What's your thought process for making player characters

[Ameraaaaaa]

For me personally i tend to think of what abilities/roles/gimmicks seem fun then build a character for that concept. For example maybe i want to make a character that fights with their hands. Then depending on the system i make it. Like if that's what I'm in the mood for i might play a monk class. Or in a superhero game i play a martial artist or brawler.

Maybe i want to play a pro wrestler or a literal skill monkey or a guy who only makes bombs. Using fate terms my high concepts tend to based on a character’s abilities or skill set then i make a backstory that explains it. Then based on that backstory i get a clue on my characters personality. Then i explore said personality in the campaign itself.

So what about you? Any methods in particular? Any rules or checklists? Any specific archetypes you like to fill? Does how you make characters vary from game to game? Explain your thought process.

[HidesHisEyes]

I have two big preferences for how I make characters:

- I’m a minimalist about it. I want to start with the bare minimum of a character and discover more about them in play.

- I want to make my character at the table so I can respond to the rest of the group. Ideally we will also be figuring out the campaign premise and potentially the setting at the same time, so I’m thinking of my character as an integral part of a larger thing that we’re collaborating on, not just “my character”.

Other than those two things I’m pretty similar to you OP: choose a concept that fits the options in the game, make the character, think of a (very minimal) backstory and personality, start playing and see what happens.

[Batcathat]

The starting point can differ, sometimes there's some specific mechanic or gimmick I want to try out, other times it's more about some specific personality type or abstract concept and then I try to find a mechanical expression of that.

As for archetypes, some variation can be fun but I keep coming back to sneaky characters (literally or metaphorically), sometimes combined with social skills. I almost never play very fighting focused characters, though with some systems almost every character ends up pretty good at it.

One thing that's important to me is for my character to have their own thing. They don't have to be the most powerful in the party or even the most useful, but I like them to be able to do some things other party members can't do (or at least not as well).

[King of Nowhere]

To me, that first concept must ideally include their fighting style and their backstory together: they fight in a certain way because of their story.
For example a wizard who wants to bring magic out of the academia and be useful to the common people, he takes a supporting role because of his belief that magic should help others.

[KorvinStarmast]

What's your thought process for making player characters

First, I get a tumbler, fill it with ice, and add a bit of rye whiskey.
Second, I look at the game and the setting, and ask questions of the GM/DM so that I get an idea of what the world is like. I tend to insist on that; I want my character to fit into that world.
Third, I try to see how chargen and background and back story all fit together. (This is a place where the chargen of a game like original Traveller is nice to walk through what you've been doing all of your life before you go off on your adventures in outer space).
The game system doesn't matter: I like to write a little story about who my character is based on a few things he or she has done before embarking on these PC shenanigans and adventures.
Fourth I then find out "what are the rest of you making?" I try to fill in gaps of the team. (Most RPGs I play are a team of X doing something)

Lastly, I fiddle around with it and the starting equipment and all that until I am done and viola, there's Korvin's Karakter. Alea jacta est
Recently, this was fun to do with Fellowship, a Dungeon World collection of playbooks we got to play a couple of years ago. Not knowing the system at all made the whole process feel like exploring new ground.

[Telok]

Mine is four different processes.

1: Have character concept, will play. Start with a personality, capabilities, and a bit of back story. Work on mechanics to start as close as possible to that. Issue: some games punish certain character types. Example: WotC D&D didn't do smart & fast warriors that weren't twf/sneak attack based until ToB warblades, and even then it was a difficult to get a decent progression plan that didn't accidentally dead end.

2: Oh, shiney! Found an interesting mechanical widget or ability and made a character around it. Issue: Can be difficult to get an ability quickly or make it useful. Example: Tried to make a shield master support bard as my first D&D 5e character but the d20 overwhelmed the whole build, some stupid twitter thing killed the feat a handful of sessions after it got the feat, and a non-cooperative party put the final nail in the "useless gimmick" coffin.

3. Challenge accepted. Roll up a set of stats, see what sort of character evolves out of that. It usually happens with "bad" sets but allows me to challeng my rp skills and pushes me out of comfort zones. Issue: Some systems kick you in the face for having average-not-amaze-balls stats and the hobby's current point buy craze doesn't give you the option. Example: Rolled 13, 13, 12, 11, 10, 9 in a D&D 3.5 game and made a warlock. Ended up as a mid-power yet filthy rich character that was the only survivor of two otherwise TPKs.

4. What does the party... oh, I'm playing a cleric* again. Yeah. Enough said.

Which path I use depends mostly on the system and the party.

* Although there was that one time in ShadowRun where I had to cover everything but combat. Ended up with an essence 5, high charisma, elf mage invested in summoning and using skillwires to cover... well everything not combat or stealth.

[kyoryu]

Mostly what Telok said.

My preferred way, though, is to start with a basic concept (High Concept in Fate terms), and a goal.

[Talwar]

I'm all over the place.

Sometimes a core concept comes to mind very quickly and I run with it.

Sometimes nothing jumps at me and I wait to see what gaps are left after other players weigh in.

Sometimes it's a matter of "Well, I haven't played this class lately/ever, so..."

[Man_Over_Game]

I start with how I want to play and then work my way backwards. Mechanics are rigid, but the background and roleplaying elements are fluid, and I like playing a character that feels complete in every direction, so it's easier to start with the most restrictive part first and fill in the gaps. That way, no matter what I play, my mechanics match the character I'm roleplaying as.

So if I have a large party, I might want to play around a support job. Maybe I like messing around with illusions and enchantment magic, so I roll up a Bard that's good at those specific things.

Then I imagine what kind of roleplaying experience I'd want to have while playing, and then ask myself why a Bard would want to act that way and use those abilities. After repeating this for every step of questions (class, abilities, etc), I end up with a fully-functioning character that fits perfectly within the world and does exactly what you'd imagine he'd do.

[Shpadoinkle]

Generally I have a concept first - I want to make someone who's good at throwing weapons, or only uses improvised weapons, or a caster focused on illusions and enchantments - and then I build toward that end. Character history tends to come after that. This is where they are today, so how did they get here?

[Palanan]

Right now I’m developing a character based on a book I just finished reading. The book can’t be discussed here, but it’s truly magnificent with a wealth of ideas, and when I started writing the backstory it all flowed out.

The class itself is the healer from Miniatures Handbook, which I’ve always wanted to play; but the character came from another source entirely, and the two dovetailed very well.

Like Telok said, sometimes it’s a bit of mechanics I’d like to try out, sometimes it’s a personality I’d like to develop, sometimes it’s an interesting occupation from history I’d like to run with, and sometimes a mix of it all.

[Waterdeep Merch]

One way or another, first it comes down to what I want to play. This might be contingent on what the other party members are, a subclass or build I want to try, a narrative concept, or maybe just a silly accent I want to employ. No matter what it is exactly, it has to make me genuinely excited to play.

Then, I figure out foibles about their character. The foundation of optimization will occur here, but I'm more interested in fleshing them out as a person at this stage. Because...

Next, I take all the information gleaned thus far and optimize for it. I try to make all the disparate parts work, as best as possible. Even if the concept itself just isn't optimized, I want to optimize within their constraints.

Afterwards, I make tweaks to the narrative to fit the stat block and vice versa. There's some back and forth as I try to get a mix that feels right. I might also test builds for the same character with different options taken all the way up to level 20, see what feels right. I'll keep my variants on hand in case the story progresses in a way that makes one of them make more sense at a later date.

Finally, details. I practice their voice, catchphrases, sayings. I might produce art or a miniature. Sometimes I'll dress up like them a bit, or something else wholly unnecessary but fun to do. All in the name of properly embodying the character.

(I just picked up playing the violin again in hopes of playing a bard at a later date. If I'm going to bard, I'm going to bard hard)

[Pauly]

My only hard rule is I always make my characters at the table with other players at session zero. I want to make sure the party build covers all the bases.

If chargen is randomized. I roll at the table and the charsheet with the numbers/abilities as the dice fall. Once that is established I think of what those elements suggest as an appropriate class, then fill out the character.

If chargen is player choice. I start with a high concept “river boat gambler”, “big game hunter”, “witchfinder”. Then I look for skills and abilities that fit that high concept. Then choose the class and skills to make it happen

Either way I keep an eye on the party needs and make sure I take at least secondary skills in areas the party is weak on.

[gijoemike]

First off, I love these kinds of Thought Process threads. Great topic.


Rule 1: For a character to see light of day I do what Pauly does. This will happen or be heavily discussed at session 0. All rolls and such will be with multiple sets of eyes on them.

Now, ideas and cool concepts just pop into my head. Mabye I can use them as a NPC if I run a game in the future. I never complete the concept until rule 1 is met. Idea's like "old con man trying to save his son from the life of crime he sent him down", "classic paranoid one-eyed soldier who has seen too much in his day", "blind wizard can somehow see magic", "peppy adventure heads to the frontier to make fortune". This is super high level

At session 0, the first question is will this character fill a needed party role? Not covering some base is a huge problem.

Will the character fit in the world/setting/party? I ask party because selfish evil rogue will not work if there is a paladin in the D&D party. A hippie pacifist will not work in a military game. Mages in a super low magic world or world that bans all magic will not work.

Once I know the role the character needs to fill I color in the different parts and add skills/feats/powers to taste.

Finally if the game is something like 3.X where you need to plan out your growth for 10 levels I tweak from there to match.
Note: I despise how it is impossible in 3.X for natural in game character growth. Love 3.X but must plan character arc from lvl 1 to 20 before you come up with a name.

[dafrca]

For me, I prefer to start with a very vague idea; Warrior or caster or spy etcetera. I then try to understand the rule set and setting we are going to play better so my character can be created to make sense in the world we are going to play in. Lastly I do the minimum background the game or GM ask for and then stop. I like to get to know the character as I play. I like to collaborate with the GM or other players to help make a cohesive story. This means the final product at the end of a campaign is part me, part the game system, part a surprise (often pleasant) that I received from the campaign as well.

[Tarmor]

I start with a race/class idea (typically with some sort of idea of using certain items/feats/abilities that I could start with or obtain early on, according to the game system and setting) that I want to play, which may be something I've been interested in for a while or because of material I've been reading about recently.
Then depending on what it sounds like the other players are choosing or what the party needs, possibly modify my character or idea to fit, if that works.
I'm usually the GM, so I don't get to play very often, but one of my players can GM and has done so a few times.

In two games over the past decade (both using Pathfinder 1) I've done the following...
1. Wanted to play a dwarf caster who worshiped magic rather the one particular diety... no-one wanted to play support/healer, so I started as a Cleric, added some Wizard levels and went Mystic Theurge with a wide range of spells and had great fun.Tended to hoard every scroll I could get my hands on, and always had a wide selection of potions.
2. Wanted to play a rogue who moved around a lot by tumbling, later taking ShadowDancer. The rest of the group were all looking at magic and ranged PC's, so I swapped Rogue for Hunter. This character uses a different name each game day (the first three letters don't change). The other players know he's an orphan, but not that he doesn't actually remember his full real name.

[Berenger]

I need a literal picture of the character I'm going to make. I keep a large folder with several hundred photos of models, movie screenshots and pieces of art collected from all over the internet. When a new campaign is announced, I search that folder until I find a "perfect" picture that fits the theme, mood, setting, technology level etc. of the campaign and features a person whose looks I find intriguing. From that picture flows everything else, gender, age, ethnicity, species, socioeconomic status, favoured outfit, armor or equipment. From these follow character traits, mannerisms, backstory and personality. At this point, I often steal ideas from a variety of characters portrayed in media I enjoy. If I do so, I incorporate bits from at least three different characters from three different franchises so I don't risk ending up with some easily identifiable clone by accident (my group thinks my current swashbuckling nobleman adventurer is partly based on Batman - they are wrong, he is based on Zorro, Edmond Dantès aka the Count of Monte Cristo and a little bit of Lando Calrissian). From there I extrapolate needed abilities, skills, classes, the mechanical stuff. This is also the reason I prefer free point-buy systems over those with random generation of certain character aspects; the random don't always mesh well with the things "dictated" by the picture.

[KineticDiplomat]

I find this very system dependent. Generally, I tend to echo a lot of the design ethos inherent in the game.

Traveller, play the life paths and figure out who that character is. Blade of the Iron Throne, develop someone who can swash a buckle and has interesting flaws. PBtA, pick a character appropriate to the setting and then choose the stats accoridngly. D&D, sigh and realize a soulless automaton with a LNSE gimmick is probably the best you'll get...

Probably my one point of cross system consistency is that I tend to be a muggle lover. Unless everyone is inherently magic/supernatural/a deity I'll try to take a muggle unless it's mechanical suicide like D&D. And any time a dagger to the neck or a low cost precision kill munition drag down a mage, my heart is gladdened.

[Foolwise]

Homebrew is usually involved.

Hoping to break that trend with the current build I am creating though!

[Easy e]

Lately, I prefer to have the GM hand me a sheet with some stats. I will gladly fill any mechanical role the party needs. Then, I answer a few questions about the character myself and start playing them.

The act of mechanical character creation has lost my interest, and I prefer to focus on the "nuts and bolts" of a character's personality instead. However, I can't do voices to save my life. :)

[KorvinStarmast]

However, I can't do voices to save my life. :)

In what game is that a requirement?

I think I need to add an addendum to my previous post:

If I am at a loss for ideas, or I have to do something quick, I usually default to pirate or pilot (or that setting's version of pirate or pilot).

Why? (1) I like Gilbert and Sullivan and (2) I flew from ships at sea.

[Easy e]

In what game is that a requirement?

None.

However, I am just pointing out that giving my character a "voice" or unique accent is completely outside my scope for character creation. Other players, that is a key part of the character design.

[KorvinStarmast]

None.

However, I am just pointing out that giving my character a "voice" or unique accent is completely outside my scope for character creation. Other players, that is a key part of the character design.

Aha, thanks, makes sense now. Wasn't sure if there was a game where that facet of a character was part of the kit.

[Telwar]

It depends, and a lot of folks have covered this.

For me, the specific mechanics have to be something I haven't done in a while, and I want to make sure I can cover things for the party, *and* it has to be something I'm interested in. Characterization may come in at the mechanical level, or it may come on later.

So, like for our Primeval Thule Tomb of Annihilation game, we were definitely going to need a dedicated trapsmith, and I like rogues, so I went with a high elf arcane trickster. Using the narrative rules from Primeval Thule, I (and this is very, very sad) went off the "high" in high elf and made him an occult scientist who specialized in alchemy for, um, "recreational purposes."

For our Eberron cattle drive then Curse of Strahd, I wound up agreeing to play a primary divine caster. Since it's in Eberron and I liked warforged, I went with one of those. I've never been a fan of druids, so I figured I'd go with cleric, and rapidly discovered I really liked how the Light domain worked to be more of a blaster than a melee fighter, though it lets me do melee, too. Since I'd initially been planning to play a monk, I pulled that into his backstory, where he *had* been a monk until Something Happened and he wound up as a cleric of the Silver Flame, and the DM at this point hasn't really pulled on that obvious plot thread.

[Quertus]

It's complicated? (So I doubt I'll ever answer this question exactly the same way twice)

Like others, I have multiple "paths".

Usually, a character starts as an idea, as some facet of humanity I'd like to attempt to build an emulator for.

For example, Quertus, my signature academia mage for whom this account is named, was based off my inability to understand how someone could play the same game for years (or decades!) and still be clueless, still never "see the elephant".

Next, I work to instantiate that character, in the system and in the world.

For example, Quertus was instantiated as a D&D Wizard. Trained at the Imperial Academy in Bleusenberg after his parents died in the war, Quertus is an Academia Mage, trained for research, not combat or adventure.

Obviously, the system constrains how - or even whether - a concept can be instantiated.

Often, there will be one or more "ooh, shiny!" moments, either during character creation, or in play.

For example, IIRC, I was taking aikido when I made Quertus, so (purely fluff, with no real mechanics to speak of) as one of his electives, Quertus was trained in disarming his opponents ("weapon taking"). When he adventured in 3e, this mandated a very atypical feat choice (and he also took ranks in Tumble). In play, he encountered and developed a liking for shuriken, quick-draw devices, and the printing press. EWP: shuriken became yet another atypical 3e feat choice.

Sometimes, instead of a character, I'm just building a playing piece. This can be because I can't bring an existing character (new system, GM opposed to existing characters, etc), there isn't sufficient time for me to make a character for the game, and/or the game simply isn't worth the brainpower.

When I'm not building a character, when I'm just building a playing piece, I'll generally pick some mechanics that look fun to play, and start there.

For example, ShadowRun wired reflexes, in earlier editions, made fast characters feel fast in a way no other system I've seen has. And, on paper at least, Mage is much more mechanically appealing than other WoD spats.

But, usually, even when I'm just building a playing piece, I'll cheat and give it the pretense of a personality. I accomplish this by simply playing it as an "avatar" - a mechanically-appropriate manifestation - of one of my old characters who has "ascended" (or otherwise obtained the ability to play at being not themselves). So "WWQD… if he were pretending to be this guy?".

I very rarely build based on "what the party needs", because I happen to really like the "how do we make this party work" minigame.

And, occasionally, I play a Connecticut Yankee in King Arthur's Court. Because the various minigames unique to such a scenario is something else that I enjoy.

[SleepyShadow]

I start with a character's personality first and foremost. I need to know who they are before I can decide what they do. Next, I'll focus on the mechanical aspect, making adjustments as I go to suit the needs of the party. Once that's done, I'll hunt down some artwork that's as close as possible to what I envisioned for the character.

Lastly, I'll remember that I'm the forever GM, file that character away "for later", and return to watching my choo-choo train campaign burn on the rails while my players happily wander off into the night.

[HumanFighter]

I usually like to mix it up quite a bit, never wanting to play the same character or type of character twice. I'll play males, females, orcs, humans, dwarves, elves, paladins, fighters, rogues, wizards, whatever. I am not picky, but I do have a few "favorites" that I often come back to. But when I do come back to them, I'll usually give them some kind of twist, to make them different. But never do I really go into much "depth" with the characters I build. After all, there's always a good chance my character will die in any given game session. They might be brought back to life, they might not. That's why I try not to get too attached. Not to mention, the campaign the character is in is just as likely to die (if not more so) than the actual character I am playing as. You know how it goes sometimes: "Sorry, guys, this campaign is canceled. I just can't do it anymore. You, Dudebro X, your turn to run something now. Good luck."

[Duff]

It really varies. My last 3 characters were:
Playing Ars Magica. There's a house of magi who change into animals (Bjorner). I wanted to play a rat who likes making and investigating magic items. A "Lab Rat". Everything else flowed from that pun. What sort of social background produces a Bjorner who wants to spend all his time in a lab?

A 19th century guy with a big gun that he makes all sort of special ammunition for. And an 18th century guy who did bad things for his former boss/master. He was ok with it until pushed too far.
I had the chance to combine those 2 ideas. Additionally, one of the PCs setting up the group had been an officer in Crimea, so it neatly fitted that My guy had served with him. The game is "Victoriana"
So, a few skulldugery skills got him his former job and were built while doing that work. The skills to use and maintain The Gun.

4th Ed d&d. My former character had been the defender in the party so I needed* to cover that role but wanted to have more situations I could contribute to, especially socially. So that meant a paladin. But I also really liked the look of a paragon path that gave teleport at will as a move action which was for warlocks. Warlock also gave me a reason to boost intelligence and I was tired of playing dumb jocks. So then I built a hybrid pali/warlock with a fair bit of focus on increasing teleport range.
Then, I wanted a character who could slot in easily with a tight-knit group. A social chameleon. So that picked my race as a changeling and I joined the party "in character" after a mission had gone wrong.
Personality wise, he had chosen the demeaner of an efficient operative, so, business like, respects the chain of command in the group he's working with, quickly gets to know what I (the player) already knew. Deliberately bland personality to slot in to any team he might need to work with

* "Have to" for the party's effectiveness and probably survival in the game that was being run

[Stonehead]

I usually like to mix it up quite a bit, never wanting to play the same character or type of character twice. I'll play males, females, orcs, humans, dwarves, elves, paladins, fighters, rogues, wizards, whatever. I am not picky, but I do have a few "favorites" that I often come back to. But when I do come back to them, I'll usually give them some kind of twist, to make them different.

I work pretty similarly to this. First question is if the group needs a role filled (narrative roles too, not just talking combat classes). Second question is what have I not played in a while.

Although, I don't really play female characters. It's really just for the same reason I don't play Irish characters, or German characters. I couldn't do a voice that wouldn't seriously mess with my immersion.

[False God]

Concept>light backstory sketching>Stats>build

Rinse and repeat until I get a character I'm satisfied with.

More often than not when it hits the table I find out it doesn't work quite as I planned. Usually takes me about 3 tries to get a character I actually enjoy playing. So I appreciate DMs who let me reasonably trade out/retire characters without having to suicide them.