Quick question:
Am I the only one who makes a character concept and fleshes out stats later? Or is it actually the norm to go stats-first and later try to build a personality around them? Please tell me I'm not alone in this, because it's infuriating me to a degree that's way out of scope.
The norm is stat first, since it allows you to retroactively choose fluff reasons for your power gaming.
I do concept -> stats for point buy systems, stats -> concept for any system that uses rolling or other randomized stat gen. It's easy and fun for me to stay true-ish to a concept for systems that allow it, but if I do the same for rolled stats I end up getting frustrated.
I do concept -> stats for both... If I end up a shitty fighter, then I do. It's called _role_playing for a reason.
Besides, when the weakling inevitably dies off or gets kicked from the group... New chance to shine bby
I generally do stats first, so that I can build the character's actual character around the mechanics of the game.
That's cool for you. I personally like to strike some balance between role-playing and roll-playing. I don't like playing an ineffective character, but will favor flavor over min-maxing. But you have fun doing what you do and that's cool. We're all here to have a good time.
In my opinion this usually leads to extremely one-dimensional (redundant, I know) characters focusing on one or two aspects only. But if you build a character first, you actually put some focus onto creating a character, that you later stat out to fit said character.
Maybe that's just me, though.
Only if you build your character as a one-trick pony, and don't bother adding anything to them at any point.
make stats > figure out character based on those stats > change stats to fit the character you came up with
Yeah, you're right. I need to cut with the unnecessary arguing. Sorry. You do you, me do me.
>Only if you build your character as a one-trick pony, and don't bother adding anything to them at any point.
This is exactly what I've seen happen around 80% of the time.
Okay, I pulled that percentage out of my ass, but it does illustrate the point.
I do rough concept > stats> let personality be made organically as I play.
I find character devolpment eaiser when I respond to situations as they come up, then after the session figure out why the char did what they did. That sometimes leads to neat backstory tidbits that can then inform future interactions.
I guess 80% of people are shitty players, then. There's nothing stopping you from making an interesting and well-rounded character based on the stats, but if you don't care about it, like I suspect those 80% don't, you can just go "I've got 18 Strength, I'm John the Fighter, I like to fight" and stop there.
>I do concept -> stats for both... If I end up a shitty fighter, then I do. It's called _role_playing for a reason.
THIS
It sorta depends on the system. If I'm playing a game with randomized stats, I do stats, and then build an interesting character based on the stats (this is for games like D&D, or OSR games, or Mythras). If it's a game with point-buy stats or stat arrays (such as world of darkness, GURPS, or PbtA games), then I do concept first, and alter stats to fit it.
This is the best thread in all of Veeky Forums
Also, an 'interesting' character doesn't necessarily mean an optimized one. Generally the characters I have the most fun with are the ones where I roll most stats below or at 10.
Depends on the game
Old school D&D with random stats is not friendly to "character concepts". If you wanna be a fire wizard, better roll up a magic user and research some fire spells.
I find Savage Worlds characters turn into a jack of all trades clusterfuck if you don't start out with a concept.
>no, everybody does NOT need to be a medic-stuntdriver-gunfighter-survivalist-gadgetbuilder-scientist
I agree with this gentleman.
Come up with a rough concept. Some of that rough concept might start as "dickish rogue" or "How would a character actually come to at all look like weird build X". Personalilty can be somewhat in place, but I find as time goes by, the better the character gets as actual events have occurred to concrete in place more specific stuff about personality.
I imagine some of might be for me, because trying to imagine every single possible facet of a character that could possibly come up, and inevitably missing something, means that kinda bullshit is gonna happen anyway. Pick broad points, and move forward as stuff happens to solidify stuff.
Yeah, I inevitably do this to some degree, too. As you said, it's impossible to figure out absolutely everything beforehand.
But it's way too often when I see people do the "John the Fighter" approach described earlier. They respond the exact same way to everything, and fall into a nihilistic fit if it suddenly doesn't work. Because they haven't thought of their character doing anything else than said one thing, and it's usually combat-related.
For me it is rough concept first. Such as
> human wizard
Then the stats.
> highest score goes into whatever stat is most important for the class or concept selected. In this case the highest that goes into intelligence, I Mark that off the list of whatever I rolled and then apply the rest of the rolls in the order I rolled them to the stats just going down the line.
That gives me the basic character class I wanted, but with a lot of organic development. I look at the stats and can then flesh out what and why the character is the way he is. This lets me flesh out the character concept and determine what skills and specializations will be important to the character. Very low Constitution? Maybe he was sick most of his childhood. That's why he went into studying transmutation with his ultimate goal being to change himself into something that isn't a frail and feeble wreck.
I generally start with a concept if it's a point buy/flexible system so that way I can build the character I actually want to play, but start with build first if its a rigid class based system like later DnD editions. I hate coming up with a cool concept and then having to butcher and finagle it to fit because the system won't actually do what I want
>Am I the only one w-
Yes. Yes. Only you. You beautiful, unique, special snowflake.
Come on, OP. Plenty of people start with a concept. Thing is that some systems make this harder for the player, while others are better suited for it. Maybe you're fighting against your system and you should look for something more in tune with your style of play.
It's called a "rhetorical device".
>I do concept -> stats for both... If I end up a shitty fighter, then I do. It's called _role_playing for a reason.
Seconded.
Chances are that I had a character concept in mind that I wanted to play.
Stats first, unless I'm feeling really inspired by the setting.
Which is why I greatly dislike generic/point-buy systems. I draw inspiration from the mechanics and options presented to me by the book, and generic/point-buy systems tend to be extremely uninspiring to me.
I min/max an initial concept as much as I can.
Depends on if your playing random stat generation or point buy/priority creation system. If the former stat first rest later. Otherwise I figure out who the character is then build the stats to that.
Not at all user. I have this one character idea that could pretty much fit any class if you look at it in a certain way. I plan on making him either a STRanger Beastmaster, Death Divine Sorcerer, Ax thrower Fighter, or Travel Domain Cleric.
It's really his personality and backstory that I have set in stone. I'm trying to find a decent way for the character to have both good charisma and wisdom both mechanically and RP wise.
Race/class>Fluff>Stats>Details
Choose the idea, fluff the rough bits/paint broad strokes. Then do stats, adjust things to fit & add fine details.
Which way I do it depends on my mood at the time.
I end up doing them at the same time, especially because I roll for race, sex, background, class, and subclass