Character Building: Likes and Dislikes?

[jmbrown]

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]

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]

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]

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]

Star Wars SAGA has the best character creation of the games I've played. Quick and easy but with lots of customization.

[Guancyto]

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]

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]

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]

I'm a fan of pointbuying personally, but there is something fun about rolling dice and taking the stats too...

[Rhiannon87]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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 in the most amusing ways.

[Blacky the Blackball]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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

[Totally Guy]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.