Character creation as simulation: does anyone do that any more?

[HeadlessMermaid]

Note: My experience with this if from D&D, but I suppose that it applies to all RPGs with mental and physical stats.

Many years ago, when I started playing, character creation usually happened like this: The player would say something like "I imagine a wizard who is very smart, but gets distracted easily and his eyesight is a bit poor from years of reading. He likes to share what he knows and he's a good teacher, talkative and quite charming. He is moderately dexterous and not completely weak, but he has poor health, he coughs all the time and gets tired easily."

And from there, he'd proceed assigning stats. In the above case, he would say: "So, we have INT > CHA > DEX > STR > WIS > CON."

In short, players could very well choose to assign stats "the wrong way", having a mental image of their character in mind and trying to represent it mechanically. The method was simulation. Key word: "imagine".

Nowadays, I don't see that happen a lot, and I don't do it myself a lot (if at all). Instead, the norm is something like this:

"I'm taking a wizard, so I have INT > CON > DEX > WIS > CHA > STR. Therefore, my wizard is very smart, healthy and sturdy, quite dexterous, somewhat perspective, hardly charismatic, and very weak."

In short, players pick stats first, addressing mechanical concerns, and from there proceed to interpret these numbers as their character's strengths and weaknesses. The method isn't simulation any more, it's... I don't know how to call it, really. I hesitate to call it "optimization", because I'm not talking about fancy stuff here, I'm talking about very basic things, as in "thou shall not dump Constitution."

I should note that completely irrational choices, like dumping your casting stat, were never an option. Even in the old days, no one ever did that. And I guess the distinction between the simulation method and whatever it is we're doing now applies not only to allocating stats, but also choosing feats and generally customizing your build.

So, my question. This change of style is from my personal experience, but is it a universal trend? In fact, does anyone use the simulation method any more when creating a character? Have you used it recently (or ever)? Have you seen it? Would you use it? Or is it an old thing that died for good?

Some examples:

1. Would you refrain from taking Natural Spell as your 6th level spell, because the druid you imagine would be represented better with Skill Focus (whatever)?
2. Would you refrain from taking Craven, because the daring outlaw you imagine is indeed a daredevil who's not afraid of anything?
3. Would you give high Charisma to your barbarian not because you have any mechanical reason (like fear tactics) to do so, but because the barbarian you imagine is a chieftain with a tremendous force of personality?
4. Would you play a middle-aged Rogue, sucking up the penalties and without serious benefits, because the thief you imagine happens to be 40 years old?
5. Would you play a dwarf bard or sorcerer (charisma hit applies), because you happened to imagine a dwarf bard or sorcerer?
6. Would you ever dump Constitution, because that's how you imagine your character?
7. Would you build Roy Greenhilt? High mental stats, no mental stat synergy whatsoever?

(All of the above assuming everyone in the group does the same, of course, no one aims for proper optimization, and the DM is aware of the arrangement.)


P.S. I have no value judgments whatsoever for either method, both are entirely valid if they suit your group's style. But you know what? I realized that I have missed simulation. I have some memorable characters from that era that I couldn't possibly build now. [Or, I'm just getting old and succumbing to nostalgia. ]

[Fiery Diamond]

I actually dump Con sometimes, both as a player and when creating NPCs. Reason being: I enforce roleplay of poor mental stats, and as a player I roleplay poor mental stats. I also don't like having to roleplay poor mental stats because from a non-game perspective, I value mental ability more than physical ability. I've created Barbarian NPCs with dumped Con before, simply because it's the only stat I CAN dump for the character concept: the character is at least moderately intelligent, reasonably perceptive, attractive and diplomatic, two-weapon fighting, and obviously needs some strength.

So... I basically do a mixture of the two methods that you describe.

Edit: To answer the questionnaire:

1. Probably not, but that's only because Skill Focus doesn't provide enough of a mechanical bonus to make it worth taking on a PC, though I would definitely do it for an NPC. However, I'd be perfectly willing to forgo Natural Spell for other feats that better suited my character.

2. I think this is a rather obnoxious feat in the first place, as it encourages this kind of "build your non-mechanical character concept around whatever benefits you get from fluff-heavy feats" nonsense.

3. Absolutely.

4. I despise the benefits/penalties thing from aging, as I think the simulation it provides is unnecessary for verisimilitude and only encourages things like "My wizard is venerable because I want that casting stat boost" and discourages things like "I want a badass grandpa martial arts character." That said, even if I couldn't convince the DM to get rid of them, the answer is yes.

5. Absolutely.

6. Yes, and I'll dump constitution to enable other scores that fit my character to be higher as well, as mentioned above.

7. Yes, as my opener makes pretty clear.

[valadil]

I try to imagine a character before a build. But if the build doesn't work out, I save the character for another system that might support the character better. I also imagine my characters as people who want to be competent, which justifies skipping out on trap feats that may represent the character better.

[Reluctance]

Keep in mind that on an internet forum, practical effectiveness is much easier to discuss objectively than roleplaying skill. So you're going to see certain levels of op assumed, simply because otherwise nobody has any baseline to work with.

Otherwise, you have to ask to what degree certain concepts are, in practice, punished. If my badass martial artist works out completely different in play than he did in my head, I'm going to be disinclined to play another one. If my first frail, sickly wizard or two end up falling in combat, I'm going to be disinclined to try something similar unless something changes significantly.

[PersonMan]

Well, I do a bit of both. A large portion of my characters are simply spontaneously generated and I decide that it would be fun to play them, so I consider what ability scores, classes, etc. they would have.

Sometimes, however, I have an idea for a build or find a game I want to join, at which point I make the character mechanically, then make the fluff.

Questions:
1. No. Skill Focus is a bad enough feat that I'd essentially feel like I had wasted it. Additionally, any Druid concept I come up with will probably be so feat-starved he'll barely be able to take Natural Spell, due to Aberrant Feats.
2. I've never actually read the text of Craven, but if it didn't fit the concept I'd just refluff it.
3. Yes, although I would try to put the Charisma to use.
4. No. On the rare occasions that my characters aren't young(5 out of...30+ concepts, 4 of which are in young bodies, so...) I'd just ask the DM to let me ignore the penalties/bonuses. If I couldn't, I'd probably move on to another concept. I have a fairly high character turnover rate anyways(seriously, many of my IRL characters are replaced after a handful of sessions).
5. Sorcerer probably not, but Bards yes. Partially because any Bards I make go into Dirgesinger/Seeker of the Song for the buff/debuff/blast combos and I pick spells up as an afterthought.
6. No. I'd certainly fluff them as being frail-sort-of(a bit like Raistlin from Dragonlance), they get sick easily, can't do physical stuff for long, but eat swords to the face like it's nothing("Hah! Compared to stubbing my toe, this is nothing!")
7. Maybe. I'd certainly look for a way to use the high mental stats, but I've done that sort of thing before.

Essentially, I've found that I can afford to take bad options that are great for a concept precisely because I optimize-if I can make up for having few spells and low DCs as a Bard by owning with Agony Reborn and buffing everyone into absurdity, low Charisma is fine. If my Barbarian doesn't rage after two large fights and is doing almost better than the other fighter-person because he only rages when his opponents are very rude, it's only because I can make him good enough to be able to fight without rage.

[oxybe]

as much as you want something 100% RP based, what you really should be aiming for is something that is consistently functional within the boundaries of the game first and foremost. i've seen plenty of well rp'ed characters retire prematurely because mechanically, quite frankly, they sucked.

these are characters who were a burden on the party: they ate up a proper share of the treasure/resources and offered little in return either in combat, out of combat or both... so we always had to save his arse in one way or another. they added a lot to the game... as long as they didn't have to roll any dice.

now if Canada's Worst Handyman is of any indication, you CAN use a hammer to put a screw into a piece of wood, but a screwdriver would really be the best tool to use.

following this line of thinking, build my characters to match the themes of the system rather then force a character into a system.

if i play D&D, i don't build Joe Carpenter, a guy who's really skilled at building stuff but not much else. i build Joe Carpenter, a guy who's an adventurer, skilled at such, and builds stuff during downtime (because your ability to make a cabinet probably won't be of much use against the Fanged Claw-Beast of Urx).

even if i'm playing a game like GURPS (that doesn't have any real themes inherent to system), if we're playing a game that will focus on intrigue, i won't make Vorpal Von Hackenslash, a guy who's only strong point is that he knows about a hundred different ways to dismember a person.

as such i never really fall into the line of thinking that creates generally penalizing/unplayable characters unless i'm an absolute newbie and the system doesn't give good guidelines.

and if, a BIG if, i REALLY just have to play this one specific character i simply say "**** the default fluff", use the mechanics i want and reskin everything so my John Deer looks like a 'Vette.

[Jude_H]

I've done 1-7 (the mental stats on 7, not the comic character), but it's really not a hallmark of old-school gaming to imagine before building.

When I play d20, I still prefer to carry over the "3d6 in order" stat method, which was a staple of the old D&D. It doesn't have the intent of "make a build, assign stats accordingly," but it's very harsh on trying to play with a preconceived character.

It also depends a lot on game. D&D is a game about fighting. That's where it puts its stakes. I'm not going to play a blind, washed out alcoholic dancer, unless I'm just trying to fight the system itself to see if I can make the character somehow survive.

[Kobold Esq]

Part of the problem is the impact that stats have.

In older editions of the game, frankly your stats didn't matter much except at the extremes. In newer editions, all of your stats are used to some degree for every character type (saves, skill points, skill checks etc).

[dps]

I'm real old school. I believe in rolling 3D6, in order, to generate stats. So my method would be to roll the stats first, then figure out what type of character would have those stats.

[Prime32]

Would you refrain from taking Natural Spell as your 6th level spell, because the druid you imagine would be represented better with Skill Focus (whatever)?

If I don't see the druid using Wild Shape much (maybe because he's multiclassed), yes. Otherwise no, it's too inconvenient when wild shape has a daily limit of uses. I would happily take the Shapeshifter druid ACF though (weaker than Wild Shape and no Natural Spell equivalent, but unlimited uses).

Would you refrain from taking Craven, because the daring outlaw you imagine is indeed a daredevil who's not afraid of anything?

Yes.

Would you give high Charisma to your barbarian not because you have any mechanical reason (like fear tactics) to do so, but because the barbarian you imagine is a chieftain with a tremendous force of personality?

The way I see it, it would be weird for a barbarian chieftain with tremendous force of personality not to be good at fear tactics. So no.

Would you play a middle-aged Rogue, sucking up the penalties and without serious benefits, because the thief you imagine happens to be 40 years old?

Yes, but not any further because then he would be too gimped to actually steal anything.

Would you play a dwarf bard or sorcerer (charisma hit applies), because you happened to imagine a dwarf bard or sorcerer?

Fortunately there is a sorcerer ACF which alleviates this. But yes. I might use a subrace which doesn't have a Cha penalty though.

Would you ever dump Constitution, because that's how you imagine your character?

Yes. In fact, I once built a character with 0 Dex who had to use control body on himself to move, though this was partly because physical stats were less important for such a character. However, spellcasters' d4 HD and poor Fort saves already represent fragility, so I wouldn't see a 16 Con wizard as particularly jarring.

Would you build Roy Greenhilt? High mental stats, no mental stat synergy whatsoever?

No, because I see abilities with mental stat synergies as something any intelligent fighter would develop naturally - Roy's situation is purely a result of game mechanics. If I wanted to build a character with his concept, I'd use a warblade.

[Greenish]

The method isn't simulation any more, it's... I don't know how to call it, really. I hesitate to call it "optimization", because I'm not talking about fancy stuff here, I'm talking about very basic things, as in "thou shall not dump Constitution."

It's optimization. It's not particularly high optimization, but still.

So, my question. This change of style is from my personal experience, but is it a universal trend? In fact, does anyone use the simulation method any more when creating a character?

Varies. I usually develop the crunch and the fluff in parallel, with both sides effecting the other as my "vision" evolves.

1. Would you refrain from taking Natural Spell as your 6th level spell, because the druid you imagine would be represented better with Skill Focus (whatever)?
2. Would you refrain from taking Craven, because the daring outlaw you imagine is indeed a daredevil who's not afraid of anything?
3. Would you give high Charisma to your barbarian not because you have any mechanical reason (like fear tactics) to do so, but because the barbarian you imagine is a chieftain with a tremendous force of personality?
4. Would you play a middle-aged Rogue, sucking up the penalties and without serious benefits, because the thief you imagine happens to be 40 years old?
5. Would you play a dwarf bard or sorcerer (charisma hit applies), because you happened to imagine a dwarf bard or sorcerer?
6. Would you ever dump Constitution, because that's how you imagine your character?
7. Would you build Roy Greenhilt? High mental stats, no mental stat synergy whatsoever?

1. Skill Focus? No, I don't see three points making a great difference IC. I might take Gatekeeper Initiate or something that actually has some bearing with the character's development, but probably not Skill Focus.
2. I might, though I might not go for Sneak Attack on a daring outlaw (archetype, not build) anyhow. Probably, though, I'd just counteract it with something like Uncanny Bravery.
3. If the character is a leader with strong personality, I'd give them a decent/good charisma, but then I would also wrung some mechanical synergy out from that. Or the other way around.
4. Probably not, but my characters tend to be young anyhow.
5. I'd probably use some trickery or subrace to counteract the penalty.
6. If I imagined my character as dead (or undead), yes. Sickly people of poor health aren't cut out for rough adventuring.
7. As above, I'd built him a warblade.

(All of the above assuming everyone in the group does the same, of course, no one aims for proper optimization, and the DM is aware of the arrangement.)

I always aim for proper optimization, to have a character who fits into the game.

[Arachu]

I usually think of something I want my character to do (like know obscure things or shoot fire out of his hands) and then build him accordingly.

I usually have a personality in mind (around the formula "acts decent, but he's a ******* sociopath that [insert crazy-ass ability]), and this allows me to build him with other properties in mind (like my psychotic Bard with medical skill).

Though, I admit that whatever class best fits my chosen skill-set, tends to have a heavy influence on ability allocation (and even when it doesn't, the character fits another class' chosen archetype anyway and I think of them as that class on some level).

I once took this to the extreme optimizing my aforementioned Bard, who (as a Bardic Sage with a headband and historic knowledge) only had to roll about 16 or so to make a DC 30 BK check. I made up for it by making him soft and cowardly.

The thought? "I want to make him so useful the other characters will hesitate to accuse him of murdering them".

[Partysan]

[SIZE="1"]Many years ago, when I started playing, character creation usually happened like this: The player would say something like "I imagine a wizard who is very smart, but gets distracted easily and his eyesight is a bit poor from years of reading. He likes to share what he knows and he's a good teacher, talkative and quite charming. He is moderately dexterous and not completely weak, but he has poor health, he coughs all the time and gets tired easily."

*snip*

So, my question. This change of style is from my personal experience, but is it a universal trend? In fact, does anyone use the simulation method any more when creating a character? Have you used it recently (or ever)? Have you seen it? Would you use it? Or is it an old thing that died for good?

This is in fact the method I commonly use and I encourage my players to do the same. However the "optimizing" method is something that's a problem in games like D&D that are designed in a stupid way and make representing certain character concepts rather difficult.

1. Would you refrain from taking Natural Spell as your 6th level spell, because the druid you imagine would be represented better with Skill Focus (whatever)?
2. Would you refrain from taking Craven, because the daring outlaw you imagine is indeed a daredevil who's not afraid of anything?
3. Would you give high Charisma to your barbarian not because you have any mechanical reason (like fear tactics) to do so, but because the barbarian you imagine is a chieftain with a tremendous force of personality?
4. Would you play a middle-aged Rogue, sucking up the penalties and without serious benefits, because the thief you imagine happens to be 40 years old?
5. Would you play a dwarf bard or sorcerer (charisma hit applies), because you happened to imagine a dwarf bard or sorcerer?
6. Would you ever dump Constitution, because that's how you imagine your character?
7. Would you build Roy Greenhilt? High mental stats, no mental stat synergy whatsoever?

]

1. I might refrain from taking Natural Spell and take a fluff feat instead, but Skill Focus is an extremely dumb feat and I wouldn't take it. If I want a character to be good at a certain skill I dump skillpoints into it or take a feat that lets me do cool stuff with the skill.
2. Yes, although I think the fluff part of Craven is needlessly restrictive, even stupidly so.
3. Anytime, yes.
4. Again, yes.
5. Sure.
6. Of course, although I guess I'd have him pick up Combat Expertise and Knowledge Devotion on the way.

[Xefas]

This change of style is from my personal experience, but is it a universal trend?

No, this is a product of D&D's design, and the behaviors that it rewards. If the only game you've ever played is D&D, then most of the problems you associate with roleplaying games in general, or social problems with your group, are probably products of D&D's design philosophy.

Play something else and see the difference. Easy answer is Burning Wheel.

[Talakeal]

[SIZE="1"]

1. Would you refrain from taking Natural Spell as your 6th level spell, because the druid you imagine would be represented better with Skill Focus (whatever)?
2. Would you refrain from taking Craven, because the daring outlaw you imagine is indeed a daredevil who's not afraid of anything?
3. Would you give high Charisma to your barbarian not because you have any mechanical reason (like fear tactics) to do so, but because the barbarian you imagine is a chieftain with a tremendous force of personality?
4. Would you play a middle-aged Rogue, sucking up the penalties and without serious benefits, because the thief you imagine happens to be 40 years old?
5. Would you play a dwarf bard or sorcerer (charisma hit applies), because you happened to imagine a dwarf bard or sorcerer?
6. Would you ever dump Constitution, because that's how you imagine your character?
7. Would you build Roy Greenhilt? High mental stats, no mental stat synergy whatsoever?

1: Yes, I take skill focus over mechanical advantages all the time.
2: I would not take it
3: I am Currently playing a barbarian with charisma as primary stat
4: I would not play an old character
5: Yes, although thats not a character concept that I would be likely to envision
6: I actually dumb con on almost all of my characters as it forced me to play smart and fast
7: Usually I do.

I find one of the big changes betwee third edition and fourth edition is that doing these things is a much bigger sacrifice than it used to be. Back in the old days of rolling stats and higher than 22 point buys you would have some extra points to go around while still keeping your mechanical attributes high, not so much anymore, nor is there as much encouragement to do so.

[squeekenator]

No to all. Well, actually the character I'm playing right now has low Con, but that's because he's an archer who needs other stats more, not because I wanted to fit a theme. One of the strengths of D&D 3.5 is the ability of a player to optimise their character, and while some people may not enjoy delving through every book ever written in search of some way to squeeze out an extra +1 to hit I find it almost as much fun as actually playing the game. Actually, now that I think about it it might be fun to try to make an effective fighter with 10 strength, but since I'd never really thought about it that way before I've always tried to make my characters as efficient as possible in the past. I prefer to build a cool character (in this case, an elven archer mounted on a griffin), make it useful so he can be credit to team and then figure out what his personality would be from the stats, feats, etc I gave him.

[Aron Times]

1. Would you refrain from taking Natural Spell as your 6th level spell, because the druid you imagine would be represented better with Skill Focus (whatever)?
2. Would you refrain from taking Craven, because the daring outlaw you imagine is indeed a daredevil who's not afraid of anything?
3. Would you give high Charisma to your barbarian not because you have any mechanical reason (like fear tactics) to do so, but because the barbarian you imagine is a chieftain with a tremendous force of personality?
4. Would you play a middle-aged Rogue, sucking up the penalties and without serious benefits, because the thief you imagine happens to be 40 years old?
5. Would you play a dwarf bard or sorcerer (charisma hit applies), because you happened to imagine a dwarf bard or sorcerer?
6. Would you ever dump Constitution, because that's how you imagine your character?
7. Would you build Roy Greenhilt? High mental stats, no mental stat synergy whatsoever?

1. Skill Focus is useless unless you need it for a good prestige class. It doesn't really make enough of a difference to justify the feat expenditure. However, I won't be taking Natural Spell because I prefer the nerfed druid variant from the PHB2, which doesn't get Wildshape and gets at-will Shapeshifting instead.

2. I avoid most feats that force me to roleplay in a certain way.

3. A barbarian warchief is better represented by the Leadership feat than by pumping a dump stat, although having a good charisma does make Leadership better.

4. Yes, if I'm roleplaying a middle-aged character. In 4e, I can just give him a lower than usual Constitution score to represent his age since 4e doesn't have an aging mechanic.

5. One of my recurring characters in 4e is Nurzhan of the Oasis, a half-orc swordmage. Half-orcs don't get a bonus to intelligence in 4e, but they do get a bonus to strength, a swordmage secondary stat for some builds.

6. No. I am of the opinion that low con characters have no business being adventurers.

7. No.

As further clarification, I come up with characters by describing them without using game mechanics. For example, my recurring sorcerer, Aron Times, is a privileged member of the Evil Empire (or similar organization) who is a good person deep inside. Note that this does not pigeonhole him into a specific race or class, nor does it dictate his personality (Good does not have to be nice), nor his stats.

The Forgotten Realms version of Aron Times is a Netherese sorcerer who is a genuinely good person that treats everyone, Netherese or not, with respect. However, he is ultimately loyal to the Netherese Empire, which he hopes to change for the better from the inside.

Another version of Aron Times is a member of a greedy merchant cartel that has a monopoly of the region. This version of Aron tries to balance his duties to the group with his compassion for the people. If he is too generous, he will be disowned by his family and lose standing with the cartel. If he is too ruthless, he abandons his morals and becomes a worse person for it. He needs to balance generosity and ruthlessness to maintain standing in the cartel so he can change it from within.

Once I decide on my character's mechanics (class, race, stats, items, etc.), I integrate those mechanics into his background and his personality. For example, the Netherese Aron Times would be a human dragon sorcerer with the following stats:

Strength 16 - Secondary stat.
Constitution 10 - Dump stat.
Dexterity 12 - Needed for Dual Implement Spellcaster feat.
Intelligence 12 - Needed for Jack of All Trades and Linguist at Paragon tier.
Wisdom 8 - Dump stat.
Charisma 18 - Primary stat.

In addition to being a good person with good standing in the evil empire, Aron is a charming, smart, and athletic person. He is a sorcerer who wields staff and dagger to channel his Dragon Magic, and he speaks five languages and knows a little bit of everything.

Sometimes I start with the stats and then figure out my character's background and personality, but the abovementioned process is my default methodology for creating characters.

[Ajadea]

1. Would you refrain from taking Natural Spell as your 6th level spell, because the druid you imagine would be represented better with Skill Focus (whatever)?
2. Would you refrain from taking Craven, because the daring outlaw you imagine is indeed a daredevil who's not afraid of anything?
3. Would you give high Charisma to your barbarian not because you have any mechanical reason (like fear tactics) to do so, but because the barbarian you imagine is a chieftain with a tremendous force of personality?
4. Would you play a middle-aged Rogue, sucking up the penalties and without serious benefits, because the thief you imagine happens to be 40 years old?
5. Would you play a dwarf bard or sorcerer (charisma hit applies), because you happened to imagine a dwarf bard or sorcerer?
6. Would you ever dump Constitution, because that's how you imagine your character?
7. Would you build Roy Greenhilt? High mental stats, no mental stat synergy whatsoever?

1. There is no character concept that requires Skill Focus that badly. Ever. But I have at least one concept that involves a lot of Wild Feats and no actual wildshaping.
2. Yes.
3. The idea of a barbarian chieftain who doesn't have at least a basic grasp of fear tactics is amusing. So, no, technically.
4. Yes, in theory. In practice, I find myself playing young characters because I'm a kid.
5. Yep.
6. A character with Constitution lower than 8 has no business adventuring. The only time I've done that, it was 4d6b3 in order, so it wasn't really my choice.
7. I tend to grab Combat Expertise or a monk dip, but I do this a lot, because I have a hard time tolerating extending roleplaying of characters with Int lower than 13.

[Atcote]

I usually encourage my players (I seem to have landed in the 'DM' bubble for a while now) to imagine their character before they start, and then, when they roll up their stats, adjust if need be (for example, you planned for your Wizard to be absent-minded, but your lowest roll is actually still an okay Wisdom score - just re-imagine a little to suit his new decent skills).

However, for my partner, who's somewhat judgmental of her own creative abilities when it comes to characters, first we roll up stats and THEN she creates a character around them - essentially using them stats as an initial canvas, which can work as a good booster.

As for not choosing something because it'd be 'out of character', or choosing a less than optimal feature because it fits character?
I do it all the time. It can lead to some great jokes if it all works out well (in 3.5 I played a character who was basically Aquaman... By accident. Oh, the hilarity).
On the otherhand, it may have led to the various deaths of those characters, but oh well, that's part of their story.
The risk here is pissing off your party for being 'sub-optimal', but in that, just try to be as useful as possible (I mean, your hero doesn't WANT to be useless, does he?) and not get in other people's ways, and usually you'll be able to have all the character-based creation fun you want.

[Incanur]

Certain concepts have an inherent difficulty. For example, under any reasonable system, a weak and uncoordinated warrior would be a significant disadvantage. Others simply don't mesh with 3.x rules. I find the mechanical emphasis on Con especially annoying. Within the human range, greater toughness won't do much to protect you against a sword stroke or raging flames. Without the silliness of hit points, a mage would need magic for protection and natural difference wouldn't matter much.

Now, I have had plenty of players who've knowingly chosen suboptimal ability arrangements for roleplaying reasons. In moderate, this isn't a big deal. But be careful playing any sort of character with a Con penalty.

[Bobby Archer]

I land very much on the side of simulation. Recently, the ST of an Exalted game I'm playing in figured out how optimized our characters were. Mine was dead last with a bullet.

Honestly, I find the urge to make uber-optimized characters a little annoying. I understand that it's some people's playstyle and it's fun for them, but I have no interest in it. I don't get to play D&D as much as I might otherwise because most of the people I know who play D&D are more on the optimization side.

[Goober4473]

In D&D, I actually like that I can make stats first, then imagine why a character would be that way. It's one of the things D&D does quite well.

It's not something I always do, and it usually ends up as a back-and-forth, where I have a character idea, then I see a cool feat or class or whatever that would work well for that concept, and that gives me more ideas for the character's personality, backstory, etc.

I find this improves the creative process. I end up with characters I never would have imagined on my own.

In other systems, it's harder to do that. In GURPS, for instance, it's very difficult to statistically build a charater without first knowing almost everything about them as a person. On the otherhand, in GURPS, it's much easier to make a character that you already have a really good picture of in your mind.

[Tvtyrant]

[SIZE="1"]
1. Would you refrain from taking Natural Spell as your 6th level spell, because the druid you imagine would be represented better with Skill Focus (whatever)?
2. Would you refrain from taking Craven, because the daring outlaw you imagine is indeed a daredevil who's not afraid of anything?
3. Would you give high Charisma to your barbarian not because you have any mechanical reason (like fear tactics) to do so, but because the barbarian you imagine is a chieftain with a tremendous force of personality?
4. Would you play a middle-aged Rogue, sucking up the penalties and without serious benefits, because the thief you imagine happens to be 40 years old?
5. Would you play a dwarf bard or sorcerer (charisma hit applies), because you happened to imagine a dwarf bard or sorcerer?
6. Would you ever dump Constitution, because that's how you imagine your character?
7. Would you build Roy Greenhilt? High mental stats, no mental stat synergy whatsoever?

1. Yes. However this would rarely happen as I feel my characters image is as much about what they can do as what they look like. I made a Cleric/Monk that used the Destruction Domain and War Domain to allow it to fly through the air while firing Disintegrates as a wizard would. Why? Because that is what I wanted to do.
2. I would never use it anyway, so yes. Fear doesn't make you better at stabbing people usually; if I was playing a terrified Rogue it would be an archer like Hailey.
3. I would say yes, though I would probably take the fear effects to match. Afterall, Charismatic people in a tribal society=terrifying.
4. Yup. I also have played an alcoholic Cleric with levels in Drunken Master, which is much weaker then taking more Cleric levels.
5. No, because that couldn't possibly match my image of a Dwarf. But if it did, yes.
6. Have done so before, probably will do so in the future (On a Fighter no less; I wanted to fight without armor and needed to pump dex. It actually worked out weirdly enough.)
7. Yup, if I felt there was a reason for it.

[Viktyr Gehrig]

I have somewhat of a reputation as an optimizer in my groups, but I do think of a character first and then apply the mechanics. I don't take feats or abilities that don't fit with how I imagine the character.

On the other hand, I want to play a big damn hero when I play, so I don't dream up incompetent character concepts in the first place. I refuse to play a character that is not good at what he does best.

[dsmiles]

Note: My experience with this if from D&D, but I suppose that it applies to all RPGs with mental and physical stats.

Many years ago, when I started playing, character creation usually happened like this: The player would say something like "I imagine a wizard who is very smart, but gets distracted easily and his eyesight is a bit poor from years of reading. He likes to share what he knows and he's a good teacher, talkative and quite charming. He is moderately dexterous and not completely weak, but he has poor health, he coughs all the time and gets tired easily."

And from there, he'd proceed assigning stats. In the above case, he would say: "So, we have INT > CHA > DEX > STR > WIS > CON."

In short, players could very well choose to assign stats "the wrong way", having a mental image of their character in mind and trying to represent it mechanically. The method was simulation. Key word: "imagine".

Nowadays, I don't see that happen a lot, and I don't do it myself a lot (if at all). Instead, the norm is something like this:

"I'm taking a wizard, so I have INT > CON > DEX > WIS > CHA > STR. Therefore, my wizard is very smart, healthy and sturdy, quite dexterous, somewhat perspective, hardly charismatic, and very weak."

In short, players pick stats first, addressing mechanical concerns, and from there proceed to interpret these numbers as their character's strengths and weaknesses. The method isn't simulation any more, it's... I don't know how to call it, really. I hesitate to call it "optimization", because I'm not talking about fancy stuff here, I'm talking about very basic things, as in "thou shall not dump Constitution."

I should note that completely irrational choices, like dumping your casting stat, were never an option. Even in the old days, no one ever did that. And I guess the distinction between the simulation method and whatever it is we're doing now applies not only to allocating stats, but also choosing feats and generally customizing your build.
So, my question. This change of style is from my personal experience, but is it a universal trend? In fact, does anyone use the simulation method any more when creating a character? Have you used it recently (or ever)? Have you seen it? Would you use it? Or is it an old thing that died for good?

Yes. I've been playing a long time, and I still do it. I really don't feel the need to optimize very much at all. I play in a low-op group, and I love it.

Some examples:


Would you refrain from taking Natural Spell as your 6th level spell, because the druid you imagine would be represented better with Skill Focus (whatever)?

Not that I play druids all that often, but yes.

Would you refrain from taking Craven, because the daring outlaw you imagine is indeed a daredevil who's not afraid of anything?

Absolutely.

Would you give high Charisma to your barbarian not because you have any mechanical reason (like fear tactics) to do so, but because the barbarian you imagine is a chieftain with a tremendous force of personality?

Yep.

Would you play a middle-aged Rogue, sucking up the penalties and without serious benefits, because the thief you imagine happens to be 40 years old?

Probably, I'm a bigger fan of the random starting age table, but I'd probably give it a shot.

Would you play a dwarf bard or sorcerer (charisma hit applies), because you happened to imagine a dwarf bard or sorcerer?

I've done that. Dwarven Sorcerer in da house!

Would you ever dump Constitution, because that's how you imagine your character?

Yes, I have and I will.

Would you build Roy Greenhilt? High mental stats, no mental stat synergy whatsoever?

Absolutely. I've played the tactical genius fighter before.

(All of the above assuming everyone in the group does the same, of course, no one aims for proper optimization, and the DM is aware of the arrangement.)


P.S. I have no value judgments whatsoever for either method, both are entirely valid if they suit your group's style. But you know what? I realized that I have missed simulation. I have some memorable characters from that era that I couldn't possibly build now. [Or, I'm just getting old and succumbing to nostalgia. ]

Meh, it's not really nostalgia. It's the realization that not everyone likes optimizing. I was a heavy optimizer for a couple of years, and it got boring. All my characters felt the same. I stopped thinking about stats, and started feeling the characters again, and DnD became fun again.

[Incanur]

It's frustrating that 3.x D&D creates such a difference between optimized and non-optimized characters.

[Mastikator]

In fact, does anyone use the simulation method any more when creating a character? Have you used it recently (or ever)? Have you seen it? Would you use it? Or is it an old thing that died for good?

I do, if I wanted to play a min-maxed character with fluff to justify stats (rather than the other way around) I'd play a computer RPG.
Which I do.

I don't get to play pen & paper as often as I get to play on the computer so I divvy up the playstyles on the respective platforms that performs best for given task. Pen and paper is freer and more open than CRPG, it allows real roleplaying. I savor the moments I have.

Edit- it should be noted I don't play D&D, or any other game that demands minmaxing to be a priority.

[Captain Six]

1. Would you refrain from taking Natural Spell as your 6th level spell, because the druid you imagine would be represented better with Skill Focus (whatever)?
2. Would you refrain from taking Craven, because the daring outlaw you imagine is indeed a daredevil who's not afraid of anything?
3. Would you give high Charisma to your barbarian not because you have any mechanical reason (like fear tactics) to do so, but because the barbarian you imagine is a chieftain with a tremendous force of personality?
4. Would you play a middle-aged Rogue, sucking up the penalties and without serious benefits, because the thief you imagine happens to be 40 years old?
5. Would you play a dwarf bard or sorcerer (charisma hit applies), because you happened to imagine a dwarf bard or sorcerer?
6. Would you ever dump Constitution, because that's how you imagine your character?
7. Would you build Roy Greenhilt? High mental stats, no mental stat synergy whatsoever?

1. I was about to say no but then I realized I already did. My barbarian already had power attack so I was pretty much set in terms of feats, so I picked up Skill Focus: Craft Cooking. He had a passion for killing and cooking monstrosities that no one has ever eaten before.

2. Probably, although I've never run into that feat before.

3. Yes-ish. I go back and forth between character and effectiveness when creating characters. If I had a barbarian the highest goes into Strength. Then I look at the character, in this case putting charisma as second.

4. Middle aged yes. But after that the stat penalties start to grow to heavy for the character to be justified in the game world itself; an old fighter is going to be a bad fighter. There is a line between playing a unoptimized character and playing a gimped one.

5. Change it to a Half-Orc Wizard or a Halfing Barbarian and yes, I would. Dwarves aren't my thing.

6. I prefer dodge-tanks to HP tanks so I normally dump con. I'll also look to stock up on DR anywhere I can. My philosophy is if something manages to hit me I deserve to die. HP is so abstract that constitution doesn't mean much to the characters for me. Even the most sickly wizard is going to eventually out-HP and elephant.

7. That's more complicated. I have never played a game where characters are aware of their own class so I really can't say, the closest I've gotten was playing a Monk and refusing to multiclass or prestige class. Roy is a Fighter out of pride, he has the meta-awareness of his own class and sticks with it stubbornly just to prove a point. And I always assumed Roy just happened to roll straight 16's anyway, the man is way to well rounded AND effective to have an array or point-buy.


p.s.
D&D 3.5 I think had this whole problem in mind when it was made. All the stats and all the alignments are so vague that they justify anything. The surplus of alignment arguments proves that just about any act can be viewed as just about any alignment.

As for stats having low wisdom can mean that a character isn't very rational so they often throw themselves needlessly into the middle of danger, while having high wisdom can mean that a character is so well aware of their surroundings and skilled at thinking on the spot that they don't bother planning ahead and often throw themselves needlessly into the middle of danger. Interpretations for high strength can range from how big your muscles are to how knowledgeable you are on leverage and maximizing the potential of the muscles you have, a godsend for anyone who wants to swing a sword well without being a barrel. And don't get me started on the mess of barely-related traits that is Charisma: Force of personality, social wit, musical talent, good looking, leadership skills, etc..

[Lord.Sorasen]

1. Would you refrain from taking Natural Spell as your 6th level spell, because the druid you imagine would be represented better with Skill Focus (whatever)?
2. Would you refrain from taking Craven, because the daring outlaw you imagine is indeed a daredevil who's not afraid of anything?
3. Would you give high Charisma to your barbarian not because you have any mechanical reason (like fear tactics) to do so, but because the barbarian you imagine is a chieftain with a tremendous force of personality?
4. Would you play a middle-aged Rogue, sucking up the penalties and without serious benefits, because the thief you imagine happens to be 40 years old?
5. Would you play a dwarf bard or sorcerer (charisma hit applies), because you happened to imagine a dwarf bard or sorcerer?
6. Would you ever dump Constitution, because that's how you imagine your character?
7. Would you build Roy Greenhilt? High mental stats, no mental stat synergy whatsoever?

1. I am having a lot of trouble imagining where skill focus would really be a thing for a character I'd make. If my character is a druid, chances are I imagine that his "magical bear" aspect is a big one. So probably not. I guess it could happen, though.

2. I don't know what craven is. But I would basically never take a class feature that goes directly against my character concept.

3. I guess I would, but I think if I was playing a chieftan, I would have fear tactics.

4. Yes, and no. Middle aged would give me what... -1 to physical and mental stats? If I'm playing an older rogue I think I would focus on int, because in my mind, any rogue who is still in the limelight at an older age manages do to his mind rather than his physique. I have tried to play a fighter at the old age, but I never got a chance to do it.

5. In a heartbeat. On the other hand, I never really cared for the idea of bard sorcerers or bards, because I feel the stats mean they would be naturally bad at it as a species and would avoid it. Still, I'd do it if it's what I wanted to do.

6. I dump constitution all the time.

7. For Roy's improved skillpoints and knowledge, perhaps. But no advantage? No way. I can't imagine in the real world anybody going entirely against their stat array. If I have something others around me don't, I'm going to take advantage of it. So I would play a straight fighter with high intelligence, but I'm picking up the improved X line, and I'm taking advantage of my skill points.

[Lonely Tylenol]

So, my question. This change of style is from my personal experience, but is it a universal trend? In fact, does anyone use the simulation method any more when creating a character? Have you used it recently (or ever)? Have you seen it? Would you use it? Or is it an old thing that died for good?

There's a Bardbarian in my 3.5 group who has a crazy high STR and CHA stat (the key stats of Barbarian and Bard, respectively), but dumped CON. I don't know if it was from a role-playing perspective or not, because he always plays the tough-guy persona.

As a Wizard, I assigned my stats the way I wanted to (high INT, WIS, and DEX; decent CON; poor STR and CHA), but that in itself made sense for metagame purposes as well as for player purposes. My character is the bookish type, spending his childhood years reading and practicing in the arcane arts under the tutelage of a powerful master; physically frail, but otherwise hale and healthy; is fleet of foot, partially because of cowardice and partially because he's just very light and moves about easily; and is socially awkward and unremarkable looks-wise. High INT and WIS make sense for the large amount of time spent both learning from books and under the wise teachings of the master; low STR and high DEX make sense for being physically weak, and learning to avoid fights and run instead; and low CHA makes sense for being awkward and uncomfortable in social situations. The only thing that you could argue doesn't make sense is the decent CON stat, but I had the good fortune of rolling four fairly good stats, and STR and CHA were weaker fits.

Would I keep these stats the way they were if I was playing a Barbarian or Paladin? No, but a Barbarian doesn't commit their early years to book-learning (in fact, most are illiterate) and Paladins are, by their nature, strong of body and mind, are paragons of virtue, and are chivalrous in nature, meaning they tend toward high STR and CHA by virtue of their character development as well as from a metagame perspective.

Would you refrain from taking Natural Spell as your 6th level spell, because the druid you imagine would be represented better with Skill Focus (whatever)?

I have Skill Focus (Spellcraft) on my Wizard. Does that count?

Would you refrain from taking Craven, because the daring outlaw you imagine is indeed a daredevil who's not afraid of anything?

I've already done this. My Rogue wouldn't take Craven, because he is a daredevil who's not afraid to take chances to advance his own ends.

Then again, it's a Pathfinder game, and I'm pretty sure non-SRD material is out.

Would you give high Charisma to your barbarian not because you have any mechanical reason (like fear tactics) to do so, but because the barbarian you imagine is a chieftain with a tremendous force of personality?

I've done this for Barbarian NPCs (a Half-Orc leading an Orc tribe), but I probably wouldn't as a character, because I imagine most Barbarian chieftains rising to power by display of force.

Would you play a middle-aged Rogue, sucking up the penalties and without serious benefits, because the thief you imagine happens to be 40 years old?

Perhaps. I tend to roleplay younger characters, though (and I myself am in my early twenties).

Would you play a dwarf bard or sorcerer (charisma hit applies), because you happened to imagine a dwarf bard or sorcerer?

Sorcerer, no; I imagine Dwarves as being distrustful of that sort of magic.

Bard, yes.

Would you ever dump Constitution, because that's how you imagine your character?

Not as a matter of character development, but perhaps as a plot point; for example, I wouldn't make an otherwise normal character who just dumps CON (because most people of the adventuring sort are generally healthy), but as a character who has set out to try and find a cure for the mysterious, long-standing curse that has plagued him (and perhaps his village), or a venerable (cough) old Sorcerer who, in his last throes of life, is trying desperately to cheat death by any means possible, yes. The former may find it cured and the latter may turn to lichdom, however, rendering the whole issue null.

The fact of the matter is, most people aren't in poor health, and those that are don't want to be.

Would you build Roy Greenhilt? High mental stats, no mental stat synergy whatsoever?

Not likely. Again, this harkens down to the fact that somebody who is physically weak or average, but mentally strong, would never take sword over spell; they'd play to their natural strengths in their pursuit of survival. A character that is physically weak or average will inevitably turn to the arcane arts to circumvent their own weakness as is, even from a role-playing perspective, especially if they're naturally intelligent.

It should be noted, though, that I HAVE played a Rogue that was naturally intelligent and charismatic, but not very strong (this is the same Rogue that is mentioned above, regarding Craven; incidentally, he also has a miserable WIS). I think that, if it came down to it, if somebody took to the sword, and they weren't particularly strong in their own right, this is the direction they'd inevitably take on their own; surviving by wits and skill, and resorting to every dirty trick in the book if need be.

So no, I'd probably never make a tactical Fighter or Barbarian, but I would (and have) made a tactical melee character.

EDIT:

4. Yes, and no. Middle aged would give me what... -1 to physical and mental stats? If I'm playing an older rogue I think I would focus on int, because in my mind, any rogue who is still in the limelight at an older age manages do to his mind rather than his physique. I have tried to play a fighter at the old age, but I never got a chance to do it.

You get -1 to physical stats, and +1 to mental stats. The INT-based Rogue would benefit from this (at least outside of combat).