You get equipment list. DM gets rest.

[craftygamergirl]

As someone who runs a 4th ed D&D game, I can't imagine attempting to run both the monsters AND manage player mechanics. Not only do the players generally understand their character's mechanics better, but there would be a crucial element missing when I played their characters...self interest. I mean, I might as well make up a bunch of characters and play D&D all by myself.

It would be way, way too easy for the game to be manipulated by the DM chosing the less tactically sound ability or choice because they either want to railroad the players, they don't understand the mechanics as well or because they *think* they understand what a PC wants but they really don't.

It also becomes virtually useless if you play with someone who owns PHB, d&d insider or is experienced in 4th ed at all. It's not hard to figure out that you have magic missle.

Honestly, it just sounds like someone has played with one too many annoying powergamers and has swung in the opposite direction by saying "FINE! I get to control your characters, so you better damn roleplay!"

 

[Umbran]

Well, actually, what I was doing was "I want to breathe arcane lightning!" (very few ways to do that, and only one can be done at 1st level, which is what I stated when I introduced this chimeric PC) followed by "I want to cast some divine spells", a message that failed to be conveyed via words, apparently- how much more difficult a message to convey via role-play?

Hardly difficult at all, as we aren't actually playing through it - we're trying to do in a few sentences in the middle of our days doing other things that which might take an hour or more of real discussion. Assume the GM inserts a "zero level" (precedent for dong that in multiple modules, iirc), in which the PC can't do a whole lot of major stuff.

PC wants to breathe divine lightning, and so seeks out a mentor on things divine. PC discusses possibilities with mentor (in-game exposition of the available alternatives, and discussion between player and GM about where the player hopes the PC goes). PC chooses line for study. GM builds PC accordingly. Done.

Repeat any time the PC wants to jump to new class or style lines - you want to do something really new, have the PC look for it in-game. That signals to the GM what you want to do.

That's a big gap between expectations, with REAL in-game consequences.

So, you talk it out beforehand such that the expectations are properly set. If you really need it to be through in-game roleplaying, there's a mentor as a proxy. You make it sound like it's nigh impossible to do, when all it really requires is communication.

So forgive me if I continue to damn D&D for this kind of game.

You don't need forgiveness. I just think your damnation of the game for this use is premature. The game isn't the issue I see confronting you, but some arbitrary confinement on GM-player communications which I don't think the OP intended.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

Hardly difficult at all, as we aren't actually playing through it - we're trying to do in a few sentences in the middle of our days doing other things that which might take an hour or more of real discussion. Assume the GM inserts a "zero level" (precedent for dong that in multiple modules, iirc), in which the PC can't do a whole lot of major stuff.

A zero level is an interesting concept- I've seen in probably the same sources as you have- but I'm not sure it works for this PC, partly because his abilities are tied to his parentage- the class/feat combo is just the way 3.5 handles it.

PC wants to breathe divine lightning, and so seeks out a mentor on things divine. PC discusses possibilities with mentor (in-game exposition of the available alternatives, and discussion between player and GM about where the player hopes the PC goes). PC chooses line for study. GM builds PC accordingly. Done.

ARCANE lightning- only some spells are divine. Those added spells are the only link to the divine he PC has.

So, you talk it out beforehand such that the expectations are properly set. If you really need it to be through in-game roleplaying, there's a mentor as a proxy. You make it sound like it's nigh impossible to do, when all it really requires is communication.

I know 3.5 pretty well...and most consider me to be a role-player- why should I let someone else design my PC when I know from past experience that nobody designs PCs the way I do? When I first posted this PC design on ENWorld more than a year ago, nobody else stepped up and said anything akin to "Oh yeah, I've done that!" in a Multi-page thread...despite the possibility of such a PC being possible from the release dare of CompArc.

You don't need forgiveness. I just think your damnation of the game for this use is premature. The game isn't the issue I see confronting you, but some arbitrary confinement on GM-player communications which I don't think the OP intended.

Its not a pure communication issue- the OP himself went on and on about level dips and decisions out of nowhere, when in fact the path chosen may make the most sense- either for a role-player or an optimizer.

 

[havard]

As a DM I have actually usually gone the other way, trying to make the players do as much work as possible, leaving me to deal with plot twists, NPCs etc.

Havard

 

[Umbran]

A zero level is an interesting concept- I've seen in probably the same sources as you have- but I'm not sure it works for this PC, partly because his abilities are tied to his parentage- the class/feat combo is just the way 3.5 handles it.

Maybe other GMs are different, but in any game I ran, even if you built your own PC, I'd want to know that before the game began - so, we are still not in the realm of the GM not being able to learn this before game began.

I know 3.5 pretty well...and most consider me to be a role-player- why should I let someone else design my PC when I know from past experience that nobody designs PCs the way I do?

You, personally? I don't know. Especially given that you seem to put very high value on the uniqueness of your personal builds.

How about we instead ask why some generic hypothetical player might sign on to this....

Because not knowing as much leads to greater feeling of world exploration. Because sometimes tying yourself to someone else's ideas leads you to good places you'd not have thought to go yourself. Because it allows the GM to insert novel mechanics that you have to explore and learn about, rather than just read and know in full. Because you just don't want to have to bother with the mechanics at all (I know players like this). Because (as in the OP's case) the players are so tied with fiddling with the fiddly bits that the game is bogging down. Because it allows you, personally, to immerse more to not have to worry about the mechanics.

Those are just a few possible reasons off the top of my head. There are probably many others.

Basically, it's a style and taste thing.

Its not a pure communication issue- the OP himself went on and on about level dips and decisions out of nowhere, when in fact the path chosen may make the most sense- either for a role-player or an optimizer.

Nobody is saying this is the best of all possible ways of playing for everyone. Not all arrangements are for all groups, but that doesn't comprise an argument against it - by that logic, we should argue against D&D itself, because it isn't for everybody.

 

[Connorsrpg]

Tried something similar for 1e/2e dnd for 0 level PCs. Ie they had race and background, but no class. This was determined by their actions. I took notes on actions tried and number of successes, etc. Worked for a while, but once they had a class we went with normal progression. Would have been cool to continue the unknown until these pwers had succeeded several times. It was enjoyable, but I guess, at some stage you need to give the players something.

I used to treat MI's like this too. I would keep the powers to myself and add +'s secretly until they worked out what it was, usually through several successes in game.

Finally - this thread made me think of Savage Worlds again. I was thinking you could just hand out PCs that state 'good at shooting, persuasion' etc. But once system is known they get that from the skills anyway. C

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

Maybe other GMs are different, but in any game I ran, even if you built your own PC, I'd want to know that before the game began - so, we are still not in the realm of the GM not being able to learn this before game began.

When I posted this PC upthread, I gave an abbreviated background to the PC- the full one for the real PC is about 1.5 typwritten pages- so that's not the issue. It's everything subsequent.

Especially given that you seem to put very high value on the uniqueness of your personal builds.

Actually, I was presenting this guy as a corner case to illustrate where problems could arise. I have my stable of stereotypical PCs and my true oddballs.

My issue with this in D&D is essentially this: the more I have to clarify my design with the DM is less time I'm playing the PC. It's infinitely more efficient and headache free for me to simply design my PC and write the stuff on the sheet.

How about we instead ask why some generic hypothetical player might sign on to this....

I can concede all of those save the last because, to me at least, knowing the mechanics of my PC actually helps me immerse myself in him.

Nobody is saying this is the best of all possible ways of playing for everyone. Not all arrangements are for all groups, but that doesn't comprise an argument against it - by that logic, we should argue against D&D itself, because it isn't for everybody.

I'm only arguing that D&D is a spectacularly poor RPG in which to play this style of game...so in a sense, I AM arguing against D&D itself.

Take D&D's derivative cousin, W&W as an example. In it, I could build the same armor wearing, maul using, lightning breathing arcanist as in D&D. When I announce that the PC would like to add divine casting to the mix, the GM in that game could do precisely that, without worrying about which class I'm thinking about, without adding turning undead (or other turnable creatures), without adding domain powers (if any), without making the PC part of church hierarchy, etc.- all this considerations that he'd have to consider in deciphering my intent to do this in D&D.

 

[craftygamergirl]

Alternately, I could see this sort of thing as a really awesome character team building exercise. I mean, as pre-game prep, everyone just talks about their character, but hasn't chosen a class yet. So the character is defined before any mechanics are nailed down. This could be a really neat idea, especially if someone ends up deciding to pick a class they might not have because it fit their story concept!

 

[steenan]

I could well play - or run a game - in a way described in this thread, but only if the system used was simple enough.

By "simple" I mean "with few interacting parts", not "with few numbers on the character sheet". Unknown Armies or Call of Cthulhu are simple. They also fit this style of play. World of Darkness pushes the boundary with its extensive lists of merits and flaws. D&D or Exalted have too many fiddly parts to even try playing them without full knowledge of characters.

And, of course, there's a lot of games that don't allow this style of play not because they are complicated, but because the mechanics do not map directly to character competence (eg. in Dogs in the Vineyard traits "I shoot well: d4" and "I shoot well: 2d10" are equally valid) or because there is no GM in the traditional sense that could handle character sheets (eg. the GM has no more narrative power than players).