Getting Into Character

No response here or on Facebook regarding my continuing with the 31 Day / 31 Characters Challenge so I guess I'm done. Since this series of posts isn't grabbing anyone's attention or interest, I'll just bow out and go one to discuss other things.

Next year I'll get back to posting memorable characters from campaigns [and one-shots] of the past.. 

In the meantime...

I've been thinking analytically and introspectively about why I don't like Character Creation in most Tabletop Roleplaying Games. In some ways its pretty easy to comprehend, I think...

When I create a character, it's a concept in my head. The character is simply an idea for a component of the adventure, setting, or whathaveyou. It is envisioned as serving a purpose; they are an obstacle, an ally, a love interest, comedy relief, or an example of 'local color' to give the game...well, um...character. 

As I tend to GM far more than I play as a Player, my 'Gamemaster Brain' is at the forefront of my approach to characters. When I want or need a character that does X or serves X purpose, I create them. I make them as interesting as I can so that the players in my game get invested in said character and their role in the campaign, whatever that may be. I'm aware that some GMs have been known to roll up their NPCs in systems with random generation and the very idea is baffling to me.

Why? You need a bandit, you stat up a bandit. You need a wise and powerful Jedi Master, you give them more dice where you feel they need it. Do you really want to roll up a handsome and seductive spy just get a really low Charisma/Comeliness score? That's...well...dumb IMHO. 

As a player, my outlook is not so different. Say I need to come up with a character for a Star Trek game set during The Next Generation Era. OK. What is everyone else playing? I see...no Doctor or Science Officer yet, huh? I do love playing the Science Officer when I get the chance. As for a Species, ooh, so many options.

In any game where non-Human Player Characters are a possibility, there's a very good chance I will play a non-Human. Hmm, I've never played a Kasheeta, a matriarchal dinosaur-saurian species that first appeared in the Federation Council chambers of Star Trek IV: The Voyage Home. Yeah, that'll be interesting. I love seeing TOS and TOS Movie Era Aliens in later periods. The Kasheeta can seem arrogant, aloof, and off-putting but aren't really. It's a cultural thing I can creatively expand on and add my own twist to. I like it. 

The point it, I didn't roll this character up. This is an idea for a character that I came up with and can now extrapolate from and build upon. What I want now is a rules system that allows me to make this character in the game.

Therein lies the key to why I like or dislike a game's Character Creation. I don't want a system that gives me a character and tells me what they can do. I like creating a Character outside of any system and using an RPG's mechanics to make that character to the best of my [and the game's] ability. This is why I like Champions, Smurfs, Star Trek Adventures, Star Wars D6, and why I don't like D&D and 'Playbook' games like Blades in the Dark and Apocalypse World. Don't tell me who my character is and what abilities they are allowed to have. Tell me all the options available and I'll pick the ones that fit my character. 

This dynamic is a big reason why I don't like playing most Fantasy RPGs other than Ars Magica, which I love. Most Fantasy games have hard and fast Classes that give you particular skills and abilities and Races that only have or do specific things. Ars Magica says, here are a variety of different kinds of characters that fit the setting. They're all made of points. Here, I'll give you that amount of points so you can make what you like. There isn't a Wizard Class, there are characters who can have any combination of talents and skills including casting spells and we call that person a Wizard (or a Mage in Ars Magica proper). 

That's it for now. Onward...

AD

Barking Alien