Character Design Theory

[Super Squirrel]

Simply, what is the best way to build a quality character?

 

Building a character takes time and if you want to have a good character, you need to spend a lot of time. So I'm looking for the best process to build a character that will generate a decent character regardless of concept.

 

My current design theory goes like this:

 

I get the character concept. I think out the background to get an idea of what kind of mentality my character has. This usually gets me a couple of Disadvantages and Skills which I jot down.

 

I next write down on paper a list of all of the characteristics and note them with a -, =, +, or ++ based on whether I feel the character is weak, average, strong, or very strong with that characteristic.

 

In practicality, the next step should be to look at the points available and divide them between Characteristics, Skills, Perks&Talents, and Powers.

 

I then design the must haves. This is the section for things that the concept forces the character to have. Life Support is, as such, the first power usually added to the character if the character uses it.

 

Next I go to skills and go through the list noting everything that I think there character has. I don't worry about levels yet, I just buy the skill.

 

Then I move to powers where I select the powers that the character must have for concept. This is when character concept starts to take a more solid effect. Primary powers start to show up here.

 

At this point I go and hit Characteristics and Perks&Talents. I usually have more points in Characteristics than I had alotted and less to Perks&Talents. I consider Perks&Talents done. I go to skills and buy levels up to where I'd like them to be.

 

Finally, I go to powers and use the remaining points to give the powers I'd like the character to have but weren't as important.

 

At this point I have a mostly built character. In the case of Superhero level, I have 350 points spent at this point and about 75 points in disadvantages. Sometimes though I'm over 350. I will now go back to the character background. Once the background is worked out more, I finish disadvantages. I compare disadvantages to powers to see if their are any major weaknesses that need to be addressed. Then if I'm over 350 points, I trim things down. I look for powers that could survive being weakened. Then I move to skills looking for skills that would be better as a familiarity or could survive being a slightly lower skill roll. Sometimes it is better to drop a skill by 1 to save 2 points and then buy a Complementary skill for 1 point. It also gives your character a bit more details.

 

If I'm still stuck, I go to Characteristics. Using the method above, I start with ++, then +, then - characteristics to find where I can take out points. I will only lower an = skill if absolutely necessary.

 

Then I print the character out and review. I'll try some quick mock combat against a Champion or a CKC villain to see how the character works in combat. Mechanon, btw, is a good test subject because it forces you to test survival. You won't win in the mock, obviously, but it will give you a good idea of how the weaknesses stack up.

 

I modify as needed and am otherwise complete.

 

So what is your design theory?

[Starwolf]

Re: Character Design Theory

 

I usually prefer to have my players characters designed thusly:

 

1) Create a character concept and background

2) Using the concept & background as guidelines select character disadvantages to gather points.

3) Build the characters stats, skills, and powers without regard to points spent, but with a firm eye on concept and background (I call this my power draft).

4) Trim the character down to fit campaign point parameters. But keep the power draft as a guide for character development as he/she gains experience.

5) Submit to the GM for game approval (It should be said I am usually the GM in our group).

 

This methodology works well for me regardless of genre.

[Dr. Anomaly]

Re: Character Design Theory

 

Starwolf, that is almost exactly the same method I use! "Create without regard to points, then trim to match campaign limits."

 

I get two big advantages from doing it that way:

 

1) Once the trimming is done, it gives me a very clear idea of what direction the character's growth should take, and shows me where I need to spend XP in order to continue bringing the character concept to its "ideal" version. (This is of course subject to revision during play, but it at least starts me out with a road map. )

 

2) When building a character the "usual" way -- keeping points in mind, I invariably run into this problem:

 

"Well, I can't afford Power A and Ability B...guess I'll have to cut one of them..." and then a bit later "Gee... Dohicky C would go great with this concept! But I can't afford A and C...but wait! Would the earlier-considered B be a better character concept fit than C? Gah! I need to re-evaluate all over again, taking all 3 into account...!"

 

Instead of making the decision of what to afford multiple times -- and that decision will be subject to re-evaluation each time I hit on another idea that might fit the character -- I build everything, because then I can look at all the 'competing' features/ideas side-by-side, together, all at once. I find that saves a lot of headaches.

[prestidigitator]

Re: Character Design Theory

 

TLC, and lots of it.

[David Blue]

Re: Character Design Theory

 

My design theory is that two ends have to meet up. One end is inspiration. That comes from me and source material. The other end is context. That comes from the game system and the gamemaster.

 

1. A character with no personal inspiration or appeal is no good.

2. A character with no valid basis in the genre (the source material) is no good.

 

3. A character that the game system cannot handle or overly punishes will become bad in play.

4. A character that doesn't suit the campaign will become bad in play.

 

After making the two ends meet as best I can, I write down some numbers, which should be simple - as simple and clear as possible.

 

INSPIRATION

 

There are no rules for inspiration.

 

One thing that has repeatedly clicked for me is, when building characters for a high-powered game, usually Amber (a game that has some assumptions that resonate strongly with me), I'll devote a lot of attention to what flunkies, house troops, special servants (high technicians), privileged henchmen and romantic and other personal interests they have. These can be in any genre, depending on what (shadow) world they're set in. They are generally things that an egotistical lord of reality (from Amber or Chaos) expects to cast credit on him or her self - no trash. From time to time I find one of these subordinate characters looking very interesting, even more interesting than the boss. Then I write an alternate description of that character in another system, usually Hero because of its cross-genre flexibility and clarity.

 

You can see these things in a lot of my characters - the high COM and PRE scores, the clear-cut promotion of Order or Chaos (not in a specific psychological limitation but through the character's total concept and working out), the preference for characters who will and will be seen to be honourable or noble from some pretty clear-cut point of view, and close adherence to "mythic" stereotypes, above all "The Mighty Hero".

 

(It's not that I build the characters to focus on Order or Chaos in order to comply with Amber; rather the idea of Amber helps me connect with things that have what I see as some universal validity, underpinning the appeal of characters who are especially steadfast, devastating or whatever.)

 

Another thing I'll do is start with a threat, and make a hero to beat the threat. When vampires were overdone, it was time for The Slayer to appear. And so on. Lots of people do this. You get fed up with ninjas and you build The Ninja-Crusher! (laughing)

 

GENRE/SOURCE

 

Genre appropriateness comes from your movie-going and your reading. For this it helps a lot to have friends who tell you what's happening that's interesting.

 

I don't think you should get stuck on a "canon" for what has to be in a genre. Zombies used to be slow, shambling things. Then came the Infected of 28 Days later, and the full-blown Turbo-Zombies of Dawn of the Dead (2004), and my ideas on what I would build as a dedicated zombie-crushing hero changed immediately.

 

It's also good to (haunt non-gaming discussion) and argue (politely and with goodwill, for the sake of learning, not for ego!) about characters, teams and so on. There are people who have done their reading and their watching, and who have "studied this well," and it shows. Losing is learning, in this kind of discussion, and only learners are really winners.

 

SYSTEM

 

Knowing the system is a problem, because both game companies and their dedicated fans (unconsciously) distort things, exaggerating the ability of the game system to do justice to different kinds of characters.

 

Often, once you know what the system can't really (no, I mean really) handle, the solution is to pick a different game system to reflect the character. In my opinion, supported by the Champions genre book, Hero System can't properly run Superman-level superheroes (especially invulnerable ones), or superheroes who have no resistant defences but get by on agility, or quite a lot of characters in between (especially one-trick ponies, useful though they often are in a Lord of Reality's retinue). The solution for these characters is to build and play them only in a system that can handle them, if the opportunity ever arises. I wouldn't rebuild them all as middleweight Hero System tanks. That's one example of filtering by game system.

 

For Hero System, I routinely decide at this point that a character who uses extra-dimensional movement or other things that Hero does poorly or prices through the roof either belongs in another system, or will get these abilities activated only when the boss shows up. (Which of course will be never.)

 

CAMPAIGN/GAMEMASTER

 

The campaign - for this, you need lots of time, and for the gamemaster to talk with you. Rushed character creation, or character creation in ignorance, turns out badly.

 

To continue the Amber thread - if now you discover that there will be no extra-dimensional adventures, and your character was built for them, you need to rethink your character concept. Or if the game will soon shift to the Barbarian Wastes and stay there, maybe you need to rethink your feeble aristocratic plotter with all their points sunk in status, wealth (that will soon be forfeit permanently) and abilities that support contests of snobbery and skullduggery. The gamemaster may let you play that character (because you will certainly not be outshining anyone else), but in the new context, the character will become stupid.

 

NUMBERS

 

In actual number-writing stuff, I go for transparancy, simplicity and economy - "clean" character designs that can be taken in at a glance, with no tricks and no room for a trick to hide. No "spreadsheet characters," no munchkinisms, or as little as possible (because sometimes odd limitations and so on are the only way to build something reasonable), no malarky. The ideal, as far as I'm concerned, is the official character cards that came with DC Heroes, where you had a picture of a character like the Flash on one side of a small postcard, and everything you needed to know for game play in large, clear print on the other side. That's the ideal: I don't expect to achieve it, I just approach it as far as practical.

 

PS: what "you" do meant what I do, and the idiotic things that you of course will never do (like winding up with a wizened Melnibonean plotter with STR 1 and no strength drugs in sight crawling after the party in a wilderness adventure) are things I have done - and learned from.

 

PPS: "TLC, and lots of it."

Yes, that's the non-verbose version. (laughing)

"You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to prestidigitator again."

[BNakagawa]

Re: Character Design Theory

 

I usually get a seed of an idea stuck in my head and then I draw it.

 

Drawing a character gives me time to think about them.

[austenandrews]

Re: Character Design Theory

 

I'm pretty consistent: Concept, then unbound wish list, then trim, then wrack brain for more Disads.

[gojira]

Re: Character Design Theory

 

I flip through the various books looking for something cool, interesting, or different. Then I use that as a base and modify it to taste. Usually I keep the stats about where they are. Then I start switching powers around to get it closer to what I've decided I want. Then I throw out the disad list and make a new one, based entirely on my character concept. Usually I find or draw a different picture for the new character.

 

If that doesn't work, I whip out my power suit character, Iron Guy, and play him.

[Agent X]

Re: Character Design Theory

 

I tend to start with an origin story, emphasis on story, and a tone and theme for the character. From there, I'll get a real good idea of what his disadvantages are and a general idea of what his powers and skills are like. I fine-tune disadvantages then go back to powers and skills and play with them until I get a rough approximation of what I want for the character. If I don't have enough points to satisfy the initial concept, I put the character aside for a future game and start the whole process over. Sometimes, you shouldn't compromise concept, you should just move on.

[OddHat]

Re: Character Design Theory

 

I start with the concept and origin story, usually together. I then do the mechanics, trying to match what I want to see in the story and cutting or padding to keep things in line with the campaign the character is being designed for. At the end of the process, I go back and tweak the story again, trying to keep it in line with the final form the mechanics had to take. At that point, I'll sometimes look for a picture.

[Dr. Anomaly]

Re: Character Design Theory

 

I tend to start with an origin story' date=' emphasis on story, and a tone and theme for the character.[/quote']

Hey! You're back!

 

Or...I've just come back today from being gone a while myself, so if you came back a couple of weeks ago and I wasn't here to notice, I apologize for the "gaff" above...

[Sean Waters]

Re: Character Design Theory

 

I'm quite a lazy character designer (actually I'm quite lazy, period): I tend to build most characters on a spreadsheet of my own devising to save the adding up.

 

I can't say that I start with anything in particular: sometimes it is a couple of keywords (Teleporting Brick, or Human Singularity, or Alien Bat, or whatever), sometimes it is a power construct or a cunning disadvantage or a character sketch, sometimes it is a burning need to have something to vex the characters in tonight's game. Often it's someone else's idea I've stolen off these very boards.

 

If I don't have my spreadsheet handy I start by writing out

S

D

C

B

I

E

P

C

 

P

D

S

R

E

S

and start to fill in what I think is about right (I nealy always start with characteristics rather than powers or skills; don't know why).

 

I am very lazy about skills and often very lazy about disadvantages, especially for villains who really don't need that much fleshing out: the characters often only look at them from one direction and are unlikely to notice if they are two dimensional!

 

I have a huge number of half-constructed characters lying around. I am a bad person, and reading the care and dedication many of you put into character creation I would be truly ashamed, had I but an ounce of decency.

 

But I don't

[Super Squirrel]

Re: Character Design Theory

 

Starwolf' date=' that is [i']almost exactly[/i] the same method I use! "Create without regard to points, then trim to match campaign limits."

 

I get two big advantages from doing it that way:

 

1) Once the trimming is done, it gives me a very clear idea of what direction the character's growth should take, and shows me where I need to spend XP in order to continue bringing the character concept to its "ideal" version. (This is of course subject to revision during play, but it at least starts me out with a road map. )

 

2) When building a character the "usual" way -- keeping points in mind, I invariably run into this problem:

 

"Well, I can't afford Power A and Ability B...guess I'll have to cut one of them..." and then a bit later "Gee... Dohicky C would go great with this concept! But I can't afford A and C...but wait! Would the earlier-considered B be a better character concept fit than C? Gah! I need to re-evaluate all over again, taking all 3 into account...!"

 

Instead of making the decision of what to afford multiple times -- and that decision will be subject to re-evaluation each time I hit on another idea that might fit the character -- I build everything, because then I can look at all the 'competing' features/ideas side-by-side, together, all at once. I find that saves a lot of headaches.

But I find that designing the full scope of the character without doing any numbers causes more problems that way. If you go into full background, which I have been known to do, you can run into some major problems. Its why the Must Haves should come before full background. In the case of Shardik, I ran into a major snafu. He had to have certain powers and limitations. When I finished putting everything together I had very little powers that I wanted Shardik to have. If I had background indicating he HAD those things, I would have to completely redo the background which is not fun.

[Supreme Serpent]

Re: Character Design Theory

 

Usually start with basic concept/name/visualization. If those three don't come together, out it goes. The "first impression" stage. "Mystic Chinese Supergirl - 'Dragoness' " etc.

 

Then jot down types of things want them to have, what abilities, etc. No hard numbers yet, just basics like "high dex", "clinging", "drains", whatever. The "see them in action" phase. Most make it through this phase.

 

Then work out rough numbers - stats/powers/skills/initial disads. Adjust as needed. If after a few tries it's way too expensive or won't work mechanically as visualized, it either goes to the trash pile or gets re-filtered through the other stages to refine the concept to a cheaper version ("I guess Shadowguy can still be Shadowguy without the ability to use someone else's shadow to take over their bodies...") The "nuts and bolts" phase. (Alternatively, if it's too expensive the concept gets reworked as a villain for when I GM )

 

Then background, fleshing out disads as a result, minor tweaks to character. The "origin issue" phase.

 

Sometimes the initial idea will come at what's normally a later stage, like if I get a good idea of how to do a particular power mechanically, I may try to write up a character around that. Or get an idea for an odd origin, then see what kind of character might come from that.

[Dr. Anomaly]

Re: Character Design Theory

 

But I find that designing the full scope of the character without doing any numbers causes more problems that way. If you go into full background' date=' which I have been known to do, you can run into some major problems. Its why the Must Haves should come before full background. In the case of Shardik, I ran into a major snafu. He had to have certain powers and limitations. When I finished putting everything together I had very little powers that I wanted Shardik to have. If I had background indicating he HAD those things, I would have to completely redo the background which is not fun.[/quote']

That's why I don't generally do the full background until the character's done. I'll do a brief one (about one page), build the character, trim, then do the full background using the short one as a starting point. If there's anything mentioned in the short one that isn't in the final build, it gets cut...and then I just flesh out / expand the long one, adding more detail to things mentioned in the short one and the things the character has in the final build.

 

(shrug) YMMV, of course.

[austenandrews]

Re: Character Design Theory

 

I'll almost always detail a character's personality a fair bit. But for some reason I have an inhibition against writing highly detailed backgrounds for my PCs. Largely it's because I like to flesh out a character in play, according to what appeals to me at the moment. More than once I've been stuck with a detailed character that didn't play as appealingly as it seemed on paper.

 

Also it's because of the three basic choices for a detailed background: (a) learn a lot about the campaign world, ( force the GM to accept whatever elaborate fantasy background I've created, or © force the GM to learn a lot about whatever obscure background I use. (a) doesn't appeal to me at all. I prefer to learn about a setting in the game itself, and my groups have rarely used a pre-existing setting.

 

I don't like ( because as a GM I love building worlds with heavy underlying internal consistency. I dislike it when I've got a rich setting in mind and someone wants to create a PC who's from a vast alien empire or a secret vampire-elf clan or some other such element that doesn't fit into the setting. So I also don't do that to other GMs. Not that they'd mind like I do, it's just a personal preference.

 

I dunno why I don't like ©, but I don't.

[casualplayer]

Re: Character Design Theory

 

As a player, if I have to hesitate at all when doing Disadvantages I reconsider whether I should play the character at all. It feels like there isn't enough "there" there if the disads don't flow naturally. My thumbnail is usually within 10-20 pts of campaign limits, so the number cruching isn't usually a factor.

 

As a GM, points be damned. I design for a plot purpose and honestly rarely do a completed character sheet. Most of my villains look like this: Demedeus-son of Zeus and titan (probably Rhea) Olympian package, Zeus' stats + 10 levels Growth, Aquarius' weather control, Oratory, Persuasion, Noblesse Oblige, Enraged if disrespected 14-, 8-, Wants to ascend to Greek Pantheon. I did eventually write him up fully around the time he became a series regular. My supplement books are un-resellable because they have been marked up so much.

[Super Squirrel]

Re: Character Design Theory

 

That's why I don't generally do the full background until the character's done. I'll do a brief one (about one page), build the character, trim, then do the full background using the short one as a starting point. If there's anything mentioned in the short one that isn't in the final build, it gets cut...and then I just flesh out / expand the long one, adding more detail to things mentioned in the short one and the things the character has in the final build.

 

(shrug) YMMV, of course.

 

In that case we are on a terminology issue. I consider a one page thing to be a character concept, not a background. Backgrounds are 12 to 20 pages long.

[Supreme Serpent]

Re: Character Design Theory

 

In that case we are on a terminology issue. I consider a one page thing to be a character concept' date=' not a background. Backgrounds are 12 to 20 pages long.[/quote']

 

Mine are too, if I use real small pages.

[RDU Neil]

Re: Character Design Theory

 

I'll just say... from a GM's POV, I hate backgrounds that are more than a couple paragraphs. I think a general idea of the character, and a brushstroke back story are enough. Most of the character development should happen in game.

 

My biggest beef with players who create elaborate back stories, is that they are creating this solopsistic little world of "me, me, me" with their character that is often more limiting in it's detail than inspiring.

 

"On the run from VIPER after breaking their assassin indoctrination training!" is enough for me. I don't need twenty pages detailing every thought and emotion and action that occured. The focus should be on "What happens now, in the game?" not on your personal little biographic fantasy life.

[RDU Neil]

Re: Character Design Theory

 

I'll almost always detail a character's personality a fair bit. But for some reason I have an inhibition against writing highly detailed backgrounds for my PCs. Largely it's because I like to flesh out a character in play, according to what appeals to me at the moment. More than once I've been stuck with a detailed character that didn't play as appealingly as it seemed on paper.

 

Also it's because of the three basic choices for a detailed background: (a) learn a lot about the campaign world, ( force the GM to accept whatever elaborate fantasy background I've created, or © force the GM to learn a lot about whatever obscure background I use. (a) doesn't appeal to me at all. I prefer to learn about a setting in the game itself, and my groups have rarely used a pre-existing setting.

 

I don't like ( because as a GM I love building worlds with heavy underlying internal consistency. I dislike it when I've got a rich setting in mind and someone wants to create a PC who's from a vast alien empire or a secret vampire-elf clan or some other such element that doesn't fit into the setting. So I also don't do that to other GMs. Not that they'd mind like I do, it's just a personal preference.

 

I dunno why I don't like ©, but I don't.

 

 

YES! EXACTLY! BINGO!

 

Player and GM after my own heart!

 

You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to austenandrews again. DAMNIT!

[Super Squirrel]

Re: Character Design Theory

 

Well, I do a lot of detail on a single or a couple of incidents to get the feel for my character's voice. Null was my longest background and most of that went into the character's work through Acrotech. I saw it as a service by giving the GM useful information on Acrotech, the origin story, the character before becoming Null, and Null's DNPC.

 

12 to 20 pages was an exaggeration though.

[Agent333]

Re: Character Design Theory

 

Sean Waters, austenandrews and RDU Neil pretty well encapsulate my design theory.

 

Short but sweet backgrounds can get shoe-horned into any game and since my characters tend to be on the utilitarian side, that works fine for me. Most of my developement happens during the game and usually a GM will let me ret-con any current background into my character if it furthers his game. Not to mention, I've been able to BS background during game play better than sitting at my computer banging out several pages in a night (I'm a slow writer to boot).

 

Case in point: During a D&D game, the DM was bogged down with some details and play had slowed to a crawl. I asked him if we could bump around a half-hour in town while he searched his notes. He said that'd be fine. I asked him if he had stats for a bandit/highwayman, he said yes. I turn to the other players and say; "That bitch, Roselyn! Break up with me, will she? I'll show her! It's been three months now and I want my engagement ring back. She doesn't deserve it! I swore I'd never come back to this town, but now that I'm here, by Crom, I don't care HOW big her new boyfriend is, I'm getting it. Who's with me?"

 

My DMs jaw dropped, but I had given enough background in that short speech that he was able to wing a 45 minute aside to his adventure. When it was over, we were running from a wounded gang of brigands, I was spiting out teeth courtesy of Roselyn's beau and I had my ring back. It picked us back up and we were back on our way to recover the Mage's book.

 

This was the kind of thing that I never could have thought of to put in his background, let alone a 20 page one. But, it was a spur of the moment, utilitary, ret-conned background that gave a new dimension to the charcter and could spin more adventures in future for him. Best thing was, it made the DM a direct accomplice for my background and made us both happy. Perhaps this illustrates the use of an incomplete or brief background as a tool rather than a liability.

[RDU Neil]

Re: Character Design Theory

 

Agent333, your mission, should you choose to accept it, is to post more great posts like this!

 

Rep to you!

[Kristopher]

Re: Character Design Theory

 

I'll just say... from a GM's POV, I hate backgrounds that are more than a couple paragraphs. I think a general idea of the character, and a brushstroke back story are enough. Most of the character development should happen in game.

 

My biggest beef with players who create elaborate back stories, is that they are creating this solopsistic little world of "me, me, me" with their character that is often more limiting in it's detail than inspiring.

 

"On the run from VIPER after breaking their assassin indoctrination training!" is enough for me. I don't need twenty pages detailing every thought and emotion and action that occured. The focus should be on "What happens now, in the game?" not on your personal little biographic fantasy life.

 

Really, I think you're using far too broad a brush here, maybe based on some bad personal experiences. If the player puts that much effort into the character, I can't see that as a de facto bad thing.

 

(There's a bit of deja vu here, as I could swear I've had this discussion with someone on these forums before.)