Two different perspectives on character concept

[Celebrim]

I start with neither. I usually don't have my PCs internal life worked out until play is well underway and I rarely think of mechanics first. I guess I start with an elevator pitch to myself, usually in the form of a one-liner. Which is to say I begin with an amusing concept for a fictional character that I try to work up some enthusiasm for.

For example, my current Fate Core PC started with the phrase: "He's the Sorcerer Supreme of Bensonhurst (Brooklyn)".

Followed by: "He's half Jewish, half robot (on his father's side)". It's a sci-fi campaign.

This works particularly well in Fate, where amusing phrases are part of the PCs stats.

Thus was born Abraham Disraeli Gears, rabbi of Temple Beth Moreau.

I use a similar approach even in crunchier, gamier systems. My favorite Mutants and Masterminds PC began with, "He's the Egyptian God of Mexican Wrestling!" -- (I was watching a certain episode of Angel at the time...).

I'm not even sure what to make of that. Which is a good thing.

So, I definitely recognize FATE as an attempt to solve this problem and make WYA crunchy. In practice, most examples I've seen of fate involve WYCD tags, even in the FATE rulebook. So, again, how this plays depends heavily I think on how the table thinks about the system.

It sounds to me like you are going into play in FATE with neither WYA or WYCD actually decided on, with the expectation that you'll answer both in play. Does that sound right?

Instead you seem to go in armed with broad sterotypes, (jewish, robot, sorcerer), that just about anyone could mine (jewish for example contains a lot of depth as a sterotype and could go several ways), but ones you've wildly subverted in an over the top zany manner. The subversion of a stereotype is something I definitely approve of, but I don't think I can teach how you get to a Rabbi with a robot father (how does that even work, on several levels? Did you have that worked out before play?). You don't seem to have a methodology for generating that initial concept, and if you do I want to hear it.

Do you always play zany characters?

Your M&M character began with a WYA concept. In fact, I'm pretty sure both described characters did, because I have only a vague idea what the characters are capable of and if WYCD had been prioritized I think you could have described them in WYCD terms in just as much language ('brick', 'paragon', etc.). I know 'sorcerer' is really broad WYCD (when does that tag not apply to solving a problem?) . Did you narrow it. Or more generally, starting with the broad pitch, where did you go from there?

How exactly did you 'tag' you FATE character? Were 'Sorcerer Supreme of Bensonhurst' and 'Half Jewish, half robot (on his father's side)' actual aspects you invoked?

 

[Umbran]

However, much as there is a certain amount of truth to your theory, it's very far from an adequate answer because even if we throw out all the 'No really I do both' as bad data, we are still left with people claiming that the always first think about personalities, conflicts and beliefs before they think about powers and abilities leading the reverse by a 2:1 ratio. Based on prior experience, I'd in fact guess that the ratio goes the other way by about 4:1. I don't think it at all likely that my personal experience is that radically out of touch with how people normally go about creating a character.

But even that doesn't mean that the people are incorrect in their answers.

It is a voluntary poll, answered by self-selected participants. Maybe the group who are choosing to answer are selected so as to not match your personal experiences? That, combined with a certain amount of "leading the wintesses" that happens with pre-worded answers could well explain the phenomenon without the folks actually being really incorrect.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

"Zany" depends at least in part on the campaign in which the character resides. A half-cyborg Sorcerer Supreme & Rabbi* would not be completely out of place in a RIFTS or Shadowrun game.







* Mechasyahu? The Iron Lion of Zion? Hopefully NOT "The Briserker."

 

[Mallus]

"Hopefully NOT "The Briserker."

That's awful, therefore brilliant! I'm picturing the Terminator as a mohel, ie Arnold, naked except for his pe'ot, arriving in the past in a cloud of lightning then asking people "Are you Sarah Berkowitz?"

I'm sending this to our to our GM in hopes The Briserker finds his way into an upcoming adventure.

Oh, and thanks for the .gif!

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

It's a mitsvah.

Followed by: "He's half Jewish, half robot (on his father's side)". It's a sci-fi campaign.

"I knew your father- Sy Borgman*- a nice guy."






* LANny Kravitz?

 

[Zhaleskra]

I think the main problem in this poll is that we're arguing semantics. Saying "warrior mage" tells me as a player that I want my guy to be a hybrid fighter/caster. By itself it tells me nothing about why the character ended up on this path.

 

[Rod Staffwand]

I voted for "both equally" since it's usually a hybrid process with me. The idea of playing a certain archetype might appeal to me (say a warrior), but I'm mostly motivated by WYA rather than WYCD.

On a system level, I don't much care for WYA mechanics. On some level, I think adding mechanical weight to 'role-playing' stomps on the nuance and the beauty of it. Your character's thoughts and feelings may spur them to action, which might require a system to adjudicate success or failure, but I don't think a system to govern thoughts and feelings (or to give bonuses or penalties when acting on them) is needed. In some cases, it may undercut the actual power of role-playing.

Example: say you're playing a character that believes human life should be protected and cherished at all costs. A situation occurs in which several people are trapped in a car that is being washed down some rapids towards a waterfall, spelling certain doom for all inside. Your character, on the banks, might be able to commandeer a tractor-trailer, race ahead to the waterfall and, in a feat of derring-do, wedge the truck on the rocks above the waterfall to form a blockade (just go with the premise, it's an RPG after all). If successful, the car will crash into the truck and can use the tractor-trailer to get to safety before everything crashes over. If not successful, everyone dies.

Now that's a long setup for the essential point. You are RPing your character and, thus, want to save those people. You decide that your character is willing to risk their life to do so. To do otherwise would feel false or wrong. Your character couldn't live with themselves afterwards. If the system encouraged you to follow your character's beliefs by improving the odds of success or mitigating the dangers, the choice is weakened: "I have to save those people! Good thing I'm getting a +3 conviction bonus or else this would be suicide!" The mechanics are rewarding you for playing to your character's ideals but not actually asking you to have them live up to them. If you are not rewarded by the system you might consider the save attempt to risky. You might let the people die. In which case, you've learned something about your character's limits and can explore new ground (what happens when your character chickens out).