RolePlay onLine RPoL Logo

, welcome to Community Chat

15:04, 28th March 2024 (GMT+0)

Newness of Characters.

Posted by andreamus
Jhaelan
member, 155 posts
Prefers roles to rolls
Based in UTC+1
Mon 28 Nov 2016
at 20:15
  • msg #2

Newness of Characters

New build 95% of the time, though with the number of campaigns that fail to make it past two hundred posts I'm tempted to recycle
Hunter
member, 1345 posts
Captain Oblivious!
Lurker
Mon 28 Nov 2016
at 20:18
  • msg #3

Re: Newness of Characters

Jhaelan:
New build 95% of the time, though with the number of campaigns that fail to make it past two hundred posts I'm tempted to recycle


So much this.    How many times do you have to make a new character and character concept only to watch the game fail before you start recycling?   It's not as much as you think.     I've been a gamer on and off since the mid 1980s . . . so I can tell you that it's not a new phenomena.

There's also another twist to it: If you have an idea that works, you stick to it.
PCO.Spvnky
member, 306 posts
Mon 28 Nov 2016
at 20:34
  • msg #4

Re: Newness of Characters

Depends on the game.  Sometimes I submit new character concepts but many times I don't.  I have a couple of characters that I really spent a lot of time on and the gm bailed, my love for those characters is why I resubmit them.  Another reason for recycling is that if I spend 3-4 hrs (or even longer in some cases) coming up with a new concept and that game dies I get irritated.  I don't understand how a gm can expect you to put in such a massive amount of work for a concept only to drop the game (the majority of the time) when life has become a little inconvenient.
Darbbackwards
member, 180 posts
My name is Brad, which is
darb spelled backwards
Mon 28 Nov 2016
at 21:01
  • msg #5

Re: Newness of Characters

I mostly treat my characters like resumes. I have a general backstory for a warrior, a magic user, and a stealth specialist. Depending on the game/campaign I'll tweak those, but usually have a character 60% or so ready to go. I stick to PF & D&D, where the actual numbers can be fleshed out quickly once the concept is created.
Briel
member, 19 posts
Mon 28 Nov 2016
at 21:40
  • msg #6

Re: Newness of Characters

Hunter:
Jhaelan:
New build 95% of the time, though with the number of campaigns that fail to make it past two hundred posts I'm tempted to recycle


So much this.    How many times do you have to make a new character and character concept only to watch the game fail before you start recycling?   It's not as much as you think.     I've been a gamer on and off since the mid 1980s . . . so I can tell you that it's not a new phenomena.

There's also another twist to it: If you have an idea that works, you stick to it.


Agreed.  So many games fail to get up enough steam to play a character long enough to "complete" that character that recycling is inevitable.  If I get 30-50 posts in a game that dies 1,000 posts in, I'm probably not done with that concept yet.

It also isn't uncommon, if you stick to a general theme of games, to see characters lifted 95% from games you were in previously.  I usually don't say anything, because finding a game that will last is tough.
Tyr Hawk
member, 255 posts
You know that one guy?
Yeah, that's me.
Mon 28 Nov 2016
at 22:28
  • msg #7

Re: Newness of Characters

I'll be honest: I've done it, and I'll do it again. I have a flurry of my own reasons for it, but I think the main contention comes down to this...

PCO.Spvnky:
I don't understand how a gm can expect you to put in such a massive amount of work for a concept only to drop the game (the majority of the time) when life has become a little inconvenient.

Though it's a little more than just this.

Disclaimer: I am only speaking from my own experiences here, not saying this is universal.

First off, Spvnky has a valid point. Why should a player always be expected to create a new character for a game? Heaven knows Tolkien didn't do that (Gandalf is a main player in both The Hobbit and Lord of the Rings? Puh-lease), and nor did Nintendo when they reused Mario for everything under the sun (Maybe this time he can... Jetski? Have we had him do that yet?). Characters get reused everywhere and all the time, yet somehow we, as a community, have found the practice distasteful when going from game to game. Where did it come from?

Well, part of it is that there are certain expectations a player might have when they bring a character they previously used to the table. They might have a huge backstory plotted out and NPCs they want to include and a host of other things and, well, that can be a problem is those things don't mesh well with the GM's story. Where exactly did this princess come from if there's no such thing as princesses in the world? And that's a fair thing to ask, but it's also something a GM can work with, or they can say no. And both are okay, but it shouldn't be a no just because someone pulled their character from a previous game. What if it does work out to have a princess from a neighboring country with her three bumbling bodyguards in the story, and if you hadn't known she was from a previous game? That's the litmus test I always use: What if no one knew the character was from another game? If they work, why not? If they don't, then it's because the character doesn't fit, not because of some prejudice.

Part of it is also that players bringing leftovers to the table can make a GM feel like the player doesn't care as much about their game. That's more of an ego thing, more often than not, but it's also at least somewhat valid. Obviously, at some point, you cared enough to make an entirely new character for some game or story, so why not theirs? What was so special about this other story that isn't special about the other one? And, again, those are fair questions to ask, but realizing that some people have passions for their character instead of your story isn't a bad thing. They want to play that character, and that will bring them back each day (or week, or whatever) just as well as your gripping storyline. And, who knows, maybe that storyline will be the one that finalizes the character in that person's mind, or maybe not. Either way, it's okay so long as they show up and play well, no?

And part of it, truly, is because there's an obsession with being original. Original Characters (OCs) are a passion for some people. Original storylines, or original takes on them, are why we're all here, isn't it? No one wants to just play through all of the exact moments in the Harry Potter series exactly as they happened with no deviations or extra details. That would just be a very long way of rewriting the book in screenplay format, and people have already done that (but even they took liberties!). So, yes, wanting original content for your original story in what may or may not be an original world is great and all, but keep in mind that you didn't (in most cases) develop the system or the setting, and that it's probably all been done in some way, shape, or form before.

I'll admit it: I may be a little sore about this subject. I've been rejected from a few games for bringing in an old character, and I've been met with a healthy amount of skepticism about my commitment to a game just because I was upfront about reusing something. Heck, I've even been on the other side of the argument at times, arguing why an old character shouldn't be used for something, or poking fun at people who just make the same character over and over. In the end though, reusing characters is something that a person can choose to do, and it's not any more or less valid than creating a new character every single time. It's not always about laziness, or apathy, or a lack of originality. Reusing character can be about eagerness, passion, and a desire to finally see the story they feel a character deserves.

And that brings us all the way back to Spvnky's point, which I think boils down (or, rather, up) to this:

If you want someone to be excited for your game, to put effort into it, to dedicate themselves to the story and the world and the party and whatever else, you need to understand that you have to earn that. And you don't earn it by simply making a game and putting up an LFP. You earn it by running games where that passion they might have isn't dashed against the rocks a month or two later. You earn it by realizing that even if you've run 100 successful games before, if you haven't run one for that player then you still haven't earned it with them quite yet. You earn it by rewarding players for wanting to join your game, not punishing them for being cautious with their limited time and creative energy. Because until you're known for being the GM that lets characters live, you're just another faceless GM that might throw away that original character on a whim.

But, and just to be 100% clear, I won't touch (and won't accept) official canon characters in any game I'm in, player or GM. Because, you know, we all have our biases. ;)
PCO.Spvnky
member, 308 posts
Mon 28 Nov 2016
at 22:38
  • msg #8

Re: Newness of Characters

Very well said Tyr Hawk.  I would also point out that players who "reuse" characters IMO are far more likely to stick with a game because of the fact that they have a personal investment in their character, as opposed to a person who discards every character they make for a new one.  I only reuse concepts that I have fallen in love with and really want to play.  I have two that I am pretty sure i will never get to play but I put them forth to every game that I find for the systems they belong to.
Novocrane
member, 290 posts
Mon 28 Nov 2016
at 23:11
  • msg #9

Re: Newness of Characters

It doesn't strike me that either screening players for GM preference or reusing character ideas is a bad thing, provided one doesn't run rampant.

One or two players IRL have shown me the trifecta of not knowing the rules, not paying attention, and never creating a new character. I found it underwhelming, just eviscerating any possible fun to be had roleplaying alongside them. Each time was entirely unlike the return of a well-known character from a professional production. (I would make an exception for Jar Jar ... but that would be unfair to Jar Jar)

Presumably some other people have had similar experiences, and "it's easier to screen for repeats" has flanderised into "repeats are bad".

For myself, orphaned RPOL sheets end up in recycling unless I really like something about the character that won't translate well to a new character. I do find it mildly offensive that one might consider that a better or worse trait for a player.
Novocrane
member, 291 posts
Mon 28 Nov 2016
at 23:20
  • msg #10

Re: Newness of Characters

Also;
quote:
I only reuse concepts that I have fallen in love with and really want to play.
Sometimes this can prevent a player seeing their character from other perspectives or with objectivity in mind.
Tyr Hawk
member, 256 posts
You know that one guy?
Yeah, that's me.
Mon 28 Nov 2016
at 23:44
  • msg #11

Re: Newness of Characters

Novocrane:
Sometimes this can prevent a player seeing their character from other perspectives or with objectivity in mind.

Is anyone really objective about their character? Of course you can be, but at first blush? When you're just making them and haven't really had the chance to experience them? Is it better to be objective about a character you love? A person you love? Is it better to see your character from a perspective where they lose a bit of what makes you like them?

I might gain a deeper insight into the human psyche and the author's intentions if I look into the nuances of Harry Potter, but is it that really better than just liking him because of all the cool things he's done? Maybe, maybe not, but I don't think it's someone else's place to judge whether or not me loving a character is a bad thing unless it's hurting the game or other players. So long as I'm not being a bad player, need I be objective about my character?

I know (well, I assume) that you don't really mean it this way. You want people to look at their characters a second time, judge whether or not they're really meant for a game or if they might be improved by reexamination into something even more loveable, but I like to be the Devil's Advocate, and I wouldn't want anyone to not hear all sides. You know, so they can see the other perspective and look at the argument objectively. ;D
Novocrane
member, 292 posts
Tue 29 Nov 2016
at 00:50
  • msg #12

Re: Newness of Characters

Seeing the character without getting mired in feelings. Whether that means improvement, or keeping them as grounded as befits the setting/system. It's a continuing process, rather than something to tick off as 'done', and not knowing the character is the perfect reason to put some effort into doing so.
quote:
is it that really better than just liking him because of all the cool things he's done?
If all a player can see of their character is that they're cool and do cool things, then what happens at other times, when there's no real opportunity for cool? It can come as a surprise when they're forced to think about the character in a new context - or stall posting about less than cool moments when everyone wants their Cool Time™. Which in turn can make Cool Time™ less engaging, as the various characters operate without a sense of interpersonal relationships.
Maybe that's just my perspective. :)

quote:
I don't think it's someone else's place to judge whether or not me loving a character is a bad thing unless it's hurting the game or other players

So long as I'm not being a bad player, need I be objective about my character?
There's a nit to pick. Not necessarily whether someone is a 'bad player', but 'bad for this group/gm'.

By the nature of PbP, once you're at the point of absolute certainty regarding someone's most beloved (or 5 minutes old) character not being the right fit, the game can already be considered a sinking ship.
This message was last edited by the user at 00:50, Tue 29 Nov 2016.
PCO.Spvnky
member, 309 posts
Tue 29 Nov 2016
at 01:46
  • msg #13

Re: Newness of Characters

Novocrane:
'bad for this group/gm'.

 I feel that this is what the gm is supposed to think about.  If I see a rtj that absolutely does not fit the character concept then why bother submitting it.

Novocrane:
If all a player can see of their character is that they're cool and do cool things


I do not however fall in love with cool things, I fall in love with deep backstories that I create to go along with the character.  I have modified the story at times to fit into a specific group also.
GreyGriffin
member, 43 posts
Tue 29 Nov 2016
at 02:27
  • msg #14

Re: Newness of Characters

Reusing a character concept is just good practice.  As a player, you often don't get to flex a character as much as you would like to.  A game dies.  It goes a different direction than you had hoped.  Why not search for fertile fields to cultivate that seed of an idea?

However, it must be done responsibly, and you have to extend some courtesy to the GM.  You can't just copy/paste a character from game to game.  You have to give some consideration the new setting, the new context, and especially the new game's theme and tone.  If you have a dozen NPCs and a handful of locations in your backstory without even trying to tie it in with the game's ouvre, the GM has every right to put the kibosh on it.

Purpose-built characters will usually have something that hooks them into the game's story directly.  That's their advantage over an import, in my opinion.  Too often a premade character is wrapped up in its own self-contained narrative, those hooks that a GM would build up already fastened to something in the too-fully realized backstory.  It gives the impression that they are there to be part of their own drama, rather than participants in a cooperative story.

Buy-in is also important.  Going through some effort to prune your backstory and expose your plot hooks and tie your significant life events into the setting the GM is running, even if it means substantially altering the character, should prove that even though some of the roots of the character are the same you're there for that game, not just for your character.
Tyr Hawk
member, 257 posts
You know that one guy?
Yeah, that's me.
Tue 29 Nov 2016
at 04:41
  • msg #15

Re: Newness of Characters

In reply to GreyGriffin (msg # 14):

Well-said. You make a lot of good points, especially about making certain that your character fits into the theme and tone of the game.

That being said, I may have mentioned that I like to play Devil's Advocate so... here goes.

GreyGriffin:
You can't just copy/paste a character from game to game.

This isn't entirely true. You can do this, especially if the GM is running a system with an established setting. At most, you just need to make certain you can be wherever the game starts because, and I think this is important, most GMs are looking for a character with details. The dozen NPCs and locations you mentioned are a goldmine for many GMs, even if the player has done nothing more than just present them. It saves GMs time, effort, and (most importantly) it gives them a more-significant basis to incorporate the character into the game if they don't contradict whatever they already had.

Yes, this is in-line with what you said, but it's different in an important message: The GM's vision of the game at the outset might not be the one that carries forward into actual gameplay. Maybe they start off thinking things will be pretty dark, but through conversations with the potential players about what they want to see, there's a lot more action to be had, maybe even some romance. A character you literally just copied and pasted from another game can bring that discussion into the light instead of having it sit unhad in the back of everyone's mind. It can make it easier for the GM to know what sort of game you want to be in, and if there are a few more people like you with good ideas and similar characters, why stick with a theme that gets you the less-excited players?

Also, I take a bit of offense to the term "purpose-built" being used to describe "game-specific" characters. Every character is built with a purpose, even if that purpose is just to alleviate boredom on a Sunday night, or to see just how many Attacks/Round you can really make a Druid have. But I know what you really mean and so I'll say this: How many RTJs do you look at where players really have more than a hook or two to the story? And, more to the point, why can't the hooks the reused character provides go into the story? Sure, they might not immediately fit, but most characters, even those built for a specific game, are still focused on the character specifically unless you do character generation in a group. Half of the time (the half where I don't do group chargen, because I love group chargen), I would prefer a character that brought those 15+ plot points from their backstory rather than the one who made their character specifically for my game.

And, finally,
GreyGriffin:
... even if it means substantially altering the character... you're there for that game, not just for your character.

Sometimes this isn't an option. I have some characters that simply wouldn't be that character if they were significantly altered, they would be new characters from the same outline. A transfer of an outline isn't a transfer of a character, although the point between character and outline can vary from person to person.

But, even then, the real issue comes with being there for that game instead of just for your character. People game for different reasons, and with different goals. While it's the GMs duty (not job, unless they get paid) to try and mesh differing styles and desires, it's not wrong to want to play in a game specifically so you can play your favorite character, anymore than it's not wrong to play in a system because you like the way it helps you build that character. A game is a medium to enjoyment, and (again) so long as you aren't ruining anyone else's fun, show up, follow the rules, and post reliably, what should it matter if you're there for the game or for your own reasons?


And back to one other thing...
PCO.Spvnky:
Novocrane:
If all a player can see of their character is that they're cool and do cool things

I do not however fall in love with cool things, I fall in love with deep backstories that I create to go along with the character.  I have modified the story at times to fit into a specific group also.

As Spvnky again points out very well, it's not always about loving that they're cool all the time. While I'll admit I may have made it sound that way, what I meant was that I like Harry Potter because he does cool things when the story calls for him to. He doesn't always do them, because there are long stretches where he doesn't, but when he does I like how he does those things, and his outlook on certain subjects (though not romantic interests). What you describe though isn't unique to reused characters, it's something unique to individual players that would have that issue with any character. At least by bringing their reused wizard into multiple games they might have a real chance at seeing the other sides to the character. They might get to experience that "aha" moment when it clicks that they aren't always good at everything, or that the character might do better with some tweaks here and there.

Imagine if you woke up every day as someone knew. No past, no memories except for vague dreams about past lives. Would you grow as quickly or as well in your pursuits? You'd need to relearn things over and over and over. Well, that's what we're doing because we're afraid of things that, as I believe you put it, are really just a shorthand for bad players (which is a term I'm using again because I believe there are objectively bad players. Not that all bad players are unsaveable, just that some are bad). I'm just saying that we might need to reassess. ;)

/end Devil's Advocacy... for now.
JxJxA
member, 178 posts
Tue 29 Nov 2016
at 05:36
  • msg #16

Re: Newness of Characters

Back to the original post (because I don't think it was casting judgment on the practice), I think the exact version you're talking about---building a character and then applying to games until it gets a home---isn't too common. However, it does happen (check out the GM wanted thread for a few examples of people openly doing that). I had one player do that to me in a game I ran. I was surprised by the depth of backstory, and it took me a while to realize that it was probably from a past game. When I had to stop running it due to real life, I remember checking a similar game because I wanted a chance to play. When I checked the cast list, lo and behold, that character was in that game, too (same backstory, too)!

Lesser degrees of it are more common judging from above posts and my own experience. I have a few concepts in my pocket that I apply with from games that have fizzled or from fiddling around with the rule system. However, I always redesign the character's background and personality to fit the new game. I have, however, never taken a character from a dead game and plop it into a new one without adjusting it to the game. I've seen people try to do it (from a player's and a GM's perspective), and it always feels cheesy.

Just my worthless 2 cents.
facemaker329
member, 6866 posts
Gaming for over 30
years, and counting!
Tue 29 Nov 2016
at 07:26
  • msg #17

Re: Newness of Characters

Speaking from my own experience...

Having been on RPOL for...close to a decade now, I think (I don't remember when I first joined, anymore), there have only been two games where I took an existing character down from the proverbial shelf, dusted him off, and said, "Can I play this one?"  And even then, it wasn't so much importing an existing character as it was rebooting a character that I'd played for years in a tabletop game...done partly out of curiosity to see how the character would evolve when surrounded by a totally different set of characters and circumstances (plus my own altered perception of what would work, with twenty-five years of experience with life and people and all that...)

Most of the time, when I'm looking at games that interest me, part of what induces me to send RTJs is the realization that, over the course of reading the game information, a character has started to gel in my mind and now I want to see if he's going to work.  There's only been the one time where I read a game ad, looked into the game itself, and thought, "Hey...this one that I haven't played in a while would fit in nicely here..."

*shrug* Wrong or right, that's just the way my mind works.  Unless I had an exceptionally good time with a character...or really loved the concept and never got a chance to really see how well it worked...I don't typically think about using an old character for a new scenario (unless the scenario is a continuation of a campaign...)  And in more than a few of the games I've played here, character creation becomes kind of a collaborative thing, where extra details that tie the group together and build specific connections between characters come into existence...and, I feel, I do that better when I'm not trying to adjust an existing character into a different game than he was created for.  All the old baggage can get in my way (the two that I rebooted were both 'lone-wolf' characters that could operate in a group, but they weren't part of an existing group starting the game, so that wasn't an issue, there...)
nauthiz
member, 494 posts
Tue 29 Nov 2016
at 08:17
  • msg #18

Re: Newness of Characters

I don't think I've ever played the same exact character, soup to nuts, in multiple games.

I have however taken a pre-existing character (usually one that was made for another game that never really came to fruition for whatever reason) and then tweaked them to fit into a new game.

Sometimes you really have a hankering to play a certain type of character, or you really just want to play in a certain system/genre that has a low success rate, so it can make sense to shave a bit here and add a bit there to make your peg fit the RTJ hole rather than making something completely new from scratch each time.
jamat
member, 482 posts
P:5 T:7 W:0 F:0 B:3
Tue 29 Nov 2016
at 14:16
  • msg #19

Re: Newness of Characters

Tend to be new characters for each game unless a game RTJ asks for three concepts then I tend to store the other two if I think they are good enough and if a game using the same rules turns up later in the year and one fits the setting I will recycle one of them for it....not need to reinvent the wheel each time if you don't have to.
HornetCorset
member, 263 posts
Tue 29 Nov 2016
at 16:57
  • msg #20

Re: Newness of Characters

The first character I ever used was a concept I had built a while back and didn't know what I was doing. After that, every character has been a unique concept, unless I feel like they didn't really get a full run. I've had three Oreadins, two Miasannas, and only one Smock but that one's about to change.

I also had a Deadlands character I've been meaning to put into a Don't Starve mod, but I don't think that counts.
Utsukushi
member, 1389 posts
I should really stay out
of this, I know...but...
Tue 29 Nov 2016
at 21:26
  • msg #21

Re: Newness of Characters

I have a small, but growing, handful of dearly loved characters that I want to re-use somewhere.  And I totally agree with the logic that it makes sense to recycle sometimes -- saving effort, letting you hold on to a really fun backstory, etc.

But whenever I try to do it... I don't know.  As a few other people have sort of suggested, in my head, my characters are people who existed in a certain place.  More like people I knew than things I made up.  It's pretty well documented that the human brain, especially emotionally, doesn't handle the difference between fantasy and reality very well, so I don't think that's weird, or even uncommon.

But it means that if I try to take a character that I played here, and now I want to run them over here... well.  I've never yet had a case where I could reasonably keep that first game in their backstory, even just for my own comfort, and explain how they somehow got to this new place.  So it leaves me feeling like it's a big continuity error, and the couple of times I've tried, I've found myself totally disconnecting from the game and losing interest.  It just doesn't feel right.

Besides, like many players, I really do love making new characters.

So if I have a concept that I didn't get to `play out' enough, I may, after a while, look for a similar game, and offer a similar character.  But I've pretty much given up on trying to just transport one entirely.

Now, if I created a character for a game and never got to play them in it at all, I don't think I'd have that problem, and if another, sufficiently similar, game were to come up, I might offer the same one again.  They don't have any experiences yet to conflict with that.
smokinbarrel
member, 739 posts
Wed 30 Nov 2016
at 03:32
  • msg #22

Re: Newness of Characters

It's also not uncommon when GMs ask for character submissions with backgrounds more detailed than a FBI background check. Given the exacting detail of certain "interview processes", I understand keeping a few concepts handy, even if they're recycled. What if you answer the 35+ questions of some GMs, engage in back-and-forth, and still don't make the cut? That's time wasted for the hopeful player.
nuric
member, 2906 posts
Love D&D,superhero games
Not very computer savvy
Wed 30 Nov 2016
at 13:20
  • msg #23

Re: Newness of Characters

I've seen this topic get reintroduced and rehashed out every couple of years, and it always comes down to a personal preference.
But, in my biased opinion, when the question is whether to insist on new characters for a game or to reuse characters from game to game, the answer, like most answers, is somewhere in the middle.
While having players in your game import characters from other games can sometimes feel like your dating someone who's taking you to "that great restaurant that my ex-fiancée and I used to go to all the time", it's important for a Game Master to remember that the players are there to have fun, and not only is that easier for players who have a beloved character, but players with characters they already have an attachment to tend to stick around longer.
On the other hand, Players need to remember that they might need to be very flexible with their imported characters in order to fit the GMs game.  If my favorite character is "The son of a disgraced Roman senator who's battling in the gladiatorial pits to redeem his family name", I can't exactly ask the GM of a Middle Earth Elven campaign to make a Roman coliseum next to Rivendell just for me.
However, a "child of a 'disgraced person of importance' who's trying to redeem the family name" is a lot more versatile, and therefore viable.

I have made new characters for many games, but have about a dozen archetypes that I've reused at least ten times each, mostly because their games die quickly.   If I've played a concept in a long game, I'll certainly retire them for something new, but when I spend a month in real time building a character and her backstory, only to have the game die two days after if officially begins, I certainly don't want to throw the character on the scrap heap.   I've changed deities, homelands, races, and even genders, to make a character fit the current game, and as long as the part of the character I like isn't compromised, I'm still excited to play them.

Sure, some games have very specific requirements, or can otherwise inspire a new character idea from their setting or description, but as long as my character fits in, a recycled character I love is fine.
swordchucks
member, 1330 posts
Wed 30 Nov 2016
at 18:49
  • msg #24

Re: Newness of Characters

nuric:
somewhere in the middle

I think that's the way I feel, too.  I don't think I've ever actually reused a character, though I've certainly reused some of the core concepts of a character in a different game.  The only time I see this as being a real problem is when the player is trying to stubbornly shoehorn an entirely formed character without regard to the hole they're trying to shoehorn it into.
chupabob
member, 191 posts
Thu 1 Dec 2016
at 07:08
  • msg #25

Re: Newness of Characters

I've been known to do both. I generally prefer to build a character for a specific campaign, but that doesn't always work out. A lot of games are so generic or vague in their setting that they just don't lend themselves to character creation, so I go into my mental rolodex old characters and see who I can adapt for a new system or power level. That is not to say that some of these games are boring -- just broad. Also, I should note that many of the games popular here have a character creation system which is so long and involved that it just makes sense to use the same character in multiple games. Otherwise, we end up spending more time making our characters than playing them.
smokinbarrel
member, 748 posts
Thu 1 Dec 2016
at 07:37
  • msg #26

Re: Newness of Characters

/\This! Economy of Time, OP.
Sign In