Let's Talk About Defining Player Characters

[Reynard]

[NOTE: this is another thread in my ongoing series to explore and discuss various aspects of TTRPGs as I work toward a foundation for my own RPG. Thanks for participating. Even if we disagree it will be helpful.]

There are lots of ways to define PCs in TTRPGs, from classes and levels to skill based systems to tags and descriptors, not to mention games that combine these in different ways. And of course lots of RPGs use their own jargon to rename, redefine, and refocus any or all of these elements.

So how do you feel about the different ways PCs are defined in roleplaying games? Do you like clear archetypes like classes? Do you prefer an a la cart approach? What about "point buy" versus "rolled" attributes or whatever? Does it matter what genre the game is in? How does the way we define PCs impact play?

Part and parcel with defining the PCs is "leveling up" -- that is, character advancement. So let's talk about this here, too.

Thanks!

 

[TwoSix]

I'm pretty flexible, in that I enjoy multiple approaches; sometimes what I do like in one system is something I don't enjoy in another! Some games feel better with tight constraints, others work better with a looser approach.

What I enjoy most is an approach relatively underserved; a game with fairly detailed and granular character creation at the start, but with a loose, unfixed, "roguelike" approach to character growth after play starts.

 

[Reynard]

What I enjoy most is an approach relatively underserved; a game with fairly detailed and granular character creation at the start, but with a loose, unfixed, "roguelike" approach to character growth after play starts.

What would that look like? Gear only advancement maybe?

 

[TwoSix]

What would that look like? Gear only advancement maybe?

Slow scaling of the baseline features acquired at character creation (15-20% times increase in potency or frequency every 4-5 “levels”), primarily magic item progression, and unlockable boons/feats/“prestige classes” would be my ideal. Not necessarily all the options in the game, of course, unless it’s a pretty crunchy game.

 

[dragoner]

Simple mostly, stats and skills. Rather see more time put into fleshing them out. Complex builds kind of leave me cold.

 

[Ralif Redhammer]

As much as the kid in me loves rolled stats, when you do that, unless you've got some really trustworthy players, you're going to have people showing up to play with their highest stat of 11 and someone with no stat lower than 14.

I tend to prefer class-based RPGs, but generally want either skill-based progression or level-based progression, not both.

For character creation, I generally gravitate towards the quickest, simplest method that isn't just grabbing a pregen. I don't need to spend forever customizing and fiddling with my character when they won't really come to life until I sit down to play them.

 

[payn]

There are lots of ways to define PCs in TTRPGs, from classes and levels to skill based systems to tags and descriptors, not to mention games that combine these in different ways. And of course lots of RPGs use their own jargon to rename, redefine, and refocus any or all of these elements.

So how do you feel about the different ways PCs are defined in roleplaying games?

I think its important that how characters are defined is spelled out in the rulebook. You dont have to have classes, archetypes, feats, playbooks, etc.. Though, I think some indication of how characters are to be shaped is important to be called out.

Do you like clear archetypes like classes? Do you prefer an a la cart approach?

A little of both. PF1 is my favorite fantasy RPG at the moment because of how defined classes are, but how many options exist in which you can customize them. I also enjoy PbtA playbooks as I think they give a good achetype of character, while leaving a lot of space for the player to interpret that.

That said, I dislike classless systems that are just everybody takes from the same pool. Its too generic and often some choices are clear winners so for some reason every character does the same things.

What about "point buy" versus "rolled" attributes or whatever?

I lean towards point buy because I want more control over how the character exists. Also, a lot of modern fantasy systems are built so stiffly, that random stat gen can make them poor experiences at the table. If a system is wider and built to encompass randomly rolled characters, I dont mind it. Traveller for example, handles this better since its spread is wide, and it has no leveling progress in the realm of things like D&D.

Does it matter what genre the game is in?

I want to say no, but I think thats only a general answer. I play a lot of Sci-Fi and horror games and I feel like they play very differently than fantasy. I think thats in large part due to how D&D developed and the rest of the RPG industry more than anything inherent to the genres themselves.

How does the way we define PCs impact play?

I know folks hate the word immersion, but I feel like defined characters adds to the setting you are looking to play in. So, as a system is built, I think if the definitions lead to characters that are easy to envision in such a world or place helps aid gaming mindset of everyone at the table. I definitely "build" characters around the concepts I want to explore in the genre, and find a hard time getting into the experience in generic classless systems that are made to be one size fits all. YMMV.

Part and parcel with defining the PCs is "leveling up" -- that is, character advancement. So let's talk about this here, too.

I am fine with leveling systems like D&D, but I also dont mind flatter progression systems, I even prefer them. What I have discovered in flat progression is the character is basically the character and so folks tend to explore the setting and the character's place in it more than collecting gadgets and getting more numerically powerful.

From a story perspective thats awesome, but ive also had GMs that either have lack of imagination or poor GM practices. So, I can see a numerically power fantasy system as giving some insulation against boring play development. You have something outside the genre exploration to look forward to. I used to see D&D as exactly that, now I tend to be more picky about who I play with. YMMV.

Thanks!

 

[Scribe]

I like

Classes
Rolling Stats

Classes (and Ancestry/Species) give you a framework, while rolling stats works to prevent things from being the same all the time. For optimizer types, point buy can feel like there is only 1 option.

For leveling up however, I like the numbers to go up, but I do not like the 'build progression' stuff anymore. I want the class to contain the mechanics of what I'm playing pretty much immediately. (Spells being an exception).

 

[zarionofarabel]

So how do you feel about the different ways PCs are defined in roleplaying games?

Meh. Overall I like robust skill lists because it often becomes a list of "things a PC can do" which is good, as I have found that games with limited "buttons" often seem to put false limitations on what players decide their PCs can do. I'm also a huge fan of Pendragon's Personality Traits and Burning Wheel's Beliefs as mechanics that inform, reinforce, and at times even force players to portray their PC a certain way or engage in certain actions. In fact, to be pedantic on purpose, I kind of consider Pendragon to be the only actual "role playing GAME" (that I know of) simply because it's the only system that has rules that dictate how a PC is roleplayed.

Do you like clear archetypes like classes? Do you prefer an a la cart approach?

Hate classes, think they are one of the most terrible things in a system, right after levels and HP bloat. They also don't correlate to the kinds of characters that one sees in other media or even the kind of characters most people want to play as far as I can tell. I mean I'm pretty sure D&D 5e has, what, a hundred classes and subclasses? Not to mention the fact that, at least in the Actual Plays and online discussions, 99% of the PCs people talk about are multiclassed, usually 3 or more classes. Put plainly, if you need to have 3 or more classes, and a hundred different class/subclass opinions, classes ain't working out too good IMHO.

What about "point buy" versus "rolled" attributes or whatever?

Depends on the game. I like "point buy" for it's fairness aspect and the ability to allow players to make exactly the PC they want (within system limits). I like "rolled" because it often reflects real life better. If a system has the option to use either/or, I almost always leave it up to the players, and honestly am suprised how often players choose "rolled" even if it means their PCs will vary wildly in capability.

Does it matter what genre the game is in?

I am assuming you mean should PCs be defined differently in different genres. It really depends on the genre and aesthetic the game is going for. I like bespoke systems that have custom "bells and whistles" built specifically for whatever genre and aesthetic the game is trying to emulate. Which means different games built for different things will by default have different ways to define PC capabilities.

How does the way we define PCs impact play?

Greatly. See Pendragon and Burning Wheel vs everything else, and more specifically, something like D&D 5e. I don't think you could ever get the same kind of experience from D&D 5e that you get from Pendragon and BW, the systems are just far too different to ever produce similar results unless one employs a heck of a lot of houserules.

Part and parcel with defining the PCs is "leveling up" -- that is, character advancement. So let's talk about this here, too.

My favorite way is "by use" as is done in many BRP/Runequest derivative systems like Pendragon, Delta Green, and Dragonbane. Where the use of a skill is tracked and skills advance through use. To me that is the most realistic way for advancement to happen because of the whole "10,000 hours" thing. Plus it helps avoid the whole phenomenon of a thief that gets better at picking locks and disarming traps by stabbing lots of goblins.

Thanks!

Don't thank me, you jerk! Being decent isn't something you're supposed to do on the internet!

 

[RenleyRenfield]

So how do you feel about the different ways PCs are defined in roleplaying games? Do you like clear archetypes like classes? Do you prefer an a la cart approach? What about "point buy" versus "rolled" attributes or whatever? Does it matter what genre the game is in? How does the way we define PCs impact play?

I think I enjoy classes/archetypes the best. I have done point buy systems for years, and now after playing a few other games I see that 99% of the time; I build what could have been a 'theme package' and just make a few minor tweaks/customizations.

The more I have to parse through 1000 Charms/Feats/Talents = the less I am having fun. Most of them never apply, most of them are not relevant for much of the game, and most of them are conditional to only be used every so often.

So I think I am ok with just being given the "mostly done character class" and then picking my three starter choices and running. Seems games built that way make better use of character abilities anyway.

Part and parcel with defining the PCs is "leveling up" -- that is, character advancement. So let's talk about this here, too.

This either matters too much or is just fine.

If my character is competent from the start, then I do not care about level up at all. I am already playing the fun I wanted.
If my character is constantly underwhelming, or incapable, or just unable to do a thing = level up is so important it ruins the game for me.