PDA

View Full Version : Character Building: Likes and Dislikes?



jmbrown
2009-07-31, 10:07 AM
I've been fiddling around with making an RPG of my own and I've found that character creation in most systems usually revolve around the same basic concepts. Out of every game you've played, what have you come across that strikes you as particularly clever/retarded?

I'm just going to list here the most common systems I've seen and my thoughts about them.

D20 System (Dungeons and Dragons): Attributes range from 8-18. Class based. Using point buy, encourages min/maxing and extreme specialization (I.E. "dump stats"). Dice rolling (4d6b3) for attributes usually gives an average of 10-13 with low ranges of 4-7; not at all desirable. One of the most abstract RPG systems and not at all realistic. Character construction is quick, easy, and fluid.

Point Buy System (GURPS, Hero System, Shadowrun): Prone to extreme min/maxing (example: taking a buttload of minor flaws in exchange for powerful advantages). Character creation is long, sometimes clunky, and indepth. Usually results in a more well rounded characters that aren't classified into specializations (example: a "wizard" can be good at sneaking and picking locks). Character backgrounds can be generated based on traits/skills alone.

Background System (BattleTech RPG, Traveller): The character's fate is left to the roll of the dice. A single poor roll can cripple a good character (or in Travellers case, kill him before you even start the game).

Personally, I prefer point buy because it's easiest as a GM to customize and gives me a clear background when I have a fuzzy idea in my head but can't really flesh it out. Anyone know any other variations on these systems or has input?

ken-do-nim
2009-07-31, 10:13 AM
Mixing rolling with point buy is pretty good, like 3d6 per stat and you have 8 additional points you can add to your rolls but every stat increase above 15 costs 2 points.

Glimbur
2009-07-31, 10:40 AM
Seriously Guys? Totally Random is the system the Wuthering Heights system uses. You roll to determine your starting Rage and Despair, Oldness, and even for how many Problems you have and what they are. You get to pick your name, Thing Floating in the Wind, Occupation, Origin, and Sex.

You're a WHAT? is the system Risus uses. You have a number of dice you can allocate to Cliches. If you want to be a skilled Soldier you could put two or three of your ten dice into Soldier. Then if you try to do something a Soldier should be able to do you roll that many dice against either a completely arbitrary difficulty or to oppose someone's defense against your attack.

Both of these tend towards more light-hearted games. For something more mechanically rigorous like D&D 3.5 I prefer point buy so I have more control over the character.

Zadus
2009-07-31, 10:46 AM
Mixing rolling with point buy is pretty good, like 3d6 per stat and you have 8 additional points you can add to your rolls but every stat increase above 15 costs 2 points.

That's a pretty cool way of doing it.

I haven't played tons of different games, so I don't know if I can come up with in depth comparisons, but I will mention one.

In terms of systems,TSR's Marvel Super Heroes has one of the best systems for characters. There is a point buy variant that works well too. Basically you can think of a super hero and make it happen. I don't think I've ever seen anything as flexible. You can have street level heroes or cosmic ones and the game plays perfectly. The only bad part is you really need a DM who knows what he's doing. Anything can happen, the DM's gotta be ready for it.

HamHam
2009-07-31, 10:51 AM
Star Wars SAGA has the best character creation of the games I've played. Quick and easy but with lots of customization.

Guancyto
2009-07-31, 10:51 AM
MAID randomly rolls up your entire character. Stats, background, appearance, traits, everything.

Fortunately most of it is cosmetic, and you can use a variety of stats for a given action. Having a few glaring weaknesses doesn't cripple you, and you get some fascinating combinations.

The old-school Window system gives you complete freedom to stat up your character however you like, with the only real restriction being the GM telling you "no."

Both of these systems are good for flavor and a little randomness that wouldn't be present in freeform, but anybody who wants to break either is capable of snapping them in half with little effort.

Coidzor
2009-07-31, 12:08 PM
Star Wars SAGA has the best character creation of the games I've played. Quick and easy but with lots of customization.

What is the SAGA character gen process anyway?

I've always liked the tactical feel of rolling the dice myself.

Aedilred
2009-07-31, 12:22 PM
WFRP has a completely random character generation process (although you don't have to use all of it if you don't want it)- stats, starting career, gender, name, birthday, family background, you name it. You do get to "reroll" one of your stats if it's desperately lower than you need (in reality, replace it with the average result, which is 31).

In general I dislike point buy systems because they encourage character optimisation, which is something I consider largely the antithesis of roleplaying. The great thing about a totally random set of stats to start with is that it means the player usually has to actually roleplay which isn't entirely what they intended. In particular, starting with a really grotty character can be much more fun than with an uberleet death machine, so long as the GM doesn't kill you immediately, because it encourages you to think more laterally, broaden your horizons and occasionally head in a direction you'd never have chosen for yourself but still turns out to be great fun.

Obviously, this is something that GMs and players need to work out on a group-by-group basis, though. It's pretty obvious that some of my players think optimisation is what the game is all about, and it's also pretty obvious that some of their stats were not generated as randomly as they could have been. I figure if that's the way they want to play the game, that's fine, although I do find it amusing that they're continuing to optimise the characters to be really useful in situations that so far simply haven't come up that often... and then complain about it.

Kylarra
2009-07-31, 12:25 PM
I'm a fan of pointbuying personally, but there is something fun about rolling dice and taking the stats too...

Rhiannon87
2009-07-31, 12:27 PM
I've found that having the DM provide 6 stats for everyone to use from the start works very well. For instance, in an upcoming campaign, everyone gets to arrange the following scores: 16, 15, 14, 13, 12, 11. Two free points to put wherever you want, and then if you still don't like that, you can subtract 2 points from one score to buy 1 point in another, per the DM's permission. It's fairly balanced, it prevents optimization, and everyone starts out on pretty much the same foot.

Kylarra
2009-07-31, 12:29 PM
I've found that having the DM provide 6 stats for everyone to use from the start works very well. For instance, in an upcoming campaign, everyone gets to arrange the following scores: 16, 15, 14, 13, 12, 11. Two free points to put wherever you want, and then if you still don't like that, you can subtract 2 points from one score to buy 1 point in another, per the DM's permission. It's fairly balanced, it prevents optimization, and everyone starts out on pretty much the same foot.That's actually what happened in my current campaign, minus the customization aspect. It's worked out pretty well.

Ashes
2009-07-31, 01:00 PM
I prefer the nWoD character creation rules. It's mostly point buy, with little chance for abuse. (ie. no Flaws that give you extra points.)

You have nine attributes divided into three categories. Mental, Physical and Social. All attributes start at 1 (which is below average, akin to a child). You choose each category to be either Primary, Secondary or Tertiary, an assign 5/4/3 points to them. The fifth "dot" (as it is called in this system) costs two points.

The you come to skills. These are divided into the same three categories, as the attributes, but their priorities need not be the same. There are eight skills in each category. Here you assign 11 points to your primary, 7 to your secondary, and 4 to your tertiary. Again, fifth dot costs double.
Then you assign specialties. Three in all. Specialties are a thing you write next to your skill, and it gives you a bonus when using that skill with regard to that thing. you can put these anywhere.

Then you get 7 merit points. These are a bit like feats in D&D. These are described in the book. And they can cost from 1 to 5 dots (again, fifth is double). Then there are like four derived stats that you get from adding two to three numbers together.
Then your character's done.
I like it, it's a very flexible system, and pretty much able to create any character you want.

Zadus
2009-07-31, 01:17 PM
I've found that having the DM provide 6 stats for everyone to use from the start works very well. For instance, in an upcoming campaign, everyone gets to arrange the following scores: 16, 15, 14, 13, 12, 11. Two free points to put wherever you want, and then if you still don't like that, you can subtract 2 points from one score to buy 1 point in another, per the DM's permission. It's fairly balanced, it prevents optimization, and everyone starts out on pretty much the same foot.

This worked great, minus the customization, for a game I ran too. I did 18, 16, 16, 14, 14, 12 for a high powered game. It was for a bunch of new players and I wanted to them to have a good time and have effective characters without worrying about optimizing or anything else complicated. D&D can be pretty overwhelming if you've never played before.

Seconded.

valadil
2009-07-31, 01:20 PM
I quite like the old Star Wars system. There were no dump stats. Playing with 6 equal stats was a perfectly valid and powerful way to play.

ORC! was interesting too, but as a novelty. You had 4 stats and 32 points of dice (d4, d6, d8, d10, and d12) to distribute between them. I went with two d12s in my combat stats and two d4s in the other ones.

TricksyAndFalse
2009-07-31, 01:41 PM
Out of every game you've played, what have you come across that strikes you as particularly clever/retarded?

I like the auction system from the Amber diceless RPG. Each player has a pool of points to bid auction style on each of the four main attributes in order. If you blow a lot of points in the Psyche auction, you may not be able to spend much (or any) in the subsequent auctions for Strength, Endurance and Warfare. The points bid don't imply degree of mastery in a given attribute, only an ordering among the players. The highest bidder is the best of the players in that attribute. Players who bid nothing in an auction have a basline mastery of that attribute (which is still super-human for an Amber character). They can also sell-down that attribute to human levels if they really wanted to.

After the auction, your remaining points can be spent to acquire various powers, places or items, or to advance your attributes up the ladder created by the auction system. If the results of the Warfare auction were 5, 17, 23, and 24, the 4th best player (the one who bid 5), can spend 12 more points to advance up the ladder one step, 18 more points to advance two steps, and 19 more points to advance three steps. That player has to match the ladder created by the auction. The disadvantage to this is that anyone advancing an attribute after the auction is always behind the player who did the actual bidding for that spot. So, if the 4th best player spent 19 more points to match the best player, he'd still only be second-best even though he spent the same number of points.

Deepblue706
2009-07-31, 01:51 PM
Hey, GURPS isn't prone to extreme min/maxing. The GM is encouraged to just say "No, you can't start with skills that high" and "I'm only allowing X amount of points allowed for disadvantages". And, you have to roleplay all of your traits and flaws, etc. Anything contradictory to what you made is liable to make you lose points, and therefore skills and attributes mid-play. And, disadvantages there aren't a joke like flaws are in D&D.

Anyway, it's obvious I like GURPS.

erikun
2009-07-31, 02:42 PM
The Burning Wheel uses something called "Lifepaths" for character creation. Basically, you choose where you character is born, and start your life there. After each lifepath, you may choose a new lifepath in the same location - or select a new location, depending on where your lifepath may lead.

For example, if you're born in a City, you'd choose one of the City Lifepaths. Let's assume you choose the Street Thug Lifepath. After living as a Street Thug, you could choose another profession in the City, such as an Apprentice or Neophyte Sorcerer - or, because you're a thug, you could become an Outlaw, following one of the Outlaw Lifepaths. Or you could become a Soldier, following a Soldier Lifepath.

The GM decides how many Lifepaths everyone is allowed, as the more Lifepaths you have, the more experienced (and thus stronger) you are. Also, your skills are determined by your Lifepaths - not to mention your faults. A Street Thug will have Brawling as a skill, and can pick up Intimidation and Streetwise, but you'll also have the Cruel trait from your time as a thug - if you don't want it, you'll need a different Lifepath. If you want to cast spells, you'll need to take the Neophyte Sorcerer or related Lifepath - which may not give you the time to run around as a thug, depending on how many Lifepaths you have available at character creation!



As for me, I prefer skill-based RPG systems, which almost always are point-buy in some form. While you can produce some incredibly minmaxxed characters, they typically have several fatal flaws which can come out at the most inconvienent times (http://www.darthsanddroids.net/episodes/0202.html) in the most amusing ways. :smallwink:

Blacky the Blackball
2009-07-31, 04:30 PM
One thing that is a pet peeve of mine is points based systems (whether for stats or skills or both) where the points spent at character creation work differently from the experience points spent during character advancement.

It just encourages people to take the most "efficient" levels in abilities.

I much prefer it when the same costing scale is used for both (e.g. Mutants and Masterminds or Ars Magica 5e).

HamHam
2009-07-31, 05:31 PM
What is the SAGA character gen process anyway?

Basically normal d20. I think you can do either point buy or an array for stats? Not sure, I never bother using anything other than point buy.

The important thing is that you can choose any class and any first level Talent and be good, pretty much. There's nothing you can do during character creation (unless you really try very hard by making a Soldier with 8's in all physical stats or something) that would make a character unplayable.

Anyway, random character generation is dumb. I want to play the character I want to play, not the character the game tells me to play.

Epinephrine
2009-07-31, 05:33 PM
I've found that having the DM provide 6 stats for everyone to use from the start works very well. For instance, in an upcoming campaign, everyone gets to arrange the following scores: 16, 15, 14, 13, 12, 11. Two free points to put wherever you want, and then if you still don't like that, you can subtract 2 points from one score to buy 1 point in another, per the DM's permission. It's fairly balanced, it prevents optimization, and everyone starts out on pretty much the same foot.

Yup. I gave the PCs 18, 16, 14, 12, 10, 8. Guarantees a weak attribute and an average one, pretty much.

Nai_Calus
2009-07-31, 05:51 PM
Let's see, systems I've actually made characters for...

D&D 3.5e: Have yet to be in a campaign for 3.5 where stats were rolled. Point buy all of them, either 30 or 32. Character creation is a stifling nightmare. Pick a class, many of which suck without optimization, figure out what stats you need where, agonize over feats, figure out your skills. Gods help you if you're making a character that isn't L1, especially if said character is multiclassed. Rolling really won't help here, since you're then just going to be assigning whatever you get to the same relative positions anyway. You're going to put your highest roll in INT for a wizard just like you'd put the highest points in point buy.

The default character sheet is horrible, especially if you're a spellcaster.

D&D 4e: Point buy attributes is the default, thankfully. Classes are less 'will this suck horribly' and 'oh god if I'm a wizard I have to learn an entirely new system', and more 'well, what role do I want to fill in the party, and how do I want to fill it?'. Choices don't feel as 'oh god I hope I get this right' as 3.5 outside of attribute distribution - You do somewhat need to look at future options for your class, but that's usually a good idea anyway. Character Builder makes the process actually fun, rather than mind-numbing pawing through a dozen splatbooks, and streamlines it massively.

The default character builder character sheet is kind of pants and suffers from the same eye-bleeding printer ink-eating annoying black bars that the 3.5 sheet does.

Shadowrun 3e:

Priority system: Not very flexible, kind of annoying. I used a houseruled variant of it for my first character and it worked OK, but was eh. (The priorities cost points, from 0 to 4, and you used 10 points.) Not horrific but not that great.

Optional pointbuy system: Aww yeah this is where it's at. Freeeeeeedom. I made exactly the character I wanted to make. He didn't specialize in a damned thing. I had no idea how to describe him to the group as he didn't fit any sort of class-like archtype. He was still mechanically viable. It was great.

We use a variant several-page character sheet that's quite nice.

Basic Fantasy:

Dice rolling games. 3d6 six times in order, aww yeah. This one forces the character concept to be built around the stats rather than the stats around the concept. You wanted to be an Elf Cleric but rolled an 8 for INT and 6 for WIS? Too bad. On the other hand, character creation is incredibly fast and you can throw one together in less than 5 minutes scrolling back and forth through the PDF with no idea what you're doing. It can also force you into character concepts you might otherwise have never played. Still, though. Random is eh.

You don't actually need a character sheet. You can write it in messy pencil scrawl on half of one side of a sheet of printer paper. This is awesome on many levels.

---

I've never really bought the 'rolled stats lead to better roleplay' idea, or the belief that a mechanically optimal character is somehow going to automatically be played in an inferior manner.

I find that the more my character is like how I envisioned him in my head, and the more viable mechanically he is at what he's supposed to be able to do, the more I enjoy playing him and the more I get into him.

One of my most miserable experiences was with a character I liked but who wound up being massively unoptimal in the campaign he was in. He was utterly useless - He was a Bard/Swashbuckler built around social skills and being fairly athletic. Neither got to be used at all, and we had basically no magical gear so he was a terrible fighter. He wound up being mostly an archer despite having TWF feats because it was the only way not to die constantly. The DM favored another player and wouldn't allow social skills to be used to help make up for not being able to perfectly read his mind and say exactly what he wanted said the way he said it, so I didn't even try and just left it to the other guy. I wasn't playing my actual character and I hated it.

And then there's my Shadowrun character. His random assortment of skills and classless fifth wheel-ness is born out of his background, which I won't bore you with here. He never trained to be anything in particular, just picked stuff up here and there from his life. And it works mechanically. He's a perfectly effective character and I've had a lot of fun playing him, because he does what I wanted him to do, does it exactly how well I wanted him to do it, and it's a lovely time all around.

erikun
2009-07-31, 07:58 PM
I've never really bought the 'rolled stats lead to better roleplay' idea, or the belief that a mechanically optimal character is somehow going to automatically be played in an inferior manner.
This. I've played games where what-you-roll-is-what-you-get, and they have honestly been rather fun. However, a lot of the amusement has been the wackiness of the stats/race/class combinations, and trying to play someone with such a (literally) random background.

While it's a nice distraction, I don't feel there is much roleplaying involved. I guess I'm just not that good if I can't 'feel' the character, and it's hard to feel a character that was spat out of a RNG.

Sure, I'll play the blind gnome barbarian who was kicked out of his villiage from eating babies and who is set to inherit the elven empire through his girlfriend, but don't expect me to play him very seriously.

woodenbandman
2009-08-01, 09:55 AM
I have to say I have recently discovered the completely point-buy games, where it's like "okay, I have X points, I allocate them Y way, and boom! Character." It's a lot better than race/class/skills/feats of DnD. It really gives you the character on the page rather than the stats of the character.

Decoy Lockbox
2009-08-01, 02:21 PM
Anybody played Riddle of Steel? Its a priority based system with A-F priorities where your picks are "ability scores", "weapon/magic proficiencies", "skills", "gifts and flaws", "social class" and "race". If you want to use magic you have to assign proficiency A or B to race (being a fey or magical human), social class determines standing, starting wealth, rights and income. Proficiencies basically just help you use your weapons/spells better and use more spells/maneuvers. Ability scores are self explanatory -- the higher the priority you put in it, the more points you get. Gifts and Flaws are basically like advantages/disadvantages in GURPS, except most of them aren't really good/really bad. This makes even a character with priority F in gifts (which grants a major flaw AND a minor flaw) perfectly playable.

As an example, my current character, Sir Amadeus von Abendroth, has priority E in gifts (1 minor gift, 1 major flaw), picking "good reputation" and "overconfident". He is landless nobility with a knighthood (social class priority B), a swordsman of adequate skill (proficiency priority C), a mundane human (race priority F), not so good skills (priority D), and has rather nice all-around stats (ability score priority A), which gives him high potential in fighting, learning, reasoning, perception, and above all, social skills. One of your ability scores is designated "high" at character creation, and no other score can be equal to or greater than that.

The system is interesting, and the only thing I don't like about it is that you can't be, say, an average figher (proficiency C) AND a high freeman (social status C). It seems odd that you just can't do that. I wish the system let you convert priorities down, as that would aid people who like to play underdogs. Another example is that you can't be a slave (social class F) and have no fighting skills (proficiency F). Overall, I'm very happy with my character though, and since its the first I've made, I'm happy with the results. The other members of our party are in the same boat, except the guy who wanted to play a mage; he used up all his priorities and ended up being a slave, which means you have 0 starting wealth, 0 monthly income, and no rights (can't legally carry a weapon, etc). Sir Abendroth is going to be his master, and hopefully I'll be a just. But that guy is going to have to carry an umbrella over my head as we ride, if he wants me to spend some of my cash so he can actually have some weapons/armor/food. And if he lets my 40gp destrier horse get stolen...well, there's going to be hell to pay :smallfurious:

Totally Guy
2009-08-01, 02:31 PM
The Burning Wheel uses something called "Lifepaths" for character creation. Basically, you choose where you character is born, and start your life there. After each lifepath, you may choose a new lifepath in the same location - or select a new location, depending on where your lifepath may lead.

I've just bought this set and it looks really good. Although the lifepath system determines your starting age which I think limits your concepts slightly. I tried making 2 of my iconic NPCs from other systems, and the ages just wouldn't work. Young prodigy type characters end up a bit weak due to fewer lifepaths and my old incompetent villain wizard was far too young due to me limiting his power level.

Skorj
2009-08-01, 02:48 PM
One thing that is a pet peeve of mine is points based systems (whether for stats or skills or both) where the points spent at character creation work differently from the experience points spent during character advancement.

It just encourages people to take the most "efficient" levels in abilities.

I much prefer it when the same costing scale is used for both (e.g. Mutants and Masterminds or Ars Magica 5e).

This is the problem I have with most point buy systems! I like point buy because it gives me a straightforward way to realize my character concept (or at least the level 1 version of it). But this BS means I'm torn between "I have to min/max this, or my character will be sub-par forever" and "this isn't what the guy I have in mind would have looked like at level 1". That tension really annoys me, because it's completely unnecessary.

Background System (BattleTech RPG, Traveller): I did this for traveller once, totally by the book. My SOC stat and wealth were so high that I started the game owning my spaceship outright, the title "Baron", a huge mansion with "great tracts of land", and a large and loyal staff. And a lengthy history of adventuring behind me (but I'm still level 1). Very silly system.

mistformsquirrl
2009-08-01, 02:53 PM
I like pointbuys. I mean D&D 3.5e isn't bad at all for rolling up a character - even a deep one; but I can just usually do so much *more* with Point Buy.

I think some of that is because most point buy I've played, the character starts out quite powerful. There's no need to wait 10 levels before your concept is realized - it can (usually) be realized right out of the box.

It does tend to cause some hyper-optimization at times; but to me that's usually something the DM needs to be watching for at the get-go if it's going to be a problem.

jmbrown
2009-08-01, 03:15 PM
Hey, GURPS isn't prone to extreme min/maxing. The GM is encouraged to just say "No, you can't start with skills that high" and "I'm only allowing X amount of points allowed for disadvantages". And, you have to roleplay all of your traits and flaws, etc. Anything contradictory to what you made is liable to make you lose points, and therefore skills and attributes mid-play. And, disadvantages there aren't a joke like flaws are in D&D.

Anyway, it's obvious I like GURPS.

With any flaws/traits system, there will always be flaws that will rarely come up in play or are laughable in the penalties they give you. Addiction is one of them because players will always choose something simple like cigarettes or alcohol. Technically, a cigarette/beer a day is all you need to appease your addiction although that's not realistic because I can't think of a single smoker/alcoholic that stops at one. Characters who plan on doing no social interaction will end up taking "no sense of humor," "gregarious," or "clueless"

Yes, you have to roleplay them, but my biggest problem with players choosing their flaws is that they'll pick the easiest ones. Yes, GURPS' enjoyment is derived entirely from the GM (probably more so than any other RPG I've played) but if you have a character with 8 intelligence and the clueless and no sense of humor flaw it's really not that difficult to play him because he's already dumb!


One thing that is a pet peeve of mine is points based systems (whether for stats or skills or both) where the points spent at character creation work differently from the experience points spent during character advancement.

Yeah, I hate that too but some games have limitations during character creation that balances it. In Shadowrun you're limited to half your starting bp on attributes. Raising your attributes is so expensive karma-wise that you're likely to just bump up every attribute you plan on using throughout your entire career and never touch them again.


I've just bought this set and it looks really good. Although the lifepath system determines your starting age which I think limits your concepts slightly. I tried making 2 of my iconic NPCs from other systems, and the ages just wouldn't work. Young prodigy type characters end up a bit weak due to fewer lifepaths and my old incompetent villain wizard was far too young due to me limiting his power level.

Well, I think the idea is that a 14 year old boy isn't going to be the land's super master swordsman (lookin' at you anime :P).


Background System (BattleTech RPG, Traveller): I did this for traveller once, totally by the book. My SOC stat and wealth were so high that I started the game owning my spaceship outright, the title "Baron", a huge mansion with "great tracts of land", and a large and loyal staff. And a lengthy history of adventuring behind me (but I'm still level 1). Very silly system.

How old did you end up? The lifepath systems usually include random roles and like I said one unlucky roll and OOPS YOU LOST AN ARM IN THE WAR. Combat in these games is deadly enough so you begin with a spaceship, zero fighting skills, someone breaks into your ship and shoots you in the head roll a new character.

Deepblue706
2009-08-01, 03:31 PM
With any flaws/traits system, there will always be flaws that will rarely come up in play or are laughable in the penalties they give you. Addiction is one of them because players will always choose something simple like cigarettes or alcohol. Technically, a cigarette/beer a day is all you need to appease your addiction although that's not realistic because I can't think of a single smoker/alcoholic that stops at one. Characters who plan on doing no social interaction will end up taking "no sense of humor," "gregarious," or "clueless"

Yes, you have to roleplay them, but my biggest problem with players choosing their flaws is that they'll pick the easiest ones. Yes, GURPS' enjoyment is derived entirely from the GM (probably more so than any other RPG I've played) but if you have a character with 8 intelligence and the clueless and no sense of humor flaw it's really not that difficult to play him because he's already dumb!

Except the GM reserves the right to deny anyone a disadvantage that won't come up in play, because then they're not disadvantages (like being Incompetent with Computers in an Iron-Age world). It is pretty well established in the GURPS community that your character sheet is a contract that you're making with your GM, and your disadvantages are "These are things that I want you to make problematic for me". The rulebooks specifically state the GM is supposed to bring them into play. If he or she doesn't, then they're probably not very concerned with how the rules were intended to work and are probably not fit for their duties.

HamHam
2009-08-01, 03:47 PM
Have stuff like social rank or wealth be a factor in character creation is a bad idea, imho, because these are very easy to change in game (or at least they should be, otherwise you run straight into railroading problems). Just kill some monsters/merchants/noblemen/bystanders and take their stuff and bam, you are no longer limited by your character generation choices.

Mechanical rules for character generation should stick to mechanical aspects of a character.

jmbrown
2009-08-01, 03:47 PM
Except the GM reserves the right to deny anyone a disadvantage that won't come up in play, because then they're not disadvantages (like being Incompetent with Computers in an Iron-Age world). It is pretty well established in the GURPS community that your character sheet is a contract that you're making with your GM, and your disadvantages are "These are things that I want you to make problematic for me". The rulebooks specifically state the GM is supposed to bring them into play. If he or she doesn't, then they're probably not very concerned with how the rules were intended to work and are probably not fit for their duties.

I know that the GM has final say. The GM has final say in every system. But a numbskull who's completely oblivious to every social advance against him is a completely viable character concept and it's nearly impossible as GM to figure how many times said character will end up in a situation that tests his social skills.

As a player, I'd be completely frustrated if the GM wouldn't let me be addicted to beer and tobacco because he feels they aren't detrimental enough to award me an extra 10 character points. This is detrimental in a stealth action game because the enemy can smell burnt tobacco but not so much of a detriment in an urban sprawl setting because everyone smokes. Regardless, an addiction is a realistic disadvantage that nearly every human has and the GM is being an ass if he says "You walk into a gas station and can't find cigarettes. The shady guy around the corner says he's got some stuff for you $100 a pack what do you do?"

And some disadvantages make no sense in certain situations when the GM specifically targets a player. My personal GM style revolves around realism; I like to make the world behave as I expect it to. If a person is devoted to a code of honor that states "You must challenge anyone who insults your family" I cannot, as GM, realistically throw paternal insulting gentlemen his way at every intersection in the dungeon.

To reiterate, every flaw/disadvantage system has flaws that are detrimental "all the time" and "some of the time." Unless a flaw will never show up in game (vulnerability to gold in a stock broker game for example) or is completely opposite of the proposed character concept (unfit, gregarious, pirate code of honor Barbarian with bloodlust and bad temper), I can't realistically tell someone "No, you can't be a fat, squeamish, cowardly, religiously devoted character in my game about political intrigue with very few combat encounters."

Swordguy
2009-08-01, 03:55 PM
I rather enjoy the Deadlands card-draw attribute system, myself. It's flavorful as all heck. A character's abilities are determined by drawing cards from a standard 54-card poker deck (jokers included), which determine the character's Traits. It's mixed from there on with a very limited point-buy system (mainly just for Advantages and Disadvantages).


All that said, I completely despise primarily point-buy systems (WoD, GURPs, etc). As mentioned in the OP, it completely promotes min-maxing. I do like random chargen systems, because I don't always get to play within my comfort zone. The RP challenge is taking this set of random stats (etc) and making it a complete personality and a workable (if not optimal) character. It's a lot of fun, and you have to be willing to go with it. You can't look at the numbers and say "this'll never work", the mental attitude is "how can I MAKE this work?".

Loads more fun, in my opinion.

Deepblue706
2009-08-01, 04:03 PM
To reiterate, every flaw/disadvantage system has flaws that are detrimental "all the time" and "some of the time." Unless a flaw will never show up in game (vulnerability to gold in a stock broker game for example) or is completely opposite of the proposed character concept (unfit, gregarious, pirate code of honor Barbarian with bloodlust and bad temper), I can't realistically tell someone "No, you can't be a fat, squeamish, cowardly, religiously devoted character in my game about political intrigue with very few combat encounters."

And my point was that the GM is the one who actually determines what flaws show up "all of the time" and "some of the time". And the GM doesn't have to deny people the right to play as what they envision; they just don't get as many points for what doesn't come up in play. Not having your Right Arm doesn't matter nearly as much in a setting where you can easily buy a robotic replacement, as it does in a Stone Age game. They have rules for that.

jmbrown
2009-08-01, 04:07 PM
And my point was that the GM is the one who actually determines what flaws show up "all of the time" and "some of the time". And the GM doesn't have to deny people the right to play as what they envision; they just don't get as many points for what doesn't come up in play. Not having your Right Arm doesn't matter nearly as much in a setting where you can easily buy a robotic replacement, as it does in a Stone Age game. They have rules for that.

I hadn't thought of reducing points in settings like that but this is where we split as far as GM opinion goes. I subconsciously can't alter the point spread even in a situation like that. A robotic arm can be grafted but there might be that situation where an ion grenade disables it. How many times that situation comes up is questionable but I just feel "dirty" telling the player "Well... you can buy a new arm but it's expensive... but you do have wealth so..."

Rockbird
2009-08-01, 05:30 PM
The swedish game Noir has an interesting take on flaws.
Basically, you take a flaw (Let's say addiction: smoking) and you get some points, depending on how severe you want it to be. Then the GM gets a number of uses of the flaw, that s/he can use a number of times per session depending on severity. So the guy with a smoking problem is in, say, a chase scene and BAM, the GM activates the flaw and now the guy's out of breath cause he smokes too much and loses the trail of the guy he was following. It's a pretty slick system, i think.

Maerok
2009-08-01, 07:16 PM
Star Wars SAGA has the best character creation of the games I've played. Quick and easy but with lots of customization.

Saga is a very pretty game all around. I've done my best to enforce soul-crushing double standards on all my house-rules for other d20 systems. :smallamused:

Master_Rahl22
2009-08-01, 08:41 PM
I've played D&D 3.5 and 4.0, and some oWoD. Here's what I like most and least out of all the system's that I've played. I like control, but hate too many options. I like point buy systems and equivalents where I can make the character I want to play, not roll the dice and go, "Well crap, guess I'll find some character that only needs one stat above a 14...". I seldom play spell casters in 3.5 games that start at moderate to high levels, because I hate combing through the SRD and 3 or 4 books to find spells. I abso-friggin-lutely love that in 4E, I have somewhere around 4-8 choices (depending on whether the proper Power book is available) for powers when I get them. I liked the few oWoD characters that I've made because I get quite a few choices about what my character is like without too many options. There's no combing books for just the right thing to add, it's just put dots here or there. That said, I enjoy D&D play more than WoD play, and the character creation only a bit less, so I usually play D&D.

erikun
2009-08-01, 09:11 PM
I've just bought this set and it looks really good. Although the lifepath system determines your starting age which I think limits your concepts slightly. I tried making 2 of my iconic NPCs from other systems, and the ages just wouldn't work. Young prodigy type characters end up a bit weak due to fewer lifepaths and my old incompetent villain wizard was far too young due to me limiting his power level.
Lifepaths seem more like background or "commoner levels" rather than "adventurer levels," though. They're supposed to be what you did before your life was interesting, not necessarily during it. I mean, an adventurer who runs around hunting down monsters, setting traps, detecting traps, scouting terrian, finding kidnapped children and convincing merchants to give them a discount will probably get more stats within their first 10 months than their entire lifespan up until then. I think Burning Wheel is trying to immitate the "common people have boring lives, it's the adventurers who go out and do stuff" theme.

As for your villain, how about giving him a dozen lifepaths or so? Start him off as an Apprentice Sorcerer/Sorcerer, then have him off into the farming, basketweaving, and painting herrings red lifepaths. You'll end up with someone rather old who has a lot of skills - just not necessarily anything productive. :smalltongue: Also, you can always double up on lifepaths if you just want age, as diminishing returns eventually gives you nothing out of it....

As for the young prodigy, how young? You could take someone with a single lifepath (10 years old), hand him a sword, and have him go fight orcs for a couple of years. Your 12 year old NPC will probably end up with more martial training than most starting PCs combined! If you're talking about an 8-year old child who talks to nature spirits to cast spells, that realls sounds more like the nature spirits casting magic for the child (by oath, by bloodline, by wanting to help) rather than the child commanding the power directly.

I mean, just because the rules in D&D allow it, I would find that any nine year old, 37th level gestalt wizard/archivist to be pure DM fait. :smallwink:


As a player, I'd be completely frustrated if the GM wouldn't let me be addicted to beer and tobacco because he feels they aren't detrimental enough to award me an extra 10 character points.
Well, I don't see a reason to disallow a character from having a (minor, non-game affecting) quirk, even if it has mechanical advantages/disadvantages that almost never come up. Consider:

A character who is living during Prohibition, or living is a Star Trek-like universe, would have major problems needing a drink alcohol every 24 hours. Finding some would be expensive, illegal, or possibly both. You'd have great difficulty finding any to begin with, and there are numerous social stigmas around needing a drink. This would be worth 10 character points, simply because it's a constant concern for the character.

In a setting closer to our world, this is less of a problem. Most days, you can go down to any corner store and pick up a bottle with little problem. People aren't going to look at you funny for taking a (single) drink in the evening, and the penalities are rather minor and controllable. Sure, it's something you need to worry about, but it's rarely a concern. Possibly around 5 points, because your addition might give you trouble, but regularly will not.

In a Victorian-era setting or a New World Pioneer, this probably wouldn't even be worth a single point. During these times, weak alcohol was more common than water, probably because poor health standards and water stagnation allowed cheap booze to stay fresh for longer than standard water. In this case, if you're not drinking any alcohol in a 24 hour period, it's probably because your supplies have run out and you're stranded from civilization - you're probably suffering from thirst penalities at this point.

Wow, that was wordy.

Anyways, I agree that the DM shouldn't limit character options, but s/he does have the right to limit what is a "defect" and what is not. Your character being illiterate, non-tech-savvy, and unable to drive a car is meaningless in the Stone Age, but are major problems for a starship pilot. How much a character is penalized depends a lot on which character in which game.

And yeah, most books I've read encourage involving flaws into gameplay. After all, if your character is taking the Drunkard flaw, you'd think that means it's an important point for the character, right?

Devils_Advocate
2009-08-01, 11:59 PM
The great thing about a totally random set of stats to start with is that it means the player usually has to actually roleplay which isn't entirely what they intended. In particular, starting with a really grotty character can be much more fun than with an uberleet death machine, so long as the GM doesn't kill you immediately, because it encourages you to think more laterally, broaden your horizons and occasionally head in a direction you'd never have chosen for yourself but still turns out to be great fun.
Well, it depends on whether you want the challenge of playing a character randomly assigned to you, or the opportunity to play a preconceived character concept; whether you're looking to function as does an actor or as does an author, if you can kinda see what I mean. If you want the challenge of playing whatever bizarre, unexpected character a system randomly spits out, then the chance to make your own character actually looks kinda boring, since it's pretty much impossible to surprise yourself. But if you have a character concept in mind that you'd really like to play, not getting to play it can be disappointing.


I hadn't thought of reducing points in settings like that but this is where we split as far as GM opinion goes. I subconsciously can't alter the point spread even in a situation like that. A robotic arm can be grafted but there might be that situation where an ion grenade disables it.
An ordinary arm can be disabled, too. The point is that in a setting where they'll give you a new arm for free, going around missing an arm is like having an arm tied behind your back; it's only a long-term restriction by choice. Actually, that could still be a limitation, but at that point it's a psychological limitation, and properly treated as such.


How many times that situation comes up is questionable but I just feel "dirty" telling the player "Well... you can buy a new arm but it's expensive... but you do have wealth so..."
Are you saying that you'd feel dirty having a balanced tradeoff between a limb and wealth? I'm not sure I'm following you here. Could you clarify what it is that you'd find unpalatable?

Anyway... I think that your you're approaching character creation from the mentality that creating an overpowered character should be a challenge, rather than that the game should be balanced. 3E, for example, catered to the challenging-overpoweredness approach, where if you pour over (after buying!) a big pile of splatbooks, you can make an imaginary guy who can beat up your friend's imaginary guys, thereby establishing your elite gaming status. It "rewards system mastery", as they say. I've seen a few people complain essentially that 4E doesn't work like this nearly so much; in short, they don't like how balanced it is.

On the other hand, someone who thinks the game should be balanced will find it perfectly intuitive to base point costs on how advantageous or disadvantageous traits are, and equally intuitive that a trait's cost differ with context. After all, how advantageous or disadvantageous the trait is depends on the context of the setting and the campaign, and the benefit and/or detriment of the trait is the basis for its cost! :smallsmile:

I find the whole "Twink your character until he's just shy of being so powerful that the GM won't allow him" paradigm a bit silly, but some people do seem to really enjoy it. And there's nothing wrong with liking silly things, so long as you don't turn them into Serious Business.