The Forge Archives

I was wondering if anyone can recall a game in which charatcers were created using neither dice nor points.

How would someone make that work?

In the RPG/Wargame known as Inquisitor, by Games Workshop,
//www.exterminatus.com, you create, with the GM's help, a character. You don't use dice to make him, or points, it's just a % style game, and the Game Master helps you make a characterful character. It's pretty cool and nice. I like it and am using it as a basis for my RPG that I'm making

Theatrix.  The players create their characters as they think appropriate.  The GM asks for story hooks and justifications for extreme characters.

I am guessing from your question that you mean non-random/non-resource based character creation.  The title of the thread could also imply games which do not use quantifiable stats at all.  Three games that fall in the first category off the top of my head...

Fudge, on page 14 of the PDF version, there is a page on "Subjective Character Creation." (only the first example qualifies under your definition though.)

Timelord, the Doctor Who RPG (early 90s version), has no rules for character creation at all.  They do have pregenerated characters (from the show) that you can play.  In actual play, from most accounts, characters are created "subjectively."

Theatrix also allowed players to stat their characters pretty much as they saw fit.   Unlike the first two games, stats were often irrelevant in play as compared to narrative necessity.[/list:u]

I crossposted with Alan...

You can do freeform character creation with any system, we used to call them 'concept' characters. You start with a basic idea of what a character can do and then just select the abilities that model it, point costs ignored. This was often done when we wanted to stat up heroes from various media as we soon found they had high point costs compared with the point levels most games start their characters with.

Quote from: Michael HopcroftI was wondering if anyone can recall a game in which charatcers were created using neither dice nor points.

Cherry Blossoms does this. So does my Accord game system in a different way. As does Before the Flood by Vincent. And so to does my Pulp game (card RPG system like The Pool). So to does Zac's Shadows game.

Quote from: Michael HopcroftHow would someone make that work?

There's a wide variety of approaches. They all start from the point of view that it's pointless putting in rules that are designed to limit Min-Maxing players. Instead these games give as much power as the player needs.

Hi there,

The Window deserves credit for taking this mode of character creation into very practical and up-front text and play.

Best,
Ron

The fact that a gamer has to ask how such a system might work is telling. Only in this tradition bound hobby would the answer that most of these suggested systems use - the participants just agree - not be obvious. It means that gamers are a suspicious bunch who cannot believe that such can be left to the social contract between participants.

Weird.

Mike

Quote from: Mike HolmesThe fact that a gamer has to ask how such a system might work is telling. Only in this tradition bound hobby would the answer that most of these suggested systems use - the participants just agree - not be obvious. It means that gamers are a suspicious bunch who cannot believe that such can be left to the social contract between participants.

I tend to agree with this, Mike. I think that it's interesting that my own recent game, Pretender, uses a consensus-based chargen method, and it's notable how much verbiage I felt the need to devote to explaining this, which in essence means I'm trying to cause my potential audience to "un-learn" their usual RPG habits and go with common sense.

I think this is a holdover from wargaming -- the idea that someone might "cheat" without objective rules for EVERYTHING. And even in wargaming -- or in card games, or whatever -- this attitude is disfunctional. If I think someone is going to cheat a Monopoly, the common sense response is to not play with them. This goes double for RPGs.

On the other hand, consensus takes a long time. Chargen for  Pretender took a little over four hours, though that might be in part because so much is left up to the group.

A problem I find with subjective character creation (though I am a huge advocate for it) lay in the unspoken social dynamic of every role-playing group.

For example, Mark, Dan and Bill sit down to do a subjective character creation session. Bill is the GM.

The standard of the game is (for arguments sake) 10 is average. 20 is human maxium, 25 is superhuman, 75 is godlike. Let's call the statistics Physical, Spiritual, Intellectual.

Everyone is playing a superhuman of some sort.

Mark is a super natural being that is very old. He attempts to use this as justification for having a Phyiscal 50, Intellectual 35, Spiritual 25.

Dan meanwhile, is developing a relatively inexperienced character with Physical 15, Spiritual 20, Intellectual 18.

When the time comes to discuss and reach some sort of group census as to the appropriateness and agreement of everyone's powers subtle social influences come into play. Often personal.

Mark is obviously playing a very powerful character, but Dan is no slouch job. Dan fears that if he tries to veto or convince Mark to lower anything that Mark will in turn attempt to veto Dan's character.

So, Dan remains silent, for fear offending Mark (by basically calling him a twink) and fear of his character concept.

Hence, Mark recieves an vastly more powerful, and often unbalancing character, because of the unspoken social issues surrounding the roleplaying group.

I'm sorry if this sounds a little confused, but it's difficult to explain.

Hi Confessor,

Not difficult at all! This is old ground for Forgin' discussions.

Check out the term Genre Expectations anywhere in the Scattershot forum, for example, or run a search on Social Contract and look for promising thread titles.

The quick response for you is that in such a game, the best place to start is not by making up characters, but by making up context and perhaps even specific situation.

Some of us developed this skill through sheer survival-desperation. It was absolutely necessary way back when, during the heyday of Champions, because "comics superheroes" isn't enough to work with in order to play. It made much more sense to say, "Hey, I want to play cosmic-like Silver Surfer style stuff," and take it from there, rather than to have everyone show up with individually-solid but together-meaningless superheroes.

In your example, why not start with relationships? Instead of saying, OK, my guy is going to have Physical 50, start instead with, how about my guy is going to be your guy's hot-shot apprentice, OK? That sort of thing.

Working from group-in rather than character-out, discrepancies such as you describe can appear with positive in-play impact, rather than powers-level/balance negative impact.

The idea is that social dynamics are not modifiers of game-play and game-rules, but rather their parent and their ultimate criteria for success.

Best,
Ron

Thanks for the kind words Ron, I certainly appreciate them.

My concern lay in that ofen when groups sit down, they have different expectations as individual players. This leads to someone playing the weak character and someone playing the 'strong' character. Now, the idea of the apprenticeship is great. (Luke Skywalker/Ben Kenobi, etc). The trick is getting players to agree to it. As Kirt always says to me "No Senario survives contact with the players." I think this also applies to group dynmaics.

For example, let me be honest by saying I like to play either very swashbuckler-huzzah! types, or gothic/tragic characters. I also try to make sure that my characters have some kind of flaw (usually more than one, I'm a maschoist). I'm very character driven.

One of the gentlemen I game with is very much the type that he wants to play a character for survivability. (Gamist, I believe it's called?). Therefore he tries to have a character with few weaknesses. Now, this is fine with me, and I respect that. (As a matter of fact, the player often brings a needed does of logic to the wonderfully knetic group I'm in.)

However, when the oppirtunity arises to play a character without objective boundries, such a player is going to take the strong route, because that is their style of play.

My style of play is to play the weaker types.

The true problem arises when no compromise is reached. And as we all know, Gamers are notoriusly stubborn.

Just offering up my littlle point of view.

Guys, as a quick FYI, The_Confessor is James Spahn, a member of my RPG group that y'all have seen me refer to a lot. Do a search on my username with "James" as the search term and you'll see what I mean, particularly in the Actual Play forum.

James, I'd like to take this opportunity to welcome you to the Forge. Also, you might want to have a peek at the thread about the chargen we did last night.

Quote from: The_ConfessorA problem I find with subjective character creation (though I am a huge advocate for it) lay in the unspoken social dynamic of every role-playing group.

I think we're drifting off-topic here, but I'll quickly mention, for group discussion, some of the stuff I mentioned to you in a PM just now:

First, the "problem" you refer to -- of social pressure -- happens in a point-based system as well. It's just more subtle, but if someone puts all their points into something that the group disapproves of, there's going to be a social reaction. This is true in any social activity.

You could argue that the only way to avoid this is an entirely random character generation method, but even then there's the issue of deciding what random method to use, which again becomes a social issue.

Role-playing is a social activity. It's just that with a subjective method, it's tougher to pretend that it isn't, which some groups might find uncomfortable.

Plus, as I said, there's handling time -- having a point based system is often faster.

QuoteHence, Mark recieves an vastly more powerful, and often unbalancing character, because of the unspoken social issues surrounding the roleplaying group.

And why is this a problem?

Part of the advantage of a subjective charcter generation system is it allows for characters of vastly different power levels to be in the same game. This is only a problem if the people playing see it as one.

I don't see this as a problem because character power and player power are two different things. So long as all the players have equal power to modify and change what's going on in the game -- or an agreed-upon distribution of power -- then character power doesn't matter.

Assuming a non-Gamist RPG, there is no reason to "balance" character power, as there's no need for a "level playing field", as that's not what the game is about.

[EDIT: I cross posted with Ron, and the discussion passed me by... I think my points are still relevant, tho...]

Hey,

Right, right - except ... I think you might be missing the idea that the connections, relationships, and so on, are to be proposed by the players themselves, before they make up the characters.

So there's no "getting the players to agree to it." That's not even the smidgeon of an issue. They don't have to agree to it; they invented it.

Most of the games listed on this thread so far, such as The Window which I mentioned, assume either total GM-fiat over such issues or open it up to exactly the sort of "discuss & define the context first" that I'm suggesting.

Hope that helps,
Best,
Ron

Perhaps I just need to get away from my Gamist stigmas & concerns, then? :)