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

[Dandu]

Yes, and a person watching Star Wars can generally get what R2-D2 is saying by paying attention to the emotional inflection of his beeps and chirps in the context of the scene, but this by no means implies that the proper way to convey the character through role play R2-D2 is to spend alot of time talking.

I mean, last night (as DM) I did a dog barking, and everyone quickly understood it to mean, "He wants us to follow him.", but the scene would have played out very differently and the dog would have had an entirely different character and portrayal if I'd had the dog come up to the PC's and actually say it.

People can learn Wookie though.

 

[rgard]

Ghost Savage Progression, Savage Species.



You... can definitely do this in 3.5 with any character, really, though there is an NPC class specifically called the aristocrat as well.

FYI...there are some decent write ups for Aristocrat/Noble PC classes here on ENWorld:

http://www.enworld.org/forum/d-d-legacy-house-rules/86539-links-classes-races-forum.html

 

[olshanski]

A low powered 3.5 D&D campaign with NPC classes like the Expert or Aristocrat might have more of that kind of feel, though that's not quite what the system was designed for.

That's my point:
you could mechanically create a COM1, (using 3.0/3.5 rules), but the game certainly doesn't support that type of play.
I don't think there is a 4E version either.

So if the question is "name a character type that you like that cannot be created" then I don't think I can do that. If the question is "name a character type that cannot be played using D&D" then I think the everyman character fits the bill.

 

[Dandu]

So if the question is "name a character type that you like that cannot be created" then I don't think I can do that. If the question is "name a character type that cannot be played using D&D" then I think the everyman character fits the bill.

Is that a challenge?

 

[Celebrim]

People can learn Wookie though.

Well, in my campaign, people can learn dog.

The point is, very few people can speak dog and none of those present could.

Likewise, only one character in the party other than the Wookie could speak Wookie, and most NPC's could not. It's therefore reasonable to suggest that the character is better personified as someone that does most of their communication through body language and vocalizations carrying emotional value, and not instead as someone that acts as the diplomat and party speaker.

 

[Dandu]

Well, in my campaign, people can learn dog.

You're being facetious. This isn't an actual argument.

The point is, very few people can speak dog and none of those present could.

This, however, is a valid point. Kudos.

Likewise, only one character in the party other than the Wookie could speak Wookie, and most NPC's could not.

Options as to how to handle this: Have the Wookie's player speak, and say that it's actually the other PC doing the translation.

 

[Celebrim]

That's my point:
you could mechanically create a COM1, (using 3.0/3.5 rules), but the game certainly doesn't support that type of play.

Why doesn't it? What would be necessary to support it? What system supports 'mundane struggles of the everyman' or 'paychecks and paperwork' significantly better than D&D, and how does it implement this support?

 

[Chrono22]

Why doesn't it? What would be necessary to support it? What system supports 'mundane struggles of the everyman' or 'paychecks and paperwork' significantly better than D&D, and how does it implement this support?

Just about every other RPG I can think of, aside from D&D or its clones, does the everyman better. It's not just about having the characters mechanically represent "normals". It's about the way the challenges are presented to the group. In DnD, the main type of challenge is an encounter. In just about every other game, the main type of challenge is a conflict (could be a encounter, could be something else).
D&D's paradigm/intentions for play are that "you are big badass adventurers". This isn't the case for all RPGs, and it isn't necessary for enjoyable play.
If you want a more comprehensive list, though:
Traveler
Burning Wheel
Savage Worlds
Call of Cthulu
All Flesh Must be Eaten
Aces and Eights
and others I'm sure I'm not thinking of.

It isn't what they have so much as what they don't have. They aren't shoehorning players into specific roles. That's a bonus, for me.

 

[Dandu]

Just about every other RPG I can think of, aside from D&D or its clones, does the everyman better. It's not just about having the characters mechanically represent "normals". It's about the way the challenges are presented to the group. In DnD, the main type of challenge is an encounter. In just about every other game, the main type of challenge is a conflict (could be a encounter, could be something else).

Not true. You don't have to fight monsters in DnD; social campaigns are also an option, for example, and if you overcome a challenge with clever planning rather than force, you should get XP for it according to the DMG, I believe.

 

[Chrono22]

Not true. You don't have to fight monsters in DnD; social campaigns are also an option, for example, and if you overcome a challenge with clever planning rather than force, you should get XP for it according to the DMG, I believe.

In that case, you render half of the proposed mechanics redundant. Clearly the carrot and stick of DnD pushes combat. One because the rewards are greater, and two because every moment a player takes building his character's statistic is an investment- an investment that will go unrewarded if the statistics never come into play.
If you are playing DnD for a purely social experience, it begs the question: why use DnD? Other systems do it better.