no man is an island

so I have been thinking for the last few years on the different forms of character creation, and on metagame thought in genera and as it specifically applies to character creation. and I have come to a few( hesitate to use the term conclusions) hypothesis on the character generation. I believe there are a few different viewpoints on Character generation.

the first is the man on an island, the player makes the character with minimal knowledge of the the campaign and the other player's characters. they have a general idea of the thrust of the game and the types of character the remaining players have created, but nothing concrete. they build their back story and there base personality on a their own whims, and on what the "think" will fit in the game, based on what they know. this is the standard game I have been ion throughout the years, and to be honest I do not think(as a GM) that I like this type of game. now as a player this is my favorite type of game, as it allows me a great deal of flexibility in what I can create, however, as there is no real connection between the characters it can lead to some very nasty and short games.

the second types is the players and GM working on the characters together. all the characters are connected in someway(though it does not have to be obvious). and all of the characters are also connected to the plot line from character creation onward. the downside to this(as a GM) is that there are generally less secrets in the world, and less control of the world. your players have a great deal of direct buy in to the game. they can control the plot to a degree. as a player this can be a bit unfulfilling if you wanted to be surprised, or if you only waned to work on your charcters story or abilities, and you really do not care for the other players advancement. this generally takes more work all around.

the third is the character is the island. they made their character without any knowledge of the campaign, or any knowledge of the other players. I see this a lot in games like D&D, Rifts, and Exalted. those kind of "kitchen sink" games where there are a lot of options and so the ideas just start flying. so the player will build a character that fits within his view of the game world without any thought to how it will interact with the style of game that the GM is planning on running. this also tends to lend itself to, what I like to call, concept characters. they are a mechanical concept that started out as a funny way to manipulate the rules and ended up such a one sided character that within the area of expertise nothing can defeat them.

So these are the base ideas I have, what are your thoughts? have you run into this thing before? what are any of the pros and cons of each of these that you can see? are there other types of character generation you have run into? I am attempting to narrow my focus here, refine my hypotheses so than you in advance for your thoughts.

I don't see much difference between #1 and #3 except that you used the words minimal instead of none and that in one way they build their characters based off a back story, and in the other they build off of a mechanic.

Different people build characters in different ways. Like in Exalted for example I like to fill out stats and everything and build a back story around what I want the character to do.

I find the more I know about a system, the more I build a "concept" character and I think that holds true for a lot of people. You have played this game for so long that you want to try out something that you haven't before.

As for your second option, the GM and the characters working together one. I think that is the best option, because it helps eliminate the ever-awkward first session where you try to get everybody acquainted as well give everybody and understanding of each others characters.

I disagree that as a player it is less fulfilling. Because since you discussed your character with the GM and other players, you are more aware of what to expect when coming into the game. You know the other players and their motivations beforehand, so you can adjust to accommodate others.

As for being surprised, I disagree as well. As a GM, you were working with the group to figure out their desires and what would be fun for them, which I would think would be easier to throw them curve balls. And if you as a player only cared about your own characters story and abilities, that just makes you a jerk.

I am an island.

Typically as a player I do tend play an island. Generally it's due to the fact that the GMs I hang with either run a very episodic format that does not guarantee a cohesive cast let alone a real plot, or because the GM does not really push his vision. I'm not pointing fingers, but much of the time I feel I've been left in the dark as a player. When you don't really know anything about the rest of the game being an Island is really your only option. Also I'm a huge fan of staying true to my character as written. Realistic reactions to various situations appeal to me much more than just ignoring something for the sake of party cohession.

As a GM if I want to really push an agenda for the group I think it's my responsibility. My longest running Exalted game I went through all the characters and helped lay the groundworks for all the characters to really know each other or to at least be connected. There was a shared mentor/sifu and those who didn't have him had friends who did. I really don't mind the challenge of getting the players together typically. I mean usually it's not too hard.

Joel wrote:I am an island

I thought you were a rock.

That too.