|
|
Post by derv on Feb 11, 2021 20:26:06 GMT -6
Anyone who has run a game for a group who is new to roleplaying expect that character creation can take some time. This can be a little frustrating when you want to jump right into a game. The tendency is to want to rush the player through the process, possibly minimizing it's significance.
I sometimes think back to when I started playing, it was all very novel. You are creating a persona with endless possibility. The equipment list was so interesting. For your first choice of spell, you certainly want to pick the best one. Alignment- what is that and how does it work? Fighters, Magic Users, Clerics, Dwarves, Elves, Halflings. The whole thing was full of choices. Then to top it off, you might even doodle an image of how you envision your fresh hero to appear.
Half the mystique of the game was right there in character creation. It is a game unto itself. There are others who took note of this and developed it further, Traveller comes to mind.
I'm having the predisposition lately that character creation as a game should be embraced. So, I've been thinking about ways to make it more so that might also lend a bit of story to the mix. Maybe step away from all the choices and move towards more randomization. One thing I'm considering is swapping the rolling for gold and buying equipment section with a system of bartering that emulates negotiating over the price of gear by using the reaction table as it's starting point. A new adventurer might walk away fully outfitted with change to spare or they might be lucky to walk away with a rusty sword and the shirt on their back.
Anyone else play around with character creation?
|
|
|
|
Post by hamurai on Feb 12, 2021 0:55:38 GMT -6
We enjoyed Beyond the Wall's take on character creation. It's based on random tables dealing with childhood, youth, and more stuff-that-happens, but always tailored to a class (they call it a Playbook). Depending on these events, characters' attributes go up, they get skills, spells, gear. They can add NPCs and locations to the starting village all characters share.
You basically roll up your characters' life-so-far together, creating the village and some interesting places beyond in the process. You could even play out some of these life events in short flashbacks of role-playing to give the player a choice in some places (there are usually events like "This and that happened in your childhood. How did you deal with it?").
Definitely a session zero mini-game suitable for many OSR titles and even OD&D which creates characters with more or less equal attribute scores overall.
|
|
|
|
Post by dicebro on Feb 12, 2021 7:17:58 GMT -6
I enjoy creating characters as a solo endeavor. I don’t do it with a group at conventions due to time constraints. You could test this idea at a con as its own rpg event. I think I saw something like this for Garycon.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 12, 2021 8:31:50 GMT -6
For 3lbb, one level 1 character is about as good as the next for all intents and purposes. Some are slightly exceptional at gaining xp in their chosen field but that's about it. How much gold you generate affects how much gear you get, and shopping is the most time-consuming aspect, which the Alexandrian and some other bloggers have proposed elegant solutions to. I'm not really sure having a background would make these specific types of games any better. Maybe for certain RPGs like Traveller where it really affects gameplay or immersion, but here, you're Dwarfy mcDwarfpants of clan McDwarf and you like treasure. That's just the kind of game this is, with one foot still planted firmly in the cliche's of wargaming and pulp fiction. I prefer to think of an OD&D character is like a snowball that rolls downhill, accumulating interesting traits as he goes. You don't have a background, you have a foreground. At level 1, you're a template. An archetype. A what-if. You might trigger a trap or randomly encounter a Wraith before you ever get to level 2, and that sucks but that's life. Roll up another what-if and try again. That's the tone the original game has on paper. Don't get me wrong. I think it's great that the game later grew beyond this narrow scope into what it is today, since so many people seem to enjoy that, but I missed out on those early days so I'd like to embrace them now. I had more than enough of six-page backstories and a lot of grief over losing characters. I'm happy people are into that but I'm moving away from it. Don't feel like I'm missing out, either. Maybe it's because I'm older and have less time to devote to the tragic conflict of being orphaned by random marauding bands of Orcs and just wanna get to kicking in doors and getting loot. |
|
|
|
Post by dicebro on Feb 12, 2021 10:57:45 GMT -6
I prefer to think of an OD&D character is like a snowball that rolls downhill, accumulating interesting traits as he goes. You don't have a background, you have a foreground. I agree completely. The game creates a character’s “background”. In OD&D we play to see what happens. We don’t invest the whole of our psyche into a single character. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 12, 2021 14:36:16 GMT -6
I prefer to think of an OD&D character is like a snowball that rolls downhill, accumulating interesting traits as he goes. You don't have a background, you have a foreground. I agree completely. The game creates a character’s “background”. In OD&D we play to see what happens. We don’t invest the whole of our psyche into a single character. Yeah, this is very much my own approach to OD&D. Other games make different assumptions which are easier to gamify — Traveller has already been mentioned, and I'll bring up one of my own favorites, Warhammer Fantasy Role-Play. I'll have to check out Beyond the Wall for my own edification. In OD&D, though, I and my players all really like the idea that the character becomes interesting by playing rather than before playing, and this can work great for new players because the process of rolling up such a character is so quick and smooth that they can be in the action within half an hour (as opposed to the several hours a lot of more complex character creation systems can soak up). As a result, I haven't found the general need for a "session 0" with OD&D unless I'm doing something very unusual with it that time out. I can start running a dungeon the very same session as we do character creation. In that sense, then, character creation is already gamified because it feeds immediately into exploration and combat. That said, I'm really interested to hear any other approaches people come up with! Something like Beyond the Wall, as it was described by hamurai above, could be a really fun way of combining character and world creation into a minigame which also makes the players feel immediately more invested in and familiar with the setting. As someone who loves a "living world" feel, that's really appealing to me. |
|
|
|
Post by kaiqueo on Feb 12, 2021 16:08:30 GMT -6
I prefer to think of an OD&D character is like a snowball that rolls downhill, accumulating interesting traits as he goes. You don't have a background, you have a foreground. I agree completely. The game creates a character’s “background”. In OD&D we play to see what happens. We don’t invest the whole of our psyche into a single character. It's interesting to note that in some modern games, the characters have more agency (action, protagonism, etc) in their own backstories, than they have in the campaign. I mean, all this cool adventurous things that happen in the character's past, I like it more when they are played rather than told. |
|
|
|
Post by geoffrey on Feb 12, 2021 16:10:33 GMT -6
This illustrates why I like the following method of generating the six ability scores:
3d6 in order, set in stone
This method produces no choices whatsoever in terms of abilities. You can't even lower one score for the sake of another. It provides the player with a sort of shorthand character description. Let me roll one right now:
strength: 10
intelligence: 9
wisdom: 17
constitution: 8
dexterity: 14
charisma: 6
Let's see... Nothing much to speak of either way in regards to strength, constitution, or intelligence. On the other hand, he is nimble, mercurial, and shrewd. But is he ugly.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 12, 2021 16:35:26 GMT -6
This illustrates why I like the following method of generating the six ability scores: 3d6 in order, set in stone Yeah, that's currently how I do it in my OD&D campaign. Roll 3d6, straight down the line, and that's your lot. Not very much of a game on its own, of course, but the players get to have the fun of figuring out who this totally random person actually is. |
|
|
|
Post by tdenmark on Feb 12, 2021 18:02:00 GMT -6
This illustrates why I like the following method of generating the six ability scores: 3d6 in order, set in stone Agreed 100%. I only advocate 3d6 in order, you get what you get and you don't get upset. There are 2 other systems I tolerate: Point system, or a set of numbers everyone gets and chooses where to put them. If character/player balance is truly important for some reason. Say a tournament at a convention or something. My superhero game (Guardians) uses this because, you know, superheroes. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 12, 2021 18:38:55 GMT -6
I agree completely. The game creates a character’s “background”. In OD&D we play to see what happens. We don’t invest the whole of our psyche into a single character. It's interesting to note that in some modern games, the characters have more agency (action, protagonism, etc) in their own backstories, than they have in the campaign. I mean, all this cool adventurous things that happen in the character's past, I like it more when they are played rather than told. One takeaway I had when I was playing/running 5e for about three years is the almost laughable disparity between the elaborate, heroic backstories people would come up with for their literal peasant level 1 nobody who would get stomped by a single ogre and...well, the fact that they're a literal level 1 nobody who would get stomped by a single ogre. Huge, glaring disparity there! "Oh, I'm Edgy Cool Lord and I drink alone and when I was ten I saved the village from like 20 werewolves all by myself." Nah, you're not. I can prove it. Roll Initiative. |
|
|
|
Post by waysoftheearth on Feb 12, 2021 18:44:32 GMT -6
Roll 3d6, straight down the line, and that's your lot. Not very much of a game on its own, of course, but the players get to have the fun of figuring out who this totally random person actually is. Yeah, absolutely this. This is the OD&D character gen game. I love that it is purely descriptive and not about min/maxing combat adjustments! edit: You also get a 7th 3d6 for starting gold. Imagining/stating where that gold--or lack of it--came from can add a bit of "background flavour" to a PC, if it pleases you. This example comes to mind... waysoftheearth: Str 7 Int 7 Wis 9 Dex 8 Con 7 Cha 10 gp 40 (ouch! sorry) Lupe Royce An uneducated, 12 year old street urchin with unruly blonde hair, a grubby smirk, and a knack for getting into trouble. He can't read or write or count much, and has no genuine appreciation for "privacy" or "property". Human boy, neutrally aligned. 1st level thief It's funny/ironic how this statistically terrible PC turned out to be so memorable for me. Probably in part due to his (modest) success despite his ability scores, but in the main because it was a fun game to be in despite anyone's specific ability scores  |
|
|
|
Post by derv on Feb 12, 2021 19:18:07 GMT -6
A whole session for character creation was not really on my mind- phew! Maybe I'm a little more impatient than others with how long character creation can sometimes take. What I was suggesting is that character creation is already a sub-game in D&D, just not a well executed one because it contains too many choices. I actually think it could be tailored to take less time if it reduced choice and introduced more randomness. In the process, it would be creating a sort of backstory. Again, I kind of think D&D already does this. It's just not explicit. The base assumption is that a new character is a young, green, fresh meat, wanna-be adventurer. What abilities they have are either natural or learnt. What alignment they are is either upbringing or temperament. I also like character development through play. But I don't have any beef with players wanting to elaborate on who their character is. It all jives with my GM style that looks at the game world as a collaboration between GM and player. I actually like players that add to the lore of the environment, within reason. I mean, again, you're a young, green, fresh....I'm not so interested in hearing about your twin brother who was abducted by the Thieves Guild and now you're out for vengeance sort of thing. Ah, maybe that's okay. I can't think of a good example right now, but I'm sure there are some extremes that would rub me the wrong way. geoffrey, yeah 3d6 in order six times would probably be in line with what I'd suggest to a new player. Yet, I wouldn't be adverse to 4d4+2 six times, either. I'm really considering a simple roll a d20 six times, where a result of 1, 2, 10, 19, or 20 all get recorded as a 10. That's a 25% chance of being average. ST: 18 IN: 5 WI: (1) 10 CON: 15 DEX: 9 CHR: 11 How do you call it? Born Fighter? Might be the next Conan. |
|
|
|
Post by derv on Feb 12, 2021 19:23:33 GMT -6
There are 2 other systems I tolerate: Point system, or a set of numbers everyone gets and chooses where to put them. If character/player balance is truly important for some reason. Say a tournament at a convention or something. My superhero game (Guardians) uses this because, you know, superheroes. Aaa! I've found point systems can chew up some of the most time. Otherwise, I'm okay with it |
|
|
|
Post by davidbrodeur on Feb 12, 2021 19:50:33 GMT -6
Nowadays what I like to do is to hasten character creation for the first character (premade item list, etc.). If he survives, he can customize it in play as per normal (magic item, etc.). If he doesn't survive, then I let him pick more options.
|
|
|
|
Post by dicebro on Feb 12, 2021 20:08:33 GMT -6
This illustrates why I like the following method of generating the six ability scores: 3d6 in order, set in stone This method produces no choices whatsoever in terms of abilities. You can't even lower one score for the sake of another. It provides the player with a sort of shorthand character description. Let me roll one right now: strength: 10 intelligence: 9 wisdom: 17 constitution: 8 dexterity: 14 charisma: 6 Let's see... Nothing much to speak of either way in regards to strength, constitution, or intelligence. On the other hand, he is nimble, mercurial, and shrewd. But is he ugly. He is competent enough to die in my dungeon. Lol. |
|
|
|
Post by waysoftheearth on Feb 12, 2021 20:25:03 GMT -6
I'm really considering a simple roll a d20 six times, where a result of 1, 2, 10, 19, or 20 all get recorded as a 10. That's a 25% chance of being average. Mmm... simpler, for sure, but with the loss of the bell-shaped distribution so we'd have a lot more extreme scores (both high and low). In the OD&D context, it's kinda only the distinction between "high", "low" and average scores that matters. The rest is just braggin' rights. Another "fast" method I've seen is: get yourself 3d6, where one die is a different colour or size. Say, for example, two blue dice and one red die. The die faces are mapped to the six ability scores (e.g., 1=str, 2=int, 3=wis, 4=con, 5=dex, 6=cha). Throw your 3d6; the two blue dice indicate "high" abilities, the red die indicates a "low" ability. If you get the same score on a red and blue die, they cancel out. If you get the same score on both blue dice, it's an exceptionally high score (e.g., paladin charisma territory). edit: Of course you could use any number of dice with this method (4, 5, 6, 7 etc. might be interesting); 3d6 is just a well-loved staple of character gen. |
|
|
|
Post by derv on Feb 12, 2021 21:02:29 GMT -6
Mmm... simpler, for sure, but with the loss of the bell-shaped distribution so we'd have a lot more extreme scores (both high and low). Not sure really. If we are going by the guidelines that 3-8 is low, 9-12 is average, and 13-18 is high, we are really only talking about a 4% difference at both ends. This method still curves in the middle. Just not as sharply, except for right in the middle. 3d6 3-8 26% 9-12 48% 13-18 26% d20 where 1, 2, 10, 19, 20 =10 3-8 30% 9-12 40% 13-18 30% In the OD&D context, it's kinda only the distinction between "high", "low" and average scores that matters. The rest is just braggin' rights. Agree completely. |
|
|
|
Post by waysoftheearth on Feb 12, 2021 21:18:30 GMT -6
I agree derv. At the more abstract level (high, average, low abilities) the suggested probabilities are a good match. The bell curve argument is only relevant at the next lower level of granularity; i.e., when the difference between, say, a 13 and a 15 strength matters. |
|
|
|
Post by derv on Feb 12, 2021 22:32:53 GMT -6
That's true. There the curve is going to make it more likely you roll 13 (almost twice as likely), about the same to roll a 15, half as likely a 16, but only 1/10th as likely to roll an 18.
So, if we are looking at prime requisites the grouping would be:
d20 vs 3d6
3-6 20% vs 9%
7-8 10% vs 17%
9-12 40% vs 48%
13-14 10% vs 17%
15-18 20% vs 9%
We essentially have a flip flop with the probabilities for bonus/penalties at the extremes. I kind of like the odds of the d20.
|
|
|
|
Post by tombowings on Feb 12, 2021 23:38:21 GMT -6
I despise the notion that creation is a game in and of itself. To my mind, it is simply a hoop to jump through before the real action begins.
As far as the best rules for character creation, I enjoy Empire of the Petal Throne. The combination of ability scores, original skills, the character's chosen class, and professional skills form a nicely colored pallet.
|
|
|
|
Post by derv on Feb 13, 2021 0:29:02 GMT -6
I despise the notion that creation is a game in and of itself. To my mind, it is simply a hoop to jump through before the real action begins. You despise it? That’s kind of funny. |
|
|
|
Post by hamurai on Feb 13, 2021 1:19:54 GMT -6
The latest RuneQuest edition has a series of random tables determining not only the character's fate, but also that of their grandparents and parents.
The tables are about the role of the entire family in the conflict which sets the scene for the game - which side they fought on, if they were simple soldiers or generals or heroes, if they were distinct enough to get the attention and maybe even favour of one of the major NPCs in the storyline, things like that. You learn the recent history of the setting and your characters' families ties to that history while rolling your character. Rolling up the character also includes things like homeland, previous experience in military and/or campaigns, major life events, and so on. Depending on that, you get adjustments to your character stats.
It's quite interesting, I'd say, and clearly shapes a history for your character as well as story hooks for the GM.
The downside is, it takes a while to record all this info, so you'll definitely need a session zero for character creation, but it might be interesting doing this with all players present to see how different their background are.
Edit: Typo fixed
|
|
|
|
Post by tombowings on Feb 13, 2021 3:28:55 GMT -6
I despise the notion that creation is a game in and of itself. To my mind, it is simply a hoop to jump through before the real action begins. You despise it? That’s kind of funny. I probably have PTSD from university, where more than have the players were more interested in their super cool character build that actually exploring the setting and interacting with the fantasy world. |
|
|
|
Post by Finarvyn on Feb 13, 2021 6:40:57 GMT -6
It's certainly true that character generation has gotten more complex as the editions have evolved over the decades.
1970's characters were fast to create and you didn't cry over a dead one for long if he died in the low levels. Of course, as time passed and levels grew a character took on personality and it got harder and harder to lose one.
2020's characters in my game are mostly 5E and they take a lot longer to create, with background already built into a rookie character, and we hate to lose them because of the time required to build a "character concept" into reality.
Both ways are fun, of course, but in many ways I prefer the 70's version. My players like the 20's style, however, so I give them that.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 13, 2021 8:31:13 GMT -6
Both ways are fun, of course, but in many ways I prefer the 70's version. My players like the 20's style, however, so I give them that. See, I respect that, but that's the point where we differ. D&D is something I enjoy in my free time. It's a hobby. I've gotten to a point in my life that I want to keep enjoying my hobbies. If I enjoy them less and less as time goes by, they become obligations or even chores rather than hobbies. You reach a point in anything in life (relationships, jobs, hobbies, etc.) where you ask yourself "Wait..why am I here? Is this still good for me? Can I do better?" There's no objective right or wrong answer to that, but for me, I couldn't stand being the one who was having the least fun in the entire group because the game I was playing wasn't really where my heart was. So, as much as it pained me to do so and as much as I genuinely liked some of the people I was playing with, I had to leave that group and playstyle behind for good. I've definitely limited my options with this decision, but whenever I do get involved in a game now, I'm really into it. It's quality over quantity. Not everyone's willing to make that decision, of course, and I totally understand yours. I just can't. |
|
|
|
Post by derv on Feb 13, 2021 9:30:15 GMT -6
It's kind of weird how visceral this topic is for some. It's clear the subject immediately evokes certain ideas that are not universal experiences. As I've said in the past, I've never really played any post 1e AD&D. So, I really don't carry any baggage associated with 3e or 4e (and I guess 2e to a lesser degree?).
I admit that I enjoy messing with mechanics. I like the underlying rules to adjudication and how different they can be. I have a natural bent for wargaming. That doesn't mean I have a predisposition for undue complexity or rules lawyering or mini/maxing. None of the latter is the case. Often we are simply jabbering about ideas to fool around with. I think it helps to sometimes divorce yourselves from thinking in the context of a rules system when discussing mechanics. It's all on par with D&D being an open design. Certainly no one is insisting you need make any changes at your table.
|
|
|
|
Post by hamurai on Feb 13, 2021 12:58:48 GMT -6
Personally, I can enjoy both attempts, depending on the game and whether it's a campaign or a one-shot. For one-shot games I like suprises, including random characters.
Depending on the game, I like that for campaigns, too. In OD&D, for example, rolling up a character and presenting them during play, making up background stories as we go, that's how I like it. It's similar for other OSR games of the same take, where new characters are likely to perish before they achieve a lot.
In games like Vampire - the Masquerade (likely an extreme example), where the personality and background of a character are often of major importance, I like to think about it for a while and decide where to put the creation points.
In games like Traveller and Beyond the Wall, where I roll up my character by rolling my background story, it's hard to ignore it. Of course, you can just add up the bonuses and drawbacks without caring why you get them, but in my opinion, you'd miss out on a fun part of the game.
When I run a con game, I ask the players to describe their character in no more than 3 short-ish sentences before play begins. Of course, there often are those who'd like to tell us their entire biography, but I cut them off after 3 sentences with a polite "Thank you" and ask the next player about their character. In my opinion, it's just rude to waste other people's time with a too-elaborate character background when playing a con game. If they want to tell a little more, they can ask and if everyone is interested, they get another 3 sentences, but that should suffice.
I like to emphasize that we'd rather like to get to know the character through their actions in the game.
|
|
|
|
Post by smubee on Feb 13, 2021 19:49:30 GMT -6
OD&D Con game?
I’m interested in how that works. I’ve always seen the first 3-ish levels of OD&D as the backstory to a character.
All of the con games I’ve played in, no one’s cared about PC histories. Just — “Hi, I’m Bob, I’m playing a Dwarf named Tholin.”
Then everyone knows your role at the table, but nobody cares about the backstory to a PC at a con.
Are your con games very story oriented?
I’m not trying to come off as rude, genuinely curious!
|
|
|
|
Post by dicebro on Feb 13, 2021 22:35:24 GMT -6
OD&D Con game? I’m interested in how that works. I’ve always seen the first 3-ish levels of OD&D as the backstory to a character. All of the con games I’ve played in, no one’s cared about PC histories. Just — “Hi, I’m Bob, I’m playing a Dwarf named Tholin.” Then everyone knows your role at the table, but nobody cares about the backstory to a PC at a con. Are your con games very story oriented? I’m not trying to come off as rude, genuinely curious! My Original D&D Convention games are blood-soaked adventures of as much gleaming swords and devilish sorcery that can be crammed into 2.5 hours. If you can survive, then you got a story to tell. |
|
