Fluff vs Mechanics - Characters

[Silus]

So, something that I'm kinda sorta wondering, when you, dear reader, are making a character for a game, what is more important to you? The fluff behind the character, or how they function mechanically? Also, why is that?

For example, would you make an intentionally mechanically flawed character for the sake or RP or, inversely, forego the fluff and character development in favor of a mechanically superior character that is questionable on an RP standpoint?

I...hope I'm being clear with the questions...

[NichG]

I suspect this is not going to get you really useful answers, since most people will assert that they just do both.

Instead, maybe it would be better to narrow it down somehow to something that is more concrete - say, whether or not there are particular races/classes/templates/feats/etc where, if you weren't allowed to change the fluff, you would stay away from them because of the fluff even though you like the mechanics side of them.

[Silus]

I suspect this is not going to get you really useful answers, since most people will assert that they just do both.

Instead, maybe it would be better to narrow it down somehow to something that is more concrete - say, whether or not there are particular races/classes/templates/feats/etc where, if you weren't allowed to change the fluff, you would stay away from them because of the fluff even though you like the mechanics side of them.

Honestly, this is mostly an "out of curiosity" thread. The question popped into my head while I was fiddling with my scanner.

[Hyena]

Eh, sort of. I dislike making casters or, in Saga, force-sensitive characters, so one might say that I'm sorta sacrificing power for flavour. But then again, there's no freaking way I'm taking skill focus (profession - vaquero) instead of point blank shot.

[erikun]

Am I the only one who hates the term "fluff"? It makes the story and motivations of a character sound pointless, extraneous, trivial, and just something that "tastes nice" but adds nothing to the character.


As for the topic, the character concept/story comes first. While there can be mechanics that make me interested in a particular type of character, even then, it is a matter of "That is such a neat idea for a character!" rather than just throwing numbers together and trying to piece together a reason for them. I could certainly do so, but such characters frequently end up weak and uninteresting.

Once I have the concept for a character, I look at the mechanics for how to get the character to work right. This generally means optimization, and although some optimization isn't going to be right for the character (I'm not making the front line knight from a Wizard typically) I want the character to be competent at... well, what the concept is supposed to be competent at.

Backstory is generally put together at this point as well, assuming I didn't have one already. Generally, the backstory and the mechanics end up separate. Unless some part of the mechanics requires some details in the backstory, the two aren't really going to interact much.

[CarpeGuitarrem]

I can't believe I found the thread before someone came in with "STORMWIND!"

I like to make them in synchrocity, and there's some games which enable that better than others. I like mechanics to suit my character concept...but there's a lot of times that I inform and change my character concept because the mechanics restrict or inspire me. I tend to flux between both, and it varies by game.

(Some games, the mechanical element serves as my basis for the character!)

[Knaight]

For example, would you make an intentionally mechanically flawed character for the sake or RP or, inversely, forego the fluff and character development in favor of a mechanically superior character that is questionable on an RP standpoint?

You're going to need to define mechanically flawed for this to work. I'd consider a character mechanically flawed if the mechanics don't back up what they are supposed to do, regardless of what that is. For instance, Shotgun Diaries has a character archetype that is supposed to be a worthless load on the party, but that the party wants to keep around. If they are actually effective at doing things, they are mechanically flawed. If the mechanics incentivize getting rid of them, they are mechanically flawed. Neither of these are the case, but it illustrates one definition of mechanically flawed that conflicts with others.

Under that definition, I don't want mechanical flaws. If I'm trying to play a bumbling merchant caught up in things way over their head, they should be bumbling and not suave, and should have limited combat capability. If I'm trying to play a talented warrior who really is good at most things he does, but is an arrogant tool who insists on doing everything himself because of this (even when the other party members are legitimately better) then they need to have high capabilities across the board, but stay below specialist level, while any role playing type mechanics need to emphasize the control freak tendencies and arrogance.

[squiggit]

Generally I focus on mechanics because fluff is malleable. I can change the way an ability or spell or mechanic is visually represented in the game but I can't change what it actually does.

And really the two aren't mutually exclusive: You can't roleplay a badass gunslinger if he's mechanically unable to outfight even the most basic of enemies.

I never understood why some people wear terrible system mastery and character execution as if it were a badge of honor.

[zionpopsickle]

Am I the only one who hates the term "fluff"? It makes the story and motivations of a character sound pointless, extraneous, trivial, and just something that "tastes nice" but adds nothing to the character.


As for the topic, the character concept/story comes first. While there can be mechanics that make me interested in a particular type of character, even then, it is a matter of "That is such a neat idea for a character!" rather than just throwing numbers together and trying to piece together a reason for them. I could certainly do so, but such characters frequently end up weak and uninteresting.

Once I have the concept for a character, I look at the mechanics for how to get the character to work right. This generally means optimization, and although some optimization isn't going to be right for the character (I'm not making the front line knight from a Wizard typically) I want the character to be competent at... well, what the concept is supposed to be competent at.

Backstory is generally put together at this point as well, assuming I didn't have one already. Generally, the backstory and the mechanics end up separate. Unless some part of the mechanics requires some details in the backstory, the two aren't really going to interact much.

I think people tend to use the word fluff too loosely when discussing D&D and use it to encompass both meaningless, character-adding details and important story elements the inform the characters personality, goals and motivations. These two things are very different but are usually just both called fluff.

That being said, I think NichG is right because the nature of D&D tends to entwine mechanics and story even when it doesn't mean to. Even saying something like "I want to be the besterest Wizard evah!" doesn't just provide mechanics but provides some story elements of the character. Now, this is a very childish backstory to provide for your character but it still gives a smart DM a plethora of plot hooks that can be given to the character (search for lost spells, magic artifacts, win the wizard world cup, etc.).

[NichG]

Am I the only one who hates the term "fluff"? It makes the story and motivations of a character sound pointless, extraneous, trivial, and just something that "tastes nice" but adds nothing to the character.

I absolutely agree with this. What would be a better term? I don't want to define it by what it isn't, either. What about 'context'? So you have the mechanics and the context? Does that actually capture it?

[CarpeGuitarrem]

I absolutely agree with this. What would be a better term? I don't want to define it by what it isn't, either. What about 'context'? So you have the mechanics and the context? Does that actually capture it?

If it's a roleplaying game, "meat" might be a better term. Mechanics being a skeleton that you build on. The story and the passions of your character are what invigorate them. They're a vitality.

[NichG]

If it's a roleplaying game, "meat" might be a better term. Mechanics being a skeleton that you build on. The story and the passions of your character are what invigorate them. They're a vitality.

Well there's three things then. Generally when people talk about fluff, its not 'characterization' but rather the things that are in the book which specify details of your character that are non-mechanical. The fact that your cleric likes poetry is characterization. The fact that your (Forgotten Realms) cleric must worship a deity, must be within two steps of the deity's alignment, and gets domains based on that particular deity is usually something that would generally be referred to as 'fluff'.

So maybe Skeleton, Meat, Flesh? Skeleton is the mechanics, Meat is the where Flesh meets Mechanics - things where the mechanical things you have somehow constrain the shape of your characterization, and Flesh is the characterization, the actual 'world-facing' part of the character that sees play.

[ElenionAncalima]

And really the two aren't mutually exclusive: You can't roleplay a badass gunslinger if he's mechanically unable to outfight even the most basic of enemies.

I agree with this. Personally, I don't think that a character with a 10 page backstory, but who is unable to do anything, is particularly cool. Likewise, I'm not overly interested in character who can decimate every ecounter, but has no personality or motivations outside of clearing the battlefield.

Generally, I tend to start with the mechanics I want to play. As that starts shaping up, I begin figuring out who the character is and why they would have these abilities. From there I do any tweaks I want to the mechanics, to make the character fit their personality better.

[Scow2]

And really the two aren't mutually exclusive: You can't roleplay a badass gunslinger if he's mechanically unable to outfight even the most basic of enemies.

But how do you roleplay as a badass gunslinger when you're actually a batman wizard with color sprays and black tentacles out the wazoo because that's the more optimal choice?

[valadil]

I suspect this is not going to get you really useful answers, since most people will assert that they just do both.

Presenting exhibit A:

I do both by starting with fluff. I make up a character with a history, personality, etc and then find mechanics that support him. Usually I can come up with more than one implimentation of that character without losing fidelity and I go with the most powerful. If none of them are mechanically sound, I shelf the character and try him again in some other system.

[Knaight]

But how do you roleplay as a badass gunslinger when you're actually a batman wizard with color sprays and black tentacles out the wazoo because that's the more optimal choice?

The problem at hand is badass gunslinger. A wizard is a very suboptimal choice for that, on account of being a terrible model.

[Tengu_temp]

Fluff all the way. I like building strong characters and am a powergamer at heart, but being flavorful is incredibly more important than being mechanically optimized. I favour games that are heavy on RP, and how are you supposed to play such a game if your character is just Generic McWizard?

[Waar]

So, something that I'm kinda sorta wondering, when you, dear reader, are making a character for a game, what is more important to you? The fluff behind the character, or how they function mechanically? Also, why is that?

For example, would you make an intentionally mechanically flawed character for the sake or RP or, inversely, forego the fluff and character development in favor of a mechanically superior character that is questionable on an RP standpoint?

When creating a character I (usually) first start with an idea or a concept and then try to build this mechanically, but the concept is sometimes inspired by the mechanics.

In effect I get a positive reinforcment loop between concept and mechanics, wich unfortunately makes the question of importance less clear.

Additionally both concept and mehcanics sometimes have to let the other go first, since competence is often a part of the concept that might stop other choices.

In short: I find that they enhance each other.

Edit:

But then again, there's no way I'm taking skill focus (profession - vaquero) instead of point blank shot.

What, do you have something against skill focus(social scinece)

[BWR]

While both are a concern, the relationship between the two can vary. It depends on the setting and the mechanics. Sometimes I just want to play a certain type of character from a certain place/organization/faction/whatever and there are certain mechanics that naturally lend themselves to that type of character. Sometimes I like certain mechanics and try to build something that fits the fluff.

I am not an optimizer to the extent that many on these boards are. I can easily pick up mechanics that don't directly improve the character's focus. It depends a bit on the system. In L5R, for instance, or what little I've played of oWoD, having a wide variety of skills at a low rank can be a very useful since you will often get into situations requiring a wide variety of general and specific skills, in addition to your specialities.
In d20 I can easily play a straight Fighter with Weapon Focus and Wp. Specialization because it fits the concept. Sure, I'll grouse a bit about how they aren't all that good, but I have on several occasions made similar choices.

[malmblad]

The problem at hand is badass gunslinger. A wizard is a very suboptimal choice for that, on account of being a terrible model.

Unless the wizard has a couple wands holstered. Granted technically he would be a badass wandslinger, but the characterization would pan out the same.

[SiuiS]

Both of those options are in fact terrible. I design characters around fluff, but I optimize the hell out of them to make them as functional as their fluff says they should be.

If I play an incompetent character I will handicap them yes. But I will also make terrible ideas work;

Spoiler: example

Show

elivaris Tresorwin came from a specific family of elves from the DM's brother's home game from 1e forward, and they were known as melee power houses, psychotics, and much stronger than a normal elf (all stats were in the 19s in 2e). He came out as a "paladin" warlock/fighter/eldritch knight with retraining level shenanigans, monkey grip to dual world a tower shield and great sword and quicken spell like ability so he could "smite" with hideous blow invocation more than once per round. Crazy optimized, very little utility, and his durability came from magical Adamantine armor (read "as much of my loot as RAW legal after wealth shenanigans) and sheer psychotic pig-headedness, going so far as to create roads through swamps and deserts by rigging a cow catcher to his horse and channeling eldritch blast through it to glass the terrain.

Asking people if they go for fluff or optimize is creating a false dichotomy that is at the heart of the Stormwind fallacy.



That said, I'm also generally laid back. I nowadays make deals; I could optimize feats and stuff to get, say, a wizard in full armor with perfect magical flight and infinite magic missile at level 2, but I would rather ask the DM if we can home brew something I want than kludge it together with mechanics that might also ruin his game (such as the necessary skills I want requiring Int so high he can't save against my spells. Oops.)

[erikun]

I absolutely agree with this. What would be a better term? I don't want to define it by what it isn't, either. What about 'context'? So you have the mechanics and the context? Does that actually capture it?

I've been using "story" or "characterization", depending on if we're talking about a setting or a character. I will typically stick with "story" if we're talking in general, because even characters can have a story about them.

Mechanics and story. Neither one sounds irrelevant, and both are freely changeable and can be swapped out if the group doesn't like what they have.

[NichG]

"Story" is a specific incidence though. I think it might be misleading. Would you call it 'story' that red dragons, in general, like to hoard loot?

[erikun]

Yes, I'd call that part of the story. It creates a different story if red dragons prefer to melt their loot down into pools of molten metal, or if red dragons prefer to kidnap singers and turn them into statues instead.

[Tragak]

I never understood why some people wear terrible system mastery and character execution as if it were a badge of honor.

The way I've heard it defended is: "If you spend all of your time making your character as powerful as possible, then by the time you get to the actual game you are playing on Easy. If you make your character less capable compared to the antagonists, then you are playing on Legendary."

[Tengu_temp]

The way I've heard it defended is: "If you spend all of your time making your character as powerful as possible, then by the time you get to the actual game you are playing on Easy. If you make your character less capable compared to the antagonists, then you are playing on Legendary."

Faulty, because the DM can (and most likely will) adjust the power level of the enemies you face to the party's power level. Also, combat in most RPGs is more about luck and resource expenditure than skill.

There are two big problems with powergaming:
1. If you limit yourself only to optimal choices, then powergaming seriously limits your options. What's the purely mechanical point of buying charisma for a DND wizard, for example? Or playing any but the top-tier classes?
2. If you powergame without taking the optimization level of the rest of the party under consideration, then you might end up becoming much more powerful than them, steal the spotlight and make the game unfun for them.
Fortunately, both of those issues can be easily avoided if you have them in mind while making your character. And good, because I wouldn't want to play with someone who'd brush them off as unimportant; especially the second one.

[squiggit]

But how do you roleplay as a badass gunslinger when you're actually a batman wizard with color sprays and black tentacles out the wazoo because that's the more optimal choice?

Well first I'd argue that wizard might not be the best model for a gunslinger in the system. Ignoring that though you might be able to refluff it as say, specialized ammunition. You flip your color spray bullet into your gun and fire rainbows out of your pistol.

Not quite the cleanest interpretation of the concept but it's the best I can come up for the example right now.

[NichG]

Faulty, because the DM can (and most likely will) adjust the power level of the enemies you face to the party's power level. Also, combat in most RPGs is more about luck and resource expenditure than skill.

These are both not generally true though. First of all, if the DM's optimization ability is significantly below the player's (or even equal - consider that the DM has about 8 times as much stuff to pay attention to) then what will happen is that the DM will repeatedly attempt and fail to actually challenge the player, generally leading to frustration on both sides.

If the DM knows what they're doing though, that increases the optimization range at which the game can remain challenging. But a DM who doesn't know how to deal with, e.g., someone using a total damage immunity trick or an ubercharger isn't going to suddenly be able to make it challenging again by just adding more monsters - it takes an understanding of why the character is powerful, and very careful tuning to make sure that power remains relevant, without dominating the game.

The other thing though is, I really do disagree that combats in RPGs are about luck and resource expenditure in general. It depends heavily on the system. In D&D, 95% of the combat is the character sheet - either you have the character build that can win, or you don't - because the game is so front-loaded into the character creation minigame. In 1ed D&D, its very luck based (or at the least, it depends on maintaining an ablative shield of hirelings). In something like Nobilis, combat is all about creativity and trying to figure out how to harm someone with super-weapons that can't actually hurt them directly. In Exalted its probably a bit more resource-expenditurey.

Anyhow, lots of possible combat systems out there. Not all of them lack real player input and tactical depth.

[Tengu_temp]

These are both not generally true though. First of all, if the DM's optimization ability is significantly below the player's (or even equal - consider that the DM has about 8 times as much stuff to pay attention to) then what will happen is that the DM will repeatedly attempt and fail to actually challenge the player, generally leading to frustration on both sides.

It's really frustrating only if you play the game mainly for the mechanical challenge. For me challenging and fair fights are a welcome bonus, but I'd rather have an easy game with great story and characters than a challenging one that's a generic dungeoncrawl otherwise.

The other thing though is, I really do disagree that combats in RPGs are about luck and resource expenditure in general. It depends heavily on the system.

This is why I said "in most RPGs", not all of them. A mechanically well-designed RPG will include lots of interesting tactics and way to turn the tides in its conflict resolution. Most RPG writers aren't that good at mechanical design though, so in the games they make it all boils down to luck and who has a better build.

[Zavoniki]

Mechanics and Fluff occupy different space for characters so but a vs between them makes absolutely no sense and is a meaningless statement. Its like saying Purple vs 7.

I make a character that has fluff/backstory/characterization and mechanics that allow him/her/it to interact with the rules system and thus the gameworld. These things aren't fighting one another and in fact can't fight one another, and I've haven't seen or heard of a game system where they do, ever.