Even if the setting is set up for it, there can be problems. One person wants to play Superman, and the other wants to play Sam Spade, or Tom Sawyer - this sort of thing presents major challenges to the GM in terms of adventure design.
The PC you want vs the PC you get.
- Thread starter Ambrus
- Start date
Even if the setting is set up for it, there can be problems. One person wants to play Superman, and the other wants to play Sam Spade, or Tom Sawyer - this sort of thing presents major challenges to the GM in terms of adventure design.
I try to not even start thinking about what my *one* 'character concept' is going to be before the group's met and talked about the setting and theme of the campaign. But that's just my personal bias.
I mean, sure, I'll think up a couple of neat ideas for a character, but I try very hard not to get attached to one in particular and flesh them out ahead of time. Our groups have had some pretty heavy issues with "playing before play", so i don't want to add to the problem.
If we're running with heavier-than-normal player input into the setting, I'll usually pick something connected to the setting elements already established, think about how that could cause conflicts and general 'fun' within the setting, and then come up with a PC that's either integral to that or gets really screwed by it.
I mean, sure, I'll think up a couple of neat ideas for a character, but I try very hard not to get attached to one in particular and flesh them out ahead of time. Our groups have had some pretty heavy issues with "playing before play", so i don't want to add to the problem.
If we're running with heavier-than-normal player input into the setting, I'll usually pick something connected to the setting elements already established, think about how that could cause conflicts and general 'fun' within the setting, and then come up with a PC that's either integral to that or gets really screwed by it.
That's true (it's a time-honored "GM beware" kind of thing you'll find in many books), but to be pedantic, it depends on the system.
If you're going with something that's not very simmy, and looks at stats in terms of "how much can you affect the flow of events in the game', you can have a game where Superman and Sam Spade have equal 'clout'. For instance, if it's a character-focused game dealing more with drama than straight-up fights, done with say FATE, it'd work. That's a side case, of course.
I've never seen much point in getting thinking about character concept at all before the group meets to discuss the setting and theme of the campaign. It's doable if the setting and theme are easily summed up (e.g. "It's like Starship Troopers, you're all power-armor marines"), or if the mechanics and implied setting are essentially fixed (e.g. D&D 4e). Apart from those cases, though, yeah, trying to take 4-5 totally unrelated character concepts and mash them into a campaign setting is not a recipe for success.
Aus_Snow
First Post
I'm similar then, in this way, though not quite the same. The first part? 'Me too!' The second, even though I veer that way, I don't start without any concept. But certainly, it's past the halfway mark, so to speak.
And. . . ah, M&M. How I love thee.
I don't know of many (er. . . any?) other RPGs where I (or my players, more like, currently) can start with pure concept, no matter how strange, vague, uncompromising, complex, detailed or abstract, and have the system pretty much reply with 'of course! straight away!' - and mean it. Well, all that, and without any headache or dedicated Uni course required for the understanding. 
/fanboi
Last edited:
Remathilis
Legend
It goes back to the chocolate rule: A little chocolate is good, a lot of chocolate will make you sick.
Dragons, Demons, and other creatures like that work on the DM side of the table because the FREAKING MONSTERS. There is no way (Savage Species included) to really balance that kind of power out over 20 levels. Even savage species (with its combination of LA/HD built into a class system) failed to balances these monsters out properly. Dragons, for example, have too many intrinsic abilities that can't be balanced against core classes/races; flight, breath weapon, armor, high ability scores, magic, etc. In the beginning, these benefits overpower elven mages and dwarven fighters, but once the LA has soaked enough XP and HD is less than character level, the monster-PC starts to suffer (low hp, low saves, can't handle monsters of equal level because HD+LA != CR).
A player we had in an EPIC level game played a Ghaele Eladrin (ECL 20) and suffered; while she cast as a 14th level cleric, her HD, spells, saves, and powers weren't nearly a match for the rest of the party (all 20th level PC classes). She rewrote the PC as a 19th level Aasimar cleric, and was MUCH happier for it.
I, in general, have no problem with thinking a character up within given limits. Thus, I rarely feel a dissonance between what I want to play and what I can play - I know what I can play and work within this area. For this reason, I need to know at least a little about the setting, about general themes of the campaign, about mechanical options available and about party composition before I start thinking about my character.
During the prcess of character creation I usually oscillate between fluff and crunch. I start with a concept, a few-word description. I add a few details, maybe some events from character's past. Then I create some appropriate mechanical aspects and go bact top the fluff, to find their reasons and consequences. I repeat the process a few times, until the crunch and fluff fit.
After the character is created, and even more after playing a few sessions, I become strongly attached to him. Not in the "I will be angry if he dies" way. More like "I will rather have him die or leave the party and create a new character, than change him in a way I don't like, especially for any out-of-game reason". That is why I hate when the game mechanics work differently in game than it seemed to work by reading the book, or when GM changes some previously defined aspects of the setting.
On the other hand, when I
During the prcess of character creation I usually oscillate between fluff and crunch. I start with a concept, a few-word description. I add a few details, maybe some events from character's past. Then I create some appropriate mechanical aspects and go bact top the fluff, to find their reasons and consequences. I repeat the process a few times, until the crunch and fluff fit.
After the character is created, and even more after playing a few sessions, I become strongly attached to him. Not in the "I will be angry if he dies" way. More like "I will rather have him die or leave the party and create a new character, than change him in a way I don't like, especially for any out-of-game reason". That is why I hate when the game mechanics work differently in game than it seemed to work by reading the book, or when GM changes some previously defined aspects of the setting.
On the other hand, when I
Fifth Element
Legend
Can I be the demi-dog?
Oni
First Post
Having to settle is just part and parcel with a class/level based system. There's only so many different ways you can play a fighter when what a fighter is is so clearly defined already. Personally I would rather the decision of what to play be based more on what is genre appropriate than mechanical limitations. I've been mulling over running some kind of PbP and I'll definitely be using a more open system, something like M&M (maybe a little to crunchy) or OVA (maybe not crunchy enough). I like the idea that a character can be completely conceptualized before ever cracking a rule book to see if the system will allow it.
amysrevenge
First Post
I find it disappointing to have the character idea of playing a greater dog, but then be forced to play a demi-dog because of game reasons.
Arooooooooo
Hr. That sounds less like "not very simmy" and more like "with so little attention paid to sim that the world doesn't make a whole lot of sense". There's a limit to how far you can throw off the triad of sim, narrative, and game and still have a cogent RPG. It is possible (like in this case) to toss so much at narrative (and/or game, depending how you construct it) that you don't actually end up with satisfactory narrative.
Why? Because Sam Spade doesn't have that much clout. It is actually a violation of his genre to put him on equal footing with Superman. Gumshoes are, as often as not, more adrift on events as they are influencers of events. The resulting story would not look like a story about a gumshoe. Or, alternatively, not much like a story about the most powerful superhero in the world. At least not sustainably.
At least, if you're running a non-humor game. If you're running Tales from the Floating Vagabond, all bets are off. Of course, humor is neither Supes' nor Sam's native genre...
Last edited:
Similar Threads
