I was pondering this evening what is it that makes a character generation process work well. In the 3.5 era (or even the AD&D era) there were a lot of designed character options but they tended to be merciless exercises in finding ways to massively inflate the power level of the character.
But two approaches seem to work well. One is randomization (i.e., 4d6 drop one, in order for AD&D or the original Traveller character generation sub-system). The process of character generation is a process of discovery as to who or what the character will end up being. Traveller is brilliant in this respect -- by the time you have a character, you have an entire history to go with him or her just by virtue of education, abilities, and careers.
That tends to fall apart as soon as you fiddle with the randomness too much -- 4d6 drop one, arrange to taste will still result in the same pattern of stat allocations as point buy, just the absolute levels will change.
The other approach that works well is all about tough choices. Examples of this include the Amber auction (where you cannot be good at everything) or the Numenera adjectives (everyone likely wants to be clever, tough and fast -- picking only one is tough). This is also present in D&D with classes -- before multi-classing you could decide if you were focused on magic, melee, stealth, or support. Multi-classing opens up the option of "I would like to be good at many of these things".
This is not so much a rant against point buy or designed systems, but merely noting that interesting characters come about when you have to decide what is the most important. A 3.5 wizard with high intelligence, dexterity and constitution is simply one of a vast number of assembly line products.
CharGen is very much personal preference.
I know people who LOVE taking hours to make a character. For them, those hours are incredibly fun. I knew a dude who had literally hundreds (probably over a thousand) of 250 point Champions characters.
Me? If I can't make a character in 15 minutes, I'm in unfun mode. I am all good for reading the book, reviewing the options, but I want to quickly make a character and get into the game.
For me, fast chargen is good, faster is better. For me, random chargen creates the most interesting characters. But what works for me, isn't what works for everyone.
I like random chargen.
This does include lengthy lifepath-y stuff as well as "3d6 in order, try to make the result useful" allthough I guess I prefer the latter really.
That's not to say I hate point-buy, I'm an old GURPS fan after all. But I prefer some random.
I prefer random Traveller characters. A lot of Traveller players tend to end up with the perfect mercenary character with high skills in their gun weapons every time for some reason. Most Traveller players error on their side while making their characters also. Random CharGen is a problem for them because they all want to win the game.
Sometimes I have to choose between a bastard sword and a battleaxe. It's a tough one.
I role with whatever the dice roll.
I've been a confirmed fan of point-buy for decades, and I've always hated random gen.
For all random gen's purported enabling of RP and "interesting" characters, I think that's a crock. Random gen doesn't "enable" a thing; it restricts choice. I can, with a point-buy system, choose to play anything I want. If I want to play a low-IQ brick who can scarcely lace his sandals unassisted, I can choose to do that. Random gen, I have to take what's handed to me.
I don't want to do that, and until I got a clue and dumped random gen both as a player and a GM, I observed far more people who walked away from campaigns because they couldn't stand what they were stuck with than those thrilled to play something offbeat. (Hell, I retired my first character, well before his time; I wanted to play wizards, not grunt fighters.)
I like some random. Stats need to be bounded to limit the spread of PC power, but obligating players to obsess about every last point isn't something I enjoy, and its not something as a gm I care to inflict on players who aren't good at it.
I find the idea that point buy enables you "to make whatever you want" to be a bit fallacious. Depending on the game, a few syndromes pop up:
1) In less cautiously designed point-build games, point gen is a license to game the system, with skilled minmaxers squeezing more out of the game than their companions. Minmaxed creations are often bizarre, unbelievable characters.
2) Even when you have less minmaxy players and more robust systems, the measures put in place to limit minmaxing also limit choices the player may make for non-mechanical benefit. Decisions made for role playing reasons can make a PC weaker, often unduly.
The hidden trade-off here is choice vs. variety. After years of cookie cutter characters, I'm willing to give up a little "choice" (often faux choice, as the system forces characters to " fit the shape of their container") for a little variety.
I want character generation to be fairly fast and not require having read the rules in advance (or worse, having studied and mastered the rules) to create a character. As I play with what most on Internet RPG forums would consider casual players, I don't want players who have spent days studying and analyzing the rules to have an advantage in character generation over someone sitting down to play the game for the first time five minutes after first hearing about the game.
Quote from: Ravenswing;685612If I want to play a low-IQ brick who can scarcely lace his sandals unassisted, I can choose to do that.
But you won't do that. Don't even kid yourself.
I prefer tough choices in actual play. What matters more in character generation is an interesting, consistent character, not a mathematically optimal bundle of stats.
I like random chargen, to a certain extent.
What is the point of playing a fighter with STR 3? You might as well not bother.
So, redistributing 6 points, or swapping 2 characteristics around works for me.
Quote from: soltakss;685660What is the point of playing a fighter with STR 3? You might as well not bother.
Um, someone chose their character type before rolling any dice? Who does that?
The one game that I found character generation the most annoying was D&D 4E using DDI. There was far too much information for me to go over and in the end I stopped caring what the feat/power was and just started clicking away in the hope of getting it done. On the flip side, a couple of my good friends loved it and would go over the lists for hours at a clip.
Quote from: soltakss;685660What is the point of playing a fighter with STR 3? You might as well not bother.
That depends upon what the game system in question makes of STR 3. In the original D&D set, I'm pretty sure it's no worse than STR 6: something like -15% or -20% to experience points. Starting a career as a cleric or MU might be more advantageous, but the handicap is not terribly great.
What matters more in the long run is what happens in the long run. Your fighter could end up with Giant Strength and all the benefits of high level, while a figure starting with extraordinary ability rolls ends up simply dead!
Quote from: Phillip;685668That depends upon what the game system in question makes of STR 3. In the original D&D set, I'm pretty sure it's no worse than STR 6: something like -15% or -20% to experience points. Starting a career as a cleric or MU might be more advantageous, but the handicap is not terribly great.
What matters more in the long run is what happens in the long run. Your fighter could end up with Giant Strength and all the benefits of high level, while a figure starting with extraordinary ability rolls ends up simply dead!
Yeah, the whole importance of character generation thing shifted as the focus of gameplay began creeping more toward what your character could do mechanically instead of what decisions you made in actual play as the largest determining factor in measuring survival & success.
You can have two fighters in OD&D, one with all 18's and the other with all 12's, and they both have roughly the same odds of making it to 2nd level. The quality of actual play decisions matters a hell of a lot more than stat adjustments.
There were stat prerequisites to prevent "fighter with STR 3" issues pre-WotC D&D. You may end up that way through play. But that's an exciting recounting of one's adventures on how one got there, not chargen.
Anyhoo, I'm very much in the "let's fucking play already!" camp. Had too many gatherings devolve into 4+ hour chargen sessions. Might as well call it a chargen party and then turn everything the players make into ruthless NPC antagonists. It'd finally turn their talents to something useful, like saving the GM time.
Quote from: Exploderwizard;685677Yeah, the whole importance of character generation thing shifted as the focus of gameplay began creeping more toward what your character could do mechanically instead of what decisions you made in actual play as the largest determining factor in measuring survival & success.
You can have two fighters in OD&D, one with all 18's and the other with all 12's, and they both have roughly the same odds of making it to 2nd level. The quality of actual play decisions matters a hell of a lot more than stat adjustments.
Personally, I like to play a character to their abilities, not mine. Players who imprint their personality on every single character they play tend to annoy me; I like to make every character unique. As far as personalities go, there may be a few archetypes that I tend to gravitate toward - for example, most my characters are squarely in the 'good guy' camp - but not always!
In any case, regardless of how I generate abilities, I tend to think about how they influence the character's personality - and play that aspect up. If I end up with a low-Wisdom high-Charisma character, I'll probably end up playing a social character that automatically trusts everyone (s)he meets - even if it's more likely to cause me to not reach next level.
Surviving is part of the fun and the challenge - but acting 'in character' is also part of the appeal for me.
I prefer to create a character that matches my established concept, so I prefer a high degree of customization.
I'm not a big fan of point-buy, but I see the advantages.
I usually like to do 4d6 drop the lowest, arrange as desired
or my most preferred is to generate characters as a group.
What we usually do is everyone (and the DM) rolls a 4d6 drop the lowest for Strength, and then all the other abilities in order. Then we divvy them up according to what the character will do.
So even if you rolled all 18s, those end up in the common pool and most people will get the best stat in their primary attribute. We usually roll-off to determine who picks first - so the Wizard might pick the highest Intelligence, then the Rogue picks the highest Dexterity, and so on until everyone has all of their ability scores.
I like that it makes character creation a group activity and helps everyone to get a sense of what other characters will be like.
Quote from: Exploderwizard;685677Yeah, the whole importance of character generation thing shifted as the focus of gameplay began creeping more toward what your character could do mechanically instead of what decisions you made in actual play as the largest determining factor in measuring survival & success.
You can have two fighters in OD&D, one with all 18's and the other with all 12's, and they both have roughly the same odds of making it to 2nd level. The quality of actual play decisions matters a hell of a lot more than stat adjustments.
This.
The character is a tool used to explore the world.
I know I'm in the minority, but I prefer it that way. "Player skill, not character skill." I want to think, not see what fucking number is on a piece of paper.
Quote from: Old Geezer;685690This.
The character is a tool used to explore the world.
I know I'm in the minority, but I prefer it that way. "Player skill, not character skill." I want to think, not see what fucking number is on a piece of paper.
The one problem I have with player skill is that I like to play a variety of characters and some are far cleverer, or much less clever, than I am.
Sure, some lements of the players mind will always leak through, but I want to roleplay characters that are not me.
Quote from: Bill;685760The one problem I have with player skill is that I like to play a variety of characters and some are far cleverer, or much less clever, than I am.
Sure, some lements of the players mind will always leak through, but I want to roleplay characters that are not me.
Are you a fighting man, a holy cleric, a magic user, or a thief?
Unless the answer is yes to any of these options you can safely play any main archetype and none of them will be you.
Depends on the game, but I'm not a fan of huge charop exercises in any case.
For an old-school game where mortality is a likelihood, and I'll probably have a 'stable' of characters anyway, I like random generation. It forces me to play characters that I otherwise might not. The crappy stats are less disconcerting because well, there's a good chance he'll die anyway, and I've got other characters to play. I'd usually run a game like that in 1e or B/X anyway, so the bonus/penalty curves are flattened a bit, and those games usually don't *presume* that you've got high stats.
Bonus difficulty: Use the random personality generator in the 1e DMG to get the basics of your personality down.
For a more character-driven game (aka modern (mid-80s+) style , one character per person, little realistic chance of death), I prefer the ability to customize my character more, but still avoid heavy charop like the plague.
Quote from: Exploderwizard;685771Are you a fighting man, a holy cleric, a magic user, or a thief?
Unless the answer is yes to any of these options you can safely play any main archetype and none of them will be you.
That's what a character does, not who they are.
I can play 'me' in any fantasy role if I want too. But I also enjoy playing people that are 'not me' in a fantasy role. You might not realize from my internet posting, but in real life, I'm a pretty stand-up guy. I can enjoy playing some much more complex and conflicted personalities than my own.
I understand why it isn't for everybody, but playing different personalities is one of the major appeals of an RPG.
Quote from: deadDMwalking;685774That's what a character does, not who they are.
This is the difference between classes as archetype and classes as vocation.
D&D was designed with classes as archetype.
Quote from: Exploderwizard;685776This is the difference between classes as archetype and classes as vocation.
D&D was designed with classes as archetype.
This is crazy and borderline nonsensical. 'Wizard' is not an archetype, and quite specifically if there are stereotypes around what a wizard is like, PC wizards are antithetical toward those stereotypes.
The stereotypical wizard lives in a tower, has some type of muscle-bound servitor, and doesn't like vistiors. Doesn't sound like an adventurer to me.
Quote from: deadDMwalking;685778This is crazy and borderline nonsensical. 'Wizard' is not an archetype, and quite specifically if there are stereotypes around what a wizard is like, PC wizards are antithetical toward those stereotypes.
The stereotypical wizard lives in a tower, has some type of muscle-bound servitor, and doesn't like vistiors. Doesn't sound like an adventurer to me.
Definition of ARCHETYPE
1: the original pattern or model of which all things of the same type are representations or copies : prototype; also : a perfect example
Definition of STEREOTYPE
1: a plate cast from a printing surface
2: something conforming to a fixed or general pattern; especially : a standardized mental picture that is held in common by members of a group and that represents an oversimplified opinion, prejudiced attitude, or uncritical judgment
It seems that you are confusing archetype and sterotype.
"Wizard" as an archetype is a master of magic that uses mystical energy and brains instead of brawn.
A "sterotypical wizard" is an old man in wide brimmed pointy hat, with long robes and gnarled staff.
See the difference?
There is room for creating all kinds of wizard archetype characters. The stereotype version are Gandalf clones.
Quote from: Exploderwizard;685771Are you a fighting man, a holy cleric, a magic user, or a thief?
Unless the answer is yes to any of these options you can safely play any main archetype and none of them will be you.
Thats not the point. I dont want my character to be a wizard with my brain and personality.
Quote from: Bill;685792Thats not the point. I dont want my character to be a wizard with my brain and personality.
Unless you know a really good neurosurgeon you are pretty much stuck with your brain whatever you play.:)
You can adopt whatever personality you wish for an archetype. The base archetypes are very broad and support a wide range of characters,
A chivalric knight, a cutthroat merc, a savvy woodsman, or a savage barbarian can all be played as the fighting man archetype.
Quote from: Exploderwizard;685803Unless you know a really good neurosurgeon you are pretty much stuck with your brain whatever you play.:)
You can adopt whatever personality you wish for an archetype. The base archetypes are very broad and support a wide range of characters,
A chivalric knight, a cutthroat merc, a savvy woodsman, or a savage barbarian can all be played as the fighting man archetype.
Sure. I was talking about how if I am playing a Paladin that is as dumb as a box of rocks, I don't play him as clever as I am in real life. (I am marginally more clever than a box of rocks)
Also, my paladin character is likely a bit nicer than I am.
Quote from: Exploderwizard;685788It seems that you are confusing archetype and sterotype.
And yet it seems that you are advocating for a player to have the same personality for every character they play.
Quote from: Exploderwizard;685771Are you a fighting man, a holy cleric, a magic user, or a thief?
A fighting man can be devoted to his friends or cause, or he can be a savage bloodthirsty brute.
A holy cleric can believe in charity as the highest ideal or that the gods favor those who work to achieve their own aims.
A magic-user can be devoted entirely to the collection of arcane information for the learning of the masses or focused entirely on their own power.
A thief can have a heart of gold or he can be purely mercenary.
A class is a collection of abilties - a character is the personality that gives those collection of abilities their unique...character.
Quote from: deadDMwalking;685806And yet it seems that you are advocating for a player to have the same personality for every character they play.
Not at all. I refer you back to post #28.
Quote from: Ravenswing;685612I've been a confirmed fan of point-buy for decades, and I've always hated random gen.
For all random gen's purported enabling of RP and "interesting" characters, I think that's a crock. Random gen doesn't "enable" a thing; it restricts choice. I can, with a point-buy system, choose to play anything I want. If I want to play a low-IQ brick who can scarcely lace his sandals unassisted, I can choose to do that. Random gen, I have to take what's handed to me.
I don't want to do that, and until I got a clue and dumped random gen both as a player and a GM, I observed far more people who walked away from campaigns because they couldn't stand what they were stuck with than those thrilled to play something offbeat. (Hell, I retired my first character, well before his time; I wanted to play wizards, not grunt fighters.)
I do understand this concern, but I think the interesting design space is then to create a "tough choices" design focus. A good example of that is the Amber character auction -- if you are focused on being the best player at Pysche (i.e. magic) then it is likely that you will be able to achieve this, but only at the cost of being a bit of a bystander in the other auctions.
In the same sense, 3E era character design creates a lot of wizards who are smart, fast and tough, but not very strong, wise or charismatic. In general there is no tradeoff here -- the optimal point for a wizard is going to be very close.
Now it is not to say that you couldn't do interesting things. Like a chain of feats where picking one feat closed off other interesting (and highly desirable options). For example, in Numenera, you can be swift or graceful (and each penalize the domain of the other). Similarly, clever and intelligent both increase the mental pool but also close off the other somewhat. That is interesting because you make meaningful choices.
Intelligence or dexterity, under point buy, become merely "as high as you can afford" (especially at higher levels).