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

[Dandu]

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.

I believe the question was

If the question is "name a character type that cannot be played using D&D" then I think the everyman character fits the bill.

DnD doesn't have to be awesome at it, it just has to allow the character type to be played acceptably to answer your question.

Sha-sha!

 

[Chrono22]

DnD's everyman is not acceptably.. acceptable.
A level 1 commoner can be killed by a cat.
A level 10 commoner is capable of feats of epic proportions.
Neither are capable of having the wide array of skills and talents necessary to survive the mundane existence of reality. You and I can read, write, drive, search the internet, debate, and do any number of other tasks with decent probabilities of success. A commoner has two skill ranks per HD, plus his intelligence modifier. The average intelligence score is 10 or 11.

 

[Celebrim]

Just about every other RPG I can think of, aside from D&D or its clones, does the everyman better.

Really? I'm still not getting it. I build 'everyman' NPC's all the time. My game is filled with mundane NPC's who are consumed with the daily affairs and struggles of life. It's just that generally, most players aren't interested in playing those characters (and after a while, I believe I'd tire of running the low drama as well). They want to play larger than life heroes. But that doesn't mean that I couldn't run a game of mundane challenges under D20/D&D. In fact, most of last night (kick off night of the campaign) was consumed with mundane challenges undertaken (in extraordinary circumstances).

It's not just about having the characters mechanically represent "normals". It's about the way the challenges are presented to the group.

I don't understand you. What about the way the challenges are presented to the group is fundamentally different as the result of the mechanics between D&D and some other systems?

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).

Again, I'm not sure I understand you. I've played WEG Star Wars, Chaosium Call of Cthullu, GURPS, Gamma World, WoD, and Chill fairly extensively. I've a passing familiarity with Boot Hill, RIFTS, Amber, and Paranoia. I've read tons of other rules sets. I'm not sure that I agree that the main sort of challenges in say D&D and Call of Cthullu differ all that much. In fact, I play something of Call of Cthullu inspired D&D when I run the table.

D&D's paradigm/intentions for play are that "you are big badass adventurers".

Maybe. But you don't necessarily start as 'you are big badass adventurers'; you start as just barely above the ordinary 'mundane'. Your definitions are so broad that I'm not sure that they mean much. If you survive long in a Call of Cthullu campaign, you're certainly 'a big badass adventurer' if the narrative you've survived through is any indication. The main difference between the systems is mostly in how differently the two systems treat you as you become more and more removed from the 'mundane'. In Chill you start out as ordinary firefighters, emergency responders, photographers, professors, soldiers, and so forth, but you are also magically powered members of a secret organization that is saving the world. I don't see a big difference in the paradyms.

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.

I'm not familiar with most of that list, but the one I am familiar with - Call of Cthulu - doesn't really do mundane any better than D&D, especially if you were to play 'D&D with a level cap' like E6 (or lower the bar however you like, E5, E3). I think part of the attraction of D&D is that it does play so well across such a large range of power levels.

I don't necessarily see the common trait you seem to see in the above systems. As best as I can tell, the common trait between them is that combat is lethal. But combat is plenty lethal in D&D at low level if you take the gloves off as DM. There isn't a single one of those systems that excels the body count of Gygaxian style throw the PC's to the wolves D&D. Also, if anything, because D&D is using a D20 mechanic (large range of fortune compared to the size of the starting modifiers), at low level, D&D characters are less compotent than starting characters in most other systems, especially if you use a more restrictive point buy in character creation (24, for example).

Again, the main difference is in how D&D by default escalates up from that to more and more superhuman challanges. But it wouldn't take a huge modification of the rules to prevent that from happening and just keeping the game low level, 'gritty' or whatever you want to call it. Nor would it be impossible to play a game with a slow advancement rate and a high lethality if combat is entered into such that the characters aren't ever likely to get out of 'mundanity'. Certainly I've seen 1e AD&D games run in that fashion.

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.

I still don't understand you. What do you mean by that?

 

[Dandu]

DnD's everyman is not acceptably.. acceptable.
A level 1 commoner can be killed by a cat.

So can a level 1 fighter.

Also, cats are viscous.

A level 10 commoner is capable of feats of epic proportions.

Concrete examples are preferable to vague unsubstantiated statements.

Neither are capable of having the wide array of skills and talents necessary to survive the mundane existence of reality.

Do not underestimate the versatility of the Handle Animal skill.

You and I can read, write, drive, search the internet, debate, and do any number of other tasks with decent probabilities of success. A commoner has two skill ranks per HD, plus his intelligence modifier. The average intelligence score is 10 or 11.

You and I have intelligence scores of higher than 11, and are likely Experts, given the emphasis modern society has on education.

 

[airwalkrr]

It sounds to me like the OP should play Rolemaster or GURPS.

 

[Nonei]

FYI I promise I'm not ignoring the thread... I will be back on on Sat, we're finishing up our current campaign tomorrow and I need to prep for the Giant Battle with the Big Bad Evil Girl

 

[Celebrim]

DnD's everyman is not acceptably.. acceptable.
A level 1 commoner can be killed by a cat.

Well, it doesn't take many adjustments to the system to make that extremely unlikely. I believe I've largely solved the house cat problem that has traditionally plagued D&D with something that is recognizably 3.0 and plays like D&D.

Seriously, GURPS doesn't adequately address the house cat problem either. I'm not sure that many systems really do. You have to go to full GULLIVER mods in GURPS to start addressing the house cat problem, at which point you have a system so complex as to be next to impossible to run according to the standards you set for yourself. Speaking from experience here...

A level 10 commoner is capable of feats of epic proportions.

Wait a minute, when did we level up to 10th level? Haven't we skipped something here?

Neither are capable of having the wide array of skills and talents necessary to survive the mundane existence of reality. You and I can read, write, drive, search the internet, debate, and do any number of other tasks with decent probabilities of success.

Well, clearly, most mundane things have a DC of 0 or less. Virtually every game system I've ever encountered run into serious problems with the over appearance of failures and critical failure if you try to use the system to model overcoming mundane challenges like climbing the stairs in your house. D&D at least presents us with the option to take 10 when not under duress, effectively solving the question of how all mundane tasks are accomplished on a regular basis. D&D doesn't explicitly address the balance DC of walking across a wide level unobstructed floor, but it isn't any more difficult to extend the D&D system to address that question (and explain why grandma needs a walker) than it would be for any other system.

A commoner has two skill ranks per HD, plus his intelligence modifier. The average intelligence score is 10 or 11.

Well, clearly we aren't commoners then. I don't personally use alot of commoners, as I find more versimilitude in expert. I reserve commoners for characters where it makes since for them to be unskilled or at least not broadly skilled.

 

[Aus_Snow]

Nearly all of them, to directly answer the thread title. D&D's not wired that way, and never has been.*


* Except, perhaps, if you subscribe to the grand old tradition of house-ruling, which ever has been. . .

 

[olshanski]

Are people here argueing just to argue? Or do they really believe that D&D 3.0, 3.5, and 4.0 handles play of "everyman" type character adequately? as compared to say, Call of Chthulhu or Hollow Earth Expeditions?

Let me also clarify that we need to consider the game being used pretty much as it was written and designed. I could say "Use D&D rules, but only use level 1 NPC classes, never give experience, and never use monsters higher than CR2, and remove all magic items with a value higher than 2500 gp from the game.... but by that point you are no longer playing the game as it was designed... you've effectiely thrown out 80% of the PHB, 90% of the MM, and 60% of the DMG.

 

[Dandu]

Are people here argueing just to argue? Or do they really believe that D&D 3.0, 3.5, and 4.0 handles play of "everyman" type character adequately? as compared to say, Call of Chthulhu or Hollow Earth Expeditions?

Let me also clarify that we need to consider the game being used pretty much as it was written and designed. I could say "Use D&D rules, but only use level 1 NPC classes, never give experience, and never use monsters higher than CR2, and remove all magic items with a value higher than 2500 gp from the game.... but by that point you are no longer playing the game as it was designed... you've effectiely thrown out 80% of the PHB, 90% of the MM, and 60% of the DMG.

Simply playing wizards who do not memorize fireball on a daily basis is "no longer playing the game as it was designed".