A Question of Character...

I’m a little surprised at how many players seem to be very “character-focused” when it comes to playing D&D. I know it’s an ROLE PLAYING GAME - just hear me out.

First of all, assuming there are 8 core classes, and a couple/few “builds” of each, which if the Rogue preview is any indication, makes each build pretty different from each other, then you’re looking at a minimum of 16 different “types” of characters. (Keep in mind, this says nothing of some of the different skills/feats that are options for each, paragon paths and epic destinies eventually available, personal flavor we throw in ourselves, or soon to be released core classes.)

I gotta think we can all find some fun characters to play. I think the people who say ‘but I want to play a rogue who does A, B, and C – but can also do X, Y, and Z, because that’s the idea of the character I have in my head’ are being a little ridiculous.

They remind me of the Brian Regan joke on his “Live” CD about the guy at the donut shop. Brian wonders why they make such absurd donuts. Like there’s a guy who walks in the shop and says the following:

“Okay. I want a donut, and I want frosting all over it. And I want sprinkles. But not all over it. I just want them scrunched over on the edge. You got anything like that?”

As if a frosted donut covered in sprinkles, and a frosted donut without sprinkles just aren’t enough options! Who has that particular of a taste!

Anyway, back to those 16 types of characters. Here’s my thing: If you like the game of D&D, my guess is you will have fun playing ANY of those characters! Pick the one that infringes on your ideal the least and play the game! I mean, if someone told me I couldn’t play D&D unless I played a Warlord (the least enticing class according to me), I’d say “fine!”, and enthusiastically play the character. It’s a fun game (I hope) regardless!

I just think playing the game and ADVENTURING itself is what makes the game fun. I want to go to these places the DM has cooked up for me and kill the monsters he puts in my way. Traveling to new places, fighting new (and old) monsters, and telling a story through the party’s actions and dialogue – that’s what makes the game fun for me. People seem to get so caught up in what the characters’ abilities are. They are what they are. Choose what you can and move on with the game.

Just my two cents.

Uh, nope, that is what I call "suck". Sorry!

EDIT: To expand on things, I sometimes play CRPGs where there's essentially no character customization at all, and I sometimes play CRPGs where there's a lot of character customization. Generally, while I enjoy them both, I nearly always find myself enjoying the former in spite of the lack of customization, whereas the latter I frequently enjoy because of it.

Meanwhile, one of the things I find to be the biggest virtue of tabletop RPGs is that they're not restricted to just telling one story. They let you play the characters you want, they let your DM tell the story he wants, they let your game be in the world you want to play in. Without customization, there's not nearly as much reason why I don't just go and play a game that does the "without customization, but it's really fun" thing better - lately it's been Grand Chase for me. I know it's World of Warcraft (which has a good bit of customization, admittedly, but definitely less than I'd want from a tabletop game) for several other players here.

I agree with you (the OP), but for somewhat different reasons.

I have a very character-centric approach to D&D and RPGs in general, but the stats on the character sheet have little to do with that. I can envision an interesting character regardless of what class and feats I'm playing with. So I don't really mind what others are viewing as overly restrictive.

So long as there is design space to create new abilities, and this ability is allowed to people other than the original creator of the rules, I think that there should be no complaining. The designers are going for "generic," despite what has been said otherwise, and thus they cannot cover all the bases in the very first PHB.

Assume:
8 core classes
2 suggested builds,
8 races...

128 permutations, before you factor in different abilities, feats, powers, weapons, skills, etc.
Then there's paragon paths and epic destines.
And multiclassing or class training.

And that's just the first book.

What's the issue?

Grossout said:

Anyway, back to those 16 types of characters. Here’s my thing: If you like the game of D&D, my guess is you will have fun playing ANY of those characters! Pick the one that infringes on your ideal the least and play the game! I mean, if someone told me I couldn’t play D&D unless I played a Warlord (the least enticing class according to me), I’d say “fine!”, and enthusiastically play the character. It’s a fun game (I hope) regardless!

I just think playing the game and ADVENTURING itself is what makes the game fun. I want to go to these places the DM has cooked up for me and kill the monsters he puts in my way. Traveling to new places, fighting new (and old) monsters, and telling a story through the party’s actions and dialogue – that’s what makes the game fun for me. People seem to get so caught up in what the characters’ abilities are. They are what they are. Choose what you can and move on with the game.

Just my two cents.

Click to expand...

Your tastes sound similar to mine; I'll play darned near anything, and as long as I'm gaming with a good group of people, I'm having a blast.

If you've never read Robin's Laws of Good Game Mastering (or his piece in the first chapter of the DMG2), I highly encourage it, because it goes into the "types" of gamers, and what they want out of a game. For some people, they're happiest when they are picking a specific role; and they'll play the same darned thing 90% of the time, because it's what they enjoy most; if they identify most with gnomish trickster bards, for one example we know of, then they're going to be very unhappy come June of this year.

Others enjoy "power gaming", getting awards aplenty and wringing the last bonus out of an optimized character; they're likely going to have fun, too. There's the casual gamers, those who will play whatever as long as the group is good. They'll like the game. The "Storytellers", who will make or play whatever character they need to, as long as it results in an entertaining story.

The list goes on and on, but what floats my boat may just add up to a boring session for someone else. Same rules apply for the game system, too.

I'm not convinced that there will be a dearth of character options or that the Rogue Tactics abilities will be as defining a feature as some tend to think it will. Of the six powers previewed two had a special effect that depended upon the Rogue Tactics class feature and they seem fairly useful without that effect. Furthermore, the fact that they feel a need to provide sample builds suggests that power and feat selection might not be that obvious to the uninitiated.

As a DM and a player, my feeling is that a class & level system like D&D works best when PCs are based are archetypal models. The whole advantage of a class system is that it makes character creation faster, and role assumption easier (because you already know how a thief, wizard, or knight is "supposed" to act). Making skills and feats a core part of the system was the worst move WOTC made, IMHO. That's beacuse the designers took ideas that belong in a point-based system like GURPS, and grafted them onto a class-based system where they don't belong. Consequently, what you get is a system that combine the worst of both worlds - the arbitrariness of a class system, and the slow character creation and game play of a point based system.

There's a funny thing that's been noticed by market researchers regarding customer choice. People say that they want choices, but when you give customers too many choices sales actually go down. The customer gets confused by the plethora of choices, and no matter what they choose, they always feel like they could have done better. Having a few, broadly different choices increases sales and satisfaction, but having too many, very similar choices drives satisfaction way down. It's why when we only had 11 channels of TV, we could always find something to watch, but now that we have 200 cable channels we feel like there's never anything good on.

I deplore the introduction of ideas like "character build" into what was meant to be a game where players assume the role of archetypal characters who have archetypal adventures. Not beacuse there's anything wrong with a detailed, math-heavy game where players can create very mechanically detailed characters. It's because the HERO and GURPS systems already exist, and will always do that kind of game play better than D&D can. D&D should do what D&D was meant to do, and not be held hostage to people who wish they were playing other game systems.

Builds are optional. That is the most important point. You don't have to use builds you can mix and match. And since, IMO, your selection of powers is going to be the most defining aspect of your class there will be many, many different types of each class- depending on your choce of: Class Features (e.g. Rogue Tactics), Trained Skills, Feats, At Will Powers, Per Encounter Powers, Daily Powers, etc. Then add in Class Training feats and multi-classing... I reckon the amount of options will be huge!

Imban said:

Meanwhile, one of the things I find to be the biggest virtue of tabletop RPGs is that they're not restricted to just telling one story. They let you play the characters you want, they let your DM tell the story he wants, they let your game be in the world you want to play in.

Click to expand...

Fair enough. I get what you're saying, I just can't imagine being that particular about a character. I feel like most stories can still be told in pretty much the same way whether or not a character has a certain ability or not. No it won't be the exact same story, but you could make it pretty close. And if it balances the game, it seems like a fair trade.