Two different perspectives on character concept

[GMMichael]

DMMike - I dunno if passive-aggressive approaches make good marketing, especially when links on the internet are involved. Unknown links are "stranger-danger!" Why don't you tell them what it is, and who wrote it?

Funny; marketing works great for Coke and Pepsi. But who wants to look at 500 ads for these guys?

The system is mine, Modos RPG, and I've provided a link in case you (the reader) would like to know more.

 

[Jhaelen]

Funny, looks like I'm the first to vote for thinking about what I'd like my character be able to do first

I'm not necessarily thinking about skills and powers right away, but in more general terms, e.g. "I want to be able to cast spells, be tough and have some outdoor skills."
Then, I'm looking for ways to realize that 'concept' best within the game mechanics of the chosen system.
Once I find something that works, I try to make sense of it, i.e. that's when the "who am I?" question takes over.
Often this question leads me to re-evaluate some of my mechanical choices and make some changes to better match the backstory I've come up with.

 

[Sword of Spirit]

I haven't fully refined my thoughts, and I'm going to be developing them as I'm writing this response, so let's see how it turns out.

The first thing that occurs to me is that context is everything. I don't have a single style of addressing this issue. It depends not only on the game system, but also on the campaign, and even who the other players are.

1. When I'm playing in a campaign or system that is very focused on a theme I usually start with WYA. When something explicitly evokes that mode, I jump right into it. White Wolf's WoD games aim to do that (whether they succeed or not may be debatable).
2. If I'm playing in a game that is highly crunchy in a limiting manner (such as D&D), I tend to focus on WCYD first. I have to see what my options are so I don't waste time thinking of a concept that cannot be represented in the system.
3. If I'm playing in a game that is highly crunchy in an enabling manner I may focus either way. Context is the most important in determining my approach here. Is there a strongly presented theme? See #1. Is it a blank slate given to me with a ton of KeWl PoWerz? Then I might look and see what powers look the coolest.
4. If I'm playing in a game where I know the composition of the group matters, then I will look at both WYA and WYCD based on what I know of the system. One thing I personally dislike is to come into a D&D campaign where the party doesn't jive and cover the bases, whether that is due to WYA or WCYD incompatibilities. While I'm a fan of D&D parties that are deficient when it is a theme (such as an all fighter party, all mage party, etc), but most D&D parties want some level of covering your bases in order to be most effective in a standard campaign. So I will make a character to cover whatever base is missing. This is rarely any sort of drag on me, since I most enjoy the immersive method acting play style and can enjoy role-playing a vast number of different characters.
5. If I'm playing in a group that optimizes (assuming I would do that again...probably not) I probably have the most difficult time figuring it out. Optimization makes it difficult to support most realistic WYA concepts, because most real people aren't optimized. Since I hate the forced feeling of taking a pile of stats and deriving WYA afterwards, this is a struggle for me. Last time I ended up with a character concept I loved based on WYA who I had to do a heck of a lot of work on to attempt to get half-way optimized. I had an idea of a street urchin turned guild thief, turned conscientious guild deserter. His free-wheeling, wise-cracking, good-natured, "never take anything too seriously" attitude and style was a real delight to play. I got to express a part of my personality that I rarely do. He's still one of my favorite characters that I've ever played, and I wish I hadn't had to drop out of the campaign as soon as I did. But this was in Pathfinder. I multiclassed for concept, but my DM was concerned that I might lag too far behind at higher levels, and I ended up actually multiclassing carefully into 4 classes (by level 8) and really doing a feat hunt in order to try not to lag too far behind while still realizing his concept appropriately. His combat contribution was present, but not impressive, and his greatest contribution ended up being through his personality. The rest of the group seemed to really enjoy the character, but I had to fight with the rules to be a mechanically valued member. Fortunately I enjoyed gaming with the group and had no particular dislike of Pathfinder (especially at the time) which meant it was really fun anyway. But it wasn't easy to play WYA in a party where WCYD was important.
6. How long is this campaign going to be? I'm not a fan of spending more time creating a character than I do playing it--although I have done that on more than one occasion.

Sometimes that is all thrown to the wind and I do something completely different. For instance, I have a character that first came into being back in AD&D and is my favorite character concept--the kind I tried to recreate in various media several time. His final incarnation is in an upcoming 5e mega-campaign. His initial concept was an idealized self-projection power-character idea created by a kid just learning D&D. Half-elf fighter/mage, fights with a longsword and wears purple. Over the years the concept has developed. I still can't entirely say his personality is fully developed (since it has changed over the years) but since it is partly an idealized self-projection, I can more or less go with "what would I do?" when in doubt. The most cheesy origin for a character, yet one that will always resonate with me.

In general, I'm not a fan of starting with WYCD and then attempting to derive a personality of the character. On the other hand, it is rare that I create a character based purely on WYA without an awareness of the system and variables of the group, campaign, etc. It's probably most accurate to say that I allow both WYA and WYCD to develop in an interrelated way in my mind based on both my interests and the campaign.

 

[gamerprinter]

My observation is that increasingly players are quite sophisticated in devising WCYD concepts but increasingly less sophisticated in devising WYA concepts. Indeed, many never seem to get around to WYA at all, which seems like it ought to be all right if we are playing a dungeon crawl circa 1978 but at the same time that is happening the writer's of adventures seem to want a literary story where it ought to matter quite highly WYA. But all we are providing for the players is greater and greater depth to WCYD and almost no advice for talking the problem of WYA.

Really? In what way is roleplaying in 1978 less sophisticated than today? In my experience, the level of roleplaying done by players in general was far more in depth and sophistocated in 1978, than any game I've played since 1990, as if the closer we are to today, the less sophistocated roleplaying has become. It is isn't new and improved today, it seems to be abbreviated and hand-waved to a mere shadow of the level of roleplay I experienced in past decades. In fact when I put in the effort of roleplaying in a recent game, the newer players look at me strangely, as if I'm doing something odd. The way the new players run their characters is more like "my fighter does this..." instead of 'I reach into my belt and pull the sword from the scabbard and cry out, "Cry havoc yonder dogs of war!" (This may just apply to my game, but it 'seems' the new players are less willing to 'roleplay'.)

I consider WCYD and WYA as apples and oranges. If I were to describe myself, as to WCID, I'd emphasize creativity, skills in cartography and graphic design and a deep intuition into whatever my mind is set upon at the moment. 'What I do', however, is a separate concept as to 'who I am'. Who I am involves my personality, my network of friends and family, and the kind of person I am - not what I do. I treat my PC concepts the same, WCID and WIA are 2 separate entities and separate discussions.

While there might be some game systems that put a greater emphasis on background concepts more than the other, being primarily a D&D/PF gamer, I've never needed a system to ask those questions on character concept. I've always treat it with a worksheet I fill out myself, and have my players fill out pertaining to what makes their character tick. I include flaws, past incidences that helped meld a certain personality and view of how this character fits in the party and fits in the wider world. I've never considered building one's background in any way reliant on the game system one is playing. Rather an add-on requirement of any character in establishing who they are and what they do. I see character class features and skills as skill sets only, and not a driving force into who they are, only applying to what they do.

 

[MoutonRustique]

I'm almost never a player - but even then, I am a very big fan of WYCD as WYA and inversely. By this I mean that I find it important that I can do what WYA implies in the game world.

I am also one that would be labeled as a "mostly dis-associated" mechanics enthusiast. A prime example would be that I see absolutely no problem with playing (or having a player be) a "fighter" w/o having the "fighter" name on top of the character sheet. All those names are tags and "fluff" : to be used as evocative tools when suitable and discarded when they get in the way.

As such, I very often ask my players who they would like to be and what they would like to be able to do - I've found that most people mistake the two - and then I offer them mechanical solutions to what they ask. I'm a little like an investment specialist, I guess. People go in and ask for specific results and conditions, the consultant offers possible means.

I've begun being a bit more forcefull in my approach as I've found many people to mistake what they imagine a class-name "should" do with what it actually does in terms of feel, gameplay and mechanics-based "in-world" consequences. I have a greater system mastery than many others with whom I play.

 

[Celebrim]

Really? In what way is roleplaying in 1978 less sophisticated than today?

First of all, I'm not going to take the bait on that.

Second, I didn't actually question the sophistication or quality of the role-play circa 1978, which no doubt varied widely, but noted instead the differences in the presentation and sophistication of the supplemental adventuring materials from the late 1970's compared to much of what came later - even by say 1984. That individual tables had evolved sophisticated character driven stories seems obvious. That the state of the publishing hadn't caught up to those high aspirations is equally obvious.

In my experience, the level of roleplaying done by players in general was far more in depth and sophistocated in 1978...

By beginning your argument with, "In my experience", you've made it inarguable. I can't argue against your experience. But equally, by making your point anecdotal you've also trivialized it.

than any game I've played since 1990, as if the closer we are to today, the less sophistocated roleplaying has become.

Well, I must say, your experience sucks. I'm sorry that nothing you've encountered in the last 24 years is as good as the good old days. I can't help but think maybe this is more experience and anecdote and that maybe what you are seeing isn't actually representative of the state of the hobby as a whole.

I've never considered building one's background in any way reliant on the game system one is playing.

I never said it was. However, some systems actively encourage and promote background development, and D&D traditionally has not been one of those systems. In fact, one major branch of game design has repeatedly over the years departed from D&D precisely over this question. Consider Chivalry & Sorcery, Pendragon, Ars Magica, etc. particularly as a branch distinct from departures like Rolemaster. Nothing prevents or precludes you from doing so and nothing prevents or precludes character background having a huge impact on play, but its something added to the system by tables not an inherent aspect of it.

In this we once again see that system is less important than how you think about play.

I see character class features and skills as skill sets only, and not a driving force into who they are, only applying to what they do.

I'm not sure I see these things as separate as you do. Suppose I have a character who is extraverted, boisterous, and good humored. It's going to be natural when this character is presented with a problem to seek out the people involved, discuss the situation, negotiate solutions, and try to inspire people to help him with the problem. So it would be natural for such a person to develop a lot of 'people skills'. But conversely, a character who is introverted is is not naturally going to develop a lot of people skills because there natural approach to a problem would be to do research, perform experiments, and plan out a solution. So they are likely to develop skills associated with performing those tasks.

Of course, that's not a hard and fast rule. A very advanced and complex character concept might be a character who naturally eschews the solutions he's actually good at and who always first tries a solution that involves skills he's utterly inept at, whether because of delusions of competence, conflicted feelings of morality, or outside pressure from someone he has a relationship with. In the right hands, such a character might be very fun, but to tell you the truth I can probably count on one hand the number of RPers I've met in 30 years that I felt could pull off such a character. And to be frank, I doubt such conscious and complex RP was really the norm in 1978 either.

 

[gamerprinter]

First of all, I'm not going to take the bait on that.

No bait intended - my point was, back in 1e/2e days the gaming groups I was with did lots of roleplaying, speaking in mechanical terms was practically banned. My current group which is 3/4s 30 and under in age, don't understand roleplaying and do not do this. So when I do it, the other players don't get it.

I can agree that the game systems have become far more sophisticated than earlier versions, but the how a player approaches his/her character concept, as far as I can tell hasn't improved (granted I've only primarily played D&D/PF, and not many other systems.) Rules are more complex and better (?) at attempting to emulate mechanical concepts vs. the less concrete rules of the past. However, character concept hasn't been given better descriptors than past versions of the game.

By beginning your argument with, "In my experience", you've made it inarguable. I can't argue against your experience. But equally, by making your point anecdotal you've also trivialized it.

I'm not omniscient, I can only convey any information in any post on this or any forum as anecdotal - I don't have knowledge from everyone's point of view, only mine. I never understand how any is expected to provide "perspectives", except from anecdotal points of view. I'm really not trying to anal here, honestly, how can one provide a perspective unless its their own? 'Persoective" is what you're asking for right?

I haven't trivialized anything, at least not intentionally.

Well, I must say, your experience sucks. I'm sorry that nothing you've encountered in the last 24 years is as good as the good old days. I can't help but think maybe this is more experience and anecdote and that maybe what you are seeing isn't actually representative of the state of the hobby as a whole.

I never said, the game systems haven't improved, I only stated my current players is the problem, which has absolutely nothing to do with the game as it was or as it currently is. (I don't know why you're twisting my words into things I never intended...?!) I would say my experience is fine and I use that experience by applying the best aspects of past editions into whatever edition I am currently playing. Back when TSR was making those vinyl covered handbooks, the Villains Handbook had an excellent list of questions from phobias, inspiring events, contradictory events, flaws, and other similar concerns were asked to be answered to define a truly deep villain design. I've applied that list to a worksheet to provide my players when they are building their character concepts. It is by experience alone, that I use that in my current game.

However, some systems actively encourage and promote background development, and D&D traditionally has not been one of those systems.

Except for the 2e Villains Handbook, I agree D&D/PF hasn't expanded on that.

Consider Chivalry & Sorcery, Pendragon, Ars Magica, etc. particularly as a branch distinct from departures like Rolemaster.

I've never played those games, so I have no response or point of view regarding those.

In this we once again see that system is less important than how you think about play.

That's always the case, isn't it? The system and rules are to govern how to handle mechanics to a given activity. How we think about play really has little to do with the system.

I'm not sure I see these things as separate as you do. Suppose I have a character who is extraverted, boisterous, and good humored. It's going to be natural when this character is presented with a problem to seek out the people involved, discuss the situation, negotiate solutions, and try to inspire people to help him with the problem. So it would be natural for such a person to develop a lot of 'people skills'. But conversely, a character who is introverted is is not naturally going to develop a lot of people skills because there natural approach to a problem would be to do research, perform experiments, and plan out a solution. So they are likely to develop skills associated with performing those tasks.

Here is a way for me to explain how those are separate. A character that is extraverted, boisterous and good humored, aside from diplomacy/charisma emphasis, I can see applying this kind of character to any alignment, any class, any archetype, any additional skills outside of charisma based ones. The rules defining character concept (aside from high charisma) has no affect pro or con in creating an extraverted, boisterous and good humored PC.

And to be frank, I doubt such conscious and complex RP was really the norm in 1978 either.

Again, I have no knowledge what others in 1978 were doing, only those I gamed with - and in my experience more effort went into roleplay back then, than the group I game with today. (It might very well be true that the majority today roleplay more, and only isolated groups did so in 1978, but as stated, I only play with those I have.)

 

[DM Howard]

I always think about both equally. Honestly, I do. No, really.

It's either, or for me when coming up with a character concept. I might think of a really cool character flaw or trait and take it from that angle, or think of something awesome my character would do like wield a large sword in one hand when most other warriors need two hands. It's little things, I suppose, and I simply work on it organically as it comes to me. This is the same whether I'm making a quick character for a one-shot or thinking in the long term sense.

 

[Celebrim]

Funny, looks like I'm the first to vote for thinking about what I'd like my character be able to do first

Well, look at it this way. I've got 15 votes for 'I think about both equally', the result I thought the most improbable, and I've got zero posts in this thread that lead me to think that anyone who choose that option actually does think about both equally. I think we are seeing a lot of votes for what people unconsciously think would be the answer that reflects on them most favorably. Props to you for honestly choosing the answer that most people are going to assume reflects on them most unfavorably. (As if I was judging them or something.)

I think your general approach if fairly typical of what I've observed people do in actual character creation. There is nothing wrong with it, and a lot of players that use that approach end up with interesting WYA. I'm just trying to figure out how I could encourage more rapid growth in WYA skills.

What I'm finding interesting in this thread is even the people who claim to prioritize WYA over WYCD seem to lack the language to even describe that choice, and invariably end up appealing to the language of WYCD (classes, feats, traits, flaws, skills, etc.) to describe what they mean. Along with the fact that the least likely reality is leading in the poll, it makes me have very low confidence in the self-reporting in the poll, but its leading to the conclusion that probably the paucity of thought in WYA compared to WYCD relates to the fact that most game systems (and certainly D&D) spend an extensive amount of time creating concrete terms for abstract concepts related to WYCD but almost no time creating language around WYA. We RPers find ourselves radically well equipped to discuss WYCD in concrete terms, but rather underequipped for discussing WYA.

In D&D's case, this is even true of its technical jargon words like 'Evil', 'Good', 'Law' and 'Chaos' - a situation made worse by the fact that with no definitive guidelines TSR/WotC itself published over the years contradicting definitions that amounted to no more than their author's house rules/personal take on the matter. And that situation isn't helped by the fact that by itself, alignment is radically unable to define WYA. But even to the extent those jargon words are out there, they aren't showing up early in the discussion of what it means to have WYA as fundamental to your idea of concept.

To concede a bit of what his behind this post, I think modern RPGs are a merger of two very different games - traditional wargaming as represented by the TSR parentage and theater/thespian games as might be used in improve theater or training in acting. Think of it as playing 'Whose Line is It Anyway?' and 'Advanced Squad Leader' at the same time. This thespian branch though is something that is largely added as an overlay on top the wargaming structure, probably out of remembrance of the simple 'let's pretend' games of childhood. It's worth wondering what RPG would look like if the father of RPGs wasn't a wargamer, but a thespian who started adding game mechanics as arbitration to the thespian games played by his acting troupe. I think we might have a similar range of games by this point, but we might have a whole different language set and perception as to what was 'mainline' in an RPG and what was a bit extreme and out there.

 

[Zhaleskra]

For me "Warrior Mage" was just a base. A base that starts with WCID, yes, but a base none the less. Getting there gives me input for WIA.