Character Design Theory

[Kristopher]

Re: Character Design Theory

 

DING DING DING! Give that man a CEE-Gar!

 

That is it exactly! The player who assumes their idea of a character is perfect... without stopping to check first.

 

A good player's first question should be, "I heard you GM Champions. Would you tell me what your game is like? Would you describe the world, and give me examples of some session play?"

 

Then the player comes to character creation AFTER they have absorbed at least a "feel" for the world... if not the details.

 

Next, the player should come forth saying, "Based on what you described, here is an idea I came up with. Would this work? I'm sure I'd have to change some details, but is the concept sound for your game?"

 

All of this happens WAY before they decide to write a background... and if they do write one, it should be WITH the GM, and should have plenty of open/gray space that can retcon little background bits that come up during game play.

 

We pretty much agree on this.

 

 

The one thing I have to add, though, is that the GM has an obligation to honor the character when filling in those grey areas, and not step on the player's conception of who and what that character is. I've seen more than one instance when the GM felt that his idea of the PC was more important than the players -- example, having an old girlfriend show up with a PC's kid when it was well established by the player that the PC had taken vows chastity and celibacy as a young man and had never violated them.

[RDU Neil]

Re: Character Design Theory

 

Agreed. Tailoring the game universe to the specific player characters which has to be more fun for everyone involved. Who doesn't want to feel special?

 

I think there needs to be balance, here.

 

The players should work to conform their characters to the world and the story... at the same time the GM should work to conform the story to the characters abilities and roles.

 

Players shouldn't expect to automatically be "THE MOST IMPORTANT CHARCTER IN THE WORLD" just because they are the PCs.

 

The GM, on the other hand, should make the characters "the most important characters in THIS STORY" for sure.

 

i.e. the Players shouldn't expect to be the JLA right off the bat... but if they are playing the Texax Teen Titans, they should be the critical characters for those stories, and not have the JLA, or even Cybor and Starfire show up and take control.

 

The PCs must conform to the WORLD... but the STORY must conform to the PCs.

 

(a little simplified, but works for me)

[tesuji]

Re: Character Design Theory

 

 

It is not just between the GM and Player... but ALL Players have a say in the creation of all other characters. Everyone puts their character out for the GROUP to discuss, before anything is finalized.

Almost never.

 

Closest thing to this successfully done was when i asked another player in a DnD game last year if he wanted to coordinate our characters. My idea was elven brothers, twins in fact and by the time it was done we had elven twins based loosely on some deific or legendary elven twins. it worked great and set up lotsa potential for the GM, some of which he used.

 

But that was very limited, more or less a shared background, not getting into character builds shared.

 

The time-before-last HERo game i was involved in was a shared Gm thing and we did the post-character-for-group-approval and it fell apart very quickly. One player did not like the other characters even tho they were "within established limits" and raised a ruckus even though his character was "outside campaign limits" depending on how you took the numbers (move thru specialist who wanted his damage values determined by non-move-thru values) and the lack of a single deciding voice hindered the progression. In the end, the troublesome player decided this was not going his way and quit before the game started and everyone else was so tired of the nonsense they approved everything else without really looking. That game lasted maybe 5 months.

 

but, baring those abberations, the Gm sets the standards, goes over the characters and approves or disapproves, and i always give my players the option of having planned characters but rarely do any of them take this route.

 

This to me is truly essential for effective group Play Experience... and Hero System demands this, because so many things are possible with the system, what becomes VERY important, is the GM and group agreeing AHEAD OF TIME what is NOT to be done... as much as what IS to be done.

 

Well, for my money, this is not essential, this group sharing of chargen and group determination of pc specifics.

 

yes, there needs to be some decisions made and some vetting done, but IMX this is far more efficiently, effectively and smoothly done by the GM, than by the committee of players.

 

 

So, definitely, our experiences differ on this subject.

 

not surprisingly, all things considered.

 

BTW, it sounds like you think HERo particularly as a game system needs this shared development thingy. if thats accurate, what is it about hero that makes players generating their own characters with Gm vetting more problematic than other game systems?

[tesuji]

Re: Character Design Theory

 

The players should work to conform their characters to the world and the story... at the same time the GM should work to conform the story to the characters abilities and roles.

 

Agreed emphatically.

 

A recent example... i started a stargate game. this gave the players a good basis for generating characters appropriate to the world. I got three military and one alien submitted as PCs. Ok works fine.

 

Now of them, two of the military types were medics and the alien was a healer. Three out of four medical speciaists.

 

after a few minutes thought the campaign name scribbled at the top of my sheet changed from "stargate rubicon" to "stargate 911" and their team was a rescue/medical emergency team instead of an explortation team, which altered the "type of mission" and initial setup for most of their scenarios.

 

As i do it, once i get the characters, i look for what stories they have to tell and my campaign focus settles in on those stories. Challenges are more or less designed to highlight character traits, good and bad.

 

so far its worked great.

[RDU Neil]

Re: Character Design Theory

 

We pretty much agree on this.

 

 

The one thing I have to add, though, is that the GM has an obligation to honor the character when filling in those grey areas, and not step on the player's conception of who and what that character is. I've seen more than one instance when the GM felt that his idea of the PC was more important than the players -- example, having an old girlfriend show up with a PC's kid when it was well established by the player that the PC had taken vows chastity and celibacy as a young man and had never violated them.

 

 

Totally agree. This is the social contract, and the GM is bound by it as well as the players.

 

Flip side... if the GM does introduce something that is NOT in direct violation of established parameters... and makes sense for the world/story... then the player should be open to the idea, even if they don't "like" it.

 

Example: I was playing a long term character in one of my rare chances as a player. GM brought back an old lover (Tamara Kolodni, Mossad Agent) who hadn't been around in a few years... and she needed my help to rescue my son."

 

My WHAT? Oh crap!

 

Now... this made perfect sense in terms of the story... it didn't violate the social contract... but as a player, I had no desire to expore this, to have a character with a child, to have that child as the focus. I was a bit aggravated at first...

 

... BUT, I sat back and I said. "He's the GM. The story makes sense, and not every thing that happens is something "neato" so I should let this play out... TRUST THE GM... and see what happens."

 

Turns out this was one of the most kick ass adventures I've ever played in... lots of great character development... lots of historical depth (this campaign has been running 18 years now) lots of emotion and pathos.

 

But as a PLAYER, I had a responsibility to accept some things that I had an emotional, gut reaction AGAINST, because it was logical and appropriate. This inability of some players to distance the emotional PLAYER reaction from the character reaction is a real problem.

 

Sometimes stories are unpleasant and difficult and not what we expected... but that doesn't mean they can't be amazing, powerful and exceptional stories if we "go with them" rather than fight them.

 

Cooperation is a two way street. The GM isn't the only one who should bite the bullet and accommodate others... players should accommodate the story as well.

[RDU Neil]

Re: Character Design Theory

 

 

BTW, it sounds like you think HERo particularly as a game system needs this shared development thingy. if thats accurate, what is it about hero that makes players generating their own characters with Gm vetting more problematic than other game systems?

 

I'm no expert on any other system besides Hero (I simply don't play anything else) but from a mechanical POV, Hero is just so wide open that ANYTHING can happen if you don't set some limits.

 

The classic, "I got hit with an EGO Blast, so I'm spending my EXP to get Mental Defense."

 

By the rules, nothing stops this... so the social contract must be agreed upon (agreed and UNDERSTOOD) that "EXP can't buy powers just because... there needs to be a story/character concept that justifies this... one that the WHOLE GROUP agrees makes sense."

 

In D&D (from my limited experience) if you go up levels, the feats and skills and such you buy are already proscribed for you by the game rules, so there isn't as much need to have the group determine these things.

 

For your Stargate game, you might have had someone say, "I want to play a Wolverine clone. I think it would be KEWL to slice up the Go'uld!"

 

So not just you as the GM, but the whole group gets to say, "Dude, that is just SuXXorZ! Try again." One, it does not put the GM on the spot to be the only one to say no... the group consensus works to do that.

 

And then, what if one player says...

 

"What if... what if the character is a Jafah who was experimented upon by Anubis. He has a chemically heightened "junior" in his gut so he heals even faster than normal, and he implanted with naquada forged blades that retract into his arms... intended to be an assassin against the Tok'ra..."

 

Suddenly this might be something that works... maybe not, but we are moving toward something that does.

 

Granted, this requires a mature gaming group... but I think it is a good acid test. If you have players that can't handle this kind of thing... that can't cooperate... then it's a good idea to weed them out. Life is too short to game with @$$holes.

 

Also... if everyone IS coooperating, but can't come to a consensus, you t have discovered that this particular game/storyline/campaign isn't going to work, and it gets chucked and you move on to something else before comitting too much time and effort.

 

It ain't easy, but it's worth it.

[tesuji]

Re: Character Design Theory

 

 

I'm no expert on any other system besides Hero (I simply don't play anything else) but from a mechanical POV, Hero is just so wide open that ANYTHING can happen if you don't set some limits.

 

The classic, "I got hit with an EGO Blast, so I'm spending my EXP to get Mental Defense."

 

By the rules, nothing stops this... so the social contract must be agreed upon (agreed and UNDERSTOOD) that "EXP can't buy powers just because... there needs to be a story/character concept that justifies this... one that the WHOLE GROUP agrees makes sense."

Ahh... part of our difference is in perception. See i never played HERO. I have run games using HERo more than any other system, literally decades, but i have never played HERO.

 

HERo is a toolkit not a game, IMO and IMX. I might play a supers game using hero or a pulp game using HERo, but you don't play HERO. In defining the game you are running thats where things like "whats a reasonable character" is defined, sometimes in specifics sometimes in general themes, and so forth.

 

HERo doesn't define the setting at all.

 

and when in doubt, its the Gms job to specify what is reasonable for the setting/game he is running.

 

for a supers game or maybe even if your character is mr adaptive, getting hit with an ego blast may be all you need to justify spending xp on mental defense. In an x-files game, it might be right out.

 

these things IMX all fall into the GMs role, not to the decide by committee.

 

In D&D (from my limited experience) if you go up levels, the feats and skills and such you buy are already proscribed for you by the game rules, so there isn't as much need to have the group determine these things.

yes, but, by the time you have chosen DND to play, it being a game and a setting, you have already made those decisions. probably these kind of answers were devised by the Gm when he decided to run a fantasy game using hero.

 

For your Stargate game, you might have had someone say, "I want to play a Wolverine clone. I think it would be KEWL to slice up the Go'uld!"

and that would be rather odd, possibly a sign that the Gm did not adequately convey the setting to the player. Almost certainly, it would be very odd for a player to say this if they knew stargate. Something akin to a Gm running fantasy hero getting someone wanting to play a space marine with a plasma gun.

 

Do you really run into these types of issues so much that you feel the committee approach helped/was-needed to weed them out?

So not just you as the GM, but the whole group gets to say, "Dude, that is just SuXXorZ! Try again." One, it does not put the GM on the spot to be the only one to say no... the group consensus works to do that.

saying "no" has rarely been a problem for me. But then, frankly, i havent ever had a case as egregious as the one's perhaps you have. Maybe its luck or maybe i have good players to choose from(that i believe to be true) or maybe i manage to get across the setting and expectations well enough, but usually most characters are at least in the ballpark.

And then, what if one player says...

"What if... what if the character is a Jafah who was experimented upon by Anubis. He has a chemically heightened "junior" in his gut so he heals even faster than normal, and he implanted with naquada forged blades that retract into his arms... intended to be an assassin against the Tok'ra..."

well, the PC alien race in the stargate game i ran was created new and wholecloth to fulfill player requests, none of which were in the system at that point and adding in the cultural bits i came up with, her race and their plight became one of the primary story acrs.

 

So, inventing stuff to meet reasonable demands, not a problem.

 

But still, this is a GM decision. had i taken the alien race to the gang, even my very good players, and put it to a vote and such, i KNOW it would have taken a whole lot longer.

 

for example, her race got a healing power, a much weaker version of the ancients lay-on-hands seen in the show, and that has figured into storyline in a great way. had i put this to a vote, my more conservative players would have been very much ag'in it as they tend to be, well, conservative. i could not explain the balances for it to them before the game started without them getting told a lot of storyline issues that serve to keep it well in line. On the other hand, seeing it in play, seeing the drawbacks and problems stemming from it... i have had no complaints in actual play.

 

 

Suddenly this might be something that works... maybe not, but we are moving toward something that does.

actually, i added the seke, a cat race used as host by some goa'uld and they do have strap on metallic claws. So in truth... not too far off.

Granted, this requires a mature gaming group... but I think it is a good acid test. If you have players that can't handle this kind of thing... that can't cooperate... then it's a good idea to weed them out. Life is too short to game with @$$holes.

well, my group is what i would call mature, heck even ancient, but maturity and consensus do not necessarily walk hand in hand. We have several different styles and i have found that having the GM be the one responsible for these things works best with my gang.

 

if nothing else, part of it derives from the notion that the GM isn't "a player" and doesn't have a vested interest in "his character" and so there is no perception of a "conflict of interest."

 

Also... if everyone IS coooperating, but can't come to a consensus, you t have discovered that this particular game/storyline/campaign isn't going to work, and it gets chucked and you move on to something else before comitting too much time and effort.

 

It ain't easy, but it's worth it.

 

It definitely sounds like a different approach. Not one i have found useful and not one i would be anxious to try again. My best results, as Gm and player, have been when the Gm handled the GMing and set the bounds and the players came in understanding that.

 

but, every group is different.

 

But, yes, i see your point that HERo, the toolkit, needs more upfront defining and limiting than most games (which come as games with settings) would require. Still not on par with these being better when done by commitee, but at least understanding now.

[Agent X]

Re: Character Design Theory

 

Totally agree. This is the social contract, and the GM is bound by it as well as the players.

 

Flip side... if the GM does introduce something that is NOT in direct violation of established parameters... and makes sense for the world/story... then the player should be open to the idea, even if they don't "like" it.

 

Example: I was playing a long term character in one of my rare chances as a player. GM brought back an old lover (Tamara Kolodni, Mossad Agent) who hadn't been around in a few years... and she needed my help to rescue my son."

 

My WHAT? Oh crap!

 

Now... this made perfect sense in terms of the story... it didn't violate the social contract... but as a player, I had no desire to expore this, to have a character with a child, to have that child as the focus. I was a bit aggravated at first...

 

... BUT, I sat back and I said. "He's the GM. The story makes sense, and not every thing that happens is something "neato" so I should let this play out... TRUST THE GM... and see what happens."

 

Turns out this was one of the most kick ass adventures I've ever played in... lots of great character development... lots of historical depth (this campaign has been running 18 years now) lots of emotion and pathos.

 

But as a PLAYER, I had a responsibility to accept some things that I had an emotional, gut reaction AGAINST, because it was logical and appropriate. This inability of some players to distance the emotional PLAYER reaction from the character reaction is a real problem.

 

Sometimes stories are unpleasant and difficult and not what we expected... but that doesn't mean they can't be amazing, powerful and exceptional stories if we "go with them" rather than fight them.

 

Cooperation is a two way street. The GM isn't the only one who should bite the bullet and accommodate others... players should accommodate the story as well.

I like my game entertaining. Unpleasant, difficult stories don't fit that criteria.

 

See, I once had a GM who took my DNPC girlfriend and turned her into an amnesiac supernuclear male supervillain with transparent everything but skeleton... - It's a long story and it made "sense" (sort of) but that just aint my bag. It stopped me cold like nothing before or since in game. I literally had no idea what to make of it. I played on like an RPG Zombie utterly lost other than stumble over decisions and roll dice. The GM is a friend and tells some awesome stories. This one just didn't fit me.

[Mentor]

Re: Character Design Theory

 

I think there needs to be balance, here.

 

The players should work to conform their characters to the world and the story... at the same time the GM should work to conform the story to the characters abilities and roles.

 

Players shouldn't expect to automatically be "THE MOST IMPORTANT CHARCTER IN THE WORLD" just because they are the PCs.

 

The GM, on the other hand, should make the characters "the most important characters in THIS STORY" for sure.

 

i.e. the Players shouldn't expect to be the JLA right off the bat... but if they are playing the Texax Teen Titans, they should be the critical characters for those stories, and not have the JLA, or even Cybor and Starfire show up and take control.

 

The PCs must conform to the WORLD... but the STORY must conform to the PCs.

 

(a little simplified, but works for me)

I completely agree. The communication must be two way between GM and player. One of the written rules Trebuchet provided at startup included "No sociopathic loners" in order that nobody designs Wolverine four a four color game and thus feels like a fifth wheel.

 

What Hero seems to have going for it over most games, however, is you don't start the game as "1st level", a meaningless PFC, minor functionary or run of the mill also ran either. Sure, the PC should earn their fame and fortune, but they shouldn't get killed off by every shop clerk who happens to be a retired 10th level fighter like the old D and D days.

[atlascott]

Re: Character Design Theory

 

It is not just between the GM and Player... but ALL Players have a say in the creation of all other characters. Everyone puts their character out for the GROUP to discuss' date=' before anything is finalized.[/quote']

 

My group does this--but not as explicitly. When a few guys see that one fellow is making a combat monster, then someone else automatically seems to gravitate towards a different kind of character, and then someone else makes a different kind of character, etc. I think we end up with interesting, versatile groups this way.

[Super Squirrel]

Re: Character Design Theory

 

I have always wanted to create a character that is a relative to another character in the game and have a sort of similar mesh to the two characters. But nobody wants to do that with me.

[David Blue]

Re: Character Design Theory

 

I have always wanted to create a character that is a relative to another character in the game and have a sort of similar mesh to the two characters. But nobody wants to do that with me.

Anytime. That's one of my frustrated ambitions too.

[RDU Neil]

Re: Character Design Theory

 

I have always wanted to create a character that is a relative to another character in the game and have a sort of similar mesh to the two characters. But nobody wants to do that with me.

 

 

But dude... you're a SQUIRREL!

 

I don't do superpets.

 

 

 

 

[OddHat]

Re: Character Design Theory

 

But dude... you're a SQUIRREL!

 

I don't do superpets.

 

 

 

 

 

Nonsense. Superpets rock.

[Trebuchet]

Re: Character Design Theory

 

I have always wanted to create a character that is a relative to another character in the game and have a sort of similar mesh to the two characters. But nobody wants to do that with me.

Wait a minute... Isn't that what owl wives are for?

[Supreme Serpent]

Re: Character Design Theory

 

I love group character creation/selection. When we've done it, it works well, and everybody gets some good ideas off of the other folks. It also helps create a good synergy in play as when you're done, everyone is more involved with/likes everybody else's characters more.

 

You lose a bit of that as the game goes on, and new players/characters are brought in that don't go through that same process. There's not the same involvement/fit as there is with the original set of characters. I understand not wanting to take everyone's time to work on just one character, but I still feel something important gets lost along the way.

[Sean Waters]

Re: Character Design Theory

 

Or the GM and the player sit down' date=' treat the background as a rough draft, and work to make it fit within the world the GM has in mind -- or refine the world a little so that it takes advantage of all that work the player has put into something. Some of the best ideas come from the players.[/quote']

 

Oh yes, quite right, but you don't want them to know that!

 

 

Personally' date=' I find any hook [b']potentially[/b] useful.

 

Ah, but then I believe we live in a society with far too much choice. Informational overload contains a plethora of potential, but I'm keener on the actually useful.

 

 

 

Who are you playing with?

 

Proto-hominds.

 

ONLY KIDDING, GUYS!

 

 

 

Ugh.

 

Never. If I want to play the character someone else hands me, I'll go play a video game or something.

 

Now here we really will have to agree to disagree. I find characters someone else has built to be refreshing. I build characters myself, of course, but I sometimes get a bit possessive, if my self image doesn't accord with that of everyone around me (my audience, as I like to call them). Playing a character handed to you can be a challenge: making it a character, finding things that will make it distinctive and memorable: exploring the ways in which others create characters and how that differs from your own build concepts.

 

I'm not advocating that this is the only approach: far from it, but it is the approach that (say) most actors have to take when they pick up a script: just because they have little control over what their characters do and say does not mean that they can not make them their own. In a rpg you have far more scope than that.

 

Give it a go sometime

[Dr. Anomaly]

Re: Character Design Theory

 

I love group character creation/selection. When we've done it' date=' it works well, and everybody gets some good ideas off of the other folks. It also helps create a good synergy in play as when you're done, everyone is more involved with/likes everybody else's characters more.[/quote']

One of the best examples of that in which I've been involved was for D&D, so please don't shoot me.

 

Myself and 3 friends were making up 6th-level characters to help playtest a module before it went to print. The author/GM had encouraged us to "make up whatever twisted characters you can, so we can see if you'll 'break' anything in the module." Well, okay!

 

The last time we'd done this for this author/GM, we'd ended up having our butts handed to us by a bunch of vines (assassin vines) because none of us had built a fighter-type. This time we resolved to build our characters together, rather than individually, and to make sure we had some decent fighter-type abilities; we didn't want to be all pure fighters, though, so we decided we'd all make multiclass fighter-type/something elses. Looking at the various warriors (barbarian, ranger, etc.) we decided that 'paladin' had the most "bang for your buck" (i.e. the best "munchkin" choice) and that 2nd level got you the most goodies with the least "investment" of the 6 levels we had available.

 

Talking together, we also decided that the levels of paladin should come last, since otherwise having levels as, say, a thief would be difficult to explain. The problem here is that of course paladins are supposed to be "born, not made" so how could we justify having paladin levels last instead of first?

 

The story ended up being something like this:

 

A party of 3 evil adventurers (wizard, bard, rogue) was hired by a cleric of Hextor (evil god) to raid a temple of Heironius (good god, twin brother of Hextor) to defile a certain religious artifact (small 'a'). As soon as the evil adventurers touched the artifact, though...BOOM! Suddenly they were standing in front of Heironious himself, who informs them he's going to obliterate them for the act they were attempting. He raises his hand but the bard blurts out: "Wait!!!! Can't we make some kind of deal?!?!" Heironious looks thoughtful for a moment then booms "GRANTED!!!!" and waves his hand. There's a flash, and the party is back on the Prime Material plane.

 

Their alignments have been changed to Lawful Good, and they each have a new class: 1st level paladins of Heironious! (They had gained enough experience to make 2nd level as paladins before the playtest started.)

 

The party worked well together (and the in-character conversations were an absolute delight). Imagine a more serious version of the Gopher Twins style of conversation, but with four people instead of two.

 

The bard (a half-orc named Adonis) still felt his old urges quite strongly. He continually skated the edge of the letter of the "law" in staying within his alignment, often doing creative interpreting to justify his actions. He'd periodically build up enough guilt, though, to turn himself "in" to the cleric to be assign 'pennance' and try to mend his 'rules-lawyering' ways. Best example of "rules-lawyering": the party needed to get one member aboard a ship to check out one of the passengers. Obviously the rogue would be the best choice, but since her "conversion" she no longer did 'breaking and entering' -- and the ship had guards that would deny her admittance if they knew what she was about. Thinking this through, the bard realized that if the rogue tried to walk on board and wasn't denied permission, she could do it, but also knew she herself would never use trickery. So he 'distracted' her with the old "Look over there!" bit, and cast Invisibility on her. She knew what was going on, but it was within the "letter of the law" that she wasn't using trickery, and didn't actually see the bard cast the spell, so she could go along with it. That caused a rather long session with the party cleric later, though.

 

The rogue had been a specialist in the backstab, more of an assassin than a thief, though she did a lot of that as well. Among other things, she now refused to strike an opponent in the back, or from ambush -- she had to make sure the opponent knew she was there before she struck. She still had very strong urges to do pickpocket-style thieving, too, but that would have been a major no-no. In order to deal with those urges, she took to walking through town, watching for other pickpockets at work. When she spotted one, she'd quietly pickpocket them, and then return the item/purse to the original victim. Though it was technically stealing, since it was for the purpose of returning it to the victim, she could squeak it past her conscience. Best example of overcoming the "won't backstab" bit: during a fight in an inn, one attacker was about to gut the cleric. The rogue wanted to intervene, but as it happens the attacker's back was to her. (Sneaky darn GM!! ) Not having time to work her way through the other combatants, she did a long dive across the floor, between legs, and ended up on her back between the feet of the attacker. Since she only used daggers in fighting, she didn't have much reach -- so she poked the dagger (gently) about where you'd imagine and ordered the guy to freeze and release the cleric. He "froze".

 

The wizard was the one most taken with the "romantic ideal" of the paladin, or at least the popular image of what a paladin looked like. So he wore full plate armor. Because "that's what paladins wear." Which meant he had a 50% chance of spell failure whenever he tried to cast a spell! His reasoning: "If the spell fails, it's because it's Heironious' will that it fail, because obviously the situation wasn't supposed to be solved by magic."

 

The cleric was really the only one of the four that didn't have any "urges" from his "old life" making him want to take actions that could have been against his alignment. He was the brightest of the bright, the most morale of the morale, and constantly but gently chiding the others when he saw signs of "morale lapses" on their parts. The other three respected him greatly, knowing that he was much more firmly grounded in their new faith than he was, and always submitted to his decrees, punishments, or guidance...but also largely took pains to avoid him noticing what they were doing. Why was the cleric the "best of the best" with no urgings of his old life? As the player put it, "Being the cleric of Heironious' worst enemy, his psyche was put through the fluff-dry cycle twice to make sure absolutely no trace of his evil remained."

 

That playtest was an absolute blast!

[Vondy]

Re: Character Design Theory

 

I generally do thus:

 

1) a general character outline (hit the high points: major abilities, background, personality...)

2) find media (I like a good picture to work from)

3) select character disadvantages (I frequently run-over, or turn many into 0 pointers)

4) build the character (crunch numbers, etc.)

5) flesh out the outline (esp. background)

6) buy background skills, etc.

[zornwil]

Re: Character Design Theory

 

On group character design: I haven't really done it in any group. But I and others have consulted on specific ideas as well as occasionaly "what do we need?" calls or "what's everyone else got?" fishing. Let me say this, though...I only rarely really enjoy going family style for Chinese food. When I want a particular plate, I often want a wholse serving to myself. Similarly, there's lots of components of character design that I feel selfish about. I'm always open-minded to input and I do think players MUST build characters with cooperation in mind, but there's a part of the act that I want to "own". Of course, GM-player communication and clarity/transparency as well as mutual input is key.

 

As to the larger question SS proposed, I don't think there's any one way that's a "must do" for quality. I have seen and experienced all forms working, ranging from "I like this power idea" to detailed backgrounds. I think personality, though, is key, personally speaking...but I've seen others work without that being identified before play and still come out with outstanding characters, so there you go.

 

Consider this...very often, NPCs that a GM just made up on the spot have gone on to be extremely compelling characters for everyone involved, with great depth. I'm not bringing this up as something that even "should" happen or suggesting that GM characters end up that way, even, I'm saying that it's a great example instead of how a quality character can up out of thin air.

 

As to something RDU Neil said and others discussed, along the lines of what I've said I don't agree that more detail is bad or less detail is bad. Again, I've seen and submitted characters that had little backgrounds and others iwth great detail and seen it work all sorts of ways.

[Roy_The_Ruthles]

Re: Character Design Theory

 

Here's the basic process in which i made a recent character for a high fantasy game

 

1) characteristics, as this helps me figure out what he looks like, what sort of shape he's in etc.

 

2) skills, just the absolutly essential ones, i'll come back for more later if i have extra points, here's where i buy a few CSLs to fill in later.

 

3)Talents, for this character a little combat luck to help him.

 

4) Powers, building the most important ones first, then slowly approaching the limit.

 

5) finally disadvantages, which lead into a backstory, maybe he has a code of conduct from his father, etc.

 

I once had a player write 14 pages of badly done angst. It slowed the game down because he was always making rolls on what his character should do, and then when we finally got to the plot, his character had to make an ego roll (which he failed) and couldn't go on the plot because he had a moral problem with it, so he sat the next 5 weeks out.

 

All in all, long backstories hurt more than they help, a paragraph to a page is all you need.

[JmOz]

Re: Character Design Theory

 

I usualy start with what I call the hook

 

 

The hook might be anything:

 

A power I want to use (You know a character with Transfer would be cool)

A Archtype I want to use (Martial Artist would be cool)

A Background story (You know I just had this wonderful background about a Robin like character who's Batman was seriouly injured so now has to defend his city but is not ready yet)

A Disad (I want to play a character who is hunted by Dr. Destroyer)

A costume (Wow this would look great)

A Homage, normaly with a twist (I am actualy currently working on a Blue Beetle homage that combine's a Power Armor type of character, with the golden age and modern era Blue Beetle)

 

Then I flesh the idea out in my head (Get some basic ideas about abilities, think about the origin in a one sentence type of way, etc...)

 

From there I usualy build the character, an organic process where I flip to one thing to another and return back till I am happy

 

Then I fill in the details (Write the background, design the costume, etc...)

 

Then I go back to the Character sheet to revise it

 

Then Revise the details

 

Repeat till I am happy (Or game day what ever happens first, normaly game day)

[ross_winn]

Re: Character Design Theory

 

So what is your design theory?

 

I could go into a missive about why a design theory, as you describe it, is wrong. However that would be rude.

 

You can min/max her to death, and it happens all the time. However what fun is that? I approach it from a more narrative angle.

 

Build the person, then add the powers. If you are building some types of heroes this may not work, but the point is the same.

 

I could build my hero dozens of ways, but I use the format I think best fits the style and effects of the powers. Sometimes you should use a multi-power rather than an elemental control; just because it models the power better, and not because of a points advantage.

 

My cents,

[Arsenal]

Re: Character Design Theory

 

For my part, character creation goes something like this:

 

1) Talk to the GM. Get the GM's info regarding the campaign: limits, restrictions, Do's and Do Not's as well as available origin(s) and the state of society/technology. This is a BIG step, usually leading to at least one or two ideas, since my group rarely plays pre-fab settings and the "anything goes" games are rare.

 

2) Inspiration. Come up with an idea and try to pin it down to one word (preferably) or a short phrase. This is sort of our group benchmark for a good concept and is somewhat enforced on new people and somewhat relaxed on the vets.

 

3) Stat this mess. Ideally, Step 3 would be to take care of the abilities necessary to reflect the concept, however, I find I have a very hard time building those without first looking at the stats. After all, you can't leave out Characteristics, so it feels awkward to me to fail to take care of that. I justify that as falling under the "necessities" clause, but I know it's a polite fiction I maintain to keep myself happy.

 

4) Actually take care of the necessities. By that, I mean whatever is core to the concept, not the playability necessities. This may or may not involve fully constructing the powers. A lot of times, it's more of a brief mental list with a quick check for how playable I think I can make the concept. Moreover, this is the 'step' during which I tend to check in with the team about what's being built, assuming that wasn't discussed during one of the earlier steps.

 

5) Get crunchy. This includes constructing the Skills, Powers, and Disads, but also involves rechecking the potential usefulness of the character. I usually build to budget, not in excess for there are no guarantees the game will go more than a few sessions, let alone long enough to actualize my latent Mind Control or some such.

 

6) Spit and polish. This is where points get scraped and/or points get consumed by 'flavor text' abilities. This is usually repeated after the GM has looked over the character.

 

Frequently, any character backstory is a matter of bouncing ideas off the GM and seeing if they fit his world. We tend to be somewhat in the dark about some setting elements, compared to what I see from other GMs, so sometimes we can't properly judge that ourselves. He and I both feel that sometimes overly conceiving a character's mindset and history before the game can hurt the game and/or the character - especially in light of the lack of information we sometimes suffer - so our backgrounds tend to be brief and to the point. They also tend to be the result of a conversation, not of a one-sided decision making process on the players' (or GM's) part. A lot of "Can I..?"s and "Is this appropriate?"s.

 

Arsenal

[Roy_The_Ruthles]

Re: Character Design Theory

 

You can min/max her to death' date=' and it happens all the time. However what fun is that? I approach it from a more narrative angle.[/quote']

 

Sometimes knowing what they can do gives you ideas about what they have done and where they have been.