You get equipment list. DM gets rest.

[Umbran]

Beyond a few sentences about PC background, DM hasn't given us much else to look at.

Yes, which is why I suggest something that'd help make the system work, beyond what he's given us to look at.

Worst, that phrase about letting the DM make the decision as to which particular class your PC gets to level up in infantalizes the player.

That's some great hyperbole.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

Yes, which is why I suggest something that'd help make the system work, beyond what he's given us to look at.

We have- we've suggested using a different system.

Several have been thrown around that would do this better, but I'll add another: Warriors & Warlocks. With a more open system, its a lot easier for the GM to simply graft a particular detail into a PCs concept than trying to sort through a half-dozen classes that may model the players' play of his PC to find the one that works best.

That's some great hyperbole.

What else would you call it? He says:

"...Either straight telling the DM or by describing the effect you want and letting the DM make the choice. "
(emphasis mine)
Like I said, I'm perfectly fine with GMs who restrict what is available in their campaign. I've played in "PHB only," "No Paladins or Monks," "anything but Psi" games and so forth. I still get to decide what my PC is within those constraints. The DM lets me choose how to realize my PC.

This doesn't even seem to be "you tell me what you want and I'll tell you if that option is available."

This is different. He's deciding for you- this is "You tell me what you want, but I decide what you get." There is no respect in evidence. He is presuming to know better how to realize the concept you have in your head than you do.

 

[Saeviomagy]

Incidentally, I have played in this style of game, played in D&D in an amnesia scenario. Even with the DM heavily disguising aspects of the classes, we all worked out what classes we were within 5-10 minutes, and spent a lot of the rest of the time trying to pin down the nuances.

In fact, obfuscating the rules caused us to focus on them to the point where I can't really remember most of the details of the adventure itself.

 

[TheAuldGrump]

I tried this back in the late '70s.

It was the single biggest mistake that I ever made when running games. Play dragged - arguing increased, workload on DM slowed results, minutae about what the PCs were trying to do, what I thought they were trying to do, what they could do....

It is just plain no fun for anyone at the table - DM and players alike. Fortunately I came to my senses after three hours of unmitigated suck. Like trying to run a race with all the competitors nailed to the ground through their right feet - a lot of pain and crying, with everyone running around in circles.

The Auld Grump

 

[fuzzlewump]

As several of us have been trying to point out, many concepts and classes in D&D play very similarly, but will have different mechanical effects. A person playing an armored warrior of faith has many options...but only a few of those can qualify for Kensai by 5th level, and then only if the right feats are taken. Nuances like that are damned difficult to role-play. This is character building via charades: if the perception of the GM varies too far from what the player believes he is acting out, the player's concept doesn't get realized as it gets lost in the gap between auteur/actor and audience/game master.

In theory, the players of this game won't care about the mechanical effects. They care about their character filling the niche they want them to fill. As long as the character is an "armored dude wielding faith," he wouldn't care about being a cleric or a paladin or whatever. You're right, if you're trying to charade your DM into building the 'correct' character for you mechanically, then you absolutely would not enjoy, and I assume aren't the target audience for, the type of game the OP mentions.

Also, the player's concept should just a be a concept not based in mechanics. If the concept is a Level 3 cleric, level 2 paladin, level 1 fighter, level 3 insert prestige class here, then that's bad for this proposed system. The concept should be story-based, and as long as the mechanics meet that story element, then good. The player wouldn't care if he met the requirements for 'Kensei.' If the story elements as well as stated player intention dictate 'Kensei,' then the DM would give him Kensei. Because it's in the hands of the DM, he can handwave jumping through hoops to get it.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

I hear you fuzzlewump, but I have 2 responses:

1. You still have to pitch this to prospective players- how do you winnow out the ones who want "hands on?"
2. How do you roleplay someone whose weapon is enchanted from within? Or manifests auras, or causes otherworldly weapons to appear out of thin air?

And besides, which kind of armored warrior of faith could matter a great deal, even on a roleplaying level.

Let's look at my aforementioned warrior with a breath weapon: a slight tweak of that design and a couple of levels later, he's got some divine spells in his repertoire. But he can't turn undead...something others might expect him to do.

If one of those others is the DM, he's going to figure that power into calculations about how he designs adventures...and when you don't, there will follow a very interesting conversation. An unfortunate one, if the undead cause a TPK.

Details matter.

Also, the player's concept should just a be a concept not based in mechanics.

You misunderstand where I'm coming from. When I design, I may start from anywhere: a class, a race, a feat, a spell, a weapon, a piece of art I saw, a story I read, a song I heard, and so forth.

Once I have the basic concept, I solidify the concept by thinking about both his origins but also a potential "final" version of him, a goal to shoot for...which necessitates that I think about the pathway of how to get there. Certainly, events in campaign may alter that potential future, and that's fine. That's part of the game.

What typically ISN'T part of the game is someone else overwriting my vision with their own.

 

[fuzzlewump]

I hear you fuzzlewump, but I have 2 responses:

1. You still have to pitch this to prospective players- how do you winnow out the ones who want "hands on?"
2. How do you roleplay someone whose weapon is enchanted from within? Or manifests auras, or causes otherworldly weapons to appear out of thin air?

I have no idea how to pitch this idea; just describe it and they either like it or don't, just like any game or pitch. I'm probably not really answering you, but I'm not at 100% understanding. You roleplay any of those things by describing it. Roleplay isn't limited to what your character says, you say what he does too. Just say "My character _________" where you replace the blank with the things you mentioned. If you meant, how do you roleplay a character who wants to, in the future, be able to manifest auras or what have you? I don't know, roleplay as best you can your character's interest then speak with the DM before or after the game your intentions.

And besides, which kind of armored warrior of faith could matter a great deal, even on a roleplaying level.

If it matters, then the player will say it matters, and will be more specific with his in-game goals. In other words, if it matters, it will matter.

Let's look at my aforementioned warrior with a breath weapon: a slight tweak of that design and a couple of levels later, he's got some divine spells in his repertoire. But he can't turn undead...something others might expect him to do.

The player either roleplayed a desire for turning or he didn't. He told the DM that's what he wanted or he didn't. Much like choosing to play a cleric or not choosing to play a cleric. Details do, indeed, matter.

Once I have the basic concept, I solidify the concept by thinking about both his origins but also a potential "final" version of him, a goal to shoot for...which necessitates that I think about the pathway of how to get there. Certainly, events in campaign may alter that potential future, and that's fine. That's part of the game.

What typically ISN'T part of the game is someone else overwriting my vision with their own.

Again, so long as the DM fulfills the stated thematic criteria, the player should not and would not care what exactly the end result is. A player who cares that the DM made him a paladin instead of a Fighter/Cleric multi-class is not the type of player who would enjoy this game, I imagine. Especially if he was not specific about wanting to lay on hands and all that junk.

 

[Neonchameleon]

He just wants lumberjacks who have tried to cut down trees with the herring.

And most sensible people with experience of multiple systems wouldn't even try. As I said, I don't need to mix milk and lemon juice to know it's a disgusting drink.

In theory, the players of this game won't care about the mechanical effects.

The trouble is that the characters must. Mechanical effects are what stands between them (in character) and death or even accidental suicide. If the wizard doesn't know he can cast fireball, he's dangerous. And he damn well needs to know whether fireball is a 20' radius explosion or whether it fills a set volume and casting it in kobold tunnels or castle corridors is suicidal.

At that point even in theory the players need to blind themselves to things their characters would care about. And that's really going to help them roleplay. Now if you want to instead go for an effects-based spontaneous magic system rather than one with predetermined hard-coded spells, a lot of the objections weaken or even evaporate. But D&D is not such a system. Which is why a lot of us have been suggesting that other systems that would suit the idea better.

I have no idea how to pitch this idea; just describe it and they either like it or don't, just like any game or pitch. I'm probably not really answering you, but I'm not at 100% understanding. You roleplay any of those things by describing it. Roleplay isn't limited to what your character says, you say what he does too. Just say "My character _________" where you replace the blank with the things you mentioned. If you meant, how do you roleplay a character who wants to, in the future, be able to manifest auras or what have you? I don't know, roleplay as best you can your character's interest then speak with the DM before or after the game your intentions.

Of course. And this is where the idea is revealed to be an absolutely stupid one. The characters should know what they are able to do and roughly how effective it is. The devil, as always, is in the details. By stripping the character sheet from the character, you have ensured that they do not know what they can do or what powers they have. The only way to explain this in such a detailed system is giving the PCs amnesia. Which means that the DM is pitching a game in which all the players are playing characters with brain damage. (If I had to play in such a game I'd either submit a punch drunk fighter, a wizard who'd done too much Vancian casting, or a Cleric who'd had his mind blown through a Commune spell.)

If the system is relatively light with effects based magic, the brain damage issue goes away - the very specific nature of the D&D rules is the problem here. But at that point you have all the advantages of the DM being the one keeping the character sheet without the DM needing to put the extra work in.

If it matters, then the player will say it matters, and will be more specific with his in-game goals. In other words, if it matters, it will matter.

But knowing whether you heal through spellcasting or Lay On Hands or even through music should be screamingly obvious. Armour, weapons, feats, spells, class features. All obvious with a very few exceptions (Toughness being the obvious one). The only thing that is defensible unless the party is a theme party with amnesia is for the DM to keep the exact numbers secret. At which point, why bother?

The player either roleplayed a desire for turning or he didn't. He told the DM that's what he wanted or he didn't. Much like choosing to play a cleric or not choosing to play a cleric. Details do, indeed, matter.

And if the DM accidently wrote "Wizard" on the character sheet when the character concept was cloistered cleric of Bocobob or Ioun? The player can roleplay a desire for turning - but can go whistle.

Again, so long as the DM fulfills the stated thematic criteria, the player should not and would not care what exactly the end result is. A player who cares that the DM made him a paladin instead of a Fighter/Cleric multi-class is not the type of player who would enjoy this game, I imagine. Especially if he was not specific about wanting to lay on hands and all that junk.

This is why D&D is the wrong game to try this sort of nonsense in. There is a significant difference between a Paladin, a Fighter, and a Fighter/Cleric. And IC the character ought to know his magical capabilities (unless he's taken too many knocks to the head). Remember Clerics in D&D (pre-4e) wear heavy armour and fight in the front lines.

An honest pitch for this game would seem to be "I don't like the way you focus on your character sheets. Therefore want to give all your characters brain damage so they stop remembering what they are good at." A better approach would be a different game with shorter character sheets, of which many have been named.

 

[Umbran]

What else would you call it?

I'd call it what it is - "allowing someone else to deal with the mechanics", without all the connotation that this is like not being potty trained.

This is different. He's deciding for you- this is "You tell me what you want, but I decide what you get." There is no respect in evidence. He is presuming to know better how to realize the concept you have in your head than you do.

For the game to proceed, this must be an agreed-upon arrangement between player and GM. There is no presumption - there is instead a responsibility (and trust) actively given to the GM to do certain things in the game, and a corresponding acceptance of that responsibility on the part of the GM.

That calls for more respect for each other, rather than less.

One of the best meals I had in a restaurant recently was a "chef's choice" - I knew I was getting a soup, an appetizer, an entree, and a dessert, but I didn't know exactly what they'd be. The chef most certainly didn't know my own tastes better than I do. But allowing the chef to choose for me does not render me into an infant. I made a mature choice to experience things as they came, rather than to seize control.

You seem to react is if this is about force and a power relationship - as if somehow the players can't just say, "No, thanks" when this is proposed. I think if anyone is treating the players as infants, it is you - you are insisting you know what's good for players. If you were treating players as mature themselves, you'd allow them to make that choice, would you not?

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dannyalcatraz
Let's look at my aforementioned warrior with a breath weapon: a slight tweak of that design and a couple of levels later, he's got some divine spells in his repertoire. But he can't turn undead...something others might expect him to do.

The player either roleplayed a desire for turning or he didn't. He told the DM that's what he wanted or he didn't. Much like choosing to play a cleric or not choosing to play a cleric. Details do, indeed, matter.

Here's the problem: the player RPs trying to cast divine spells (however THAT works, since he hasn't leveled yet) in a game presumably where undead have not yet appeared (robbing the DM of a data point), and the DM has to sort through the dozen or so divine caster classes, some of which do and some of which don't turn undead. He then chooses.

And his choice is 100% wrong because I was thinking of a feat, namely arcane disciple. I wasn't planning on multiclassing into a divine class at all- my plan was strictly staying within my arcane class, with a slight possibility of multiclassing into Ftr or Marshal.

The DM, thinking he's got a "turner" in the party designs his forthcoming undead-heavy story arc, little realizing he's setting up a TPK.

In a game like W&W, HERO, GURPS, or any of a host of others, the GM would simply add a little divine spellcasting to the PC's repertoire.