Forcing rules to accomodate character concepts

[GreatLemur]

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.

...As long as that fiction is limited to official D&D-branded novels.

I definitely think people are better off looking at what's possible in the mechanics and then generating a character based on that, rather than coming to the table with an idea drawn from narrative fiction that might differ wildly from the game in terms of setting assumptions, power level, or even genre. D&D is wonderfully flexible these days, but it ain't as flexible as I'd like it.

And, even if it was, the player who joins a game set in somebody else's world and wants to play some overpowered absurdity from a completely unrelated setting is just gonna cause heartache and hassle for himself and others.

Mind you, I'm not at all against "forcing rules to accomodate character concepts". I think a good GM and a reasonable player ought to be able to compromise on a concept and mechanics for that neither break the game or the setting, but still give the player something they can dig.

 

[gizmo33]

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?

It doesn't have to accomodate all of them, mostly the ones that the players want to play. If players can't play the characters they want to, then what's the point of playing? I suppose it's a matter of finding a game system that the DM and players are happy with.

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.

I guess you do. Thing is that I'm skeptical anytime anyone says "perfect", "carbon copy" or stuff like that. It usually smacks of hyperbole. The reason that this is important is that IME generally people have priorities - and that means you can often make people happy by addressing their priorities. The player may not need his character to be 100% like Conan, but to a flustered DM that isn't listening carefully, perhaps that's what it sounds like. Or maybe he does want 100%. I don't know because I'm not there, but my guess is that maybe you should try to decipher what the priorities are.

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)

IME people that hate saying "no" will sometimes try to train people to not even ask them for anything - by ridiculing ideas or whatever. IMO the communication between players and DM works best when they feel comfortable to talk about what they want out of the game. That means having some respect for them and their ideas. Again, I don't really know how much of this applies to your situation, but I figured I'd cover this base.

Fictional characters have the advantage of not having to follow rules of any kind - or even of making sense, for that matter.

Yea, there are plenty of problems like this and if it really is the case that they want a 100% match, then I guess this needs to explained.

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.

That's essentially the hitpoint and saving throw mechanic though. Both of those mechanics refer to "luck" as a contributing factor - of course if you too heavily indulge in the metagame thinking, then you'd say "it's not luck that my 100 hp fighter survived in a fight against 50 mooks" - but that's metagame thinking. So you might be able to achieve this aspect of novels simply by a change in perspective.

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.

There's no reason that any of this stuff is set in stone. If they want to play with 3 other people that all want equally powerful characters, then common sense should tell them what to expect. However, there's no reason that players can't start out with 20th level characters except that the DM doesn't want to play that kind of game.

To me, it usually simply sounds like someone saying they want everything, and pouting when they don't get it...

This is DnD we're talking about, so "wanting everything" is a bit outside the scope. And since it's a game, and since it involves hours upon hours of time invested by everyone, not just the DM, then it makes sense that everyone has a good time while they're at it. Of course it also makes no sense for the DM to run a game that he doesn't like just to make players happy.

 

[Zaruthustran]

What does everyone else think?

I think your issue arises from the fact that people can use the same ruleset but play different games.

For example, it sounds like the game you want to play is more of a by-the-book, problem-solving tactical simulation. And the game played by the players you're complaining about is more of an escapist, wish-fulfillment player fantasy.

I could be wrong about those specifics, but point is that the structure of the rules don't set a certain play style in stone. I think both styles (and more) are possible from the single rule set. Neither is more "correct" than the other.

Take a look at the player types from Robin's Laws of Good Game Mastering: http://www.darkshire.net/jhkim/rpg/theory/models/robinslaws.html . They're all viable, and the trick of a fun game is figuring out a way to satisfy these sometimes different wants via the same content.

-z

PS: In other words, there's nothing inherently wrong with a player saying "That guy is cool. He does cool stuff. I want my character to be cool too, so I'd like to model him after that guy."

 

[Roger]

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.

...As long as that fiction is limited to official D&D-branded novels.

Hmmm. It's easier with D&D novels, sure. But I think it handles other fiction just fine, too; a short list off the top of my head: The Odyssey, Beowulf, The Great Gatsby, Moby Dick, Brave New World, Macbeth, Animal Farm, Lord of the Flies, The Maltese Falcon, The Catcher in the Rye...

Did you have some particular work in fiction in mind that you have found, or would find, problematic?


Cheers,
Roger

 

[Slife]

Hmmm. It's easier with D&D novels, sure. But I think it handles other fiction just fine, too; a short list off the top of my head: The Odyssey, Beowulf, The Great Gatsby, Moby Dick, Brave New World, Macbeth, Animal Farm, Lord of the Flies, The Maltese Falcon, The Catcher in the Rye...

Did you have some particular work in fiction in mind that you have found, or would find, problematic?


Cheers,
Roger

The Chronicles of Amber?

 

[Galethorn]

Beowulf wouldn't work because D&D doesn't have rules for tearing off limbs.

 

[Roger]

Beowulf wouldn't work because D&D doesn't have rules for tearing off limbs.

The thread, as indicated by the originating post, is about character types. A particular character action is neither here nor there. Unless you're suggesting his entire character type is "arm-ripper-offer", which does sound pretty awesome, but alas is not commonly found, at least in the fiction I read.


Cheers,
Roger

 

[Roger]

The Chronicles of Amber?

Hmmm. Let's see.

Dworkin, crazy magician guy. Benedict, super effective strategician. Corwin, amnesiac prince heir. There's a lot of characters throughout the whole series.

They don't seem like character types that are particularly difficult to handle, though. The insane ones are kinda tricky, but I think there's some latitude in the rules for even that.

Did you have in mind a particular character type, or some particular aspect of a character, that'd be especially problematic?


Cheers,
Roger

 

[kenobi65]

I think it might be a bigger issue in licensed RPGs, because that sets up a particular set of expectations among some players.

I play Star Wars, and the message boards always have complaints from players who can't see how X cool Jedi move can be done under the rules.

 

[Slife]

Did you have in mind a particular character type, or some particular aspect of a character, that'd be especially problematic?


Cheers,
Roger

The main thing is that at high power levels the entire d20 system starts breaking down. (To be fair, IMO the last few novels started to do that too with their power-sprinting).

Epic rules don't fix this at all.