The Mushroom Press Design Blog

Character Creation

This week I’m working on the character creation chapter of Brahamanda. It put in me in mind of the various types of character creation sections I’ve read, which ones were effective, and why.

There’s a sliding scale of character creation. Its poles are freeform or structured. On the structured end, you have a lot of Oldschool games (AD&D pops immediately to mind). You pick out the role and powers of your character from a list. On the far end of free form, you have games like Fate where even the stats on the character sheet are negotiable.

Back when I first started gaming in the mid-90’s, the structured form was highly dominant. Even the then avant-garde vampire the masquerade had you pick between clans of vampire (they even had vampire mages).

My guess is that designers were largely inspired by Dungeons and Dragons, which isn’t surprising. RIFTS prided itself on its character customizability, but I always felt like it cleaved closer to structure (albeit with tons of options).

Even in those early days though, there was no ubiquity. Games like Call of Cthulhu broke the mold, allowing you a lot of freedom.

Going back to vampire, I remember the first time that it was explained to me I was excited about how much I could customize my character. I could be a science nerd, or a jock, or a public accountant, or…

The kind of character generation informed the game that was played. In D&D, you had a role you were expected to fill; the game had a place for you and your choice was how to fulfil it. In Vampire, the role you filled (and how the game got played) was based on your decisions at character generation.

I greatly admire the freeform school of character generation, but I find a few flaws with it.

Most notably I’ve found it serves as a barrier to entry for a game. During the discussion of “What is this game about?”, it becomes difficult to pin down the further you wade into freeform territory.

ME: “Play this game with me!”

PLAYER: “Cool. What’s it about?

ME: “It can be about whatever you want! It’s a magical tapestry of creativity!”

PLAYER: “So it’s not about anything?”

ME: “Um…”

I’ve never had this problem with games that enforce a more rigid structure.

ME: “Play this different game with me!”

PLAYER: “Okay. What’s this one about?

ME: “You stab monsters.”

PLAYER: “…”

PLAYER: “Can I stab them with fire?”

ME: “Yes”

Another issue I’ve had, and definitely a more powerful critique, is the issue of character relevancy.

Being able to make a computer geek in a game of terrifying lords of the night can cause some powerful tonal dissonance. That’s not always a problem (tonal dissonance can be awesome) but it means in a high-stakes political intrigue between warring vampire clans, you can get stuck playing Urkel.

The problem isn't purely tonal either. There were a lot of times where I made a character in Vampire and sat on the sidelines during 9/10ths of an average session. Not because my character had nothing to do, but because I thought being a gravity-wizard would be cool, so I blew all of my build points on being able to levitate things and I couldn’t tie my shoes without falling on a stake.

So, with structured character generation, you sacrifice some player agency in order to be able to get playing quicker with a near-guarantee that your character will match the tone and form of the game. Which, in my estimation, is a lot like getting a college degree by trading your ability to shoot yourself in the face.

Fate does a pretty remarkable job of taking the extreme of free-form and coupling it with mechanics that guarantee your relevancy, which is impressive rules tech. It leans very strongly on the social contract to enforce tonality though. It also asks you for a lot of information about your character up-front, which can be intimidating for a casual player.

With Brahamanda!!! I wanted something simple and concrete. It’s been designed so that there are wide customization options, but that the core mechanical relevancy of your character is never jeopardized.

Again this apes the genius of the previous game. The use of the central die-mechanic (the “Lake”) and the careful choice of skills meant that you couldn’t actually make a character that wasn’t some variety of kung-fu badass. But you could be a doctor, a courtier, a warrior who could blast lighting from his nose, etc.

I wanted to retain this brilliant mix of ease of character creation, high degree of customization, and guaranteed mechanical relevancy.

As with those games, we designed a massive list of special kung-fu which could be selected to customize your character. We’ve grouped them by theme and clarified what each can do. It’s now very easy to try, for example, a fast build, or a strong build, or tough, or ranged.

There are now distinct “tiers” of play, with a clean discussion of what to expect at each. This helps inform game experience and is a useful tool for GMs and players to discuss their expectations of the game.

There are also, for the first time, a selection of Races to choose between. They are based on Hindu Mythology, as well as Chinese folklore. In addition to Humans, there are Preta, Uplifted Animals, Rakshasa, Asura and Deva.

The Loresheets of yore (which allowed you to “buy” certain plot threads, making them relevant to the story) have been greatly revised into a broader rule set called Dharma. These rules are a living part of the character, granting them character build and advancement options, a destiny, and a means for advancement. They even have unique consequences for violating your fate, driving play into exciting and unexpected directions!

So, for the casual gamer, we have a character creation system where a few high-impact decisions lead to a perfectly fun and playable character. For the discerning veteran, we have a vast amount of options to tinker with. The broadness of the Dharmas, coupled with robust rules for obeying or defying them, couple the ease of structure with the freedom to break the mold.

Not a bad compromise.