For every argument that one can come up with why 1000 word bios are bad and limiting, I can come up with an argument about how they help the story flow better and foster an environment that creates a story based on the characters' desires
Maybe because there is truth to both sides of the argument?
I didn't say there wasn't any truth to both sides of the argument. If you sit down at a table, and before you've even arrived say to yourself "i hate bios, bios are limiting, I'm not writing a bio", then your attitude is set that it's going to suck no matter what. You will feel limited because you have it set that they are limiting.
This is why I would choose to play with people who believe bios are important or at the very least can intermingle with those that do without getting angry or upset about it.
Table-harmony is probably the most important thing.
I'm not trying to tell you that how you do things is wrong. However the bios my players have written have helped me flesh out a good three weeks of material, plus the adventure journals that they create give me insight into their character. It is an invaluable tool to me to create adventures and environments that are not driven by my own plot devices.
|
To be honest, I don't think low point buy emulates or improves on roleplaying; 15 point and 25 point buys are just as easy to min-max. I actually believe SAD gets more out of 20-25 points; those that are going to dump will dump just as much, but are now pretty much guarenteed a 20 instead of an 18 and probably have not left themselves critical saving throw weaknesses. MAD probably has some 14s where they might have 16s in higher points, but again on a relative scale are the same.
The biggest issue is 25 point messes up CRs, and not in a way easily fixable; just going up CR+2, especially early, is a great way to TPK, but high stats otherwise trivialize the play. So it leaves the GM in a very awkward position. With 15 points most adventure paths are challenging (with the occassional death) but not deadly; at 20 many encounters are cakewalks, and 25 needs SOME tweaking (giving most monsters "advanced" speed add-on does this... But can nuke out things sometimes).
So given the same power playing, the same "MAD vs SAD" ratios, and higher difficulty at balance for more points, I favor the standard 15. Or I specifically favor 20 points, no dump stats, as this ends up slightly better than average for MAD (who usually end up with 19 points after a dump) and slightly worse for SAD (who often end up with 23 after 2 dumps).
This is why I would choose to play with people who believe bios are important
Why is the "You get 5 points less on your PB" rule even there then? Woulnd't be: "I don't want to play with you" more honest?
One of the guys I know who is a big optimizer was the one that turned me on to 10 point builds actually. We were painting figs one day and talking about the various methods and with 20 points he could create a dump stat 20 with decent saves, where as at a 10 point buy he could dump stat a 17 but have critical weaknesses in his saves if he did so.
He said that a 10 or a 15 would limit that and probably fit more with what I wanted to do (as I hadn't played 3.5 in years and was into 4e at the time)
Why is the 2You get 5 points less on your PB" rule even there then?
This is why I would choose to play with people who believe bios are important
The people who invest time into their character get the higher point buy. It's an incentive/reward to do a bio. Much like the +10% exp bonus for doing a log that week exists, it is an incentive to do it.
Some people see it as an incentive, others see it as a punishment. Circumstances need to be taken into account (busy week, lack of energy etc.) and losing out on stuff because of bad luck is punishment. Then again, there's also the chance me and the few others here who disagree with you might just be cynical/pessimistic in comparison to you.
If some players like to lay out elaborate back stories, that's great. I just don't like the assumption that anyone who doesn't, "is a Roll player not a Role player."
I'll just be clear and say for me it's not roll playing vs role playing as much as it is for the reasons I laid out above. My current primary group is half role players and half roll players, and that's not derrogatory, that's just what it is.
|
|
Most power players actually do favor lower point buys; they want to feel challenged, but feel crippled if they try to self-nerf at 20 or 25 points. It's an odd mentality, but I admit it for myself; I like low points because it brings me more in line with what the game is looking for. I also like limiting magic item availability for similar reasons; mostly so I don't just look at loot as "half-cost towards the stat item I need". Suddenly those odd weapons and headbands that don't bump stats start to look more attractive, you know?
Some people see it as an incentive, others see it as a punishment. Circumstances need to be taken into account (busy week, lack of energy etc.) and losing out on stuff because of bad luck is punishment. Then again, there's also the chance me and the few others here who disagree with you might just be cynical/pessimistic in comparison to you.
That could be. As I've said before, if a person wants to join my group but sees having to write a bio as a "punishment" that means they don't fit in with the type of group I want to be a part of, and we wouldn't make a good fit.
Where I live, there are many gaming stores and many many groups that fit all kinds of moulds, so I feel its important to get with people that have a playstyle and mindset that matches yours.
That doesn't mean I think that you are a bad person, it's just that for me I want to be in a group where people enjoy writing bios and those that don't want to write bios can be ok with them not getting a bonus like the people who did the extra work get.
I'm not happy in other style groups and really as this is a hobby and about having fun, it's counter intuitive to be a part of something you aren't having fun with.
Most power players actually do favor lower point buys; they want to feel challenged, but feel crippled if they try to self-nerf at 20 or 25 points. It's an odd mentality, but I admit it for myself; I like low points because it brings me more in line with what the game is looking for. I also like limiting magic item availability for similar reasons; mostly so I don't just look at loot as "half-cost towards the stat item I need". Suddenly those odd weapons and headbands that don't bump stats start to look more attractive, you know?
I don't mind playing with power gamers, so long as the campaign isn't being wrecked or it is difficult to challenge overall.
Power gamers can make a group better in a constructive way. I have a couple of them in my groups now, and they are ace players and people. They do like the challenge and I enjoy that synergy that goes back and forth between them and myself.
The power gamers I do not enjoy having in my gruop are the ones that power up their character and then get mad and throw a fit when the encounters have to be bumped up to match their power. In short, the power gamers who power game to NOT be challenged. (both types exist)
Actually, I LOVE being detailed with backgrounds and characters (I write stories on my free time, though I still need to work on the ones I wish to some day publish), but I seem to have gotten down to speaking up for others here by this part. Anyway, like I've said before, people can try whatever style of point buy or rolling they want. It ain't wrong nor ain't it right :D
And also, I have had a hard time saying if my pals in the D&D group where I was DM are more towards Roleplay or towards Powergaming. They seem to do a bit of both, though one or two of the guys focus more on the RP aspect and the rest are like "heheh, let's kick some orc arse and make dorf jokes" which sometimes makes me sigh in disappointment. Those guys should think less about Warhammer while I'm DM and focus on Golarion...
I find it funny that most people do either 15 or 20. I was tossed up for my campaign so I went with 17
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32, 2010 Top 8
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Some people see it as an incentive, others see it as a punishment. Circumstances need to be taken into account (busy week, lack of energy etc.) and losing out on stuff because of bad luck is punishment. Then again, there's also the chance me and the few others here who disagree with you might just be cynical/pessimistic in comparison to you.
Warning! Tangental Rant Ahead!
Since auticus' players continue to play, it's clear they don't have an issue with the house rules. Since his house rules don't impact anyone outside his group,* more power to him.
*
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Some people see it as an incentive, others see it as a punishment. Circumstances need to be taken into account (busy week, lack of energy etc.) and losing out on stuff because of bad luck is punishment. Then again, there's also the chance me and the few others here who disagree with you might just be cynical/pessimistic in comparison to you.Warning! Tangental Rant Ahead!
** spoiler omitted **Since auticus' players continue to play, it's clear they don't have an issue with the house rules. Since his house rules don't impact anyone outside his group,* more power to him.
*** spoiler omitted **
Playing RPGs is not a job.
I did, for the high level game (started at 14th, ended at 19th) I ran. Since I was working with high level play for the first time, I wanted to work with the character stats the game designers assume when determining CRs and other. (Technically, the game began as a 3.5 game with its standard point buy, but we converted to Pathfinder halfway through.)
Note that at high level, of course the PCs had both their attribute increase at 4,8,12, and eventually 16th level, and had a lot of stat boosting gear that you commonly find at high level.
Ultimately, my final analysis is that it worked out fine, and it certainly made it easier for me to determine appropriate challenges.
I will note that there was a disparity in that I actually felt often my challenges were too easy and the party still ripped through most stuff like wet toilet paper (they were high level, after all)--so by my account of how well they handled things, I don't think the standard point buy held them back at all. But I will also note a couple of my players felt like they were still too "weak" in certain areas. How much of that is that they were truly too weak, and how much of that is their wanting to believe they should never fail a saving throw (or a monster should always fail theirs) is up for speculation. Ultimately, I think the party more or less made their saves most of the time, and the monsters failed their saves half the time, and that suggests everything was more or less balanced (tipped a little in the party's favor, even).
Two characters each died once, one immediately brought back with Breath of Life, the other got Raised. For a high level game, I'd say that's probably even indicative the game was easy. :) The challenges I design--some can be nasty but I probably am more lenient than others--but I was using guidelines as provided in the book as much as possible, so if I was "doing it wrong," then "doing it wrong" was following the rulebook's advice.
I can see with 15 point buy how you really will want to try to make every point count at LOW levels, and some MAD characters at low levels can get shafted. And indeed, I think with most future games I'd have characters do 20 point buy. BUT, I also know that means that if these characters got to high levels, I'll have to ramp up challenges (and/or possibly restrict availability of stat boosting items)--because as the high level 15 point buy party had little trouble, then the same challenges as written would be cakewalks with the addition +1-4 bonuses characters would have to their rolls and DCs.
Playing RPGs is not a job.
You still seem fixated on that, coming off as angry that a group plays like mine does.
Also it's not about it being a job, it's the mindset he is talking about. You can (and I did many pages ago) transpose the job analogy with a sports analogy, or another hobby analogy that speaks the same thing.
If you go above and beyond, you get a bonus. Otherwise you get the standard default. It's an incentive. I want bios at my table. To offer an incentive to do one, you get bonus points to your character for taking the time to do one. Period.
You're coming off that I'm wrong for wanting bios for my characters. I've explained why I want them in depth. They help me. I've also explained in depth that they are not mandated or required, but you get a bonus for doing one.
There's really nothing else that can be said about the matter. It doesn't affect you in any way, shape or form. Please take a xanax and relax.
|
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32, 2010 Top 8
|
Playing RPGs is not a job.Some people see it as an incentive, others see it as a punishment. Circumstances need to be taken into account (busy week, lack of energy etc.) and losing out on stuff because of bad luck is punishment. Then again, there's also the chance me and the few others here who disagree with you might just be cynical/pessimistic in comparison to you.Warning! Tangental Rant Ahead!
** spoiler omitted **Since auticus' players continue to play, it's clear they don't have an issue with the house rules. Since his house rules don't impact anyone outside his group,* more power to him.
*** spoiler omitted **
Wow, so you pointed out the obvious in a rant I said was tangental. Bravo.
I guess under your logic, if a player doesn't show up to the table (busy week, lack of energy, etc.) Then you give that player a full share of the XP/loot?
I would definitely not punish the player by missing out on the game, unless the other players agreed to such. Last time I was DM, the guy who didn't show up didn't get XP, but if he fell behind by a level, I let him come up with a plot-tied excuse to how he'd catch up in terms of XP. (For example, the Monk having taken time doing some extreme training while he was gone)
I guess under your logic, if a player doesn't show up to the table (busy week, lack of energy, etc.) Then you give that player a full share of the XP/loot?
Yes, technically is that true.
heh.
At ours if you don't show up you don't get the xp for that session. If the players give you some loot that's up to them.
However for players that wish to play catchup, we can and have worked outside session work in to get them the xp that they missed. It typically involves, you guessed it, writing.
Though one time a player had to miss three weeks (three sessions) due to work so we had his character go off on a side quest and then he played that on the side to make up. It was fun, took a bit of work as I had to come up with the site etc... but in the end it worked out and he ended up making up everything.
It typically involves, you guessed it, writing.
Remind me, you are a writer by profession?
Partially. Writer, musician, software developer.
And before we say "Yes that means writing is easy for you but hard for other people"...
* I do not mandate writing as a requirement
* The rules are known before the first dice is tossed so no one is walking into this blind and going "wtf?"
* The rules have been explained before the first dice is tossed as to why they are the way they are. Everyone understands the concepts and goals of this particular campaign and why the writing is important (but not required)
* The players acknowledge that if they don't do the writing and just want to show up and play that they are welcome to but that they don't get any "bonuses" and that this is ok.
As to the xp thing, I've always done this. If a player has to miss a lot of sessions, I go out of my way to make sure that there is a side quest for them to be able to do to make up some or all of the xp lost. If it's just one week, and they care enough about the xp (9 times out of 10 they don't really care and are fine with missing it I have found) then they have no problem writing up something for me or doing whatever else is agreed upon (I have had creative players come up with other ways to garner the lost xp that didn't involve writing, it's just that writing is the easiest)
So in short (again), everyone is cool with it going into it.
I am unofficially a writer (as in, it's not my job but I do it a lot on my free time). Does that count? :D
You don't have to have it as your job to be considered a writer if you write. I don't get paid for my fiction and am working on publishing an adventure path.
I get paid to do technical writing (boring stuff) and white papers and eductional pieces.
The answer to the question posed by the OP seems to be "yes." The clarification of the answer seems to be: "Different playing styles exist."
The point of contention seems to be that some people are not okay with the fact that different playing styles exist. Which is interesting, I guess, in a disappointing kind of way.
I'm okay with the fact that other people have different styles, so I am not really sure of what you're getting at, Chris.
|
I guess under your logic, if a player doesn't show up to the table (busy week, lack of energy, etc.) Then you give that player a full share of the XP/loot?
Yes, technically is that true.
I do that, more as a by-product of not using XP. And I find it silly metagaming for characters to deny a character treasure because the character's player was not there.
The point of contention seems to be that some people are not okay with the fact that different playing styles exist. Which is interesting, I guess, in a disappointing kind of way.
Could you quote those people, for reference?
Edit: As for bonus/penalty, there is mechanically no difference between a bonus you get for doing something and a penalty for not doing it. There's just a difference in the description.
Tell me about it. Had a 1SG on my third deployment decide anyone who didn't score a 225 on the fitness test would have to do PT on Saturdays, but said it wasn't a punishment, just that not doing it on Saturdays up until then had been a privilege. We were not amused.
I'm referring mainly to what I personally perceived to be negative judgment of poster auticus' 15-points-as-bonus house style (fairly harsh judgement to my ear), and more generally to tone in posts about writing backstories and to tone in posts dismissive of the idea that 15 points or less are viable.
The key words in the above paragraph, of course, being "personal" and "perceived" and "tone," all of which are squishy in face to face conversation, much less board posts.
For what it's worth, Icyshadow, I go by the full three syllables, Christopher, but I don't jump up and down about or it anything.
I can write my name, does that count?
Yes. 249 more words, and you have a brief description of your monk.
Back on topic, I played a game where my character died, and I rolled awesome stats for his replacement. At high levels (17+), the DM got frustrated with us blowing through everything he could think up, and made us go to Elite array in an attempt to moderate us a bit. We were fine with it. We had some good players, and we DID kill most encounters in 3 rounds or less.
Guess what? It made no difference. We still had awesome gear and spells, and a few minuses compared to our previous stats didn't change things much at all. We were still gods. That's sort of the point.
The arse-kicking you did might have been mostly due to the gear and the level, Benicio.
Edit: As for bonus/penalty, there is mechanically no difference between a bonus you get for doing something and a penalty for not doing it. There's just a difference in the description.
More specifically, the difference is in how the person takes it. If a person takes that as a "punishment" or a "penalty", then again we don't mix well personality-wise because I don't think along those terms.
You are right Jeff. Players who don't have detailed backstories are not dull characters or bad players or non-roleplayers by any means.
Also 20 and 25 point games are perfectly fine, and have made up the vast majority of my campaigns, I just don't want to do them any longer =)
The arse-kicking you did might have been mostly due to the gear and the level, Benicio.
True. Raw stats mean less and less as you level. Scaling increases from leveling, items and spells keep you up to the task if you survive long enough to get them.
A 1st lvl dwarf barb with a 20 con and toughness! 21 hp!
An advantage over a more average barb with 14 con, but there's more to the story than just your stats. Spend 17 pts. for that high con, and there's not much left for the others. Let's hope he doesn't face anything with wisdom or charisma drain very soon.
|
Lets say I decided to start a game in which players will not be allowed to have a background connected to or that modifies the story (lets say because it was a premade module). However, if a player took the time and effort to look through books and sources to make a heavily optimized mechanically efficient character, he will be rewarded with having not only his background woven into the plot in a minor way but given more RP opportunities than the rest.
I am pretty sure that if I came over here and started claiming that there is nothing wrong with that, and there is nothing wrong with people who like easier games (aka not the way i play) not using this method, I would get a lot of negative feedback for it (and rightfully)
Lets say I decided to start a game in which players will not be allowed to have a background connected to or that modifies the story (lets say because it was a premade module). However, if a player took the time and effort to look through books and sources to make a heavily optimized mechanically efficient character, he will be rewarded with having not only his background woven into the plot in a minor way but given more RP opportunities than the rest.
I am pretty sure that if I came over here and started claiming that there is nothing wrong with that, and there is nothing wrong with people who like easier games (aka not the way i play) not using this method, I would get a lot of negative feedback for it (and rightfully)
Not from me you wouldn't. If that's how you want to run your game, be my guest. It doesn't hurt me in the slightest. My game will still go on regardless of how you decide to run your game wherever in the world you may be.
The concept of getting angry at others who don't play like you (collective you), or the concept of belittling or bashing someone who doesn't play like you (collective you), or the concept of giving non constructive (aka abusive) feedback to something that you don't agree with is not a concept that I understand or adhere to.
What exactly makes it "right" to give negative feedback of that nature? When is it "wrong" to give negative feedback? Why is it "right" for someone to give you negative feedback for your example if that was how you did things?
|
|
The problem comes when the line is crossed from ¨This is how I like playing¨ to ¨I like playing the game hard, but it is ok for you to want to play it easier¨. Because it is obvious that someone who likes yo play (and thrives at) playing a game in a harder mode is automatically better at said game that those who dont. I think that is where the line is crossed.
PS: Also i just wrote this not as an attack, but as an example of how your position can seem problematic from the other side of the fence (being constructive XD)
Understood. That, however, is cynical or jaded thinking. You are taking what I am saying, and then assuming that I am coming from a position of superiority, which I am not.
To disect this statement:
"I like playing the game when it's harder, but it is ok for you to want to paly it easier" means just that. That I like harder difficulty but if you don't, then that's fine.
The inflection that I like to play it difficult, and therefore that means I am better at the game than you because you like to play it easier, is an assumption, and in this case a very incorrect assumption, because that is not at all what I meant nor thought until it was brought up that way.
You may like it easier because indeed you aren't good at the game. Or you may want a less stressful environment and the more difficult the game is, the more stress exists. You may want it easier because you enjoy playing a game where you are roleplaying a character that is superior in every way to most enemies he faces, like a comic book or something similar.
There are many reasons why people may like to play the game easier, and no where did I inflect that because I like the game more difficult that that means I am superior to those that do not.
To put it very clearly: I like games on difficult mode because I get bored otherwise. I do not like playing in a campaign where the DM is taking it easy on us because I get bored and I feel that that is not very "realistic", and I get bored DMing campaigns where I have to take it easy or the players are just vastly superior to the opposition because I don't have much fun as there is little to no challenge
This is not a reflection of skill on my part. You can be bad at something and still like it to be challenging. You can be good at something and still like it to be less challenging.
I think that that is a relic of the internet age, where we assume everyone is a troll making fun of us or poking at us to get a reaction, or trying to come in from a position of superiority (and indeed I have been in many internet discussions with people who ARE in fact coming from that position), but I think it's always best to fully understand a person's direction before jumping on them for preconceived assumptions.
There were several quotes I highlighted on page 4 or so that showed people coming from that mindset. Such as saying that how I play disgusts them, or the person who said that DMs that use 15 point buys are only doing so to enslave their players to their will and plot device. Those, I would say, are coming from a position of superiority where the author of the words feels that not only how I play is inferior to how they do, but how I'm doing it is dead wrong and shouldn't be done.
Because I don't see a 5 point variance as wrecking anything. Wrecking is a strong word. It denotes that those in the 10 point area are screwed and hopeless, and well I've got enough years under my belt to know that that is very much not true.
A 5 point variance is minor.
A 10 and a 15 point build character is very close in power.
Rolling stats is not something I want to do because I've seen and experienced the power level that can occur, and I don't want to have to spend a lot of prep time upping the monsters abilities' so that they don't get wasted in two rounds.
At least the 4D6 drop ones and the lowest method. If it was straight 4D6 drop the lowest, I'd consider that if it was requested by the group as a whole.
However, the result of that would be much more varying in terms of player abilities as opposed to 10 and 15 point builds, which are very similar.
It's only "bad" if you are a staunch believer that all characters should have the same ability score pool no matter what. I've met and even had some of them at my table. They got very irritated, angry, and beligerant if another player was perceived as being stronger than they were (for whatever reason). Those type of players will definitely not be happy with how I run things, unless they were willing to also do the bio (some would be, others not so much). that doesn't make them wrong or me wrong that means our playstyles clash
In which case, then it won't be fun for you. In which case, make sure you don't participate in a group that would do this and harmony will be had by all.
I am flexible. If you want to change what you want to write about I typically allow it. The point is to get you thinking about your character as a person and not as a set of stats. The whole cousin thing would probably have been brainstormed between you two during the character creation session anyway and that is the first step even before a background. So that the players can build their team from square one with full input from me and the other players. Giving people a chance to roll stats and discuss what they would like to play from both the mechanics and role play side of the game. And if you have no ideas about your background even after the synergy of discussion with the other players then I have my writer's block breaking tools all right at hand to help you come up with something fun.I am perfectly capable of thinking about my character as a person and not as a set of stats. I do not need to given a homework assignment to make me do so. I'm sorry you've had to deal with players who do.
For me, a character's personality takes some play time to gel. This is an immersive, not entirely conscious process. If I try to shortcut that by nailing down too much before playing the character the process breaks. Either the way the character comes out conflicts with the bio or trying to stick to what I've written keeps the character from ever developing at all. This isn't theory. I've tried it and it doesn't work for me.
That doesn't mean I don't have any background. It's just simple and preferably vague. For instance, a ranger I'm playing in a Hollow's Last Hope PbP: He grew up in town, works as a logger and has hunted in the forest to help support his family since he was very young. That's all he started with.If some players like to lay out elaborate back stories, that's great. I just don't like the assumption that anyone who doesn't, "is a Roll player not a Role player."
Personality is just one facet of a good character. You need more... but by the looks of it you have more. Expand on that background sentence. Break it apart and do a paragraph about each piece. I know you CAN do a paragraph about a topic, after all you are posting on a forum aren't you? Do a paragraph about growing up in town, one about his work as a logger, and one about hunting for his family. If you are one of those people who have to take extra time to get their creative juices flowing that's fine but you won't be woven into the plot until you have done at least that much.
Being a roll player isn't an insult... it's a type of player. Some people game to let off steam and kill stuff, they aren't as interested in the story, the plot, or even the 'why' of adventuring. And lets face it that isn't wrong bad fun. All that I do is develop tools to let the role players truly enjoy the story to it's fullest. You don't lose out on anything by not giving a detailed background if you aren't really interested in the story. You still have the encounters, the witty banter, and those moments that happen when you let a bunch of PCs loose in any situation. That's all fun too.
For a very long time I've always played in games where characters had at least one 17 in their stats. We used the roll 4D6 reroll 1's and take the highest 3. And if you hated the rolls, start over. This tended to create very strong characters and was the backbone of my 2nd Ed and 3rd Ed games. By the way, stats did matter in 2nd ED, but not to the extent that they do now. (The number of Stat based special abilities alone makes that seem clear to me) At the same time, high stats in 2nd Ed felt more rare and more awesome. I only had one Dwarven fighter with 18 (92%) Strength and he was amazing.
But over the past little bit I'm beginning to change my opinion. The main factor in this has been my enjoyment of the Adventure Paths. I like the stories and the concepts of the game. Since these are created with 15 point characters in mind, I've found that characters that are built using anything much higher are just too powerful. They defeat everything they meet without that much challenge. And since my groups tend to be five or six players, it's even worse. In order for me to make things interesting I have to constantly alter the creatures and the adventure. More of them and higher stats. I'm generally fine with doing this, but I think on my next game I'm going to try the 15 point buy. I'm frankly getting tired of the amount of work I have to do to use the AP's. Perhaps this is me being lazy, or just a by product of being an adult with little free time. Besides, in my head, the players will be more challenged, and challenge is fun.
That said, a 10pt game seems too weak. I could be wrong. I've never played one.
As far as bio's and back stories. Personally I think there are two aspects to this. On one hand I like it when a player has a sense of the character, on the other hand I firmly believe that a level 1 character has zero experience. You've never done anything beyond training. So concepts and really basic ideas are fine, and to me that's not four pages. If you wanted to write something like that awesome, but I'm not expecting it.
Now what I do is give players extra XP for any creative project outside of the game. Draw a picture, write a back story, session post, whatever. Also I don't ever except bio's or back story on the first day, but I do want people thinking about their characters as we continue to play.
just my 2 pennies.
Being a roll player isn't an insult... it's a type of player. Some people game to let off steam and kill stuff, they aren't as interested in the story, the plot, or even the 'why' of adventuring. And lets face it that isn't wrong bad fun. All that I do is develop tools to let the role players truly enjoy the story to it's fullest. You don't lose out on anything by not giving a detailed background if you aren't really interested in the story. You still have the encounters, the witty banter, and those moments that happen when you let a bunch of PCs loose in any situation. That's all fun too.
Bingo.
@mike - in regards to 10 point buy i'd say try it first. You sound a lot like where I am coming from. I got tired of having to put in a lot of extra work to challenge the players, and then by going to 10/15 point buy, all of that seemed to take care of itself (that in combination with keeping things to the core book and removing abusive feat combos)
Also 1000 words is not four pages. It's six to eight paragraphs. It's four pages if you use a large font and double space.
As far as bio's and back stories. Personally I think there are two aspects to this. On one hand I like it when a player has a sense of the character, on the other hand I firmly believe that a level 1 character has zero experience. You've never done anything beyond training. So concepts and really basic ideas are fine, and to me that's not four pages. If you wanted to write...
Your level 1 character has about 17 years of experiences. It would be impossible for nothing to have happened at all. You never met anyone? You never talked to anyone? Not even your own parents? You simply ate, slept, and trained? That would be truly bizarre.
I did read your post... it appears to be you who didn't read mine. And in case it isn't obvious the second paragraph was a general statement not directed at you. As I said in that first paragraph you skipped: You can take as long as you need... if it takes you a dozen adventures to get your creative juices flowing that is perfectly fine. I will write you into the plot after you have your background. If nothing gels for you till then then there is no difference between you and the roll player during that initial time. It doesn't do me any good to write plot around people who aren't feeling creative for any reason they may have. When I write for you specifically not just the group as a whole, I expect creative effort on your part or I feel like I am talking to a wall.