generating characters via 'target characters'?

[Anachronity]

Pretty much anyone still playing 3.5/PF 1.0 is probably doing so because of the ludicrous number of degrees of freedom which the systems allow. Recent positive experiences with Spheres of Power/Might, Dreamscarred Press (with moderation), and Oslecamo's Monster Classes (http://minmaxforum.com/index.php?topic=270.0) (though a few are a bit poorly-worded) have left me to wonder how necessary all those limits and restrictions really are when...
1) It's entirely possible to build a flat-out busted character, in any of a large variety of ways, with a minimum of supporting material.
2) They can get in the way of playing the character you want to play.

So I had a fun idea of how to make characters for a 3.P campaign which I haven't had the chance to try yet.

This is a bit more of a freeform and open-ended character creation method, and so requires a group with some degree of self-restraint. I think it might work well with my group, which is much more oriented on a game with a good story and satisfying narrative. But there are doubtlessly other groups out there for whom it would be disastrous. It also helps if both the players and especially the GM have a firm grasp of game balance, what reasonable numbers are for a given hit die total, and so on.

The idea is that you create a party of 'target characters', roughly balanced with respect to eachother, using whatever consistent or semi-consistent constraints you see fit.
e.g.
25 (Pathfinder) point-buy
4th-level
standard WBL, no item worth more than 5k
2 traits and a bonus feat at 1st-level
etc. etc. etc.

You let your players know what those constraints are, but make it clear that they can deviate from that guideline in any way that they see fit.
-Maybe that 30 Strength that would be busted on a barbarian is a cool extra dimension for the otherwise-frail necromancer, who gained his unnatural strength in a bargain with fell powers.
-Maybe rather than playing a sorcerer, they play a fighter who slowly gains bloodline powers and spell-like abilities similar to the progression for the various half-X monster templates.
-Maybe you want to use a sketchy, overpowered feat or class in a narrow and unabusive way. Or compensate for a weak class in a way that would be unfair if a strong class did the same thing (e.g. tier-based gestalt).

Once they've made their character, they then compare them to the 'target characters' on a number of different criteria. Not just 'who would win in a fight', but scenarios like 'You're beset on all sides by an endless army of undead in a swamp, and fatigue is beginning to set in. How would your character handle this?' and so on.

If they're better than one or two target characters in some scenarios, then they're probably fine. If they're better than all the target characters, or one or more of them on all scenarios, then it's back to the drawing board.


Thoughts? Suggestions? Has anyone tried something similar before?

[OgresAreCute]

What "limits and restrictions" are you referring to exactly? Restrictions like "you can't put more than an 18 in your Strength"? Or more like "I don't have any way to get 30 Strength but still want it"? Your later remarks about freeform makes me think it's the latter.

I suppose a more freeform approach could work, but at that point it might be easier to ditch the D&D altogether and just play freeform.
I think the "somewhat more freeform" approach definitely has potential though, by making it easier to get certain abilities that are thematically appropriate but hard to get through RAW means. In a group that doesn't care so much about intra-party balance and is more concerned with the thematics and roleplaying I'd be willing to try it out.

[ExLibrisMortis]

I think it's a good idea, if you have a group that can/wants to handle it (as you do). The effort of balancing is mostly to enable unscrupulous optimization (as in: "What a fun game, I can really go for broke to solve this problem, because the rules ensure that the result will not be game-breaking!"), but given that some form of self-limitation is practically required to play 3.5, it's a good idea to take that restriction, and use it in place of some of the more obtuse rules of the game.

[Anachronity]

What "limits and restrictions" are you referring to exactly? Restrictions like "you can't put more than an 18 in your Strength"? Or more like "I don't have any way to get 30 Strength but still want it"? Your later remarks about freeform makes me think it's the latter.Either, or both. Essentially the GM creates 'proper' example characters, and asks the players to create characters that approximate them in strength, but are limited only by needing to have meaning within the rules. Thus, an ability that says "Bob the Great can control lightning and stuff" would be no good. Better would be "Lightning Hands! [Su]: Bob the Great can fire a small arc of lightning at-will within Close range as a ranged touch attack, dealing 4d6+Cha damage on a hit."


I suppose a more freeform approach could work, but at that point it might be easier to ditch the D&D altogether and just play freeform.I don't want to go totally freeform. My goal with this is to have freeform character creation, but distinct rules once those characters actually hit play. The reason being that D&D/Pathfinder's game mechanics allow for a more real sense of drama, unanticipated results, and tactical planning while still having in-game events correlate somewhat to the intended strengths and weaknesses of a character.


I think the "somewhat more freeform" approach definitely has potential though, by making it easier to get certain abilities that are thematically appropriate but hard to get through RAW means.This is essentially what I'm talking about. Why load a wizard with four other levels of extraneous and overpowered spells and make them wait until 9th level when all they really want is a character that can telekinetically control swords?


In a group that doesn't care so much about intra-party balance and is more concerned with the thematics and roleplaying I'd be willing to try it out.My hope is that the 'target characters' would allow intra-party balance to still exist. Everyone is aiming at the same goal, so ideally you won't end up with one character who's normal except for being ambiguously-psychic-or-maybe-just-good-at-reading-people next to the character that levels cities, blatantly bends reality, and can teleport at will.

Whether it will work in practice?
shrug

[OgresAreCute]

Whether it will work in practice?
shrug

This is definitely one of those kinds of huge changes to a system that really makes my brain go "play a different system" (something like M&M might work well for this kinda stuff I'd say), but I'd still be moderately excited by the possibilities if my DM pitched something like this. Good luck if you do end up trying it out.