Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="EzekielRaiden" data-source="post: 6755775" data-attributes="member: 6790260">"Married" and "force" are strong words, too strong in my book. (Of course, I could be cutting myself unfair slack, I dunno.) I have 2, maybe 3 "stock" character ideas that I like to employ (particularly for my "first real game" with a particular system); I also peruse whatever options are available in a given system and try to develop at least 2 "that would be interesting to play" concepts to keep in my back pocket. I then attempt to find a happy medium between effectiveness (numerical optimization), engagement (the 'Goldilocks zone' of requiring neither too little nor too much thought to play), and narrative (an open-ended adventure and character-growth prompt).The core that unites the three is the concept. Without the concept, the narrative disappears, the optimization has no point, and the mechanics become mere buttons to push. So, in the sense that I am married to having a concept, sure--but it need not be a specific concept, and even if I do have a specific one, it need not be fixed. All things--concept, narrative, procedure, effectiveness, and even the character generation system itself--can and will be questioned, pushed, and revised when and where appropriate (and, for the system, allowed--since unlike the other parts that is a place where discussion and negotiation with the DM is necessary). If the concept cannot be satisfactorily achieved in the system, I may need to revise or, in extreme cases, even abandon it for one of my others. Or, with DM buy-in, the system may flex to allow what it normally could not; I just prefer to never rely on a DM being willing to do that for a variety of reasons.It is, in general, trivially easy for me to come up with a character concept (class, race, background/origin, etc.) that I find exciting potential in. Conversely, when I am told what character to play--whether by a person, a roll of dice, or anything else--my inspiration and attachment freezes up. The artificiality of the character becomes primary, and I find it difficult, frustrating, and often unenjoyable to attempt to roleplay such. Context-appropriate limitations that I've already bought into* are perfectly acceptable; they restrict my agency in one area or another, but (in general) do not eliminate it in any area. "Hard" randomness, e.g. "you don't have any say whatsoever in what your stats or race are (and sometimes class or--as you note below, even alignment!), you accept what the dice give you or you don't play" does eliminate agency in any category you apply it to. That's the whole point of it, as I had understood it.*For an actual-play example, "we're playing a side story of our main campaign for now, since you couldn't make it last week. Following some refugees in this world's equivalent of the Underdark--the slaves you set free in your last session. So you can be a dwarf, goblin, or kobold." I ended up playing Ziit, a heroic goblin Fighter/Barbarian growing from vengeance to being a community-builder. But nobody told me to play a Goblin, or a Fighter, or a vengeance-seeker, or an incredibly persuasive but dim-witted character (high Cha mod, neg Int mod, low Wis). I could easily have chosen a different race (within the limitations set), or a different set of stats; but because it was my choice to go with the stats, race, and class that I did, the character meant far more to me than one shoved my direction.And all of those things happen as part of the character actually seeing the light of play. They happen whether I am the character's author or not, hence why my car analogy spoke of the "becoming mine" thing purely via use. That these things always occur means they are independent of whether I have authorship of the character or not. Since it happens no matter what, I still obtain a massive and strict gain from having actual authorship of the character, in addition to being the character's player.Perhaps, to use an analogy a little closer to the object of comparison: I get no real benefit from "exquisite corpse"-style writing exercises. Even when the phrases are arresting and sharp, my awareness of their (kinda) random origin alienates me from them to the point that I can't successfully use them in my work, poetry or prose. And that's just a phrase or two meant to start a longer work--phrases that will get lost amid the subsequent words. Stats, race, class, etc.? Those things will constantly come back up again, reminding me of my alienation from them, snaring every proverbial step from first to last.I know this doesn't affect everyone. I'd even, cautiously, say that it doesn't affect most people. But it does affect me--and it's why I just don't do "hard" random characters (and find "soft" random characters a frustrating-but-sort-of-tolerable requirement).</blockquote>

Verification