So, which comes first? [D&D]

[XenoGeno]

My group and I have a major difference when it comes to character creation. I feel that one should find crunch one wants to play, and then make the fluff match. Everyone else in my group seems to feel the opposite. At the same time, I sometimes seem to be the only one enjoying playing their character, and my characters usually have something to do. Many times, the DMs will fudge rolls to make sure that a character doesn't die (specific characters get this more than others), simply because they were so poorly built. When other players try my style, they tend to have a much more enjoyable time playing.

In addition, I find that I do in fact make my best fluff this way. Explaining how all the crazy class combinations and what not come together is some of the most fun I have, and this applies to my villains when I DM, too. In fact, the plot for the campaign I'm co-running now stems from me thinking of a way to explain how a Shadowcraft Mage can use miracle.

So, this has made me curious as to which way other people go. While I say in the title this is a D&D topic, I think it's more of a general issue with class-based RPG systems, one of the reasons I'm trying to get my group to start playing Mutants & Masterminds or GURPS.

[Flickerdart]

I always have a character concept in mind, of course. But for every fluff bit, there is a hefty variation of the crunch you can use. There are a number of feats that can be tied to any concept, and quite a few spells that any smart mage would have. Do you really have to fluff-justify taking Power Attack or Time Stop?

[Innis Cabal]

The opposite. Always. Characters are more important then the numbers.

[Keld Denar]

I build first, flesh out later. I'm a mechanics kind of guy anyway, and absolutely love character building/optimizing. Combat is a big part of D&D, so I want to play a character that is good at it, within reason (Gentleman's Agreement). After that, you can come up all the RP and story you want to go with it. Maybe your guy has a lisp, or used to be a soldier, or aspires to marry a princess, or just plain old wants to become the most powerful [Insert Generic Role Here] in the land/world/multiverse.

For example, the last character I built is a Gold Dorf Paladin5/Fighter2/DivineCrusader2/OrdainedChamp4/DivineCrusader+7. With its feats and class abilities, its designed to swing your Cha at someone and make it hurt. He's got divine casting from Divine Crusader, and gets 2 domains. War is mandated by Ordained Champ, but the other is free to asign. I chose Travel because its mechanically strong, and because I started thinking about this guy as a wandering do-gooder. Kinda like Cain from Kung-Fu, except with a beard, an axe, lower Wis and higher Cha. The character kinda materialized around me as I built. Works out well, and all abilities streamline well with each other.

[SoD]

The opposite. Always. Characters are more important then the numbers.

+1 +π

My concepts always begin with the fluff, or at least the basics.

For example, I recently drew up an evil Grey Elven Abjuror.

Why? I wanted to draw up a long-lived character who was afraid of death, and was looking for a way to bypass death, and live forever. So he specialises in protective magic. Barred schools; necromancy and conjuration else. Why bar necromancy for someone who wants to live forever? He wants to be alive forever, not undead for ever. He wants to bypass death, not become it, not controll it. Why evil? Because he would do anything to survive. He's hired the rest of the party as bodyguards, and adventures to gain more money to buy more protection, and to search for a way to live forever.

[Mando Knight]

I interweave... sometimes the fluff comes first, sometimes I want to build an optimized sword-swinging fighter-guy. With both, I'll write in a bit of the crunch, come up with a bit of the fluff, write more crunch, and just try to build crunchy, fluffy characters... like a fresh box of Lucky Charms. It's magically delicious.

[Assassin89]

I prefer just setting up the race and stats first, then making the fluff. As the campaign goes on, some stories might develop depending on the setting.

[Oracle_Hunter]

It's funny, but I think either can come first, but both must be balanced at the end.

My characters always seem to have the following:
(1) Crunch that either utilizes a fun combo, or is otherwise effective
(2) A personality trait or some other hook that gives him life

In a RPG, it is a team game, so as cool as you might think playing a blind, one-armed atheist in a D&D campaign may be, it's not fair to saddle your allies with The Load.

Plus, I've never found those crippled characters really add much to a campaign; they generally just hang around and mope, and contribute nothing.

I guess the art of character design is to find an interesting character, and to make it work. Some things just don't (Half-Orc Wizards, I'm looking at you!) and, to be honest, that is reason enough why you shouldn't play it. The world isn't overrun with 5 year old Fighters and deaf-mute Wizards because they just don't live very long - particularly in a career like adventurer.

But never neglect "the character" part. If your character doesn't seem alive to anyone, he's just a sack of stats - not a person.

[Grommen]

Most of the time I do the background and race first, then make the classes work around them. I don't tend to make very exotic over the top super characters so the builds behind them are rather bland.

When I'm makeing bad guys for my campaigns I look at the classes and crunch a lot harder to make them balanced and about to harrase but not over kill the players. Backgrounds are usally well laid out anyway in advance.

Sometimes I just look at a mini I have and wonder "Who is that guy?" And either a character or NPC jumps to mind and off I go. I have one on my desk right now that I'm wondering about. How do I make him fight as studly as he looks.

And DM's fudge dice rolls all the time. As a player you should not look, or even care. What comes around goes around. If your a good DM (not implying here that eveyone else is a bad one) you can fudge rolls right in front of the players and they will never catch on. Their is an art to it. Also helps to have special "fudging" dice :)

[TMZ_Cinoros]

So, this has made me curious as to which way other people go. While I say in the title this is a D&D topic, I think it's more of a general issue with class-based RPG systems, one of the reasons I'm trying to get my group to start playing Mutants & Masterminds or GURPS.

For me, the crunch before fluff or fluff before crunch question is highly dependent on 1) the system, 2) the DM, 3) the tone of the campaign, and 4) the group.

There are times when I made suboptimal choices for my character because they fit better thematically than a more optimal choices. I have DMs that I would not care at all about the fluff of my character, because when I do I usually end up spending more time thinking about my character's back story than the DM spends on the entire campaign combined. Usually, I try to add at least a little fluff to my character, and will add to the fluff if the DM rewards it (not in treasure, but in game time focusing on the fluff or fun from situations involving the fluff) or subtract from the fluff if the DM ignores it/does nothing with it.

Fluff and crunch are all a cost-benefit analysis. If a game is primarily combat oriented, with plot being a lame excuse for the next encounter, then I will not derive any benefit from fluff and will optimize my character to the best of my abilities. If it is primarily role-play with combat thrown in, then I am willing to hobble my character.

To be honest, the best fluff is organic. Fluff put in at character creation is usually stilted or weak. I have a DM (2E) who randomizes almost everything, then connects the dots with story. For example, each character has a 10% of being a noble, with allotted gold depending on how HIGH of a noble we random roll. Everyone has a random chance of getting an item of a random strength. We all start out as formless, characterless blobs. Through the campaign, our choices and the situations our character become entangled in shape that blob into a well-developed character. This organic process is the best I have ever seen for roleplaying (if the player wants that, or they can ignore the fluff entirely and kill stuff).

I personally especially like rules systems where the fluff and crunch are intertwined. For example, Spirit of the Century forces you to write 5 ministories about your character, from which you choose two traits (beneficial or detrimental). The characters from the SotC games I've played have been extremely memorable. Also, Nobilius is cool, where you become the avatar of a certain concept (no matter how abstract or concrete).

However, I have to say that I hate the "good roleplaying" excuse for when a player decides to do something that is extremely stupid. Usually when my friends use that excuse, its because they are too lazy to think of the optimal strategy and doing something clearly subotimal to cover for it. To quote one of my friends about taking 10 levels of Mystic Theurge, "I bet he's doing it because it's GOOD ROLEPLAYING and fits his ANGSTY BACKSTORY ABOUT HIS DUAL HERITAGE. And then when he gets home, he cries."

tl;dr - Circumstances dictate whether

[RebelRogue]

For me, it's an interaction process: a certain combination or PrC might inspire some background or character trait, which may in term make certain mechanics make sense and so on. Usually for me, the initial seed is in the crunch.

But, there's no "right" way to do it, as long as the final product makes sense as a character.

[BRC]

Character First, Crunch later, and if I do Crunch first, it's usually a very basic crunch concept, rather than a character sheet. Take for example my current character, a Warforged Factotum (Statistically anyway, it's a time travel campaign and he's from the far future, he's the AI that runs the time machine/ship and has a humanoid node). First I looked at the Factotum class and was like "Ooh, Nifty!", then I thought up the character concept, then I actually put down some numbers.

[Szilard]

I have an idea, make the character, and then fluff it.

[Townopolis]

it varies.

Sometimes the party needs a tank, so I'll look into building one.

Sometimes I want to see if I can make a viable AC tank in 3.5D&D and work on something from there (Knight 15/Rebalanced Paladin 4/Sublime Marshal 1 was my best effort non-gestalt).

Sometimes I revive an old character with new mechanics.

Sometimes looking at the rules gives me a great idea for a gurps character with delusions and wierdness magnet as his disadvantages.

Sometimes I take a character from a story I wrote and make an RPG character out of him.

Sometimes I start with a backstory or personality I want to play.

Sometimes I start with a trope.

Sometimes I stare at a picture for 3 hours straight and then decide I simply must build a character based off it.

[longtooth878]

I find it kind of funny that when I was playing 1st ed. number crunching was the thing that every one did (Who didn't have at least one psionic pc) and "fluff" was an after thought. In 2nd ed., if you crunched numbers you where a called hack and slash player. And in 3rd ed. people would brag about not even have any combat or rolling dice for a few nights; and now its like you almost have a "uber" tough PC and things like "fluff" is said like it was a bad thing. I am not saying that any one type is better; I just think its funny how we come full circle.

[Falconer]

Usually I work with the fluff first, but it's usually inspired by some class or race that looks like it would be fun to play.

example:

*browses SRD for ideas*
"Ooooh! Oooh! Thrallherd! Mind control-y-ness! That looks fun!"

(eventually settles down and thinks)

"Now what kind of person would have that class? How would they view their psychic powers?" And so on and so forth.

[Weezer]

I usually get an idea of the character archetype that i'm going to play and then form the character stats around that and then flesh out the fluff later.

[monty]

It depends. Sometimes, I'll have a build that I want to try out, and I'll make up fluff to fit it. Other times, I'll have a character in mind, and come up with a build that makes it work.

[RTGoodman]

It depends. Sometimes, I'll have a build that I want to try out, and I'll make up fluff to fit it. Other times, I'll have a character in mind, and come up with a build that makes it work.

This, exactly. There's no "right" way to do it, and it just depends on person, character, the campaign, and any other number of factors.

[Olo Demonsbane]

I think of a basic concept, build the stats, work the fluff in, finalize the stats, finalize the fluff.

For example, I recently made a Human Monk/Sorcerer. I was thinking I wanted a character that had been cut off from the world. Then I decided I wanted to make a Sorcerer (yay, sorcerers are fun!). I visualized him growing up in a hidden monastary, manifesting sorcerer powers, then leaving. Then I made it work optimizingly and finshed the fluff.

[xPANCAKEx]

crunch then fluff

however - if i cant think of a fluff concept that REALLY appeals to me i'll scrap it and start a new character. Trying to fit a crunch to a character concept can sometimes lead to massive disapointment - they always seem much "bigger than life" in your head, then mechanically never fully lives up to expectation

with the crunch first approach, the character grows naturally from something i really like, when the game starts, to something i really REALLY like as the game progresses - and his abilities grow with it, rather than thinking "yes - in 2 levels i've have feat y that allows me to finally be one step closer to being able to play the character as i have it in my head!"

[Draz74]

It depends. Sometimes, I'll have a build that I want to try out, and I'll make up fluff to fit it. Other times, I'll have a character in mind, and come up with a build that makes it work.

Same here. What's more, it's rarely a one-way street. I may decide to think up a character because I want to play a Warblade who abuses the Emerald Razor/Power Attack combo ... but then, once I have the character in mind, I'll choose at least some of her feats/maneuvers/skills based on the fluff I've determined.

[Eldariel]

My character building process #1:
1. Think of an interesting concept.
2. Think of what build would best suit the said concept.
3. Scrap the build since the party sucks and try to think of an interesting concept in the field the party lacks a character this time.
4. Repeat 1-3 a few times as players switch their characters around. Then game starts and I end up doing a 5-minute build again 'cause everyone else had a last-minute change.

#2:
1. Find/come up with a really awesome-feeling build I want to try.
2. Tell everyone what I'm playing and tell them to bugger off.
3. End up without an arcanist/a divinist/a skillmonkey/whatever and die a horrible death once we end up with an appropriate challenge that we can't deal with 'cause our party sucks.

#3:
1. Play a solo-game.
2. Optimize the living bejezus out of my character.
3. Have the DM get bored with the campaign and hit my weakest area with something that would take a dedicated character to survive.

[Vexxation]

I'm a fifty-fifty builder. I've built mechanical concepts, then attempted to justify them as a character, and I've built concepts and crunched them out.

For example, what are two of the weakest things in D&D?
Why, the Soulknife and the Vow of Poverty.
Well now, I just loved the idea of combining them and getting a character who quite literally walked around wearing a poncho and nothing else. A character who, despite not having possessions, could kill things with his mind (...blades).

Fun! Not particularly effective, but fun.

I really don't care one way or the other. Whatever stroke of "genius" you get struck with first, take it and run with it.

[Fiery Diamond]

1) Character Concept, including basic personality, perhaps some background, what types of specialties
2) Rolling up stats till they are usable with the concept (with permission from the DM, obviously)
3) Mechanically building the character
4) Further developing personality, emotions, and motives through play

[Xyk]

I will usually find a character concept, build that character, then never play it because I am a DM. On the off-chance I do get to play it, I make sure it is decent at fighting too, it's not that hard. I mean, it's not like you're trying to build a noncombatant concept, that would be dumb.

[Morandir Nailo]

I'm a big "roll and see what you get" type person, so I roll stats, choose a class that fits, and let that serve as a springboard for developing the character. For instance, I recently made a character for Labyrinth Lord. I rolled 14, 14, 10, 13, 8, 8, and settled on an Elf. He's strong, agile and smart, but not very charismatic or perceptive. I decided that he's obsessed with occult knowledge - a little too obsessed for his own good, but he doesn't realize that. His obsession makes him seem a bit odd to those around him, as he talks of little else. He adventures to uncover lost lore both mundane and magical. I decided that he's of Lawful alignment - generally a good person, but foolhardy and liable to get himself into trouble. Beyond that I don't know; he'll become more fully developed as the game progresses.

Mor

[Samakain]

get the fluff you wanna play
make the crunch match
if the crunch can only be horrible, rewrite the fluff

[Deepblue706]

For casual games, I tend to begin with a build, and then write-in some fluff to go with it. These characters generally have a very limited investment on my part, and don't really help me to have a memorable experience. It's just the bare minimum for games I participate in merely to pass the time.

For games I think to have great potential, I begin with a personality. Not an actual image of the character, what they do, or what their job is. Just, a personality. I come up with a few defining traits, and then I begin to think of ways they might be justified. This is where background comes in. After filling in the reasoning behind the personality, I then try to find what class is best associated with the character. After determining the best class to make the character follow, I think consider what would they would hope to do in the future. And that would determine what kind of build I make; unless I accepted the possibility of the game world itself shaping the way my character developed, in which case I'd just run with it.

[Random NPC]

I do the following in order:

-Think of a role in the party
- Look for classes with that role, if anything seems appealing, I take it
- Think of reasons why or how the character has the abilities from that class (Binder of Rakshasas in Eberron, Dragonmarked Sorcerer, veteran Warforged Warblade, Lyrandar Bard)
- Build the heavy crunch
- Fluff him up
- ???
- Profit!