New OOTS products from CafePress
New OOTS t-shirts, ornaments, mugs, bags, and more
Page 1 of 4 1234 LastLast
Results 1 to 30 of 106
  1. - Top - End - #1
    Bugbear in the Playground
     
    ElfWarriorGuy

    Join Date
    Sep 2016
    Location
    United States
    Gender
    Male

    Default Let's Talk Personal Characteristics

    I remember back in 2014, when I first picked up the Basic Rules for D&D 5th Edition, one of the things that excited me the most was Personal Characteristics. So much of an RPG rulebook is going to be busy teaching you the game's mechanics; so having what is essentially a basic roleplay tutorial is, to me, brilliant. It's simple, takes very little time, the examples provided are generally well-written and fertile, and the text surrounding it emphasizes how it's a starting framework rather than a set of confines.

    And seven years later, I've slowly come to realize that practically nobody else seems to share my enthusiasm for this element of character creation. Many players simply write one or two words, or just leave the section blank entirely. In a game I just started, my players were actually disgruntled when I insisted that they write in complete sentences for their Personality Traits, Flaws, Bonds, and Ideals.

    One of my players said that he doesn't like to write it down because his character changes in the course of play. Granted, but so do your ability scores and equipment; that's why we do this stuff in pencil. It's a starting point, a set of guiding principles for you to direct your roleplaying. I think that committing to a set of those, at least when starting out, is a good idea.

    So, since it seems like enthusiasm for this feature is dim, I thought I'd try to kindle the flame with a few reasons I think this part of the game is great:

    Reason #1: Ritual. For me, the group character-creation ritual is one of the most hallowed parts of D&D. I'm going to naturally be fond of any substantive addition to that ritual, which the writing of personal characteristics definitely is.

    Reason#2: Helping the DM. As a DM, I usually give my players' character sheets a good and thorough reading, to help make sure I'm designing adventures that challenge them, and play in equal measure to their strengths and weaknesses. It's really helpful to have concise phrases which tell me about a character's motives, so that I can present choices which really bring those motives to the fore. It's also one of the few things that helps remind me that the inspiration mechanic exists.

    Reason #3: Fleshing out Backgrounds. Backgrounds are great. (How come there aren't more splat backgrounds? Seems like most of the non-PHB official backgrounds are hyper-specific to an adventure or setting.) Having a whole half-page of potential ideas about the sort of outlook and persona which could follow from a certain background is therefore also great. I like to try to pick from pre-written traits often, or at least use them as inspiration for my own, because so many of them are well-written, though I do typically mix-and-match across backgrounds. I honestly feel that if more people actually rolled or picked traits from the lists, we'd see more unique and original characters.

    Reason #4: Alignment. People love to kvetch about how the alignment system is staid, simplistic, and generic. I was of that opinion before 5e, but the alignment-labeled Ideals in the book actually turned me around on that, and breathed new life into the system. If you take a cross-section of the "Good" or "Chaotic" Ideals across the many backgrounds, you'll actually get a beautifully complex look at how moral outlooks of a similar nature can emerge from different lives and attitudes.
    Last edited by Catullus64; 2021-06-15 at 12:08 PM.
    The desire to appear clever often impedes actually being so.

    What makes the vanity of others offensive is the fact that it wounds our own.

    Quarrels don't last long if the fault is only on one side.

    Nothing is given so generously as advice.

    We hardly ever find anyone of good sense, except those who agree with us.

    -Francois, Duc de La Rochefoucauld

  2. - Top - End - #2
    Titan in the Playground
     
    Imp

    Join Date
    Feb 2017

    Default Re: Let's Talk Personal Characteristics

    I like them as well.

    It pains me that it really seems most people only care about the alignment part of those Personal Characteristics. As in, care about arguing about it/saying how much they dislike it, because most people don't care about what 5e says about alignments.
    Last edited by Unoriginal; 2021-06-15 at 10:49 AM.

  3. - Top - End - #3
    Ogre in the Playground
     
    RogueGuy

    Join Date
    Oct 2019

    Default Re: Let's Talk Personal Characteristics

    I too like a PC to start out as a fairly whole person with a goal, ideals, a personality, and some character. There are many different ways to accomplish this, but I think a well considered back story and ethos makes a character who they are.

  4. - Top - End - #4
    Bugbear in the Playground
     
    NecromancerGirl

    Join Date
    Oct 2016
    Location
    Subang Jaya, Malaysia
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: Let's Talk Personal Characteristics

    I don't think forcing players to write detailed characteristics is good. At the end of the day, this is a game, people should not be forced to do things they don't enjoy, and that includes backstory, personality, bonds etc. Some people just want a simple character, or wing it as they play. Some people just want to roll dice. That's fine. We are not writing characters for a story book or novel here.

    I have plan out some ridiculous backstory and personality for one character. I have also left the backstory section blank for another. It depends. But in my mind, there is always some idea of what i want the character to be.

    You call it enthusiasm, but when you force it on others, its called being pushy.
    Last edited by Jerrykhor; 2021-06-15 at 01:29 PM.

  5. - Top - End - #5

    Default Re: Let's Talk Personal Characteristics

    Quote Originally Posted by Catullus64 View Post
    I remember back in 2014, when I first picked up the Basic Rules for D&D 5th Edition, one of the things that excited me the most was Personal Characteristics. So much of an RPG rulebook is going to be busy teaching you the game's mechanics; so having what is essentially a basic roleplay tutorial is, to me, brilliant. It's simple, takes very little time, the examples provided are generally well-written and fertile, and the text surrounding it emphasizes how it's a starting framework rather than a set of confines.

    And seven years later, I've slowly come to realize that practically nobody else seems to share my enthusiasm for this element of character creation. Many players simply write one or two words, or just leave the section blank entirely. In a game I just started, my players were actually disgruntled when I insisted that they write in complete sentences for their Personality Traits, Flaws, Bonds, and Ideals.
    I dislike the Flaws/Bonds/Ideals framework because it's shallow and IMHO leads to static characters who take a fixed position during character creation and simply occupy it, posturing but not actually moving anywhere. It doesn't set up internal tensions very well (Flaws potentially sets up a little internal tension, but I get more dynamic results from knife theory or defining fraught relationships or even just asking for DESIRES, which are inherently about motion, latent or actual).

    You may say the text emphasizes that it's merely a starting framework, but then why the pushback against people who have outgrown it?

    It's not a terrible framework but it's not a good one either.

  6. - Top - End - #6
    Bugbear in the Playground
     
    ElfWarriorGuy

    Join Date
    Sep 2016
    Location
    United States
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: Let's Talk Personal Characteristics

    Quote Originally Posted by MaxWilson View Post
    I dislike the Flaws/Bonds/Ideals framework because it's shallow and IMHO leads to static characters who take a fixed position during character creation and simply occupy it, posturing but not actually moving anywhere. It doesn't set up internal tensions very well (Flaws potentially sets up a little internal tension, but I get more dynamic results from knife theory or defining fraught relationships or even just asking for DESIRES, which are inherently about motion, latent or actual).

    You may say the text emphasizes that it's merely a starting framework, but then why the pushback against people who have outgrown it?

    It's not a terrible framework but it's not a good one either.
    To clarify, when I say a starting framework, I don't mean roleplay training wheels, to be abandoned as soon as you know how to do it on your own. I mean a set of practices for the start of each new campaign and character, the foundation on which more organic characterization can be built. It's not a full characterization, it's where your character starts, which is what matters at the beginning of a story.

    Dynamic vs. Static is not Good vs. Bad. Dynamism and change come in naturally as these characters respond to events and act, which is not part of character creation. But having a formal step in which you lay out the basics of what this person values and how they respond to the world around them helps set you up for that. Notably, the example traits are all formatted as "I" statements, and have more to do with a character's self-image than anything essentially true about them.

    And again, it's not all about you. The statements on the character sheet provide a shorthand for other people to get the overall gist of your character, and understand what motivates their decisions. They help the DM with planning out story beats that resonate with your character.
    Last edited by Catullus64; 2021-06-15 at 02:43 PM.
    The desire to appear clever often impedes actually being so.

    What makes the vanity of others offensive is the fact that it wounds our own.

    Quarrels don't last long if the fault is only on one side.

    Nothing is given so generously as advice.

    We hardly ever find anyone of good sense, except those who agree with us.

    -Francois, Duc de La Rochefoucauld

  7. - Top - End - #7

    Default Re: Let's Talk Personal Characteristics

    Quote Originally Posted by Catullus64 View Post
    To clarify, when I say a starting framework, I don't mean roleplay training wheels, to be abandoned as soon as you know how to do it on your own. I mean a set of practices for the start of each new campaign and character, the foundation on which more organic characterization can be built. It's not a full characterization, it's where your character starts, which is what matters at the beginning of a story.

    Dynamic vs. Static is not Good vs. Bad. Dynamism and change come in naturally as these characters respond to events and act, which is not part of character creation. But having a formal step in which you lay out the basics of what this person values and how they respond to the world around them helps set you up for that. Notably, the example traits are all formatted as "I" statements, and have more to do with a character's self-image than anything essentially true about them.

    And again, it's not all about you. The statements on the character sheet provide a shorthand for other people to get the overall gist of your character, and understand what motivates their decisions. They help the DM with planning out story beats that resonate with your character.
    They are one framework but they create two dimensional characters at best; they don't set up interesting relationships between player characters (compare e.g. Fiasco chargen, or DramaSystem); they don't add internal tensions to those relationships.

    Knives in knife theory are designed as hooks: you tell the DM you have a younger sister specifically so he can torture you with her, by having her kidnapped or having her turn evil or having her turn out to be a false memory implanted by the BBEG. A PHB Bond in contrast seems to be intended as static, partly because you have only that one Bond--if the DM kills the sister off, are you left with no Bonds?

    I'm all for frameworks that help characters define feelings and relationships, but I don't think the PHB Bond/Flaw/Ideal system is worth using once you know some alternatives.
    Last edited by MaxWilson; 2021-06-15 at 03:08 PM.

  8. - Top - End - #8
    Bugbear in the Playground
     
    Cicciograna's Avatar

    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: Let's Talk Personal Characteristics

    I like them too, and generally try to do my best to blend them into my background and my Background - with the former, lowercase, indicating the short story I write about my character; and the latter, capitalized, referring to the crunchy one taken from the rules, with mechanical implications.

    Sometimes I drift away from the Flaws, Bonds and Ideals, because my personality asserts itself over my character's one, but at least I try. I don't really want to lose a character because of a reckless action that "he would do".
    Last edited by Cicciograna; 2021-06-15 at 03:11 PM.

  9. - Top - End - #9
    Titan in the Playground
     
    Imp

    Join Date
    Feb 2017

    Default Re: Let's Talk Personal Characteristics

    Quote Originally Posted by MaxWilson View Post
    Knives in knife theory are designed as hooks: you tell the DM you have a younger sister specifically so he can torture you with her, by having her kidnapped or having her turn evil or having her turn out to be a false memory implanted by the BBEG.
    A DM who only see my PC's backstory as a way to torture them is not a DM I will play with.

    I like backstory as context for who, how and why my character is, and as a way to anchor my character in the world as well as making the world bigger and more lived-in. Not as ammunition.


    The elements from it can be important for the campaign and endangered when relevant, of course, but after the fifth time you make a character and the DM decides their first love mentioned twice is actually evil and working for the BBEG my experience is that you don't want to write backstory anymore.

    Quote Originally Posted by MaxWilson View Post
    A PHB Bond in contrast seems to be intended as static, partly because you have only that one Bond--if the DM kills the sister off, are you left with no Bonds?
    It's not because someone important for the character dies that they stop being important for the character.
    Last edited by Unoriginal; 2021-06-15 at 03:36 PM.

  10. - Top - End - #10
    Titan in the Playground
     
    KorvinStarmast's Avatar

    Join Date
    May 2015
    Location
    Texas
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: Let's Talk Personal Characteristics

    Quote Originally Posted by MaxWilson View Post
    I'm all for frameworks that help characters define feelings and relationships, but I don't think the PHB Bond/Flaw/Ideal system is worth using once you know some alternatives.
    They are a good start, but they are not an end in and of themselves.
    Quote Originally Posted by Unoriginal View Post
    I like backstory as context for who, how and why my character is, and as a way to anchor my character in the world as well as making the world bigger and more lived-in. Not as ammunition.
    Plot hooks grown organically from a characters back story (if the DM and Player work together on the background in the first place, which is a best practice IME) can really add spice to the game.
    Avatar by linklele. How Teleport Works
    a. Malifice (paraphrased):
    Rulings are not 'House Rules.' Rulings are a DM doing what DMs are supposed to do.
    b. greenstone (paraphrased):
    Agency means that they {players} control their character's actions; you control the world's reactions to the character's actions.
    Gosh, 2D8HP, you are so very correct!
    Second known member of the Greyview Appreciation Society

  11. - Top - End - #11
    Bugbear in the Playground
     
    ElfWarriorGuy

    Join Date
    Sep 2016
    Location
    United States
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: Let's Talk Personal Characteristics

    Quote Originally Posted by MaxWilson View Post
    They are one framework but they create two dimensional characters at best; they don't set up interesting relationships between player characters (compare e.g. Fiasco chargen, or DramaSystem); they don't add internal tensions to those relationships.

    Knives in knife theory are designed as hooks: you tell the DM you have a younger sister specifically so he can torture you with her, by having her kidnapped or having her turn evil or having her turn out to be a false memory implanted by the BBEG. A PHB Bond in contrast seems to be intended as static, partly because you have only that one Bond--if the DM kills the sister off, are you left with no Bonds?

    I'm all for frameworks that help characters define feelings and relationships, but I don't think the PHB Bond/Flaw/Ideal system is worth using once you know some alternatives.
    It seems true that the Personality Characteristics as written don't accord with your stated values about how characterization in an RPG should work, but I hope I can encourage you to broaden your values and have some regard for a different way of doing things.

    Here goes: Flat, static characters can be a good thing.

    Take a universally recognized example, Superman. He's generally a very flat character, because everything important about Superman as a character could fit in the relevant section of a 5e character sheet. He's also usually a static character; he's pretty much the same guy at the beginning and end of any given adventure. Does this mean Superman is a bad character? No, he's an excellent character, but only because Superman stories are generally not about who Superman is as a person; they're about incredible powers, strange worlds, and colorful supporting characters. A more deeply dynamic and nuanced main character would eat up valuable time and writing resources, and get in the way of what the story's really about. He's the perfect main character for non-character-driven stories.

    This seems likely to be an inflammatory statement, but I don't think D&D is really all that suitable for telling character-driven stories. That's generally a result of the fact that the person who provides most of the story's events and characters (DM) is necessarily separate from the people controlling the thoughts, actions, and feelings of the main characters. What D&D is really good at are stories about strange worlds full of danger and magic, stories of thrilling battles and narrow escapes. Complex characterization of the sort which your knife theory is intended to promote may just get in the way of that. The adventures, the cool stuff you do, the creatures and characters you encounter, the perils you face and the stories you make along the way should be the focus. And when you come at it from that angle, the simple (but, in my opinion, still richly varied) structure provided by the Personality & Background section really comes into its own.
    The desire to appear clever often impedes actually being so.

    What makes the vanity of others offensive is the fact that it wounds our own.

    Quarrels don't last long if the fault is only on one side.

    Nothing is given so generously as advice.

    We hardly ever find anyone of good sense, except those who agree with us.

    -Francois, Duc de La Rochefoucauld

  12. - Top - End - #12
    Titan in the Playground
     
    Imp

    Join Date
    Feb 2017

    Default Re: Let's Talk Personal Characteristics

    Quote Originally Posted by KorvinStarmast View Post
    Plot hooks grown organically from a characters back story (if the DM and Player work together on the background in the first place, which is a best practice IME) can really add spice to the game.
    I agree, and I talk about that below what you quoted.

    My point is there's a big difference between "your cousin Borbert, who was your companion on your first adventure but who decided to retire, visits you after hearing a rumor about a dungeon that could interest you" or "as it turn out, the map indicates the ruins of the castle your grandfather served as a knight, before it was destroyed" and your DM looking at your backstory and thinking about how to kill off, torture or turn evil any character you mention in a positive light.

    I've seen it happens. Whenever one player at my old gaming club made a backstory that included a lover, the DM couldn't resist making them either evil or a prisoner of the BBEG.

  13. - Top - End - #13
    Titan in the Playground
     
    NecromancerGuy

    Join Date
    Jul 2013

    Default Re: Let's Talk Personal Characteristics

    Quote Originally Posted by Catullus64 View Post
    Many players simply write one or two words, or just leave the section blank entirely. In a game I just started, my players were actually disgruntled when I insisted that they write in complete sentences for their Personality Traits, Flaws, Bonds, and Ideals.

    So, since it seems like enthusiasm for this feature is dim, I thought I'd try to kindle the flame with a few reasons I think this part of the game is great:
    I like personal characterization. I think it is a better way to understand a character than to list off their backstory (different people see different people differently so your milelage may vary).

    However I dislike the 5E Personality Traits, Flaws, Bonds, and Ideals system. The main reason I dislike it is that it is a "one size fits all" approach to characterization (even if we ignore the implication that all get equal weight).

    I agree with your 4 points about why writing down some personal characterization is good. But I take a more free form approach than the TFBIs and that approach encourages sentences, prioritization, and causality. Some characters might be more defined by their relationships while others might be driven by a philosophy.

  14. - Top - End - #14
    Titan in the Playground
     
    KorvinStarmast's Avatar

    Join Date
    May 2015
    Location
    Texas
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: Let's Talk Personal Characteristics

    Quote Originally Posted by Unoriginal View Post
    ...and your DM looking at your backstory and thinking about how to kill off, torture or turn evil any character you mention in a positive light.

    I've seen it happens. Whenever one player at my old gaming club made a backstory that included a lover, the DM couldn't resist making them either evil or a prisoner of the BBEG.
    Yeah, OK, but that's kinda DM specific rather than the general benefit of the hooks that can be accrued.
    And I suspect that more than one DM ever has pulled that (the kind of situation that you described).
    Avatar by linklele. How Teleport Works
    a. Malifice (paraphrased):
    Rulings are not 'House Rules.' Rulings are a DM doing what DMs are supposed to do.
    b. greenstone (paraphrased):
    Agency means that they {players} control their character's actions; you control the world's reactions to the character's actions.
    Gosh, 2D8HP, you are so very correct!
    Second known member of the Greyview Appreciation Society

  15. - Top - End - #15
    Titan in the Playground
     
    Imp

    Join Date
    Feb 2017

    Default Re: Let's Talk Personal Characteristics

    Quote Originally Posted by KorvinStarmast View Post
    Yeah, OK, but that's kinda DM specific rather than the general benefit of the hooks that can be accrued.
    And I suspect that more than one DM ever has pulled that (the kind of situation that you described).
    Well I was specifically addressing MaxWilson's "you tell the DM you have a younger sister specifically so he can torture you with her, by having her kidnapped or having her turn evil or having her turn out to be a false memory implanted by the BBEG" point.

    I like PCs who are parts of a living world, and backstory-based hooks help that. The DM only using a PC's backstory to see of what suffering they're the victim this week doesn't give me the impression the PC is part of a living world.

  16. - Top - End - #16

    Default Re: Let's Talk Personal Characteristics

    Quote Originally Posted by Unoriginal View Post
    A DM who only see my PC's backstory as a way to torture them is not a DM I will play with.
    I may not be explaining it well. Here's the seminal post: https://www.reddit.com/r/DnD/comment..._called_knife/

    When writing a character's backstory, it's important to include a certain number of "knives". Knives are essentially anything that the DM can use to raise the stakes of a situation for your character. Anything that can make a conflict personal, like a threatened loved one or the appearance of a sudden enemy. They're called "knives" because the players lovingly forge them and present them to the DM so that the DM can use them to stab the player over and over again.

    The more knives a player has, the easier it is for the DM to involve them in the story. So it's important to have them! When breaking down a backstory, it kind of goes like this:

    Every named person your character cares about, living or dead (i.e. sibling, spouse, childhood friend) +1 knife [EDIT: a large family can be bundled into one big knife]

    Every phobia or trauma your character experiences/has experienced +1 knife

    Every mystery in your character's life (i.e. unknown parents, unexplained powers) +1 knife

    Every enemy your character has +1 knife

    Every ongoing obligation or loyalty your character has +1 knife

    Additionally, every obligation your character has failed +1 knife

    Every serious crime your character has committed (i.e. murder, arson) +1 knife

    Every crime your character is falsely accused of +1 knife

    Alternatively if your character is a serial killer or the leader of a thieves guild, those crimes can be bundled under a +1 BIG knife

    Any discrimination experienced (i.e. fantasy racism) +1 knife

    Every favored item/heirloom +1 knife

    Every secret your character is keeping +1 knife

    You kind of get the point. Any part of your backstory that could be used against you is considered a knife. A skilled DM will use these knives to get at your character and get you invested in the story. A really good DM can break your knives into smaller, sharper knives with which to stab you. They can bundle different characters' knives together into one GIANT knife. Because we're all secretly masochists when it comes to D&D, the more knives you hand out often means the more rewarding the story will be.

    For clarity's sake I have found it best to explicitly list the knives for the DM rather than interweaving them into a long blob of backstory text. If you don't want something used to raise the stakes for you, just leave it off your list of knives.

    If you have a dad who's supposed to be a wise old mentor figure for dramatic scenes, but not someone who ever gets kidnapped by space Nazis, just tell the DM your dad is purely a dramatic character.

    Or maybe he never appears onscreen at all, he (you-the-player) just writes letters to you (you-the-PC) as a narrative device, and you don't want him threatened and don't actually even want the DM ever running your dad at all. Don't list him as a knife.

    Quote Originally Posted by Unoriginal View Post
    I agree, and I talk about that below what you quoted.

    My point is there's a big difference between "your cousin Borbert, who was your companion on your first adventure but who decided to retire, visits you after hearing a rumor about a dungeon that could interest you" or "as it turn out, the map indicates the ruins of the castle your grandfather served as a knight, before it was destroyed" and your DM looking at your backstory and thinking about how to kill off, torture or turn evil any character you mention in a positive light.

    I've seen it happens. Whenever one player at my old gaming club made a backstory that included a lover, the DM couldn't resist making them either evil or a prisoner of the BBEG.
    I agree with what you're saying here, as far as it goes. That's not what Knife Theory is about.

    ===============================

    Quote Originally Posted by Catullus64 View Post
    It seems true that the Personality Characteristics as written don't accord with your stated values about how characterization in an RPG should work, but I hope I can encourage you to broaden your values and have some regard for a different way of doing things.

    Here goes: Flat, static characters can be a good thing.
    Sure, I agree. Not all characters have to be dramatic. But being forced by the DM to use a framework which produces flat, static characters is not a good thing.

    I have nothing against individuals choosing to use Bonds/Flaws/Ideals when they feel like it. But I don't like it myself (even for flat, static characters) and I fully understand why your players have previously objected to you insisting that they write down complete sentence Bonds/Flaws/Ideals for their characters. That system does not work for everyone.
    Last edited by MaxWilson; 2021-06-15 at 04:48 PM.

  17. - Top - End - #17
    Troll in the Playground
     
    Imp

    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Sweden
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: Let's Talk Personal Characteristics

    Quote Originally Posted by Jerrykhor View Post
    I don't think forcing players to write detailed characteristics is good. At the end of the day, this is a game, people should not be forced to do things they don't enjoy, and that includes backstory, personality, bonds etc. Some people just want a simple character, or wing it as they play. Some people just want to roll dice. That's fine. We are not writing characters for a story book or novel here.

    I have plan out some ridiculous backstory and personality for one character. I have also left the backstory section blank for another. It depends. But in my mind, there is always some idea of what i want the character to be.

    You call it enthusiasm, but when you force it on others, its called being pushy.
    In my experience both as a DM and as a player Personal Characteristics (in whatever invocation) are the only way a tell that a player is roleplaying at all.

    Though I agree. If a player doesn't like roleplaying then they shouldn't be roleplaying. But that can be said about every aspect of the game, if they don't like combat maybe they shouldn't be fighting. If they don't like exploration then they shouldn't be exploring. If they don't like adventure they shouldn't adventure. Generally players should find games that suit them.

    Edit-
    The first part is not true. Doing a "funny voice", or acting, is also a strong signal that someone is roleplaying. But even fewer players are comfortable doing that. Some players are even derisive of other players doing that
    Last edited by Mastikator; 2021-06-15 at 04:47 PM.
    Black text is for sarcasm, also sincerity. You'll just have to read between the lines and infer from context like an animal

  18. - Top - End - #18
    Titan in the Playground
     
    Imp

    Join Date
    Feb 2017

    Default Re: Let's Talk Personal Characteristics

    Quote Originally Posted by MaxWilson View Post
    I may not be explaining it well. Here's the seminal post: https://www.reddit.com/r/DnD/comment..._called_knife/

    When writing a character's backstory, it's important to include a certain number of "knives". Knives are essentially anything that the DM can use to raise the stakes of a situation for your character. Anything that can make a conflict personal, like a threatened loved one or the appearance of a sudden enemy. They're called "knives" because the players lovingly forge them and present them to the DM so that the DM can use them to stab the player over and over again.

    The more knives a player has, the easier it is for the DM to involve them in the story. So it's important to have them! When breaking down a backstory, it kind of goes like this:

    Every named person your character cares about, living or dead (i.e. sibling, spouse, childhood friend) +1 knife [EDIT: a large family can be bundled into one big knife]

    Every phobia or trauma your character experiences/has experienced +1 knife

    Every mystery in your character's life (i.e. unknown parents, unexplained powers) +1 knife

    Every enemy your character has +1 knife

    Every ongoing obligation or loyalty your character has +1 knife

    Additionally, every obligation your character has failed +1 knife

    Every serious crime your character has committed (i.e. murder, arson) +1 knife

    Every crime your character is falsely accused of +1 knife

    Alternatively if your character is a serial killer or the leader of a thieves guild, those crimes can be bundled under a +1 BIG knife

    Any discrimination experienced (i.e. fantasy racism) +1 knife

    Every favored item/heirloom +1 knife

    Every secret your character is keeping +1 knife

    You kind of get the point. Any part of your backstory that could be used against you is considered a knife. A skilled DM will use these knives to get at your character and get you invested in the story. A really good DM can break your knives into smaller, sharper knives with which to stab you. They can bundle different characters' knives together into one GIANT knife. Because we're all secretly masochists when it comes to D&D, the more knives you hand out often means the more rewarding the story will be.
    Well I disagree with this conception. Sometime a backstory element will be a knife, sure. But sometime it'll be a fork, a spoon, or a bowl.

    I can understand that some people consider only bad things happening to the character can raise the stakes/make the character involved in the story/ progress the story/make entertaining or interesting moments, but it's not my case.

    Quote Originally Posted by MaxWilson View Post
    For clarity's sake I have found it best to explicitly list the knives for the DM rather than interweaving them into a long blob of backstory text. If you don't want something used to raise the stakes for you, just leave it off your list of knives.

    If you have a dad who's supposed to be a wise old mentor figure for dramatic scenes, but not someone who ever gets kidnapped by space Nazis, just tell the DM your dad is purely a dramatic character.

    Or maybe he never appears onscreen at all, he (you-the-player) just writes letters to you (you-the-PC) as a narrative device, and you don't want him threatened and don't actually even want the DM ever running your dad at all. Don't list him as a knife.
    Fair. I can get why some people prefer that kind of setup.
    Last edited by Unoriginal; 2021-06-15 at 04:52 PM.

  19. - Top - End - #19
    Barbarian in the Playground
     
    Yakmala's Avatar

    Join Date
    Apr 2019
    Location
    CA
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: Let's Talk Personal Characteristics

    I'm a big fan of back story and working out a character's personality and voice. No matter how good the mechanics of a character, I can't enjoy playing them unless I feel like I know who they are.

    One supplement I used to use (and have my players use) was called "Central Casting: Heroes of Legend" by Task Force Games. I probably still have it somewhere in a box in the garage. It was one of the most comprehensive ways to flesh out a character idea and you could use as much or as little of it as needed.

  20. - Top - End - #20
    Titan in the Playground
     
    Pex's Avatar

    Join Date
    Nov 2013

    Default Re: Let's Talk Personal Characteristics

    If I tell the DM my character's backstory has a father back on the farm, that's precisely what I want. I don't want him kidnapped, murdered, or be the BBEG we're looking for. I just have a dad who lives on the farm whom I can write letters telling of my adventures. When I'm Knighted by the King there he is with a big smile so proud of me. When I have downtime I can visit home and brag to my childhood friends. That's all I need.
    Quote Originally Posted by OvisCaedo View Post
    Rules existing are a dire threat to the divine power of the DM.

  21. - Top - End - #21
    Barbarian in the Playground
    Join Date
    Aug 2014

    Default Re: Let's Talk Personal Characteristics

    Quote Originally Posted by MaxWilson View Post
    They are one framework but they create two dimensional characters at best; they don't set up interesting relationships between player characters (compare e.g. Fiasco chargen, or DramaSystem); they don't add internal tensions to those relationships.

    Knives in knife theory are designed as hooks: you tell the DM you have a younger sister specifically so he can torture you with her, by having her kidnapped or having her turn evil or having her turn out to be a false memory implanted by the BBEG. A PHB Bond in contrast seems to be intended as static, partly because you have only that one Bond--if the DM kills the sister off, are you left with no Bonds?

    I'm all for frameworks that help characters define feelings and relationships, but I don't think the PHB Bond/Flaw/Ideal system is worth using once you know some alternatives.
    As others have mentioned, firstly, there's ways to leverage a bond/knife without just severing or risking severing the relationship. Instead of killing off or endangering the younger sister, what if the younger sister finds an interesting McGuffin and knows you can cast identify, so she hands you the plot hook item to find out what it is? Or she introduces you to a friend of hers who wants to start a mining operation but has heard their planned mine site is infested with undead?

    Secondly, dead bond character =|= no bonds. "Avenge my dead X" is a valid bond, as is "honor the memory of my lost X by doing Y" or "make sure no one else loses their loved ones the way I lost X".

    Thirdly, a good D&D group will most likely create more bonds during the course of the campaign. For example, if you started with Lost Mines of Phandelver, you can easily end up with the surviving Rockseekers and Sildar Hallwinter forming bonds with the PCs that can motivate them in a similar way to knife theory. In my LMOP run, the player raised money to pay a cleric for resurrection of the Rockseeker brother they found dead in Wave Echo Cave, reuniting the two surviving brothers with their third brother. That's a bond that could easily be used if I wanted to have the Rockseekers turn up again. And that's just the named NPCs. That PC also adopted two goblins and a doppelganger during her run, who became part of a growing entourage of NPCs running a traveling tavern in a demiplane for her. Only one of them (Droop) had a canonical name. DMs should be constantly looking for ways to build on the relationships that PCs have formed in-game, and PCs should be open to forming such relationships.

  22. - Top - End - #22
    Dwarf in the Playground
     
    HalflingRangerGuy

    Join Date
    Apr 2019
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: Let's Talk Personal Characteristics

    I used to be pretty down on the system until I saw a homebrew'd Underdark Background from a prominent OSR author that made me think that the system would be a lot more popular if more work was put into making the examples stand out and be inspiring rather than rote.

    Examples Include:
    Quote Originally Posted by False Machine
    • Physiology: Your eyes are larger than usual for your race, they also have no whites, people cannot tell where you are looking.

    • Bond: I must find all evidence above ground of the existence of my people, and destroy it.

    • Flaw: Failing to eat at least part of someone you respect when they die is a terrible insult. You would never do that to a friend.
    I think a really fleshed out collections of backgrounds that encompass many popular DND character archetypes would find success in the homebrew community.
    Last edited by verbatim; 2021-06-17 at 03:23 PM.

  23. - Top - End - #23
    Titan in the Playground
     
    Daemon

    Join Date
    May 2016
    Location
    Corvallis, OR
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: Let's Talk Personal Characteristics

    I see the IBF system as providing two things of value:
    1. A summary for the player of what they decided was important to their character. This is a dynamic thing, and I have no issue with people adding, removing, and changing these as play goes on.
    2. A statement to the DM of plot eye-bolts.

    What's a plot eye-bolt? Well, it's basically where a plot hook can attach. It's a statement of "here are things I'll bite at."

    For instance, 75% of my current party has either an ideal or a bond relating to slavery--they hate it at a deep personal level. So I know that if I throw in a plot element involving the chance of rescuing slaves, they'll jump at it unless there's something much larger that it will necessarily conflict with. And even then, they'll try to pull both off.

    Another character had a flaw of "Can't pass up the shiny". Which meant that I knew that to get that character involved, I could offer the prospect of phat loots.

    Without good plot-eyebolts, plot hooks don't have anywhere to attach. IBF is a way for the player, up front, to make an API contract--If you poke me here, I'll respond positively. Not just as a way to get the characters in trouble or in tension, but both positively and negatively. I know that a NPC with the tag "servile and whiny" and a character with an ideal of "Everyone should stand on their own feet" are going to clash, while if I want to have a character they'll react well to, I need to touch their other other IBF parts. Other things may work, but as with an undocumented API, there's no guarantee that they'll react at all, let alone how you expect. And you can break things and have no one to blame.

    I make a pact with the players that if you have named characters in your backstory, I won't kill them off/kidnap them/plot twist them/etc without involving the player OOC first for approval. One character has a son; he's not randomly going to get offed/turn out to be the villain. And even though they've made enemies that are aware of that son, I've ensured that the characters will have warning and will be able to intervene (possibly at a cost, but it will be a free choice) if those enemies move against the relatives. However, that same character has an ex-wife and a twin brother who ware painted by mutual agreement as villain materials. And another character has a fellow crewman on their ship (Sailor background) who had a flag attached; they've mostly reconciled, but it was a bit touch and go. For the crewman.

    But honestly, one of the things that I've enjoyed most about my current group is that several of them have worked with me on their backstories to a high level, including some who have intentionally put large chunks of their history in my hands.

    Spoiler: Examples
    Show

    One character has amnesia. Basically his entire backstory was left in my hands. We set some basic guidelines together, but that's made recovering his memory and (now that he's done much of that) choosing his path in full light of this knowledge his major plot element. I've drip-dropped bits and pieces as we've gone along, and it's been wonderful.

    Another gave a basic framework, including some names, with the core motivation of "I'm trying to find my father (who disappeared years ago) and find out who my grandfather was (ie where I got these powers as a divine soul sorcerer)". He didn't specify who his grandfather was or the details of the family relationship, which is something we've been discovering as we go along.


    This "voyage of self-discovery" has allowed me to custom tune the campaign to weave the characters into the world and the ongoing events much more than a more "pre-set" backstory would do. But it does take trust between the players and the DM--the players have to trust the DM and their world to not screw them over, while the DM has to trust the players to respond to the developments.

    Spoiler: trigger warning
    Show

    Another such plot eye-bolt I've found has been abuse of women. This goes for every party I've had--none would tolerate it. Even the crustier characters wouldn't put up with that, and their reactions tended to be...extreme. Had one group of, well, self-interested characters decide that the appropriate response to seeing a lord allowing his men to abuse women was to storm his castle and execute him. To the point that I had to fade to black on some of their plans for exactly how he was going to die.
    Dawn of Hope: a 5e setting. http://wiki.admiralbenbo.org
    Rogue Equivalent Damage calculator, now prettier and more configurable!
    5e Monster Data Sheet--vital statistics for all 693 MM, Volo's, and now MToF monsters: Updated!
    NIH system 5e fork, very much WIP. Base github repo.
    NIH System PDF Up to date main-branch build version.

  24. - Top - End - #24
    Titan in the Playground
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    The Land of Cleves
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: Let's Talk Personal Characteristics

    I'm with the OP: I've always loved alignment as part of the game, and I think that traits/ideals/bonds/flaws are the best part of 5th edition. Neither alignment, nor the bits that 5e added, is a complete description of a character: You can and should go beyond them. But they're a starting point. And no, not every player needs help coming up with a personality: If you can freeform a character without explicitly-labeled bonds, flaws, etc., then good for you. But for most of us, it really does help.

    They're also not limited in number. My first 5e character, for instance, started off with a fairly bland bond about digging up ancient secrets. But he later ended up connecting with a couple of street urchins, and sponsoring their educations, and while I didn't actually write it on his sheet, they're now bonds, too, and stronger than his original one.

    (I will add that they don't necessarily need to be complete sentences. My current character (when I'm not DMing) has as his ideal FREEEEDOOOM!, for example. But then, he's not a subtle sort of guy.)

    (I will also confess that I am about to use someone from a character's backstory as a villain, but only because the player set up her background with a clear villain in it. Someone disgraced her father, but she doesn't know who. Well, she's going to find out.)
    Time travels in divers paces with divers persons.
    As You Like It, III:ii:328

    Chronos's Unalliterative Skillmonkey Guide
    Current Homebrew: 5th edition psionics

  25. - Top - End - #25
    Titan in the Playground
     
    Kane0's Avatar

    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    Waterdeep
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: Let's Talk Personal Characteristics

    I employ my own character sheet used in excel and have made sure to keep the traits/bonds/flaws section prominent, I too think its a great tool and often overlooked especially by players who come from a 3e/4e background.
    Im actually tinkering with a doublesided version where everything involved with combat is on one side which stays face down until initiative is rolled, so players arent tempted to think with their numbers just because they can see them on their sheet. Kind of like 'Side A: Who you are' vs 'Side B: What you are'
    Last edited by Kane0; 2021-06-17 at 09:27 PM.

  26. - Top - End - #26
    Ettin in the Playground
     
    Telok's Avatar

    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    61.2° N, 149.9° W
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: Let's Talk Personal Characteristics

    Funny. Traits, bonds, flaws, backstory, character hooks, knives, none of it has ever mattered since AD&D stopped. I don't know what it is, but the WotC editions effectively ended all character personality, quirks, and story in my neck of the woods. People will do it in other systems, but not D&D.

    I still do backstories character hooks, all that. But it doesn't make any difference. Making a urinal of the holy symbols of rival faiths in a dwarf gutter bar? No effect. Specifically making a character as the ex-lover of the BBEG? Nothing. The character getting a class perk that's literally "Dean of <type of magic> at the Mage Academy"? Meaningless. So, what's the point?

  27. - Top - End - #27
    Titan in the Playground
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    The Land of Cleves
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: Let's Talk Personal Characteristics

    That's a statement about the folks you play with, not about the game.
    Time travels in divers paces with divers persons.
    As You Like It, III:ii:328

    Chronos's Unalliterative Skillmonkey Guide
    Current Homebrew: 5th edition psionics

  28. - Top - End - #28
    Titan in the Playground
    Join Date
    Dec 2008

    Default Re: Let's Talk Personal Characteristics

    Quote Originally Posted by Telok View Post
    Funny. Traits, bonds, flaws, backstory, character hooks, knives, none of it has ever mattered since AD&D stopped. I don't know what it is, but the WotC editions effectively ended all character personality, quirks, and story in my neck of the woods. People will do it in other systems, but not D&D.

    I still do backstories character hooks, all that. But it doesn't make any difference. Making a urinal of the holy symbols of rival faiths in a dwarf gutter bar? No effect. Specifically making a character as the ex-lover of the BBEG? Nothing. The character getting a class perk that's literally "Dean of <type of magic> at the Mage Academy"? Meaningless. So, what's the point?
    Huh, weird. I mean D&D doesn’t do nearly as much with it as they could. It’s no Burning Wheel, but it’s functional.

    This really sounds more like a group issue to me though. Most the good DMs I’ve played with would jump at chances to add drama with their player’s backstories.

  29. - Top - End - #29
    Barbarian in the Playground
     
    BlackDragon

    Join Date
    Jun 2016

    Default Re: Let's Talk Personal Characteristics

    I find the personality characteristics to usually be a useful tool to help round out a new character, or to inspire a backstory. They're not perfect, but they're a fine framework. As DM, I also want players to specify what motivates them to adventure (helping people, making coin, solving mysteries, etc.), for plot hook reasons.

    More importantly, though, personality traits, ideals, bonds, and flaws are an explicit part of building a 5th edition character! A character without its personality characteristics is as incomplete as a wizard who hasn't picked their cantrips or a rogue who hasn't selected their skills. I can't fathom the idea of resenting a DM for asking players to finish building their characters before playing (though I'd be fine with house-ruling those details away). Feats are an optional rule; personality traits aren't.
    My 5e Monster Repository (a modest collection)
    5e Quick, ad-hoc task DCs — Simple: 8 | Normal: 13 | Challenging: 18 | Formidable: 23
    5e Quick, ad-hoc monsters — AC: 12 + level/2 | HP: 10 × level | To-Hit: 2 + level/2 | DPR: 4 × level
    1 monster v. 1 PC; for 4 v. 1 Solos — +2 to AC & To-Hit | HP: 25 × level | DPR: 10 × level
    5e Quick, ad-hoc monster treasure — CR2 × tier gp

  30. - Top - End - #30
    Barbarian in the Playground
     
    GreenSorcererElf

    Join Date
    Feb 2019

    Default Re: Let's Talk Personal Characteristics

    I came for the tactical combat. And stayed for the role-playing.

    Within the first year of 5e I made a custom character sheet that omitted characteristics in favor of more real-estate for features. Now they're back in my sheets and one of the most guiding notes in the first sessions of a new campaign.

    I'm particularly miffed by my players that get bored with their characterswhen they play without any unique characteristics or RP elements. It's like "Of course you're bored with your sack of abilities you dolt! Try playing this roleplaying game with some roleplay instead of treating it like a video game with your one dimensional avatar"

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •