campaign, the cleric cared too much for healing (not like it helped much, honestly) and didn't do more to keep the monsters from actually beating her allies to the negatives. While she was acting in character, it was getting to a point where it was getting too dangerous for the party---and ultimately, it kind of boiled down to her being unwilling/not having the time to study what her more offensive spells and buffs did.

I tried to solve this once by having a burrowing monster drag her underground while the rest of the party struggled with a boss. It seemed to have worked; her character had to rely on her more offensive spells to actually incapacitate the monster so she could get out of the pit. She responded well enough, with her character becoming more bitter and jaded--but lightening up again when they had an opportunity to give a captured ogre captain a chance to redeem itself. Unfortunately, the campaign died there.

4. Creative solutions to problems. While these don't always work (in my latest Eberron game: using a blast disk to unsuccessfully kill a hydra) or are not always plausible (using a first level spell to create a large bridge), when they DO work---I enjoy seeing the results. It gives us all a sense of satisfaction.

Bluebeard
2009-05-01, 08:36 PM
My general guideline is that I never want to set down my glass while gaming.
That means no rulebooks while playing -- if a system is neither simple nor familiar enough to play without digging up rules, it's too much.
It means none of those miniatures or 'battle grids' or whatever the kids are using these days.
It means a laid-back group. If they aren't willing to wing and fudge the rules for the purposes of just moving along, they aren't the kind of person I want to be around.

Within the game, I frankly don't give two hoots for a good story.
It's a nice perk, but I don't know it matters much to me.
Maybe I just don't understand the notion of 'achievement' in a roleplaying game.

I like games that feel like Paranoia.
Fortunately, the people I game with do too.
If zany hijinks don't ensue, something is awry.

Captain Six
2009-05-01, 08:40 PM
I'm mostly a player, I can never design a setting I am entirely happy with so I have yet to DM any more than a session or two.

As a player I am lucky to have a really awesome DM. He's not very experienced and I know a ton more when it comes to the rules than he is but his priorities in games pretty much match up to mine perfectly.

First of all, Rule of Awesome. I like it when awesome things happen, there's a climatic thrill to doing something so cool that the rules bend in your favor. For example when our group's barbarian picked up a longbow for the first time in his life, looked at it for a moment, raged, notched an arrow and let it fly at a Troll. Critical hit, maximum damage, the troll was so far into the negatives that the DM simply said "He explodes and dies." We didn't even need fire to finish it off. That DM was starting a new game and I went up to him and said, "I want to play a Jedi." Preparing myself to mention all the flavor alterations I made so it fits into a fantasy setting I was startled when he answered, "Okay." The game will start sometime this summer.

Second thing, plot. After playing "sandbox" for about a year it really does start to feel like you accomplish nothing, as mentioned exceptionally well farther above. However railroading plots do get tiring. I can handle it here and there, if I'm forewarned I can play along without breaking my sense of immersion. What I like is when there is a large scale plot and events happening all around you. My favorite campaign took place on a plane where all the gods decided it would be where Hextor and Heronius finally settled their problems in one epic war so only one plane would be soiled by their conflict. It started out as a sandbox game but it became harder and harder to go anywhere without noticing the destruction the war has caused. All the characters were on opposite ends of the alignment spectrum and motivated for all kinds of reasons. Some for justice, some because destroyed trade cities meant no Magic Items R Us stores and me because I didn't want the rivalry of gods (megalomaniac). It was a very simple premise but it worked well. Even as the plot thickened there was an incredible flexibility on how we reacted.

As for characters I'm a big tinkerer. I don't play combat characters because they're so mechanically simple. I need mages with entire spellbooks to write flavor for, rogues with their massive selections of skills, I need long back stories and odd quirks with details on how I picked up everything I know. I literally design GURPS characters that I know I will never play in my free time. The time before a game can be just as fun as the game itself.