Playing Apparent Losers

[MortalPlague]

I've played two characters who could qualify as losers... though neither one really was.

The first was Lester Shillings, a sorcerer/rogue of a pirate who wielded dual short swords. His overall stat bonus was a +1. Over the course of the three or so games we played, he rolled a whole lot of crits, and lucked out with the dice time and time again. I wasn't playing him flawed, but his stats did not back up his swagger. His dice did.

The second was my only deliberate attempt to make a loser character, and it was a blast. Provalor the Proficient was a fat halfling wizard whose whole goal in life was to get rich and be comfortable. He specialized in illusion, and had dropped the evocation school of magic. He carried a chair with him at all times, and had other people carry him whenever he could convince them to.

I have to say, though, evocation was a pain to lose. It's fine to lose the blasting spells, but you also lose all the light spells... I mean, you'd think an illusionist could conjure some form of light better than dancing light...

 

[Ariosto]

"Play 'em as ya roll 'em" works better with the expectations brought to the table in old D&D, in which it is assumed that most characters -- regardless of stats -- are doomed to ignominious ends, and it's only after the fact that the "heroes of the story" stand out.

Traveller really capitalized on the concept that character generation was part of the game, with its essential "gambling" scheme (dare another term at risk of death, or stand pat?) and open invitation to build a biography out of the sequence of rolls. A pregen (or point-bought) character so obviously lacks the fruits of that experience of process that it feels like a rip-off to me.

One of my first few characters ended up with an amazing Gunner-6, but knew toss-all otherwise. Did that (and the dice-tossing process of arriving at that) affect how I played him? You betcha.

When some punk with poor prospects manages to reach 3rd level with but 4 hit points, the accomplishment is even more exceptional than the challenge. Heroism is established, and if he dies before completing the quest to get more hp, his name is no less legend.

 

[cdrcjsn]

I had one character for the RPGA (known for having some tough games) that I intentionally created as a design challenge to see if I can make a "weak" character effective in 3.5e.

I created a single-classed melee bard.

I played him all the way up to 13th level before the campaign ended. He was my first melee character (I've always played casters) and getting used to the dynamics of a melee striker type took some getting used to, but by my mid-levels, I actually heard another player say "bards are broken" during a convention, after he saw my bard effectively act as healer, tank buffer, and striker for a 4 man party.

Currently, in 4e I'm playing a Dwarf Sorcerer and a Melee Gnome Ranger, neither of which have racial ability modifiers that are appropriate for a sorcerer and ranger respectively, mainly to show that optimization isn't really necessary in 4e.

 

[WalterKovacs]

In terms of the "clumsy fighter", I actually played out completely unintentionally.

Basically it was 2e, the first D&D game I ever played (that led to it's own fun ... the smile on the DM's face when no one even THOUGHT about keeping watch the first night, lol).

I was an elf who was a fight theif. My strength and dexterity were 18's [forget the percentile for the strength, but it was pretty high]. My one liability was a very low wisdom. This became an issue as I stumbled upon an intelligent artifact that would only be usable by me. It was a +5 longsword called Screamer ... that didn't want to fight. So, to MAKE it fight, I had to roll under my wisdom. As a result, I would often be tossing my sword away in the middle of fights.

On top of that, I managed to charge into the mouth of a dinosaur AND have a giant fall on me after chopping one of his legs off, amongst other non-Screamer related clumsiness.

On top of that, my elf who was very distrusting of humans was able to get a few close human friends .... who all met untimely ends. His first friend was an mage ... who lost an arm to some undead. The second was a ranger, beaten to death by a stone golem. He even encountered a paladin who helped save his life with a timely lay on hands ... only to be IMMEDIATELY captured and killed by harpies. The guy had a pretty traumatic life.

I've had a few "weak willed" characters [and they've often been in possession of an item that influences them as a result], and I had a very fun "moron" character as an Orc Crusader (who was suprisingly charismatic for a orc ... albeit dumb as a post and extremely naive).

Presumably, no one would want to adventure with someone that isn't good at anything, but huge gaping flaws can be overlooked as long as they still have something to contribute.

I had a friend who would play characters that were massive liabilities, and it had nothing to do with stats ... he was just the kind of guy that HAS to pull just one more card out of the deck (of many things ... or any other really). One confrontation with a thieves guild as we were passing through town ended up with us summoning a vampire lord AND a beholder. As we were running away, he actually wanted to look back to see what was happening. While he didn't get killed by their gaze attacks, there were many a side quest involved in getting him out of trouble ...

 

[roguerouge]

Do you pick your friends based on their skillsets? Yes, I know you aren't an adventurer, but do remember that the typical D&D adventuring party has each other, and that's it. No other friends, nobody else to be with.

No, but I pick my co-workers that way.

 

[roguerouge]

He was one of the few characters that never died or got so wounded that they had to be replaced, even after he managed to stab himself in the leg with a machete.

For a throwaway character he certainly had the devil's luck.

So, to use a medical metaphor, he was a carrier of death and destruction, rather than suffering from the condition himself?

 

[Mikaze]

So, to use a medical metaphor, he was a carrier of death and destruction, rather than suffering from the condition himself?

You'd think, but he never actually contributed to the other deaths, unless he was some sort of bad luck charm, in which case he caused a LOT of deaths.

Three deaths by dropped grenade, two crippling maulings by zombies, IIRC three deaths by gunshot, one death by automobile, one actual death by zombies... It was a large group, but I was somehow one of only two people who played the same character all the way through. I still don't know how the hell.

 

[BraveSirKevin]

Back in the 90's when I was still in high school and had infinite time on my hands it was almost a hobby of mine to roll characters. I'd use the method of rolling 4d6, keeping 3, 6 times and then arranging the stats. Whatever I rolled I'd keep and try create a character out of it, along with a back story. I created many "losers" this way, but they always had the best back stories. Very few of them got played as PC's, but as I mostly played DM they all saw light of day as NPCs and were great fun to role play.

Frankly, I don't know why people are opposed to playing flawed characters. The bulk of the more interesting characters in literature have some really big problems.

Just off the top of my head:
Cohen the Barbarian (from Terry Pratchett's Discworld Series): Old as the hills, has no teeth.
Rincewind (also from Terry Pratchett's Discworld Series): Wizard who can't cast a single spell. Completely useless in almost everything except running away.
Quasimodo (From the Hunchback of Notre Dame): Hunchback, terribly deformed and grotesque.
Long John Silver (From Treasure Island): Missing a whole leg.
Professor X (From X-Men): Wheelchair bound.
Prince Nicholas Con Doin (From Raymond E.Feist's Riftwar Series): Clubfoot (though this was later cured)
Pug (From Raymond E. Feist's Riftwar Series) In the first half of Magician he's the world's most incompetent magical talent. Only manages to cast spells when under incredible duress.


it's usually best when a low score is compensated by another a highscore. Imagine a Stephen Hawking wizard?

 

[Lurks-no-More]

Frankly, I don't know why people are opposed to playing flawed characters. The bulk of the more interesting characters in literature have some really big problems.

Yes, but RPGs are not fiction. Many things which work quite well in fiction (like "loser" characters, major discrepancies in skill and usefulness between characters, splitting the party) are much more problematic in the context of a RPG session / campaign.

 

[Amphimir Míriel]

I agree that designing a D&D character that is unable to contribute to an adventuring party is a bad idea. There's simply no need for that. A PC can be unheroic, comedic, even various kinds of pathetic, and still perform a valuable game function.

This.

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

If you are playing with me and you want to play a cowardly, comic-relief kind of character, I would very much rather ask you to play a Bilbo Baggins, Neville Longbottom, Ciaphas Cain, Crouching-Moron-Hidden-Badass, Cowardly Lion type of character, than someone who really is useless all the time.

Luckily, my current game of choice (D&D 4E) makes it kinda hard to make a "completely useless" kind of character...