So that's why you like it

[Dannyalcatraz]

The idea that having crappy stats is somehow tied to good roleplay and a lack of powergaming - 8 CHA is usually scoffed at as powergaming and dumpstatting, but 8 STR builds character. Why is being weak physically, which may not even affect your personality, somehow 'better' than not being a people person?

I think that it is because combat is so key to many campaigns that having a PC who has cruddy combat stats is making a severe sacrifice in the name of role-playing...

unless he's a spellcaster.

Its kind of the flipside to people who call sub-optimized PC designs (like giving up caster levels, OH NOES) "horrible" and the like...sometimes going so far as to get angry at players who like such builds (esp. in point-buy campaigns, as it so happens). Its as if you betrayed them personally.

I don't understand the utter lack of interest in exploring the various RPGs some people have. One of my best buddies- with whom I've gamed since the mid-1980s- has opted out of every non-D&D game anyone in our group has run.

Not every non-fantasy RPG...non-D&D.

(OTOH, someone may have slipped a rufie into his beer- he's actually making noises like he's considering making a PC for my upcoming Supers 1912 campaign.)

 

[WayneLigon]

Its kind of the flipside to people who call sub-optimized PC designs (like giving up caster levels, OH NOES) "horrible" and the like...sometimes going so far as to get angry at players who like such builds (esp. in point-buy campaigns, as it so happens). Its as if you betrayed them personally.

Well, in some ways it is, especially if you're going for a heavily combat/tactical campaign and your primary divine caster is a guy that insists on taking five classes so he has a BAB of 2 at 8th level or something and can cast only second level spells. 3E is particularly unforgiving to multiclassed spellcasters.

He's happy, sure, but he's also massively crippled the chances of everyone else successfully completing their goals especially if the GM is not the type to scale encounters to fit the party makeup. His choices that have made him happy have directly made all the rest of the characters much, much more likely to fail in their endevours.

(And in a scenario like that, the GM'll have to do some massive scaling, hand-holding and outright cheating. Or just introduce an NPC that now he or someone else has to keep track up because the other guy is incapable of pulling his weight).

 

[Bumbles]

Dragons, and by extension Dragonborn. Does not compute.

In what way? Dragons are flying lizards that breathe fire, set on hoards of treasure and otherwise make up the stuff of myth and legend. Dragonborn are just a way to bring that down to a playable level for your average PC. (And their inclusion makes me wonder if somebody at WoTC read Where Dragons Lie once upon a time..)

Or are you just asking about dragons being totally physically implausible?

Yeah, I agree there.

 

[Hairfoot]

Guns are cool. It's fun to shoot people in the face.

Amen. Now if only a game would be published with a decent shooting rule system.

 

[WayneLigon]

That's the appeal to Drizzt, from what I see. Rob Salvatore wrote a character that just broke all sorts of rules and conventions.

I must be in a very cynical mood tonight. A lot of the appeal of many things mentioned in the thread come down to the idea that lots of gamers like the idea of the 'I Win' button: that One Thing you do, or are, that instantly sways the campaign in your (or at least the player 'sides') favor.

Vampires are a good example of this. Above and beyond the perfectly valid reasons other people gave, in D&D the vampire is almost unique in it's ability to provide a devestating power-up to a character with virtually no effort on the PC's part and, let's face it, very little downside (especially if you're not in a role-play-heavy campaign) where many PC's are concerned.

Guns are probably the most obvious I Win button, because they provided that in the real world. Once you had reliable firearms, all the armor and skill at swordplay means squat. I saw innumerable home-brew gun rules in the early days of playing D&D and it almost always meant that effectively you were carrying a no-save deathray.

Drizzt is, to me, a good character. I've read a few of the books and while they're not the best fantasy I've ever read, Salvatore knows how to tell a well-done tale; I certainly have liked what I've read so far. Drizzt also has the I Win appeal: he's techically a legitimate D&D character yet at what I'd argue was the height of his popularity he spit in the face of the most restrictive D&D rules. He could use two swords equally well, which was a Holy Grail for any character the instant his player first read about Florentine fencing. Two effective attacks a round in early D&D was a definate I Win. He had Cool Powers because all Drow had Cool Powers because they were an enemy race and all enemy races had Cool Powers No One Else Was Allowed To Ever Have, EVER in early D&D. A second I Win. He was a race/class combo not allowed in standard rules. A third I Win. Why is anyone surprised there are practically idols built to the guy?

I've always liked the Xorn as well. I think the major reason is that they had an interesting design. I don't think there's anything else like them in the 1E MM due to their radial symetry, which makes them unusual and memorable.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

Guns are probably the most obvious I Win button, because they provided that in the real world. Once you had reliable firearms, all the armor and skill at swordplay means squat. I saw innumerable home-brew gun rules in the early days of playing D&D and it almost always meant that effectively you were carrying a no-save deathray.

One thing many DMs (and players) forget about gunpowder weapons in FRPG is that there are these guys who can cast spells...many involving electricity/lightning or fire...

Meaning that someone with a gun is, to him, a walking, talking grenade (assuming he gets the initiative roll).

 

[Cadfan]

Assuming no actual cheating, I don't personally see a great roll or even a set of great rolls as being "unfair."

After all, just like at a gambling table, everyone else had the opportunity to do just as well (equality of opportunity, not of results), and the longer you play, the less those initial rolls mean to the outcome of the game (the initial individual rolls get lost in the noise of the increasing number of rolls)

No, it works the other way around. The initial rolls seed the odds for the later rolls, so the longer you play the closer the difference gets to the actual mathematical difference between the characters. Law of high numbers.

 

[Ariosto]

"The longer you play the same disparate characters" would be more accurate. An old-style hit point bonus actually creates a growing disparity if hit dice rolls average out.

(On the other hand, while the HP score is very strongly predictive of survival to 2nd level, its importance tends to decline at higher levels except in cases of extremely bad luck. If a character reaches 3rd level in the lowest 10% or so of the bell curve, then I will as DM be very favorably inclined toward a quest for some other means to raise HP! Dynamic Tension, "in just seven days" ... Why not? This is fantasy!)

However, that assumes survival. Luck in play tends to select a bit for moderately above-average scores. To the extent that low ones are in fact a handicap, they tend to result in early deaths. Very high scores are in my experience less helpful than rare. If "Mister Awesome" buys the farm, it's likely to be a long while before the next is rolled -- allowing his "inferiors" to get ahead in level.

Skill at play is in the long run the decisive factor in attaining high levels and acquiring powerful magics, the benefits of which can easily exceed bonuses from initial ability scores. The time-management aspect of skill, though, tends not to come significantly into play if Character A and Character B are joined at the hip. Thus, their XP gains are likely to be similar, and to reflect the success of The Party. In that mode, "balance by level" becomes more significant. Lower mortality rates overall further entrench initial disparities.

 

[Herobizkit]

I don't understand the utter lack of interest in exploring the various RPGs some people have.

I have a short and incomplete list of reason, for your consideration:

• Time. The time it takes to understand, absorb, and successfully use new rules is better spent actually PLAYING a game you already understand. Given that most gamers these days are in their 20s-40s, life is just too busy to dedicate to learning new rules when the rules that are are already known will do the trick for an afternoon/evening.
• Cost. While RPGs these days can be purchased cheaply in PDF form, it can be frustrating to purchase a new product only to use the product once or twice, or never use the product at all. I used to own over a dozen GURPS and a dozen RIFTS books; I tried to to GM a GURPS game and it crapped out because I found the prep work to be overwhelming, and I never got to play OR GM a RIFTS game, ever. ~500 bucks down the drain.
• Familiarity: Most people get into new games through word of mouth, and many RPGs don't have a large enough player base to create the buzz that some players need in order to catch their interest. D&D is very widely known; Blue Rose, for example, not so much.
• Lack of Players: In my case, I only have one player in my 'group'; we take turns DMing solo campaigns. We stick with the same D&D rule set for all of the above reasons. Perhaps with more players, we could cater to a wider variety of game settings.

...he's actually making noises like he's considering making a PC for my upcoming Supers 1912 campaign.)

... and he SHOULD, because your game sounds AWESOME.

What *I* don't understand is the love of 'vanilla' fantasy. I have been gaming for over 20 years, and the LAST thing I want to play in the way of a campaign settings is a traditional, generic "dwarves n' elves n' orks" Tolkeinish, medieval European world where nothing changes in the way of social or technological progress over several thousands of years of world history. Ick.

 

[Noumenon]

I never got to play OR GM a RIFTS game, ever. ~500 bucks down the drain.

Rifts books were so much fun for me to read, at least $15 per book was well spent no matter what.