You guys remember the Price is Right? They had two games, Plinko and Punch Out. I've come to realize that the two schools of character generation fall into those games.

I had players generate characters by the book. The Plinko way, you drop down and your path is restricted by your previous actions. Ended up with well rounded characters, but they all were vaguely similar in many ways.

After the short campaign ended I started over with new characters, and told them make me a story that we'd fill in the background. So like the Punchout game you gave them choices and they picked what they wanted. That one required the veto hammer on several decisions, but we ended up with some rather full characters with very interesting backgrounds.

Openness in creation seems to make for more fun games, buying skills or traits based solely on the character's background makes for a happier player, even if its only giving an arch-militant dance. Yes you run the danger of min/maxing, but decent players like more interesting characters rather than he who has the biggest gun. Characters that take good quality amasec for her maintence crew for her freebie instead of just another gun. Players who decide to try and his rogue trader 12 and play him seriously.

Just seeing how many other people have come to the same conclusion.

I think the Plinko method (good mental images by the way) is good for new players to the 40k universe, or players new to role playing.

The Punchout method is fine with me assuming you have solid players who fit well with your style of game (it can lead to min/maxing, but that is fine if you run that type of campaign).

In general I think either will work, but I do believe the Plinko method can create many different types of characters - I made 10 to use in a convention game and they all had unique twists and dark spots to match their strengths.

So - whatever works for you and your players. Just make sure they have a background rather than a set of skills and stats.

I think I'd probably advocate a balance, as I believe is suggested in the book: you mostly go with the path, but you can have a free choice (or two...) if you have a particularly good character concept that doesn't wholly fit in with a particular path. For a lot of players, who don't have a set idea of character and history in mind, this is definitely a handy way to do it, and it nicely gives them a bit of ready-made background to play with, and perhaps links to other players. You don't want it to restrict your creativity, though.

Then again, you also don't want a player to view a freer approach as an invitation to become a munchkin menace. In the very free BESM system, for example, one of my RP group came up with some sort of time-travelling, massive mech-owning gun bunny....... in a fantasy setting. He was pretty used to his ideas getting slapped down, as you may imagine. Somehow, that never quite stopped him from going berserk, given the opportunity.

But I think you've covered that problem already, as you mentioned, by just saying no to things you deemed gratuitous. Even with the best will in the world, though, when those stat increases are so darn tempting, even the most upstanding RPer could be led astray and tempted to write a background to fit the stats they want...

So, yes. My personal preference would be to stick with the path, but be permitted to deviate providing the deviation is justifiable. I think you need some structure for character creation for those poor GMs who are trying to herd a group of naughty munchkins into some sort of reasonable roleplaying pen!

Of course, some of the limitations don't make too much sense. Why must Rogue Traders always be motivated by Prestige? Why can't they be motivated by revenge or avarice? Why can't you have a mutant Stubjack? Heck, why can't you have a mutant Rogue Trader - one of the mutations you could choose just gives you psychic powers, and there's a canonical example of that happening! He's the main character of the novel Farseer .

Personally, I'd go with "Pick what you want, as long as it makes sense."