General RPG DiscussionDiscussion of all RPGs and non-system-specific topics. DM/GM/player issues, settings, etc. Rules discussion belongs in one the forums below.
I think the "My character must be completely useless in order to be fun to roleplay" position is a fallacy. The game must be fun to play for everyone involved, and this includes both the "roleplaying" and the "game" portions of an RPG
I don't think anyone sees it that way... More that having weaknesses gives the player something to work with when roleplaying the character. It's the old superman/batman argument. Superman can do anything at all, provided there's no Kryptonite around... There's no challenge or drama for him. Batman on the other hand is merely human; there's a lot of things that he just can't do, and half the interest of the character is how he overcomes that set back.
Now Batman is still heroic, but in a world where Superman and Green Lantern rings exist, he might be considered to be a bit of a wimp.
Half the fun of weak characters is in seeing how they rise above their set-backs by compensating in other ways.
Looking back to the thread title, I think there are two different circumstances being argued here - playing *apparent* losers, and playing *actual* losers.
In genre literature, an *actual* loser as a protagonist is pretty rare, but as BraveSirKevin says, there are many *apparent* losers.
Raistlin, I feel, would be the prime example of this. In the early books he's presented as being weak, sickly, utterly reliant on his brother. However, IIRC his original mechanical interpretation correctly, he actually had a CON of about 12 and his player was simply playing the weakness as a roleplaying quirk.
In the same vein, a game character can be played as a weak and clumsy loser while still actually being mechanically effective. Its just about roleplaying their contribution correctly and applying appropriate flavour to the results of their contribution.
For example - Jack McSubtle and Joe McKlutz are seeking information about a hidden cult. Jack slips smoothly into the local underground and picks up a good lead on their hideout. Joe (rube that he is) gets pickpocketed, chases after the thief but loses them after tripping over a body in an alley. It's a cult member, murdered! On the body is a small pouch of money (so no net change to wealth) and a cult document.
Now, Jack and Joe mechanically have identical Streetwise skills. They both managed to obtain information, but the methods were flavoured by their character concepts.
I don't think anyone sees it that way... More that having weaknesses gives the player something to work with when roleplaying the character. It's the old superman/batman argument. Superman can do anything at all, provided there's no Kryptonite around... There's no challenge or drama for him. Batman on the other hand is merely human; there's a lot of things that he just can't do, and half the interest of the character is how he overcomes that set back.
Now Batman is still heroic, but in a world where Superman and Green Lantern rings exist, he might be considered to be a bit of a wimp.
Half the fun of weak characters is in seeing how they rise above their set-backs by compensating in other ways.
Of course, you can play a flawed character, but you have to be careful to have these flaws make the gaming experience richer and not just ruin the fun of the game for yourself and/or the rest of the group.
Why would you risk your life adventuring with someone who was a liability?
Why would you go to war with someone who is a liability? I think that is a similar question.
While I was never in a position to pick who I served with, I can tell you right now that I'd never have answer yes to the question: "should we get rid of so and so because they are of dubious competence?"
If someone has your back, even if their ability to come through is dubious, you have to respect that.
Keeping around a loyal but not overly competent team mate is infinitely more believable than some of the other 'accepted' archtypes. Like the Competent Lone Wolf. When the equation is US vs THEM, and Mr Competent Lone Wolf is making no bones about the fact that he isn't in a life long card carrying member of the US camp...
Why would you risk your life adventuring with someone who was a liability?
Because there is alot of fun to be had role playing with peronality quirks. Even when they get you in trouble, or the party.
Currently my dwarven cleric is a bit flawed. The healer in full plate, but average/low Strength....he doesnt climb, swim or jump. Ever. So teh party has to help him get past barriers and such.
My favorite loser that I played was definately a "Crouching Moron, Hidden Badass" character. I played a Nosferatu clan vampire with True Faith. I played him as a snivelling little twerp who, as his punishment for his wretched life, was forced to wear his sins openly in undeath.
The thing was he really wasn't a self-loathing jerk, he just seemed that way upon first impression. He was contrite, humble and self-depricating, trying to learn from his past sins and redeem himself in the eyes of his Creator. It was tricky to play him just right to give the other players a false impression. Those that looked to him as an ally or even friend would have a chance to see how useful he could be and what his true personallity was.
The last time I played him another character, a brujah combat machine, decided that he was going to the local church's midnight mass to "top off" himself and his crew before the big fight. Heh.
"Get out of our way, Rat. We're hungry."
"Feed elsewhere. These people need their peace."
"When did you get a spine? Move!"
"No. Feed elsewhere. They have done you no harm."
"I think the Rat's dissin' us Richard."
"I think so to. Move or we feed on you, and don't think the Prince will find out either."
"No. Feed elsewhere. This is a house of the Lord."
*laughs* "You had your chance, Rat. Or should I say, Appetizer. Get'im boys!"
"YOU WILL NOT PROFANE THE HOUSE OF THE LORD!" *ZORCH*
The resultant sunbeam chased them off. And, mightily angered them as well. But, they declaired Church St. a safe zone, so the Rat was content.
__________________ "People need vision.
Sometimes you just have to add spices without a recipie."
- My wonderful wife.
Just been giving this one some thought. It takes a real bunch of Dice Jocks to groan about someone playing a weak character in their campaign. The whole point of the advancement systems is that people get stronger over time.
In the AD&D days your wizards were just pain pitiful until about level 5 or 6. Starting with a measly d4 hit points, your wizard could literally trip on a rock and die... There was no way you'd put him anywhere near combat, and if he didn't take a combat oriented spell like he was almost no help to the party at all. In all the campaigns I've played they've always watched their wizard's back and worked as a group to compensate for the wizard's weakness. Of course later on the wizard picks up some pretty hefty spells and does more damage with a single magical attack than the rest of the group manages in an entire combat.
Most groups I've played are more tolerant of badly rolled characters than with lazily played characters. In one campaign I DM'ed I started off by giving the group a potion of resurrection cos I wanted to up the ante and make it more deadly from the get go. As it turns out, the first encounter was really a lot more than they bargained for. The wizard Widdlestyx, with average stats, and the dwarven fighter Axehole, with 18 strength, both kicked the bucket. They could only save one... Axehole (not joking... that's the name the player gave him ) had a short funeral and shallow grave.
Just been giving this one some thought. It takes a real bunch of Dice Jocks to groan about someone playing a weak character in their campaign. The whole point of the advancement systems is that people get stronger over time.
I guess I'm a dice jock then, because I think that in a team game like D&D, everybody should be doing their best to contribute to the team.
A level 1 AD&D mage is different. It's only useless in the short term. Short term pain for long term gain. The character will one day be the most potent part of the party. The player is trying to contribute, he just has to get through 4 levels of suck first.
A character that's built by somebody that doesn't really understand how to build a good character is different. Again, the player is trying his best to contribute, but is held back. I'd never give this player grief about having a weak character. I'd give them advice on building a stronger one if they wanted it, but I wouldn't push it.
The problem comes when somebody just decides "hey, I don't really want to contribute to the success of the group". This tends to be extremely selfish. I've never seen anybody ask the group if they are okay with having a useless character in the group. They just do it, without any thought on how it will affect the rest of the group. I've also never seen the player of a useless character take a smaller share of the xp/loot due to their lack of contribution to earning said xp/loot.
One of the most successful characters I've ever had falls under this description.
The game was high-powered 3e (for example, stats were roll 5d6 drop lowest 2), and my first character was amazing - I forget his exact stats, but the lowest was a 12 and his total modifiers added to +11.
Then I rolled up a second one, to play as a backup (we usually run 2 characters each in our games) and the luck ran dry. Her best stat was 15, next best was 12, and down from there to a low of 7; total modifiers added to +2. In an ordinary 3e game, she'd have been only slightly below average. In this game, she was way down.
Looking at this, I thought I'd be rolling up her replacement right quick, and decided to go for broke in the comic relief department. I made her an Illusionist (banned evocation), dropped the 7 into Wisdom, and played her like a bubble-headed valley part-elf - except for her single-minded focus on her spells. If you interrupted her in mid-casting, for example, no matter what the situation you were probably due a slap upside the head even in mid-melee! And if the game had allowed for Wild Mages, she'd have been first in line. "Summon the magic, shape the magic, release the magic - you know, it's easier if I just skip the shape-it step and let it do what it wants..."
So what happens? This "throwaway backup" lasts for 14 adventures over 7 real-world years, and finally dies as the longest-serving member of the party after having broken the world in the meantime! (it was her in-game action that triggered a DM-planned rule change from 3.0 to 3.5) And it ultimately was her flaw that killed her: she fireballed the party one too many times via using her (self-built) Rod of Wonder into a mass melee, and the party...or at least some of it...turned on her and slew her where she stood.
And the guy with all the stats? Died early, retired, came back later, died again a few times, retired...sigh.
I guess I'm a dice jock then, because I think that in a team game like D&D, everybody should be doing their best to contribute to the team.
A level 1 AD&D mage is different. It's only useless in the short term. Short term pain for long term gain. The character will one day be the most potent part of the party. The player is trying to contribute, he just has to get through 4 levels of suck first.
A character that's built by somebody that doesn't really understand how to build a good character is different. Again, the player is trying his best to contribute, but is held back. I'd never give this player grief about having a weak character. I'd give them advice on building a stronger one if they wanted it, but I wouldn't push it.
The problem comes when somebody just decides "hey, I don't really want to contribute to the success of the group". This tends to be extremely selfish. I've never seen anybody ask the group if they are okay with having a useless character in the group. They just do it, without any thought on how it will affect the rest of the group. I've also never seen the player of a useless character take a smaller share of the xp/loot due to their lack of contribution to earning said xp/loot.
Here's where the disconnect is. Not everyone plays RPGs like they're members of an elite special forces team. I've really never played that way, unless it was a straight up military RPG. Even with D&D, there was the assumption that we were a bunch of friends having adventures, not members of a crack squad.
Personally, I would much rather game with an entertaining "useless" character at my side than a perfectly optimized and utterly dull "good" character. Success is not measured in gold, xp, or modules beaten, but in the fun had at the table.
__________________ Looking for gaming in Springfield, IL? Check out my Meetup Group.
Plenty of loser characters... and they're always fun because you get to play the incompetent period.
3e and up have had a sort of... an issue, shall we say, with this idea. I remember the old 0-level rules, ways to play the bumbling apprentice... and that was fun! Screwup characters are a blast, and it is a rarity in my jaded existence as a DM... most players frown on the beautiful loser.
Loser characters are always fun because they develop. Yeah, the mage who is afraid of his shadow may learn courage from the fighter.. the idiotic charge-in fighter may surprise the rogue by coming up with a not-half-bad infiltration plan after watching his wall-climbing, guard-sapping hijinx.
Losers make character action interesting, and make for a character who develops into a most fascinating piece. Bumbling stumbling characters become better thinkers, learn to move AFTER thinking... characters who are injured or somehow handicapped develop solutions to their problems over time... characters who have major flaws in certain skills make up for it in their other skills, may even make the big save through that Heal check or obscure Knowledge roll.
I'd rather have a well roleplayed loser than a pumped statblock with a voice anyday. As a DM I'll reward that loser in his attempts to become competent, allow tweaking of the character (just as I would any other), and development. I can think of a dozen archetypical characters of this type in TV and fiction off the top of my head... why not support some dreams?
Slainte,
-Loonook.
__________________ This Post and all others (c) Loonook, 2001-2009.
I'd rather have a well roleplayed loser than a pumped statblock with a voice anyday. As a DM I'll reward that loser in his attempts to become competent, allow tweaking of the character (just as I would any other), and development. I can think of a dozen archetypical characters of this type in TV and fiction off the top of my head... why not support some dreams?
Do you ever have more than one person trying to be the loser character? If so, does the game turn into a mystery men style game?
Eh, I just have a long experience of people who play such characters with silly character flaws as making those flaws either go away instantly when it's really bad for them, or to never ever get over them, regardless of what others try.
Then again, a well played character is a well played character, stats independent. Perhaps if people spent more effort on their good characters, the weak and lame characters with the interesting characterization would be toned down.
well You wouldn't want a dumb ass beside you in the dungeon, they are a dangerous liability.
There is "not very bright" and "stupid", they aren't the same thing.
And "smarts" isn't the same as "intelligent" (the former is more important in a life or death situation for sure)
A "fighter", in RL doesn't have to be that strong, it's mostly skill, stamina and most importanlty, chutzpah.
Size DOES matter, don't kid yourself that it doesn't, a bigger opponent can hit one hell of a lot harder and with longer reach...the number of master martial artists who're 5' 0" and 120lbs but can still kick a heavy weaight wrestler's butt, aren't exaclty in the hundreds of thousands, but they do exist.
A big, young fit barbarian, and a canny older soldier can be equally as valid and useful, or dangerous. All depends on the character and cirumstance but you can't discount the fitness and upnpredictability of youth and large size...nor a person who's survived many battles even if he's nothing special to look at, but has guts and smarts.
Folk in D&D adventures just wouldn't have lousy stats, maybe average or a bit below (for race etc), but not "garbage", as they simply wouldn't survive.
What I think folk mistake, is CHARACTER or other flaws, for stat weakness!
All of us, no matter what, have flaws. I used to be very fit, I still got a nasty illness as blatant example. I'm sure we've all known people who are gutsy,smart, solid, fit or whatever, and turn to drink, crumple when a lover dies, can't cope with life and so on.
if you have the guts and ability to chose and survive conflict, you are NOT gonna be Joe Average...but everyone has flaws.
post truamatic stress disorder and its woes would be quite an issue for adventurers...or maybe not so much as in D&D worlds, religon/gods are absolutely real to folk, so give a solid support and access to healers.
Another thing is our very artificial and polluted urban modern life is very bad for the psyche (it is), our Medieval period if, and that's a VERY big if, you had a good life, you could mentally be more likely to be "fit".
On the other hand modern life gives wide range of possible thought modes, so we can adapt easier to problem solving.
I have never let a player have lousy stats, it's preposteorus in my games (Dark Sun or homebrew or Spelljammer). You are gonna be the best of the best, or one tough cookie.
Personal problems though are another matter entirely.
Like I've explained before, one character was a bloodthirsty, almost psychotic gladiator...I kept dropping hints about what that would do, but the player was enjoying the character, which was fine by me.
the trail of bodies, innocent as well as enemy, he left mounted up, as did the folk seeking revenge and...a god of slaughter who wanted him for an avatar!
the player was asked if he'd let the god "help" him in a climatic battle he knew couldn't win against a Titan...the god agreed, "they" won the fight and the PC, became an NPC, a new avatar of a CE evil god!
I pointed out to the player that he had been warned, and that god was known for being untrustworthy...and he chose to let him have control...other player was laughing his butt off at this
the other player's character was hunted by the illithids as he had the best brain they had ever tried to taste
Nork,
yes, loyal and competant. That's exactly who you want, anything more is a godsend
But in D&D you generally know your other party members are loyal and competant!
Joe the fighter maybe smart as heck, or he may not be, doesn't matter long as he knows what to do and is a genuine friend.
A reasonable degree of smarts, competance, loyalty and guts are the most important aspects you'd want in comrades.
You never epxect them to be perfect in EVERYTHING, but you often find them good at several or many things, and sometimes outstanding at 1 or 2.
I like gnomes, silly, crazy, but yet still capable gnomes. Fun is acceptable, so is quirky, in D&D never forget that.
And RL folk often have very very odd talents, I've known folk who's luck is simply beyond the laws of probability, or incredibly skilled though you wouldn't think it.
stats, skill to put them to good use, and the inner "fire" that makes someone a real hero, or menace, or DaVinci or whatever, well, there's no D&D mechanic for guts (wiasdom and WIll save to an extent) and that "inner fire".
Do you ever have more than one person trying to be the loser character? If so, does the game turn into a mystery men style game?
Eh, I just have a long experience of people who play such characters with silly character flaws as making those flaws either go away instantly when it's really bad for them, or to never ever get over them, regardless of what others try.
Then again, a well played character is a well played character, stats independent. Perhaps if people spent more effort on their good characters, the weak and lame characters with the interesting characterization would be toned down.
Silly character flaws? Okay... let's go through the list then...
1.) A(can't remember), Ex-Paladin. Reincarnated from a former soldier-turned-saint (think St. Cuthbert if he was a disciple of Olidammara). The guy had a lot of flaws, including separation from his powers and a nasty little demon hitching a ride on his spirit. Overtime, the player consulted with the party's arcanist and cleric over how to control his shadowy demon. It led to some great discussions on the nature of good and evil, and by the end of the campaign we found him resurrecting his former self (to rule over the kingdom of his choosing), losing his right eye and hand in the process, and casting himself into a planar wasteland to burn away the demonic presence eating him slowly from the inside.
Player took on multiple flaws, never became the spotlight character, and is still chatted about (I've seen him mentioned on boards former players frequent, including here I believe at least once). Provided for a great character, played the flaws (corruption, loss of function, a couple of others over time) without many issues, made for a very realistic character.
2.) Artin of the Rose - Fighter. Missing left arm; developed a style using his cloak and one-handed sword to do battle. Made for an interesting character due to the loss of the use of certain useful magic items. Later on, took on the setting's version of the Hand of Vecna, caused a minor plot arc to occur, redeemed himself and became the protector of another player's former PC who turned NPC when they became a leader of the Sorcerers Imperial. Had atrocious Will saves due to fear of magic (and taking a Will save knock flaw), caused some grief for the party due to it, but persevered to understand the necessity of magic. Well-played alignment (cruelly evil, but showed kindness to a group of children who had been turned by foul forces due to his own loss of a son in war, fought tooth-and-nail with the party's holier than thou cleric to save them), overall a very flawed character but made for excellent meat to work with,
3.) Mark Smith - (Modern character, can't recall all classes, mostly Techie) - Suffered from sickness, completely useless in combat by himself, but had an enormous amount of knowledge of systems, mathematics, science. Classic 'frail wizard' without the wizardry. Later subsumed into an AI framework and became the party's go-to Rogue-like, moving through cyberspace. Was 'weak' in a party of strong characters, but began to fill his niche. Actually helped to lay down the battle plan (through newly-gained knowledge of tactics and theology) to defeating a cult attempting to open the gates of Heaven to bring about the events of the Revelation.
4.) Sparky (Modern character, same game as Mark above, Mage/Arcane Scholar) - Combat liability, but always came through. Strong knowledge of ritual, limited mystic capacity in a firefight. Served as a screen for party battles, very precocious but no social grace. Caused a lot of issues with the party's riff-raff. In all, this party had 3 amazingly well-built characters... and Mark and Sparky. However, between them Mark and Sparky did a lot of the heavy lifting outside of combat, and provided useful tools to those much better prepared to fight. Excellent backstory, provided for a lot of interesting interactions between NPCs and PCs without making himself the center of attention (unless a specific mini-arc focused mostly on Sparky or things associated, just as other specific arcs focused on the other mainstay characters).
--
Figured I'd give some examples. The above characters had no great stats (solid in their required, but nothing approaching an 18 at the beginning of character generation) but survived through using the tools they had. They fought, learned, and benefited the games they were in more than many of the one-shot 'tough guy' or 'power incarnate' characters who ran through the campaigns. No Mystery Men; just well-played yet flawed characters who evolved into their own comfortable versions of Badass .
Slainte,
-Loonook.
__________________ This Post and all others (c) Loonook, 2001-2009.
Figured I'd give some examples. The above characters had no great stats (solid in their required, but nothing approaching an 18 at the beginning of character generation) but survived through using the tools they had. They fought, learned, and benefited the games they were in more than many of the one-shot 'tough guy' or 'power incarnate' characters who ran through the campaigns. No Mystery Men; just well-played yet flawed characters who evolved into their own comfortable versions of Badass .
Ya, I ment if the whole party was that style of character. Plus, they have solid stats in what they needed. NPC experts that have skills that the players don't have also have the power to be of great help.
I guess it's more like a definition problem. I consider looser characters as characters that can't function at all or are inadequate at their schtic to help the party succeed at the level of play they are in. Timmy the non-combat specialist is different from Timmy, the chearleading sidekick who's loveable antics get the party in no end of trouble. I tend to run into characters played the latter way.
Ya, I ment if the whole party was that style of character. Plus, they have solid stats in what they needed. NPC experts that have skills that the players don't have also have the power to be of great help.
I guess it's more like a definition problem. I consider looser characters as characters that can't function at all or are inadequate at their schtic to help the party succeed at the level of play they are in. Timmy the non-combat specialist is different from Timmy, the chearleading sidekick who's loveable antics get the party in no end of trouble. I tend to run into characters played the latter way.
And yet, every one of those characters could have been crap... and they developed over time. Mark Smith started as completely useless... and grew as a character fitting into a niche. Same thing with Sparky... okay, Artin started out better, but with a critical table, lack of regeneration magic, and TWF (longsword/dagger) being his (initial) focus... that was a hell of a character to have to deal with (though the player sucked it up, took the hit, and worked through). A had to deal with all sorts of problems, multiple forces pulling at his soul... things happen.
Jimmy Olsen can start as the party cheerleader/anchor and become competent (even useful) over time. Think Elan in the Order of the Stick, Wesley Wyndham-Price in Buffy/Angel (really, anyone who wasn't Buffy in that series :-p)... people begin to gain talents, picking up what they need to work on, stop being gits and get involved... due to various things.
Hell, the difference between a survivor and the dead is the same as the difference between heroes and chaff. A group of cheerleaders, bubbly and chipper as they can be, can become a beating-delivery system if they are quick enough about it :-p.
You rarely get to pick your companions... for every Audie Murphy there's a Gomer Pyle.... but watching Audie rush into the trenches can inspire Gomer into a bit more enthusiastic warrior :-p.
Slainte,
-Loonook.
PS: In almost 2 decades of play and DMing... never, ever had a single character who wrecked my game in the way you're describing. Plenty of attempted Mary Sues and similar... but those are usually just your average megalomanic wannabes. Most subpar characters have... something to work with .
__________________ This Post and all others (c) Loonook, 2001-2009.
PS: In almost 2 decades of play and DMing... never, ever had a single character who wrecked my game in the way you're describing. Plenty of attempted Mary Sues and similar... but those are usually just your average megalomanic wannabes. Most subpar characters have... something to work with .
I blame luck, either yours or mine.
It just sits oddly with me. If you all meet in a bar, as it were, and every potential player character is characterized at the same level, the person who has no obvious utility seems like... a bad idea to drag along. You occasionally get the "What kind of power is heart, anyway" situation as well, wherein if said tagalong has some weird and esoteric actual talent (one that other characters just... didn't take for some reason) that it needs to come up a decent amount to give them some spotlight time.
Or they can be a person who plays helpless rescuees constantly....
Do you have a distinct lack of players who are super competent that have things to work with?
It just sits oddly with me. If you all meet in a bar, as it were, and every potential player character is characterized at the same level, the person who has no obvious utility seems like... a bad idea to drag along. You occasionally get the "What kind of power is heart, anyway" situation as well, wherein if said tagalong has some weird and esoteric actual talent (one that other characters just... didn't take for some reason) that it needs to come up a decent amount to give them some spotlight time.
Or they can be a person who plays helpless rescuees constantly....
Do you have a distinct lack of players who are super competent that have things to work with?
And yet, as I listed examples... characters who had no real talent to begin with (Elan is a pretty shoddily built example of what most consider the subpar class extravaganza of 3e... the Buffy Gang were barely-competent HS students fighting demons) they had enough to keep themselves relatively useful in a number of fields. They distract enemies, provide background information/exposition, have contacts, different look at problems.
Unless they are completely, COMPLETELY incompetent, no character is useless... the 'What is Heart?' argument... yeah, can't think of any abilities in D&D which are useful for changing the minds of individuals at low levels . Even so, unless they spent all of their ranks cross-class, have bare-positive stats, and roll 1s on their HP... a character of level X is probably within (- 1-3) levels of the group due to incompetency. At worst. Over time, with the development of the character, little paths towards things, etc. the character will increase. There is a wide disparity in level-to-level power in D&D as-is in regards to optimization... a group which cannot accomplish campaign goals with 3 optimized characters and an 'incompetent'... well, that's just problematic.
Slainte,
-Loonook.
__________________ This Post and all others (c) Loonook, 2001-2009.
This is in my experience a non-issue when one does not get to choose a character's particulars but instead "rolls up" abilities and must take the dictates of chance. Then, it's just part of the game to make the best of whatever hand one has been dealt.
It has rarely been an issue in games of "designing characters" either, although part of that may be due to my not having played them very much. I have seen some pretty hapless Champions characters, but I think always because the players were too poorly acquainted with the system to translate some concepts adequately into game terms -- their great weaknesses were unanticipated.
Still, I don't recall its ever having been such a big issue as to make the game less fun. It seems to have been just the opposite, actually! Interesting characters are fun, and weaknesses can be as interesting as strengths. What I think is generally most interesting is a combination of the two with sharp contrasts. A good spread centered on "average" tends to produce that.
The apparent "loser" who becomes a success despite adversity builds up the kind of story that I have found very memorable. That survival to 2nd level in old-style D&D requires a rare combination of player skill and sheer luck -- that most characters, including the "gawdz", are going to perish early -- makes a set of high scores less relevant.
What actually happens in play is what matters, and the only way to discover that is to get on with the playing!
Last edited by Ariosto; 8th July 2009 at 08:51 AM..
) had a short funeral and shallow grave.
.
Linear Mode
And yet another word from our sponsors
