Let's Talk About Defining Player Characters

[pemerton]

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.

I wish I did! Most games with rogue-like progression I've found are OSR/NSR games with simple resolution engines (I'm thinking games like Cairn and Knave here). Most crunchy games feature increasing player-facing decision choices all throughout the leveling process (which makes sense, considering those games are generally focused on empowering player choices).

I'm not really strong on the concept of "roguelike" progression; but here are the Advancement rules from Knave:

Whenever a PC accumulates 1000 XP, they gain a level. As a guideline, PCs receive 50 XP for low-risk accomplish-ments, 100 XP for moderate-risk accomplishments, and 200 XP for high-risk accomplishments. The referee should freely notify the PCs of how much XP different objectives are worth when asked. . . .

When a PC gains a level, they roll a number of d8s equal to their new level to find their new HP maximum. If the result is less than their previous maximum, their maximum HP increases by 1. They also raise the defense and bonus scores of 3 different abilities of their choice by 1 point. Abilities may never be raised higher than 20/+10.​

There's also this "Designer's Note":

You can also raise abilities randomly if you want. My preferred method is to roll a d20 for each ability, in any order, raising that ability by 1 if the roll is less than that ability's defense. Keep cycling through the abilities, stopping when three abilities have advanced, and skipping any abilities that have maxed out. In this method, natural talents will tend to advance faster than weaknesses, which makes PCs more varied and specialized.​

Burning Wheel is a "crunchy" game that features detailed and granular PC build at the start, but that has unfixed advancement. It doesn't use levels, but something a bit closer to RQ/BRP-style advancement. It doesn't have the feature that "natural talents will tend to advance faster than weaknesses", but PCs still tend to be pretty varied (at least in my experience).

 

[A_Carrington]

I prefer point buy, and advancement as an option should the players desire it, but not as the default.

 

[Tonguez]

I like Narrative Tag systems be it FATE or City of Mist

My favourite system is FATE Accelerated where even PC Attributes have been redefined as narrative appeoaches that dwfines how a character acts rather than what they can do.

Class Archetypes are important and while many struggle with the undefined nature of Fate, Archetype Aspects and stunts can be used to emulate Classes or race or heritage

 

[Reynard]

and advancement as an option should the players desire it, but not as the default.

Can you say more about this? Have you played with groups who are actively not interested in advancement? If so, what games and genres? And do you mean NO advancement, or only diegetic advancement?

 

[A_Carrington]

For example, in my current game, heroes don't gain points during play, at least not for now, we can always change our minds later. However I added ways of acquiring new capabilities during play, such as from consumable items. These are usually horizontal upgrades, that is, they give you access to more versatility, rather than improving what you can already do. They're consumable and temporary, so they both give the players a natural incentive to seek out treasure, and something meaningful to spend it on (currency is also something I added to the game, specifically so I could give the players an objective, reliable method of getting access to cool stuff that doesn't require permanent character sheet upgrades).