Back when GMing GURPS I always wanted folks to come up with a concept 1st.
Then crunch out the crunch of how the character fits the concept afterwards.

Quote from: One Horse Town;685073WFRP taught me this method.

Me too. It was eye-opening in many other ways as well.

Quote from: The Ent;685074Back when GMing GURPS I always wanted folks to come up with a concept 1st.
Then crunch out the crunch of how the character fits the concept afterwards.

There's not much choice in a point buy system.

Quote from: One Horse Town;685079There's not much choice in a point buy system.

How do you mean?

Quote from: The Traveller;685083How do you mean?

Well, without having a concept in mind you'll have trouble spending your points.

Analysis paralysis.

I didn't even know what a "build" was in 2003 when I returned to the hobby after a 12 year hiatus.

Quote from: One Horse Town;685084Well, without having a concept in mind you'll have trouble spending your points.

Analysis paralysis.

A couple of things though - this assumes that without character class guidelines people will be unable to come up with character concepts, and also that point buy systems can't work with classes. I don't think either of those are true, especially when combined with things like lifepath systems.

I prefer a hybrid myself, although just letting people pick whatever skills they want can be interesting, leading to some unexpected combinations.

Personally, I'm fine with number crunching, as long as it doesn't start coming at the expense of character concept.

"This feat is the most efficient for my character to be capable at my concept" is fine.

"This feat doesn't fit my character, but it has great synergy with my abilities and will make me hit harder" is crappy.

*feat is used to describe any fangly customization piece.

Quote from: Sacrosanct;68497However, it increasingly seems like, judging by many internet conversations with current players, that character generation is being approached like this nowadays

[IMGhttp://img252.imageshack.us/img252/1729/bossfightgj3.gif[/IMG]

That's a World of Warcraft raid planing spreadsheet (At least, it looks Warcrafty, and old). That is an optimisation exercise. There is no "roleplaying" there, by design.

You're simply another gamer with their own preferences, same as all the others. There are plenty of games out there for us. Maybe the biggest brand names aren't designed for us any more... but that's fine. Buy and play something else instead.

(shrugs) There were number crunching fanatics in the hobby many decades ago.  "Minimaxing" isn't a term invented in the last decade; it was in general use at least as far back as 1977.

Terminology pollution is nothing new, either.  A lot of people on this board use "buff," for instance, a term I despise, and one invented relatively recently in MMOs.

I usually come up with a few basic concepts, but I like some randomness in creating a character. It makes the character feel a little less perfect and a bit more human. That's why I love systems that have you roll for background or life events.

I get you.

I do believe my Pathfinder group were amused by the fact that I made all my character creation decisions based on the miniature I wanted to use.

I prefer random character generation, including some background tablesto roll on. Then pick class or skills or whatever the game does and then play. The mental image of my character doesn't start to gel until 3 sessions or so in, after having interacted with the GM's world and the other players.

The dice often present me with possibilities that I haven't played before which is refreshing.

Quote from: Black Vulmea;685027So, Sacro, is that young woman imagining a character with a magic sword? Or magic armor, perhaps?

Optimisation isn't inherently bad. Believe me, I know all of the numbers on my character sheet and how they interact with the rest of the game, and I have pretty much since I was introduced to this hobby over thirty-five years ago. I know my character's attack and parry scores, and whether to parry or use footwork to avoid an attack based on the differences in Expertise and weapon type between our characters. I know I have a better chance of stabbing an arm or a leg than I do of sticking my basket-hilted broadsword in someone's eye. I know that if I can get a stun then my opponent is reduced to a single action, meaning he must choose either to parry or to attack and reaction parry, which is much easier for me to defeat.

That doesn't mean my character is defined solely or wholly by those numbers. It means that my imagination and the rules of the game interact to create the experience of actual play. The numbers of the page describe what my character can do, not who he is, so I can see both the numbers on my character sheet and imagine him with his broadsword dangling from his hip as he confronts a bravo with a wink to the trollop at the bar.

The idea that the experience of roleplaying games is one or the other is the attitude I have trouble with much more than spreadsheets.

One issue is the level of ability to internalize and understand the math that is the physics engine of the setting at a fundamental level.  One thread recently was poring over the difference between D&D and RQ, and one thing I never had time to mention was the theory that a simpler game is going to be more easily internalized than a more complicated one.  Above, BV makes reference to that ability to internalize the rules enough so they fade away somewhat, allowing the roleplaying to come to the fore.

Because somewhere on this same continuum, having a more complete ruleset that allows for more options and better emulation of that setting allows for better roleplaying since the character portrait is more complete, especially in how the rules differentiate the character.  And this can be better, but the more complicated the rules, the smaller the population that can easily internalize them (and thus, the less popular the game).  

Also, as an aside, I know the OP was a purposeful extreme case scenario, but the spreadsheet thing was such a combat-only game thing.  Bleah!

Yeah, I get kids on my lawn all the time, too.