Two different perspectives on character concept

[Celebrim]

So I stand by my vote, and consider your suggestion that I and others somehow are being dishonest in our views in this poll as blantantly false.

I don't think I've called out anyone in particular on this. And dishonesty in the sense you mean it requires conscious attempts to deceive, which I don't believe is going on here.

I'm just looking at the numbers skewing exactly the opposite of what I've seen in 30 years of gaming from dozens of players and going, "Nope." I'm sure that there are a few people out there that could validly say that both was the best choice. Maybe you are one of them. Though in fact, your answer probably would have better been, "You are way off base, and now I'm going to explain to you why.", followed by explaining that there was not an option for, "Sometimes one and then sometimes the other."

I knew both was a bad option to include. My mistake for putting it in. But I don't think removing it would have helped much, because we've only got 9 people claiming that when they create a character they think of powers and abilities they want the character to have first. All these people playing all these systems that prioritize crunch, and which even lead you through the chargen process WYCD first, and which barely have crunch for WYA, and yet they are all successfully bucking the ingrained thought pattern.

And almost no one has challenged me with, "What are you talking about? I think D&D does challenge you to focus on the WYA of your character first! I mean, doesn't everyone do WYA first? Everyone in my group does WYA first. I've never met anyone that chooses his class and skills before writing his background or picking an alignment. That's weird. Everyone I've met writes a background and then uses the background as a template for the mechanics. Isn't that normal? How can you even create a character without a background? Think how weird it would be to show up with just a character sheet and no background. I mean LOL."

Yet somehow these people prioritizing WYCD are in the tiny minority, as if everyone here had only been exposed to Monsters and other Childish Things, Fiasco, and My Life with Master and was on the far end of the thespian spectrum.

 

[gamerprinter]

Well then I think your poll is getting the corner case participants that aren't meeting your expected results, because who among us fit the "norm", not me, that's for sure.

 

[Nellisir]

I don't know how to answer the poll. None of the answers seems sufficient. Powers first, I guess, though that seems insufficient.

To be frank, I look at your first character concept and think "dang, overthink things much?"

My most recent character creation process:
1) I've played a cleric and fighter most recently; I want something with spells. I always play clever characters. I did a "big bang" wizard a while back, so sneaky clever spellcaster is what I want.

2) Beguiler looks cool.

3) These 3 races are options. Talk to DM about level adjustments and such; go with tiefling (no LA) because sneaky clever spellcaster overcoming evil influences is fun roleplaying.

4) DM wants to amp things up. Add swashbuckler as a gestalt, and start at 3rd level.

5) Figure out stats (one person rolls; we all use those numbers arranged as we like). Cha is my dump stat; Int and Dex are both freaky good. Con and Wis are good; Str is normal.

Azae is the daughter of two crime lords with the blood of fiends in her veins. She was a rich daddy's girl groomed to take over the family business, but realized her parents are cruel and self-centered people. Intellectually she thinks being good is a better and more interesting challenge than being evil; emotionally she desperately wants to be Good, but overthinks it and is terrified of "screwing up" because people who screw up get killed. She's frighteningly smart, but comes across as cocky, brash, and bossy. She manipulates people out of habit; a general sense that it's more effective than trying to explain things in terms "normal" people can understand; and because she can back up her threats.

So, I dunno.

I think you a) set up a binary that isn't really there for many people, and b) your language in OP slights the mechanical option.

I don't see a binary choice, I see a system of feedback. WYCD influences the choices you make. The choices you make influence what you can do.

 

[Celebrim]

I don't know how to answer the poll. None of the answers seems sufficient. Powers first, I guess, though that seems insufficient.

Reading through your post I agree 'powers first' is appropriate. I also agree that it is insufficient.

To be frank, I look at your first character concept and think "dang, overthink things much?"

Always.

1) I've played a cleric and fighter most recently; I want something with spells. I always play clever characters. I did a "big bang" wizard a while back, so sneaky clever spellcaster is what I want.

2) Beguiler looks cool.

3) These 3 races are options. Talk to DM about level adjustments and such; go with tiefling (no LA) because sneaky clever spellcaster overcoming evil influences is fun roleplaying.

4) DM wants to amp things up. Add swashbuckler as a gestalt, and start at 3rd level.

5) Figure out stats (one person rolls; we all use those numbers arranged as we like). Cha is my dump stat; Int and Dex are both freaky good. Con and Wis are good; Str is normal.

Azae is the daughter of two crime lords with the blood of fiends in her veins. She was a rich daddy's girl groomed to take over the family business, but realized her parents are cruel and self-centered people. Intellectually she thinks being good is a better and more interesting challenge than being evil; emotionally she desperately wants to be Good, but overthinks it and is terrified of "screwing up" because people who screw up get killed. She's frighteningly smart, but comes across as cocky, brash, and bossy. She manipulates people out of habit; a general sense that it's more effective than trying to explain things in terms "normal" people can understand; and because she can back up her threats.

That's really cool. You have provided one of the more detailed templates of your process in the thread. Thank you.

Overall I think it is pretty strongly prioritizing WYCD over WYA. There are a lot of clues to that:

a) You waited on the background to last rather than writing it first and then figuring out the mechanics.
b) The primary decision as to what to play this time was based on ensuring a contrast of WYCD compared to what you played last time. You did not prioritize playing contrasting WYA. For example, you could have easily written, "I played a cunning cruel manipulative SOB last time, so this time I wanted to play a gentle softhearted lout."
c) Your mechanical choices seem to have been made more for an eye toward what capabilities you wanted to have, rather than the personalities and beliefs of the character. This is however where it starts getting complicated.

I think you a) set up a binary that isn't really there for many people, and b) your language in OP slights the mechanical option.

Yes, and yes. I don't actually expect a complete binary to exist for anybody, but I do expect to see certain general trends as to which side of the equation weighs as most important and is addressed first. And I'm slighting the mechanical option because I'm currently a bit frustrated by my inability to communicate WYA and its importance with new players.

So while I agree that either/or is inadequate here, nonetheless you presented and wrote the character background last and in general, if someone asked you what your character concept was I don't think it would be your first thought to rattle off your characters background. In fact, the strongest element of your character concept was, "Not a cleric or fighter." That was the primary driving force.

Still, what is also interesting is that you are right, little bits of WYA started sneaking into the process at a fairly early point. "I always play clever characters." is both, WYA and WYCD, albeit it seems to be less narrative or expression motivated than it is self actualization. And tiefling could have been motivated by a mechanical cause, but instead you went straight to WYA: "overcoming evil influences is fun roleplaying" with full on dramatic/narrative goal of play. This suggests that tiefling has strongly communicated "WYA if you choose me". I personally hate the race because its a walking one dimensional stereotype, but at least it has that going for it! (Stereotypes are not all bad.)

As for what I'm overthinking right now, it's thinking about how to make that feedback more effective at generating non-stereotypical WYA from your WYCD choices and vica versa. I'm thinking about how I could write a PH type book with the goal of teaching new players to develop more sophisticated WYA and incorporating it into their play.

 

[billd91]

Well, look at it this way. I've got 15 votes for 'I think about both equally', the result I thought the most improbable, and I've got zero posts in this thread that lead me to think that anyone who choose that option actually does think about both equally. I think we are seeing a lot of votes for what people unconsciously think would be the answer that reflects on them most favorably. Props to you for honestly choosing the answer that most people are going to assume reflects on them most unfavorably. (As if I was judging them or something.)

There may be some of that going on, but you may also have left that as the best catch-all option to select by putting your other options in terms that are too absolute.

A respondent may look at your poll and say "Do I always think about beliefs and personalities first? No. But do I always think about skills and powers first? No. Am I really thinking about both equally? No, but it's the only one that really touches on doing both. So it's close enough." Sure, they could select off base and tell you that your poll choices are virtually impossible to answer truthfully, but that requires actually explaining how you're off base. Selecting the equally option is easier for a drive-by answer and is less far off than either absolute pole.

First suggestion to non-experienced pollsters: When you're getting answers you're not expecting, don't surmise the respondents are being untruthful. Suspect the construction of the poll itself.

 

[Celebrim]

There may be some of that going on, but you may also have left that as the best catch-all option to select by putting your other options in terms that are too absolute.

Please believe that that has occurred to me long before now. I've mentioned that I thought my poll design was flawed about 5 times.

A respondent may look at your poll and say "Do I always think about beliefs and personalities first? No. But do I always think about skills and powers first? No. Am I really thinking about both equally? No, but it's the only one that really touches on doing both. So it's close enough."

That's no doubt one of several sorts of problems here. Also problematic was that EnWorld kept rejecting my poll answers as too long and I had to rewrite them several times before I got a list that was fully acceptable. I'm not at all happy with the wording I ended up with.

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. Just a perusal of how books normally teach you to design a character would suggest the poll results are unexpected even if you hadn't been watching the process and engaging in the process for 30 years. Equally it's worth noting that if in fact the 'WYA first' people greatly outnumber the 'WYCD first' people in this sample then there is a real paucity of explanations that suggest real WYA first approaches. We've got a couple of 'I voted WYA', who launched in to 100% WYCD explanations.

First suggestion to non-experienced pollsters: When you're getting answers you're not expecting, don't surmise the respondents are being untruthful. Suspect the construction of the poll itself.

I don't imagine there are any experienced pollsters in the world that don't know that results can be skewed by bias, or conversely that you can induce bias by carefully selecting your wording. Two ostensibly identical questions of belief can produce radically different answers depending on how you frame them. Again, I have no suspicions at all of deliberately attempting to deceive the pollster here. But as an extreme example, if you ask people to assess whether they are: "Much smarter than average. Smarter than average. About average in intelligence. Less intelligent than average. Or much less intelligent than average.", you'll get absolutely truthful answers 99% of the time but they won't much reflect reality.

 

[Nellisir]

In fact, the strongest element of your character concept was, "Not a cleric or fighter." ... Still, what is also interesting is that you are right, little bits of WYA started sneaking into the process at a fairly early point. "I always play clever characters." is both, WYA and WYCD, albeit it seems to be less narrative or expression motivated than it is self actualization.

I usually DM. As a player (and I'm up front about this with DMs), I have a short attention span. So I create characters that are versatile so I as a player don't have to sit around with my thumb up my apple fritter, and characters that are clever so I can utilize the versatility. If I play a charismatic character I talk a lot; if I play an uncharismatic one I am more action-oriented. I've played wizards, clerics, fighters, and illusionists successfully; druid, bard, thief, and monk have never quite worked.

So yeah, powers oriented if you want to enforce a binary approach, and no, I don't approach D&D as a way of exploring different mental states of being. All of my characters have a resemblance to each other...but the common character threads have manifested in a variety of different builds, and both build and character flesh each other out.

The DM in this game, at least for character creation, was very build oriented. He cared about what class the characters were, not who the characters were. That influenced character creation quite a bit.

 

[Mallus]

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...).

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

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.

 

[ST]

A system like FATE would maybe be a good match for the OP's concerns, since either type of concept relates directly to mechanics such as Aspects there. In other words, personality elements are equally mechanically relevant in play as "i can do X".