Character creation as playing D&D

[Mokona]

So do you like the http://www.enworld.org/forum/new-ho...-d-d/317873-character-creation-mini-game.html

 

[ExploderWizard]

Your story brings back memories of rolling for stats in my AD&D groups over the years. We started with 4d6, but so often, a player simply wouldn't make a PC with stats that weren't good enough. Initially, I would say, "Too bad, that's the rules." Soon enough, that PC would be dead, intentionally, and the player would try again. After that happened a few times, I allowed rerolls, then changed the rolls to make higher stats easier, and then, in the end, simply offered a stat array for all PCs (with some horse-trading to get a 17 or 18 in a stat). In a sense, I came to point buy on my own . . .

This is how 18 becomes the new 10. An 18 is an exceptional outlier. Refusing to play at all without one or more of them seems to be an immature attitude IMHO.

 

[SensoryThought]

This is how 18 becomes the new 10. An 18 is an exceptional outlier. Refusing to play at all without one or more of them seems to be an immature attitude IMHO.

I remember this being an issue for players keen to play a paladin, ranger, or other class with ability limits. The DM could either allow them to have the scores (pissing off everyone at the table who rolled and stuck with low scores), deny them and make them miss out on the concept they wanted to play, or just allow everyone a 17 or 18 or points buy.

Unfortunately in D&D character power has been strongly linked to ability scores in every edition. While my favorite character was a 3d6 as they fell 2e fighter, I see the logic and fairness in points buy.

 

[Mattachine]

(By the way, I didn't say my players wouldn't play without 18's.)

It is an immature attitude, and we were teenagers in those games.

On the other hand, if someone presents a new game to me, loaded with classes and races, and then my die rolls eliminate a large swath of options right off the bat, I wouldn't want to play. I don't think that is immature--I have only so much time for rpg's, and I would like that time well spent.

We are discussing character creation as veterans of the game, some of us having played for 30+ years. We have probably played dozens or maybe hundreds of characters, DMed many campaigns, and have tried all sorts of variants and subsystems related to PCs. A new player often comes to the game with some fun ideas about playing a certain fantasy archetype--I run a D&D club at my school. I go out of my way to let these new players create characters that somehow line up with their preferred archetype or concept. If I said, "Roll for stats, and then figure out what you can play", some of them wouldn't bother playing; this wouldn't be immaturity, but disinterest.

How many other games have "Roll to see which type of character you will end up playing for the next few (weeks/months/indefinitely)"?

 

[kevtar]

So do you like the http://www.enworld.org/forum/new-ho...-d-d/317873-character-creation-mini-game.html

I DO like creating characters for the sake of creating characters! My family and I just recently moved to the Kingdom of Tonga (I'm a researcher with the University of the South Pacific) and there is VERY little D&D going on here. Not only is there a general lack of reference (many people here don't know what a "knight" or "wizard" is), the cultural differences (imagination/rope-playing is regarded quite differently here) also make it difficult. To make things worse, my wife and daughter really aren't interested in D&D, but they agree to play because my son and I enjoy it (and MISS it). In any case, sometimes I make PCs just because that's the closest I can get to playing most days.

 

[kevtar]

Elsewhere, I've called character creation a "mini-game." It has its own set of rules and presents its own set of virtues and pitfalls.

I think character creation can exist as a "mini-game," but it shouldn't be naturally assumed to be a mini game - especially a mini-game that exists outside of the D&D "gaming experience,"because although there are rules that govern character creation, they are rules that have a direct impact on gameplay later on.

Character creation can't be a barrier to the rest of the game.

I think we can all agree on that.

That said: I just got finished playing Skyrim, and I was impressed with the way the game advanced your character for you based on actions you completed in play.

I also like how character creation in Skyrim played out, but I don't know if that would translate to D&D well - particularly since "Class" has been deemed as a core element of what identifies D&D as D&D.

 

[am181d]

I also like how character creation in Skyrim played out, but I don't know if that would translate to D&D well - particularly since "Class" has been deemed as a core element of what identifies D&D as D&D.

Absolutely agree! But that doesn't mean you couldn't, say, pick your class as part of the first adventure.

Doesn't one of the recent starter boxes have a solo adventure like this? If you want to fight the guards, you're a fighter; if you want to hide, you're a rogue; etc?

Level advancement would be trickier, but there might be some way to blend this approach with a good multi-classing system.

But, to reiterate my last post, very off track from what 5e is trying to be.

 

[Endur]

While I certainly agree that character creation is part of the game, I don't fully agree with your post.

I see rolling dice and point buy as two different methods with different tradeoffs.

With rolling dice, you are essentially gambling as part of your character statistic allocation.

With point buy, you receive predictable characteristic allocation points.

Both types of characters can be optimized. You can use point buy with AD&D 1e. You can roll dice with 4e.

Personally I prefer point buy, because it elminates characters with multiple 18's and it eliminates people killing off a character to reroll the stats, or petitioning the gm for a stat reroll.

 

[Lanefan]

Absolutely agree! But that doesn't mean you couldn't, say, pick your class as part of the first adventure.

Doesn't one of the recent starter boxes have a solo adventure like this? If you want to fight the guards, you're a fighter; if you want to hide, you're a rogue; etc?

1e has a module that works this way - I think it's called "Treasure Hunt" - where you don't choose a class until you've earned a certain number of XP; and the class you get somewhat reflects what you did during that adventure. Great for players who can't decide up front what class to play, or who are completely new to class-based RPGs.

Lan-"I long ago decided I have no class, and stuck with it"-efan

 

[underfoot007ct]

I love the idea that making your PC is a part of the game. I just ran a 4e game for four totally new players last week, so I made pregens for them, thinking they'd be super bored by rolling up characters (and also preferring to teach by doing, so I just tossed them into combat). At the end of the session they excitedly asked me if we could spend the next session making characters. Well... sure!

Conversely, I had to create a level 8 PC for a 4e game I'm joining soon. The combined factors of it being a class I'd never played before (paladin, which has a lot of moving parts) and wanting to make the best PC possible led to hours upon hours of work, trying different builds then scrapping them, reading over the CharOp stuff on the WotC forums, etc. etc. It was agonizing, honestly, and eventually I just really wanted it to be over with. I hope 5e makes rolling up high-level PCs easier and faster.

Or..............your could have ignore char op forums, picked a pally build, took the recomended choices, tinkers for a few mins............ending up with quick useful, probably fun Paladin. Saved yourself needless hours, but do 20.31416 HP of damage less per encounter. And n a role-playing sense they both would be extactly as much fun to play. SORRY no one forced you be read & study char op forums, you chose to do so. That will be that EXACT same in whatever system you choose to play.