Favorite actual/wished for fantasy character that wouldn't work well with D&D rules

[Celebrim]

I more wish someone would break down the racial options so that one could build their own...

In my experience with many game systems, this rarely works out as well as you'd think. The problem with point buy systems is that they usually require a significant amount of table agreement not to abuse them and the larger the scope of the options in question the more that this is true. Point buy systems are almost impossible to balance. Class based systems are much easier to roughly balance because there is a much smaller set of considerations. When you are pricing a point buy system, you have to deal not only with every possible interaction but come up with some way to impose diminishing margin of returns on specialization to reflect the true value of being utterly awesome at one thing. I just don't foresee alot of goodness coming out of point buy class or race systems in this context. Sure, you could use standard table agreements not to abuse such a system, but in that case, its not really that different than just working out with your DM what he'll let you play.

Really, what happened with late 3.5 edition strongly reminds me of the problems with point buy system. As 3.5 (in my opinion unwisely) expanded the number of classes available, the multiclassing situation began to strongly resemble point buy character creation. This was made worse by the fact that almost every class was front loaded to allow the character to play the full concept at low level (Pathfinder and FantasyCraft specifical try to fix this problem in different ways). As the mutliclassing options and interactions increase, you reach a point by the mid to high levels that the character begins to resemble something created by a flawed point buy process with poor implementation of diminishing margin of returns on specialization.

Almost as importantly, the D&D race model does not lend itself strongly to this because the standard D&D races are based on very small departures from human norms. The race model does not work well for every large departures from human norm, and systems like LA are inherently broken and cannot be fixed because of D&D's open ended nature. I think the very first problem you'd run into in such as system is that the standard racial builds are built off of such a small point value (racial advantages are small) that you'd not have enough points to build anything that departed from the norm. (This is just another way of saying that you couldn't make every race +0 LA, even if you removed HD from calculation.) There are some things you can do about this, and FantasyCraft demonstrates one approach to dealing with it, but in the end I think that the assumption of there being some easy build system to make manticores and humans and angels and mice balanced with each other and yet at the same time have a high degree of racial versimiltude in the mechanics is likely to end in frustration.

 

[Silvercat Moonpaw]

Then perhaps a class-based system could be developed. Not even necessarily a system that lets a player precisely duplicate the intended creature but instead provides something comparable while still being balanced (within the type of balance that exists in the D&D system). Like what Savage Species tried to do, only with initial stats being balanced, no levels without normal level increases (i.e. the progressions had levels that represented racial HD with all the usual level bonuses and levels that represented LA that didn't have that), and really just a very few "monster" classes with options for customization.

I don't maintain any illusions that any idea I come up with is going to fit easily into the rigidity of the race/class system without work. But someone's got the challenge the system or it just becomes re-treads of the same old stuff.

 

[Chrono22]

One of the problems I tend to see with fantasy player concepts is that players tend to start with concepts that really represent goals more than concepts. A system can handle a concept like 'ghost/spirit' only if it integrates with the starting concepts everyone else brings to the table. Systems can provide this, but the natural starting point of D&D games is characters who are at the beginning of a Bildungsroman. I really feel this is the only limitation D&D places on your concepts. Pretty much everything mechanical can be worked out, provided you accept that you are at the start of your heroic career, not the middle or the end. Some other systems are much better for characters who already have long life stories and have acquired great power. Or you can start D&D characters at a sufficiently high level provided everyone comes to the table with such a concept. I had a player in my current campaign who'd never really played before say, "Can I play a dinosaur rider ith lasers?" I said, "Well, you can't really start that way because it wouldn't be fair to the rest of the party and that sort of thing quickly leads to, 'My concept is so awesome I ought to be the most awesome thing in the world', which ultimately isn't fun for the whole table. However, you can play a character who has that as a goal, and here are some things you can do that will facilitate that goal..."

Um, but actually I know all this. I posted difficult-to-play/enact character concepts in a thread about difficult-to-play/enact character concepts. You are kind of pointing out the obvious.
​

I know how to play these things- I've already played them. You can see my "player stats" below, but it doesn't really account for my oddball trait. I just don't think the system of 3.5 D&D supports them well- there are hurdles (sometimes, big ones) that must be overcome to realize these concepts using the rules.
And I'd say that any character concept, if it is holds interest, is automatically a valid concept. It may not be appropriate to the setting or the group dynamic- but you really should be able to play anything so long as it doesn't disrupt the game or ruin the other players' experience.

And there is nothing inherently wrong with point buy systems.

 

[Celebrim]

Um, but actually I know all this...You are kind of pointing out the obvious.

Well, good. Sorry to be tedious then.

I posted difficult-to-play/enact character concepts in a thread about difficult-to-play/enact character concepts.

Maybe that's my problem. I though the thread was about things that are difficult under the D&D rules. I was pointing that concepts might have problems that still well beyond whether the D&D rules can mechanically handle them. I was also pointing out that for many concepts that are difficult, D&D is no worse at dealing with them than any system because the difficulties with the concept aren't simply in the question of how you mechanically represent them.

I know how to play these things- I've already played them. You can see my "player stats" below, but it doesn't really account for my oddball trait. I just don't think the system of 3.5 D&D supports them well- there are hurdles (sometimes, big ones) that must be overcome to realize these concepts using the rules.

I keep getting confused by that change of emphasis. I'm not questioning your ability to roleplay a difficult concept. I'm not even questioning the ability to realize these concepts under the rules. Which is I guess where my opinion and yours start to diverge.

And I'd say that any character concept, if it is holds interest, is automatically a valid concept. It may not be appropriate to the setting or the group dynamic- but you really should be able to play anything so long as it doesn't disrupt the game or ruin the other players' experience.

I suppose that is true in a very broad way, but those qualifiers 'if it holds interest' and 'doesn't disrupt the game' or 'ruin the other players' experience' are together absolutely as broad of qualifiers as I think you could put on the statement 'you really should be able to play anything'. Because, if all you mean is that you really should be able to play anything that you enjoy, and your fellow players enjoy, and that your game master enjoys, I'm not sure you've said anything that is actually more expansive than anyone has said.

And there is nothing inherently wrong with point buy systems.

If by that you mean that point buy systems are not inherently bad, then I agree. I've played alot of them, and most systems have some sort of point buy in them even if only as a subsystem.

If on the other hand by that you mean that there is no inherent drawbacks to point buy systems, then I obviously don't agree.

 

[Chrono22]

So... what led you to believe I wasn't referring to the DnD rules? I mean, it's all well and good to say "dnd does it just as well", but that wasn't the subject of the discussion either.
Regarding this

Because, if all you mean is that you really should be able to play anything that you enjoy, and your fellow players enjoy, and that your game master enjoys, I'm not sure you've said anything that is actually more expansive than anyone has said.

This idea was in response to your statements that playing an organization is not a "valid" character concept, but that playing the leader of an organization is. I think that's a choice that should be left to the players and GM to make.

I don't think point buy systems have any drawbacks that class and level-based systems don't have. Considering that it's a simple matter for a player to make a "class" and "level" based advancement chart using the rules of a point buy system.

 

[Nonei]

Celebrim and Chrono22, don't let me stop your fascinating conversation - but I did just want to clarify that the thread is mainly about characters that might be challenging to create with D&D rules from a mechanical standpoint. The roleplaying/group dynamic difficulties are a separate issue that any group would have to work out for themselves.

My 'vision' is basically a system that instead of flipping through books, the DM and the players can sit down and say, ok, what do we want to do this campaign?

And they can use the FULL RANGE of their imaginations without flipping through pages and books of classes and races and trying to find something that "matches" or that they can squish their concept into, or worry about taking 3 levels of x and 2 levels of y and 10 levels of z, but oh-you better take z first because of the extra skill points at first level and you better be a human so you don't get that multiclass penaltiy and blah blah blah. Ok, yes, some people like that (bully for them ).

Personally IME people go about character creation the wrong way. They look at their limited options, and pick which one they want to try. This is great for beginners, but after a few years, you start thinking... fighter? meh. Monk? meh. Wizard? meh. (yes I know there's a bazillion books with 10 bazillion class options, but I still get that feeling and it seems like the Really Cool Classes are cool in fluff only and I disagree with the mechanics)

So, let me go back to our DM and players and give you an example of how I see this playing out. Lets say they decide that they would like to play villagers that were slaughtered and are out to find out what happened. So, they are ghosts. The DM then talks with the players about their expectations of abilities, and decides how powerful they need to be to start, and all the campaign/world stuff that's needed at this point. If you were going RAW, you'd have to apply the ghost template, which has a +5 LA, and various static things that it causes. It has more personalization than many things but it is still a very set number of choices, adn LA +5 is pretty ridiculous.

Assuming that they follow the guidelines of the ghost template, the players will have the abilities and items that they were carrying in life. They might decide that since they are new ghosts, they don't yet have full command of their powers (and maybe only know how to manifest yet) and then as they go up in experience, the DM can allow them to gain more ghostie ability - and be able to know with pretty good confidence what ECL they are. It would also make it easier to ensure that the players are balanced with each other.

Lets say one player decides "Ok, I want to be the former Joe the Blacksmith that takes pride in his barfight abilities, he grew up on the streets. I'd like to start with some bare-hand fighting abilities and skills related to blacksmithing. I think I'll have a pretty good strength and dex, and a decent wisdom and con." He can just put those abilities down, using the guidelines to establish exact numbers.

Maybe in a different game, a player pictures himself as a Paladin, and holy warrior, but doesn't like the spellcasting abilities of a paladin. Or it's a low-magic game and the DM said, no magic users this time unless you want to have to hide it all the time. The DM - who perhaps normally would be reluctant to adjust class abilities - would be able to accept or reject alternatives relatively confidently because they have guidelines to go by.

So basically: I am trying to design a system of building characters that (as much as possible) anyone can build any character they can dream of, and the mechanics are a second thought - easily adjusted to fit the character. Because, IME, the mechanics and the numbers come before the mental picture way too often.

This thread is to know what dreams are out there, so that I can build my system with them in mind and make sure it works - simply and quickly - for as many as possible.

 

[Silvercat Moonpaw]

But does that have to be done with D&D? There are already systems out there that let you build with description. Off the top of my head there's PDQ (Prose Descriptive Qualities), HeroQuest, Cartoon Action Hour: Season 2, Risus, and QAGS (Quicka** Gaming System).

I think there are also many systems that have tried to use d20 games as the base for a point-build system: BESM d20, Open Core, and Exclipse Codex to name three.

 

[Chrono22]

I'm already making such a system. I have alot of work to do with the magic in it- challenging one's own preconceptions about the supernatural is a difficult task, but this is compounded by the fact that magic is by its own nature very ephemeral. Sticking it in a box is bound to make the box explode.
I can give you some general advice, if you don't mind- identify the processes/procedures a player goes through to realize his character concept. People have different methods. From their methods, you can infer their priorities- their assumptions for play.
Avoid using game-specific language whenever possible- the more common sense words and conventional definitions you use, the more intuitive and easily understood your system will be.
Delving into the psychology of roleplaying can also help. Why do people do it? Where do they derive their enjoyment? What kinds of enjoyment do they derive? What do tabletop RPGs give them that other hobbies cannot?

 

[Nonei]

But does that have to be done with D&D?

Well... no. Of course not. But, I really like D&D, and I have a lot of books, and so.. I want to make a system that I would enjoy building a charater for D&D. Thank you for giving me the names of other systems that do that - I will definitely look them over.

I can give you some general advice, if you don't mind- identify the processes/procedures a player goes through to realize his character concept. People have different methods. From their methods, you can infer their priorities- their assumptions for play.
Avoid using game-specific language whenever possible- the more common sense words and conventional definitions you use, the more intuitive and easily understood your system will be.
Delving into the psychology of roleplaying can also help. Why do people do it? Where do they derive their enjoyment? What kinds of enjoyment do they derive? What do tabletop RPGs give them that other hobbies cannot?

I always appreciate advice - and these are some good things to think about. Thanks

 

[Silvercat Moonpaw]

Thank you for giving me the names of other systems that do that - I will definitely look them over.

If you really want to go all-out go for Eclipse Persona. It's got everything (or near-abouts), and the PDF is free.