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.



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.

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

Michael Hopcroft wrote: How would someone make that work?

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

Mike Holmes wrote: 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.

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.

The_Confessor wrote: 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.

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

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? :)

Hey James,

If you were really into Gamist role-playing, then they wouldn't be stigmas and concerns - they'd be plain old rocking fun.

What you're dealing with, possibly, is fear of Gamism - or perhaps fear of what I'm calling Hardcore Gamism, which is to say, bringing the Social Contract itself into the arena of challenge/competition.

That fear is so over-riding in some role-players that they will design whole game systems devoted to containing or excluding it, usually to the detriment of whatever it was they were hoping to enjoy in the first place.

Best,
Ron

Multiverser's character generation is of this free-form sort. Most player characters are supposed to be accurate representations of the players, so the identity of the player becomes the limiting factor, to a significant degree (if you're really an expert marksman, where are your medals?). However, it's entirely possible to play the "not I" character, and of course the referee constantly creates NPCs as adjuncts, antagonists, and others, who are not based on real people. The process is the same: create the concept of who this character is, and then translate it to game terms.

I had posted something on this somewhere, but I can't figure out how to search for it right now. More recently I organized those thoughts into an article at Gaming Outpost, Game Ideas Unlimited: CharGen, but you have to subscribe over there to access it.

One thing I suggest is having each player write a character concept, something general (maybe with a word limit), such as

Flash Gordon, all-American football hero type big on courage, action, and charm.

Dr. Zarkov, brilliant eccentric scientist whose theories, once thought nonsense, are proving true, and who has had to develop many skills in a variety of technologies to pursue his work on his own.

Dale Arden, beautiful socialite with surprising spunk and inner strength as well as keen insight into how others think.