Character Differentiation: Crunch v. Fluff

[Chauncymancer]

I got started thinking about this after my brother told me this was his big complaint with mouseguard:
"We're all mechanically similar, and the only difference between us is in our personalities"
There is, admittedly, more shading than he gave MG credit, but that's not what I want to ask about. What I want an opinion on is: In game design, how much of the difference between characters needs to be mechanical/conceptual, and how much can be left to role play. To keep pat answers to a minimum, pretend I'm the GM of your group, how do you like it?

As a second example, in Mage the Awakening, all four players can come from one tradition, say Sons of Ether, and therefore all be some sort of scientist, with sciency type skills and sciency type backstory. How hard do I need to work as the GM with the players in a game like that to make sure they're all different mechanically, and how much can I leave up two "He makes potions to give himself monkey arms, and she rides a chimpanzee cyborg"?

[Telonius]

Just generally? It can be all one, all the other, or any combination of the two. Games range from something as mechanical as tic-tac-toe to something as fluffy as free-form roleplay. The design of the game will cater to something along that spectrum. The trick for you, as a player, is finding where you like that point to occur.

Personally I prefer something close to the middle, but edging towards fluff. I like thematic classes, I like mechanics to support character traits, and I definitely want Rule of Cool to be in effect.

[Skorj]

This is actually quite a divisive issue: when you get right down to it, the major issue a lot of people have with 4e is that the mechanics for playing a fighter and caster are too similar, despite different fluff. Others just don't see why that's even an issue.

Personally, I prefer systems where the task/skill system, melee combat system, and spell system all use the same basic mechanic, but others would find that just wrong.

[Vitruviansquid]

I believe the mechanics of the game should support the fluff and vice versa.

For instance, if I want to play a big guy bruiser type, the game should provide me with ways to mechanically do that, like some kind of strength statistic I can raise or a class/skillset I can take to get the desired end. The same as if I wanted to play the little fast guy on the team or the weak, intelligent type.

Of course, if for reason, everyone at the table shows up wanting to play the same kind of character, I don't think a system necessarily needs to force differentiation on them. It's just not necessary as the players themselves decided on what they wanted to play.

[Zaydos]

I like to use crunch to differentiate my characters as well as fluff. If (for a 3.5 example) there are three wizards in the party I'd prefer to play something other than a wizard or else use a PrC to get something a little different. Yes I can use fluff to differentiate my character. If there's a cleric of Kord, a cleric of Pelor, and a cleric of Ollidamra, I can play a cleric of Boccob and be a scholar. I'd rather play a sorcerer or wizard, though, and fill that I was doing something different than the other players (I started out with a sorcerer example but due to their spells known limits they can differentiate themselves mechanically quite well).

In 4e I'd rather play a role that isn't already filled (I played a defender in a party with 4 strikers; while I didn't get the glory of dealing huge damage I enjoyed that I wasn't just like everyone else). If I had played a striker I'd have played a rogue since I like how they lock an opponent into CA, and I still would have been differentiated from the other PCs but I wouldn't have wanted to play a monk or a ranged striker (there was a ranged ranger and a sorcerer).

So I will state I prefer a mechanical means to differentiate my character. It's one of my favorite things about 3.X is that there are so many mechanical ways to represent my characters and the fluff behind them. I'd prefer to make a sorcerer that is descended from dragons and one descended from fairies different mechanically because in my mind they should have different powers (fire compared to trickery).

[Snake-Aes]

Strictly speaking, the mechanics tell you what you can do, not how you can do it.

[lesser_minion]

I'm going to take the middle ground here, since it depends on the game. There are two basic guidelines, however:

Not every single difference between two characters should be echoed in the rules. FATAL is a good example of a game where the designer completely failed to get that.

At the same time, the player should feel like the 'essence' of his character has been captured by the game rules, which means that there should be differences between how different things work.

A fireball might have some similarities to a hand grenade, but having them work in exactly the same way might be a little more sterile than is ideal, especially considering that the damage done by a hand grenade is predominantly not-burny.

[Urpriest]

Strictly speaking, the mechanics tell you what you can do, not how you can do it.

A description of how you can do something is meaningless unless it is also a thing you can do.

[Vangor]

I believe, as Vitruviansquid, the flavor and mechanics should complement one another (fluff, for me, is the player creating personalized explanations of why the character has the mechanics, flavor, personality, etc..) and, assuming the characters are using different flavor and/or mechanics, differentiate the characters. Lack of mechanical differences means player choices are meaningless and the flavor tends to become mere fluff. Lack of flavor differences means the visualization, experience, etc., all blend and the character is simply a row of statistics.

In most systems I design or work on, I try to emphasize mechanical differences differentiating players and the flavor clearly showing what those mechanics are and are meant to accomplish. One example I would use for this would be Guild Wars which has a great deal of distinction between every profession, whether those professions are primary or secondary, the attributes of each profession, and even the individual skills of those attributes. With so much distinction some blur, overlap, etc., often for balance purposes, but, not only are they mechanically distinct, the flavor really lends itself to what you are doing.

As for the situation you gave, this is up to the players to differentiate themselves, I think. If they all chose to be characters with monkey arms, they should decide how they came about. Should not be up to you to make sure they feel different if they are not being different.

[Remmirath]

I think personality should always be the main difference between two characters, and is the most important one.

However, mechanically, I prefer classes to be different. I don't mind if all fighters are more or less the same aside from using different weapons (such as in 1st edition), but I do mind if playing a fighter doesn't feel significantly different mechanically from playing a wizard (such as in 4th edition).

3rd edition is pretty much my ideal for that. The base classes are all pretty different, and if you want classes that blur the lines you can find them in some other books (I don't, so I can just avoid those books). There are lots of options, and it's easy to cook up your own stuff to differentiate your character if you like (and have the DMs permission, of course).

[Kesnit]

IMO, crunch just tells you what you can do. "Roll INT vs Reflex, a hit does 1d8+INT damage and pushes the enemy back one square."

Fluff is how you make it, and can be whatever the player wants it to be. The only limit is the player's imagination.

For example, I play a gnome Artificer in a 4E game. I had already decided the Artificer would be going into the Self-Forged Paragon Path. While reading a WH40K book about Space Marines lately, I came up with an idea - turning my gnome into a 3' tall Space Marine! As he levels, he'll build a "suit of armor" for himself that gives no benefits (other than what the class provides or items I can refluff). Eventually, he'll be "encased" in his "armor," with only his head sticking out.

As another example, my fiancee wanted to play a human Swarm Druid in that same game. But rather than insects, she wanted to Wild Shape into a pile of fluffy bunnies. White bunnies with pink noses and ears, blood-red eyes, and fangs. (The PC's name is "Fluffy.")

Did WotC put out Self-Forged with the intent that someone would use it to simulate a class from a separate game from a separate universe? Did they imagine Swarm Druids being anything other than Tiny creatures that could not be picked out individually? I assume not, but that doesn't mean the fluff we are using is any less valid.

To get back to the OP's question, leave it up to your players. Let them fluff their PCs however they want, so long as it stays fluff, or they can find ways to account for their abilities with game mechanics.

[Knaight]

I view crunch as something that should be dedicated to a characters capabilities, so differences in capability should show up in crunch. Fluff is everything else, and there should be differences there as well. Looking at crunch specifically, what I want is elegance, the simplest system that generates the detail I need to simulate a particular genre. FATE does a very good job of this, as a relatively simple core skill list can go a long way due to the additional mechanics of stunts and aspects, which are usually player created. If I want my silver tongued spy to be able to slip a knife between someone's ribs when they aren't expecting it, I make a stunt that substitutes deceit for melee combat under the condition that the target isn't expecting it, essentially creating a specialization that would require feats, levels, or both to pull of in D&D. Its elegant, and it works.

[MammonAzrael]

I don't care if my character is mechanically similar or different compared to my companions, as long as we're able to fill all the roles we need. Fluff wise it would be very strange if we were all similar, but that could make an interesting adventure itself.

What I would want is various characters that I play feel different. The Fluff is by far the most defining thing about a character, but I want a Warrior and a Mage to have a different feel to playing them. The difference in 4th Edition is enough for me.

The best part about a large variety of crunch, imo, is the ability to think of a character concept, and then find mechanics that fit that concept like a glove.

[Maeglin_Dubh]

A fireball might have some similarities to a hand grenade, but having them work in exactly the same way might be a little more sterile than is ideal, especially considering that the damage done by a hand grenade is predominantly not-burny.

This is why I don't like Mutants and Masterminds. Everything is so generic.

[BobVosh]

I like my crunch to be as diverse as the characters. I get bored with the same mechanics for every character, or even very similiar mechanics. 4ed bored me like this, especially since they could have made the abilities much more grandiose and keep it balanced.

I liked exalted for its very wide range of abilities. Same for changeling, shadowrun, D&D 3.P, and etc.

[Psyx]

I like a mechanical difference in characters, generally. What slammed this home to me was L5R, where a group of warriors from the same clan were mechanically identical... and this is in a game that's supposed to be about having your own fancy moves.

Even with two characters of the same class and 'type' (two handed fighter, blaster mage etc), I like there to be a good level of mechanical differentiation betwixt the two.

[Frozen_Feet]

One of the biggest things that differentiates characters is personality, and in many games personality is not reflected by mechanics of the game. I've played a lot of RPGs where characters are identical as far a mechanics go, yet everyone had fun and could play the characters they wanted to.

That said, I agree with the idea that differences in character ability should be represented in the rules. If I play a game where all characters are soldiers, I want the medic to be better at medical stuff than the Signal Corps NCO, and so one. Such mechanical tidbits add to verisimilitude.

However, D&D 3.5 goes waaaayyy overboard with mechanical differentiation of characters. As fun as it is to own and throw a dozen different dice, it's not in anyway mandatory to model character abilities with dozen+ different subsystems. <_<

It doesn't matter to me if fireball and a grenade use as many dice, because fluff is part of the mechanics too! A magical blast will elicit a different response from characters than a hand grenade, even if those responses are not explicitly detailed in the numerical mechanics. It doesn't matter if spellcasting and sword-swinging are both build around throwing similar dice and adding similar bonus in a similar way, because fluff still differentiates between the two, and being good in one doesn't mean one is good in the other. It doesn't matter if blinding light and deep darkness give similar penalties, because that doesn't remove the narrative difference between light and dark.

[Connington]

This is an issue I've put some thought into. I lean fairly heavily towards the opinion that the crunch should match the fluff as much as possible. Why a character does something doesn't need to be a mechanical thing, but how he does it should be.

That doesn't mean you need different mechanics, just you need to wind up with different effects. To take FF's example, I agree that learning a new sub-system for every effect - or hoarding odd varieties of dice - gets old fast. But I do think there should be as much mechanical distinction as you can get without slowing down the game. I have to use my imagination to picture a fireball threatening the party, and the same with a grenade. Personally, when I know that they have the same mechanics, it gets in the way of that imagination, and strains my willing suspension of disbelief.

Another thing is that I don't think roleplaying is just something you do outside of combat, or outside of the main mission. When I'm choosing between two similar but different courses of action, I like to know that it's an actual choice, not a cosmetic thing that won't change the outcome.

[dsmiles]

Just generally? It can be all one, all the other, or any combination of the two. Games range from something as mechanical as tic-tac-toe to something as fluffy as free-form roleplay. The design of the game will cater to something along that spectrum. The trick for you, as a player, is finding where you like that point to occur.

Personally I prefer something close to the middle, but edging towards fluff. I like thematic classes, I like mechanics to support character traits, and I definitely want Rule of Cool to be in effect.

+1 Huzzah!

[Tyndmyr]

You need both. Fluff differentiation is worth a lot, but you need at least some mechanical differences to hang them on. It just feels wrong when you both use completely different explanations for something that actually ends up working exactly the same way. Fake, even.

[true_shinken]

You need both. Fluff differentiation is worth a lot, but you need at least some mechanical differences to hang them on. It just feels wrong when you both use completely different explanations for something that actually ends up working exactly the same way. Fake, even.

This. I agree completly. That's why I'm against all those extreme cases of refluffing, like 'my magical items are not magical at all, they look like junk and are not magical - I can sell them for standard price, they blink under detect magic, they do not work at an antimagic field, but they are not magic at all'.

[Zeful]

I like my crunch to be as diverse as the characters. I get bored with the same mechanics for every character, or even very similiar mechanics. 4ed bored me like this, especially since they could have made the abilities much more grandiose and keep it balanced.

I liked exalted for its very wide range of abilities. Same for changeling, shadowrun, D&D 3.P, and etc.

What? Shadowrun has less mechanical diverseness than 4e. Every check is roll X d6, compare, resolve.

[Chauncymancer]

This has been very interesting, especially in light of my original mouse guard example:
according to an interview from the company's rep: the DM for an MG game is supposed to use the plot hooks as stats. I did not realize this.(Roughly, you have a few stats, and your dice pool is stat+ (in line with beliefs?)+ (following instincts?)+ (witty one liner?) so a barbarian char's dmg is Str+ Smash Good!+ "Instinct: lose control"+ "ARRGLE BARGLE!" = 5+2+2+1 for die pool 10) so i had, in effect, gone on about how great rouges are in 3.5, and then immediately houseruled out flanking.

[true_shinken]

What? Shadowrun has less mechanical diverseness than 4e. Every check is roll X d6, compare, resolve.

Even 3.5 worked like that. I think he meant the way hacking is very different from physical combat or magic or how you can make a melee beast by being a martial artist or a cyborg and stuff like that.

[dsmiles]

so a barbarian char's dmg is Str+ Smash Good!+ "Instinct: lose control"+ "ARRGLE BARGLE!" = 5+2+2+1 for die pool 10)

This made my day. I have a new war cry, "ARRGLE BARGLE!" Thanks for that.

[kyoryu]

You need both. Fluff differentiation is worth a lot, but you need at least some mechanical differences to hang them on. It just feels wrong when you both use completely different explanations for something that actually ends up working exactly the same way. Fake, even.

I would recommend you never, ever play Champions/Hero System. This is not a dig on you in any way, the entire system is predicated on a complete separation between fluff and crunch.

[oxybe]

the less subsystems the better IMO.

i like that 4th ed has the same baseline mechanics for a fighter's martial powers & a wizard's arcane powers, yet in play both act quite differently due to how the individual powers work rather then use different mechanics for melee combat, spellcasting, etc... i also like that the devs pretty much said: feel free to re-write the fluff for the powers as you like.

i remember one dev stating how he refluffed a rogue into a fire archon for his son simply by renaming a few things and changing sneak attack's damage to [fire].

for me i don't care if a fighter, a wizard & a psion use the same base mechanics as long as the end effect is the one that best emulates my character.

the mechanics are the coatrack i can hang my fluff on. more mechanics generally mean i need to relearn how to walk to get the desired effect if i decide to change my normal MO.

[The Big Dice]

I would recommend you never, ever play Champions/Hero System. This is not a dig on you in any way, the entire system is predicated on a complete separation between fluff and crunch.

GURPS and True20 are like that too. They're an example of "BYOF" or Bring Your Own Fluff games. D&D is like that in many ways. There's no world as such past the hints in the core books. It's up to you to either provide your own game world and the fluff that comes with it, or buy a ready made one.

Other games, like CoC and L5R come with plenty of fluff. There's a ready made in game explanation for things like how magic works and why different types of characters are the way they are.

Personally, I think fluff and crunch should go together like bacon and eggs. Both are good separately, but if you put them together, you get more than the sum of the parts.

[AtlanteanTroll]

This is actually quite a divisive issue: when you get right down to it, the major issue a lot of people have with 4e is that the mechanics for playing a fighter and caster are too similar, despite different fluff. Others just don't see why that's even an issue.

That's what I hate about 4E. I want the different characters to be different in fluff and crunch.

[Zeful]

Even 3.5 worked like that.

Not really. You did roll to see if you succeeded (at hitting your target), then you picked up another set of dice entirely and rolled to see how hard you hit them. Shadowrun omits the second step entirely.

I think he meant the way hacking is very different from physical combat or magic or how you can make a melee beast by being a martial artist or a cyborg and stuff like that.

They're not really all that different though. Spells are just weapons with drawbacks. Programs are similar to both focuses and weapons. Everything is intermingled together, making it more of a continuation. The only clear difference between anything in Shadow run is fluff. But the entire game runs off of two or three mechanics that everyone uses.