|
This thread made me think about creating PCs.
It seems, and I have experienced this a lot of times, that there are two different ways to approach a new pc you want to play.
Rules-wise, or Story-wise.
Its very rare to have a player, wo comes to me, with a picture of a pc, complete with a background, with flaws and fears, things that motivate him, etc., that is not perfectly min/maxed.
Normally players come and say they found out a great combo of combining X with Z, which makes a great pc, who should be able to easily do Y.
What I, as a long-time GM (I am dming for over 30 years now) experienced time and time again is, that players see the rules only as a way to find loop-holes, or ways to built the (technically) best character one can have.
This is sad, as the rules are open enough to play a lot of styles.
I always try to tell my players to first come up with an idea of a person they want to play, not looking at the rules, until the vision of the pc is completed.
It's not bad to not have the best values in attributes you could possibly have according to the rules. Because, if the players don't try to get the most out of the rules, the GM certainly has an easier time during play. Not to kill them off, but to challenge them.
So, what I mean, in the end, is probably (I don't know if I managed to get along what I mean, english is still hard, but...):
I, as the GM don't like it, when players show me the class, prestige class and other rules stuff they want to play. I love it, when a player says, I envisioned a person, who is/can/loves to, etc.
This makes it so much easier to run the game in a lot of ways. Being that incorporating the pcs into the storyline of the campaign, or properly challenge the pcs.
What did you guys experience, think of this...
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
For me its more of a whirlpool effect. Sometimes a character starts with a class or mechanic, and the flavor/background of the character flows from it, and sometimes its the other way around. Sometimes its hard to know which came first. But for me at least the two are completely linked. I need mechanics that inspire the background/personality/feel of the character, and I need an interesting and evocative character I enjoy acting as in order to enjoy the mechanics. I do optimize, once I decide what I want my character to do, I look for things that make that character do it well. For instance, my character in a current E6 game started with the thought that I wanted to play a changeling who focused on the use of their claws. Then I thought it might be cool if I was part of a specific organization in the game world called the Lumenira (warriors of the light). I then decided on natural weapon ranger for class. Then I wrote a background about a child born to hags and how that child might have ended up in a place where the child was raised by Holy warriors sworn to uphold the tenants of the Bright Star (In game paladinish diety of light, good, justice etc). Then I picked archetypes/feats/options that fit the concept and help me be a good at combat with my claws, and a good scout/woodsman for a holy order.
I find in my group usually, the first thing that comes is choice of race and class. I want to play an elf wizard, or something wizard like. Then a background/concept is chosen, then specific options are chosen to match. But I know lots of tables do things differently. In the end its a matter of what gets people excited about the game and their characters that matters.
How much you see of any of that will depend a lot on your group. The boards themselves seem to create a false need for it. I personally push an understand the paradigm of your group and play within it model.
I've played the game about as long as you have ans none of the elements are more prevalent than before but 3.x focus on rules creates a false sense of that.
I have a friend who comes up with character themes without ever looking at the rules. I probably come about mid way I come up with themes then figure out if the main schtick can be done. I used to write four page backgrounds but realized no one is reading them.
Well you would probably like me then, the latest character i created and am playing is a dwarf who loves stone. As such i paid an exorbiant amount of money for stoneplate, so much in fact i had to take the rich parents trait just to pay for it.
Heres a pm by me when asked "Why stone?"
Well i could just buy half plate, which is only slightly inferior and only costs 600 gp, well within the range of anyone in the party.
its just...
"I enter into the room wearing shiny half plate..."
"I roll into the room, a venerable boulder of rough stone..."
Its just thematically better and I am willing to pay extra for that.
As for why he likes stone so much? Well to start off, why I like the idea so much.
When the stonelord paladin archetype came out, I immediately had the desire to create a dwarven stonelord, covered in stone wielding a stone hammer and whose very nature had calcified until he was a literal stone (lvl 20 capstone ability) and to have a massive earth elemental by his side. I liked the idea so much but was unable to do anything with it for quite a while. It has now evolved into what you see here.
Why would he like stone so much? Well I can certainly work it into his backstory. His ancestors were all stonelords, keepers of the stone. Some of the most legendary were said to be more akin to the rock below their feet than the dwarves that they were supposedly. Each generation had birthed offspring with grey features and a destiny to be a stonelord... Except for Rockjaw. While he was born with the same grey palour, he had none of the rockiness of his ancestors. as such he clad himself in as much of the stone as he could and subjected himself to whatever physical punishment came his way in hopes of the stone "seeping" into him. In the end he was just a normal dwarf covered in stone. Greatly ashamed and enraged at his plight he left, vowing not to return until he had become one with the stone and able to face his ancestors proudly. Until then he harbors a hidden resentment and anger of his place in life and it occasionally gets the better of him in the midst of combat, unleashing the beserker within. Yet this creates even more resentment inside as all the stonelords before him were known for their stony emotions, never letting them show. While failing at this, the beserker rage inside him only grows stronger...
I am by no means a great writer, this is ment to show what i was willing to pay for my character. I paid 85% of my wealth when 40% would do and paid a trait for it as well. I made my weapons stone, and therefore frigile, and only saved 10 bucks. I have huge inbuilt flaws (fear of water anyone?) and have already had to strip naked just to be able to climb a wall. All that just to make a character i can "get behind."
Having said that, i can just as easilly create a character based off of the numbers and have fun wirh it that way. I am not restricted to "this method of character creation or that type"
Oh ya, another thing i did once was roll for stats and get 4 18s, a 16 and a 12 (80pb!). Easilly double anyone else. I chose to reroll them and got a 20pb, and all odd numbers (highest was a 15, then a 13..) half of what anyone else had. I was able to make a great claptrap from it tho!! (if underpowered...)
We are all human, capable of good and bad. High power and low key fun. And the occasional brag ',)
Personally I find restricting sources and using point buy is sufficient to curb power level creep. Let the players min max so long as they can create a godo character around the mechanics.
After all, form can follow function or function can follow form.
Personally I have a hard time coming up with a character concept, and often just use the tables in ultimate campaign to generate a background once I've decided on the class and general idea behind the build. Once I have that comb through the tables, rolling randomly where one specific idea doesn't stand out or choosing a specific thing when it does. I blend the background to mesh with the mechanics.
For instance, I'm working on a character that is a tiefling dervish dance magus (which is admittedly a very popular build mechanically). I went with a background that he was born to a Kelshite merchant's wife. The merchant made a deal with the devil to get a child for his wife, but due to the phrasing of the contract the devil fathered the child instead of the husband. The merchant's soul was taken leaving the mother and child to fend for themselves. They flee Katepesh in disgrace. They settle in a small village, until they villagers try to kill the child recognizing it as a tiefling. The child (now a teenager) flees alone to cheliax, where he has heard of the alliance with Hell and the special treatment he might enjoy. The tiefling's devil father gets him a position within the Chelaxian government. During the course of work he comes across a cleric of Sarenrae who convinces him to seek redemption and reminds him of the goddess godness. He frees the cleric and leaves Cheliax headed to the Shackles to avoid the rule of Cheliax. he plans to engage in piracy in the Shackles to raid the Chellish navy ships and free slaves when he is drug into the campaign for Skull and Shackles.
*Technically I know this should make a half-fiend and not a tiefling but...screw that.
Now, I personally think that it's a very good backstory. And fits pretty well with the mechanics portion of the character.
I guess my point is that fluff and the mechanics needn't be disparate.
What happens when my concept is that I am the best swordsman in the world? Most people who play games are ordinary people, so what is wrong with wanting your character to be something special? Even in real life there are plenty of examples of people who dedicate their lives to one thing at the expense of everything else. A person who is so hung up on getting into medical school that they concentrate all their time on getting good grades, or any professional athlete are both examples of this.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
What happens when my concept is that I am the best swordsman in the world? Most people who play games are ordinary people, so what is wrong with wanting your character to be something special? Even in real life there are plenty of examples of people who dedicate their lives to one thing at the expense of everything else. A person who is so hung up on getting into medical school that they concentrate all their time on getting good grades, or any professional athlete are both examples of this.
We tried that on our DM once. He replied "Cool! That character is level 20 and has retired. Now roll a new character!"
I use a blend of form and function. I usually have an idea of what I want to play, then start asking myself questions after I make a couple of rolls on the background tables in the Mythic book
|
This thread made me think about creating PCs.
It seems, and I have experienced this a lot of times, that there are two different ways to approach a new pc you want to play.
Rules-wise, or Story-wise.
Its very rare to have a player, wo comes to me, with a picture of a pc, complete with a background, with flaws and fears, things that motivate him, etc., that is not perfectly min/maxed.
Normally players come and say they found out a great combo of combining X with Z, which makes a great pc, who should be able to easily do Y.What I, as a long-time GM (I am dming for over 30 years now) experienced time and time again is, that players see the rules only as a way to find loop-holes, or ways to built the (technically) best character one can have.
This is sad, as the rules are open enough to play a lot of styles.I always try to tell my players to first come up with an idea of a person they want to play, not looking at the rules, until the vision of the pc is completed.
It's not bad to not have the best values in attributes you could possibly have according to the rules. Because, if the players don't try to get the most out of the rules, the GM certainly has an easier time during play. Not to kill them off, but to challenge them.So, what I mean, in the end, is probably (I don't know if I managed to get along what I mean, english is still hard, but...):
I, as the GM don't like it, when players show me the class, prestige class and other rules stuff they want to play. I love it, when a player says, I envisioned a person, who is/can/loves to, etc.
This makes it so much easier to run the game in a lot of ways. Being that incorporating the pcs into the storyline of the campaign, or properly challenge the pcs.What did you guys experience, think of this...
It depends on the class they're trying to play. If it's a Monk, Rogue, or Ninja, I can understand why they feel the need to optimize the character before-hand. Otherwise, most classes don't Need it - Want it maybe, but not a need.
Unfortunately, the Fluff of the game doesn't always line up with the Mechanics.
What you're talking about, is GM related stuff. Most GMs(or DM, not sure which title matters) tend to go by the rules for likely a good reason. Usually, they build on top of those rules with their houserules, so people can still be what they want. If not, then the player is now conditioned to think they must only go by the rules(like myself) which also can contribute to rules lawyering(Sometimes, but I usually catch myself). There are also many mindsets that just pertain to "big numbers" or "must one-shot" and then they go off to see what kind of loopholes they can find. My roommate is one of them and it drives me nuts...
You cannot control every other GM in the world to take to your thinking. Don't get it twisted; You're style is awesome though, no doubt. I'm sure you make a lot of houserules too, so that players can truly experience what they see in their mind. That's how it really should be, but the rules are there for a reason. That reason, being a guideline at the least.
|
|
Yeah, for me, and in my experience with others, it varies a lot, and all the reasons you list wind up mixed together in a cocktail with a half dozen other things. I'll use my upcoming game as an example, and show how it seems like the players have come up with their characters:
#1: Orc Barbarian Princess. This was the concept pitched to me, to which my response was a resounding "YES." Clearly primarily a thematic concept, though with a mechanical element (the clear desire to be a Barbarian). Starting with Spell Sunder, not because it's good mechanically, but because when the player heard about it she thought it sounded awesome. Nice backstory worked out so far, but it clearly wasn't the first priority...that was the basic idea of, well, being an Orc Barbarian Princess. Very solid mechanically...but then Barbarians are hard to screw up.
#2: Half-Elf Wizard. Long, detailed, backstory involving who he is and exactly how he managed to get to where he is in life (which was clearly the player's foremost priority). Very interesting, actually. Also tried to get his Blessed Book full of all the spells of 4th level or lower (the game starts at 7th level), since theoretically that was doable. I obviously told him no (he still has to pay the 1/2 cost to get people to loan him their books to inscribe from). So...primarily thematic, but also seriously the biggest attempt to game the system I've seen in this group thus far. Very nasty mechanically, as a Teleportation subschool Wizard with fairly optimized stats, and using Craft Wondrous Item and Scribe Scroll to deck himself out with gear. He is using the Scrollmaster archetype (primarily for flavor), though.
#3: Dwarven Paladin of the primary Dwarven God. Long, bizarre, and interesting backstory, explaining, among other things where his bizarre set of Traits came from (which were picked first, so the character flowed from the mechanics). Wound up having been raised by the Fey for a while...at which point I (as a nice GM) informed him of the existence of the Fey Foundling Feat (of which he had previously been unaware). Decided that both his birth family,the Fey that took care of him for a while, and his adopted human family are alive and well. Clearly started from a mechanical direction, but probably as good a general character concept as the Wizard at this point, and as good a backstory by the time play starts. And didn't try to break the system nearly as much, though the character is seriously well designed mechanically.
#4: A Tiefling Inquisitor of the local humans' Trickster/Party God (also the God of the Moon and Madness). Thus far appears primarily mechanically based, I haven't even heard the semblance of a backstory yet. On the other hand, I don't know that for a fact, the player might easily have a detailed history in mind that I don't know yet. Solid mechanically, but not ridiculously optimized or anything.
#5: A Human Bard. Details are still sketchy, but from the discussed elements we went through when creating the character, I'm pretty sure the player has a pretty solid backstory involving an impoverished youth worked out (and did before much work went into the mechanics). Pretty solid mechanically, with a focus on buffing and archery.
#6: Half-Orc Vivisectionist/Chirugeon Alchemist. Focusing on healing extracts and murdering things with a Greataxe in melee. Solid backstory, and appears to have been built so he could have a massive guy with tribal tattoos and an axe on his back wear spectacles and say "I'm a doctor, dammit." Plus Sneak Attack with a Greataxe. Seems to have been built, much like #1, primarily because it was awesome rather than based on any particular mechanical or story element per se. Solid backstory in development, though, and very nice mechanically.
So...yeah, what category do each of those fall into? I honestly don't even know. Now, I do require my players to give me some sort of backstory, but on the other hand, I'm also all for helping them optimize their characters mechanically within the scope of their thematics.
It's...just not that black and white. The most complete backstory in that group is from the guy who tried to game the system most, y'know? And I've seen (and, heck, done) similar things in the past. It's not an either/or thing.
I'd go on, but I haven't slept and I think I'm just gonna ramble completely off-topic if I do.
I like the numbers game myself. I see mechanics as pretty divorced from any actual RP, so I dont mind seeing fox optimize their characters.
There do seem to be several schools of optimization though:
1) Being "ze best": This person wants to choose one niche, and try to be the best at it, damn the consequences. Attracts a lot of the stereotypical "negative" optimizer archetypes.
2) The "survivalist": This person does not want to die. They know the risks inherent in the game, and have had negative experiences with murderous GMs. These will generally be very defensive/hard to kill. This type attracts folks who want their character to survive long enough to actually have any kind of story. I am somewhat in this class.
3) The "numbers" guy: I consider myself mostly in this class. I like trying to make "the best" of everything. I love messing around with prestige classes to use them best (despite the common wisdom that they are sub-optimal). I like to take a weird idea (how to make the most stealthy character, how to make a character that fights with bananas, how to make an alchemist who perceives his craft as an Art, etc.) & see how to make the best of it. After all, this is a team game, and if my weird character cant pull their weight/survive they are a burden, no matter how cool they sound...
I dont mind mechanics-first design; I do mind STUPID mechanics-first design (like the uber-swordsman that has a -2 will save) because it makes it harder for me (when I GM) to design encounters that are appropriately challenging. Optimizing only really becomes a problem to me when some do it and some do not (leading to party unbalance, and harder encounter design).
In the end, what the player does at the table is, to me, the most important. I've seen folks play using randomly generated backgrounds, and they have used them well. I've seen people with inconsistent character concepts that seemed to change every week. I've seen people saying "ok, does this theoretical optimizing actually stand up to real situations?". As long as they engage in-game, I aint got any problems.
As for my own play, I have various things. Sometimes it's mechanics first (I've never played a wizard... I'll try wizard) sometimes it's idea-first (I wanna be a sexy pirate!) and sometimes both. In any case, I shall build the characters to be as useful as they can within their own conditions.
Note: I am still a "fresh" GM, so I still have time to become jaded...
One of the reasons I like rolling for stats is that you have to alter your design based on what you get. Everything can't be pre-planned and perfect. I find this fun and the opportunity for a lot of creativity.
Concept first for me then numbers. I came to the table with six pages on my character never having played the game or even started the character. I didn't make anyone read it though. I am not a cruel man.
2) The "survivalist": This person does not want to die. They know the risks inherent in the game, and have had negative experiences with murderous GMs. These will generally be very defensive/hard to kill. This type attracts folks who want their character to survive long enough to actually have any kind of story. I am somewhat in this class.
This is clearly where I fall in the optimization category. Playing with a GM who killed 2 of my characters with awesome concepts in the first 2 sessions made me want to have characters that survive is important. So my characters tend to be more swiss knifes than laser guided scalpels.
I usually go with the whirlpool method. I find something to start, role missing in the party, cool idea or bit of fluff that I find inspiring and start asking questions until I get a character out of it. I rarely go all out on rules or flavor but mix and match, each choice leading me to the next.
I think it is a spectrum with one end being full background written before even looking at the system used and the other being the character is only stats before starting to look at justifying the stats with fluff.