The Crazy Character RPG Equation: Which Side of the Screen?

[Jared Rascher]

I've been noticing something lately. While "gonzo" characters, i.e. people with really strange themes or using off beat classes or races or options is fun from time to time, for me personally its really hard to keep invested in the story when the "crazy" builds up too much.

What's weird is, its not that the campaign needs to be "grim" or "low magic" or anything like that, just that the player options, when they get too "anything goes," seem to start drawing me out of the campaign.

I enjoy my friend's campaign, for example, but the actual storyline gets lost a lot, at least in my mind, because we've had two goliaths, a lizardfolk, a half-drow, etc. in the party. Nothing we run into seems that much stranger than our party.

Similarly, I noticed that I had a harder time getting invested in some PFS scenarios at the local convention when we had groups that had flying rhinos and armed ape animal companions than in the sessions that just have more traditional races and classes.

I still had fun in both cases, but the story was less of the fun, and trying to be strategic and joke around became more important. A different feel, and one that doesn't seem to really push the storyline into prominence.

One of the things I think of in relation to this has to do with Tolkien's idea that the Silmarillion was harder to get a handle on because he had so many elves and ancient, advanced races of Men in the book and no hobbits to be the perspective characters.

Anyway, it all puts me in mind of where you draw the line, and how much outside the box options affect a story.

 

[kitsune9]

I see your point. I like my fantasy to be high-powered with a good mixture of steampunk. Iron Kingdoms is the best campaign setting for me as what my preferred level of fantasy is. However, I draw the line with mixing fantasy with ray guns and crashed spaceships so if such stuff happens, I tend to moan somewhat.

Of course, everyone is different. One of my players moans at me when I have a flying sailing ship in the campaign.

 

[Jared Rascher]

I see your point. I like my fantasy to be high-powered with a good mixture of steampunk. Iron Kingdoms is the best campaign setting for me as what my preferred level of fantasy is. However, I draw the line with mixing fantasy with ray guns and crashed spaceships so if such stuff happens, I tend to moan somewhat.

Of course, everyone is different. One of my players moans at me when I have a flying sailing ship in the campaign.

I guess what's weird to me, though, is that it doesn't bother me if you are playing a high fantasy game and you find a ray gun or fight robots. But if the player's get access to ray guns as an "assumption" even though the rest of the campaign is suppose to look like a fairly standard fantasy campaign, that kind of wheedles at the story for me.

 

[steeldragons]

I've been noticing something lately. While "gonzo" characters, i.e. people with really strange themes or using off beat classes or races or options is fun from time to time, for me personally its really hard to keep invested in the story when the "crazy" builds up too much.

What's weird is, its not that the campaign needs to be "grim" or "low magic" or anything like that, just that the player options, when they get too "anything goes," seem to start drawing me out of the campaign.

I enjoy my friend's campaign, for example, but the actual storyline gets lost a lot, at least in my mind, because we've had two goliaths, a lizardfolk, a half-drow, etc. in the party. Nothing we run into seems that much stranger than our party.

Similarly, I noticed that I had a harder time getting invested in some PFS scenarios at the local convention when we had groups that had flying rhinos and armed ape animal companions than in the sessions that just have more traditional races and classes.

I still had fun in both cases, but the story was less of the fun, and trying to be strategic and joke around became more important. A different feel, and one that doesn't seem to really push the storyline into prominence.

-snip-

Anyway, it all puts me in mind of where you draw the line, and how much outside the box options affect a story.

I totally agree. I think this has been going on for a loooong time.

Let's face it, a lot of us started out in gaming as a social interaction and, I daresay, an imagination/creative outlet. Many of the people I started gaming with would be considered among the geeks, nerds and assorted other loners/malcontents of the high school "social order." We knew we were different and gaming let us BE different and be POWERFUL while being different as opposed to the general lack of esteem or "personal power" most tweens n' teens feel/are coping with in those years.

Things were great for the first few editions of the game, but somewhere along the line, it seems designers started capitalizing on this "I wanna be cool in my uniqueness" mentality and so racial and class "options" began exploding to that "anything goes" kind of style.

My interest in general was sorely put off and my suspension of "disbelief" sorely tested when things like half-dragons, half-celestials, genasi, gnolls, warforged, minotaurs, etc...became your "regular guy on the street"...and of course, let's not forget our friend Mr. Do'Urdlen whom I credit with beginning the whole thing by bringing hordes and hordes of drow up out of the underdark to just...ya know...saunter down main street. Every last one of them the tragically misunderstood or sole surviving exile of his or her house, naturally. After that, "traditional race" kinda went out the window.
(as well as making every "Evil" race capable of "Good" characters)

And don't get me started on the introductions of tieflings (apparently EVERYONE has had sex with a "fiend" at some point in their family history. These guys are EVERYwhere!), the Dragonborn, or even Eladrin.

And I agree, it's cool to be the "last of your kind" or one of a very rarely encountered class/order...those characters are can be fun to play...but when EVERYONE in the party is a "one of a kind" so to speak (either with weird/rare race, or the latest race yet created and sanctioned by "the rules", or some new class/combo/kit from noone knows where) then "one of a kind" quickly becomes the norm...and you're right, when the party's the "Strangest thing" to be encountered in the realms...something's just not fun/right.

You are correct, the oddity of a group definitely removes from a story...unless the DM in going to incorporate each player's distinct unique background into the plot...always a good move from a story perspective if you're sandboxing it...but if there's a "set plot" might be cumbersome to work out. But even if they did/do, all you're doing is going through one story of why this PC is the/an "exception" after the other...One oddity among a party is a plot point/potentially interesting for the story...a party of oddity's (while an interesting concept for a one shot, maybe) would get old reeeeally fast...IMHO.

One of the things I have always kept a mental eye on in my own campaign world is allowing ample choice for players, but not endless options. There are nations and cultures in place...and I work with everyone to get the player a character concept they want/like/came up with within the setting's framework.

And simply because WotC or any publisher for that matter, puts out a book of the month (well, not anymore, from what I've been reading. haha)...but WHEN it was a stream of "now this book gives you rules for playing XYZ and QRS." There is this kind of craze, and I submit it is an American consumer mentality in general, that the "new thing" must be the "best" or "coolest"...by no other virtue than the cultural/societal attitude that "newer automatically = better."

Ok, this has gotten a bit rambley, but I'll wrap it up saying, YES, I see what you're saying and YES I agree that it can detract from the story and/or lessen one's enjoyment at the table.

So I just don't allow it...Here's the races, here's the cultures, here's the classes. Haven't had any complaints about it in my game world so far.

Have fun and happy de-drow,tiefling,goliath,half-dragon-ifying.
--Steel Dragons

 

[Wednesday Boy]

I enjoy my friend's campaign, for example, but the actual storyline gets lost a lot, at least in my mind, because we've had two goliaths, a lizardfolk, a half-drow, etc. in the party. Nothing we run into seems that much stranger than our party.

I think it helps if the elements of the party (be it race, class, whatever) are integrated into the campaign world and story because it makes their appearance less random and more meaningful.

A lizardfolk may seem like a random race picked from the Monster Manual but if lizardfolk as a whole have a connection to the campaign world (Lizardfolk live in the Black Swamp on the southeastern penninsula of the continent. They are a xenophobic, tribal people and diplomatic forays from humans have lead nowhere.) they'll be a real part of the world and won't seem random. And if the player gives a good reason for why their lizardfolk character has separated from its xenophobic kin and the GM works that into storylines, it'll make the race seem more thoughtout and less gonzo.

 

[Hungry Like The Wolf]

As somebody who loves the weird spirit of the game, I agree but as somebody who loves to play Goblinoids, I bitterly disagree.

 

[Jack Daniel]

I'm definitely not an "anything goes" kind of DM, but I also like a spread of races beyond the Tolkienesque to make the setting more interesting than your bog-standard fantasy. So on top of the usual elf/dwarf/gnome/hobbit, I'll usually throw in options for things like centaurs, satyrs, merfolk, fairies, that sort of thing, suitably nerfed so that they balance with the standard races. Nothing too outlandish or monstrous.

Some of the extra variety that might ordinarily overwhelm the players is, in large part, mitigated by the fact that I'm playing classic D&D, so non-humans are all a class unto themselves. It's not "I want to play a chaotic neutral drow elf fighter/mage"; it's just "I want to play a neutral elf", end of story. (I like this method, because it makes humans special when only humans can be fighters, mages, clerics, thieves, monks, &c.)

I tend to draw the line at allowing things like orcs and trolls as PCs because, hey, they're monsters. They're pure evil, they serve the Dark Lord of Mordor, and I'll be overusing these guys as antagonists throughout the campaign anyway. You can't have a "good" goblin running around the game world if the DM says they don't exist in the first place!

 

[Coldwyn]

I think there´s nothing wrong with exotic or crazy as long as it is, as long as the wider context fits.
Playing a sole lizardfolk when the only lizardfolk around is the blackwash tribe in the nothern swamp? Actually unfitting in two ways, what does one lone lizardfolk do wandering around, on the other hand, how can lizardfolk even exist? They would have dwindled to nothingness due to a very stagnant gene-pool.

Otoh, I really liked the Al´Qadim approach by offering every race a chance to join civilization by swearing the oath of the Lore Giver.

 

[steeldragons]

I'm definitely not an "anything goes" kind of DM, but I also like a spread of races beyond the Tolkienesque to make the setting more interesting than your bog-standard fantasy. So on top of the usual elf/dwarf/gnome/hobbit, I'll usually throw in options for things like centaurs, satyrs, merfolk, fairies, that sort of thing, suitably nerfed so that they balance with the standard races. Nothing too outlandish or monstrous.

My world, almost verbatim! haha. In addition to the "AD&D canon" (human, half-elf, half-orc, elf (6 sub-races), dwarf, gnome, halfling-the hairfooted kind ) my campaign world allows for centaur, satyr, sprite and a homebrew avian/winged race.

Haven't done any extended "sea" based campaign, but I would almost certainly add/allow merfolk (aquatic elves are already available).

I have other "optionals" in place, though haven't had cause/anyone want to use them including: lizardmen or goblin (both often live within "civilized" realms and possibly interact peaceably with its other inhabitants) and jerali (homebrew felinoids).

--SD

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

In defense of Drizzt and other oddballs:

I played a Drow many years before he ever hit the bookshelves. I did it because something about the combination of class & race felt right. And ive played other misfits since then- Minotaurs, Githzerai, etc.- not all the time, but more often than the rest of the group.

So i'd say the desire to play such PCs is fairly commonplace. All Drizzt did was popularize that mentality, let others realize the full potential of the game.

But whether such misfits are allowed in play is entirely up to the DM, so if you have a problem with it, you know where to look.