Where do your characters fall on the generalist to specialist spectrum?

[Ameraaaaaa]

Basically are your characters jacks of all trades or masters of one or something in between. Do you have any examples or exceptions?

Personally i like playing specialists.

Obviously it depends on if the system allows it (my storyteller system and fate system characters are generally forced to be more generalist due to how the system is designed.)

But in general my characters generally have 1 or 2 things they are good at. For example in one low power level m&m game my character was just a barely decent combatent with only a shotgun and brass knuckles as a weapon. But he had the ability to become immune to anything as long as he had downtime (as long as it didn't cost too much points)

In 1 of the games I'm signing up for (a savage world game) I'm playing a combat specialist mech pilot who otherwise was only good at technology and insulting people.

And for 1 last example i just made a 150 point character who literally used all of said points on 15 ranks of variable with the reflexive extra. (Since all variable powers need a flavour limitation this specific power let's the user literally manfest any anime trope into reality.)

[Batcathat]

I tend to favor specialists too. Preferably ones that aren't completely helpless outside of their speciality, but occasionally it can be kinda fun trying to fit a square into whatever round holes show up.

[mucat]

Obviously it depends on if the system allows it (my storyteller system and fate system characters are generally forced to be more generalist due to how the system is designed.)

In my experience, Fate system characters can be anywhere on that spectrum. One of my favorite Fate characters was a thunderously focused mad scientist who could ignore pretty much anything outside his core few obsessions. He actually started out as a Pathfinder character, but if anything, the switch to Fate helped make him more hyperspecialized, not less. Another was a punk rocker and amateur hacker who was dangerously bad at everything but hacking and making music. (Oh, and in theory she was a hotshot driver too, although I seem to remember her crashing a lot in practice.)

[Ameraaaaaa]

In my experience, Fate system characters can be anywhere on that spectrum. One of my favorite Fate characters was a thunderously focused mad scientist who could ignore pretty much anything outside his core few obsessions. He actually started out as a Pathfinder character, but if anything, the switch to Fate helped make him more hyperspecialized, not less. Another was a punk rocker and amateur hacker who was dangerously bad at everything but hacking and making music. (Oh, and in theory she was a hotshot driver too, although I seem to remember her crashing a lot in practice.)

I'm guessing your games didn't use the skill pyramid. Which for those who don't know it. It 1 +4 skill then 2 +3 skills then 3 +2 skills then 4 +1 skills.

I say this because i tried to make a academic character but ended up having to take a few social skills from the default skill list dispite him being a nerd.

[MoiMagnus]

My favourite position is at the "reactive character" place, which I guess is in practice more on the "Jack of all trade" side.

This means, I don't miss not being able to proactively do X, and will gladly specialise myself at the cost of not being able to do everything. However, I don't like missing on opportunities to react to what's happening. Similarly, I'm fine with specialising myself offensively, but I don't like being specialised defensively (both while building a character, and during gameplay, I don't like "set up" defences where you anticipate a long time in advance what will happen and increase your defences against that).

[Xervous]

Either I make a lot of jacks or everyone I play with makes hyper specialized characters who are otherwise incompetent. My characters have specialties of course, but they’ll be at least moderately relevant for most other fields.

I should note that crippling overspecialization is a potential cause of death, and that being incompetent in all manner of simple scenes strains verisimilitude for the character concepts I like to play.

[mucat]

I'm guessing your games didn't use the skill pyramid. Which for those who don't know it. It 1 +4 skill then 2 +3 skills then 3 +2 skills then 4 +1 skills.

I say this because i tried to make a academic character but ended up having to take a few social skills from the default skill list dispite him being a nerd.

We did use the skill pyramid, but I always found that the biggest question in Fate is not "What is my skill bonus?" but "How do my Aspects apply here?"

So yeah, that mad neuroalchemist did have his share of +1 and +2 skills -- in his case, things he was good at back before the events that made him into the desperate, determined maelstrom of regrets he now was -- but his aspects were hyperfocused on sciencing away the worst of those regrets. When those aspects applied, the guy was a frikkin' force of nature. The rest of the time, he was, at best, a passable assistant to his comrades whose aspects did apply.

The musician, now that I think of it, was more broadly relevant than I'd given her credit for. One of her aspects amounted to, basically, a personal soundtrack; if I could google up a relevant rock song to play on her turn (it was an online game), she'd be a lot more effective. Punk songs were ideal, but her tastes were eclectic. So really she was limited only by my imagination and the full scope of all music, ever. Not exactly crippling overspecialization. She could still be a walking disaster area, but I guess that was more a combination of unlucky die rolls at crucial moments, and the fact that, hell, sometimes the best songs are about disaster!

[Mastikator]

I try to have my characters be good at one or two things, decent at a few other things. I prefer to have some in each pillar, but it will also depend on the DM and the campaign.

[DigoDragon]

I guess my characters lean specialist, but when specializing I find it always a good idea to be really good at something in combat encounters and be really good at something in social encounters.

[Easy e]

I like to play generalists BUT most RPG design favors specialists. Therefore, I tend to get more specialized as I learn the system and the GMs better.

[Stonehead]

I pretty strongly prefer specialized characters. They're just way more memorable.

I don't even optimize any more so I'm not min-maxing for combat, it's just a matter of making interesting characters. All PCs are going to be at least fairly competent, just by nature of being the protagonists. A character who's really good at something, and really bad at something else already has twice as many characteristics as one who's only good at something.

Thinking about some of my favorites of other PCs I've played with (because everyone likes their own character), they all have very distinct weaknesses. The Monk who loses all his money playing darts, the Wizard who slips in a normal mundane puddle of water, the Bard who can't even remember the name of his hometown. All much more memorable than the guy who's relatively competent at most things.

Even outside of RPGs, think of your favorite characters from stories you like. Odds are they have weakness just as well defined as their strengths.

[Theoboldi]

Typically, I like characters who are good all-rounders, with one or two areas of special expertise where they really shine. It's more fun to me to be able to contribute in any scenario proactively, even if only a little, than either sitting out specific scenarios or having to bumble my way through them. Plus, I still get those scenes of proper spotlight whenever my character's actual focus becomes relevant, letting them have a clear identity within the party.

[Telok]

Hmm... Depends on the system and character goal.

Mostly I like character with a strength, a not-crippling weakness, and a personality. I dislike them being incompetent in large sections of the game.

Some (surprisingly few) games let 'jack of all trades' be a viable character. I enjoy those, the character's personality becomes dominant over the mechanics and there's no being forced to sit out play time by the game mechanics.

D&D fighters (the class, not always the archetype) for 20 years have had a hard time at being more than "since nobody else has the skill may as well let them try" for anything but fighting and maybe jumping/climbing*, and usually have to optimize/over specialize to be more than a bag of hp with a pointy stick & (maybe) a gimmick. Of course these days you can plop down a wizard with 2/3 the fighter hp, one less melee attack & damage, plus full wizarding and decent intelligence skills, so its sort of a moot point. Sort if a shame since I really enjoyed AD&D fighters for being broadly competent & really good at fighting.

What I really enjoy is characters with one or two decent combat gimmicks (because most rpgs feature combat as semi-central to game play) and are then good at a bunch of other stuff. A glass cannon socialite or a "how can you have that many hp & ac?" themed magician are pretty fun, as is a nearly unhittable technology genius. I've found combat incompetent characters who support a strong combat pet to be pretty good too, if the system allows it. Buffs are usually pretty strong, the pet is a better & more reliable team member than other players (often), and dropping combat ability often frees up more build resources than the pet uses which lets you be that much better out of combat.

* if the verson supports dex fighters you might be good at landing on your feet from a fall and tightrope walking instead of jumping & climbing.

[PhoenixPhyre]

If we rank all the areas out of 10, where 10 is "don't need no help" and 1 is "nope, can't help", I prefer if everyone (myself included) has a few 7s and the rest 4-5. Some specialty, but not overwhelming amounts or and particular incapacitates.

I dislike the "can only do this one thing and so I just sit out the rest of the time" type, especially where that's really narrow.

[LibraryOgre]

I like bards, so I tend to be aggressively generalist.

[Faily]

Overall I go more Generalist than Specialist.

Too often when I've made a Specialist, I feel like I don't get to show off my specialty-focus enough for it to matter, so instead I go for Generalists who have strong points instead of being hyper-focused.

My Paladin is a damage-dealer mostly, but also can heal, be party-face, and shores up on scrolls+potions+wands and uses UMD to be able to handle some situations that fall outside their normal wheelhouse.

[KorvinStarmast]

If we rank all the areas out of 10, where 10 is "don't need no help" and 1 is "nope, can't help", I prefer if everyone (myself included) has a few 7s and the rest 4-5. Some specialty, but not overwhelming amounts or and particular incapacitates.

That's how I roll mostly but I also tend to, these days, play a support character of some kind as a preference. Even my Champion fighter played the support a bit, in terms of knocking enemies down so that my barbarian team mate could attack prone enemies (Shield Master feat) and not have to use reckless attack.

[Psyren]

Speaking more for D&D and similar TTRPGs.

I like specialists, but with the caveat that I don't want to be completely sidelined in any of the three main pillars of play. So even if I make a character that excels at combat, if they don't at least have a role to play in Exploration or Social Interaction (preferably both if possible) then I get bored with that build fast. I don't have to be the best at every pillar but I definitely don't want to be sitting on my hands, even if I'm playing something narrow like a Fighter or Barbarian.

[False God]

I generally play generalists. Mostly because I often play with folks who will "LOL time to do the dumb!" which can be fun, to a point, but I don't like their foolishness falling on my head. When I play specialists with these folks, I often come up short in areas where they aggro danger.

If I do play a specialist, I'm often a defender-type or a healer (white mage, fun times). Because again, I want to know I've got a handle on things, rather than leave it up to someone else.

[KorvinStarmast]

I think that at this point the only time I'll want to play a specialist is if the group (the players) all get into the game as much as I do and fully embrace their roles, and we all pick different roles. (Our second Traveler group, way back when, did this, as did our Fellowship game).

If there's a mix of casual gamers and more "into it" gamers I find that I prefer spreading out my expertise areas.

[Tanarii]

Depends if I know what group I'm going to be with in advance, or if I don't.

If I do know, I'll work with the group to figure out what key specialization we think need to be covered, and make sure someone has them covered to some degree. If there's something that needs baseline competency for everyone, we'll make sure everyone has it. Example, if we're playing stealth infiltrators, everyone needs to be stealthy, but different characters can be the assassin, the face, the mask, the safecracker, and the hacker. But if we're playing mercenaries, everyone needs to be able to handle themselves in a fight, but different characters can be the tactical planner, the point man, the contract negotiator, and the grenadier/Arcane nuke/forward observer.

If I don't know the group in advance but do know the general theme, I'll pick up core competencies and then usually pick up a few supporting functions to a solid level. I can usually count on the other players to pick self-centered or cool badasss specialities as opposed to supporting ones.

If I don't know the general theme because there GM hasn't given a campaign concept or it's so broad as to be useless, I'm not making a character.

[Pauly]

I prefer generalists, mainly on the basis that the party isn’t screwed if the specialist goes down. Having a whole party of generalists is a lot of fun because a lot of challenges are written on the assumption there is a specialist in the party, so having several characters who can muddle through rather than one guy is a more challenging and co-operative experience rather than sitting back and saying let the [X] handle it.

[Ignimortis]

Specialists, all the way. I hate feeling useless, and unless the game allows a decent degree of competence in a wide range of things (which tends to be rare), it's better being incredibly good at one or two things than being useless in many of them. If an action has less than 2/3 chances of success, that's usually too low for me. Specialists can usually nail their stuff down to 9/10 or even better, so at least I'm not wasting turns or actions or attempts.

[Tanarii]

That depends on how many things a group needs to be able to do, and how many each character gets for specialization vs not specializing. If there are 16 unique things a group of players need to be able to do, and the game gives you a choice between being good (9/10) at two vs passable (2/3) at 5, for a group of four players you're better off being "generalists". Because if they're specialists they can't even do half the things they need to do.

Mostly I see that kind of thing in games that have an expansive skill list plus a cost for the next rank that grows each rank bought, where the group ends up wanting access to many skills from the list at middling values.

[Faily]

I generally play generalists. Mostly because I often play with folks who will "LOL time to do the dumb!" which can be fun, to a point, but I don't like their foolishness falling on my head. When I play specialists with these folks, I often come up short in areas where they aggro danger.

I relate to this so hard it's kind of a "lolsob" reaction from me.

And yes, my weekly group is why I tend to be a generalist because I need to cover up for their mistakes and failings a lot of the time. xD

[Second Wind]

If it's obvious what action to take on my turn, I don't really need to be there. So, something with interesting options. Generalists usually have more options.

[False God]

I relate to this so hard it's kind of a "lolsob" reaction from me.

And yes, my weekly group is why I tend to be a generalist because I need to cover up for their mistakes and failings a lot of the time. xD

To be fair, I also like to be at least somewhat skilled in a lot of areas of the game. As Second Wind says, if there's nothing for me to do next turn, or I'm limited to only one thing every turn, the game gets boring real fast.

[DigoDragon]

I generally play generalists. Mostly because I often play with folks who will "LOL time to do the dumb!" which can be fun, to a point, but I don't like their foolishness falling on my head. When I play specialists with these folks, I often come up short in areas where they aggro danger.

I often refer to that role as being "The Adult". :3

I personally feel that playing a generalist just to keep them out of trouble makes playing the character a bit frustrating. Babysitting is not a glamorous job. Sometimes you just gotta step back (to a safe distance) and let them take the aggro danger.

Outside that specific situation, there are good reasons to play generalists. Especially when the party splits up, you can fill in roles that went to the other group.

[Telok]

Sometimes you just gotta step back (to a safe distance) and let them take the aggro danger.

Or sometimes you missed a session and come back to "We TPKed throwing grenades at police helicopters*. We're playing D&D now.... We really need a cleric."

* Shadowrun mission to put a couple people in the hospital so they could sit out a city election. They decided to machine gun a hot-dog rally in a park in a AAA security zone... They never did explain that decision.

[Xervous]

Or sometimes you missed a session and come back to "We TPKed throwing grenades at police helicopters*. We're playing D&D now.... We really need a cleric."

* Shadowrun mission to put a couple people in the hospital so they could sit out a city election. They decided to machine gun a hot-dog rally in a park in a AAA security zone... They never did explain that decision.

Getting machine guns into an AAA zone is the real head scratcher. Sounds like a job for the palming troll adept specialist.