List of 10 versus 100 words?

[Bryan_T]

I'm curious as to the reasons that people prefer either the list or 100 words methods of character generation for HQ.  I was a pretty firm adherent of the 100 words, but was recently given some food for thought on the subject.  

I don't want to start defining the argument but jumping in with my reasons just yet---I'm hoping some others will tell of their preference, and any reasons they can think of as to why they prefer it, first.  In other words, I want to start with a sort of open, information gathering stage, before getting into an examination of the arguments for or against.

Regards;

Bryan

[lev_lafayette]

In all games (and not just HQ, which I don't actually play) I prefer as many as necessary using a top-down approach.

The following is what I'd consider a bare minimum...

Culture, Region, Religion, Parent's Occupation, Name/Sex/Age, Demeanor, Allies, Enemies,Traits, Skills, Wealth

[Adrienne]

I prefer the list method, because I've seen a very wide range in the number of abilities that two players can squeeze out of the same 100 words.  So, for me it's part of my (possibly unnecessary) desire for game balance--I don't like to see two characters in the same game start with a significantly different number of abilities.

[Brand_Robins]

When I'm a player I like the 100 word method. Of course this may have something to do with the fact that I'm a writer and can bang out 100 words with, say, 25 abilities in no time at all.

When I'm GMing I like it when players do the 100 word method because I like the writeups. There is often an element of spark, an insight into the character that I find in a good 100 word writeup that I don't often find in a list.  

However, I often tell players just to go with the 10 word list because those who aren't writers, or comfortable coming up with a narrative, often pause out, stall, or have a very hard time with the 100 word method. So simply because it makes a lot of the players more comfortable, my players use the 10 word list more often than the 100 word narrative.

[Mandacaru]

I prefer the narrative method because it brings the character to life. My point here, however, is that a side-effect I have found is that sometimes there are elements which simply won't fit into the style of the narrative.

An example is a lunar bureaucrat I am finishing off - there is no way I can get a suitable follower or interestingly named item in, if I want to keep it as a representation of the character.

I am now toying with the idea that this is for a reason, is a good thing, and helps keep the character consistent.

Sam.

[NickHollingsworth]

I prefer the list method, because I've seen a very wide range in the number of abilities that two players can squeeze out of the same 100 words.  So, for me it's part of my (possibly unnecessary) desire for game balance ...

Getting A Simple Interesting Concept
I think the 100 word approach can really help a player focus their concept of the character. But the number of words used is just not important. Its the successful creation of a unique character thats the most important result, followed by finding a set of abilities that enables this concept for play. So stuff the number of words; let them use the number of words they need to get the job done.

But do give them an idea of how much is enough and how much is way too much. If they write too much there will be loads of details that will never get into play, and hence might as well not exist. Too much detail is as bad as not enough because it dilutes the character concept.  Good groundwork for a character sets up issues and leaves them open and writing too much detail risks closing these things off.

So 100 words is a nice target. Producing 300 suggests that something has gone wrong and the writer is meandering. Producing 30 suggests that they are not there yet. But if 300 or 30 turn out to deliver something good then go with it.

Keeping Things Fair
I know this has been said before but - having loads more abilities is only a little unbalancing anyway and then only for the first few games. After a few games players have had the same number of HP and so probably have the same quantity of decent skills.

There is nothing to stop you (a) deciding how many skills a player could reasonably expect to get from his description and making that the minimum for everyone instead of 10 and (b) setting a maximum regardless of whats in the description.  

For example you might decide to let people start with 20 to 25 skills.
If it takes one person 150 words to get his 20 skills then so what?  
If another player manages to get a good character concept from his description but can only identify 10 skills from it then so what (again)? He can add the other 10 later just like the list method would allow him to.

At the very least the GM should be working with the players to help them create characters*. This includes suggesting improvements they could make to their description, skills it suggests they might have and other options they might not have thought of. So there ought not to be many people getting very little for their words. And conversely there should not be a lot of people abusing the system, because its a joint effort and need the GMs approval.

I feel its less important to make sure the abilities are balanced and more important to make sure the characters potentials are balanced.  That  means making sure that each character has a concept and issues that the GM understands and will be able to work out how to weave into the game. Otherwise they will get less of the groups attention - you could argue that this is more fundamental to a balanced treatment of the characters than making sure they have the same number of abilities.

(* all the players should be involved in the creation of the characters to ensure that they all have potential to interact in the story in a satisfying way. As part of this they should support each other with suggestions as they see other players characters taking shape).

[Bryan_T]

There are a few things that I like about the 100 word write up.

- 100 word descriptions tend to be more "effecient," in terms of packing in abilities, when they are somewhat focussed.  That is, doing a couple drafts of a 100 word description to tighten it up is apt to result in the hero being more clearly defined.  At the least, this has been my experience with playing with write ups.  Like the example above, where followers just don't seem to fit into the bureaucrat's write-up.  Sure they'd be useful, but the fact that he seems to have no room for subordinates suggests something about the character.

- Aside from the abillities drawn, it seems to me the nature of the write-up often gives some feel for the style of the hero, or at least the style that the player expects to play the hero in.  Two entertainers with fairly similar abilities, but one written up in skaldic verse and one written-up as a tongue-in-cheek CV/resume imply quite a bit different things about how the player's see the hero.  Now, I'm basing this mostly on having read various descriptions with only VERY limited play experience to corroborate it, and I realize that some times the player's writing skills aren't strong enough for this to shine through.

- The 100 words become the offical book on the hero.  It makes it easy to say "don't go into a lot of backstory"  or just "Your back story is welcome, but I don't promise to remember it all or never contradict it.  Make sure that everything really important is in your 100 words."  It seems to me that with the list method, it is pretty hard to say "you can't produce a more detailed story of the hero."

- Probably most importantly, it lets the non-key elements come through.  A number of people have discussed on the hero quest yahoo groups, how they have found that when they give out MORE hero points, the heroes don't raise their best skills much faster, but instead raise more skills.  Likewise, given more abiliites, I think there is more scope to go beyond the central elements to add interesting details--details which may later become key to the character.  For example, in a PBEM game I'm playing a heortling farmer who was struck by lightning and called by the lightning god.  The central aspects of the character are things on both sides of the resulting destruction/re-growth theme that he now embodies.  But in the 100 words I was able to insert, at the "cost" of about two words, that his hands now emit sparks.  This has shown up as an augment in most things he's done now, frequently negative (it freaks people out), and has given him a tentative nickname of "sparky."  I think one of the side stories about him will be his effort to understand and control these sparks.  In short, a whole aspect, which turns out not to be the least important about him, that would not have happened with the list method.  Similarly in the write-up, for esthetic reasons, I finished up my last sentence with "...but Kami's feather and Elnor's promise more heavily weigh."  with no idea of what those were or why they weighted upon him--but they may well also end up being critical to the hero.

For these reasons, I was pretty strongly on the side of 100 words.

However, recently I've had an interesting discussion with Mike about "playing before you play."  Which is to say, why should you make all these interesting decisions about your hero before you play?  Why not start with only a rough sketch, keywords and a list of ten abilities, or maybe not even a full ten, and then discover what they all mean in play.

That is a REALLY powerful argument.  Why not take all that interesting, getting to know your hero stuff, and do it in the group?  The drama will be heightened, everyone else will be part of it, and the character will probably be better adapted to the story.

That one argument I find gives a fair balance to all of the others.

So of course, what I really want is to find a way of getting the best of both worlds.......

So, any suggestions?

--Bryan

[Mandacaru]

However, recently I've had an interesting discussion with Mike about "playing before you play." Which is to say, why should you make all these interesting decisions about your hero before you play? Why not start with only a rough sketch, keywords and a list of ten abilities, or maybe not even a full ten, and then discover what they all mean in play.

That is a REALLY powerful argument. Why not take all that interesting, getting to know your hero stuff, and do it in the group? The drama will be heightened, everyone else will be part of it, and the character will probably be better adapted to the story.

Indeed. The two ways I have dealt with this so far, as you are aware, are, (1) to have begun the game with a series of six prologue episodes in which the players can narrate their response to crises and then choose an ability for each one to reflect this. This served pretty well to define the character some and I think we backtracked on some of the starting abilities. (2) to instigate a trade-in, a couple of hours ago now, where unused abilities, followers etcetera, can be swapped (originally Mike's idea, was it?).

Number 1 above could well be done as you suggest in your last paragraph there, and players allowed to rewrite their heroes.

Sam.

[Different Games]

I don't worry about "fairness" and number of abilities. First off, those "extra" abilities are probably going to be at 13, so big deal.*

Secondly, I work very hard with my players to tune their character description to eliminate wasteful writing at the very least. In fact, working this process with my players and with fellow players in PBeM games has led me to submit an essay called "Writing Strong Descriptions" to Issaries. Hopefully they'll publish it on their site soon.

In the mean time, you can see some of the pains I go to go help non-writers polish their descriptions into something that helps them have a colorful and unique character. Check the URL below.

But how about a couple of examples? I just wrung the life out of 100 words to create Big Varu for the play by email Unified Children game.

If he had been created by list, he'd be like this:

Heortling Warrior Initiate of Hedkoranth
Big, Strong, Pony the Horse, Loves Kids, Known to Vogarth, Hates Vampires, Other Side Punch Feat, Charm Animals, Innocent Heart, Punch.  Then 3 flaws: Slow Witted, Head Injury, Bad Dreams.

But in reality I did up Varu as a very very carefully edited 100 word description:

Once a bright and serious child, Big Varu's mind has been wrong since a head injury. His clansmen in the Princeros of Dragon Pass rely on his impressive warrior's strength. He uses Hedkoranth's magic rather than hurt himself with sharp weapons. But Vogarth the Strong Man cheers him, promising to end the bad dreams. When he remembers, Varu hates vampires very much, and then he throws Vogarth's Other Side Punch, but the memories make him cry. Guileless and trusting, only hurting his friends or children makes him mad. Varu's innocent heart shames miscreants and charms animals. He knows how to scratch Yinkini just right. His bestest friend is Pony the Horse.

First off, doesn't that description almost make you cry?

Anyway, there are lots of things that the 100 words gets that the list doesn't:

Used to be Bright, Guileless, Trusting, Loyal to Friends, Never Stops vs. those who hurt kids or his friends, Impressive Physique, Clumsy with Sharp Things, Cheered by Vogarth, Forgetful, Cries after remembering Vampires, Please Yinkini, Friendly with Yinkini, Innocent Heart.

but how many of them do more than add color? And which is a better (as in more interesting) hero?

Lots of examples of how I help my players write their descriptions are at http://differentcomputers.com/differentgames/
especially in the "Teshnos" section, where they're creating heroes for a "side run".

* Though I REALLY preferred the HW method of assigning ratings to abilities, which allowed an ability gained from the description to be a hero's best ability without it having to cost 4 more points and be 4 points lower than one gained from a keyword.

[Brand_Robins]

However, recently I've had an interesting discussion with Mike about "playing before you play."  Which is to say, why should you make all these interesting decisions about your hero before you play?  Why not start with only a rough sketch, keywords and a list of ten abilities, or maybe not even a full ten, and then discover what they all mean in play.

I agree with everything you're saying about playing before you play -- however, I don't think the 100 word narrative in any way diminishes that. The only way that it does is if you make your 100 words about how you've already done everything you want, rather than about what you're doing now and want to be doing in the future.

Given that you only have 100 words it's really unlikely that most players are going to heavily define their abilities -- and if they do it's because that ability is just that important to them. The same with a character's history and personality, the narrative method does not neccisarily set everything up before hand any more than the 10 item list, especially as most listers I know actually have a pretty good idea what the 10 items are and what they mean to their character.

The point of both methods is to keep things short, to the point, and focused on what you want the character to be without allowing you to define everything about them before play starts. I honestly think both methods work fully well in that respect.

The one thing that I think may be different, from listening to your argument, is that I've noticed that characters made with 100 words tend (TEND) to have something closer to a Sorcerer style kicker -- some part of their story that propels them forward, where the list characters kicker is less strongly defined. Of course, this could just be unique to the people I play with.

[Mark Galeotti]

I'm very much a partisan of the 100-word approach (although I agree that should be 100ish words). Just to make two quick points:

1. You don't need to use all 100 words at once. You can cater for the 'shaping the 100-words in play' approach by holding a sentence or two both if you want.

2. You're encouraged in the HQ rulebook to add to the 100-words as the hero develops, so you already are creating these longer narratives, but through the mechanisms of play: gaining new abilities, relationships, etc through their adventures.

All the best

Mark

[Bankuei]

Hi,

I've found folks who tend to "play before you play" usually come up with at least a page or two of written backstory- sometimes several.  100 words almost always makes them cry, because they aren't allowed to front load everything into their happy backstory.  

On the other hand, if you run with what they do get into the 100 words, at some point they wipe away the tears and realize all that stuff they wanted to write is given a chance to happen in play.  Then they get really excited, its as if they were freed from 10 years in prison- "You mean I can actually protagonize my character?!?!?"

Whereas if you give the 10 word list to these folks, they go ahead and write up a background anyway, and its often hard to get a feel for the story themes they wanted.

But that's a specific sort of case.  For folks who are good at developing characters in play, the word list is a wonderful option.  

Personally, I like and use both interchangably based on the player and the situation.  The 100 word narrative allows people to create and develop characters, while giving me thematic ideas to work with in play, while the 10 word list gives folks the opportunity to adapt and fit into whatever situation arises.

Chris

[Different Games]

Hi,

I've found folks who tend to "play before you play" usually come up with at least a page or two of written backstory- sometimes several.  100 words almost always makes them cry, because they aren't allowed to front load everything into their happy backstory.  

Ah, but for these guys, point out that the description is intended to be the results of the backstory, not the backstory itself. So, to use the example above, Varu's description says he had a head injury and that he "hates vampires very much." It doesn't explain how, or when or why any of those things came to be.

That's for the backstory!

[Bankuei]

Hi Mike,

Even if you decide to let them write backstory as well,  you can still do things that will blow their minds.  First, you don't have to wade through pages of the backstory trying to figure out what's important and what isn't, and second, all these things get ratings.

What's that mean?

You can bring them up and apply them in conflicts in play, repeatedly, and show folks what it means to actually have their character get to do the things they(the player) want to do, instead of having a story unrelated to the character crammed down their throat by someone else, and trying to fit the actual protagonism into backstory.

But me- I'm hardcore about the 100 word narrative- You don't get no more, and if its in your head and you want it to exist- then you can play some flashbacks during play, spend some Hero Points and give us more traits.  Just like anything else- if it don't show up in play, then it don't exist.

chris

[nellist]

My preference is 100words. This is partly because I think it creates more hooks than the list method - but mostly because I actually like the process of writing 100word - tightening up some verbiage, polishing up the stuff to squeeze in extra meaning from fewer words. I also like the ability to take other text, song lyrics, decriptions from other sources and turning them into 100words exceprts. I have done this for the tribes of Prax - effectively making them a character, with some of the people form old Runequest supplements - check the word count for some of the broo leaders in Big Rubble for example. The Shah Nama is a good source of exotic character descriptions.

I did wonder if I could make a house rule to get rid of keywords (which I dislike) and replacing them with a 100word chunk, with some highlighted/underlined words.

When I gave out Hero Point "certificates" in my FTF game, if these were used for character advancement then the player filled in a sentence to add to his 100+ word description, adding to their summary.

One more point - they fit in nicely to write ups of games - the character turns up in the story and his 100words instantly introduce him to the reader.

I have some sympathy with the play the story rather than wirte it first approach. In some ways I think 100words works in a similar way to the list method - it only gives the bare bones leaving, if anything, more stuff to be filled in in play.

Keith Nellist
PS. I also agree with Mike Dawson about HW method - much preferred IMO.