Entry tags:

dawn of fire, dnd

Characterization and System
Another topic here prompted by Adam Dray's comments. So I'm going to talk about rules system here for a bit, and its role in characterization. For these purposes, I'm calling "characterization" for how well the personality of the character comes across in the game. Adam comments,

I'm pretty strongly convinced that D&D isn't for you, no matter how far you drift it.

You talk about a "thicker layer of characterization as opposed to raw hard-core beat-the-monsters." You're not going to get that out of D&D without considerable rules changes, and then you're not playing D&D. You're playing John Kim D20 and it will have to be wildly different than the core rules before it makes you happy.

D&D's support for characterization is limited to racial stereotype, class-based stereotype, and alignment. You want more support than that.

I don't think you're analyzing my wants correctly. So I've tried characterization using D20 in my Conan RPG one-shot, Brawny Thews. I had six pregenerated PCs for that one -- cf. Brawny Thews PCs for their sheets. There were some rough spots since I was new to the system, and I couldn't quite get Eithriall to work. However, I think it wasn't bad despite the serious constraints I put on myself by having all six PCs be Cimmerian and at least half Barbarian. (See below for further notes on this.)

A basic principle of dramatic writing is that characterization flows from action rather than exposition. In game, this means that the character abilities should have the ability to represent differences in action. So labels aren't much use for characterization. For example, D&D alignment is generally passive -- mechanically it defines how things affect you (like spells), but you don't use alignment for action. Note that it might have other uses, but it isn't a very effective aid for characterization. Still, labels have their uses -- like costuming and make-up in other fields.

So what do I think helps the most? Options which are different mechanically rather than just in flavor text or narration. In many simple systems, differences are abstracted away. For example, in Over the Edge I might have one character who has "Hulking Brutal Thug 4d6" and one who has "Skillful Martial Artist 4d6". Mechanically these two characters will be identical in a fight. The players can layer on top different descriptions of what their character is doing, so the practical result can have characterization. However, the system isn't helping -- it's only providing a difference in label, whereas the action is the same.

I'm fairly skeptical of systems which rely on player-defined traits. I've used them and had fun, but by contrast a lot of other people seem to consider them a required part of design. One issue I have I went over in a Forge thread, John's Standard Rant #1: Freeform Traits. Most freeform traits mechanically encourage the players to take as generic as possible -- i.e. like "Lucky" or "Talented". In practice, the GM can forbid these or the players can voluntarily penalize themselves, but that's fighting against what the system rewards. Another problem is the lack of mechanical differentiation that I mentioned above. Freeform traits can differ in when they apply, but not usually in what effect they have -- whereas fixed traits can specify different mechanical effect.

Going back to the example of the Brawny Thews PCs...

The character sheets may be opaque to many readers, so I'll try to explain some. This is a combat-heavy event, so their character shows up most notably in their fighting. A good example is the twins: Canbotha and Eanbotha. As identical twins, I gave them identical attributes but different class mixes. Eanbotha is the responsible son and is Barbarian/Soldier while Canbotha is the rebellious son, and is Barbarian/Thief. The responsible son Eanbotha fights armored, defensively, and heavily specialized in a weapon. He will generally concentrate on one foe, possibly working in coordination with his father to defeat it. The rebellious son Canbotha fights unarmored, also defensively, but in the wild manner -- tumbling into the midst of a group and striking all around with whatever weapon he happens on.

This is one which worked pretty well, I think. There are subtler differences, too, between the animal-friendly youth Daor and the more mature hero Cumal. (You can picture Daor as Marc Singer in The Beastmaster versus Cumal as Daniel Day-Lewis in Last of the Mohicans.) Both are Barbarian-8, which makes them very similar. However, Cumal is a two-axe fighter who spreads around many attacks, can do many Attacks of Opportunity if an enemy tries certain "tricky" moves around him, and excels at throwing his axes. He tends to go in the center and strike where needed. In contrast, Daor has Cleave and will tend go for a killing shot with his two-handed sword. (I could have emphasized this difference more without the class system, but it was there.) So mechanically, Daor has much simpler tactics -- hack at something until it falls and then move to the next. This fits his youthful passion. Cumal will stand in the middle to disrupt the enemy (lots of Attacks of Opportunity), accumulate damage more steadily, and strike where needed -- sometimes throwing to strike at non-adjacent enemies.

I haven't really tried the same with D&D characters, but I think potential is there. I may post later with experiments. So I'm not sure it'll work, but it seems possible. As Adam puts it:

Now, the level treadmill seems to be in the way, too. How much do you care about characters leveling up? It's going to be very hard to make 3E into a game that doesn't push players to Step On Up. They'll spend a lot of energy min-maxing classes and skills and feats. They'll spend a lot of energy earning XP so they can level up. They'll spend a lot of energy during play figuring out the most clever tactic during combat. If they have combat abilities and feats, they'll angle their adventures so they can use them often.

I agree, but I also don't think min-maxing is opposed to characterization. As long as there are a variety of paths, I think its a good thing. All games encourage rules-lawyery min-maxing, subjective wheedling, or both. I want to set up the game such that this has purpose and meaning. In my post-apocalyptic game, the player-characters should be ambitious and want to get better so as to protect both themselves and their community.