Forcing rules to accomodate character concepts

[mmu1]

The question is this - is it actually reasonable to expect RPG (or D&D, specifically) rules to closely accomodate many of the character types one commonly finds in fiction?

I see a lot of people complain that they can't make a carbon copy of a character from their favorite book, movie, anime, whatever. And it drives me up the wall. (mostly because it's a complaint I sometimes get from players when I DM, and I hate saying "no" when they come to me with a concept I usually feel is both unoriginal an unrealistic - almost as much as I hate saying "yes" and then watching them pay more attention to the way their wrist-crossbows (why are there always wrist-crossbows?) should work then to the game itself)

Fictional characters have the advantage of not having to follow rules of any kind - or even of making sense, for that matter. The writer doesn't care what "level" the hero of a novel would have to be to actually have all the abilities he's gifted with - and the character is usually fully realized already, so we never see how long it'd have taken to grow into them.

In addition, frequently enough fantasy characters will do things - quite risky, or damn near impossible ones, ostensibly beyond their abilities - and succeed, because the plot demands it. Sometimes, they'll do it regularly enough that it seems routine, even though it shouldn't be.

The problems appears when someone playing a game - which has clearly defined rules - looks at those characters, and wants to create one just like them. They ignore the fact that they're not the epic hero yet (and that if the dice fall the wrong way, they might never be one), or that - even if they're exceptional compared to every other person populating the world - there are probably at least 3 or 4 other characters just as "special", and their players are sitting at the table with them.

Nope, they want to make the Aragorn or Conan or Bobba Fett, and if the system doesn't accomodate that perfectly, they blame the game, instead of their own unrealistic expectations.

To me, it usually simply sounds like someone saying they want everything, and pouting when they don't get it... Refusing to accept the fact that an RPG character simply cannot function exactly the same way as a fictional character from a non-interactive genre, where the only rules are the limits of the writer's imagination, and the characters are often wildly exceptional - and extremely lucky.

Now, this doesn't mean I don't expect RPGs to be able to accomodate a good variety of character concepts - playing one where your only choices are warrior, cleric, mage and thief really isn't my thing.

I'm also not saying everyone should simply learn to be satisfied with less - but I do think more people should accept the fact that they can't declare their character to be a hero of legendary stature, that can do anything, and expect everything to fall into place. Just accept the fact that you're on a ride, that luck is going to be a factor, and that you're sharing the spotlight with several other people - which means that you can't do everything by yourself...

Anyway, I guess I'm done ranting... What does everyone else think?

 

[Thornir Alekeg]

My Momma told me that I can be anything I want to be.

I understand what you are saying. I have encountered it a couple of times, but not that often. Those players usually don't last long because the game doesn't meet their expectations.

 

[Hussar]

I can pretty much get behind that. Trying to force novels into RPG's never really works. They are simply too different. Novels are great places for inspiration, but, not for mechanics.

 

[maddman75]

This is only an issue in systems with strong archetypes and niche protection. Classless systems will generally let players emulate whatever fictional character they like, so long as the genre of that game matches up with the source. For example, Angel would have little problem with a geeky kid who builds model airplanes, a kung-fu janitor from the future, and something like the Predator, and all in the same group! Han Solo it might have more trouble with, what with the lack of starships and wookies in the rules. I mean you can homebrew something, but you can do that with anything.

D&D is a game of fighter, clerics, wizards, and rogues. If your concept doesn't fit those categories or a mix of them, you may have some difficulty with the system.

 

[mmu1]

This is only an issue in systems with strong archetypes and niche protection. Classless systems will generally let players emulate whatever fictional character they like, so long as the genre of that game matches up with the source. For example, Angel would have little problem with a geeky kid who builds model airplanes, a kung-fu janitor from the future, and something like the Predator, and all in the same group! Han Solo it might have more trouble with, what with the lack of starships and wookies in the rules. I mean you can homebrew something, but you can do that with anything.

D&D is a game of fighter, clerics, wizards, and rogues. If your concept doesn't fit those categories or a mix of them, you may have some difficulty with the system.

Yes and no. Some classless systems that are more firmly grounded in reality don't do a great job of allowing you to model you character on fictional heroes at all, without house-rules or specialized rules that effectively change the genre - either because they don't let you do cinematic stunts, or because you don't have the resources to get good enough to pull them off.

Though emulation is of course easier in a system like that. (although the problem, like I said, is generally not emulation, but people not being able to accept that "emulate" does not mean "be able to do the exact same thing as".)

 

[el-remmen]

I 100% agree.

Reminds of the guy who made a character based on Indiana Jones, but complained that he could not do everything with a whip that Indy does at 2nd level.

 

[Doug McCrae]

This is only an issue in systems with strong archetypes and niche protection. Classless systems will generally let players emulate whatever fictional character they like, so long as the genre of that game matches up with the source.

It's more an issue of not having enough points. The equivalent of a 1st level character in HERO or GURPS couldn't be Gandalf or Mace Windu.

 

[Roger]

The question is this - is it actually reasonable to expect RPG (or D&D, specifically) rules to closely accomodate many of the character types one commonly finds in fiction?

Sure. In general, the D&D rules succeed in closely (if not perfectly) accomodating many (if not all) of the character types one commonly finds in fiction.

They ignore the fact that they're not the epic hero yet

That isn't a problem with the rules, per se.



Cheers,
Roger

 

[maddman75]

It's more an issue of not having enough points. The equivalent of a 1st level character in HERO or GURPS couldn't be Gandalf or Mace Windu.

This is a problem with the scope/power level of the game, not the rules structure. If a player wants to be Gandalf or Mace Windu, they clearly don't want to start at 1st level.

 

[S'mon]

I think a generic fantasy game ought to be able to accommodate PCs who feel like Aragorn, or Conan. Some would say 3e D&D isn't a generic fantasy game but a very narrow suo generis genre of itself, though. Anyway, I think you can make a Conan-like (Fighter-Rogue) or Aragorn-like (Ranger-Paladin) PC in 3e. Obviously you can't make King Conan if you're starting at 1st level, and that's fine.