Anyone else links personality with fighting style? On character creation

[King of Nowhere]

I realized that, on character creation, I tend to intertwine personality and fighting style for my pcs, and to a lesser extent for my npcs.
The monk who was hurt by an evil wizard as a child focused on defence, especially against magic, so that evil people could not hurt him again.
the old bigotic fighter with the "in my days we didn't have those fancy things" attitude focused on dispelling buffs and applying debuffs on hit, denying his opponents all those things he don't like.
the idealistic wizard who wants to improve the lives of people with magic focuses on buff and protection, reflecting his belief that magic should empower others.
the cold sniper is cold and detached in personal life too.
the bodyguard who takes a hit for his protegees is a religious fanatic who would gladly lay down his life for his god - and, by extension, for those his god deems less expendable.

I do it almost without realizing it. I start character creation by having a fighting style and a related personality trait; most of the times I'm not sure whether the personality trait or fighting style is the first seed of the character.
As an example, once the dm gave us a choice of special powers for a limited scope high level campaign, and I was reading the various powers and shooting blanks... until, on coming across one who could apply magical effects to weapons, I had a vision of this old geezer going like "in my days we didn't have no fancy buff spells!" and proceeding to dispel with an attack, and so the old fighter was born. In this case the fighting style came first.
In the wizard case, it started from a mechanical detail, a wizard with a vow of poverty. that expanded into a wizard from a modest family that went bankrupt to pay his studies, taking a vop to prove that you can do magic without being rich. that further expanded into a dreamer adventuring to reform society, and that pointed to a fighing style that was also a political manifesto for what should be the role of wizards in society. So in this case it started from a mechanical detail, but it was the personality that decided the fighting style.

I realized the rest of my group does not do that. they don't seem to fight in a way that reflects their personality and goals.

So I'm curious, are there many people out there that create characters like me? if not, what are the seeds of inspiration for character creation?

[Mordar]

I realized that, on character creation, I tend to intertwine personality and fighting style for my pcs, and to a lesser extent for my npcs.

I realized the rest of my group does not do that. they don't seem to fight in a way that reflects their personality and goals.

So I'm curious, are there many people out there that create characters like me? if not, what are the seeds of inspiration for character creation?

For me it has been game/situation dependent. Saw a lot of this playing Earthdawn, for instance...in no small part because your Discipline was more your view on life and how your magic worked, whereas "Class" can sometimes be straight swapped with "Profession". Shadowrun had less than Earthdawn but more than games like AD&D/Rolemaster/etc.

I guess I take that to mean that more expressive games see a greater linkage, and more broadly entrenched games with generalist perspective have less linkage between personality and fighting style.

- M

[Quertus]

Eh, reading this sister *ahem* teasing this apart can be tricky, but I’ll try.

History and backstory affecting personality? Absolutely. Always.

History affecting build? It can. I had a character who *should* have been a Wizard, but he grew up in a remote, isolated village, where getting such advanced training simply wasn’t an option, so he was a Rogue (with Focus on UMD) instead.

Personality affecting build? It can. Quertus, my signature academia mage for whom this account is named, took iirc 20 vorpal blades as “his share of the loot” because enshrining them in a museum commemorating “popcorn day”, the day when the demons exploding killed each other, sounded like the best use of his money to him.

Personally + History affecting build? It can. Some of my best characters are largely Jealousy/Envy based, growing primarily from wanting what they see.

Usually, however (at least IMO), the effects of personality are more granular, more subtle, and (again, IMO) more interesting. When it looks like hostilities may start, Armus moves to place himself between <someone with better defenses than he has> and the source of the potential danger… as (among other reasons) a means to provoke a reaction, allowing him a Sense Motive roll. It’s the fact that he subconsciously chooses such a defensive action as his means to provoke a reaction that might give the clever individual insight into his underlying personality, rather than his personality or history leading so directly to the build, the lower defenses, the action, or the optimization of the action.

My characters are rarely built with so Linear a connection between “personality” and “build”. “Having a lot of buff spells” could be the result training, random chance, optimization, ignorance, happenstance, or any number of other reasons; attempting to read too much into the personality behind the build isn’t likely to produce good results.

[Unoriginal]

I realized that, on character creation, I tend to intertwine personality and fighting style for my pcs, and to a lesser extent for my npcs.
The monk who was hurt by an evil wizard as a child focused on defence, especially against magic, so that evil people could not hurt him again.
the old bigotic fighter with the "in my days we didn't have those fancy things" attitude focused on dispelling buffs and applying debuffs on hit, denying his opponents all those things he don't like.
the idealistic wizard who wants to improve the lives of people with magic focuses on buff and protection, reflecting his belief that magic should empower others.
the cold sniper is cold and detached in personal life too.
the bodyguard who takes a hit for his protegees is a religious fanatic who would gladly lay down his life for his god - and, by extension, for those his god deems less expendable.

I do it almost without realizing it. I start character creation by having a fighting style and a related personality trait; most of the times I'm not sure whether the personality trait or fighting style is the first seed of the character.
As an example, once the dm gave us a choice of special powers for a limited scope high level campaign, and I was reading the various powers and shooting blanks... until, on coming across one who could apply magical effects to weapons, I had a vision of this old geezer going like "in my days we didn't have no fancy buff spells!" and proceeding to dispel with an attack, and so the old fighter was born. In this case the fighting style came first.
In the wizard case, it started from a mechanical detail, a wizard with a vow of poverty. that expanded into a wizard from a modest family that went bankrupt to pay his studies, taking a vop to prove that you can do magic without being rich. that further expanded into a dreamer adventuring to reform society, and that pointed to a fighing style that was also a political manifesto for what should be the role of wizards in society. So in this case it started from a mechanical detail, but it was the personality that decided the fighting style.

I realized the rest of my group does not do that. they don't seem to fight in a way that reflects their personality and goals.

So I'm curious, are there many people out there that create characters like me? if not, what are the seeds of inspiration for character creation?

How a character fights is a great way to showcase their personality and history. Be it for PCs or NPCs, I do it consciously and deliberately (although which between the fighting style and the personality comes first depends on circumstences).

I even thought about writing something to help people intertwine RP and combat like that, for a long time, though I haven't done it.

I also enjoy analysing how characters fight in fictional works and how it ties to the rest of their characterization.

Worth noting, it is pretty interesting when there is a situation where the character's usual fighting style won't work. It often reveals hidden depths (or lack thereof), showcases strengths and vulnerabilies, and/or offer a chance to grow.

[Quertus]

For me, characterization in combat is much less “build choices” and more… hmmm…

Target selection: A character might show that they are “vengeful” by attacking someone who attacked them, vs attacking someone who attacked one of their allies, attacking whoever is giving orders, attacking whoever is closest, attacking whoever is furthest, holding down a large group of enemies vs skirmishing the edges of their formation, attacking enemy resources, “going for the children”, etc.

And that’s just for “if they attack”. They might instead prioritize healing, buffing, Summoning, scenario manipulation, Diplomacy, or even running away. Which also say something about the character.

Resource usage: how they treat limited resources (their own and others’) can say a lot about a character. Quertus (my signature academia mage for whom this account is named) is usually *very* conservative with his resources; however, when he thought the party was outnumbered over 3:1 by demons (he’d never even heard of Hobgoblins), he spammed spells like crazy (that they were mostly *fire* spells shows how panicked he was).

Speaking of, “Whoa, whoa, whoa! We can't just go around sacrificing NPCs! Some of my best friends have been NPCs! ”

In other words, it’s just like every other *choice* the character makes - I let the character’s personality affect what choices they consider, and how they prioritize and implement those options.

[King of Nowhere]

For me, characterization in combat is much less “build choices” and more… hmmm…

the two are closely linked to each other, since you build your character to fight in a certain way.
firem, the adrenaline junkie monk, has a strong defensive build. his fighting style is to jump in the middle of large clusters of enemies, disabling them with the threat of attack of opportunitis. Now, did I build him with big defences to jump amid enemies, or did I start using this tactic because I found it viable, having high defences? Not really sure. probably a bit of both. I know for sure I took the attack of opportunity bits because the potential problem of every tank is, what happens if the enemy just ignores him. being able to trip and lock down all those around me makes me useful for the party, and synergizes well with the core concept of tanking.
outside combat, firem still jumps headfirst in every danger, which makes him a good scout. that's something that wasn't planned and evolved naturally. was it because it's firem's personality to seek danger and feel strong in defeating it, or was it because we realized the guy who can dodge all darts, takes no damage from falling into pits and is immune to poison really is the best qualified to look for traps? no idea, it grew organically.

besides, my table fights tactically. combat is a serious challenge, and we can't afford to just be goofing around. we must provide a modicum of competence, and that means that while I can pick my goofy fighting style, I must be optimized for it. I want to be optimized for it, and I like to be optimized for it. My characters all have quirks, and they all can be comedy reliefs. but they are also good at what they do. they didn't get to stay alive to high levels without learning to find strenght in their quirks, or at least to suppress them when they would be too disruptive.
Firem acts like he has a death wish, but he trained really hard to survive the dangers he seeks, and behaving that way makes use of his strenghts. gokkarlum, the old fighter, is a racist and a mysoginist, but he is also an experienced professional, and he can keep his mouth shut to avoid offending fellow pcs or important npcs if the mission requires it. panicking and doing something stupid in combat because the character is a goofball would not fit my table.
mechanically, this means optimizing the build to support the chosen style, and playing in a way that makes use of the character's strenghts.

[Quertus]

the two are closely linked to each other, since you build your character to fight in a certain way.
firem, the adrenaline junkie monk, has a strong defensive build. his fighting style is to jump in the middle of large clusters of enemies, disabling them with the threat of attack of opportunitis. Now, did I build him with big defences to jump amid enemies, or did I start using this tactic because I found it viable, having high defences? Not really sure. probably a bit of both. I know for sure I took the attack of opportunity bits because the potential problem of every tank is, what happens if the enemy just ignores him. being able to trip and lock down all those around me makes me useful for the party, and synergizes well with the core concept of tanking.
outside combat, firem still jumps headfirst in every danger, which makes him a good scout. that's something that wasn't planned and evolved naturally. was it because it's firem's personality to seek danger and feel strong in defeating it, or was it because we realized the guy who can dodge all darts, takes no damage from falling into pits and is immune to poison really is the best qualified to look for traps? no idea, it grew organically.

besides, my table fights tactically. combat is a serious challenge, and we can't afford to just be goofing around. we must provide a modicum of competence, and that means that while I can pick my goofy fighting style, I must be optimized for it. I want to be optimized for it, and I like to be optimized for it. My characters all have quirks, and they all can be comedy reliefs. but they are also good at what they do. they didn't get to stay alive to high levels without learning to find strenght in their quirks, or at least to suppress them when they would be too disruptive.
Firem acts like he has a death wish, but he trained really hard to survive the dangers he seeks, and behaving that way makes use of his strenghts. gokkarlum, the old fighter, is a racist and a mysoginist, but he is also an experienced professional, and he can keep his mouth shut to avoid offending fellow pcs or important npcs if the mission requires it. panicking and doing something stupid in combat because the character is a goofball would not fit my table.
mechanically, this means optimizing the build to support the chosen style, and playing in a way that makes use of the character's strenghts.

Again, tricky to unpack. I’ll see what I can do.

Balance to the table. As I’ve said before, I prefer tables with huge balance ranges. But a tricky part of that preference is, I prefer tables where I can go from being the party’s primary Damage dealer in one encounter to running away the next.

And “balance to the table” isn’t just “one and done”, it also incorporates the concept of fixing problems as they arise. Such as, say, the first time you try a new system, when you may not realize you’ve created a character with great defenses, or what that really means, and they evolve over play to taking advantage of that, regardless of what their initial personality and backstory were.

So, again, as a rule, I don’t generally tie “personality” to “build” quite so tightly or quite so directly as you describe. Now, maybe someone could look at my specific “Viking programmer” build irl, and point out how my optimized ability to squish bugs obviously directly correspond to my vengeful personality, or that my player didn’t buy me any artistic skills because they figured me being intimately familiar with failure would give me bonuses to debugging, or some other psychobabble, but since *I* can’t relate my build to my personality so directly, I generally build my characters accordingly.

All that said (as I skip over most of the “difficulty” conversation), I *may* have thought of an example of doing what you’re talking about, so let me run that past you:

Point buy system, concept is the character is Granted their power *in character*. So, knowing my history with Envy/Jealousy themed characters, I make such a character, who recognizes both that fact and the fact that they don’t really grok the system they’re being given their power in. So they dump most of their points in “Power Duplication” (something I know I’m ok with running - I’ve played maybe 4 or 5 characters with that ability).

Or maybe Quertus, my signature academia mage for whom this account is named, qualifies? He cares about “learning”, so he built spells to gain information, and, in combat, he’s more likely to try to learn about a threat than to try to kill the threat.

Which circle back to this concept of challenge. Quertus is perfectly happy being in a party that’s so competent, than in 10 levels, his required combat contribution could have been replaced with 2 bags of flowers. Mind you, he’s one of the strongest characters in any system I’ve ever seen let alone run, but he scales his contribution based on how much is needed from him, up to “as much as his tactically-inept self understands how to do”. So, a strong 1st level party facing normal 1st level challenges would still get to shine alongside Quertus.

So… on the one hand, I think I understand some of where you’re coming from wrt optimizing, as I have a common (but not universal) “my characters are good at what they do” drive behind most of my builds that I think parallels your thought process of optimizing your character’s crazy combat style. OTOH, what my character does might well be “learn” or “cook” or “talk” or “hide” rather than more combat-oriented specialties, and combat might be an afterthought for their build, perhaps not even considered by them or me until a fight breaks out. And then, well, I look around, and see I’ve got matches and a gas stove…

Not sure if that would “fit your table” or not, but I’ve not just made “run away -> gas stove and matches” work, I’ve made it MVP material at tables that, from my perspective, sound not entirely dissimilar.

So, yeah, it’s complicated, and would need to be unpacked even further, but, to start, do either of my example characters match what you were looking for?

[King of Nowhere]

So, yeah, it’s complicated, and would need to be unpacked even further, but, to start, do either of my example characters match what you were looking for?

to be fair, i'm not sure what point you were making most of the time...
but if i get this right, then what you describe is similar, but not quite the same. sure, you speak about showing a character personality by its behavior in combat, which is the same concept. however, "i run away at the slightest hint of danger" or "i focus on the last person to hit me" is not a build choice. not unless you start devoting your build to actually support that behavior.
it's not "firem wants to prove to himself that bad guys can't hurt him, so he acts foolhardy". it's "firem wants bad guys to be unable to hurt him, so he trained really hard (and shopped accordingly) at dodging, resisting spells and whatnot. which allows him to be foolhardy".

OTOH, what my character does might well be “learn” or “cook” or “talk” or “hide” rather than more combat-oriented specialties,

again, close but not quite the same. that's spending a few build resources to do things not related to combat, or even to optimization. especially common if one has extra skill points that aren't strictly needed for important things.

and combat might be an afterthought for their build

choosing to optimize a character for an out of combat role is another thing entirely. again, he could have his strategy related to his personality - does he bluff often? does he always tells the truth? does he threaten, or does he persuade?
a pacifist thinking that strife should be fixed by talking that maxes diplomacy and tries to avoid fighting could actually be an example of linking personality and style.

[Quertus]

to be fair, i'm not sure what point you were making most of the time...

I mean, not only do I often not know what point I'm making, I'm also often as pointy as a sphere; that is, I'm often not so much making a point as describing things or seeking clarification. And this thread is certainly no exception.

but if i get this right, then what you describe is similar, but not quite the same. sure, you speak about showing a character personality by its behavior in combat, which is the same concept. however, "i run away at the slightest hint of danger" or "i focus on the last person to hit me" is not a build choice. not unless you start devoting your build to actually support that behavior.

Well, yes, my... not "point", but initial analysis was, "No, I don't think I usually do what you describe". Sounds like we're in agreement on the general point, that what I usually do and what you're asking about aren't the same thing.

However, while that's usually the case, I'm still curious whether I've understood your premise well enough, whether 2 specific examples I gave actually match your criteria. To reiterate, they were, in brief,

• Envy/Jealosy manifested in character consciously choosing Power Duplication as their power set;
• Quertus desiring knowledge producing a Wizard with lots of Sensory magic and other spells optimized for information gathering.

a pacifist thinking that strife should be fixed by talking that maxes diplomacy and tries to avoid fighting could actually be an example of linking personality and style.

Ah. Hmmm... certainly, many of my characters... either aren't as obsessed with killing as the stereotypical murderhobo, and/or aren't as (over)confident in their ability to survive horrific things like dragon's breath, rocket launchers, or eldritch abominations as your average PC (and certainly not your average CaS PC)... which can be reflected in their tendency to prefer to use their words rather than resort to violence as a first, last, and only recourse. And how they use their words certainly can vary (one or two tend to bluff, one or two to threaten, one or two to obfuscate, a few to gain information, while most are more diplomatic). But that's rarely reflected significantly at the build level, most (to put it in 3e terms) are just trying to hit the DC 5 verbal challenges (although one or two are optimized to struggle to hit the DC 0 challenges, to provoke hostilities with their words from people who might otherwise be reasonable). So I'm not sure if any of them actually match your criteria, either.

[Kane0]

Yeah all the time. My last high-level character was a githzerai sorcerer, and he went all-in on telekinetic magic with the exception of like two mental defense spells thanks to his cultural upbringing. Given a choice of magic items his first pick was a ring of mind shielding, and coincidentally yes mind flayers did end up being major recurring antagonists later on in that game.

[King of Nowhere]

However, while that's usually the case, I'm still curious whether I've understood your premise well enough, whether 2 specific examples I gave actually match your criteria. To reiterate, they were, in brief,

• Envy/Jealosy manifested in character consciously choosing Power Duplication as their power set;
• Quertus desiring knowledge producing a Wizard with lots of Sensory magic and other spells optimized for information gathering.

yeah, those two could be related.

[Vahnavoi]

Depends on game and setting.

Let me point something that is often glossed over: I, as a player, have a personality that affects which kind of fighting styles I pick. The same is true for every other human player. Where fighting style, or more properly, strategy and tactics are gated behind choice of role, this naturally affects which kind of roles they end up playing. But this isn't obvious before you actually play with a person for extended periods.

Beyond that, for the conscious decisions made for character creation, some games and settings mandate a link between fighting style and personality. A character literally cannot have some powers without a fitting personality. For example, following tenets of a god in exchange for whatever the god can give you, demands that those terms are agreeable to a person. In a game such as old D&D, this is obviously linked to class choice and alignment. If you think poisoning wells is tactically expedient, say bye bye to Paladin powers. So on and so forth.

In games with lighter rules or less combat, there might be no such obvious links. In such games, personality comes first. How a character fights, eh, that can be decided if the character actually fights.

Reverse-engineering a personality from a fighting style, meanwhile, only becomes relevant if details of a fighting style are the only thing a game system really provides.

[Unoriginal]

Reverse-engineering a personality from a fighting style, meanwhile, only becomes relevant if details of a fighting style are the only thing a game system really provides.

That's incredibly reductive and dismissive.

Some people like to start with a character's powers and capacities and then come up with their personality, backstory, etc.

It's not limited to games where "details of a fighting style are the only things a game system really provides" at all.

All it requires is a game thar let you make choices about what your characters does in combat, regardless of how many choices you have for the non-combat parts of the game.

[King of Nowhere]

Let me point something that is often glossed over: I, as a player, have a personality that affects which kind of fighting styles I pick. The same is true for every other human player.

that's... not the case at all?
well, i know a player who always picks a power-hungry wizard. but most players create a large variety of characters, personality and styles over the years. when i dm, i try to make each important npc unique in build.

so, are you telling me that when using the tanky monk, the dps fighter, the supporting wizard, I always have the same fighting style? I don't think so

[Vahnavoi]

@Unoriginal: the last three paragraphs in the post you quoted refer chiefly to myself - they're about when I employ particular character creation methods. Sorry for not making that clear enough on first pass.

---

@King of nowhere: don't be daft. "Your personality affects what you choose" does not lead to "therefore, you choose the same thing every time". The fact that you vary which kind of roles you play is, itself, linked to your personality - specifically what is referred to as "openness to experience" in Big Five personality trait model and comparables.

[Quertus]

I, as a player, have a personality that affects which kind of fighting styles I pick. The same is true for every other human player.

that's... not the case at all?
well, i know a player who always picks a power-hungry wizard. but most players create a large variety of characters, personality and styles over the years. when i dm, i try to make each important npc unique in build.

so, are you telling me that when using the tanky monk, the dps fighter, the supporting wizard, I always have the same fighting style? I don't think so

@King of nowhere: don't be daft. "Your personality affects what you choose" does not lead to "therefore, you choose the same thing every time". The fact that you vary which kind of roles you play is, itself, linked to your personality - specifically what is referred to as "openness to experience" in Big Five personality trait model and comparables.

I tend to talk about a player's "range", the range of characters they can play, the variables that will differ between characters and what they can be set to, as well as the personality traits that will remain static no matter what character they play.

There are absolutely preferences I've discovered in my own play style ("I play Wizards" among them), as well as things that are decidedly outside my roleplaying Range. Similarly, how many people would question the balance of 3e back in y2k enough to build "character with 1 level in each class" just as a test of the system? Assuming nobody at your tables did that, well, you've got your answer right there about how personality affects builds.

Also, I'm ******* lazy as **** when it comes to the mechanical side of character creation - most days I just want to write "Wizard" on a piece of paper and be done; OTOH, can we postpone the game a few months while obsess over the history and backstory and personality of the character? This definitely impacts how complex most of my builds are; OTOH, occasionally, I get the itch, and build some complex Skills & Powers monstrosity that often leaves other players and GMs confused ("What do you mean, you can't tell me your Armor Class? What do you mean, you've got a whole lookup table for determining your Armor Class at any given moment based on cross referencing your action, your weapon used, their action, their weapon used, and... what???"). When I have to roll more dice for initiative than most Fighters roll in their entire turn, then it's a mechanical build interesting enough to have been worth my time to focus on that side of things; otherwise. mechanics? Zzzzz.

[Duff]

Yes and no.
Both form part of the character's story and should "talk to each other". Whether that's to say the same thing, eg, the cold unemotional sniper, to tell the same story from different angles, such as the dashing musketeer type who's hand crossbow is filling in for a pistol, or to form a striking contrast - the mellow gentle giant barbarian who tears his enemies arms off and beats them with the soggy end.

My starting point also varies. Sometimes I want to play a sniper. Then I think "What sort of person spends half a day getting into position for the perfect shot?"
Sometimes I go "I'm playing a refugee, who washed up on the local beach after a storm. How did I get here? What sort of person does that? What did they learn on the way and how do they apply it?"