Concept or class first?

[illyrus]

Oftentimes in my gaming group I'll hear the following: "that's stupid for x class to have" in reference to a particular feat/power combination that they would be perfectly accepting of on another class, even if it meant that it would be stronger/weaker. This is not the case of building something sub-optimal either like an 8 strength 18 int wizard who only swings around a greatsword either.

This got me thinking, personally I come up with a concept and then pick the class and abilities to complement that. So if I wanted to play a pirate I'd try to picture what I'd want them capable of doing and then make choices on how mechanically to make that happen effectively based upon that. I think quite a few people in my group tend to pick the class first then develop the concept around that class. And I realize that some concepts and classes can be one and the same so they're picked at the same time. Still I'm a bit curious which you tend to decide on first and why.

[Xenogears]

Sometimes A sometimes B. Sometimes I see an awesome class/combo of classes and build around that. Sometimes I think of a cool idea and dig around for the best way to pull that off while remaining true to the idea (i also usully wind up with 4-5 new ideas...) without making it Overpowered.

[dsmiles]

This got me thinking, personally I come up with a concept and then pick the class and abilities to complement that. So if I wanted to play a pirate I'd try to picture what I'd want them capable of doing and then make choices on how mechanically to make that happen effectively based upon that. I think quite a few people in my group tend to pick the class first then develop the concept around that class. And I realize that some concepts and classes can be one and the same so they're picked at the same time. Still I'm a bit curious which you tend to decide on first and why.

+1 to you! IMO, fluff is more important than crunch. Crunch doesn't drive storytelling/roleplaying. Concept first!

[Optimystik]

This is not the case of building something sub-optimal either like an 8 strength 18 int wizard who only swings around a greatsword either.

That's not stupid at all, he just needs to polymorph first.

Crunch doesn't drive storytelling/roleplaying.

dsmiles, you have the uncanny ability to invoke Stormwind in every single one of these topics, despite being shown the error of your ways multiple times.

Saying "I'm a wizard" is fluff... but without the crunch to actually cast arcane spells, you'll have a really hard time convincing anyone.

[ScionoftheVoid]

Sometimes A sometimes B. Sometimes I see an awesome class/combo of classes and build around that. Sometimes I think of a cool idea and dig around for the best way to pull that off while remaining true to the idea (i also usully wind up with 4-5 new ideas...).

I do something similar. I'm now playing a Sorcadin based on Flay Gunnar of Mana Khemia: Alchemists of Al-revis. (Note: I removed the "without making it overpowered" bit because one of the following would happen: 1. The group doesn't notice, everything is fine. 2. The group notices and encourages my new, awesome ability. 3. The group notices my power and complains, I turn it down or hold it in reserve until we really need it. 4. The DM nerfs my ability in some way (he treats the rules as guides)).

Though I can't dig around very far, I've only just introduced the guy who normally DM's to the SRD, we barely have any books past Core (though I'm working on changing that).

Edit: Oh, an arguement with Dsmiles on the Stormwind fallacy. I like watching these. I saw a good explanation of the problem with completely separating fluff and crunch in a recent thread, I'll go and find it.

[bosssmiley]

+1 to you! IMO, fluff is more important than crunch. Crunch doesn't drive storytelling/roleplaying. Concept first!

Right: "I wanna character like Legolas/Aragorn/Conan/Elric/Captain Blood/whoever. How can I do that?"
Wrong: "I want to make a Foo 6/Bar 3/Skub 4 Whurblemancer built. How can I justify this onanistic abuse of game mechanics as a character in a real game?"

Concept first. Mechanics adapted to it.

[WalkingTarget]

Saying "I'm a wizard" is fluff... but without the crunch to actually cast arcane spells, you'll have a really hard time convincing anyone.

Well, he could spell it out in sequins on his pointy hat.

I'm all for taking the class that gives you the mechanics you want but refluffing it to match what your initial concept is, though. Just because I call myself a samurai doesn't mean that I took levels in a class that has that word in its name, after all.

[Britter]

+1 to you! IMO, fluff is more important than crunch. Crunch doesn't drive storytelling/roleplaying. Concept first!

Ok, though I admire the spirit of this, I am going to disagree.

Yes, it is important to have a good concept in mind. But the fluff and the crunch need to be in harmony with the concept. You should use mechanics that support the fluff you want to apply to your character. That is the mechanical side of role-playing.

I think that focusing too much on either fluff or crunch limits the character. A collection of 3 base classes and 2 prcs that can defeat ecl +4 encounters all by it's lonesome and has no personality is just as flawed as the character with a 75 page backstory detailing it's exploits and a build that doesn't allow said charcter to do any of what he claims to have done.

So, I would say that regardless of what comes first, the fluff and the crunch should support each other. They are both load-bearing parts of the character and need to be in harmony to facilitate a believable character within the confines of the gameworld.

edit - I do believe I was ninjaed at least once

[Doc Roc]

I play in a totally fluff-stripped system rejiggered to work in Iron Kingdoms or Hallow, but I work from concept first almost exclusively.

[Gnaeus]

Either, but usually class first.

I find the 2 processes that are uppermost in my mind at character creation tend to be either "Hmm, I've never played an X, I wonder what that's like" or "The party has an A, a B, and a C. Looks like they need a D, an E, or another A. What can I play that fills that role and looks fun?"

Edit: after a long string of playing casters in games that ended before level 5, I now also ask "How high do I expect this to go and will my character be fun at those levels?"

[Burley]

I, personally, have ideas for power combos all the time. However, I don't actually play them.
I have great charcter concepts that I play, but I wouldn't ever say that I'm a 8Str 18Int Sword-n-Board Wizard.

Why?

Because it is never fun to lose in D&D. There has to be a line where you stop making interesting characters and start to create a character who is fun to play. If all you do is fail because you have a -5 to attacks, or because you refuse to use a certain class feature (i.e. Spells. LoLwut?), then what is the point of selecting that class or that class feature.

D&D and just about every RPG I've ever seen is about taking somebody who is a little better than your average person and building them up to be Shiny Golden Idols of Win and Awesome.
Why would you purposely do that to yourself? Was it a dare, or what?

[Dimers]

I'm a bit curious which you tend to decide on first and why.

I do some of each. A few favorite character concepts came from concept first; I've done dozens of builds based on what works well mechanically, and justified it with fluff afterward; and most of the memorable characters that are worth revisiting came from good builds that took on a life of their own partway through. Writers say that sometimes their stories' characters just don't do what the author thought they were going to ... that's how it is with my favorite characters.

I remember a passage in the AD&D 2e PHB about playability. It said something along the lines of 'Some people won't play a character without high stats; they think he won't survive. Well, of course he won't, if you're not interested in playing him!' When my character starts to rewrite herself and pick different (and frequently less optimized) crunch, that passage springs to mind.

[dsmiles]

dsmiles, you have the uncanny ability to invoke Stormwind in every single one of these topics, despite being shown the error of your ways multiple times.

Whatever, man. The only "error" is if people aren't having fun playing the game. I've said it elsewhere: The only wrong way to play a RPG is for people to not have fun. As long as everyone is having fun, you're doing it right, hence no error. Everyone I game with has fun playing fluff first, so how can it be the "wrong" way?

[Everyman]

More often than not, I decide on a concept and then build my class choices around it. However, I usually make small alterations to my concept during that step, in order to be supported by the build.

For example, I wanted to create a character that survived entirely on luck and good will. The initial concept was to take a few levels of Bard and then take Fortune's Friend (Comp. Scoundrel). After I started to build it, I realized that a cleric makes a MUCH better FF (especially since there is a luck feat that only cleric's with the Luck domain can take). I didn't originally conceive this character as a cleric, but it worked well for my concept. I then adapted my concept a bit to match my build.

All in all, I guess you could say I'm concept first as a draft, a character build, followed by the final draft of concept.

[Chaelos]

It can go either way, but I almost universally prefer to start with a concept. The only times I've ever built a character for mechanics are those when the party I'm joining/re-rolling in are missing a critical component, ie a healer or meatshield. But I've always had more fun with a properly fleshed out concept that was then converted into mechanics.

[Tengu_temp]

Right: "I wanna character like Legolas/Aragorn/Conan/Elric/Captain Blood/whoever. How can I do that?"
Wrong: "I want to make a Foo 6/Bar 3/Skub 4 Whurblemancer built. How can I justify this onanistic abuse of game mechanics as a character in a real game?"

Concept first. Mechanics adapted to it.

No. Assuming the build in question is just powerful, but not broken, both of these are good approaches. The wrong approach is "I want to make a Foo 6/Bar 3/Skub 4 Whurblemancer build, and I don't care about fluff at all". Unless it's a purely HNS game with no roleplaying.

I use both approaches. Sometimes I have this fun build I want to try, and build the character concept over it, and sometimes I have this fun character concept I want to try, and then create a build that fits the character.

[SurlySeraph]

I think you're assuming a greater separation of concept and mechanics than actually exists. "I want to play a paladin who's good at magic" is both a mechanical and conceptual construct, for example.

[Set]

Whichever is most fun.

If my *concept* is 'the world's best swordsman, looking for the six-fingered man who killed his father,' I'm going to want mechanics that make him kinda good at swordplay.

If my concept is bumbling idiot who thinks he's competent, a la Don Quixote, then I'll be more likely to choose classes / feats / etc. that don't do what he thinks they do.

[ScionoftheVoid]

I found the description on concept and mechanics, though Britter said the main point of it earlier.

What he's saying is basically, assuming a group where mechanics matter too, once the mechanics of your character are taken care of, you can focus on RP to your heart's content without ever giving them a second thought; your mechanical capabilities exactly match what you view your character as and things are rosy. However, if your mechanics aren't up-to-par, you're going to run into problems as your abilities don't actually match what your character should be capable, and he/she becomes a baggage on the party eventually leading to a situation where every other party member would probably want to get rid of him/her (either for his/her own safety or because he/she is in the way, depending on their outlook) if not for the metagame agreement to keep the party together. And that's if said incompetence doesn't just get the party killed.

If you RP your guy as a great warrior (not just faking to be a great warrior), he should mechanically be a competent warrior as well. And if you RP your guy as a slick, fast-talking face, he should have some competence socially in mechanics. And if you RP your guy as a genius, having some Int may be in order.

From the "3.5 Awful Character Concept...what to do?" thread.

[drengnikrafe]

I can't help but optimize, so my order of operations generally goes like this:
1: DM tells me what the party is missing.
2: I pick a tier 3 or lower class that fills that spot.
3: I optimize it.
4: I justify everything I did.

I have built a character based on a concept only a finite number of times. I wish I did that more though, but I'm too much of an optimzer.

[Zaydos]

I have 2 characters right now

3.5: A chaos mage build from the concept of a wild mage. He has a pixie familiar that acts as his imaginary friend. He's a powerful character although mostly by accident and by a good choice of spells.

4e: The party had 2 strikers and a leader when I joined (got a 3rd striker since) so I built a defender. I then figured out a concept (he focuses on defensive powers and teleportation powers).

So I'll do either. If the party already exists I will try and make a character that helps it, choosing a class to fill a role that is needed. If it doesn't I figure out a concept, whether that's game mechanical (hey ToB looks cool) or fluff, and then build it choosing a class based on what I want.

[Godskook]

Whatever, man. The only "error" is if people aren't having fun playing the game. I've said it elsewhere: The only wrong way to play a RPG is for people to not have fun. As long as everyone is having fun, you're doing it right, hence no error. Everyone I game with has fun playing fluff first, so how can it be the "wrong" way?

Optimystik isn't referring to how you play the game. He's referring to your gamer's logic. The phrase:

"crunch doesn't drive roleplay"

Is wrong. The fact of the matter is that crunch *CAN* drive roleplay, and for some people, is even necessary to have roleplay. To make the assertion you made is called the stormwind fallacy.

-----------------------

Personally, I make all my characters starting on the crunch side, then I fluff it, and then I go back and re-crunch as necessary to match the fluff I stick with. For instance, my current character is a Daggerspell Mage who was built for a game starting at L2, but I built him solely to get to and play as a daggerspell. That game ended prematurely and I've revived him for a L6 campaign, and by now, he's got a solid layer of fluff behind his crunch, to the point where he refuses to take a +1 dagger because the masterwork daggers he inherited from his father are sufficient for his current needs and will be enchanted next time we reach a town big enough, I'm sure. He's more interesting to me now, now that there's fluff, but he's built from crunch, through and through.

[Susano-wo]

I definitely do both, though in a class based system, the "oo, it would be fun to play X, or I want to do a Y with Z" factor kicks in a lot, causing me to work my way up from mechanical concept to character concept.
In point buy systems, I am much more likely to have a char concept first, mechanical concept second.

The thing I think is important for be to enjoy playing is for characters (both myself and other people's) to not forget that Character Concept part. It doesn't matter where you start from, as long as the character is believable and is not obviously a stat pile with some half-assed AI algorithms tacked on :D

Also, I'm not sure what the whole Stormwind thing is, but you definitely can't have story without both sides of the coin. Concept has to match Capability. There is some wiggle room, I think, especailly in areas that dont much impact the game (I don't care too much if a character says he is a weaver, but didn't take craft: weaver >.>), but if I am "Minmax, the Unstoppable Warrior", I'd better be pretty badassed ^ ^

[Optimystik]

Whatever, man. The only "error" is if people aren't having fun playing the game. I've said it elsewhere: The only wrong way to play a RPG is for people to not have fun. As long as everyone is having fun, you're doing it right, hence no error. Everyone I game with has fun playing fluff first, so how can it be the "wrong" way?

Where did I say it's wrong to have fun? Putting words into other people's mouths is a very poor way to argue.

You made a blanket statement - "crunch doesn't drive storytelling/roleplaying" - this is quite plainly WRONG, as crunch can drive both just fine.

[oxybe]

i go both ways

sometimes i see a class that makes me want to play it right away so i write up a character, other times i'm daydreaming at work & a character pops up so i write him up.

[Dienekes]

Generally my thought process is

Hmm that's a cool character I just saw/read/watched/played with. How can I manipulate that so that I could play it in my style.

Groovy got that done, now which classes/abilities make sense?

Groovy got that done, now since it was inevitably a magicless fighter-type how can I make it useful?

[Umael]

I believe that dsmiles was correct about one thing, over and above everything else that has been said - the point is to have fun.

However, I think what dsmiles missed is that a game that emphasizes storytelling isn't necessarily going to be fun. I don't play poker for the dramatic plot twists.

If everyone is playing a game that is just fluff and enjoying it - great. Or just crunch and having a blast - wonderful. But if the game uses both, then I got to go with what Britter said - crunch and fluff should be in harmony.

As for the question, let me personally kick the idea of "class" in the head. Why? Because when I make a character for an RPG that doesn't use "class", I don't need to hamstring my thought processes on the matter. Instead of "class", substitute mechanics, people. You can decide to play a character based on a race, a feat or series of feats, etc. - and that's just using D&D as an example.

Next, everything is ALWAYS concept - just that sometimes, the mechanics ARE the concept.

One of the Champions books discussed how character creation really begins. Some times, it is a concept, like an orphaned boy who grows up to be a vigilante. Other times, it is a costume, like a black body suit with matching cape, pointed ears, and special insignia on the chest. Maybe it's just a name, like Batman.

Me, when I create a character for any system, I see what gets my attention, and I go with it. Could be the mechanics, could be a barely-mentioned bit of history, could be an image that captures part of the essence of the game.

[DabblerWizard]

I enjoy experimenting with both character concept and race/class mechanics.

When I picked up 4e I looked through the races provided in the phb 1, and 2, and decided that I wanted to play a particular race / class. That would be mechanics first.

I've also created character concepts that coincidentally fit the wizard mechanic, for instance.

Either way, meshing both of these elements is important.

If I chose a race/class that seemed interesting, but didn't have an equally enjoyable backstory, I'd lose interest quickly.

If I made a character concept / background but couldn't find a feasible mechanic to work with, I'd also lose interest then too.

[JohnnyCancer]

If I'm in a game from the start, I usually think of the concept first. If I'm a later addition to a campaign in progress, I try to fill whatever niche is needed most and so I go with class first.

[Starbuck_II]

I believe that dsmiles was correct about one thing, over and above everything else that has been said - the point is to have fun.

However, I think what dsmiles missed is that a game that emphasizes storytelling isn't necessarily going to be fun. I don't play poker for the dramatic plot twists.

Am I the only one who says, "What a Twist" when I lose at poker?