A Question of Character...

[Derren]

3.x has been out for years and has a MOUNTAIN of supplements. There is no doubt in my mind that five years from now when there is a mountain of 4th edition supplements, you will be able to play any type of character you can think of and then some.

I would be content with the 4E core books offering the same amount of options than the 3E core books, but unless the 4E ranger is, other than the 4E rogue, super generic and not a very focused archer I don't see that happening.

 

[Thornir Alekeg]

I look at 4E previews and I say to myself, metaphorically, "Why does the hardware store want to sell me doughnuts?" And then I say to myself, "Maybe I've gone to the wrong store.", and go (rather less metaphorically) elsewhere.

They are offering premade donuts for people who don't want to make their own. Perhaps they haven't yet opened the part of the store where the donut fryers are sold so they aren't offering them yet in the 4e previews. Once June rolls around you may discover that they sell donut fryers as well. They will still sell premade donuts for those who don't want to make their own and to show you what you can do yourself with the donut fryer.

For some reason I'm feeling the sudden urge to head over to Dunkin'

 

[Crazy Jerome]

Another way to look at "playing the role" is the way our group does. You have a character. You might have designed the character very precisely. You might have a lot of background. Or you might have been handed a pregen set of stats, which you then named. Or maybe you even had it generated semi-randomly (ala Red Box Basic D&D). Or you might have written up a bunch of (Fantasy Hero) powers on index cards, shuffled them, and given everyone a random deck, followed by some horsetrading, which you then forced into a playable character with some judicious tweaking. Point is, it doesn't matter once play starts.

With play, the character really forms. It "develops in play", and that is the only meaningful roleplaying to us. In fact, we consider it rather a badge of honor to be able to be handed a pregen, name it, and then roleplaying something vibrant off of that weak start. Contrawise, it doesn't matter how much background or "character development" went into your character sheet--unless you can use that to make something happen in play. Note this is completely orthogonal to the question of powergaming or lack thereof.

I don't pretend that our preference is superior to anyone else's as far as any value statements are concerned. But I will note that it allows us to quite happily play a wide variety of games, without changing our style, without powergaming being an issue at all, and without getting bummed over the limitations of some particular game, at some particular moment. Personally, if I were that invested in designing the exact character everyone visualized in their head, then I would stick to Hero, GURPs, or a similar system. D&D seems a weak fit, and always has been.

 

[MichaelK]

Firstly, so far as I'm aware (and I could be wrong, 4e is new to us all) a build is not a character option. It's simply a recommendation of how to make a character. There are not 16 types of character + skills + feats + options. There are 8 types of character + skills + feats + options, with 16 predescribed combinations of the above.

Secondly, I'm going to be fussy about my roleplaying games. Not only do I already have a shelf bending under the weight of the many systems I already own (at least 50), but I can download a free system from the internet, use one of the several I've already written myself for my own group or write a new one should I feel so inspired.

With all of those options a system is going to have to be pretty damn magnificent to be the one I pick to be my new game of choice. And I'm not going to nod meekly at whatever I'm handed and say, "well it'll be fun", when I have other options -Including not playing anything at all-.

Now, I don't share the opinions necessarily of the people saying, "I don't like the rogue because it sounds like I can't do this". (I might, but I just don't feel like I've seen enough yet to be sure).

But I like their worrying a whole lot more than your saying "Just smile, take what you're given and try to have fun".

If I was wanting 4e to have X (The option to play a nimble fighter, monsters to kill, spells to cast, whatever) and it doesn't, then what is unreasonable about saying...

"Well damn, I don't think this game is going to be right for me. Pity because I was really hoping it would be."

Edit: And yes... perhaps people are going on about it a bit much but what do you expect when we're all really nervous about what's going on with a game we like and WOTC is playing games with people to drum up some anticipation for their new product?

(Here's one small bit of the game out of context... want to know more, you'll have to wait until you're sallivating).

 

[Ruin Explorer]

Here’s my thing: If you like the game of D&D, my guess is you will have fun playing ANY of those characters! Pick the one that infringes on your ideal the least and play the game! I mean, if someone told me I couldn’t play D&D unless I played a Warlord (the least enticing class according to me), I’d say “fine!”, and enthusiastically play the character. It’s a fun game (I hope) regardless!

I just think playing the game and ADVENTURING itself is what makes the game fun. I want to go to these places the DM has cooked up for me and kill the monsters he puts in my way. Traveling to new places, fighting new (and old) monsters, and telling a story through the party’s actions and dialogue – that’s what makes the game fun for me. People seem to get so caught up in what the characters’ abilities are. They are what they are. Choose what you can and move on with the game.

Sorry, "your thing" is where you lose the plot entirely.

I don't enjoy playing most of D&D's classes in any previous edition, and I don't enjoy playing certain races. I don't know anyone who does enjoy all races and classes, actually. I mean, I loathe Paladins, I don't find Sorcerers interesting, Rangers send me to sleep, etc.

Playing my character is what makes the game fun for me (or GMing others doing the same). Not generic-ass "adventuring". Adventures are fun, but I suspect your vision of what constitutes an adventure is a lot more linear than mine.

What I'd suggest is that you don't assume everyone who plays D&D enjoys it in the same way you do. I know lots of people enjoy it in very different ways to me. It's that assumption that undermines your entire post, ultimately.

 

[Grossout]

Playing my character is what makes the game fun for me (or GMing others doing the same). Not generic-ass "adventuring". Adventures are fun, but I suspect your vision of what constitutes an adventure is a lot more linear than mine.
....................................................................................................................
What I'd suggest is that you don't assume everyone who plays D&D enjoys it in the same way you do. I know lots of people enjoy it in very different ways to me. It's that assumption that undermines your entire post, ultimately.

Point taken about what makes the game fun for you. I guess that's the type of response I was trying to learn more about.

But I wasn't assuming everyone enjoys the game the same way I do. In fact, in my opening statement, I pretty much said as much. Then I went on to say what I did like about the game. Like I mentioned before, I was just trying to get a feel for different points of view, and why people like the game in the first place.

 

[Grossout]

Thanks for dropping knowledge, folks.

 

[Henry]

Point taken about what makes the game fun for you. I guess that's the type of response I was trying to learn more about.

But I wasn't assuming everyone enjoys the game the same way I do. In fact, in my opening statement, I pretty much said as much. Then I went on to say what I did like about the game. Like I mentioned before, I was just trying to get a feel for different points of view, and why people like the game in the first place.

Quick side-track back to an earlier point: Have you ever read any of Robin Laws' stuff on gamers and gamer types? He's not the Prophet of All Knowledge, but he does have some good stuff to say on this kind of thing.

 

[Grossout]

Quick side-track back to an earlier point: Have you ever read any of Robin Laws' stuff on gamers and gamer types? He's not the Prophet of All Knowledge, but he does have some good stuff to say on this kind of thing.

No. Actually I don't know anything about Robin Law or his writings. I'll look it up. Thanks.

 

[I'm A Banana]

I gotta think we can all find some fun characters to play. I think the people who say ‘but I want to play a rogue who does A, B, and C – but can also do X, Y, and Z, because that’s the idea of the character I have in my head’ are being a little ridiculous.

...

As if a frosted donut covered in sprinkles, and a frosted donut without sprinkles just aren’t enough options! Who has that particular of a taste!

See, it's not really about finding a fun character to play, it's about playing the character who is fun for you to play.

It's crucial.

Anyway, back to those 16 types of characters. Here’s my thing: If you like the game of D&D, my guess is you will have fun playing ANY of those characters! Pick the one that infringes on your ideal the least and play the game! I mean, if someone told me I couldn’t play D&D unless I played a Warlord (the least enticing class according to me), I’d say “fine!”, and enthusiastically play the character. It’s a fun game (I hope) regardless!

I just think playing the game and ADVENTURING itself is what makes the game fun. I want to go to these places the DM has cooked up for me and kill the monsters he puts in my way. Traveling to new places, fighting new (and old) monsters, and telling a story through the party’s actions and dialogue – that’s what makes the game fun for me. People seem to get so caught up in what the characters’ abilities are. They are what they are. Choose what you can and move on with the game.

Just my two cents.

Okay. Why do we need 4e, again, if we can have fun with any old thing, regardless?

I mean, it's not as if the fiddly math at high levels in 3e was all THAT bad. Pick a character and don't worry about the buffs and HAVE FUN!

Or, it's not as if the race/class restrictions in 2e were THAT bad. Certainly there are enough optoins for everyone to enjoy!

And look at 1e! Options galore! I bet everyone could have fun playing that Fighter if all they just forgot the fact that they all looked the same and just HAD FUN.

Or, heck, why do we even need D&D? Let's just play make-believe. We don't need to create rules, we just need to pretend we're other people and enjoy ourselves!

Basically, this reductio ad absurdum was addressed at your position that we have "enough options to have fun." If people can't have the SPECIFIC options they want, then it's not fun for them.

Not everyone gets very specific all the time, but we all do from time to time.