Character Creation W/ Humanizing Stories

[Woolfe]

By making a background selection allocate attributes and skills you have done nothing but create a macro to allocate points.

Well that's utter hyperbole.

The point of the 'archetype' is to supply a narrative that builds upon the stats you pick. It's not merely putting points into medicine and having your narrative amount to, "You're good at medicine."

I don't like the "Archetype" concept. The skills are what make the man so to speak. Thats why I spoke of having seperate "background" elements. In my case I was suggesting they be used somewhat as the macro to allocate points as well, but that you can then change that up and down if you so choose.
For me the most important aspect was allowing that extra bit of character based off the history. So their would be tests/quests etc that are based purely off the skill itself. Ie it doesn't matter what your background is, do you have the skill to do the job! But in some cases you might have certain speech and maybe even quests that come about because of the selected background.

Does that make sense?

Stats like gender, nationality, birthplace, etc. establish and describe far more than you seem to think.

If any of those were to provide a narrative to the degree to which I'm proposing, then the only difference between your proposal and mine is that mine tells you more about your character up front. Maybe that's not a good thing. However, your point seems to be that these things have narrative repercussions, as oppose to (virtually) none. I agree.

See part of the problem here is the level of narrative being proposed, some of us don't want to be "dictated to" in regards to our characters, so the background is not the sort of thing that "creates a quest" it just allows you to be involved in a quest.

The personal narrative of a character can never be captured and implemented in a game but a character sheet can leave space for it for the player's satisfaction.

Considering it's just as impossible to completely replace a personal narrative as it is to completely capture one: 1) I don't think it a fools errand to emulate personal narrative, and 2) If the archetype model were implemented, space for personal narrative would still be there. It's a game. Games emulate. Question is: to what extent?

As above, it is the degree of personal narrative. These are our PC's we want them our way. That means no "Story Quests" about their origins etc that are provided to us on a platter. However having the backgrounds affect the existing quests is good.

[Drool]

I'm with Wolfe on this one. Background metrics should stay separate from the attribute/skill allocation system. Because of this, I don't think a medic background is a viable thing to pick.

That's a fair point. I was using Medic as (I believe) someone else had used something similar.

Looking over things again... I'm not sure how I'd like to see it be done. I was able to come up with backgrounds for my Rangers all by my lonesome with no problem. And if I didn't want to, I didn't need to. Either way, a game-created mechanic wasn't necessary. I can see why people would want to add something, but I can't get too passionate about it.

I just don't want it to control what skills you can take, but I think most everyone's on board with that.

[Woolfe]

I'm with Wolfe on this one. Background metrics should stay separate from the attribute/skill allocation system. Because of this, I don't think a medic background is a viable thing to pick.

That's a fair point. I was using Medic as (I believe) someone else had used something similar.

Looking over things again... I'm not sure how I'd like to see it be done. I was able to come up with backgrounds for my Rangers all by my lonesome with no problem. And if I didn't want to, I didn't need to. Either way, a game-created mechanic wasn't necessary. I can see why people would want to add something, but I can't get too passionate about it.

I just don't want it to control what skills you can take, but I think most everyone's on board with that.

Me too, and thats why I specifically said it allocates points, but allows you to then modify that up or down. (Becoming essentially a macro) But the important element was the background detail.

My suggestions were mostly aimed at providing optional extra information that could be used to make a character feel "fuller" for those who desire it, without impinging on those who just want to pump stats in.

[Inca]

I think for people who enjoy a little back story this "background" system is easily implemented, for people who want a "clean slate" you could create a an option of "file is empty"-there everyone is happy.

I suggest looking at "Tropico" character creation-it's not really an RPG, but that particular aspect is funny as hell-every bit of background offers Bonus and Penalty of roughly equal value, but it tilts the character toward your style of play.

You can be:
Alcoholic
Womanizer
Self-made man
Communist
etc.

[alexlovesinxile]

I don't like the "Archetype" concept. The skills are what make the man so to speak. Thats why I spoke of having seperate "background" elements. In my case I was suggesting they be used somewhat as the macro to allocate points as well, but that you can then change that up and down if you so choose.
For me the most important aspect was allowing that extra bit of character based off the history. So their would be tests/quests etc that are based purely off the skill itself. Ie it doesn't matter what your background is, do you have the skill to do the job! But in some cases you might have certain speech and maybe even quests that come about because of the selected background.

Does that make sense?

Well... I think so. But then, that sounds like exactly what I've been proposing.

What exactly do you see the difference being between archetypes and the alternative you've presented above? I can't find one.

See part of the problem here is the level of narrative being proposed, some of us don't want to be "dictated to" in regards to our characters, so the background is not the sort of thing that "creates a quest" it just allows you to be involved in a quest.

What exactly constitutes being dictated to?

As above, it is the degree of personal narrative. These are our PC's we want them our way. That means no "Story Quests" about their origins etc that are provided to us on a platter. However having the backgrounds affect the existing quests is good.

I don't understand how having a quest line tethered to an archetype means it's being provided on a platter, or keeping you from having your character's the way you want them. I particularly don't understand how quests are then not being provided on a platter, nor keeping you from having your character's the way you want them, in the event that character backgrounds are only consequential to "existing" quests.

And I also don't understand this distinction you keep making between "created" quests and "existing" quests, particularly when you yourself have said, "maybe [...] quests [...] come about because of the selected background."

[Woolfe]

Well... I think so. But then, that sounds like exactly what I've been proposing.

What exactly do you see the difference being between archetypes and the alternative you've presented above? I can't find one.

Yeah. So like an Archetype is. Medic, Sniper, heavy weapons, etc Kind of defines them from the get go.

Whereas my concept simply added to it. So you roll up xyz stats, then you add the backgrounds. So Medical Training, gives him a certain variation on a background. (And I think this should be random amongst several different options). But that doesn't actually mean he has to be a medic. He may also have a background of barefist brawler. Which defines the character, the medic, or the brawler?
My proposition had a series of "bakcground elements" that were not necessary for character development, and in many cases wouldn't even affect skill choice. Just simply a set of queues and variations that can be used to add character at a "stat sheet" level, but also used to influence dialogue and similar type stuff.

An example could be "Raised in Quartz", doesn't do anything stat wise, but whenever you go to Quartz people vaguely recognise you. That sort of thing.

What exactly constitutes being dictated to?

With an "archetype" there is an assumption of certain things. To be that archetype certain key elements must exist. I am probably making it sound bigger than I meant it.
But essentially we don't want too much "handed to us on a script" type stuff with the characters. These are our characters and it will be our choice. We are expressly trying to avoid the "Origin" story type backgrounds being created for us and provided in a quest for that party member.
The Party PC's should interact with the world, but their history is ours and ours alone.
So in the Quartz example, their would be no, origin story of how your PC left Quartz and arrived at the Ranger HQ. It is just a simple fact.

I don't understand how having a quest line tethered to an archetype means it's being provided on a platter, or keeping you from having your character's the way you want them. I particularly don't understand how quests are then not being provided on a platter, nor keeping you from having your character's the way you want them, in the event that character backgrounds are only consequential to "existing" quests.

And I also don't understand this distinction you keep making between "created" quests and "existing" quests, particularly when you yourself have said, "maybe [...] quests [...] come about because of the selected background."

Yeah I apologise, thats mostly repsonding to the now silent Mort2. Who wanted PC's to be Baldur's gate style "Companions", I had to be particular careful of wording else I set off distracting arguments.

This bit is similar to what you had as well, but it is the difference between a "companion" having a set background and history, that you discover. And the PC themselves having whatever you defined. The actual quest elements are fine, so long as they are generic. So if you have medical training, you might get Quest xyz, but you could also get that same quest if you simply had enough points in the medic skill.
This bit was only important in that there are no "determining history" elements of the character outside of what you define.

It was a while ago when I wrote it, and it was partially in rejection of the "baldur's gate companion" type stuff. apologies for any confusion.

[paultakeda]

I think for people who enjoy a little back story this "background" system is easily implemented, for people who want a "clean slate" you could create a an option of "file is empty"-there everyone is happy.

Exactly. That's why they should be an "isolated" set that doesn't affect attributes or skills. Some would rather not bother (and I noted that for them they should at least pick the two Wasteland background metrics of gender and nationality as an homage) and they should not be penalized for it. Others actually like doing it but want to put 'File is empty" because the character is a mysterious stranger.

They can, however, color a quest. If you put down that your mother was one of the rail raiders but the father is unknown that leaves much to the player's imagination as to how that happened (in the free narrative box one could leave it unsaid, say the mother was in a brothel or was assaulted). In a rail raider camp a side quest may open up because the character has a tattoo on his arm. In a jerk bar they notice the tattoo and mention it simply in passing that may affect speech checks (+/-, I don't know if jerks liked raiders ).

None of this will affect game play if all characters have empty metrics except gender and nationality/ethnicity, but selection can change interaction and that's enough to color game play to make it unique to the party.

Archetypes are too involved and too much -- they can significantly affect the game and introduce another system to balance to reduce min/maxing.

[alexlovesinxile]

Archetypes are too involved and too much -- they can significantly affect the game and introduce another system to balance to reduce min/maxing.

I can buy that archetypes may be too heavy handed as far as narrative is concerned, but the system I'm describing does NOT allow for min maxing.

Did you not understand the distinction I made between allocation and augmentation?

[paultakeda]

I can buy that archetypes may be too heavy handed as far as narrative is concerned, but the system I'm describing does NOT allow for min maxing.

Did you not understand the distinction I made between allocation and augmentation?

Yes, I'm addressing both types of archetype concepts. Your version is, to me, just a macro with a fancy name. I would rather have a background system separate from attributes and skills. "Supplying a narrative that builds upon skills" is hand holding. I want background metrics to be their own thing, to build a narrative around it that can color game play. That provides more context to me than auto-allocation that's tied to a narrative. I'd rather not mix background with attributes and skills -- that makes no sense to how I view the definition of background.

[Utxyle]

What would you guys think of reversing the system Woolfe is proposing? Instead of choosing a background that allocates skill points, what if you had to "buy" backgrounds instead? This would assume there is some benefit to having a background like specialized quests or NPC dialog options. If you wanted to have a "Ranger Surgeon" background, you couldn't select it unless you put a rank into medic, bureaucracy, and knife fighting. If you wanted "Wasteland Grifter" you have to put some points into forgery, confidence, and sleight of hand. Choosing a background isn't required, and some backgrounds might have little to no requirements, like "Raised in Quartz" might only require 1 rank of brawling. It would prevent choosing a background just for min/maxing purposes, maybe nudge players into skills they might never think of taking (bureaucracy!), and you couldn't have a background that didn't make sense for your character (although, that might actually be a bad thing).

Whichever way the devs decide to go, I do hope they make a really good character creation system. Most times just creating the character in PnP games was half the fun for me.

[Woolfe]

What would you guys think of reversing the system Woolfe is proposing? Instead of choosing a background that allocates skill points, what if you had to "buy" backgrounds instead? This would assume there is some benefit to having a background like specialized quests or NPC dialog options. If you wanted to have a "Ranger Surgeon" background, you couldn't select it unless you put a rank into medic, bureaucracy, and knife fighting. If you wanted "Wasteland Grifter" you have to put some points into forgery, confidence, and sleight of hand. Choosing a background isn't required, and some backgrounds might have little to no requirements, like "Raised in Quartz" might only require 1 rank of brawling. It would prevent choosing a background just for min/maxing purposes, maybe nudge players into skills they might never think of taking (bureaucracy!), and you couldn't have a background that didn't make sense for your character (although, that might actually be a bad thing).

Whichever way the devs decide to go, I do hope they make a really good character creation system. Most times just creating the character in PnP games was half the fun for me.

I like that.
My Macroing points was not a required element, simply a way to be lazy so I don't have to click on a button 20 times.
The important concept was the background choice, and it being your choice, as opposed to defined by the game devs.

[Leif]

You can be:
Alcoholic
Womanizer
Self-made man
Communist
etc.

If I could have a large selection of traits like these to pick from in character creation I would be happy.
Few things would please me more than being able to start off as one of the prisoners or nearby survivors.

[alexlovesinxile]

Yes, I'm addressing both types of archetype concepts. Your version is, to me, just a macro with a fancy name.

It's a macro. I'm getting hung up on the idea that it's "just" a macro if it's doing more than allocating stats.

"Supplying a narrative that builds upon skills" is hand holding.

Skill checks aren't hand holding. Whats the difference?

That provides more context to me than auto-allocation that's tied to a narrative. I'd rather not mix background with attributes and skills -- that makes no sense to how I view the definition of background.

"Roger Jones hails from Seawack, a peaceful town well known for it's high quality treatment of wounded and sick in part due to its close relationship with Ranger Center. Having studied medicine there for several years, Roger Jones decided to... "

...Medical skills set to 0...

"...fall down really hard and forget everything he knew about medicine before joining the Rangers."

(The point aside, this could be cute if the narrative allows for stats that don't fit the archetype.)

[paultakeda]

Yes, I'm addressing both types of archetype concepts. Your version is, to me, just a macro with a fancy name.

It's a macro. I'm getting hung up on the idea that it's "just" a macro if it's doing more than allocating stats.

"Supplying a narrative that builds upon skills" is hand holding.

Skill checks aren't hand holding. Whats the difference?

This is a one-two thing for me. If the background selection, gamewise, allocates skill points then the contextual narrative is just some staid throwaway text where you honestly could do more to fill it in yourself with a textbox. This leaves the skill allocation as a macro.

That provides more context to me than auto-allocation that's tied to a narrative. I'd rather not mix background with attributes and skills -- that makes no sense to how I view the definition of background.

"Roger Jones hails from Seawack, a peaceful town well known for it's high quality treatment of wounded and sick in part due to its close relationship with Ranger Center. Having studied medicine there for several years, Roger Jones decided to... "

...Medical skills set to 0...

"...fall down really hard and forget everything he knew about medicine before joining the Rangers."

You could have written that yourself and set the medical skill to 1. OR you could also write that and leave the skills at 0 and add to the text, "Sadly, Roger Jones flunked all tests and has no affinity whatsoever in medicine, no matter how hard he tries."

Do you see how much more fulfilling it is to write the narrative out yourself? You could pick Seawack from a birthplace pick list, along with other metrics that can be used in-game for interaction and quest modification, but in no way do I want a detailed narrative that ties the skills, attributes and background metrics together into a character like that pre-written from a set of archetypes or backgrounds. That is too limiting. I would rather pick the background metrics and use them to write out a bio myself or simply leave it blank.

[alexlovesinxile]

in no way do I want a detailed narrative that ties the skills, attributes and background metrics together into a character like that pre-written from a set of archetypes or backgrounds. That is too limiting.

I understand that one of your issues is granularity. I buy it.

I also buy the macro thing if you figure every potential narrative variation available in a developer provided set of stories and quests would be available in a completely modular pick list. But that's reaaaaally blurring the lines as to what a macro is, at least to the extent of it being something of the dirty word you're using it as.

Also, what you call a staid throwaway, I'd call a literary abstraction.

So, what was that about more or less context? Not granularity. Context.

Still not quite getting the hand holding thing either.

[paultakeda]

Also, what you call a staid throwaway, I'd call a literary abstraction.

So, what was that about more or less context? Not granularity. Context.

Still not quite getting the hand holding thing either.

How would you create context? What do you mean by context?

Here's what I think of context. To me, context is created through the selection of attributes, skills and background metrics that describe a whole. The game cannot tell me what that whole would be as the number of combinations all these metrics add up to is quite high; plus even some combinations may look the same from a numbers standpoint yet different narratives could arise from it.

I don't want a pick list of backgrounds that provide a context that then assigns the points accordingly. I want to go the other direction by selecting skills, attributes and what you identify as granular background details, all of which lead to a context that I imagined.

[Inca]

alexlovesinxile, paultakeda

Maybe it's the beer, but I am starting to get lost in your terminology. Maybe you guys could summarize your point of view with examples.

Are we talking about "slipping in" classes? Or Arcanum kind of deal?

Because I would not mind getting some bonuses/penalties to attributes and skills based on background traits and professions, and even extra quests and dialog options. But I would like to have them as augmentations to the core point buy system (if such would be used in WL2) and not as defining mechanic.

[paultakeda]

Maybe it's the beer, but I am starting to get lost in your terminology. Maybe you guys could summarize your point of view with examples.

I want to add background metrics similar to gender and nationality in the original game. These can have in-game effects, much like gender allowed bathroom entry. I want more of these with more interaction and quest influences (I cite some examples in the beginning of the thread).

Then a freetext area to tie it together, should I want to write a bio.

I don't want an archetype or background pick list that auto-configures points. Like "pacifist" adds points to diplomacy or something. I'd rather choose the skills and attributes myself, and along with that, background demographic info to fill out the character.

[Mathsorcerer]

Archetypes or character classes would detract from the game experience. It would be preferrable to start with a generic template then allow the user to tweak their character's attributes and skills with a high degree of flexibility. This makes the character "yours" and you care about it more than you would the standard "scientist" or "ninja" character that is essentially the same as everyone else's.

[paultakeda]

This was posted on a thread regarding skills but a large part of it is useful for this thread.

It's a post by Avellone on the Obsidian forums regarding how he created characters while going through his playthrough of Wasteland 1.

One thing I wanted to vent about concerning old-school RPGs like Eternal Dagger, Wizard’s Crown, and Wasteland, is the more you give a player the ability to customize their own skills (and stats, although in WL, it’s random), the more you can build a character you can role-play, and imo, you can do it much better than you can if you’re simply given an archetype or limited stat set.
[...]
So skills contributing to role-playing: As an example, when building my Wasteland party of four Rangers again, all I knew to start is I wanted a Brainiac, a Thief, a Jack of All Trades/Gunslinger as party leader, and a Melee Specialist because I like bashing the **** out of things with clubs, axes, and chainsaws. With those basics in mind, I went ahead and went through the Wasteland stat and skill set and built personalities formed by the random roll (although biased toward accepting characters with a high IQ, since IQ is a big “win” in Wasteland – and this should remind me to do a blog on how prevalence of usefulness of skills and abilities can ruin role-playing and a lack of balance can do the same) and also based on the skills that were provided to me and what points I put into them.
[...]
So as an example of skill-defining-character options, I approached the Brainiac first. I wanted a high IQ, and it so happened the first high-IQ I got had a ****ty Charisma and not a terribly great DEX and not so great “weapon” stats (ST, AG, DEX). Going through the skill set, I realized I wouldn’t be able to do much with skill beyond an assortment of 1 point = 1 level allocations across a range of skills, so I tried to imagine a character that would have crappy but baseline skills with:
Cryptology (He’s good at technical aspects of puzzles but not great since he’s only at level 1, which makes it either a hobby, or some flaw, perhaps?)
Safecrack (I imagined the character got by this with excellent hearing.)
Demolitions/Bomb Disarm/Alarm Disarm (He knows electronics very well.)
Metallurgy (A specific skill, which felt legacy and old-world.)
Bureaucracy (Old-world civilization skill, and it felt very list-making, report-filing, and law-oriented, so he’s either a police officer, lawyer, or government bureau-bot. The “bot” aspect started appealing to me.)
Forgery (He can replicate any doc, and apparently has no ethical issues while doing so, so that also suggests he has mechanical-level precision and replication with documents and will “do as he’s told" to forge those elements. I started to imagine a humanoid photocopier.)

I also examined the character from what the character couldn’t do well, either, and the points I didn’t put into any skills also helped shape the character concept further:
Brawling
Knife Fighting
Knives (The ability to use knives felt like a more “natural” fighting skill than gunplay, so the idea that he’s not human was reinforced more here.)
Swim 0 (Maybe he can’t get wet, let alone swim, Wasteland also made me consider the idea of “hydrophobia” since that’s mentioned in Highpool, but maybe there’s some other limitation.)
Climb 0 (Some other physical limitation, limited mobility?)
[...]
So after the skill allocation phase, it’s clear this character is physically challenged, has esoteric old world knowledge, and is gifted with electronics and machines and codes

And then he writes a biography.

Attributes and skills define the character. You tailor make the character as per what you envision for that character. There is no need for an archetype or a macro to assign skills points. This is old school and far more creative and fun to do. And if you don't want to bother, it was easy enough just to roll and go, or even easier, use the pregen party.

Having background metrics in addition to those attributes and skills only help in embedding the character in the game world, allowing for different interactions and quest options, but do not influence attributes and skills. But by having background metrics like gender, ethnicity, birthplace, height, weight, etc. not only do they get used in the game as part of interaction and quests and environment (perhaps weight adds a modifier to environmental heat and cold damage), but you get to select these to further define what you already have from attributes and skills. I can see Avellone picking male, white, unknown, 5'8" and 130 lb. to create a slight, under-nourished but severe looking person in his Brainiac character. With a portrait creator you get to even make the look.