Days of High Adventure: When Characters Were Born, Not Made

[Altorin]

If you go with the 3d6 keep them in the order they land rule, you end up with a lot wizards trapped in a fighters body characters.

again, missing the point. You don't get wizard with fighter's body, because you don't start the character saying "I'm going to make a wizard"

You roll the stats, see what you get, and then say "Ok, with stats like these, this character would be a wizard"

Hence, they're "born", not "made".

Yes, I understand that, but my point was no matter what dice are rolled, it doesn't change how the player thinks. Personally, I tackle almost every situation in RPGs with stealth, guile, and misdirection. If I'm playing a fighter, they tend to be a swashbuckler or infiltrator/commando style, if I'm playing a wizard, they lean toward divination and transmutation (illusion if the DM gives me half chance of them working). If I roll dice that would give me a weak sneaky character and more of front line fighter/cavalier/paladin type most of the tactics I use don't work well (without of meta gaming the rogue player character in the party). My friend is the opposite. He can't really play a non-front line fighter type. I don't remember him ever playing anything but a dwarven fighter. I even seen players that have a hard playing uncharismatic characters because as person they were good with persuasion and managing people.

You can make the argument about being a well rounded player, but I only like playing rogues and wizards types. My friend is only happy if he is playing a tough-as-nail brick character. Sure we can play other classes, but we have no interest is doing so. It would be like forcing a gamer to play a FPS (or whatever genre) they have no interest in. Sure is might be the best FPS game ever, but if the player doesn't like those type of games they won't enjoy the game no matter how good it is. Why force some one to spend their entertainment time doing something they don't want to do?

My point is some players have limited 'acting' range (for what ever reason), and only play that class even if they aren't playing it. So you end up with the stats of a frail wizard with the mind of a muscle-bound barbarian.

those players would be better off not playing this way

not saying it's for everyone. But if you play this way, you don't get fighters in wizard bodies or vice versa.

I don't think that you have played this way, it's not as difficult (from an "acting" standpoint), because you don't get invested in your character until after he's survived a couple of encounters.

 

[Georgie_Leech]

My preferred method is to build a class then character, a sort of mix between both worlds. Maybe it's because my first D&D experience were the Baldur's Gate games, but I like creating a role I enjoy, with the things I want to do. The rest of him, everything that isn't numbers, is defined through my actions. I can make him out to who I want to be as a person... albeit with a defined back story in those games.

Incidentally, I agree that flaws make the games more interesting to play. Recently, I started playing Dungeons & Dragons Online, and I made a rogue. Awesome at stealth, DPS, and opening doors/disabling traps/finding secrets, he lets me get anywhere I need to. However, he is squishier than most spellcasters; in a direct fight, he goes down fast. It makes me play with caution, and more conscious of group roles. I just wish some people would remember that the scout goes in first to disable traps, not the tank who sets them off...

 

[Liquid Paradox]

For the first few months I played DnD, I hated it. Really, I truly despised it, and the only reason I kept playing was because all my friends were doing it. What I hated most about the game was all the wasted potential; here we had a game that could, potentially, really let us experience the world we were playing in. We had a chance to feel like our choices mattered, to really become engaged in our characters development; however, our DM in those days was a lot like the author of this article, in that he wanted us to use either pre-generated characters, or randomly create our characters, from race and stats to class and personality, by rolling the dice.

You don't really know much about the author if that's what you think (imo of course). Read the article and think about what he's saying. He's not saying that character development is unimportant; just that when it happens has changed. It used to come in game. Now people want the character developed before the game starts. It's a different style, but the player's attachment to the character is central to either method. I can remember the depth of a character being created by what he did in game. It was part player, part other players / DM input. Characters became famous / infamous for their in-game actions, not their back story.

I think you misunderstood; I wasn't trying to knock the author or anything, or even to say he was wrong. I was just describing my own experiences and opinions, relative to the main article.

 

[vcdaniels]

I've been gaming since 1990, I've been wanting to game since 1987 but no one would game with me back then. I've also run a few different games. And I have to fall on the side of generating character histories. It makes my job a little easier. I guess because I've had to deal with too many munchkins when just making basic characters.
Say we're playing a superhero RPG. One guy will create a basic character - no name, no history, just stats and equipment. Then, when game starts, all of a sudden he's a multi-millionaire playboy CEO with his own headquarters and pentagon-level super-computer. So every challenge I throw at him (save maybe Lex Luther or The Joker) ends up being tantamount to a paper tiger. Yet, if I throw a villain befitting the hero's sudden wealth and power level at him, the other players are likely to get shredded like paper tigers.
So I prefer to have my characters make histories before hand so I can create campaigns fitting for the party as a whole. Also, I can create rivals, love interests, and skeletons from the past. You don't end up with level 1 fighters in D&D suddenly having connections because he is "the son of the Emperor".

 

[Wolfram23]

I'd love to play a modern game that just says "ok, here's your character. Good luck!"
I think that would be great.

Creating your own character really pigdeon holes you into playin a certain way. And for those of us who play many RPGs, I think we can all agree we each have our own tendancy to play as similar characters all the time. I like diversity but if I have my choice... it's usually the same.

 

[Frozedon]

I guess i prefer to randomly generate my characters. That way i jump into this world as a complete different person. Someone who is started with a clean slate. That way i can build upon his character and his story. Also, it makes it so that my friends don't always keep making the super powered half god characters. But, i also like to do some re-rolls until it fits a class other then just the Barbarian.

 

[wulfy42]

It's been awhile since I have played anything besides computer or video game RPGs but the weak characters made with random dice roles usually offered the most fun RPG opportunities. A large part of playing a RPG game is imagination and almost any set of stats can be used to create an interesting character that can help out a party. Have a 12 int wizard with 1 spell a day, 5 con and almost no hp? Well he had to survive somehow up to this point so make him a coward who stays in the back of the fight but is a great cook and decent at spotting opportunities. A 12 int may not be great for casting spells but it's still decently above average. Use his brains to help the party, offer advice, distract enemies etc. Create a special skill that he uses....playing dead. It actually doesn't do anything in game (monsters will still attack him) but it does make him the last target usually since he's not a threat to the monsters and it fits his character (and can lead to funny situations or even a funny death). Play on his made up characteristics like his great cooking skill and have him search for ingrediants while a battle commences. He has one spell a day, have him use it to shoot a rabbit with his magic missile or light up a room so he can collect herbs for dinner etc.

Honestly making hulking mega characters that take insane challenges to even break a sweat can get dull fast. It's far better to have weaknesses that make even every day occurances a challenge and it makes it all that more rewarding when you somehow make it through a quest or save a town.

That being said almost everyone I know used an alternative method when creating characters. Something along the 4d6 method and take the top 3. A general DM rule we had was that you can take a LOWER score if you want on any stat...and we used that more then you would think heh.

You would be amazed at how many 18/00's were rolled over the years. For a number that should come up only 1 out of 100 times I sure seemed to come up way more often.

I miss those games back when I had a large group of similar age friends. Humor was a large part of our D&D and roleplaying sessions for years. I think that is a main difference between making characters to roleplay and enjoy and powergaming. It's rare to see much humor involved when people are powergaming (although not that rate) on the other hand most roleplaying groups involve humor almost constantly.

 

[Optimusnorm]

I'd love to play a modern game that just says "ok, here's your character. Good luck!"
I think that would be great.

Creating your own character really pigdeon holes you into playin a certain way. And for those of us who play many RPGs, I think we can all agree we each have our own tendancy to play as similar characters all the time. I like diversity but if I have my choice... it's usually the same.

I comepletely agree and think it's an excellent idea. Almost my entire group play exactly the same character in almost every game we do. For example one guy in a fantasy game is an expert marksman with the crossbow...his character in a sci-fi is a sniper.

I think any good roleplayer can make do with what they get given...random or mostly random character generation is much better for roleplayer and helps people grow with gaming too. We have a lot of D&D players and everytime a new game starts every one of them begins by going over which kind of multi-classing is going to give them the best abilities - the actual character, personality and story of the character is almost irrelevant. I call this turbo boosted wargaming rather than roleplaying.

 

[Scow2]

Minmaxers love point-buy, because it allows them to minmax. Being able to choose your weaknesses takes a lot of the impact out of having the weakness.

I liked the default method of 3e. Roll 4d6 and drop the lowest for each stat, so you'd have a character who was powerful enough to be competant in his role, and arrange as desired, so you could shape them into a class that fit your play style. It gave you the freedom to create a character you'd have fun playing, while still having the organic feel of a "born" character. Then you take the starting kit, make changes as needed, and kick in the door to the dungeon.

There are a number of trends that I think shifted characters from being "Born" to being "Created":
1. Emphasis on creating the very specific character YOU want
2. Starting at higher levels (forcing players to make a LOT of choices at chargen)
3. Constant urging to be attached to your character, no matter how low a level (This was likely the biggest offender)

 

[Chandler Sutton]

I am starting to DM a new group of players, most of them with no experiance or played only once before.I also recruited a veteran player, who was willing to let me DM the game.

I asked all the players what character's they wanted to play ahead of time, and I would create the character's for them (most of them had none of the books and we have little time to play). Luckly we have all of the roles covered, and they were happy.

Being new to the game, I was bought into the idea of standard array (16,14,13,12,11,10 off the top of my head) and point value. But when I asked the veteran what he wanted to play (Eladrin Wizard), he offered that he at least roll his stats. I thought this was dangerous, because in my head he was going to vastly differ in strength from the rest of the group, either really weak or a freaking . But I let him win, being the stubbern guy he is.

But luckily I stumbled onto this thread, and now instead of rolling a d20 (his idea, I didn't say he was a good veteran) the 3d6 meathod creates much better balanced characters then I had anticipated. And now I'm starting to like the idea of random generation of stats.

...Crap, 5 Character sheets with recaculation to be done.

 

[TeveshSzat]

One of my DMs had a rather unusual way of doing attributes. He got out a d12 and 5 index cards and he rolled the d12 6 times for each card (in order of str, dex, con, int, wis, cha) in front of us and wrote down what the roll was. Once he finished he went through and added 6 to each stat and then gave us our pick of stat groupings. We ended up with some odd stated characters still, but none of them sucked.

 

[Andrux51]

If you go with the 3d6 keep them in the order they land rule, you end up with a lot wizards trapped in a fighters body characters.

again, missing the point. You don't get wizard with fighter's body, because you don't start the character saying "I'm going to make a wizard"

You roll the stats, see what you get, and then say "Ok, with stats like these, this character would be a wizard"

Hence, they're "born", not "made".

Yes, I understand that, but my point was no matter what dice are rolled, it doesn't change how the player thinks. Personally, I tackle almost every situation in RPGs with stealth, guile, and misdirection. If I'm playing a fighter, they tend to be a swashbuckler or infiltrator/commando style, if I'm playing a wizard, they lean toward divination and transmutation (illusion if the DM gives me half chance of them working). If I roll dice that would give me a weak sneaky character and more of front line fighter/cavalier/paladin type most of the tactics I use don't work well (without of meta gaming the rogue player character in the party). My friend is the opposite. He can't really play a non-front line fighter type. I don't remember him ever playing anything but a dwarven fighter. I even seen players that have a hard playing uncharismatic characters because as person they were good with persuasion and managing people.

You can make the argument about being a well rounded player, but I only like playing rogues and wizards types. My friend is only happy if he is playing a tough-as-nail brick character. Sure we can play other classes, but we have no interest is doing so. It would be like forcing a gamer to play a FPS (or whatever genre) they have no interest in. Sure is might be the best FPS game ever, but if the player doesn't like those type of games they won't enjoy the game no matter how good it is. Why force some one to spend their entertainment time doing something they don't want to do?

My point is some players have limited 'acting' range (for what ever reason), and only play that class even if they aren't playing it. So you end up with the stats of a frail wizard with the mind of a muscle-bound barbarian.

those players would be better off not playing this way

not saying it's for everyone. But if you play this way, you don't get fighters in wizard bodies or vice versa.

I don't think that you have played this way, it's not as difficult (from an "acting" standpoint), because you don't get invested in your character until after he's survived a couple of encounters.

I've never really done any serious roleplaying, but I'm curious to what you mean by not being invested in your character. Even if I was given a randomly made hero, I would still care about him, otherwise, why would I care whether he succeeds or fails?