Hey, folks! I need some help deciding between two different creation methods for hero background. Since this is my first post about the game, let me sum things up for you.

SagaCraft is a game of mythic heroes in fantastic settings of sword & sorcery, epic fantasy, pulp adventure, and space opera. (The plan calls for a base system pdf later expanded with more-detailed genre supplements.) The rules are meant to facilitate character exploration and player-driven adventure within a heroic setting.

I thoroughly revised SagaCraft after discovering the wisdom of the Forge. The revision was intended to create a simulation/narrativist hybrid, though I suspect it has crossed the boundary over into narrativist.

Creating a Hero
First, the player defines Concept and sets Attributes (that method is locked down for now). Then comes Background which is composed of the nine elements listed below. Each part is scored between 1 and 6. In a contest, any and all pertinent background elements are added to a single appropriate attribute chosen by the player. (Similar to automatic augmentation in HeroQuest but more powerful.)

With all the elements, the player must come up with his own ideas. Some examples are given, but there are no definitive lists to choose from.

Heritage: a hero’s social/cultural background. Examples: Woman of the Marshes, Sunset Plains Nomad, Parisian street urchin, Roman slave from Greece.

Adventuring Occupation: an occupation that includes combat, survival, and/or magic abilities. Specific abilities are not listed, though a short, open-ended description is given by the player. (For how this works in general, think Cover in Sorcerer.) Examples: Broken-Wolf Shaman, Infantry Captain, Pirate of the Dark Seas, Druidic Knight.

Basic Occupation: the occupations practiced by normal folk and sometimes heroes before they go stumbling off into danger and high adventure. Examples: Horse Trainer, Steward, Shipwright, Merchant, Thug.

Interests: specific topics of study that interest a hero but do not include the full range of capabilities one must possess to practice that interest as an occupation. Examples: amateur astronomy, local customs, shipbuilding, theology, the habits of rich, beautiful women.

Skills: specific abilities separate from or a concentrated part of occupations--must be narrow in focus. Examples: barroom brawl, compose limericks, dance, hunt boars, survive in swamps.

Talents: like skills but generally more powerful, often pertaining to magic and not present in all world settings. Examples: detect danger, read emotions, summon eagles, voice of command.

Equipment: a hero starts with all the basics he needs, but some special items of minor power can be selected as well. (These are scored just like all the other elements.) Examples: knuckle bones of telling, gloves of climbing, heirloom sword, unbreakable shield.

Followers: a set of henchmen, a loyal animal companion, or a sidekick.

Passions: motivations that matter so much that a character gains the bonus to all actions when the passion is invoked. Examples: hates trolls, loves Brunhilda, must become rich. Note: a player may at any time exchange one passion for another or get rid of a passion and split the points in his score among all his other passions.

(All heroes automatically possess a Drive and a Destiny as well.)


Creation in Both Methods

Once a background element is selected, the beginning score is 0. To increase the score to 1 requires describing how the hero acquired and uses the element. Exceptional description which illuminates the hero’s background and provides depth and possible conflict grants a score of 2. The amount of text necessary varies depending on the importance of the element. Adventuring occupations requires at least a four or five sentences to be scored at 1, while an interest may only need a single sentence. (Imagine a lot of text discussing how this is handled and giving specific criteria to help a GM judge the quality of description. A player may revise until he reaches a score of 2, if he wants to. Also, Player-GM social contract issues are specifically addressed throughout the game’s text.)


Background Creation Method #1
Based on his concept, the player selects a single Heritage, Adventuring Occupation, Basic Occupation, and Passion as well as two Skills or Interests or a single Talent. Through choice and description alone, he may gain Equipment and Followers, if the GM judges the description worthy. Any variances are handled through negotiation, such as a hero whose background calls for dual Heritage. If a player doesn’t want to select a Basic Occupation he can ask to trade it for additional Skills/Interests. If a player wants two Adventuring Occupations, he will probably have to trade off the Basic Occupation as well as the Skills/Interests.

This was the original, pre-Forge method. My playtests didn’t show any problem with character creation negotiation. However, at the time there were no Skills, Interests, or Talents and I didn’t even mention the potential for followers. Also, I’m married to one player and the other two are bestest chums.


Background Creation Method #2

The player has 10 Background Points to spend on gaining elements. The points do not, however, increase the scores. That is still handled through description.

The point costs for each:

Heritage: first free, additional 2
Adv. Occ: 4
Basic Occ: 2
Skill/Interest: 1
Talent: 2
Item: 2
Follower: 2
Passion: first free, additional 1


The Questions
So, which method seems most appropriate to you, given the nature of the game? Which one would give you the most freedom as a player? Does anyone see any potential problems in either method?

I’m open to any suggestions beyond these two methods, provided they retain a descriptive structure for improving the scores.

Thanks for your help!

Points, definitely. Don't make me judge my players. Even if we're all good with it, I'm too lazy to think on that level. I want the system to handle it. I'd rather give them a pool of points that makes sense, and let them determine "what's right".

Mike

What Mike said. I'd also add that if you do decide to place the responsibility on the GM to decide what's "worthy," you'll need to include all those detailed guidelines for what is appropriate so that someone who isn't you will have some idea of the kinds of things the game is supposed to support.

For this reason, I'd go with all points - doing so saves you the trouble of writing stuff, and it makes play more consistent from group to group, which is IMO a good thing.

Thanks for the comments, Mike and Ethan!

The interesting thing is that one of my players really doesn't like the points. First, she feels that their very existence detracts from creating and describing a character fully. (She's definitely a Simulationist, though.) Second, even if points are used, she strongly believes that description alone should determine the existence of special items and followers.

(I normally don't overly focus on a single player's concern, but this one is almost a co-designer and, more importantly, has the power to kick me out of the house.)

I've been running games for half my life and have good management skills and experienced players. It's not a problem for me in practice, though I do have to work harder to maintain balance. However, I am also very aware of how this could certainly be a problem for others.

I've toyed with reversing it. Setting the scores with points and getting the elements through description, but that didn't go over any better. A narrative/list approach like in HeroQuest is tempting, but I worry that it might be overkill considering all the description players have to do already.

As for increasing the score of each element, worthy description shouldn't be a problem. Plenty of examples in the text so players know what they're supposed to do in the first place. Second, the GM must decide how much is enough, and the players are allowed to revise until it's satisfactory. I support strong interaction between all players and the GM during character creation.

David Chunn wrote: The interesting thing is that one of my players really doesn't like the points. First, she feels that their very existence detracts from creating and describing a character fully. (She's definitely a Simulationist, though.) Second, even if points are used, she strongly believes that description alone should determine the existence of special items and followers.

Ah, but that's the difficulty, Andrew. She likes for the character creation to be very open ended, but then after that, during play, she wants it to be much more concrete. The systems you mentioned while they look to be good games would satisfy her play preferences.

As for myself and the rest of my players, we lean toward her opinion, we just don't go quite as far.