One of the things that turns me off of D&D is that characters are mainly defined by the mechanics.  This occurs in other games too, but it seems more endemic to D&D.  Characters are created mainly picking pieces of the rules, sometimes tacking on a bit of backstory afterwords.  

As an example of what I'm talking about, ask most D&D characters what they're currently playing.  (This can be a bad question to ask if you don't have unlimited free time, so do it over the internet, so you can skim over the super long responses.)  You're likely to get responses like "dual weapon fighter"  "working toward such and such prestige class" "wizard specializing in touch attacks."  You rarely get things like "con man specializing in seduction"  or "lordless knight searching for a new home."  Characters are little more than the sum of their feats and special abilities, not defined by the sorts of things that you'd use to desribe someone in literature, movies, or real life.

This isn't all bad.  If a rpg has good rules, the mechanics will lead to choices that inspire good roleplaying.  But by putting the rules first, you're limited by what the rules can create.  I think this is part of the explosion of rulebooks (aside from the obvious economics), to create new character types that are based on rules, you obviously need more rules.  

I'd prefer (both as DM and player) to start with a concept first, then figure out what mechanics would work in simulating it.  This often requires creating a rule or two unique to a character. But that suits my play style - I'd rather have a small base of rules that are solid, then fudge as needed than have a reference library of rules.  It also suits my style of plot/story driven campaigns.  I think of games similar to pulp serials - characters with various motivations, big events, daring actions, crucial decisions.  So it helps if characters know what makes their character tick beyond they way they swing their sword.

Concept driven characters don't have to be just for games that are trying to be improv acting.  Tactical games can benefit as well.  For example, you can start with a fighting method or martial arts style and create rules that simulate it.

The odd thing is that concept vs mechanics driven isn't just something in the rules.  It's partly in the rules - with very light rules sets, you don't have much mechanics to base things on.  Some rules are so baroque that they leave me too numb after filling out the 10 page character sheet to think about concepts or back stories.  But it's perfectly possible to use D&D for concept driven characters.  I think part of the issue is the presentation of the rules.  You're started off thinking about ability scores and classes, stuff like motivation is a few pages after you've built your character.  More than the rules, all it takes is to encourage a change of mindset.  Get players to start thinking about what kind of character they want to be instead of them combing through books for the most munchkin combination.

Compare D&D to Buffy.  The characters have mechanics.  But the example characters are presented mainly from the persepective of the stereotype or story role they fulfill - this starts players thinking along concepts instead of numbers.  A D20 book could be done this way but they generally aren't

Here are a couple of examples from a D20 Modern supers pbp game.  One player started with the idea of wanting to play a drag queen lounge singer, who accidentally acquired sound based powers, each associated with a particular song.  From there, we figured out which classes might be good and which spell effects could reasonably be based on a song, whether or not it was originally a sonic spell.  For example, hold person is triggered by "Stop, in the name of love."

Another guy wanted a kid educated by the militant arm of the boy scouts.  So we decided what sorts of things a super boy scout would know.  The harder part was that he absorbed half a dozen ruffians into his brain, and can let them out when needed - that became a tweaked summon monster.

I think it depends on the gamer.

For me, it's a process the starts with mechanics.

Example:
  I wanted to play a wizard/fighter with light armor, big spells. I had to figure out what combination of mutliclassing would get me where I wanted the fastest and to be the most efficient in the game.
  I ended up settling for: Ftr1/Wiz6/Eldritch Knight10/Spellsword3
  I'd be able to cast 9th level spells by level 20, so I can still pack oomph
  I'd have a BAB +17 at level 20, so I'd have 4 attacks in one round.

  Once I had all the crunch figured out, I went and filled it in. Being an Eberron game, I crafted a background of a minor Cyran noble, gave the DM a list of possible contacts from old military buddies, to places he hid out after the last war, family in Metrol with an ambiguous state of being after the Day of Mourning. Lots of fluffy stuff.

  Nearly 6 months into the game, my character is a described as the "arcanist" and "diplomat".

Usually all my characters start out as mechanical concept that I want to try out. A shadow themed wizard, for example, I'd scour my books see what fits the concept, play with the numbers, and the settled down on something. Since I come up with concepts frequently, I tend to have blank slates of stat blocks sitting on my hard drive which can double as NPCs when I DM, or starts for a character in the future.

I think that good crunch can lead to good fluffy backgrounds if you ask your players to try.

PHB2 does a fine job of addressing just that. And extensively, I might add.

I too think it all depends on the players.  Ask one player what their character concept is and they might describe it in game terms, leading to a very one dimensional character (Sorry, I don't view a Drow nija3/Pirate4) as a multi-dimensional character.)  While this is fine for some games, it doesn't appeal much to me.

Before even looking at a book of stats, I like to develop a character concept (and not in terms of mechanics).  Some of it is backstory, but that merely adds color to the overall picture of the character.  Personality, motivations, relationships to others in teh game, etc all play an mportant part in the development of my character before looking at the various mechanics available.  
I look forward to the next game I'm running for my group, a Serenity game.  we had a brainstorming session this last Saturday and sat around developing character concepts without even cracking the book open.  Before even translating the characters into mechanics, we have a cast that is rich with potential.  Sure a number of roles are filled, but that wasn't the important part of the discussion.

So recently I've had to rethink my whole rules are not important to roleplaying dogma. So, yeah blakkie and Maddman were spot on in their observations about this whole subject. I wont be defending that position anymore :brood: So when it comes to the whole concept vs mechanic driven issue, I view things from the perspective of role playing.

Okay, I may be wandering of the reservation here, but I think the most important thing about role playing is the concept. Now I'm not knocking any games in particular but I think rules that allow you to create with minimum fuss a concept you envision and get to ,the down and dirty of role playing quicker is in my opinion the way to go. Sure different systems handle the character creation process differently, but I'm thinking those that put a lot of emphasis on the mechanics kind of bleeds the concept dry.

Now again, this is just my opinion. I've always maintained that I'm not really a rules kind of guy, so I may be way off. It's just that to me, trying to use certain rules and twisting and turning your concept to fit the rules, is really not the way to go. The rules should be loose enough that with minimal effort,  your concept can be incoporated without hours spent trying to mold it to fit an existing structure.

Off course there will always be rules, but my preference is for rules that aids the player create his concept not one that makes the player modify his/her concept, to fit into specific categories. Again most rules do this...but the question is how severly do they do this.

Regards,
David R

For me its six of one and half a dozen of the other. Sometimes I start with a character concept and make the mechanics fit, sometimes I start with a cool mechanical combo I want to try out and make a character to fit it.

More often I start with a base class/race combo I'm going to be, and then see how the character develops not having planned anything at the start, I've looked at Prestige Classes but none have ever really taken my fancy.

Currently I'm playing a dwarven cleric of Hanseath, constantly on the ale (he carries a keg with him when he goes adventuring, "for religious reasons") Cleric 4/Fighter 1, with a weird combination of feats Power Attack, Dodge and Mobility (even though he's in Full Plate) and favouring Strength (for fighting) and Consitution (for drinking) over Wisdom and Charisma.

A single class Warlock 7th, LE and getting on rather well with the Paladin in the party since we agree on most matters of justice.

And a Scout/Fighter gunslinger/bounty hunter in an Iron Kingdoms campaign, this is the only character that might go for a Prestige class, as I might take the Rifleman one, as it suits the character, although I'm more likely to take Ranger.

I don't think the mechanics have come first with any of these character designs, more the gap that needed filling in the party. Although certainly mechanics have influenced some of my character choices.

Quote from: TrainzPHB2 does a fine job of addressing just that. And extensively, I might add.

I'll have to take a look at it.  I haven't been buying much lately since I've noticed much of sits on the shelves unused and sometimes even unread.

Quote from: NicephorusOne of the things that turns me off of D&D is that characters are mainly defined by the mechanics.  This occurs in other games too, but it seems more endemic to D&D.

My issue is more of the, if you didn't plan the character out to level 20 in advance, you may want to do something cool at level 7, but because you didn't think of it at level 1, it will take you another 5 levels to get the specific feats and skills you need to qualify for something.  That can be very frustrating when the new direction you want to go in is role playing based and there is no way you could have guessed at first level you would want to go that way in the future.

That's one of the things I like about the retraining rules in PHB2: they help alleviate just that problem. You will probably not be able to take the new PRC (or whatever) right away, but it will be a lot faster than having to work your way there with what you have.

Short version of the PHB2 retraining rules: each level, you may change one choice you made at an earlier level. This can be one of: Feats, Class feature (e.g. domain, or bonus feat), Skills (lose four ranks, gain four skill points to be spent as any class you have levels in), Spells known, Language, or Substitution level. The main restrictions are that the new choice has to be one you could have made at the level where you made the original choice (so you can't trade in your first level Rapid Shot feat for Weapon Specialization, because you couldn't have taken WS at first level), and you can't make later choices invalid (if you have Spring Attack, you can't trade out Mobility because that's a prereq for Spring Attack).

Quote from: NicephorusI've noticed much of sits on the shelves unused and sometimes even unread.

I find it helps if you don't look at your shelves too often.

Quote from: DackeThat's one of the things I like about the retraining rules in PHB2: they help alleviate just that problem. You will probably not be able to take the new PRC (or whatever) right away, but it will be a lot faster than having to work your way there with what you have.

Short version of the PHB2 retraining rules: each level, you may change one choice you made at an earlier level. This can be one of: Feats, Class feature (e.g. domain, or bonus feat), Skills (lose four ranks, gain four skill points to be spent as any class you have levels in), Spells known, Language, or Substitution level. The main restrictions are that the new choice has to be one you could have made at the level where you made the original choice (so you can't trade in your first level Rapid Shot feat for Weapon Specialization, because you couldn't have taken WS at first level), and you can't make later choices invalid (if you have Spring Attack, you can't trade out Mobility because that's a prereq for Spring Attack).

See, I totally need to get my DM to consider this. I created a character in a planescape game with heavy armor prof and some weapon skills with a bastard sword - he hasn't used either since sixth level (he's now level 13). They just don't fit with how he's evolved. But I agree, this is a good thing and it is one of the many great rules in the PHB2 that I am adopting.

Quote from: David RSo recently I've had to rethink my whole rules are not important to roleplaying dogma. So, yeah blakkie and Maddman were spot on in their observations about this whole subject. I wont be defending that position anymore :brood: So when it comes to the whole concept vs mechanic driven issue, I view things from the perspective of role playing.

Hope you don't get down on yourself. I know your pain, because that's the path I sort of came down too. But overall it's a good thing, and one of the indications of a capacity to listen and to learn.

Regardless of how it might seem from my posts here :mischief:  I too have, and will, adjust my views from time to time when confronted with strong ideas. Actually it happens often, just usually in little bits. I think I learned a lot from my discusions with you. Even around some things that I didn't come to agree with your original position on, because I gained a better understanding of why my opinion was different, and sometimes I even shifted my opinion somewhat to a 3rd position as part of the process.

Both Darlena and I are pretty tired of D&D as it is currently, but for different reasons.

I come at characters from a mechanical angle.  I look at the rules and try to powergame the best character I can.  Unfortunately, in 3e, there are very few optimum builds.  All the books, all the pages of rules, and a very few feats and prestige classes outweigh all others.

Darlena has the opposite problem.  She comes up with a character first and only looks at the rules (or has me look at the rules -- she hates reading gaming books) when she's got the person in question finished.  We've usually had to bend, break, and create new rules to make her characters work.

I don't think there's anything inherently wrong with D&D.  We're playing Exalted right now and one of the things I like the most about it is that it has more freedom to make a character the way you want it.  You still can't make someone who is an expert at *everything*, so you have to specialize and rely on the other party members to watch your back with the other skills.

I think the thing in 3e that is most emblematic of its problems is the nonhuman races.  The number one most important thing about them is not what the race is like, or what their special abilities are -- the main thing is what stat they add to and what stat they subtract from.

Quote from: CyberzombieDarlena has the opposite problem.  She comes up with a character first and only looks at the rules (or has me look at the rules -- she hates reading gaming books) when she's got the person in question finished.  We've usually had to bend, break, and create new rules to make her characters work.

That's the approach I prefer to take.  I don't mind bending/rewriting rules. but I don't see the need to incorporate a shelf of rules if I'm just going to make up stuff anyway.

Quote from: NicephorusThat's the approach I prefer to take.  I don't mind bending/rewriting rules. but I don't see the need to incorporate a shelf of rules if I'm just going to make up stuff anyway.

I think that the D&D rules -- the good stuff -- could be boiled down to about six books right now.  And two of those would be monster books.  I think the biggest thing that the line needs is an overall editor who can toss the crap that sucks -- or at least have it redesigned so it's not so lame.  I think true "game balance" is impossible, but at least make most of the stuff roughly as good as each other!