Rethinking Simulationist character creation

[Matt Snyder]

Well, I've read through the Simulationism essay with much interest. If my history of reading and re-reading the GNS essay, I'm bound to misunderstand whole reams of stuff, but I'd like to take a stab at some specific questions regarding Sim. game design.

Specifically, character generation. The essay says:

Character generation
Character generation text and methods are extremely diverse within each GNS mode, which is one of the reasons I favor group communication during this phase of pre-play. For instance, some Gamist-ish games utilize point-allocation systems, which looks similar to the widespread method in Simulationist-ish games. However, for Gamist purposes, this method is all about strategizing tradeoffs, rather than establishing a fixed internal-cause to "justify" the character. <Snip>

Ok, here goes. I'm working on a little homebrew system for my local group. I've got a fine system that I dig, and I think it's pretty clearly Simulation design. Character's possess five attributes, a number of skills, "traits" (which are sort of one-die bonuses for things like 'Deadeye' or 'Lucky Bastard'), and possibly "Augmentations" which are various cyberware-type kewlness (it's a cyberpunky game, as conceived).

To resolve a conflict (which I've somewhat dubiously titled tasks that may consist of a single action or multiple tasks to fulfill a short-term goal – not sure if that's "conflict resolution" as the Forge defines it, but I digress) players build dice pools using the ever-familiar attribute + skill + whatever else (traits, augmentations, etc.). Nothing terribly new going on here.

Ok, so Ron's essay has me thinking about the point I'm at now with this homebrew system. I've written up the descriptions for characteristics and the game system mechanics. But this little package is devoid of any character creation yet. I think I realized some of Ron's points from previous discussion, but the essay reminded me sharply. On to the questions:

First, Ron discusses "layering" in character creation. If I understand this correctly, here's how that might apply to my game: I've envisioned players building characters defining their attributes, then skills, then select augmentations and traits. They'd do all this, I guess, via some points mechanic. Am I right in this Ron?

Ok, so then if I further understand Ron's point, it's that "buying" these various characteristics with points can be problematic, especially if there are ratios. For example, 1 point of an attribute might be 6 "character points," but 1 level of a skill might be only "3." This is problematic, I think, because it invites -- what was the term? -- Gamism creep? Basically, such a process invites players to make the most effective characters possible, disregarding the simulation of the game (character background for color, for example). This is a Bad Thing. Is it Bad enough to go some other route? What's a designer to do?

Here's how I see in in my totally un-illumined, uninspired mind: If I say players get XX points to build their characters, shouldn't attributes be worth more than skills? After all, they're used far more often than any given skill. Attributes figure into all roles, skills not necessarily. Is this too much emphasis on character effectiveness, which may be irrelevant in this particular Sim. game? Is the solution something else entirely? What? Is it better to allot XX points for attributes, YY points for skills, and ZZ points for other stuff? How about a completely different approach? Take the prioritization charts familiar to Shadowrun players or The Riddle of Steel players (Yay tRoS!) -- is that approach more or less problematic?

I think that whatever my solution, my group will make characters and have fun. It's not the end of the world, and they'd likely find a "character point" system entirely familiar and comfortable. On to the game!

However, I've noticed a few posts in recent weeks regarding character creation, how it can be dull, how it's problematic, how can one re-think it. So, I guess I'm asking these questions to do just that -- is there a new way to approach character creation, particularly for Simulationist games?


OK, now for the related part 2 of my uber-question.

Narrativist character creation in some games requires a fair amount of back-story, just as some Simulationist play does, but in the former, it's about establishing a chassis for conflict, metagame, and reward, and in the latter, it's about Coloring the character and providing oppportunities for GM-created hooks. I rank the conflict between these concepts, during play, among the highest-risk situations for the survival of a gaming group. Strategies to resolve this conflict, whether social or design-oriented, are currently not well-developed in the hobby.

Ron, do you think you can expound on this issue some? I'm not getting it (and it's me being dense, not your writing, I think). For example, how is the process of creating backstory not about setting up rewards in a Simulationist approach? I don't think, actually, you're suggesting that it's not, it's just that you've not said so either way. Is creating backstory in a simulationist game just color and hooks? Can you define hook? Is a hook a bang? Is a bang a Narrative-only event? Even if that's so, isn't a hook a chassis for conflict, and one that leads to reward in Sim. games? Obviously, I've got myself all muddled up on this one. Looking for some help, thanks!

The reason I ask for help is that I think you're absolutely right that the confounding of the purposes of backstory is a high-risk issue for gaming groups. In fact, I think this is one issue that's troubled groups I've participated in. Hence my interest in figuring out more of what the heck you mean here. I ask not only for that personal interest, but also for ways of addressing it in my game designs (the system I've presented above included).

[Andrew Martin]

Ok, so then if I further understand Ron's point, it's that "buying" these various characteristics with points can be problematic, especially if there are ratios. For example, 1 point of an attribute might be 6 "character points," but 1 level of a skill might be only "3." This is problematic, I think, because it invites -- what was the term? -- Gamism creep? Basically, such a process invites players to make the most effective characters possible, disregarding the simulation of the game (character background for color, for example). This is a Bad Thing. Is it Bad enough to go some other route? What's a designer to do?

Here's how I see in in my totally un-illumined, uninspired mind: If I say players get XX points to build their characters, shouldn't attributes be worth more than skills? After all, they're used far more often than any given skill. Attributes figure into all roles, skills not necessarily. Is this too much emphasis on character effectiveness, which may be irrelevant in this particular Sim. game? Is the solution something else entirely? What? Is it better to allot XX points for attributes, YY points for skills, and ZZ points for other stuff? How about a completely different approach? Take the prioritization charts familiar to Shadowrun players or The Riddle of Steel players (Yay tRoS!) -- is that approach more or less problematic?

I think that whatever my solution, my group will make characters and have fun. It's not the end of the world, and they'd likely find a "character point" system entirely familiar and comfortable. On to the game!

However, I've noticed a few posts in recent weeks regarding character creation, how it can be dull, how it's problematic, how can one re-think it. So, I guess I'm asking these questions to do just that -- is there a new way to approach character creation, particularly for Simulationist games?

I'm a bit puzzled how in a simulationist game, Attribute + Skill is seen as the best simulation? :-/ In my experience, this is simplistic. I'd completely separate attributes and skills and definitely not combine them, then the problem of combining them never comes up in game design or in game play. Attributes have their own area of influence. Skills have their own area of influence.

One also has to ask is, why, in a simulationist game, the players each have an equal amount of points to design characters with? It's clearly obvious that some people are more "equal" than others. :) Using a fixed amount of points to "buy" attributes and skills clearly implies that the players are being asked to get the most bang for the buck, which implies gamist intent. A better solution for a simulationist game is simply to have no limit on character design "points"; let the character concept limit the character's "numbers". Fang mentions this concept in his forum.

One "problem" with infinite points allocation to players is that some players will assign arbitarily huge numbers to character descriptors. But this isn't really a problem (unless your game system can only handle a limited range of numbers eg dice pools, Number + Dice, and so on); just use a system which allows an infinite range of character descriptor values.

I've recently been working on alternatives to "points" for character generation. One good solution is based on Ron's Troll Babe and Pendragon personality descriptors. Key character descriptor values are based on opposed pairs. For example, in Pendragon: Modesty opposed by Pride; or in Troll Babe, Combat opposed by Magic. If one needs more descriptor values, use multiple opposed descriptor pairs.

[talysman]

I've recently been working on alternatives to "points" for character generation. One good solution is based on Ron's Troll Babe and Pendragon personality descriptors. Key character descriptor values are based on opposed pairs. For example, in Pendragon: Modesty opposed by Pride; or in Troll Babe, Combat opposed by Magic. If one needs more descriptor values, use multiple opposed descriptor pairs.

as an aside, the cool thing about Trollbabe's "Combat opposed by Magic" single descriptor system is: there is a third descriptor, Social, which is always better than either Combat or Magic. the game design clearly accents the theme of the game.

as for Simulationist character creation, I think the most effect layering technique is to actually have the layers reflect character history. I think Rolemaster was the first to do that, with its different development slots. I've toyed with the idea of seperating character points from skill points entirely, basing skill points on age. of course, in such a setting immortals are going to have monster skills, but in (Sim) theory, they should.

[Matt Snyder]

I'm a bit puzzled how in a simulationist game, Attribute + Skill is seen as the best simulation? :-/ In my experience, this is simplistic. I'd completely separate attributes and skills and definitely not combine them, then the problem of combining them never comes up in game design or in game play. Attributes have their own area of influence. Skills have their own area of influence.

While I agree that a game can certainly work under this means as you've described, I'm similarly puzzled why the entrenched stat + skill paradigm is so often challenged. Now, I've had this discussion before with Ron and Mike Holmes, and have some notion of why they have objections to it (some of them purely mathematical!). While I acknowledge potential problems, I also find it something that 1) players recognize and therefore can easily "grok" play and 2) something that does make some sense. It's not the only way characters "make sense," but it is one way, I argue.

Regarding Talysman's layering thoughts: I thought about this overnight, and I too like the notion of character creation via backstory creation. However, I don't like how this has been done traditionally. For example, tying skills to age is not at all one way I'd proceed.

One final comment -- I'm getting the vibe from both posts above that because it's Sim., then characters should somehow make sense or be realistic. The age = skill thing, for example, or Andrew's observation that "some people are more 'equal' than others." The game I'm designing is not at all an attempt at realism, it's not even really concerend about real life, what "people are like" and so on.

Rather, the game's an attempt at simulating intense action, a kind of cinematic style that empowers the players to take risks and do funkadelic Actions (Action is a key term in the system as I've written it). Think 7th Sea and Feng Shui, for example.

Which brings me to another point. I adore 7th Sea, and it's a big influence for me. I believe it uses 100 points to construct characters with layered, ratioed points. This is the approach we're discussing here -- has anyone any comments about that game in particular regarding character creation?

[Valamir]

Andrew, you're coming from the same point that once made me rail against the use of the word simulation.  As Ron take pains to point out in the latest essay, the use of the word is not the same as "to simulate" something.

So basically whether attribute+skill is or isn't a good simulation of "how things work" has nothing whatsoever to do with its presence in a "Simulationist" game.

[Matt Wilson]

Which brings me to another point. I adore 7th Sea, and it's a big influence for me. I believe it uses 100 points to construct characters with layered, ratioed points. This is the approach we're discussing here -- has anyone any comments about that game in particular regarding character creation?

7th Sea is definitely easy to twink, if that's what you're after. I'm playing in a game right now, and the GM handed out a couple pamphlets he found on the Web that actually say things like "make sure you don't buy this skill higher than X level at chargen, because it's cheaper to get it with XP."

I prefer the style of chargen in Dust Devils (or, for that matter, in Mongrel). Not only is it twink resistant, but it's also much much faster. Dividing 10 points among 4 traits, and doing it for three different groups of traits, is much easier to do (for me, anyway) than taking 30 points and dividing them among 12 traits.

[Matt Snyder]

I've been thinking about this some more overnight, plus I got some helpful insight from discussions going on in GNS Model Discussion -- namely Simulationism vs. Narrativism: Concrete Example, "Likely" Characters (Sim essay), and Sim-Morality (essay thread, long).

Anyway, here's what I've been tinkering with ...

I got to thinking about how to "Color in" some character creation, and do so in a nicely Sim. way. In one sense, I liked the notion of paths that help you build the character -- thigns like career steps and such that define your skills. But, I thought those are somehow too rigid, or at least too, I dunno, boring. Nevermind the infamous old Traveller creation thing that actually can kill your character before you begin actual play. Good grief!

Anyway, I got to thinking that it'd be really cool to proceed with a kind of (God help me) "Choose your own adventure" format in which you select decisions about your character and how he became who he is today. These are just "Career 1" and so on. That might be part of it, but so would family, the way you solve problems, etc.

The system I have in mind would build up your character based on the path you choose, adding 1 Body point here, any Craft skill there, etc. You'd also be instructed to color a bit of your character based on your decision. So, when you choose "I didn't go to school; I lived on the streets" when asked about your character's education, you'd be told to explain why that happened in your character background. Then, you just keep compounding these until the path says "You're done!"

The end result would be a colorful background and a completed character. In one sense, it's hand-holding for background (and may be too limited, I dunno), but on the other it "clouds" the creation of your character's mathematics so that you build a character that's interesting and plausible, rather than one who shoots SMGs superbly. Sure, it could be abused, but it might work well in starting "play before the actual play."

Whaddya think? Would you enjoy this process, if open-ended enough so you can fill in details as you wish? Too confining? Other problems you see that wouldn't work?

[xiombarg]

Whaddya think? Would you enjoy this process, if open-ended enough so you can fill in details as you wish? Too confining? Other problems you see that wouldn't work?

I'd enjoy it. What you're talking about is something like an expanded version of Cyberpunk's "Lifepath" system, also seen in Mekton Zeta. Most people remember those as being random, but they didn't have to be -- you were allowed to pick paths if you wanted to. I LOVED those systems. If you get a chance, check out the version of the system in Mekton Zeta -- it produces excellent Anime backgrounds in the "angst-filled Gundam pilot" vein. Lots of Color, while remaining kinda generic.

[Matt Snyder]

Whaddya think? Would you enjoy this process, if open-ended enough so you can fill in details as you wish? Too confining? Other problems you see that wouldn't work?

I'd enjoy it. What you're talking about is something like an expanded version of Cyberpunk's "Lifepath" system, also seen in Mekton Zeta. Most people remember those as being random, but they didn't have to be -- you were allowed to pick paths if you wanted to. I LOVED those systems. If you get a chance, check out the version of the system in Mekton Zeta -- it produces excellent Anime backgrounds in the "angst-filled Gundam pilot" vein. Lots of Color, while remaining kinda generic.

Interesting. I'm only vaguely familiar with those (and I knew my idea wasn't exactly new). Couple questions about that:

First, how specific were the choices/rolls? Was it things like: Attended Military Academy: Tactics +20, Firearms +10 (or whatever)? Or, was it more open-ended? How much so?

Also, how many steps/stages were there, and/or were these compartmentalized for different aspects of the character -- Like a "skills" path and a "attributes" path?

[szilard]

What you're talking about is something like an expanded version of Cyberpunk's "Lifepath" system, also seen in Mekton Zeta. Most people remember those as being random, but they didn't have to be -- you were allowed to pick paths if you wanted to.

Also worth looking at for this method is Fading Suns - where the path is most explicitly not random, but chosen. IIRC, you choose your general character type (what guild or noble house you're in or in or whatever) and then get to choose how you spent early stages of your life. Within each you get some constrained choices to make. Each stage also has a point-value, so if you need to deviate a bit due to a unique background, you can. Not a bad method at all.

Stuart

[Matt Snyder]

Also worth looking at for this method is Fading Suns - where the path is most explicitly not random, but chosen. IIRC, you choose your general character type (what guild or noble house you're in or in or whatever) and then get to choose how you spent early stages of your life. Within each you get some constrained choices to make. Each stage also has a point-value, so if you need to deviate a bit due to a unique background, you can. Not a bad method at all.

Stuart

Yes, this one I'm definitely familiar with. I love Fading Suns ... well, the setting anyway! I have no beef with this part of the 2nd ed. rules. They actually work pretty well, as I see it. However, i'm looking for something more personalized for each character. If I remember rightly, in FS, you select a couple phases of your path, and each phase is really rather like a template of skills you receive. Is that memory correct?

More importantly, does the Fading Suns system create "fair" characters that have the same "point" value going in (but maybe not same effectiveness coming out)? The concept I'm toying wouldn't really try to hard at "equalizing" characters.

Also, the "choose your own adventure" idea I have is much more atomic and specific about helping you craft aspects of your character's personal history.

Now, whether it would actually work I have no idea. I'll tinker some. One thing I'd really like to do is create an online character generator using a Flash application than helps you construc the concept as you go along, then output somethign you could save or print out. Just dreaming ...

[Mike Holmes]

Also see "Run Out the Guns". Takes Rolemaster chargen, which normally can take hours (or days for the math and computer challenged), and makes it a five minute process (other than the physical recording). For real.

Basically, you choose a basic template for the character. Then you choose two additional backgrounds that represent stuff the character has done previously, or learned along the way, etc. Then just add them all together on one sheet.

This is really not too far from the class/race thing, or any other of the splat systems where you just choose a cross of a few selections. Chineese Menu selection Mearls called it.

As long as you have enough basic options the combinations multiply quickly. D&D has about 50 viable combinations just looking at class/race alone (and that's just using the standard stuff).

Just combine something like this with a lifepath sort of thingie, and I think you're off and running.

Mike

[Mike Holmes]

One thing I'd really like to do is create an online character generator using a Flash application than helps you construc the concept as you go along, then output somethign you could save or print out. Just dreaming ...

Not a dream. Make it function mechanically, then contact me.

Mike

[contracycle]

Now, whether it would actually work I have no idea. I'll tinker some. One thing I'd really like to do is create an online character generator using a Flash application than helps you construc the concept as you go along, then output somethign you could save or print out. Just dreaming ...

Good idea.  The HW Clan Generator is an excellent example of this sort of concept; check it out if you have not seen it at their site http://www.glorantha.com - go to tribes, orlanthi.  Combined with things like the heromachine, I think theres a lot of potential in this direction.

[szilard]

Yes, this one I'm definitely familiar with. I love Fading Suns ... well, the setting anyway! I have no beef with this part of the 2nd ed. rules. They actually work pretty well, as I see it. However, i'm looking for something more personalized for each character. If I remember rightly, in FS, you select a couple phases of your path, and each phase is really rather like a template of skills you receive. Is that memory correct?

I think so. I know it included some things other than just skills (the Merit/Knack equivalent, Attributes maybe?). I don't remember precisely, but I think there were also some options within each stage (say, "two levels of a tech skill of your choice" instead of "Think Machine 2" or something).

More importantly, does the Fading Suns system create "fair" characters that have the same "point" value going in (but maybe not same effectiveness coming out)? The concept I'm toying wouldn't really try to hard at "equalizing" characters.

Each life stage had a point value. Every character had the same total point value, I think. Whether or not those characters were equally effective... ::shrug::

Also, the "choose your own adventure" idea I have is much more atomic and specific about helping you craft aspects of your character's personal history.

How so? I think I'm not entirely clear on what you're proposing.

Stuart