Character Options versus System Options

I am unfortunately having trouble finding the original quote that inspired this line of thought. It might have been Hussar in one of the "Sandbox" threads, but it went something like this: If a player has to spend character creation/development resources on an ability, that ability should be able to be used.

What this got me thinking of was the difference between play options (things the player/character can do or attempt during actual play) based on the character (and the creation/development choices made by the player) and those based on the system (game rules available to everyone). More, it got me to thinking how these two extremes affect "fun" and where along the continuum between them the "most fun" might be had.

As this is a D&D forum, and I am a D&D player/DM, I am most interested in discussing this in relationship to D&D (and its offshoots and cousins).

CONTENT WARNING: The following paragraph compares and contrasts different editions of the D&D game for illustrative purposes. Those with heart conditions, individuals suffering from sensitive bowels, and pregnant women should not read.

Taking a look at combat options through various editions of the game may serve to better illustrate what I am talking about. In 3E, "system options" included maneuvers such as trip, disarm and bull rush that anyone could attempt, and at the same time "character options" that made these particular maneuvers more efficient for a character that spends resources (feats) on them (the various Improved feats). Moving back and edition, 2E (prior to some splats and the Players Options books) relied primarily on "system options", and relatively rules light ones at that: declare an effect (disarm), take a -4 penalty, and roll. Forward and edition to 4E and the pendulum swings in favor of "character options", where individual powers are more likely to provide the player with his or her play options in combat.

(Interestingly, throughout all editions of D&D, magic has been nearly exclusively based on "character options" (wizards/magic users can cast spells; fighters can't) and non-combat mundane actions have been based on "system options" (haggling, rulership) when covered at all.)

Even with the apparent "balance" between "system options" and "character options" in 3.x, the "character options" often won out because the penalties of the "system options" was too great: -4 to hit AND an AoO? (Side note: I usually house rule that the AoO only occurs if the character misses, but keep the -4 penalty. This entices players to try when circumstances are either dire or favorable, but maintains the fighting classes being the "best" at improvising on the battlefield.) If the system penalizes the "untrained" character too much, it becomes a "character option" system by default. The reverse is also true: if the untrained character is only marginally less able than the trained one, expending resources on character options becomes inefficient and the play options become "system options" by default.

What's the point? Why discuss this issue? Simply put, I think the game is most fun for all involved when the players have many options available to them that are soundly supported by the mechanics of the game. Those mechanics provide the foundation for meaningful choices -- both in play and during character creation and development -- and meaningful choices are the fundamental to meaningful play.

It's an interesting point. And I do remember saying that or something to that effect, so, yup, you were thinking about me.

There's always trade offs between in-game options and character options. Character options obviously empower the player - he can choose option A or B based on what he wants. On the downside, if character options are limited in scope, then choosing one option might lead to that option never seeing the light of day and thus becomes a waste.

I think that leads players to choosing options based on what they think will come up in play, rather than what might make sense for their character. Thus, most 1e and 2e fighter types that I saw had proficiency in Longsword, because Longswords were the most common magical weapon to find. No one took Spetum because they knew they'd never find a magical one.

3e allowed for a bit more flex here since it allowed the player to choose to enchant his weapon, thus allowing for a bit more freedom of choice.

You've oulined the in-game options strengths and pitfalls rather well, so, I'm not going to rehash that.

For me, obviously, I prefer character concepts to be used in play. The problem is, so many concepts are restrictive that people shy away from them for fear that the concept will not be viable in the campaign, just like I rarely if ever saw someone take Weapon Proficiency: Bohemian Ear Spoon.

Hussar said:

For me, obviously, I prefer character concepts to be used in play. The problem is, so many concepts are restrictive that people shy away from them for fear that the concept will not be viable in the campaign, just like I rarely if ever saw someone take Weapon Proficiency: Bohemian Ear Spoon.

Click to expand...

IMO, robust system options support "character concepts" better than multitudes of character options, simply because system options allow a playerto make choices at the time they are appropriate to the concept, rather than at some earlier point and hoping they become appropriate. Particularly when individual character options are narrow and resources are limited (AD&D weapon proficiencies, 3.x feats and 4E powers all qualify) "character concept" is limited, at least indofar as mechanical support for a given concept is concerned.

The balance, I think, is found where a robust system options environment is supported by broadly defined character options. A most basic example might be weapon group proficiencies, rather than individual weapon proficiencies, or 4E's use of level/2 as an adjustment to "unskilled checks" (minus the scaling difficulties, which essentially eliminate the benefits of the level bonus).

I'd buy that Reynard.

I've been wandering around pretty far from D&D over the past few months and I've found that true rules light systems are much more to my taste currently. A couple of simple mechanics that can be widely applied means that a given concept can apply much more broadly than when you have multiple subsystems.

Reynard said:

What's the point? Why discuss this issue? Simply put, I think the game is most fun for all involved when the players have many options available to them that are soundly supported by the mechanics of the game. Those mechanics provide the foundation for meaningful choices -- both in play and during character creation and development -- and meaningful choices are the fundamental to meaningful play.

Click to expand...

Meaningful choices are indeed fundamental to meaningful play but these choices may or may not have anything to do with the character building by resource allocation minigame.

If the game you are playing features more or less random character generation there is still plenty of meaningful choice left in actual play.

IMHO the more finely grained and involved the character building process is, the more choices tend to default towards favoring chosen strengths. When these options are combined with a rules system that is balanced to provide challenge for these specialists then a character built to be generally competent in a number of things suddenly isn't because the goalposts have been moved to challenge the specialists.

Character building as a means to obtain meaningful mechanical options is more of an illusion than anything else.

You have a big strong fighter whose player put an 18 in STR, and specialized to the nines using his two handed sword. The rest of his party is similarly roided up at whatever thing they chose to pump thier resources into.

Given a meaningful decision point, what is the liklihood of any of these adventurers choosing to do something that doesn't involve using an uber specialty because the mechanical success chance of such an action is abysmal in comparison.

Now the actual in-play meaningful decision remains the same, choose to fight, rescue the captive, make a bold attempt to grab the mcguffin, etc.

The mechanical part of these decisions (how the objective is achieved) which these builds are supposed to help make meaningful, instead become very predictable unless the party wishes to fail.

The real meaningful decisions can be made equally by characters that were rolled up in 5 minutes or the tweaked min/maxed characters that were days in the making. The quickgen characters actually have more viable meaningful choices open to them with regard to mechanical resolution. There is no huge asset dump prompting them to approach the decision from a narrow pidgeonhole.

EW - Well said. The more dials and knobs you get to twiddle during chargen, the more narrow your concept is likely going to become...

Although, thinking about it, that's not always true. In classless systems, like GURPS or Savage World, breadth is rewarded over depth simply because it's so expensive to gain higher skill levels. I think it is possible to have a finely grained chargen system without it leading down the path to ultra-specialization.

Hussar said:

EW - Well said. The more dials and knobs you get to twiddle during chargen, the more narrow your concept is likely going to become...

Although, thinking about it, that's not always true. In classless systems, like GURPS or Savage World, breadth is rewarded over depth simply because it's so expensive to gain higher skill levels. I think it is possible to have a finely grained chargen system without it leading down the path to ultra-specialization.

Click to expand...

Of course it is possible. If the system doesn't fall into the trap of raising the default bar of difficulty based on the specialization assumption then characters with a certain focus can be mechanically diverse without that focus being marginalized and treated as basic competency.

ExploderWizard said:

Of course it is possible. If the system doesn't fall into the trap of raising the default bar of difficulty based on the specialization assumption then characters with a certain focus can be mechanically diverse without that focus being marginalized and treated as basic competency.

Click to expand...

As I said above, I think system options are better than character options in the long run: giving players the ability to make a meaningful decision at the point of decision, as opposed to the point of character creation, is going to make the game run smoother and provide more fun. I think character options are good, and certainly inform what system options might be best, but if it goes so far as to make it so character options overwhelmingly support specific system options (only maxed Str, feated out fighters should bother grappling, for example) then the design has broken down and meaningful choice has evaporated.