"Backwards" Character Creation

"It's a poor sort of memory that only works backwards."


I kicked around the idea of doing a theme month. I had quite a few post ideas in a row focused on stupid stuff. You've seen two of them, but...well, since the month started with trap monsters and that's not the kind of stupid I meant, I put aside the idea. Well, that and I had a few stupid things to talk about that aren't the jovial kind of stupid. It's not really giggle Ha-Ha stuff. I'm gonna yell the loud funny words about some things that annoy me, and hope that somewhere inside this there's a lesson.


I thought we were done with this one. I talked about it a few times by now, but always inside another post somewhere. The people I knew who were the worst with this no longer game with us. This is the idea that there's a certain order to the steps of generating a character and that anything that bucks this trend is backwards or wrong. To be specific, this is the idea that you complete a character's background and personality before you ever touch their mechanics.

I have several problems with this.

This happens because most people believe the role-play and story of a pen and paper RPG is its most important aspect. They may even go so far as to believe that the rules and mechanics exist only in service of that. I've certainly met very many people who'd say that openly. So, when they make a character(or an encounter, an NPC, or anything) the 'idea' isn't just the most important thing to them: It's the only thing that matters. We talked about unoptimized or deliberately 'bad' characters before, and this is where that starts too. Assuming we don't attribute the malice, spite or other negative things to this practice which are often(but not always) present, they 'accept' a bad character because they're using the mechanics solely to fit to their pre-existing concept.

Before I continue, let's talk about kink shaming. This is whenever you make someone feel bad for what they're sexually attracted to. Most people don't really know what they're doing when this happens. Some fetishes are just funny to outsiders, you know? So we see adult baby fetish, sissies, or even basic BDSM fetish and laugh our guts out at how dumb it is. It's okay to think it's funny on some level, obviously. We can't help that. However, when you go too far or worse, start criticizing or mocking it seriously, you're making someone else feel bad for something they can't help.

So yeah, I'm making that comparison. We're going there.  People can't help what they enjoy and trying to tell them they're playing the game 'wrong' when it doesn't impact anyone else is pretty shitty of you. Even if I had no other point to discuss, this would still be true. Even if they were right and I was wrong, trying to force or convince someone to enjoy something your way still wouldn't be very nice. If a person has a personality, a background and a set of stats when they show up, it isn't impacting your experience.

I'm not gonna pretend we're not talking about a larger issue, though. Mechanics focused theorycrafting, emphasis on mechanics or rules, or even just discussing cool abilities sometimes gets you a reputation as a "munchkin", or at least gets people tsk-tsking at you. I'm often standing in defense of mechanics enjoyment, but only because the other side of this(roleplay focused) is often the aggressor. I firmly believe both are equally important to the hobby and, if you find your group prefers to lean one way or another, it's best to find a system that fits you better. People who love games focused on interpersonal relationships and story focus will love the Apocalypse system. More on that in another post.

So now that everyone knows I'm the man in the middle of this, I'm gonna try to explain where misconceptions are coming from, in no particular order. Now, I (and a lot of people) put together outlines or pregen characters, often without regard for their background or personality. I do sometimes put together backgrounds or other descriptives, but it's rarer. There's several reasons for this. The first is that mechanics are often far more universal. GMs will sometimes introduce house rules that will make you want to change a build, but that doesn't often happen. Most house rules, if they're even introduced, are sweeping changes that you can't 'build' for like "Armor as DR" or its sister rule "Class AC Bonus". Character histories, however, can vary wildly based on the world the game is set in, or even the other player characters. You'll often want to tailor it to specific world concepts or events or include something to tie you to someone else's idea. This happens often enough that I'm often hesitant to fill out character histories, instead keeping them in my head.

Can someone else's character make me want to change a mechanical build? Absolutely! Does that happen as often? Not to me it doesn't. If it DOES happen, is it way easier to alter a build than a history? Absolutely. Maybe it's just me, but shuffling some feats around just doesn't compare to altering a whole story or background.

But we should build our characters together. We never do that. We never build characters that work together.

Come with Papa Mousetrap on an uncomfortable little tangent. I used to hear this a lot, usually from people who were annoyed that I showed up with an idea ready. I have to say I've never felt as though I was building a truly complementary character to another person. Even when agreeing to do that. Even when talking, at length, with the party about what to build. Even around people who seriously believe in the (now ancient) idea of the perfect party balance. The whole idea of complementary builds is kind of ephemeral anyway, outside of super deliberate stuff like D20's "Teamwork" feats. Which aren't even very good. What's complementary to someone's character is often pretty arguable, open to interpretation. I feel like a lot of the time I've heard this someone just wanted to drag me down to their (unprepared) level by making me think of a new character.

I always try to do something with the other characters, though. In terms of the role-play aspect of the game. Even if it's themes, or preplanned story points or something. The thing is, it's pretty easy to fit a build into these. That's why I always hesitate to write out backgrounds. Builds and backgrounds can often be treated as separate. Not entirely, of course, but I can usually plug a build in pretty easily. Backgrounds that exist as a collection of ideas and not rote definition can be more easily molded into someone else's concept, adding a family, friend or confidant. A build that is only an idea isn't including wiggle room...it's just undefined. Shuffling around skills, cyberware, feats, powers, et cetera is pretty easy, and often not even required.


Talk about mechanics is often more compelling than backgrounds because it comes from a place that already has structure. It creates rigor that not everyone can include into a discussion of backgrounds, personalities or themes. It's not that mechanics are more fascinating than roleplay, it's that they're easier to talk about. Pure art is often subjective, and mechanics, on some level, aren't. You can argue if you like or dislike a class, but there will be provable facts about it regardless of your opinion.

There's also the idea of inspiration, though. Some people get inspired from different places, and that's obviously where they're going to start with their character. Ray, the person who inspired this whole post, has a reputation for getting excited about mechanics. Usually he'll see a cool ability and want to center a character around it. That's where he starts with his concepts.

He always shows up with a personality and a background. However, because he has this reputation of being excited primarily about abilities, people seem to think he's "doing it wrong" or ignoring the more important aspect of gaming. He's even been through people forcing him to build a character "the right way" in some of the most insulting, condescending GMing I've ever seen.  I won't go into that today, except to say the whole game was a massive disaster.

His characters may have similar themes, but we all do. He shows up with a great character, then gets crapped on. It's happened way less lately, thank god, but it does every once in a while. Ray shrugs it off, though...so why am I always a little protective of him?

You get upset at inequality, right? Everyone does. You ever see someone get chewed out for something you've been doing for years? That's right, me and Ray build characters exactly the same way, most of the time. I'll admit to coming up with a concept first sometimes, but usually that's really deliberate, like my attempt to challenge myself with Elle Arcineau. I nearly always draw inspiration from some cool combination, build, class, or even feat. I do that, then I build outward from there. Class and build gives me ideas on description. Personality. Story beats or backgrounds. I start with mechanics more often than not.

So why does Ray catch shit and I don't? Well, beyond people talking behind my back about this and me never knowing about it, I really couldn't say. He's...louder than me? I guess he is, anyway. Nobody should be lectured on something so trivial as where they got their inspiration, though. Or worse, forced to build a certain way or have their stats dictated solely by what someone else thinks of their predefined background. The arguing and pedantry that goes along with this is so tedious. Real people are weird, and have weird, wild lives but for some reason a lot of people are far more strict with justification of PC stats than they would be with real people. I've heard a lot of it.

I don't think a video store clerk would have anything more than 4 in firearms.

If your character is a pilot he wouldn't have that.

Nobody would install this cyberware on that person.

If you were a Y you wouldn't have Z.

No X would ever Y or Z.

Pointless! Pointless arguing and nitpicking that causes anxiety. I mean, I haven't even gotten into that. Having to play a deliberately inefficient character gives me anxiety. I hate it. I don't like playing a character I know could be better with simple fixes or changes. Even having to live with uneven stat points in D20 annoys me greatly. This is why I like systems with wiggle room where a few skill points, some spell choices or a feat aren't a big deal and can be 'absorbed' into a build to justify a background. I can totally play a noble or diplomat just by pumping ranks into diplomacy. I don't have to be amazing at it, skill points aren't that restrictive. Certainly less restrictive than ability scores. If you told me like someone told Ray that I had to define my entire background and then the GM would hand pick my character's build based on that, I would hate it. I would hate it on the level of not wanting to play. There would be no care put into the build, statistics would feel like they're placed randomly to me, even if they weren't. It would be, at best, a serious drag factor to my enjoyment.

And for what? For someone else's satisfaction that I finally built my character "Right" "For once"? I'm not going to go off onto the tangent of explaining why poor characters don't make for better roleplayers, because I've already done that. Instead I'm just going to close with the same advice that I gave like a year ago when I briefly went into this concept.

So long as someone still shows up with a background and personality and role-plays as seriously as everyone else...let it go, man.