> Benedict
>
> > I originally tried to use the narrative method of character
> > generation. After some fumbling around, we decided to switch to
the
> > list method. Does anyone else have experience of which is best to
> > begin with?
>
> Clearly it depends on the group -- I found the narrative method
> daunting ("What! I have to know 100 words of detail about my
> character before I even start playing?!") but in practice it was
fun
> and much easier than I'd feared. I think most of our group had the
> same experience.
>
I think clearly it will vary both by group and by player. From the
time I created my first D&D character, when I was 12 years old, the
first seed of a new character has alway produced an avalanche of
background ideas. My problem has always been reflecting even a
fraction of what is bouncing around in my head with any character
definition system. For me, in other words, the 100 words system is a
total god-send, and my only problem is packing as much of that
background into 100 words as I can.
On the flip-side, I know a lot of people that I've played with over
the years look at characters based on what they can do (i.e. me
describing a character: "He's the youngest son of minor nobility, now
trying to use his education in the courtly and arcane arts to bring
him to a position of security and influence in the world." Most of
my friends "Oh, you mean magician with the scrying and air magic with
all those communication skills, who totally sucked at combat?") For
this sort of player, I think the list method would come much more
naturally.
Note that the list method tends to result in less skills and such, so
if you have a mixed group the 100 word folk will have more on their
character sheet. If this annoys list people, you might want to allow
them to switch over when they are ready. Alternatively, you could
give them a cookie, like letting them increase one or two skills from
13 to 15 or something.