This is something that was floating around my noggin for a while. Building by character concept... It was something that I have been doing since the beginning of my RPG career. Come up with a character, and jerry-rig him into the rules. It was something I generally assumed most everyone did, until recently at least.
See, for almost 2 decades I never really actually discussed HOW people go about character creation with much of anyone. Considering I'm the one who got my girlfriend into table-tops, she builds essentially the same way I do, by virtue of my being her teacher. In all my gaming groups very few people talked about character concepts. I'd heard about munchkins, and figured they really didn't care about character concepts.
In my most recent playgroup, which started up again finally after a year's hiatus because our DM got burnt out (and is burning out again only half a year later), the topic finally came up since most of our campaigns wound up petering out for one reason or another. So every other month there was an entire day of character creation. FINALLY I had a group talking about it.
Honestly, what I heard rather surprised me. Two of the players in my group pick a race and class, then pick one aspect, design character personality and such around it, then munchkin the hell out them. The other three generally picked whatever they felt like playing at the time, and munchkin as much as possible.
I had always suspected, but never thought I found myself in a munchkin group before. Now my girl and I knew why our characters were always one step behind, lol. I mean, hell, we role played almost as much as we had encounters.
To get a bit more onto how I really do it, I generally really only pick things that fit in with the character's personality, background, and ambitions. The 'theme' of the character, if you will. Of course, I plot a little bit ahead, but always left room for organic growth from the game. I'll even pick up a few feats, or spells or something, as they're needed for game purposes.
I find myself these days, thanks to my munchkin group, trying to munchkin my concept without really realizing it. Personally it's a bad habit and I severely dislike it. It's even infected my girlfriend, and we're role players first and foremost, lol.
So I'm curious how you guys generate character concepts? What's your method, how far ahead do you plan, do you optimize or go for what fits the character? It's a topic that I've become rather interested in lately.
If I'm building for fun, I start off with a concept, usually inspired by a fictional character, cool concept based off of a fictional character, or when reading the rules I notice something that would make for an interesting character and build a concept around that. These characters are usually non min-maxed.
If I'm building to join a group, I start off by finding out what the group could use, then I find out the degree of min-maxing the group does (I hate creating a character that cannot actually do anything because everyone else at the table is a munchkin), then come up with an interesting character to fill the role.
You sound like a rather fun person to game with, based on that :). I'm (un?) fortunate that I happen to have so many character concepts pre-generated I can usually pick one and put it in the game. My particular group generally has their preferred characters they tend to play. One only plays either clerics, paladins, or sorcerers, lol. I'm an altoholic on MMOs, and a writer at heart (i have various scripts and massive amounts of notes on new shows, comics, games, etc), so I find myself with more characters than I can play usually.
As for minmaxing to fit with the group, while I hate having to do that it is a necessary evil. However, have you ever managed to wind up with a group where you can minimize the amount of min-maxing you'd need to do and just use the things at your disposal creatively? Or has the DM overcompensated for the min-maxers so much creativity is almost pointless?
On the topic of creativity... Any amount of sleep, daze, dazzle, or fascination spells are fun when supplemented with Grease. Grease has got to be my single most favorite spell in the entire game...
I have difficulty finding groups in my area (the last gaming store that supported gaming groups dropped all of it for magic, the gathering) and the last group I was with and I have clashing personalities. Not to mention they are not(were not? my brother still plays with them and they started up 3.5) fans of d20.
I know what you mean about too many character concepts...
The DM would often over compensate, but he is a min-maxer as well. The last time I DM'd for them I asked them not to min-max, and they didn't!
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
You're falling prey to the Stormwind Fallacy somewhat here. Character depth and roleplayability are not at the opposite end of a continuum with mechanical potency. You can, in fact, have a deep, well-played character that is also mechanically strong.
Consider the fact that while a character's fluff can be more-or-less anything, the builds that work mechanically are greatly outnumbered by the ones that don't. The simple fact is that building a character from a purely concept-first perspective is much more likely to produce you with one of the builds that doesn't work. Conversely, starting with a mechanical build and building the fluff from there doesn't hurt the roleplay potential of the character in the slightest.
Also, from what I can tell you're applying the "munchkin" pejorative to basically anyone who takes any sort of mechanical function into consideration, which I find to be a bit unfair. The way that you play isn't wrong, and I think that making those sorts of implications about the way your group-mates play is nonproductive. Gaming is more than just playing amateur drama club.
|
I start with the backstory first, then move onto race and alignment (based on the backstory), then I pick a fitting class, and finally I match the archetypes/domains/etc. with the backstory. Finally, after I am happy with the results of the above, I try to min/max the ability scores and align the skills with the backstory and class.
For example, my most recent character is a Human Inquisitor with the Infiltrator archetype and Heresy inquisition.
I started the above character by deciding that he was a bastard child of a narcissistic minor noble and a kitchen servant. When the pregnancy was discovered the matron of the house accused my mother of cavorting with demons and sentenced her to death. My mother birthed me in secret and fled when I was a newborn. She found us shelter in a cave and raised me for a few years by harvesting nearby cacti and hunting small game. On my fourth birthday she died and I fled deep into the cave. I was found there, crying and starved, by a wounded gold dragon. He had been injured by a red dragon in a recent battle and was near death. I brought him trapped game and nurtured him back to life. He returned each kindness by instructing me in the ways of good and law (and a little bit about how awesome gold and gems are). But, I been told of too much evil by my mother to accept all that he said.
That's the backstory.
Next, I went Human and Neutral Good. Based on the politics of my conception and the two creatures who raised me.
Next, I chose Inquisitor, as it is the class that I most identified with divine vengeance (this character would not do with the handcuffing of a Paladin rank)
As for archetypes, I thought that the backstory would require my character to be suspect of others and willing to compromise to do what is right. That allowed me to take the Heresy inquisition and the Infiltrator archetype.
Then I rolled abilities (our group does a 4d6 drop lowest and reroll 1s) I placed stats accordingly (after racial modifiers), 18 - Str 12 - Dex 14 - Con 11 - Int 18 - Wis 10 - Cha
I then went about placing skill points. This part is mundane given my subtype choice. I emphasized Intimidate, Diplomacy, Bluff, and Sense Motive.
That is (a long post) how I design my characters. It allows for me to min/max, but also play a character that I feel a real connection to and one that I am interested in playing for a long time.
And this is the reason I hate talking on the web. All subtext is lost without tone and facial/body language. I shall also have to go look up what this "Stormwind Fallacy" is after this post. Then again, perhaps it's because I'm rather tired and can't fight the right wording. Let's see if this helps.
I am well aware that fluff and mechanically functional often can go hand in hand. In fact I find that quite often the things I select that go with the character fluff make it work mechanically.
And I use the term munchkin in application to how it is meant to be. My group is FULL of power gamers. Over-power gamers would apply better to a few. As I said, only two actually apply any REAL concept or personality of RP to their characters. The others kind of just play themselves and don't really RP. And don't even get me started on the magical loot (luckily after several moments of arguing after every encounter, group consensus goes the 'whoever can use it sell the rest' route. But they still try to convince others to let them have it when soemone else needs it more.)
In reference to what I was beginning to do, to explain it a bit more since I suspect that's where the major misconception was... I was beginning to think like my group in general, while hiding it under a veneer of concept. Rather than give some sort of potential for organic and storyline growth effect on the mechanics of the character, I found myself beginning to build from a purely min-max perspective, and wind up disregarding roughly 90% of the original idea.
Ugh. I am way too tired and having far too much trouble getting my words to read correctly online. If it's still not clear what I actually mean I'll have to try again when I wake up and am not so fuzzed up in the head.
Edit: Ninja'd by Telodzrum. That's how the 2 in my group do it, min-max within the concept. Or at least they try to, they wind up playing something that went rather far beyond the original concept.
I myself like to make the concepts as mechanically functional as possible, without forcing other players to have to play catch-up. I may be weird but while I do like the occasional time in the spot light, I hate to "up stage" people, if you will.
And I really like that inquisitor backstory. Bravo. I once had an Oread Inquisitor of Pharasma. Probably the best character I've played in this group yet.
Homebrew campaign, most of the players decided they wanted to play one of the elemental races, so we wound up calling the campaign "The Element of Danger", since we had one player fill each of the elements. Oread (me), Ifrit, Undine, Sylph, Tiefling (unholy), Aasimar (holy). I was the Inquisitor of Pharasma, born to human wizard parents in Geb, one of the lich there decided it wanted to make them undead servants. He wound up destroyed soon after, and my parents raised me in the catacombs, and kept me living. After a while they raised a noble's ire, and were slaughtered, to which my character managed to hide and skirt around all the undead. Finally he escaped, and fled north to Nex, being taken in by the temple of Pharasma. There, after swearing vengance for his mother and father, he became a (basic) Inquisitor of Pharasma, with the Soul subdomain. He then went north, to Absalom, to join Phil's Adventuring Academy and Medical School. Game started during the final test at lvl 1 with the rest of the part (my 'team' during the characters stay there).
TV Tropes
Of note is the "Stormwind Fallacy," which states that a min-maxed character and a well-roleplayed character are not mutually exclusive: an effective character is not necessarily something that gets in the way of narrative. Similarly, purposefully weakened characters may not always be better for the narrative.
I find that when you(or I) advance up the min-max scale, you begin to sacrifice skills (abilities, feats, powers, etc) that support organic, well rounded characters for favor of one that support mechanical strength. You can still have fluff and roleplay without the mechanics to back it up, but it means less. (e.g. The fighter "who was a blacksmith", with no skill points in craft or profession skills, instead maxed out perception, swim, and climb)
TV Tropes
Of note is the "Stormwind Fallacy," which states that a min-maxed character and a well-roleplayed character are not mutually exclusive: an effective character is not necessarily something that gets in the way of narrative. Similarly, purposefully weakened characters may not always be better for the narrative.I find that when you(or I) advance up the min-max scale, you begin to sacrifice skills (abilities, feats, powers, etc) that support organic, well rounded characters for favor of one that support mechanical strength. You can still have fluff and roleplay without the mechanics to back it up, but it means less. (e.g. The fighter "who was a blacksmith", with no skill points in craft or profession skills, instead maxed out perception, swim, and climb)
But that's just the thing: not every bit of fluff has to be represented on the character sheet by investment of character creation resources. If you never, ever plan on rolling Craft(blacksmithing), what's wrong with just saying that the character was a blacksmith before adventuring and leaving it at that? I'm not saying that leaving those skills empty is the "right" choice. I'm just asking why it's the "wrong" choice.
But that's just the thing: not every bit of fluff has to be represented on the character sheet by investment of character creation resources. If you never, ever plan on rolling Craft(blacksmithing), what's wrong with just saying that the character was a blacksmith before adventuring and leaving it at that? I'm not saying that leaving those skills empty is the "right" choice. I'm just asking why it's the "wrong" choice.TV Tropes
Of note is the "Stormwind Fallacy," which states that a min-maxed character and a well-roleplayed character are not mutually exclusive: an effective character is not necessarily something that gets in the way of narrative. Similarly, purposefully weakened characters may not always be better for the narrative.I find that when you(or I) advance up the min-max scale, you begin to sacrifice skills (abilities, feats, powers, etc) that support organic, well rounded characters for favor of one that support mechanical strength. You can still have fluff and roleplay without the mechanics to back it up, but it means less. (e.g. The fighter "who was a blacksmith", with no skill points in craft or profession skills, instead maxed out perception, swim, and climb)
"My character is a blacksmith, but learned absolutely nothing from it." 1 rank represents aptitude in a skill, but most min-maxers will not even begrudge it that.
Also, I never plan on fighting an interplanar war, but it can (and has) happened. You could be pleasantly surprised that your character fluff skills can contribute tot he game.But, who am I to tell you how to play? If it works for you, power to you. But please, grant me the same kindness.
I myself am not saying it's the wrong choice. I'm saying I have problems with it when I wind up taking it to extremes. And as for background, I am under the belief background pre-character sheet really has no need to be represented on the character sheet. If your character was a fisherman/blacksmith/firefighter before he decided to take a level in fighter, go for it... I have the personal preference, sort of a mandatory thing for myself actually, that if my character does that sort of thing NOW, after he's taken a level, then at least one point is going to get tossed in.
I'm honestly not holding any play style against anybody. If it's coming across as such then I am a hell of a lot more tired than I gave myself credit for. I'll not like I have a personal distaste for pure min-maxers. If they can RP and fluff their character convincingly that lessens my distaste on equal levels to their RP, but when it comes to myself I'm a bit harsher on my standards.
I'm of the old adage: "To each their own". Doesn't mean someone has to change the way they feel about someone else's though, lol. As long as they don't get up in their face about it (like my group tends to do when I happen to play a character that won't completely contribute to battle until a level later, like my inquisitor!).
Edit: To explain as to WHY I believe that certain things are not needed to be represented on the character sheet, I shall elaborate further.
By the time you obtain your first level, you (should) have focused so much time to achieve such, you will have likely fallen out of practice, or not studied enough... However, such a thing must be within reason, of course. You cannot say you headed up a library and read every book on abberrations and dungeoneering, writing several scrolls and books on the topic in your background... While at the same time having 0 points in that skill. That's just a bit too much for my tastes.
I do it one of two ways; first if its a new campaign I think of something that would be "cool" to play two of my favourite and longest lasting characters have came about this way Daedelus Greatness a 3.5 human bard who was destined to be great at everything he endeavoured to do. The other my sig character Brother Ehhnnzioh a half orc monk with the drunken master archetype, a brutal personality and an angry drunk centred on self perfection through alcohol.
The other method is to see what an established party would need and filling that niche and finding a fun way to do it. Both methods involve some min/maxing for abilities and feats but I dont see the harm in that as you dont want to be bad to mediocre at something you should be good at.
For me, it's really what ever strikes me at the moment. Sometimes while I'm listening to music, usually Hammerfall or Blind Guardian, a character concept pops in my head based on the song. Other times it's comes to me while going over some mechanics. These are my 'I wonder what would happen if I did X with Y' characters. And yet others I base off of movies (but who hasn't done that at least once). As far as backstory goes I try to have at least an outline of the concept.
Now, on the subject of Min/Maxing, I usually relegate it to Ability Scores, Feats, and (especially) Multiclassing. Skills, not so much being is how I see them as based off of life experiences, past and present. But even when Min/Maxing the items listed above, I try to keep it within the scope of the concept.
I may have just contradicted myself there. lol.
For me it depends. Running a Sorc/Druid I'm going to be taking to MT eventually, I based her off a fantasy picture I saw of a pretty lady holding a spear in the jungle. I was creating for an AP, so I read the players guide and got the gist of where the path would take the party, and wondered what would make the most sense for this noble savage to want to obtain. For my character, it was to view the borealis from the Crown of the World. From there, I made her an Ulfen because who else would want to track that far into the snow than one already familiar with it? Ulfen, to me (I live in Norway, for the most part) says to me that you better have better than average physical stats just to survive because you're likely going to have had to survive more than a few fights. Maybe not with Ice Giants and Linnorms, but it's a grueling setting, so I gave my spell caster 12 STR and 14 CON, and made her almost six feet tall. Next I moved to appearance - how would a woman raised in a warrior society look? Likely scarred, and if she's survived in it, probably tattooed as well.
History comes next, and its what I base everything else on. I've already a complete image of how this character looks in my mind, so I have to explain how she's got the scars, what she thinks of them, and lay the basis for her personality. I try not to set too much in stone in terms of personality because it almost never is the same as I envision it at the beginning through play. Characters are always tested, by their circumstances, in encounters, and sometimes even their companions differing perspectives.
I make a lot of bards. At that point, it becomes, "What do I want to do with this one? What's her specialty and her long game?" and then I build from there.
I would have to say that the single greatest influence on my build is what I want to do with the character in its long game. Find redemption for some great sin, vengeance for a slight, or heck, I've had characters that have just wanted to settle down and make a family somewhere where they could be free and their faith would be adequately and fairly represented.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Sorry, I'm with your friends. I start out with a class I want to play, munchkin the hell out of him... then I come up with a good backstory, voice, and personality to match the creation I made. I am considered a fantastic role-player, and my characters are useful and flavorful... But they're also min-maxed for what they are to a "T" and planned out through level 10.
Good roleplaying and concepts are exclusive; the bottom line is there are people who generate characters both ways and then can't play them; indeed, I've seen more "concept" players be disappointed because their non-optimized character can't do the things they imagined. Do you know how to min-max? If so you may want to try, but keep your flavor, and an open mind.... who knows, these guys may be great role-players too.
|
To get a bit more onto how I really do it, I generally really only pick things that fit in with the character's personality, background, and ambitions. The 'theme' of the character, if you will.
This place is where a "detailed" RPG system such as PFRPG tends to create an opposition between ROLE-players and "munchkins", because it mixes up mechanics and fluff. It tends to focus players on the "How" of the character, whereas it is truly the "What" which is important.
In my group, we recently had a combat sequence when a BBEG just rushed past our Cleric's cohort. I and the other players were just astounded that said cohort (a Cavalier with a Reach weapon) did not get an AoO : "Why doesn't your cohort uses his armor spikes to get the AoO ?"
The Cleric's player answered in all honesty : "Because he did not buy armor spikes for his armor."
"Why not ? They are only 50 gp."
"I know, but they do not fit my cohort's style."
We were aghast. The Cleric's player went on to explain that he did not want to optimize the cohort and thus that he would not get armor spikes.
The end result was that the BBEG lasted a few more rounds than he should have and got said cohort almost killed, forcing the PCs to waste precious resources and time to save the cohort's life.
The problem here does not lie with choosing a style/theme and playing it as much as possible and integrating it in your character's build.
The problem lies with confusing mechanics and their fluff.
Armor spikes are the only thing, apart from spending a precious feat on Unarmed Strike, that allows a PC with a Reach weapon to get an AoO.
Obviously, this does not represent reality correctly, but alas it is the RAW and a non-flexible "detailed" system such as PFRPG is grounded in the RAW.
A player should not weaken his character built just because a mechanic's fluff does not fit his vision. Refluff the mechanic so that it fits your character's style. This way, your PC will both follow closely your concept AND be efficient at what you want him to do well.
Concerning the above example, I will propose to my group that the Cavalier be allowed to buy a 50 gp enhancement to his armor that has all the properties of armor spikes but which is explained for example as special armor joints and weighted gauntlets or whatever that allow him to threaten while wearing his armor. This way, the cohort's "style" will be preserved AND he will be able to fight efficiently the way he is expected to.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Take a long island iced tea, then a shot of Jack, and start browsing the PRD.
Novel Mechanical concept -> Reseach into fluff that would cause a character to be that way -> expansion on personality based on relevant culture (I use the old 2e Villain's handbook as guide) -> Name selected based on meaning of occupation (usually from a baby name book or site)
I end up with a robust character both mechanically and with the guide points I need to roleplaying/act him/her as well. There is almost always room in a build to tweak to better fit an emerging background and personality.
Basically I start with a rough functional shape an then "let the clay speak to me".
====
As said its almost more important to be able to keep a consistent personality through out. Thus I refer to a section on my character sheet where I keep two positive "traits" (for ease Traits) and then one negative (opposite/flaw/etc.), combined the alignment, to help keep me consistent. If I start wandering off personality I can quickly refer to my WWMCD (What Would My Character Do) section. No, with those traits I don't use the mechanical bonuses, I use them for their mannerism impacts.
====
OPs FYi, I am solidly in the Optimizers Camp. Came down from Power Gamer DM/GM through 2e Skill and Powers. I love to tweak.
Oh, I also try to take into account that a 1st level character is one more less out of the equivalent of Highschool/College. Which can really temper how much "backstory" there can be.
I usually conceptualize first, figure out how to wrap the mechanics around taht concept, then make him the best (whatever he is) he can be.
I'll pull out a spreadsheet and plot out feats and such, so I know when I level, what I'm doing so all I have to do is roll HP, assign feats, abilities, and skill points and done.
I've been accused of optimizing, but being organized isn't optimizing, and I don't really consider it a dirty word, anyways.
I am considered the powergamer in my group. Possibly because I know 95% of the rules by heart (whoo, 10 months unemployed!). Probably because I make effective characters.
I generally see a mechanical interaction between abilities and wish to try them out. Or I wish to try out a class, learn about it. Then I craft a personality behind that, that fits the concept.
Then I give them the name of either character's from Plato's work or dead scientists.
One thing I never do is try to marginalize the other members. Most of my characters are support. For a long time, I had a weather shaman bard (custom archetype). This was meant as a caster bard, but it was clear this wasn't working out. By level 12, I realized we had no great way to do damage so I re-did him as an archer bard, just so we can do some damage now and then. Does he marginalize the others now? A bit, due to him being the only one who is effective at doing damage (the TWF rogue is alright at it). But I also exist to make everyone else more awesome. My first round is always Inspire Courage / Haste / Good Hope. I have all the Inspiration spells, and I negotiated to get a song that grants some teamwork feats.
I had a feral mutagen alchemist once. About to add him to the group, when I realized that he would be way too powerful. He could probably solo all the combat encounters, even though I was taking crafting feats with him almost exclusively. Dropped him for a Ninja that uses some of SGG's Ninja tricks.
Don't marginalize your friends!
Oh, I also try to take into account that a 1st level character is one more less out of the equivalent of Highschool/College. Which can really temper how much "backstory" there can be.
Oiy, yeah. What makes me cringe is people who come up with level 1 backstories that include taking on dozens of foes, or participating in a large battle and actually being one of its leaders. When I make a level 1 character I assume that maybe she's killed some animals in her own defense, and if she's participated in battle, she's gotten her butt handed to her by the superior force.
Oh, I also try to take into account that a 1st level character is one more less out of the equivalent of Highschool/College. Which can really temper how much "backstory" there can be.Oiy, yeah. What makes me cringe is people who come up with level 1 backstories that include taking on dozens of foes, or participating in a large battle and actually being one of its leaders. When I make a level 1 character I assume that maybe she's killed some animals in her own defense, and if she's participated in battle, she's gotten her butt handed to her by the superior force.
The canonical barbarian killed all of her hunting party.
Harsk, the canonical dorf ranger, slew an entire giant camp. With a crossbow. Without being seen.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Step 1: Discussion.
Always start by talking to your DM and players.
This way, when you get to step 2, you will be able to make an informed decisions about your concept.
Ensure you are aware of the setting, and its contraints, the campaigns theme, mood, play style and power level.
You don't want to choose a concept for a swords and robots in numeria game, when its going to be gum shoes of korvosa. You don't want to play the high wizard thod, when the story is to be about muddy, half starved murder hobos, and their maddening grimdark lives.
Why?
Because if you play super optimised god-wizard thod, in an adventure written to provide a challange to four low optimisation thuggish mercenaries and petty criminals, you will make everyone elses game not fun.
The same if you play thod the murder hobo in a game of high wizardry.
The game allows you to play at both end of the spectrum, but not to play both ends of the spectrum at the same time.
Step 2: Concept.
Reach into your imagination, draw out an idea and hone it into a character concept. Think about how you will fuse concept and mechanics to make the character live, and fit within the campaign you have agreed to play. Yes, that means not playing a cybered solo with sniper and drone support, in john's hyperboria myth cycle game. It means having respect for the kind of game you have agreed to play. Fit your concept to that games setting, theme, mood, play style and power level.
Step 3: Build your character appropriately
You need to find a way to make your concept work within the setting. Obviously your going to want your character to be 'good' but 'good' does not mean 'as optimal as possible. In a game about the four best swords men in the world, going against terrible foes, in which the GM is going for a feel in which you cut down hundred of mooks and save the prince, marry him and live happily ever after, then high levels of classical optimisation are appropriate.
If however the game is about your slow, grinding and painful climb out of poverty, as a mercenary pikeman, with blood, mud and fist/dagger fights over a few coins, then the build that you used for the greatest swordsman will neither work, not be appropriate for that character.
Such a build will damage verisimilitude, for classically optimised rarely have the breadth of skills and abilities that such a character should have. Such builds also make short work of threats that are designed to threaten character of the kind the pikeman story is designed to be played with.
In short, optimisation without regard for concept is bad roleplaying.That isn't to say that such a character is boring or acted poorly.
Note: Powerful character can be just as powerful as week character, however they do tend to be rather 1 dimensional. Heavy optimisation can lead to characters who are 'dreadful boors'
There can be great roleplaying potential in that, from idiot-savant wizards, to socially inept warriors.
There is nothing innately wrong with optimisation. In fact, being unable or unwilling to optimise when approprate is as much a lacking role-playing skill(or personality flaw), as an insistence on always playing the most optimal character possible.
It is however my experience that people who insist on making inappropriately weak characters are considerably less common than those who make inappropreately strong characters.
Step One: The concept. i come up with i frame for the character, anything from, a guy who uses an ax to a 6th level barbarian using the beast totems and invulnerable rager to mimic wolverine.
Step 2: Basic back story frame work. Just some general ideas about family, homeland and alignment.
Step C: Actual building. Assigning scores, selecting feats.
Step IV: Final back story. Actually making the back story, usually i write a 2 page back story because i have a hard time stopping. (My longest is for my first character, 35 pages...yeah...i liked that character)
|
Reaper Miniatures
|
Step One: The concept. i come up with i frame for the character, anything from, a guy who uses an ax to a 6th level barbarian using the beast totems and invulnerable rager to mimic wolverine.
Step 2: Basic back story frame work. Just some general ideas about family, homeland and alignment.
Step C: Actual building. Assigning scores, selecting feats.
Step IV: Final back story. Actually making the back story, usually i write a 2 page back story because i have a hard time stopping. (My longest is for my first character, 35 pages...yeah...i liked that character)
Same here. I often try to select elements that are both thematic to my Step One, and mechanically not weak, although I occasionally do (my oracle is one I deliberately made weak, though not innefective - he's excellent at what he does, but he'd be laughed out of a PFS table for not helping. much)
I almost always start by deciding what I want to do in combat. Combat seems to happen often enough, that if i'm not enjoying what I do there, I probably won't enjoy my character.
I also pick all the physical attributes, as those seem to come up often, and have a lot of impact in games.
I never do a back story unless asked by the GM. For me, I guess characters are just a tool i use for enjoying the game. I don't have any character saved from games past. They all get thrown away and forgotten, probably within weeks of the game ending.
It depends sometimes I start with concept first, other times it's mechanics, and occasionally I pick something to fill out a perceived gap in the party. It's kind of hard to separate concept and mechanics though so I guess it's more of which piece of the character gets more attention.
The best roleplaying experience I had was a concept first character didn't do as well as the mechanics first characters for effectiveness but was a lot of fun. The fill the gap characters have been the least enjoyable but even they had their moments to shine.
I start thinking about concepts mechanically more on the level what weapons do I want and how do I see the character fighting in combat. then come up with a backstory that makes sense for the character at about the same time so it fits the concept.
|
So with myself and my BF we both think of a personality and a background. I start to get an idea in my head of what I them to look like in appearance and dress. From there we start to RP the character to each other. Once we have the concept down then we move on to the actual creation and stats/abilities. I take into account the skills and feats but I also try to think of the adventure we are going into as well while not building the character to be built just for the adventure.
Once I have them built I go into my IMVU account and I make an avatar of both mine and my BF's character based on what we envision and what we can do with that program. I do screen captures and do the editing we need to finish them up.
I know the feeling you are going through as many in our group build a character do be the toughest and best. Many seem cookie cutter and have zero personality. As our group has been going on for over 3 years the people who have been with us the longest seem to have picked up what my BF and I do and this has really added to our RP experience.
|
|
I think of what I want to play. I sigh, because it won't be allowed.
I write up a cleric. If the party already has a cleric, I do a druid or a summoner, so I can RP interactions with my companion / eidolon, since many of the players I know in real life don't have time in their schedules for sit-down games, and, when they do sit-down, want a fast and furious game, with minimal role-play.
I pick a diety that interests me, personally, or whose practices, tenets or beliefs I find intriguing and that might be fun to explore in-character. *If* multiple dieties equally interest me (and that's usually the case, in most settings), then the choices of Domain or Favored Weapon or unique spells (like Tymora's Touch, from the 2e Realms) might tip me over to a specific god, but I won't play a cleric of someone whose philosophy annoys me no matter what sort of candy they hand out (yeah, I'm looking at y'all, Cyric and Pharasma and St. Cuthbert!). I knee-jerk strongly to tolerant gods and those whose clergy have an excuse to 'play well with others.' CE or LG extremists equally fail on that count, so I avoid them (and, while I can understand LG, I find the motivations of CE utterly opaque to me).
I completely ignore what is flavor-of-the-month. For awhile, Tymora, in the Realms was flavor-of-the-month, and I didn't care. I liked the faith, and I played a cleric of Tymora regardless of whether she was 'overexposed' or not. In Greyhawk, I similarly didn't care one bit that Pelor and Kord were ten times 'cooler' than Trithereon or Phaulkon, I like Trithereon and Phaulkon. If the wave catches to where I am, I shrug. If it sweeps past me, I shrug. Several of my friends *freak* if the character they are designing seems un-original, which I find perplexing. I'm not going to bend over backwards to be 'different.'
I almost always pick at least one 'useless' skill, since I like the idea that my cleric didn't leap like Athena, armored and fully-grown, out of my head. (Am I conceited? Sure. But even I won't go so far as to compare myself with Zeus!) On the other hand, not all 'useless' skills are equally useless. Craft (alchemy) or Handle Animal are perfectly suitable 'background' skills that also can prove practical and useful.
Coming up with characterization or backstory or whatever happens subconsciously. I've read hundreds of books, watched hundreds of movies, seen thousands of memorable characters come and go in comics and television shows and in the course of work, or school, or day to day life in general, so it's not like I'm lacking for inspiration. That sort of stuff writes itself, and the GMs I've had in tabletop games almost never do more than give me a funny look when I hand over a two page backstory or mention terms like 'bluebooking' or '3 x 3.'
RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
The Stormwind Fallacy is frequently invoked to shore up otherwise weak arguments in the defense of munchkin min-max style play.
Have you read the Stormwind Fallacy?
Note to New school people: Don't listen to what you hear, you aren't a dork if you roleplay. It is ok to indulge in what D&D is all about, roleplay. If you try it and have a good DM, I guarantee you'll have a blast and won't care so much about optomizing.
Okay, that's it.
I'm hereby proposing a new logical fallacy. It's not a new idea, but maybe with a catchy name (like the Oberoni Fallacy) it will catch on.
The Stormwind Fallacy, aka the Roleplayer vs Rollplayer Fallacy
Just because one optimizes his characters mechanically does not mean that they cannot also roleplay, and vice versa.
Corollary: Doing one in a game does not preclude, nor infringe upon, the ability to do the other in the same game.
Generalization 1: One is not automatically a worse roleplayer if he optimizes, and vice versa.
Generalization 2: A non-optimized character is not automatically roleplayed better than an optimized one, and vice versa.
(I admit that there are some diehards on both sides -- the RP fanatics who refuse to optimize as if strong characters were the mark of the Devil and the min/max munchkins who couldn't RP their way out of a paper bag without setting it on fire -- though I see these as extreme examples. The vast majority of people are in between, and thus the generalizations hold. The key word is 'automatically')
Proof: These two elements rely on different aspects of a player's gameplay. Optimization factors in to how well one understands the rules and handles synergies to produce a very effective end result. Roleplaying deals with how well a player can act in character and behave as if he was someone else.
A person can act while understanding the rules, and can build something powerful while still handling an effective character. There is nothing in the game -- mechanical or otherwise -- restricting one if you participate in the other.
Claiming that an optimizer cannot roleplay (or is participating in a playstyle that isn't supportive of roleplaying) because he is an optimizer, or vice versa, is committing the Stormwind Fallacy.
How does this impact "builds"? Simple.
In one extreme (say, Pun-Pun), they are thought experiments. Optimization tests that are not intended to see actual gameplay. Because they do not see gameplay, they do not commit the fallacy.
In the other extreme, you get the drama queens. They could care less about the rules, and are, essentially, playing free-form RP. Because the game is not necessary to this particular character, it doesn't fall into the fallacy.
By playing D&D, you opt in to an agreement of sorts -- the rules describe the world you live in, including yourself. To get the most out of those rules, in the same way you would get the most out of yourself, you must optimize in some respect (and don't look at me funny; you do it already, you just don't like to admit it. You don't need multiclassing or splatbooks to optimize). However, because it is a role-playing game, you also agree to play a role. This is dependent completely on you, and is independent of the rules.
And no, this isn't dependent on edition, or even what roleplaying game you're doing. If you are playing a roleplaying game with any form of rules or regulation, this fallacy can apply. The only difference is the nature of the optimization (based on the rules of that game; Tri-Stat optimizes differently than d20) or the flavor of the roleplay (based on the setting; Exalted feels different from Cthulu).
Conclusion: D&D, like it or not, has elements of both optimization AND roleplay in it. Any game that involves rules has optimization, and any role-playing game has roleplay. These are inherent to the game.
They go hand-in-hand in this sort of game. Deal with it. And in the name of all that is good and holy, stop committing the Stormwind Fallacy in the meantime.
The corollary to that Fallacy is that concentrated emphasis on getting advantages out of rule mechanics is an active discouragement to building characters based on roleplay options.
Stating that this is a "corollary" makes it sound like people who fail to acknowledge this point are hiding the parts they don't like. But if you read the original text, you'll find that this is something you're adding yourself. Quoted for emphasis:
Conclusion: D&D, like it or not, has elements of both optimization AND roleplay in it. Any game that involves rules has optimization, and any role-playing game has roleplay. These are inherent to the game.
They go hand-in-hand in this sort of game. Deal with it.
This flies in the face of your claim that "getting advantages out of rule mechanics" in any way interferes with roleplaying, or vice-versa. The entire point of the spoilered text above is that roleplaying and optimization do not interfere with each other AT ALL.
Now, you certainly don't have to buy that. But don't state your own opinions as though they were a piece of other people's creeds that they were hiding or being dishonest about.
|
RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
My claim is that an over focus on optimisation does have a dampening effect on the roleplay aspect such as the player who criticized another player's reasons for not putting spikes on his armor.
And it's totally fine for you to think/claim that. (And I said as much.) Your earlier post just made it sound like your claim was something that was being purposefully excluded from other people's references to the Stormwind Fallacy. I.e., it sounded like you were accusing people of being shady when really you're just disagreeing.
|
1. I find a concept I want to play, or an idea that makes me say "YES ! YES !". Usually something my fellow players would consider bad, wouldn't even know the rules allowed it, or that they never saw in a game (like a grappler build with UM/UC).
2. I optimize the concept to be really good at it's job.
3. I use the "dump" stats from my concept as a chassis to think about what to take/what to remove on the character. I never put a 7/5 as one of the base stats without being sure of it from the beginning according to roleplay.
4. From these dump stats, I imagine how I really imagine the character to be.
5. I trade combat optimization for roleplay/social optimization, through un-dumping of the appropriate stats.
6. Now that I have the character stated, I create a short backstory in my head that I tell to the DM, something really non-exhaustive so that he may use some parts as plot hooks. I give him things it "would be cool to happen to me", or hint to some things he may make happen that I would not disapprove with and that he may freely use someday. The character usually gains more consistence and background with the 5-6 first sessions, but I never write it down and try to avoid the cliché'd ones - or I do it the gritty way.
7. I may have to go back to step 2, but usually...
8. ???
9. Profit !
Thus :
- Played a monk with 12 Cha and 8 Dex,
- And a melee Fighter 12/Paladin 1 with 13 Con, 12 Cha and 14 Int.
|
RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
I usually start a character when something catches my eye.
For instance, I have a level 6 fighter named Cledwyn in PFS who started with me looking over the list of weapons in the CRB (as a new player at the time) and saying "Hey, the flail is good for both disarms and trips... and the feats for those have the same prerequisite! How efficient!" So I built my very first fighter, doing my best to make him good at what he did while also trying not to leave him with an achilles heel.
Once I'd built the mechanics, I started getting to know him. I pondered how the relationship between his 13 INT (now 14), 12 WIS and 8 CHA would influence his personality, I gained some experiences and stories as I played him, and he gradually became a deep and satisfying person. I even ended up writing a 450-word bio on him that got put into my PFS Venture Captain's local email newsletter. I feel like I've really gotten to know Cledwyn, and so have some of the other local players.
Ironically, my next character (Asharel) was created from a well-defined concept (and was also very effectively optimized), yet I had so much trouble "getting to know him" and trying to force myself to care what happened to him that I eventually stopped playing him at all. I'm not sure what happened there.
My next character (J.J.) started as a pile of stats that I threw together to play alongside my wife on the rare occasion she'd join me for a PFS session. I had no real investment in him as a character - more of a mechanical experiment (that experiment being "can I make a rogue function like a fighter?"). To my surprise (and delight), he took on a fantastic persona and got me really attached to him after just one session.
Then there's Dimitri, my level 2 druid. I played him through PFS's "First Steps" series, and later "Among the Living". He's a little different in that I had a "concept" ahead of time, implemented it in a pretty well optimized way, but unlike the similarly-created Asharel, he gained more personality as I played him (much like Cledwyn and J.J.). I have high hopes for "Dimitri, the druid who hates animals and throws rocks at zombies".
Oh, I also try to take into account that a 1st level character is one more less out of the equivalent of Highschool/College. Which can really temper how much "backstory" there can be.Oiy, yeah. What makes me cringe is people who come up with level 1 backstories that include taking on dozens of foes, or participating in a large battle and actually being one of its leaders. When I make a level 1 character I assume that maybe she's killed some animals in her own defense, and if she's participated in battle, she's gotten her butt handed to her by the superior force.The canonical barbarian killed all of her hunting party.
Harsk, the canonical dorf ranger, slew an entire giant camp. With a crossbow. Without being seen.
All of which make for cool stories, and helpful for the developers and new player to get into the setting. However some of them are slightly imposable. Actually I'd consider examples of bad 1st level backgrounds. Good for later levels, maybe 3rd or 5th respectively.
Feiya's is better.
Valeros's is also passable.
Seltyiel's is also reasonable.
The entire point of the spoilered text above is that roleplaying and optimization do not interfere with each other AT ALL.
Well, that's the theory anyway. And you know what they say: "In theory, there's no difference between theory and reality. But in reality..."
They may not preclude each other, but most play styles that focus in the direction of one end of the spectrum or the other do not seem inclined to embrace the other one at all. You see that a lot here on these boards.
|
RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
The entire point of the spoilered text above is that roleplaying and optimization do not interfere with each other AT ALL.Well, that's the theory anyway. And you know what they say: "In theory, there's no difference between theory and reality. But in reality..."
They may not preclude each other, but most play styles that focus in the direction of one end of the spectrum or the other do not seem inclined to embrace the other one at all. You see that a lot here on these boards.
What's that got to do with what I said? I was just pointing out that LazarX's presentation was sloppy at best, dishonest at worst. The truth or falsehood of the theory has nothing to do with whether or not he accurately represented said theory.
And I already re-explained that when he responded to me in much the same way you did just now. How many times do I have to repeat myself before people see what I wrote instead of what they want an excuse to argue?
Sorry for the mini-rant, but I can't count how many times I've told someone on these boards that "so-and-so did/did not say X" only to have people try to argue with me about whether or not X is true, when I didn't even say one way or the other. It's getting to be a bit of a pet peeve of mine.
What's that got to do with what I said? I was just pointing out that LazarX's presentation was sloppy at best, dishonest at worst. The truth or falsehood of the theory has nothing to do with whether or not he accurately represented said theory.And I already re-explained that when he responded to me in much the same way you did just now. How many times do I have to repeat myself before people see what I wrote instead of what they want an excuse to argue?
Sorry for the mini-rant, but I can't count how many times I've told someone on these boards that "so-and-so did/did not say X" only to have people try to argue with me about whether or not X is true, when I didn't even say one way or the other. It's getting to be a bit of a pet peeve of mine.
I imagine we'll probably stop when people stop bringing up the so-called Stormwind Fallacy every time someone complains that they have players who tend to power game to the exclusion of a role playing a character based on anything but the most advantageous numbers.
Yes, you can come up with characters role-played with depth who are still laser-focused on certain mechanical adventures. Trouble is, most people don't. Defending the ability to do so with the Stormwind Fallacy pretty much tells us nothing practical to the issue of reconciling different play styles focusing more on one end of the spectrum with another.
The entire point of the spoilered text above is that roleplaying and optimization do not interfere with each other AT ALL.Well, that's the theory anyway. And you know what they say: "In theory, there's no difference between theory and reality. But in reality..."
They may not preclude each other, but most play styles that focus in the direction of one end of the spectrum or the other do not seem inclined to embrace the other one at all. You see that a lot here on these boards.
I think the bottom line with storm-wind fallacy is your players all need to be on the same page. Some people simply can't design a good min-maxed character that fits with their role-play concept, some role-play concepts just flat out can't really be min-maxed to the point of being super effective, which is fine. Some can do both very well, and some develop extreme levels of effectiveness that they can't fit fluff for.
The end result IMO, the player that needs to adjust, is the one that does not match the group. If it is a character that is highly weak to match his RP characteristics to the point that he annoys the other players, he is in the wrong.
If 1 person is steamrolling everything and the other 3 never get to contribute, he is in the wrong. There is no such thing as a wrong way for a group to play, there are however wrong ways to play in a group. The goal of the game is to have fun, a play-style that hurts the fun of the other players, is the one that is wrong. The odd man out needs to either strengthen/weaken his build to fit in, or find a group he/she fits in with.
Personally my suggestion, if you are having a hard time finding a group that you fit in with. Start DMing and grab new players. Players usually wind up being used to playing the way they were taught, as a new DM you control what they start out with and establish as normal.
|
|
In short Black Raven, your stand is optimization IS your only consideration, and roleplaying considerations be dammed.
I would very much like you to quote the text that made you think that because I am very much a ROLE-playing person, even if I am also an optimizer.
I find it rather hard to believe that the entire battle would have turned on one strike.
It didn't. We just had a very tight spot, which could have easily ended in at least one PC dead (the Cleric) along with his cohort. And it could have been very easily avoided if the Cavalier had been built with the minimum you can expect from a fighter-type, ie not allow an enemy to walk next to you without risking an AoO.
I understand that there are players who enjoy munchkining the hell out of their characters and feel that missing ANY way to squeeze those extra digits is essentially playing badwrongfun.
I guess that you must be overjoyed when people build a STR-based Fighter with a 5 in STR because they are really avoiding to squeeze the extra digits.
More seriously, hurting your character's efficiency has never made for better roleplay. Furtermore, I do not see how hurting your party's combat ability and thus have a negative impact on your fellow players' enjoyment enhances the roleplaying experience.
There are stylistic differences between a person in smooth armor and one who armors up like a Chaos knight. So in other words you're asking the player who doesn't munchkin to conform to YOUR style.
Thing is, I do not understand why "not munchkining" and "having an effective build" should be mutually exclusive.
I do not want him to give up his style, quite the opposite in fact as I am offering him my help in looking behind the fluff to the mechanic and negociate an appropriate refluffing with the GM so that his character can be both true to his style/flavor and helpful to the party.
Because, really, both are quite compatible even if you seem to believe otherwise.
Like many such situations this is not one player's failure but a group failure. If the campaign is structured that munchkinism is required for group survival and success, than that has to be established on the get go.
If the above condition is not true, then you the munchkiner need to give players who don't share your preferred style, a bit of slack.
I do not like your use of munchkiner, because I feel it has a negative (even insulting in fact) connotation of "not interested in roleplay" or even "not worthy of the noble epithet of roleplayer".
I love roleplaying and I even put it above optimization when the 2 are not compatible. In fact, I often go for the interesting choice rather than the powerful one if I have to choose.
Still, I would rather have characters who are as efficient as possible at what they are supposed to do. And that does not prevent the players from having a blast playing them to the hilt, far from it.
Can we move the munchkin vs role player to another thread, or at least spoiler it?
I have the toon creation process help the character creation process.
Example: I want to play a dragon disciple (this was 3.5) The group already had a fighter, so i went barbarian 4 Sorcerer 1 DD
I look at sorcerer spells that will still be useful, since i have a 12 charisma and 1st level spells. True strike, expeditious retreat, and enlarge person show up. I figure on expeditious retreat being a spell that erupted spontaneously... while he was fleeing from a battle. This gives me a somewhat more cowardly/cautious barbarian than usual. He starts the campaign shaved and banished, an obvious sign of punishment that mixes well with the fact that he's going to start growing scales.
For my alchemist: I need int and dex. Hey look, a race gives both: Elf. Hmmm an elf with drugs. This gives me the personality of a free lovin, kumbaya hippy elf.
|
RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
I imagine we'll probably stop when people stop bringing up the so-called Stormwind Fallacy every time someone complains that they have players who tend to power game to the exclusion of a role playing a character based on anything but the most advantageous numbers.
Yes, you can come up with characters role-played with depth who are still laser-focused on certain mechanical adventures. Trouble is, most people don't. Defending the ability to do so with the Stormwind Fallacy pretty much tells us nothing practical to the issue of reconciling different play styles focusing more on one end of the spectrum with another.
I... that... you're...
YOU MISSED THE POINT AGAIN I WASN'T EVEN TALKING ABOUT THE STORMWIND FALLACY I WAS TALKING ABOUT LAZARX'S SLOPPY WORDING AND YOUR INABILITY TO TELL A SUBJECT FROM AN EXAMPLE WHICH YOU'RE STILL DOING BECAUSE MY POINT HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH THE STORMWIND FALLACY BUT YOU'RE STILL TALKING ABOUT IT GWAAAARRRRGGGH WAAAAAHHHH MOMMY...