Topic: Faster Character Generation

[Arioch]

Another thread in the GM's section made me think that one of the disadvantages of RM is that creating a character takes a lot of time (expecially in FRP/SS). It really sucks to have your character killed in the middle of a session because you spent a lot of time creating him/her and because you cannot really create a new one immediatly, it would take too long to do it.

So I thought it would be cool to have a quick system to create characters (other than using a spreadsheet), better yet if it could be used to create characters almost instantly, to "replace" PCs that die in the middle of a session...
I like the depth and detail of RM character creation, so I would use this "quick" system as an option, only when the need arises.

Imho one of the things that make character creation so long is the vast amount of choices you have to make: you need to choose how to distribute stat points (or roll for them), DPs, Background Options... Reducing the choices you've to make (or spreading them throught time) should reduce the time needed to create a PC.

So, first of all I would use a set of pregenerated Stats (like in RMX), and a set number of DPs.
Then I'd give each profession a set of skills, to which a given number of ranks is assigned, much like Adolescence development (for example: a thief would gain X ranks in Sneaking, X in Hiding, X in Ambush, and so on...) [each set of skill would use more or less the same number of DPs, which should be already deducted when calculating the # of starting DPs].
Just add your racial adolescence ranks (maybe even hobby ranks should be fixed) and you'll have your "Base Character".

Base Characters can be used immediatly to join  the game, even if they've still to spend all their DPs (and they're a bit all alike).
When the remaining DPs should be spent?
During the game: when your character must check a skill you may choose to spend DPs in it and develop ranks as during normal character creation. So, for example, if your character has to jump a cliff you may choose to spend some of your DPs and buy him a couple of ranks in Jumping.
There are some of rules about spending DPs this way, though:
1) you may not buy more ranks than you could normally do in normal PC generation
2) you may not buy ranks in "profession skills" (skills given by profession)
3) if you buy ranks in a skill, then you may not buy other ranks until next level (so if you buy 1 rank in Jumping to jump that cliff, you may not buy another rank later, when you have to test your skill again)
4) you may not buy ranks in a skill if are not using it
5) you may not buy ranks in a skill if you've already tested it earlier and decided not to buy ranks in it
6) the GM may decide to veto your choice

If don't spend all your DPs during the session, after it you must spend the rest (all rules above except #4 still apply).

It may seems a little strange to develop skills as the need for them arises (maybe sounds a little like cheating, too), but keep in mind that the amount of DPs of "quick" characters will be probably lower than normal.

So, what do you think? Does it seems a good idea to you? Do you see any flaws?

[rdanhenry]

Rather than trying to "quick generate" characters, I'd do one of the following:

Keep some NPCs suitable for conversion to PCs around, so the player can continue to be part of the current adventure/"story"/scenario. Player may continue with this NPC afterward if it makes sense and the player wants to; if not, at least he's had time to work out his next character.

Encourage players to work on developing possible replacement characters during "downtime" in play -- when the party is split up and you are dealing with the other group or the character is out of the combat, but not actually dead yet (or if dead, it's time to finish up that new character).

Both these strategies apply the same principle: when character generation takes a significant amount of time, don't wait until you need a replacement character to get one ready.

Anyway, even in Rolemaster, most of the time required to create the character should be conceptual, not mechanical.

[markc]

 I use RMSS so my answers will be geared towords that system.
1) I do like the idea that you could have a set number of skills for a profession generated like training packages. But I would also have the max a pregen PC would have in pre-spent DP be equle to 50 DP. Then the player can spend the rest of there DP as they wish. You could even up the DP bought skills if your average DP per level is higher for what ever reason.
2) Can you do the same thing with TP's? So you would create a base TP for each profession that would be taken every level. But unlike TP's the player does not get the reduction in DP value for the level TP. Right now I ask my players to do something like this as it makes it easy to level up but I often find that the player will also have maybe 1 or 2 level packages which they pick from the highlight spells or other skills they see as important.
3) I would also vote for the PC taking over a NPC as IMO it makes it easyier to keep the flow of the game. In my game I also have the new PC come in one or more levels lower than thier last PC so it does give the player time time think about about there new PC. I also give them the Exp for playing the NPC.
4) In quite a few of my games I do have players create 2 PC's and they can pick which one they use in the adventure or sometimes they use both as the situation calls for it.
5) And my last recomendation is the same as allways do some tests and see how it works in your game.

MDC 

[Dark Schneider]

That only takes time first one for any player, I explain it, once you have created a character that likes to a player, you can use it as template for others, with minor changes.

[thrud]

Time spent with character generation depends a lot on where you are experiencewise and what rules you're using.
Give me half an hour and I'll throw something togeather for RMC, RMFRP will take a little longer.
Otoh once you start racking up all that experience the shift in focus will be obvious. The players start spending a lot of time in planing the actual character and you can't really speed that along very much.

I think it's counterproductive to use backup characters since it might shift the players focus. WHat if the bckup character turns out to be something really cool? Much better then the pc in play...

[Arioch]

Keep some NPCs suitable for conversion to PCs around, so the player can continue to be part of the current adventure/"story"/scenario. Player may continue with this NPC afterward if it makes sense and the player wants to; if not, at least he's had time to work out his next character.

Hmm... that's not a solution, you know? It's like saying: just make a lot of extra characters (without counting the time used to make them) and hope that if someone dies you've got a character that he likes.
What if he doesn't want to play one of these NPCs? Should I enforce him to play a character he don't like just because his PC died?

2) Can you do the same thing with TP's? So you would create a base TP for each profession that would be taken every level. But unlike TP's the player does not get the reduction in DP value for the level TP. Right now I ask my players to do something like this as it makes it easy to level up but I often find that the player will also have maybe 1 or 2 level packages which they pick from the highlight spells or other skills they see as important.

Yes, basically the "profession skills" works just as a special TP

And today I've came up with an additional rule for "in game" character development, a rule that should help defining a background for the PC:

7) When you buy a skill in game you MUST tell the other players how and when your character've learned it. For example, your character is about to jump from a roof to another to escape the city guards, the GM ask you to test your Jumping skill. You decide to spend X DPs and buy a couple of ranks in it, saying "I'm born in the streets, I've escaped the guards many times in a similar way before!".

This way you flesh out your character, giving him a background that's naturally linked to the flow of the game (as it grows in response to the needs of it)... it's like discovering your character little by little  

Still unsure on how to handle background options...

That only takes time first one for any player, I explain it, once you have created a character that likes to a player, you can use it as template for others, with minor changes.

Could you elaborate? I'm not sure if I've understood it correctly.

Give me half an hour and I'll throw something togeather for RMC, RMFRP will take a little longer.

Half an hour is a lot of time during the game... I would like to find a way to create a new character in about 10-15 minutes!

[Winterknight]

Despite all the nay-saying above, I think this is a valuable exercise, Arioch.  Character creation is one of the key opportunities to draw new players into a game, to get them excited about the game.  Yet, the very complexity that makes RM such a powerful game can be overwhelming to people who are used to much simpler systems, or those who have never played an RPG. 

So, I'd encourage you to pursue this.  I've also been recently toying with the idea of using a modified version of the official NPC character guidelines as a base for stats for players as well.  I think it would greatly speed up that end of it, and provide for more consistency/balance among starting characters. 

You might even find that your players like the on-the-fly RP aspects of fleshing out their characters as they go.  I think that's quite a clever take on this.  Personally, if I saw someone doing that in a game session, I'd want to do it also.  You might find that this approach becomes the preferred method for character development.

I'd be interested in seeing what you come up with as a final form.

[rdanhenry]

If you don't want to take over an NPC that is already part of the developing scenario, it will probably take more than 10-15 minutes to reach a point where a new character might suitably be introduced under circumstances that allow him to be integrated into the group, unless you think "You meet in a bar and spontaneously decide to trust each other with your very lives" is a rich and detailed backstory with which to introduce a campaign. Even then, I'm going to need a break in order to check over the character to make sure he'll be suitable before allow him anyway. In other words, if you want to keep the player part of the adventure, he's going to have to play an existing part. As I said, if he decides he doesn't like the character, he can make a new one at a suitable time, but the option allows him to keep playing for the moment. If the player decides to keep the NPC as his new PC, some adjustments can be done to tweak the character in line with the player's liking. If the player would rather sit out a couple of sessions than try something new, that's his choice.

OTOH, if he gets to play an NPC more powerful than the PCs (it could happen), he'll have to give it back and start a new character when the chance comes.

Placing an NPC for awhile is also a useful solution if the PC can be resurrected, but not right now or is otherwise out of commission for a sustained period.

I would not make a cookie-cutter copy of my last character. If I even made a same Profession character, it would be to try a different approach to it. (Outdoorsman Ranger v. Stealthy Killer Ranger or Melee-centric Fighter v. Missile-centric Fighter)

[RandalThor]

Arioch, I likey likey. Very cool. Have an idea point.

[Arioch]

If you don't want to take over an NPC that is already part of the developing scenario, it will probably take more than 10-15 minutes to reach a point where a new character might suitably be introduced under circumstances that allow him to be integrated into the group, unless you think "You meet in a bar and spontaneously decide to trust each other with your very lives" is a rich and detailed backstory with which to introduce a campaign.

Well, unless the campaign is set in a completely isolated place there are lots of ways to have the characters meet...  and suggestions on how the new PC can join the others can also be made by the players, as they can easily use their out game knowledge of the developments of the campaign to create interesting situations 

Arioch, I likey likey. Very cool. Have an idea point.

Thanks!

[naphta23]

Hmm... that's not a solution, you know? It's like saying: just make a lot of extra characters (without counting the time used to make them) and hope that if someone dies you've got a character that he likes.
What if he doesn't want to play one of these NPCs? Should I enforce him to play a character he don't like just because his PC died?

In my group, I offered the PCs an NPC to accompany the group, which they gladly accepted. The NPC had three purposes. The first purpose was to be a backup: he had a large amount of concussion hits and a pretty decent AT, so he could save the PCs necks, should the need arise. The second one was to offer the players a character they could play, should their own be out of order for a while. The last one was to provide some background information, but the players never took the time to chat with the NPC.

Most of the times, a PC gets injured or killed in a fight, and since fights can take some time, I give the player the NPC, which he can play until the fight is over. This way the player does not have to sit around and get bored, should his PC survive the combat, even though he cannot participate. After the fight, the (N)PC becomes an NPC once more and the players can discuss, what to do with the injured or probable dead PC.

I would never force a player to play a character he does not like, but I want to be able to offer him a temporary replacement, so he can still play the game and make a difference instead of becoming bored stiff during a fight.

But the other option you propose, to create the new PC while playing it, is also a great idea and I am looking forward to playtest it. Thanks a bunch! 

[Arioch]

Glad you like it 
Let me know if you happen to use it, since I will not be able to play for a few months and I'd like to know if it works!

[naphta23]

I am sorry, but that could take a while, too. 
The PCs just refuse to die.
The group has been playing this campaign for 6 years now and I need only one, perhaps two fingers to count the killed PCs. Since Rolemaster is quite lethal, the players tend to concentrate on roleplaying and to avoid combat (just another reason why I love Rolemaster  ).
Sure, some PCs and some players left, us using Fate Points helped to get the hell out of Dodge a few times, but nearly no red, red vino was spilled excessively.

Should the need arise, be it a PC pushing some daisies, be it a new, spontaneous player, I will let you know. 

[Arioch]

The PCs just refuse to die.

How selfish they are! Tell them that they should be happy to sacrifice their lives in the name of the RPG science!! 

[sunwolf]

Just transport them through a dimensional gateway to Alpha Complex for a while and have them report to their nearest termination center. 

[naphta23]

Just transport them through a dimensional gateway to Alpha Complex for a while and have them report to their nearest termination center. 

Did so once with my Shadowrun-group. After a few scenes it became obvious that this test if they could keep their countenance was pretty harsh. It was a wondrous lack of humor.

But seriously, as long as the group enjoys the game and does not annoy anybody, there is no need to desperately get rid of a character. Sure, there is an annoying character or another, but what the heck, there are also some not overwhelming pleasant persons in anybody's Real Life^TM. As long as it is entertaining, the whole shebang is not in need of a sudden and strict change. 

Back to topic: another merit of this character creation method is the character background - with each given information and development during play, the character can gain depth and background; in my current Rolemaster-group it seems to be part of the etiquette to not provide a character background. With players, who are not eagerly willing to provide a character background, this could be a good way to get it anyway. 

[Arioch]

Back to topic: another merit of this character creation method is the character background - with each given information and development during play, the character can gain depth and background; in my current Rolemaster-group it seems to be part of the etiquette to not provide a character background. With players, who are not eagerly willing to provide a character background, this could be a good way to get it anyway. 

Yeah, and maybe they'll discover that's actually fun to think about your PC's background! 
You know, I think that this fact was actually meant to be part of the system: you've got a skill? you should tell the others how did you learned that!
But the original authors never stated it clearly in the rules. They probably thought that it was obvious... but it isn't! And the proof are all the players that build their characters without giving a thought about his background.
Think how much would all of your games gained in terms of fun if the rules stated clearly that every character must (not should, must!) have a background and spent a few paragraphs describing how you can build one for your character!

[naphta23]

On the other hand: should a player spend some time to create a character - just the numbers -, and then write a detailed background, how devastating could it become¹, should the character gets killed by an absolutely unimportant random encounter? 
But hey, that is life, that is Rolemaster. 

By the way, there are some players you do not need a character background from, if you ask me. Their character is optimized and min-maxed, concentrating on any skill that seems to be a good bet, while discarding the rest. And I never received a background story that was written by such a player, that was barely worth reading after the first one. If you read one, you know most of any backgrounds this player has written: always a uber-competent professional, always a non-existent family, mostly some revenge.

So this character creation "on the fly" has its advantages - with such players I am unsure, but since I never had a character created that way, I do not know if there is a difference. But I will try and let you know, when the situation is given. 

¹Imagine a player that is relatively new to Rolemaster, spends much time to create a character he has in mind, he would like to play, writes an extensive background story, has already a concept and an idea how to explore the world with this character. He is eager to join the group and campaign, only to have the hero-to-be slaughtered in the first or second encounter. I guess you can have slaughter without laughter.

[GrumpyOldFart]

I took the "anyone can learn anything" concept of RM and applied gentle brakes to it back.... oh I dunno, decades ago.
Anyone can still learn anything, I have no problem with you min-maxing, if that's what you want, you go for it.... just one thing: You have to be able to explain to me how this makes sense within your character concept.
In other words, I tell them to get the concept, the story, in their heads before they start character creation, and I let em know that matching that concept trumps pretty much everything.

[markc]

 I give experience for background stories and other written stuff. Why? Well it takes time to do it right and just like face to face play it enrich's the game for the GM and the players.

MDC