Core Memories Instead of BG?

Warma Sheen

@Coin said in Core Memories Instead of BG?:

<rant>
As an aside, I am repeatedly baffled at how difficult it is to get people to understand how to build Breaking Points. Running Eldritch--especially app approval--was a challenging experience mostly because I just found myself not even being able to even with some people's inability to comprehend this. And I know it makes me a bit of a dick--some people just have trouble with this sort of concept and it's not, you know, their fault. But the twentieth time someone presents a Breaking Point as, "one time my character shot a person and left them to die" as a Breaking Point, I twitch. It's not that hard to rephrase that as an actual Breaking Point, man. "Abandoning someone who may potentially die". Come on, man.

Maybe building Breaking Points just isn't that easy for everyone to understand. For example, "one time my character shot a person and left them to die" would not be the same thing as "Abandoning someone who may potentially die". The latter encompasses a slew of things that have little to do with the reasoning behind why the former is traumatic for the character.

And that might be difficult for some people to understand, even if they feel like they really understand Breaking Points and other people don't...

I suspect the disconnect in the "understanding" comes from the way people look at Breaking Points, either from a character vantage or a mechanics vantage. The Tony Stark example illustrates this perfectly:

@Coin said in Core Memories Instead of BG?:

What has your character forgotten? Another perfect catalyst question for a core memory--except this is the opposite. What your character has forgotten is probably almost as important as what he remembers. Why? Because it can both represent something so traumatic that they blocked it out--but also what your character feels is insignificant. Tony Stark can't remember half (or even 90%) of the women he's bedded in Iron Man (the first movie). Why? Because they aren't important to him. It defines him as a character at that stage in his life. If we apply that to Breaking Points: being confronted emotionally with his disregard for women as people, being forced to face is own womanizing and misogyny, being shown the consequences of his ways (as he is, particularly in Iron Man 3, in the case of his womanizing) should be Breaking Points for Tony Stark. (This is a horrible example, by the way, not because it doesn't work mechanically, but because it makes Tony's womanizing and misogyny into a vehicle for his own character development, which... ugh... but I digress..!)

You list it as something that should be a core memory because of how important it is to the character, but then say it doesn't work mechanically so it is a bad example. (I'm not sure why it doesn't work mechanically, but the fact that it is viewed that way is the point.) Why would you disregard something that important to the character?

So one person might "understand" Breaking Points differently than another person. That's fine. Not everyone has to fit into neat orderly boxes.

Anyway, that's just a little of why these types of questions might help, but they should be far, far removed from any systems or rewards in the game. It shoud be just to guide the creation of your character, not box them into how they should to react to things. That's the role of the player.

Coin

@Warma-Sheen said in Core Memories Instead of BG?:

@Coin said in Core Memories Instead of BG?:

<rant>
As an aside, I am repeatedly baffled at how difficult it is to get people to understand how to build Breaking Points. Running Eldritch--especially app approval--was a challenging experience mostly because I just found myself not even being able to even with some people's inability to comprehend this. And I know it makes me a bit of a dick--some people just have trouble with this sort of concept and it's not, you know, their fault. But the twentieth time someone presents a Breaking Point as, "one time my character shot a person and left them to die" as a Breaking Point, I twitch. It's not that hard to rephrase that as an actual Breaking Point, man. "Abandoning someone who may potentially die". Come on, man.

Maybe building Breaking Points just isn't that easy for everyone to understand. For example, "one time my character shot a person and left them to die" would not be the same thing as "Abandoning someone who may potentially die". The latter encompasses a slew of things that have little to do with the reasoning behind why the former is traumatic for the character.

And that might be difficult for some people to understand, even if they feel like they really understand Breaking Points and other people don't...

I suspect the disconnect in the "understanding" comes from the way people look at Breaking Points, either from a character vantage or a mechanics vantage. The Tony Stark example illustrates this perfectly:

@Coin said in Core Memories Instead of BG?:

What has your character forgotten? Another perfect catalyst question for a core memory--except this is the opposite. What your character has forgotten is probably almost as important as what he remembers. Why? Because it can both represent something so traumatic that they blocked it out--but also what your character feels is insignificant. Tony Stark can't remember half (or even 90%) of the women he's bedded in Iron Man (the first movie). Why? Because they aren't important to him. It defines him as a character at that stage in his life. If we apply that to Breaking Points: being confronted emotionally with his disregard for women as people, being forced to face is own womanizing and misogyny, being shown the consequences of his ways (as he is, particularly in Iron Man 3, in the case of his womanizing) should be Breaking Points for Tony Stark. (This is a horrible example, by the way, not because it doesn't work mechanically, but because it makes Tony's womanizing and misogyny into a vehicle for his own character development, which... ugh... but I digress..!)

You list it as something that should be a core memory because of how important it is to the character, but then say it doesn't work mechanically so it is a bad example. (I'm not sure why it doesn't work mechanically, but the fact that it is viewed that way is the point.) Why would you disregard something that important to the character?

I said, "not because it doesn't work mechanically" in the sense that it does work mechanically--the reason it's bad, IMO, is something that has nothing to do with mechanics. It works fine, mechanically. My complaint is something else, which is why I mentioned I was disgressing.

So one person might "understand" Breaking Points differently than another person. That's fine. Not everyone has to fit into neat orderly boxes.

You're taking my examples as my saying "this is the only way each of these could be interpreted", but that's not what I'm saying. I'm saying: it is easy to interpret these things in ways that can be used as Breaking Points. How you interpret them forges the kind of Breaking Point you want your character to be challenged by.

Anyway, that's just a little of why these types of questions might help, but they should be far, far removed from any systems or rewards in the game. It shoud be just to guide the creation of your character, not box them into how they should to react to things. That's the role of the player.

This is subjective. If you're dead set on this, you aren't wrong, but you're also probably not the kind of person who would enjoy the CofD system, inasmuch as its Integrity system is essential to what the game wants to facilitate you to play, mortal-wise.

Personally, I disagree with your seemingly strict division between them being things that help create the character and things that are attached to a system. I do not actually think these things need to be separate, and believe they can be bound very intricately and well. They don't need to be, but they can be, and this system is made for them to be.

You don't have to like it. You don't even have to agree with it. But if you don't, and then you play in a game that uses it and complain endlessly about it, I reserve the right to think you're acting like an asshat.

Royal 'you', obvs. Unless you do it. And then it's you. Obvs.

Taika

As someone that has never run a game before and can sometimes striggle getting a concept out of their head:

What would be a good list of questions to help with getting initial Defining Moments out onto paper? Because I CAN see some confusion since the ideas can overlap.

@Coin - What helped your players get their heads around the idea of a Breaking Point?

Coin

@Taika said in Core Memories Instead of BG?:

@Coin - What helped your players get their heads around the idea of a Breaking Point?

Those that I managed to explain it to adequately usually got it after a few examples in pages. Some of them gave up and just chose from generic ones. I'm of the opinion that a lot of the time, problems with Breaking Points come from a (perhaps subconscious) refusal to marry mechanics with story, like Warma Sheen above. It's not bad, it's just a bad fit for CofD, especially re: Breaking Points.

CofD systematizes a lot of story beats into things: Breaking Points, Conditions, Aspirations; all things some people would prefer were divorced from the system altogether. But in CofD, they aren't; they're intrinsic to it. This is why I stress that not liking the system you're using doesn't make bitching about it any more tolerable. Use something else. I don't like FATE. So I don't play games that use FATE.

Warma Sheen

@Coin I don't refuse to marry mechanics with story. And I probably overstated and under-explained my opinion on the matter in the previous post. But rather than go into a big long thing, I'll just say that if staff stays out of trying to alter my answers to Breaking Points, I'm fine with the mechanics of Breaking Points. Most things will play out just like they should.

I understand that the systems are intrinsic to CoD, but that's a major reason - the most important reason - why staff should stay out of altering people's decisions in the area of Breaking Points. So for @Taika, I would definitely offer questions as help to players. But stay out of the answers. Let people make their own characters and IMHO people will enjoy them more.

Creepy

I've never really cared for detailed background requirements. I've heard them justified as possible plot-hooks staff can use with your character but I don't think I've ever done that as staff, or had that done with one of my characters. Realistically, the only time I've ever felt the need to have a background at all was to justify beginning my character with something that was unusual (like belonging to a rare bloodline/lodge or owning a relic) or to establish a pre-grid connection to another PC or an NPC. A one line bullet point of "Killmommy was my estranged aunt, we hated each other, now we're into incest vampire bloodplay" or "I ate my brother's face and stole his Katana of Soul Theft".

In 2.0, I get the concept of Breaking Points, Conditions and Aspirations. But a background is only a snapshot of the past. Unless you have a system that rewards a starting character with bonus XP for taking some sort of beginning penalty (like blindness or no fangs, possibly loss of Humanity), I'm still not sold that a background, even in short form, is necessary to anyone except possibly a player who likes to have their char's story all mapped out before they hit the grid. All it feels like is a stamp of approval by staff that the little numbers and letters on your character sheet are "justified". That's what CGen rules are there to limit.

YHWH

I'm of the opinion that a compelling character concept is more valuable than a well-written background. First of all, nobody is going to read your background, save for maybe the ST. The ST will only do so out of a sense of obligation. It will be like grading someone's English paper; they don't feel like it, it's just part of the rigmarole of playing the game.

As far as the character sheet is concerned, all you really need is the concept. A lot of the time that concept doesn't even need to be more than two words.

"Hmm, let's see here. Your concept is 'larcenous saboteur.' So does it make sense for a 'larcenous saboteur' to have a handgun, lockpicks, and the complete Twilight?" The answer is yes to the first two and no to the last one.

It streamlines the process and makes it easier for everybody involved. I'll accept concepts that are maybe a paragraph long if you need more details to really convey the point of your character.

faraday

@YHWH said in Core Memories Instead of BG?:

"Hmm, let's see here. Your concept is 'larcenous saboteur.' So does it make sense for a 'larcenous saboteur' to have a handgun, lockpicks, and the complete Twilight?" The answer is yes to the first two and no to the last one.

But that's the exact sort of example of where I find backgrounds critically important as an apps staffer. Your concept is "Doctor" -- why on Earth do you have Demolitions? -reads bg- Oh, it's because your dad was a terrorist and taught you a few things. OK, carry on then. Wait, you're an artist with Marksmanship 12? WTF? -reads bg- Oh, you were on the Olympics team. Cool.

Now as @Warma-Sheen said, you run the risk of staffers who then get silly about what they require you to justify. Personally I tend to limit folks to 1 "special snowflake" implausibility. It's fine to be a former Olympian. It's fine if your dad was a terrorist. It's not fine if your dad was a terrorist AND you're a former Olympian AND you were top of your class at Viper Pilot school AND single-handedly rescued the princess...etc. etc. YMMV.

Anyway, to the original topic... I like "Defining Moments" as a way to structure your background. I personally have a hard time with those touchy-feely type questions like the Breaking Points.

tragedyjones

I am late to this thread and just wanted to say, before I read it, that by default, the Chronicles of Darkness core rules have a section for "5 important questions" that are designed to flesh out a character and create their customized breaking points.

In tabletop, at the very least, it works wonderfully.

Taika

@tragedyjones. You should have read the thread first XD Defining Moments is more a bulletpoint way of making a bg and can be added to post-cgen. Meant to compliment and supplement the Breaking Points and Aspirations systems built into CofD. So, shoo, go read.

Coin

@tragedyjones said in Core Memories Instead of BG?:

I am late to this thread and just wanted to say, before I read it, that by default, the Chronicles of Darkness core rules have a section for "5 important questions" that are designed to flesh out a character and create their customized breaking points.

In tabletop, at the very least, it works wonderfully.

I said the same thing, but longer, and I was informed that similarity is not enough--it must be the same or comparisons are not worth making.

tragedyjones

Why would I read the thread? Has anything posted in the history of MSB ever been worth reading?

Thenomain

@tragedyjones said in Core Memories Instead of BG?:

Why would I read the thread? Has anything posted in the history of MSB ever been worth reading?

Who are you, again?

tragedyjones

@Thenomain said in Core Memories Instead of BG?:

@tragedyjones said in Core Memories Instead of BG?:

Why would I read the thread? Has anything posted in the history of MSB ever been worth reading?

Who are you, again?

A girl has no name.

Miss Demeanor

@tragedyjones Goddammit, it would only let me upvote once. XD

il-volpe

@Creepy said in Core Memories Instead of BG?:

I'm still not sold that a background, even in short form, is necessary to anyone except possibly a player who likes to have their char's story all mapped out before they hit the grid.

I need it. It's 'Game of Thrones' and a great many PCs are related to one another in various ways and I can't approve two eldest daughters, or other such conflicts. I also have had to reject an elf and a princess of Normandy.

I hate bgs, but can't think of another way to cover this that wouldn't suck.

faraday

@il-volpe said in Core Memories Instead of BG?:

I need it. It's 'Game of Thrones' and a great many PCs are related to one another in various ways and I can't approve two eldest daughters, or other such conflicts. I also have had to reject an elf and a princess of Normandy.

Yep. I've had various historical aberrations and a Vampire on a Wild West game, someone wanting to be, like, a group of six symbiotic Pak'ma'ra on Babylon 5, people who clearly had no bloody clue how the military worked on Battlestar... the list goes on and on. Backgrounds are a pain for some people. I get that. Filling out a personality questionnaire for a PC is equally a pain for me because that's just not how my brain approaches character definition, so I can totally sympathize. But I view BGs as a necessary evil to protect the existing players from insanity. It doesn't have to be a novel, just a little bit to cover the key bits of your character.

il-volpe

I hate it when they are a novel, and I curse whoever started the idea that the BG is a test to see if you are a good enough writer to play the game.

The GoB wiki actually has this list of suggested points that a BG might cover. Once somebody actually did it as a questionnaire, and that was fine by me, though few, if any, other BGs actually cover every point because it's not meant to be a questionnaire, just a source for a mental prod.

ThatGuyThere

My backgrounds on games tend to be roughly a page. Enough to give a base for the character to start from but avoiding unnecessary detail, that is what IC conversations are for.
And this pretty much equates to both what I have in mind when i talk with a table top GM about the char I am making and what I expect a player in a table top to be able to give me. Not written out of course but in conversation during that first c-gen session.