Character Creation- By the book or DIY?

[Kaftan Barlast]

When I first started playing PnP RGPs we always followed the systems in the books to make characters, rolling dice and spending points so and so. It was necessary to do it that way really, because otherwise you'd have your smelly little brother making some 3meter undefeatable cyborg with a laser cannon on his shoulder.

 

 

But as we got more mature we started to notice that these creation systems was in the way because you could never get a character precisely as you imagined him, you always had to compromise and deduct this to increase that and so on. Swedish RPGs had much less of that horribly strict class-system of American D&D and such, but it was still a lot of stupid "Rangers CANT play the lute, no matter WHAT" things going on. (we did play some foreign games too like vampire, warhammer rpg, and others)

 

 

So we scrapped the rules. First we made a careful character concept, then we estimated what attributes and skills and so on would be appropriate for that character and since then, we've never looked back.

 

 

 

 

How do you guys do it? By the book or Freestyle?

[Jediphile]

How do you guys do it? By the book or Freestyle?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Well, I've tried both, but it's a real dilemma, and I'll tell you way.

 

First of all, I completely agree with you about the annoying restrictiveness of RPGs using inflexible class systems and so. I could accept it in AD&D because it was an old system, but D&D 3e/d20 was released only a few years back, was a complete rewrite of the basic D&D core rather than an expansion of that core as OD&D, AD&D 1st and AD&D 2nd editions were. D20 is a workable system, but to release a game forcing strict and inflexible class-systems today is preposterous. I genuinely feel that it's release has set development of RPGs back a decade or more, since it's a return to a system base now more than thirty years old. And that age shows... A lot!

 

Like you say, it's simply not good enough that I cannot build the character I want to because the rules are too inflexible to allow it. However, the counter-argument will undoubtedly be that rules serve to maintain game balance.

 

This is true, and it's a reason why I don't like freeform play so much. I've tried a few online freeform RPGs (PBeM), and characters in those games tend to be uber-characters with powers and abilities that are just silly and munchkin.

 

Yes, I want freedom to build my character, but freedom doesn't mean "whatever you please" - there still needs to be some limits somewhere. Truly nature players can handle freeform, but few players are truly adult players... even if they are adults "

 

Far too many fail to resist the temptation of the dark side and instead fall to the temptation to abuse the freedom given to them

 

That dilemma is there and it's no good claiming it isn't.

 

But as I said, I also do not want restrictive rules telling me that I can't do certain things because it was not taken into consideration. If the rules tell me that I must make this or that sacrifice to get the power/ability/whatever that I want as a defining trait for my character, then that's fine. But rules telling me that I just can't do it because the writers couldn't be bothered to include the option I want are obsolete and should be thrown out the window!

 

D&D/d20 is a major villain here, because it forces all sorts of options on you. Why does my D&D rogue get the Sneak Attack feats *forced* on him? After all, I just wanted him because I liked the idea of a sly merchant with lots of skill options who could handle a sword? I did not intend him to be an assassin, so why is that archetype forced on me? Or why can't my wizard be just as good at the innuendo skill as a rogue? He is likely to be just as intelligent if not more, so why can't he make subtle threats and so when he talks?

 

There are no good answers to such questions, nor should there be - the rules should be open enough to allow us options enough, but in many games they simply don't. Thirty or even twenty years ago, this was okay, because RPGs were still in their infancy. D&D has been standing still, however, while most other RPGs have moved forward. Actually, D&D has moved backwards, since the AD&D player option rules (which I use in my AD&D campaign) actually allow far more freedom to mix it up than the d20 version does... This means that D&D today is an antiquated and hopelessly outdated system.

 

But there are games out there that allow far more freedom. It's just a question of finding one where the authors have bothered to design the game enough to allow for possibilities.

 

A class based system is by definition restrictive. I can accept it only if it exists for a reason tied directly to the campaign world (as in White Wolf's games, such as Vampire or Exalted).

 

Sadly, tabletop RPG is today fast becoming synonymous with d20 as the system sweeps the market in a Microsoft-esque attempt to establish the core as a monopoly in the industry.

 

Those of us who don't like restrictive RPGs or who don't want companies to corner or monopolize the market need to stop supporting their games and marketing stategies.

 

There are still alternatives out there. I've been looking into the new edition of GURPS lately, and it looks very polished and open. I'm not going to say it's perfect, but it's certainly a much better and catering system than d20 ever will be, and those areas where I disagree are so tiny that I can fix it with house rules if need be. If I'd begin a new RPG campaign today, I'd definitely use GURPS rules.

 

Well, I guess I'll stop my long boring rant now ...

[Reveilled]

I don't agree with this claim that classes force things on you. If you don't like the fact that your rogue gets sneak attack bonuses, make a new class without sneak attack bonuses. You want your wizard to be as good at the innuendo skill as a rogue? Design a variant wizard class with alternative skills, or get the group's agreement that innuendo should be a wizard class skill. The only things about the d20 system that can't really be changed are the attrributes. You can add new skills, you can remove feats, you can ban classes, create new classes, make some classes into Prestige Classes, make prestige classes core classes. The D20 system have rules that are very easily customiseable. In fact, one of the variants in the Unearthed Arcana supplement was rules for "Generic Classes"; you chose from one of three classes, picked your own class skills, which saves would be good, which special abilities you wanted, and so on. If you chose to play classes in a way you find restrictive, then that's up to you, but I certainly don't find them restrictive at all, nor do my players.

 

If D20 is sweeping the market, it's because it is a better system than the others.

[6 Foot Invisible Rabbit]

My style is a bit of both. I roll the standard 4d6, drop the lowest die and arrange to taste first. I look at the numbers and try to envision my character concept. Its easier if you are using a point buy system, though. Once that is done I go and picked the best class that represents the character.

 

In the current campaign I am playing I have a character that has the ability to close people's wounds with a mere touch, by expending a bit of spell and personal energy (takes subduel dmagae each time he does this). Also he is a mastercrafter of weapons and a scientist (as much as one can be in a medieval setting). He is often at odds with himself as he can heal and bring life while at the same time he is a warrior that uses his inventions and weapons to take lives. So his personality is that of a walking contradiction.

 

Game mechanics wise he is a Mage Blade (modified from Monte Cook's AE) with various key feats that allow him to heal. Placed his skill points in Craft Weaponsmithing, Heal, and Knowledge Science has being his primary skills.

[Kaftan Barlast]

The only flaw in Freestyle character creation is that it requires maturity and a certain kind of player. We had this weird guy a friend of mine dragged into the group and he was a complete munchkin. We had to "Look, this is not how we play. GTFO, please."

 

 

But other than that it works as a charm. In the last campaign of Vampire we played, we didnt even do the character sheets ourselves, we just sent our concepts to the GM and he did it for us, we didnt even have to touch a character sheet while playing. It was great because it opened the gates of roleplaying and "realism" wide open. It was no longer "I use my subterfuge skill to..etc" but we had to play it all out. It takes a good GM to do it but when it works, its beautiful.

 

 

 

 

 

Short note about d20

 

 

To claim that the D&D variety d20 is the best is a ludicrous statement. It simply isnt true, there are atleast a dozen others that beat it in every aspect. End of story.

[6 Foot Invisible Rabbit]

There is no best system. There is only the best system in a setting. Such as Forgotten Realms is best played in DnD than Rolemaster. Cyberpunk 2020 is best played in Interlock. For my own homebrew settings the d20 System works best, specifically d20 modern. I have tried other systems such as GURPS and FUZION, but d20 Modern fitted it best.

 

There is no one system that is best, there is only what will work best within the setting you are using.

[Reveilled]

My style is a bit of both.  I roll the standard 4d6, drop the lowest die and arrange to taste first.  I look at the numbers and try to envision my character concept.  Its easier if you are using a point buy system, though.  Once that is done I go and picked the best class that represents the character.

 

In the current campaign I am playing I have a character that has the ability to close people's wounds with a mere touch, by expending a bit of spell and personal energy (takes subduel dmagae each time he does this).  Also he is a mastercrafter of weapons and a scientist (as much as one can be in a medieval setting).  He is often at odds with himself as he can heal and bring life while at the same time he is a warrior that uses his inventions and weapons to take lives.  So his personality is that of a walking contradiction.

 

Game mechanics wise he is a Mage Blade (modified from Monte Cook's AE) with various key feats that allow him to heal.  Placed his skill points in Craft Weaponsmithing, Heal, and Knowledge Science has being his primary skills.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

I've never been a fan of the rolling d6s method of character creation. Both as a player and a DM, I found it extremely unbalancing, because someone would inevitably get lucky. The only method involving dice I've liked was the 6x6 array method, which works by creating a 6x6 grid, and rolling 3d6 36 times, entering the results left to right as they are rolled. At the end, you have 36 stats, and you select a line of stats which you like, either horizontally, diagonally, or vertically, and enter them to your character sheet in order either left to right or right to left.

Of course, I liked that probably for the sheer novelty of it.

 

To keep things fair, I prefer the point buy method, which is what I use presently in my current campaign.

 

EDIT:And Kaftan, if you don't change that short note sharpish, I'll send Vin Diesel over to your house to beat you up!

[Jediphile]

I don't agree with this claim that classes force things on you.  If you don't like the fact that your rogue gets sneak attack bonuses, make a new class without sneak attack bonuses.  You want your wizard to be as good at the innuendo skill as a rogue?  Design a variant wizard class with alternative skills, or get the group's agreement that innuendo should be a wizard class skill.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

So if the rules are flawed and restrictive, I should rectify them by redesigning them myself? Well, why bother investing money in the game, if that's not the game I'll be playing anyway?

 

I've heard this argument before from people who seem to like d20. Okay, fine. I'm not going to diss you or anyone else just for liking a system I find to be flawed. To each his own. If I explain my position, I will therefore say things that you don't like reading. So feel free to not read on.

 

 

The thing is that it still sounds to me like people who like d20 are being apologists for it because they don't like admitting that the system is restrictive. Levels and classes are fine for hack 'n slash or dungeon crawls, and if that's your game then fine - good for you. I, however, don't enjoy it and I find it restrictive to have fixed archetypes forced upon me as a role-player.

 

For 3e I was looking forward to throwing out all my AD&D 2e player option-based house rules, but merely a casual look told me it would be easier to write a completely new system myself.

 

The only things about the d20 system that can't really be changed are the attrributes.  You can add new skills, you can remove feats, you can ban classes, create new classes, make some classes into Prestige Classes, make prestige classes core classes. The D20 system have rules that are very easily customiseable.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

You really need to check out a few other RPGs if you think d20 is flexible and customiseable. Heck, even AD&D 2e was less restrictive - it at least had lists for breaking down the classes in the DMG, which is something strangely missing from the 3e DMG.

 

In fact, one of the variants in the Unearthed Arcana supplement was rules for "Generic Classes"; you chose from one of three classes, picked your own class skills, which saves would be good, which special abilities you wanted, and so on. 

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Yes, that seems to be both TSR's and now WotC's solution to all problems - get the players to buy more books... And failing that, they do a quick revision, forcing people to replace their books as they did with 3.5... Not even TSR ever did that. I'm sure it's financially sound strategy according to the suits, but I'm not going to support it with my money, since it suggests the system was deliberately flawed from the beginning.

 

If you chose to play classes in a way you find restrictive, then that's up to you, but I certainly don't find them restrictive at all, nor do my players.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Good for you and your players. However, I don't think so, and nor did my players.

 

If D20 is sweeping the market, it's because it is a better system than the others.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

D20 is selling because it holds brand names like D&D or Star Wars or Call of Cthulhu, certainly not because it's better than the alternatives. 5th edition Call of Cthulhu was infinitely better than the d20 rubbish they've released now. I mean, they've applied experience levels to Cthulhu, for crying out loud!

 

WotC should give players conversion options for systems like GURPS or similar and see what their players really prefer... However, they will never do that. Indeed, WotC - by their own admission - intend to all other alternatives to disappear. They don't say it's to monopolize the market, but then they wouldn't...

 

But feel free to disagree with me. Just tell me you've at least tried playing 5th edition Cthulhu or GURPS or World of Darkness or any other system first. If d20 is all you've ever tried, then you have no basis of comparison.

 

Players trying and experiencing alternate rules is WotC's worst nightmare...

[Reveilled]

But feel free to disagree with me. Just tell me you've at least tried playing 5th edition Cthulhu or GURPS or World of Darkness or any other system first. If d20 is all you've ever tried, then you have no basis of comparison.

 

Players trying and experiencing alternate rules is WotC's worst nightmare...

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

I've tried many other systems, including White Wolf's, GURPS, Guardian's of Order's tri-stat system, and several homemade systems during the days of 2e AD&D (which I couldn't stand). D20 was the only system I liked more than first edition AD&D.

 

What I don't understand is, why do you feel other systems are better for roleplaying? With us at any rate, when we roleplay we might as well not use a system at all. In our group, it would be uncommon to pay any attention to what's on the character sheet during a roleplaying situation, so I don't understand why it would matter what system you use for roleplaying.

 

Perhaps you're right that D20 is only good for hack 'n' slash and dungeon crawls, but that's all we use it for, so it couldn't suit us better. I'd hate to actually have to use rules while roleplaying. For me, it would defeat the purpose.

[Jediphile]

What I don't understand is, why do you feel other systems are better for roleplaying?  With us at any rate, when we roleplay we might as well not use a system at all.  In our group, it would be uncommon to pay any attention to what's on the character sheet during a roleplaying situation, so I don't understand why it would matter what system you use for roleplaying.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Because besides fixed and restrictive classes and feats, D&D/d20 also bases a lot of the core functions on things like experience points. Now, accumulating xp isn't a bad idea per se, since at it's core it's a fine representation of progress.

 

But in D&D xp is based on monster slashing - the more monsters you kill, the more xp you get. And it doesn't stop there, no. Every single creature or person is worth xp, so going by the rules, you'd get xp for every single little orc, peasant, ferret, or slug you kill.

 

Sure, you and I can agree that is a preposterous basis for character growth, but it's still right there in the core rules. I much prefer systems where the GM awards xp based on actual role-playing, and where those xp are then used to buy abilities and skills to represent progress rather than to cross some arbitrary xp level. GURPS and WoD does the former. D&D/d20 does the latter, which tends to reward stupid xp abuse over good roleplaying. No, I don't do it either in my AD&D campaign, but it's actually what the rules say.

 

Perhaps you're right that D20 is only good for hack 'n' slash and dungeon crawls, but that's all we use it for, so it couldn't suit us better.  I'd hate to actually have to use rules while roleplaying.  For me, it would defeat the purpose.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Yes, I'd agree that in that case d20 rules are convenient and appropriate. It's easy to work with and requires players to make few and easy choices during play. There is nothing wrong with enjoying dungeon crawls, and D&D/d20 is appropriate for it, but it still has no depth.

 

I've also enjoyed playing Diablo II on my computer, but I'm not pretending it's a role-playing game, when it's really just a polished hack 'n slash/dungeon crawl game with extremely linear story and no plot options, unlike KotOR, for example. Star Wars movies are fun, but they have no depth next to movies like Blade Runner or Apocalypse Now. They're fun to watch, but once you leave the theatre, that's pretty much it.

 

Same thing with d20 - it may be fun, but the characters has no depth beyond numbers on a sheet of paper. At least none that is supported or encouraged by the core rules. Now, that's not to say that D&D characters cannot be complex or memorable. Indeed, my fondest ever character was a cryptic and secretive D&D wizard, but that was due to my role-playing - he became memorable for me in spite of D&D rules, certainly not because of them. For example, he had an allergy toward horses and was afraid of spiders. That's fun, but D&D rules won't let me represent that in the game (well, 2e player option rules did, not 3e...). Sure, I can still establish it for my character, but it has no consequence in 3e rules. That means such characteristics will be completely voluntary limitations that a player chooses with no redeeming counterbalance in 3e, which tends to discourage players from being creative when giving PCs characteristics. After all, the GM should penalize me if I don't roleplay my disadvantage, so if taking it carries no counterbalance, then I'm unlikely to choose as a player, aren't I? Otherwise a player would just be shooting himself in the foot, which is not a popular pastime...

[Reveilled]

What I don't understand is, why do you feel other systems are better for roleplaying?  With us at any rate, when we roleplay we might as well not use a system at all.  In our group, it would be uncommon to pay any attention to what's on the character sheet during a roleplaying situation, so I don't understand why it would matter what system you use for roleplaying.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Because besides fixed and restrictive classes and feats, D&D/d20 also bases a lot of the core functions on things like experience points. Now, accumulating xp isn't a bad idea per se, since at it's core it's a fine representation of progress.

 

But in D&D xp is based on monster slashing - the more monsters you kill, the more xp you get. And it doesn't stop there, no. Every single creature or person is worth xp, so going by the rules, you'd get xp for every single little orc, peasant, ferret, or slug you kill.

 

Sure, you and I can agree that is a preposterous basis for character growth, but it's still right there in the core rules. I much prefer systems where the GM awards xp based on actual role-playing, and where those xp are then used to buy abilities and skills to represent progress rather than to cross some arbitrary xp level. GURPS and WoD does the former. D&D/d20 does the latter, which tends to reward stupid xp abuse over good roleplaying. No, I don't do it either in my AD&D campaign, but it's actually what the rules say.

 

Actually, no. You don't get a fixed amount experience for extremely easy things. The rules for experience work relative to the difference between the ability of the combatants, The rules specifically state that below a certain level (a difference of eight between the character level and the Challenge rating), the DM must decide for himself how much experience is awarded, and the rules also specifically state that if an enounter is so easy that the Player's resources aren't used up at all, the experience the DM should award should almost certainly be 0. if you are a first level character, a peasant who worked a farm that was periodically raided by orcs whom he had to fight off would and should present a challenge to the party. If it presents them a challenge, then XP should be awarded if they have to fight the peasant. If not, 0 XP, as it says in the rules.

 

Perhaps you're right that D20 is only good for hack 'n' slash and dungeon crawls, but that's all we use it for, so it couldn't suit us better.  I'd hate to actually have to use rules while roleplaying.  For me, it would defeat the purpose.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Yes, I'd agree that in that case d20 rules are convenient and appropriate. It's easy to work with and requires players to make few and easy choices during play. There is nothing wrong with enjoying dungeon crawls, and D&D/d20 is appropriate for it, but it still has no depth.

 

I've also enjoyed playing Diablo II on my computer, but I'm not pretending it's a role-playing game, when it's really just a polished hack 'n slash/dungeon crawl game with extremely linear story and no plot options, unlike KotOR, for example. Star Wars movies are fun, but they have no depth next to movies like Blade Runner or Apocalypse Now. They're fun to watch, but once you leave the theatre, that's pretty much it.

 

Same thing with d20 - it may be fun, but the characters has no depth beyond numbers on a sheet of paper. At least none that is supported or encouraged by the core rules. Now, that's not to say that D&D characters cannot be complex or memorable. Indeed, my fondest ever character was a cryptic and secretive D&D wizard, but that was due to my role-playing - he became memorable for me in spite of D&D rules, certainly not because of them. For example, he had an allergy toward horses and was afraid of spiders. That's fun, but D&D rules won't let me represent that in the game (well, 2e player option rules did, not 3e...). Sure, I can still establish it for my character, but it has no consequence in 3e rules. That means such characteristics will be completely voluntary limitations that a player chooses with no redeeming counterbalance in 3e, which tends to discourage players from being creative when giving PCs characteristics. After all, the GM should penalize me if I don't roleplay my disadvantage, so if taking it carries no counterbalance, then I'm unlikely to choose as a player, aren't I? Otherwise a player would just be shooting himself in the foot, which is not a popular pastime...

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

As far as I can tell, there is no redeeming counterbalance to being allergic to horses or afraid of spiders, so I see no reason for there to be in the rules. In my opinion, providing incentives to put in these quirks should rest solely on the roleplayers themselves. it's up to the players and the DM to encourage more interesting characters.

 

My players and I are from the "Cowboys and Injuns" school of roleplaying; The only time that it's appropriate to introduce the rules is when there would be an argument over how the story progresses (such as combat).

[Ewen Brown]

but that was due to my role-playing - he became memorable for me in spite of D&D rules, certainly not because of them.

well that's basically always the case when you roleplay it's never the system that makes it what it is

[Baneblade]

By the book... Allways by the book.

[Loof]

Usualy acoring to some form of system, seldomly the system printed in the book. But even more seldomly totaly freeform unless done by the GM based on player choosen "character consepts"...

[Jediphile]

but that was due to my role-playing - he became memorable for me in spite of D&D rules, certainly not because of them.

well that's basically always the case when you roleplay it's never the system that makes it what it is

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Yes, but well-written rules with many options can indeed inspire richer and deeper characters. A list of optionable disadvantages, for example, is certainly a great aid for making complex and interesting characters. GURPS has a full chapter of 40+ pages dedicated solely to that (and that's not counting quirks). D&D has nothing.

[Reveilled]

but that was due to my role-playing - he became memorable for me in spite of D&D rules, certainly not because of them.

well that's basically always the case when you roleplay it's never the system that makes it what it is

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Yes, but well-written rules with many options can indeed inspire richer and deeper characters. A list of optionable disadvantages, for example, is certainly a great aid for making complex and interesting characters. GURPS has a full chapter of 40+ pages dedicated solely to that (and that's not counting quirks). D&D has nothing.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

DMG, p128. It has something. Maybe not 40 pages of a list of disadvantages, but I don't need a book to tell me about things that can disadvantage characters. Why not use your imagination?

[Kaftan Barlast]

Call of Cthulhu is d20 now??!! WTF?! There you can talk about serious regression.

[6 Foot Invisible Rabbit]

It is okay. They made some major changes to the d20 System to make it work but there are some good ideas in it that I incorporated into my campaign.

[Kaftan Barlast]

I still say its raping everything good and true.

 

 

-Out of the whirling vortex comes a lvl 34 Lurker of Ghnmakamaaagh!!

 

-I shoot him in the eye with my +3 Enfield revolver

 

-You cant shoot him in the eye without the "called shot" feat.

 

-Ok, then I try a level 9 banishment spell.

 

-Youve already used up that slot, you need to rest 8 hours before you can sue it again.

 

-Ok, then I just shoot him.

 

-Your weapon has no effect, you need atleast a +5 revolver to hit him. He laughs a horrible gurgling laugh at your pitiful attack and casts "Greater tentacle rape"

 

-My bowler hat of chastity gives me immunity to rape.

 

-Not to greater rape spells it doesnt...

 

-Does too!

 

-Does not!!

 

 

and so on.

[Reveilled]

It's going to be more like:

 

-Out of the whirling vortex comes a Lurker of Ghnmakamaaagh!!

 

-I shoot him in the eye with my +3 Enfield revolver!

 

-That's d20 modern, you eejit.

 

-Ok, then I try a level 9 banishment spell.

 

-That's D&D, dumbass.

 

-In that case, I'll cast Greater Tentacle Rape!

 

-That's BESM d20, stupid!

 

-Wait, what were we playing again?

 

-AAAAAARGH!

 

[DM loses 1d20 SAN]

 

[Kaftan Barlast]

But seriously, they dont have levels, classes and things now do they? That would be so insane.

 

 

"Mr. Thomas F. Finklesbarn, esq. Level 7 Solicitor." :D

[metadigital]

But seriously, they dont have levels, classes and things now do they? That would be so insane.

 

"Mr. Thomas F. Finklesbarn, esq. Level 7 Solicitor." :D

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

The +7 pen is mightier than the +3 sword!

[Rosbjerg]

The +7 pen is mightier than the +3 sword!

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

not for killing enemies .. but writing yes .. it's so freakin unhandy with a sword..

[metadigital]

The +7 pen is mightier than the +3 sword!

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

not for killing enemies .. but writing yes .. it's so freakin unhandy with a sword..

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I dunno, I could kill someone with a ballpoint ... "

[Rosbjerg]

I didn't say it was impossible .. just that it would be alot easier with a sword! and alot quicker as well! ^_^