PDA

View Full Version : Fluff vs Mechanics - Characters



Silus
2014-02-14, 12:19 PM
So, something that I'm kinda sorta wondering, when you, dear reader, are making a character for a game, what is more important to you? The fluff behind the character, or how they function mechanically? Also, why is that?

For example, would you make an intentionally mechanically flawed character for the sake or RP or, inversely, forego the fluff and character development in favor of a mechanically superior character that is questionable on an RP standpoint?

I...hope I'm being clear with the questions...:smalleek:

NichG
2014-02-14, 12:28 PM
I suspect this is not going to get you really useful answers, since most people will assert that they just do both.

Instead, maybe it would be better to narrow it down somehow to something that is more concrete - say, whether or not there are particular races/classes/templates/feats/etc where, if you weren't allowed to change the fluff, you would stay away from them because of the fluff even though you like the mechanics side of them.

Silus
2014-02-14, 12:36 PM
I suspect this is not going to get you really useful answers, since most people will assert that they just do both.

Instead, maybe it would be better to narrow it down somehow to something that is more concrete - say, whether or not there are particular races/classes/templates/feats/etc where, if you weren't allowed to change the fluff, you would stay away from them because of the fluff even though you like the mechanics side of them.

Honestly, this is mostly an "out of curiosity" thread. The question popped into my head while I was fiddling with my scanner.

Hyena
2014-02-14, 12:39 PM
Eh, sort of. I dislike making casters or, in Saga, force-sensitive characters, so one might say that I'm sorta sacrificing power for flavour. But then again, there's no freaking way I'm taking skill focus (profession - vaquero) instead of point blank shot.

erikun
2014-02-14, 12:41 PM
Am I the only one who hates the term "fluff"? It makes the story and motivations of a character sound pointless, extraneous, trivial, and just something that "tastes nice" but adds nothing to the character.


As for the topic, the character concept/story comes first. While there can be mechanics that make me interested in a particular type of character, even then, it is a matter of "That is such a neat idea for a character!" rather than just throwing numbers together and trying to piece together a reason for them. I could certainly do so, but such characters frequently end up weak and uninteresting.

Once I have the concept for a character, I look at the mechanics for how to get the character to work right. This generally means optimization, and although some optimization isn't going to be right for the character (I'm not making the front line knight from a Wizard typically) I want the character to be competent at... well, what the concept is supposed to be competent at.

Backstory is generally put together at this point as well, assuming I didn't have one already. Generally, the backstory and the mechanics end up separate. Unless some part of the mechanics requires some details in the backstory, the two aren't really going to interact much.

CarpeGuitarrem
2014-02-14, 12:44 PM
I can't believe I found the thread before someone came in with "STORMWIND!"

I like to make them in synchrocity, and there's some games which enable that better than others. I like mechanics to suit my character concept...but there's a lot of times that I inform and change my character concept because the mechanics restrict or inspire me. I tend to flux between both, and it varies by game.

(Some games, the mechanical element serves as my basis for the character!)

Knaight
2014-02-14, 12:46 PM
For example, would you make an intentionally mechanically flawed character for the sake or RP or, inversely, forego the fluff and character development in favor of a mechanically superior character that is questionable on an RP standpoint?

You're going to need to define mechanically flawed for this to work. I'd consider a character mechanically flawed if the mechanics don't back up what they are supposed to do, regardless of what that is. For instance, Shotgun Diaries has a character archetype that is supposed to be a worthless load on the party, but that the party wants to keep around. If they are actually effective at doing things, they are mechanically flawed. If the mechanics incentivize getting rid of them, they are mechanically flawed. Neither of these are the case, but it illustrates one definition of mechanically flawed that conflicts with others.

Under that definition, I don't want mechanical flaws. If I'm trying to play a bumbling merchant caught up in things way over their head, they should be bumbling and not suave, and should have limited combat capability. If I'm trying to play a talented warrior who really is good at most things he does, but is an arrogant tool who insists on doing everything himself because of this (even when the other party members are legitimately better) then they need to have high capabilities across the board, but stay below specialist level, while any role playing type mechanics need to emphasize the control freak tendencies and arrogance.

squiggit
2014-02-14, 12:47 PM
Generally I focus on mechanics because fluff is malleable. I can change the way an ability or spell or mechanic is visually represented in the game but I can't change what it actually does.

And really the two aren't mutually exclusive: You can't roleplay a badass gunslinger if he's mechanically unable to outfight even the most basic of enemies.

I never understood why some people wear terrible system mastery and character execution as if it were a badge of honor.

zionpopsickle
2014-02-14, 12:58 PM
Am I the only one who hates the term "fluff"? It makes the story and motivations of a character sound pointless, extraneous, trivial, and just something that "tastes nice" but adds nothing to the character.


As for the topic, the character concept/story comes first. While there can be mechanics that make me interested in a particular type of character, even then, it is a matter of "That is such a neat idea for a character!" rather than just throwing numbers together and trying to piece together a reason for them. I could certainly do so, but such characters frequently end up weak and uninteresting.

Once I have the concept for a character, I look at the mechanics for how to get the character to work right. This generally means optimization, and although some optimization isn't going to be right for the character (I'm not making the front line knight from a Wizard typically) I want the character to be competent at... well, what the concept is supposed to be competent at.

Backstory is generally put together at this point as well, assuming I didn't have one already. Generally, the backstory and the mechanics end up separate. Unless some part of the mechanics requires some details in the backstory, the two aren't really going to interact much.

I think people tend to use the word fluff too loosely when discussing D&D and use it to encompass both meaningless, character-adding details and important story elements the inform the characters personality, goals and motivations. These two things are very different but are usually just both called fluff.

That being said, I think NichG is right because the nature of D&D tends to entwine mechanics and story even when it doesn't mean to. Even saying something like "I want to be the besterest Wizard evah!" doesn't just provide mechanics but provides some story elements of the character. Now, this is a very childish backstory to provide for your character but it still gives a smart DM a plethora of plot hooks that can be given to the character (search for lost spells, magic artifacts, win the wizard world cup, etc.).

NichG
2014-02-14, 01:14 PM
Am I the only one who hates the term "fluff"? It makes the story and motivations of a character sound pointless, extraneous, trivial, and just something that "tastes nice" but adds nothing to the character.

I absolutely agree with this. What would be a better term? I don't want to define it by what it isn't, either. What about 'context'? So you have the mechanics and the context? Does that actually capture it?

CarpeGuitarrem
2014-02-14, 01:16 PM
I absolutely agree with this. What would be a better term? I don't want to define it by what it isn't, either. What about 'context'? So you have the mechanics and the context? Does that actually capture it?
If it's a roleplaying game, "meat" might be a better term. Mechanics being a skeleton that you build on. The story and the passions of your character are what invigorate them. They're a vitality.

NichG
2014-02-14, 01:33 PM
If it's a roleplaying game, "meat" might be a better term. Mechanics being a skeleton that you build on. The story and the passions of your character are what invigorate them. They're a vitality.

Well there's three things then. Generally when people talk about fluff, its not 'characterization' but rather the things that are in the book which specify details of your character that are non-mechanical. The fact that your cleric likes poetry is characterization. The fact that your (Forgotten Realms) cleric must worship a deity, must be within two steps of the deity's alignment, and gets domains based on that particular deity is usually something that would generally be referred to as 'fluff'.

So maybe Skeleton, Meat, Flesh? Skeleton is the mechanics, Meat is the where Flesh meets Mechanics - things where the mechanical things you have somehow constrain the shape of your characterization, and Flesh is the characterization, the actual 'world-facing' part of the character that sees play.

ElenionAncalima
2014-02-14, 01:36 PM
And really the two aren't mutually exclusive: You can't roleplay a badass gunslinger if he's mechanically unable to outfight even the most basic of enemies.

I agree with this. Personally, I don't think that a character with a 10 page backstory, but who is unable to do anything, is particularly cool. Likewise, I'm not overly interested in character who can decimate every ecounter, but has no personality or motivations outside of clearing the battlefield.

Generally, I tend to start with the mechanics I want to play. As that starts shaping up, I begin figuring out who the character is and why they would have these abilities. From there I do any tweaks I want to the mechanics, to make the character fit their personality better.

Scow2
2014-02-14, 01:44 PM
And really the two aren't mutually exclusive: You can't roleplay a badass gunslinger if he's mechanically unable to outfight even the most basic of enemies. But how do you roleplay as a badass gunslinger when you're actually a batman wizard with color sprays and black tentacles out the wazoo because that's the more optimal choice?

valadil
2014-02-14, 01:50 PM
I suspect this is not going to get you really useful answers, since most people will assert that they just do both.


Presenting exhibit A:

I do both by starting with fluff. I make up a character with a history, personality, etc and then find mechanics that support him. Usually I can come up with more than one implimentation of that character without losing fidelity and I go with the most powerful. If none of them are mechanically sound, I shelf the character and try him again in some other system.

Knaight
2014-02-14, 01:53 PM
But how do you roleplay as a badass gunslinger when you're actually a batman wizard with color sprays and black tentacles out the wazoo because that's the more optimal choice?

The problem at hand is badass gunslinger. A wizard is a very suboptimal choice for that, on account of being a terrible model.

Tengu_temp
2014-02-14, 02:17 PM
Fluff all the way. I like building strong characters and am a powergamer at heart, but being flavorful is incredibly more important than being mechanically optimized. I favour games that are heavy on RP, and how are you supposed to play such a game if your character is just Generic McWizard?

Waar
2014-02-14, 02:51 PM
So, something that I'm kinda sorta wondering, when you, dear reader, are making a character for a game, what is more important to you? The fluff behind the character, or how they function mechanically? Also, why is that?

For example, would you make an intentionally mechanically flawed character for the sake or RP or, inversely, forego the fluff and character development in favor of a mechanically superior character that is questionable on an RP standpoint?


When creating a character I (usually) first start with an idea or a concept and then try to build this mechanically, but the concept is sometimes inspired by the mechanics.

In effect I get a positive reinforcment loop between concept and mechanics, wich unfortunately makes the question of importance less clear.

Additionally both concept and mehcanics sometimes have to let the other go first, since competence is often a part of the concept that might stop other choices.

In short: I find that they enhance each other.

Edit:
But then again, there's no way I'm taking skill focus (profession - vaquero) instead of point blank shot.

What, do you have something against skill focus(social scinece) :smalltongue:

BWR
2014-02-14, 03:58 PM
While both are a concern, the relationship between the two can vary. It depends on the setting and the mechanics. Sometimes I just want to play a certain type of character from a certain place/organization/faction/whatever and there are certain mechanics that naturally lend themselves to that type of character. Sometimes I like certain mechanics and try to build something that fits the fluff.

I am not an optimizer to the extent that many on these boards are. I can easily pick up mechanics that don't directly improve the character's focus. It depends a bit on the system. In L5R, for instance, or what little I've played of oWoD, having a wide variety of skills at a low rank can be a very useful since you will often get into situations requiring a wide variety of general and specific skills, in addition to your specialities.
In d20 I can easily play a straight Fighter with Weapon Focus and Wp. Specialization because it fits the concept. Sure, I'll grouse a bit about how they aren't all that good, but I have on several occasions made similar choices.

malmblad
2014-02-14, 04:00 PM
The problem at hand is badass gunslinger. A wizard is a very suboptimal choice for that, on account of being a terrible model.

Unless the wizard has a couple wands holstered. Granted technically he would be a badass wandslinger, but the characterization would pan out the same.

SiuiS
2014-02-14, 04:15 PM
Both of those options are in fact terrible. I design characters around fluff, but I optimize the hell out of them to make them as functional as their fluff says they should be.

If I play an incompetent character I will handicap them yes. But I will also make terrible ideas work;

elivaris Tresorwin came from a specific family of elves from the DM's brother's home game from 1e forward, and they were known as melee power houses, psychotics, and much stronger than a normal elf (all stats were in the 19s in 2e). He came out as a "paladin" warlock/fighter/eldritch knight with retraining level shenanigans, monkey grip to dual world a tower shield and great sword and quicken spell like ability so he could "smite" with hideous blow invocation more than once per round. Crazy optimized, very little utility, and his durability came from magical Adamantine armor (read "as much of my loot as RAW legal after wealth shenanigans) and sheer psychotic pig-headedness, going so far as to create roads through swamps and deserts by rigging a cow catcher to his horse and channeling eldritch blast through it to glass the terrain.

Asking people if they go for fluff or optimize is creating a false dichotomy that is at the heart of the Stormwind fallacy.



That said, I'm also generally laid back. I nowadays make deals; I could optimize feats and stuff to get, say, a wizard in full armor with perfect magical flight and infinite magic missile at level 2, but I would rather ask the DM if we can home brew something I want than kludge it together with mechanics that might also ruin his game (such as the necessary skills I want requiring Int so high he can't save against my spells. Oops.)

erikun
2014-02-14, 05:57 PM
I absolutely agree with this. What would be a better term? I don't want to define it by what it isn't, either. What about 'context'? So you have the mechanics and the context? Does that actually capture it?
I've been using "story" or "characterization", depending on if we're talking about a setting or a character. I will typically stick with "story" if we're talking in general, because even characters can have a story about them.

Mechanics and story. Neither one sounds irrelevant, and both are freely changeable and can be swapped out if the group doesn't like what they have.

NichG
2014-02-14, 06:07 PM
"Story" is a specific incidence though. I think it might be misleading. Would you call it 'story' that red dragons, in general, like to hoard loot?

erikun
2014-02-14, 06:10 PM
Yes, I'd call that part of the story. It creates a different story if red dragons prefer to melt their loot down into pools of molten metal, or if red dragons prefer to kidnap singers and turn them into statues instead.

Tragak
2014-02-14, 06:23 PM
I never understood why some people wear terrible system mastery and character execution as if it were a badge of honor. The way I've heard it defended is: "If you spend all of your time making your character as powerful as possible, then by the time you get to the actual game you are playing on Easy. If you make your character less capable compared to the antagonists, then you are playing on Legendary."

Tengu_temp
2014-02-14, 06:52 PM
The way I've heard it defended is: "If you spend all of your time making your character as powerful as possible, then by the time you get to the actual game you are playing on Easy. If you make your character less capable compared to the antagonists, then you are playing on Legendary."

Faulty, because the DM can (and most likely will) adjust the power level of the enemies you face to the party's power level. Also, combat in most RPGs is more about luck and resource expenditure than skill.

There are two big problems with powergaming:
1. If you limit yourself only to optimal choices, then powergaming seriously limits your options. What's the purely mechanical point of buying charisma for a DND wizard, for example? Or playing any but the top-tier classes?
2. If you powergame without taking the optimization level of the rest of the party under consideration, then you might end up becoming much more powerful than them, steal the spotlight and make the game unfun for them.
Fortunately, both of those issues can be easily avoided if you have them in mind while making your character. And good, because I wouldn't want to play with someone who'd brush them off as unimportant; especially the second one.

squiggit
2014-02-14, 07:05 PM
But how do you roleplay as a badass gunslinger when you're actually a batman wizard with color sprays and black tentacles out the wazoo because that's the more optimal choice?

Well first I'd argue that wizard might not be the best model for a gunslinger in the system. Ignoring that though you might be able to refluff it as say, specialized ammunition. You flip your color spray bullet into your gun and fire rainbows out of your pistol.

Not quite the cleanest interpretation of the concept but it's the best I can come up for the example right now.

NichG
2014-02-14, 07:47 PM
Faulty, because the DM can (and most likely will) adjust the power level of the enemies you face to the party's power level. Also, combat in most RPGs is more about luck and resource expenditure than skill.

These are both not generally true though. First of all, if the DM's optimization ability is significantly below the player's (or even equal - consider that the DM has about 8 times as much stuff to pay attention to) then what will happen is that the DM will repeatedly attempt and fail to actually challenge the player, generally leading to frustration on both sides.

If the DM knows what they're doing though, that increases the optimization range at which the game can remain challenging. But a DM who doesn't know how to deal with, e.g., someone using a total damage immunity trick or an ubercharger isn't going to suddenly be able to make it challenging again by just adding more monsters - it takes an understanding of why the character is powerful, and very careful tuning to make sure that power remains relevant, without dominating the game.

The other thing though is, I really do disagree that combats in RPGs are about luck and resource expenditure in general. It depends heavily on the system. In D&D, 95% of the combat is the character sheet - either you have the character build that can win, or you don't - because the game is so front-loaded into the character creation minigame. In 1ed D&D, its very luck based (or at the least, it depends on maintaining an ablative shield of hirelings). In something like Nobilis, combat is all about creativity and trying to figure out how to harm someone with super-weapons that can't actually hurt them directly. In Exalted its probably a bit more resource-expenditurey.

Anyhow, lots of possible combat systems out there. Not all of them lack real player input and tactical depth.

Tengu_temp
2014-02-14, 07:56 PM
These are both not generally true though. First of all, if the DM's optimization ability is significantly below the player's (or even equal - consider that the DM has about 8 times as much stuff to pay attention to) then what will happen is that the DM will repeatedly attempt and fail to actually challenge the player, generally leading to frustration on both sides.

It's really frustrating only if you play the game mainly for the mechanical challenge. For me challenging and fair fights are a welcome bonus, but I'd rather have an easy game with great story and characters than a challenging one that's a generic dungeoncrawl otherwise.



The other thing though is, I really do disagree that combats in RPGs are about luck and resource expenditure in general. It depends heavily on the system.

This is why I said "in most RPGs", not all of them. A mechanically well-designed RPG will include lots of interesting tactics and way to turn the tides in its conflict resolution. Most RPG writers aren't that good at mechanical design though, so in the games they make it all boils down to luck and who has a better build.

Zavoniki
2014-02-14, 08:40 PM
Mechanics and Fluff occupy different space for characters so but a vs between them makes absolutely no sense and is a meaningless statement. Its like saying Purple vs 7.

I make a character that has fluff/backstory/characterization and mechanics that allow him/her/it to interact with the rules system and thus the gameworld. These things aren't fighting one another and in fact can't fight one another, and I've haven't seen or heard of a game system where they do, ever.

Red Fel
2014-02-14, 09:24 PM
My method is less like choosing one or the other, and more like a game of ping-pong.

First, I get a concept. That concept either comes from a class, race, or template (i.e. crunch), or an emotion, a face, or an action (i.e. fluff). If the former, I get an impression of the abilities I want - for example, in D&D 3.5, I suddenly hit upon the idea of a Warforged unarmed warrior, jumping to Swordsage. Mechanical race (literally), mechanical class. From there I create a personality (fluff). If the latter, I get an impression of the person as a whole (fluff) - for example, again in 3.5, I see a snarky, sarcastic person, aggressive but smart, and develop an entire persona - how they dress, how they fight, how they talk - before I ever look at classes.

Once I have the baseline, I switch gears. So if I went crunch-first, I step back and say, "Who is this Warforged Swordsage? What kind of a person is he? How does he look without a shirt on? Does he use naughty words? What's his favorite taunt? Can he pull off dynamic entry through the roof of the building?" As I develop him as a person, my image may change. For example, I suddenly decide that he won't be a Swordsage, because he's less about clever maneuvers and smart tricks, and more about punching the crap out of things because he really, really loves his fists (like, seriously unhealthy relationship here). Suddenly I switch him to Unarmed Fighter and load him with crazy feats - the crunch, which is where I started, gets altered to fit the fluff, which emerged from the original crunch, which is now altered... Crunch-ception!

Similarly, if I started with fluff, I step back and do the crunch. So, he's a snarky smart guy who sets things on fire. I ask how he does the cool stuff he does. At first I was thinking Wizard, but now I'm thinking Warlock. Ooh! But if he sets things on fire, he should do so with his hands! Eldritch Claws! But that won't work if he's aggressive-but-squishy, as I originally planned. Let's make him buff! With high Charisma and Strength, and a ripped six-pack! And let's make him melee! And instead of snarky, let's make him mildly insane, but in the fun way, like Alucard in Hellsing Abridged! And so the fluff that we started with gets changed to accommodate the changes in crunch that were based on the fluff... And so forth.

Of course, that's just character creation. Once gameplay starts, I can tell you exactly which is more important.

Both of them. (Seriously, how can we even compare them?)

Without fluff, my character is a sheet of paper with a bunch of numbers and dice attached. I'd lose interest within a session if my character weren't a person.

Without crunch, my character is awesome and impotent. The crunch is the character's mechanical ability to do all the cool stuff I saw in my head that makes him who he is.

I am loathe to wax poetic, but the two are yin and yang, left and right, chocolate and peanut butter, feng-chien and chun-hsien, shaolin and soccer, dogs and cats, living together, mass hysteria. Without either I don't have a character to play. Overemphasizing one to the exclusion of the other reaches the same result. The two must be in balance or else the dog will not hunt, the bird will not fly.

As an aside, I happen to like the word "fluff". I don't think it sounds demeaning; I think it sounds delicious. Ever have a dessert served with toasted marshmallow fluff on it? Almost worth ordering the dessert for that alone. It really makes the food worth it. However, as good as it is in tandem with pudding or cake, it's insubstantial on its own. It needs something solid to anchor it.

Boom, metaphor'd.

OldTrees1
2014-02-15, 01:48 AM
For example, would you make an intentionally mechanically flawed character for the sake or RP or, inversely, forego the fluff and character development in favor of a mechanically superior character that is questionable on an RP standpoint?

I...hope I'm being clear with the questions...:smalleek:

I focus more on mechanics than I do on fluff. However that is not to say I focus more on power than I do on fluff. When I design a character I want the mechanics to fit together like pieces of a puzzle. A build can be strong, weak or balanced but that is meaningless (in my personal opinion) if it is shoddily put together or if the mechanics do not click together.

Strangely, this focus on good mechanics over strong mechanics results in characters that build themselves. These self building characters judge fluff and additional mechanics by how consistent they are with the existing mechanics of the build. In the end I have a character that is strongly consistent and has a strong mechanical-fluff connection.

Order of importance:
Mechanical consistency
Thematic consistency
Balanced strength

Scow2
2014-02-15, 03:13 AM
Well first I'd argue that wizard might not be the best model for a gunslinger in the system. Ignoring that though you might be able to refluff it as say, specialized ammunition. You flip your color spray bullet into your gun and fire rainbows out of your pistol.

Not quite the cleanest interpretation of the concept but it's the best I can come up for the example right now.

The (somewhat hidden) point I was trying to make was when character optimization/powergaming renders some concepts unplayable, such as a theoretical system where there's a Gunslinger class that uses firearms... but they're ridiculously short range, inaccurate, and stupidly expensive, while the Wizard class, while it can't use guns, is still better at everything the Gunslinger actually wants to do when you completely disregard the fluff - The wizard is better at ranged combat all around than the Gunslinger, though he doesn't actually do the same sort of thing (Instead of load+shoot, he might use auto-hit Magic Missiles, or multiple Scorching Rays, or a single huge fireball from hundreds of feet away, or a Web to lock down enemies, etc... but it all boils down to being better at range than Mr. Point+Click), and he's also better at not dying (Because Blur+Mirror Image+Displacement+Mage Armor+Wind wall trump the Gunslinger's Armor, dexterity and handful of Swashbuckling-themed defenses)... and so forth.

It's not that powergaming doesn't preclude roleplaying... but it does restrict the character archetypes you can play. (Yet Another Pouncing Barbarian!)

squiggit
2014-02-15, 03:41 AM
The (somewhat hidden) point I was trying to make was when character optimization/powergaming renders some concepts unplayable, such as a theoretical system where there's a Gunslinger class that uses firearms... but they're ridiculously short range, inaccurate, and stupidly expensive, while the Wizard class, while it can't use guns, is still better at everything the Gunslinger actually wants to do when you completely disregard the fluff - The wizard is better at ranged combat all around than the Gunslinger, though he doesn't actually do the same sort of thing (Instead of load+shoot, he might use auto-hit Magic Missiles, or multiple Scorching Rays, or a single huge fireball from hundreds of feet away, or a Web to lock down enemies, etc... but it all boils down to being better at range than Mr. Point+Click), and he's also better at not dying (Because Blur+Mirror Image+Displacement+Mage Armor+Wind wall trump the Gunslinger's Armor, dexterity and handful of Swashbuckling-themed defenses)... and so forth.

It's not that powergaming doesn't preclude roleplaying... but it does restrict the character archetypes you can play. (Yet Another Pouncing Barbarian!)

Oh I know. I just wanted to make something up (and now I want to play a gunmage in my next game I don't DM).


Mind you I'm not talking about outright powergaming. We're not looking for "Can I kill Bahamut in one round?" builds. I'm merely talking about reasonable optimization that leaves your character functional within the party and strong enough to fulfill its concept.

Basically my point was that fluff is way more flexible than mechanics and if your high concept includes competency and you end up making a lot of bad choices you're both going to be unable to play the character you want (because the rules deny that with the build in question) and you're probably not going to have as much fun in general (assuming your other party members do have a reasonable level of efficacy). You certainly don't always need to go for the best class or best combo by any stretch of the imagination. Merely you need to keep an eye open for options that will keep you successful.

Mastikator
2014-02-15, 04:44 AM
[snip] would you make an intentionally mechanically flawed character for the sake or RP [snip]

If the game rules are set up so that this is the only way to play the character I want to play (which has been the case in every single game I've ever played, some significantly more than others), then yes, that is exactly what I do.

olejars
2014-02-15, 07:57 AM
I come up with a concept then do the mechanics within reason. I loathe characters that need 3-5 classes to function right and inane template stacking. I'm also not interested in throwing fistfulls of dice just because I can.

I guess I do this partly because the group that I game with has mixed levels of optimizing and I keep it reeled in because otherwise it's not fun to play for anyone if there is one or two characters that outshine everybody.

Jay R
2014-02-15, 10:27 AM
If you can separate them, my character design failed.

The Insanity
2014-02-15, 10:48 AM
So, something that I'm kinda sorta wondering, when you, dear reader, are making a character for a game, what is more important to you? The fluff behind the character, or how they function mechanically? Also, why is that?
There's no "either or". They're both important. But I do generally start with mechanics, because it's easier for me, a mechanical concept helps me with my fluff.


For example, would you make an intentionally mechanically flawed character for the sake or RP
No, I wouldn't, because that doesn't make the RP better. What I would do, though, is take a mechanically inferior option if it's better for my RP concept, if it couldn't be helped.


or, inversely, forego the fluff and character development in favor of a mechanically superior character that is questionable on an RP standpoint?
That does not compute. Better options do not equal worse RP. They even make for a better RP, I would say.

ReaderAt2046
2014-02-16, 12:06 PM
So, something that I'm kinda sorta wondering, when you, dear reader, are making a character for a game, what is more important to you? The fluff behind the character, or how they function mechanically? Also, why is that?

For example, would you make an intentionally mechanically flawed character for the sake or RP or, inversely, forego the fluff and character development in favor of a mechanically superior character that is questionable on an RP standpoint?

I...hope I'm being clear with the questions...:smalleek:

Generally, the fluff. I can make an intentionally bad character and still have fun, but if I skimp on the fluff, there's no character to connect to.

NichG
2014-02-16, 01:41 PM
For me, I'd say I optimize for storyline centrality. I try to figure out what the campaign's theme is, what is going to be the most central to the campaign's core mystery, and, via fluff, mechanics, or characterization aim at that as squarely as I can.

So a campaign that looks like its going to be a supernatural horror game with relative 'normals' who get pulled into the world of the supernatural? I'll make the character who ends up being the guy who wants to read all the mythos tomes. Because live or die, that's a character who 'makes things happen' in a story of that sort.

In a campaign that looks like it's going to be a story of military actions with a background of political maneuvering and betrayal, where the heroes may end up serving a master who is unworthy of their loyalty? I'll make a Lu Bu, someone who actively judges the leaders, the one who will be the first to betray in a given situation. Because that's a character who will make things happen.

Sometimes this requires certain fluff elements, or certain mechanical elements, or certain personalities. But that's basically 'what I'm optimizing for'.

JusticeZero
2014-02-16, 06:12 PM
.. would you make an intentionally mechanically flawed character for the sake or RP or, inversely, forego the fluff and character development in favor of a mechanically superior character that is questionable on an RP standpoint?

No, I would not do either one of those.
The first one is making very dubious choices in the setting in character as well as out. They can be equated with someone who signs up with the US military to go to Afghanistan and who intends to exclusively fight with a sabre. People will be pulling them aside and telling them "Hey, that is not how wars work these days, you are going to get yourself killed."
The second one is just boring. I min max myself in real life to an extent, same as lots of people, and I make a lot of "sub-optimal" choices because the optimal ones are boring.

Broken Crown
2014-02-16, 08:46 PM
But how do you roleplay as a badass gunslinger when you're actually a batman wizard with color sprays and black tentacles out the wazoo because that's the more optimal choice?
This is easy: Just refluff your spells as stuff that a badass gunslinger can do.

Colour spray? Put a bullet close to your enemies, sending up a spray of grit and small rocks – not enough to kill them, but it might knock them out, stun them, or at least get in their eyes.

Black tentacles? How about that precarious pile of barrels, or that leaning dead tree supported by one branch, or that unstable rock formation? One shot could send it toppling down on a bunch of enemies, pinning them and slowly crushing them beneath its weight.

You obviously can't pull off a trick shot like this every time: That's why you have limited spell slots. (If you're a wizard, it even explains why you can't switch out your spell slots: You can't trap enemies under a pile of debris if there's no debris around. Already cast Black Tentacles today? Sorry, you've used up your allowance of convenient piles of debris.)

This example requires more DM cooperation than most (yes, there's a convenient pile of debris to drop on your enemies when you really need it), but it's all fluff-based: There's no need to actually change the mechanics of the system to accommodate the character concept. If you want to build a gunslinger that plays, mechanically, like a wizard, go for it.

---

As for the OP, I generally start (as many other posters do) with a general concept, narrow it down with a few thoughts about "what awesome things do I want this character to be able to do," and then build around that. Lately I've been playing less class-based games, so the fluff/mechanics argument is less of an issue.

NichG
2014-02-16, 08:55 PM
This is easy: Just refluff your spells as stuff that a badass gunslinger can do.

...

This example requires more DM cooperation than most (yes, there's a convenient pile of debris to drop on your enemies when you really need it), but it's all fluff-based: There's no need to actually change the mechanics of the system to accommodate the character concept. If you want to build a gunslinger that plays, mechanically, like a wizard, go for it.


See, my preference in this situation would by far be to homebrew, beg, or borrow an actual 'gunslinger' class - both as player and DM.

I don't think its actually better to always change the description over changing the mechanics. Changing the mechanics in a sensible way that doesn't introduce silliness is not fundamentally a harder (or easier) problem than changing the description.

E.g. in your example, the gunslinger's abilities go away in an anti-magic field. That's not a deal-breaker, but that sort of 'glitch' is as difficult to prevent when re-fluffing as a glitch like 'because of the way penalties work, your attack bonus is way too low with this new class, but against things you can hit you're doing twice as much damage as I thought you would' might be an issue you'd see if you weren't careful with balancing mechanics.

Plus, any time you homebrew something (fluff or crunch) its an opportunity to introduce interesting new ideas into a game that is kind of getting a bit musty, which can be rewarding all in its own right.

Anyhow, point being - don't shy away from altering the mechanics; there's a lot of fun to be had there too.

Broken Crown
2014-02-16, 09:17 PM
See, my preference in this situation would by far be to homebrew, beg, or borrow an actual 'gunslinger' class - both as player and DM.
That would actually be my first choice, too, in this particular case, but I think "wizard as gunslinger" is an interesting exercise. I was thinking in particular of the "magical vs. mundane" debate in another thread, and to what extent "badass normal" abilities can and should overlap with magic.


I don't think its actually better to always change the description over changing the mechanics. Changing the mechanics in a sensible way that doesn't introduce silliness is not fundamentally a harder (or easier) problem than changing the description.

E.g. in your example, the gunslinger's abilities go away in an anti-magic field. That's not a deal-breaker, but that sort of 'glitch' is as difficult to prevent when re-fluffing as a glitch like 'because of the way penalties work, your attack bonus is way too low with this new class, but against things you can hit you're doing twice as much damage as I thought you would' might be an issue you'd see if you weren't careful with balancing mechanics.
I had written a bit about the anti-magic field issue (which didn't strike me as much of an issue, frankly: If wizards conjuring magical tentacles are a known thing in the setting, I doubt people will have a problem with amazing feats of marksmanship being possible at least in part due to magic or fate or some other higher power), but it seemed tangential to the point, so I left it out.


Plus, any time you homebrew something (fluff or crunch) its an opportunity to introduce interesting new ideas into a game that is kind of getting a bit musty, which can be rewarding all in its own right.

Anyhow, point being - don't shy away from altering the mechanics; there's a lot of fun to be had there too.
It's a good point, and complementary to the one about "don't shy away from altering the fluff." I don't think either approach is necessarily superior, though I know a lot of players and DMs like the comfort of sticking to the RAW (however messed up they may be).

Teapot Salty
2014-02-17, 12:54 AM
I make an effective character and build fluff around it.

Brookshw
2014-02-17, 07:48 AM
For me I pick fluff first and try to round out who I am, then grab mechanics after the fact. I'm also not opposed to playing something mechanically weak.

neonchameleon
2014-02-17, 09:37 AM
So, something that I'm kinda sorta wondering, when you, dear reader, are making a character for a game, what is more important to you? The fluff behind the character, or how they function mechanically? Also, why is that?

For example, would you make an intentionally mechanically flawed character for the sake or RP or, inversely, forego the fluff and character development in favor of a mechanically superior character that is questionable on an RP standpoint?

I...hope I'm being clear with the questions...:smalleek:

It depends on the game.

In a badly described game (unbalanced like 3.X rather than Ars Magica) I start with the mechanics because I know that if I start with the character there is a good chance the mechanics will let me down.

In an open and balanced game (e.g. 4e) I start with fluff and know the mechanics will allow me to play my idea if I unleash enough system mastery on them.

In a tightly thematic game (e.g. Apocalypse World) I start with the themes and mechanics because that's what the game is about.

Delwugor
2014-02-17, 09:37 AM
Am I the only one who hates the term "fluff"? It makes the story and motivations of a character sound pointless, extraneous, trivial, and just something that "tastes nice" but adds nothing to the character.


As for the topic, the character concept/story comes first. While there can be mechanics that make me interested in a particular type of character, even then, it is a matter of "That is such a neat idea for a character!" rather than just throwing numbers together and trying to piece together a reason for them. I could certainly do so, but such characters frequently end up weak and uninteresting.

Once I have the concept for a character, I look at the mechanics for how to get the character to work right. This generally means optimization, and although some optimization isn't going to be right for the character (I'm not making the front line knight from a Wizard typically) I want the character to be competent at... well, what the concept is supposed to be competent at.

Backstory is generally put together at this point as well, assuming I didn't have one already. Generally, the backstory and the mechanics end up separate. Unless some part of the mechanics requires some details in the backstory, the two aren't really going to interact much.

This is how I do it. Character, personality and concept is the most important attributes I give a character. Mechanically I want him (or her) to be competent for the concept and meeting the party need. I will make sub-optimal choices when they add flavor to the character and play.

Jay R
2014-02-17, 12:11 PM
Am I the only one who hates the term "fluff"?

No, you're not. I hate it too. But it is in fact the jargon term, and if I want to communicate, that's the term I have to use.

Scow2
2014-02-17, 12:18 PM
No, I would not do either one of those.
The first one is making very dubious choices in the setting in character as well as out. They can be equated with someone who signs up with the US military to go to Afghanistan and who intends to exclusively fight with a sabre. People will be pulling them aside and telling them "Hey, that is not how wars work these days, you are going to get yourself killed."
The second one is just boring. I min max myself in real life to an extent, same as lots of people, and I make a lot of "sub-optimal" choices because the optimal ones are boring.Which means you make "Mechanically Flawed" characters for the sake of fluff. The alternative is "All Munchkin all the time!"

Coidzor
2014-02-17, 12:29 PM
So, something that I'm kinda sorta wondering, when you, dear reader, are making a character for a game, what is more important to you? The fluff behind the character, or how they function mechanically? Also, why is that?

Depends on the system. Also, depends on if you mean my character concept or the in-world fluff tied to the setting, the mechanics of certain abilities, or the system itself.

I mean, Exalted, unless you're completely making a new setting from scratch, you've got to deal with the fact that fluff and mechanics are kinda interwoven so the point is academic from what I recall.

D&D 3.5? You don't even know what setting you're playing in until the DM says so(or the group agrees what sorta game they want to play I suppose), and many abilities are designed to have their fluff be mutable in the first place.

Mutants & Masterminds, as far as I can tell as I learn it, is Choose Your Own Fluff.

My character concept has primacy, because I don't usually care about settings all that much. Certainly I don't care about any settings more than my characters, though I haven't really done a whole lot of character-building for the settings I've created myself, and most of them are still at the point where they're in flux and will be revised as necessary anyway, which I expect to come up from time to time while creating characters for them. XD

So, yeah. My character has to be my character. They have to be able to do what I want/say they're able to do within the limitations and expectations of the system/game/wossname. If that means refluffing an ability so it shoots bolts of white-hot light instead of orbs of fire that do the exact same thing, so be it. *shrug* I don't see any reason why I'd care or why anyone else would care, though I suppose it's a fairly minor example.

But, then, I suppose once you've established that it's ever acceptable then it's just a matter of degrees and expectations and the interaction of fluff and mechanics in a specific scenario.



For example, would you make an intentionally mechanically flawed character for the sake or RP or, inversely, forego the fluff and character development in favor of a mechanically superior character that is questionable on an RP standpoint?

I don't see why I would have to make a bad character in order to RP a flawed character with weaknesses unless I was deliberately going against the expectations of the system and thus arguably using the wrong system/playing the wrong game. I don't see how I'd be able to make a mechanically strong character while foregoing any fluff or character development as any kind of tradeoff, because those are two different things that don't compete for the same resources.

My ability to come up with a character concept is separate from the mechanics of actually creating a character in the system, unless it's basically a Free Form RPG or something. I can write several paragraphs on a character's backstory and origin myself, and generally do a better job of it than what most RPG writers would supply by default, and I'm not the most polished of writers.

MukkTB
2014-02-17, 12:40 PM
My process is:

Determine basic fluff.
IE. I want to be a caster. / I want to be the royal Vizier. / I want to be a travelling nomad.

Determine what kind of crunch satisfies the fluff.
Wizard or Cleric. / Sorcerer or Factotum / Druid, Barbarian, or Warblade

Sketch some possible setups. Figure out the pros and cons. Optimize the build.
DMM Cleric / Sorcerer with enchantment spells / Warblade with mounted combat feats.

Determine how possible builds influence fluff. Decide if this interaction is unworkable.
What god does the cleric worship? / How do enchantment rules, protection and so forth effect lifestyle? / Does being a warblade mean my tribe has a history of martial lore?

Select the best combination of fluff and crunch.


In other words I go back and forth between the two things narrowing down possible character concepts until I get to one that I like. Crunch plays a major role in the details. If there is a nice feat that demands I be the bastard son of a noble, then that's what I'll be. Fluff plays a major role in the big picture. It determines the broad strokes and sets the parameters of the crunch. If my fluff involves being a skilled healer then barbarian won't be the main class. If my fluff involves being a survivalist, then skillpoints invested in the appropriate fields are mandatory.

NichG
2014-02-17, 01:24 PM
I don't see why I would have to make a bad character in order to RP a flawed character with weaknesses unless I was deliberately going against the expectations of the system and thus arguably using the wrong system/playing the wrong game. I don't see how I'd be able to make a mechanically strong character while foregoing any fluff or character development as any kind of tradeoff, because those are two different things that don't compete for the same resources.


Well, most game systems have some degree of design flaws. So even if the system wants to encourage certain archetypes as all viable, after years of the players poking at the system and playing it they may discover that the designers messed that up here or there.

D&D in particular often has this problem because the designers had a particular style of play in mind, and the mechanical aspects of the game permit many other styles that have a tendency to skew effectiveness in very specific ways.

E.g. its pretty explicitly clear that a two-weapon-fighting Ranger was meant to be a valid archetype by design, since its built right into the class. But it turns out that they have all sorts of trouble, even in fairly low-op games (e.g. DR significantly messes with them, they end up being behind WBL since they need to buy two weapons rather than just one, etc). So arguably, in that case, even doing 'exactly what the game was designed for' can leave you with something that is mechanically flawed.

jedipotter
2014-02-17, 03:54 PM
So, something that I'm kinda sorta wondering, when you, dear reader, are making a character for a game, what is more important to you? The fluff behind the character, or how they function mechanically? Also, why is that?

For example, would you make an intentionally mechanically flawed character for the sake or RP or, inversely, forego the fluff and character development in favor of a mechanically superior character that is questionable on an RP standpoint?

Fluff, or characterization is the important one to me. I don't play the numbers game type of role play. If the character only has a +3, but I could have tweaked this or that for a +5, I don't even care. If my character is a good archer he will have archery mechanics, but he does not have to have ''+100":smallbiggrin: to every shot and never miss.

A don't do ''mechanically flawed'' characters....I just do characters.

And as a DM, I don't allow fluff/characterization switches. If someone wants to make a dwarf with elven feats and substitution levels I would just say no...even if they came up with a lame ''oh I was raised by elves'' backstory.