Forcing rules to accomodate character concepts

[fusangite]

True, but I think every DM and player out there sometimes thinks, "Hey, I could write this as a novel!"

I figured out games don't make good novels more than 10 years ago. I assumed this is something that dawns on most people after regaling people with what happened in a few campaigns they ran/played in.

 

[Anon Adderlan]

Okeydokey. Please keep in mind that I have very strong opinions on this issue, and that I am concerned with bringing new players into the fold.

That said...

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?

Hell yes! And this is exactly what every potential player who isn't ALREADY playing D&D will expect.

And the fact that so many RPGs are based on books and other media (such as, well, Star Wars, Star Trek, Babylon 5, Lord of the Rings, Stormbringer, Conan, etc) just reinforces this very valid assumption.

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.

It's never a carbon copy. You could get an entire group of players to play Spiderman, and each interpretation would be different. Most heroic characters, despite their named status, are actually basic archetypes open to reinvention.

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.

Writers follow rules, they're just not usually explicit about it if it's the work of a single individual (then again, look at Tolkien). When multiple writers are involved in the creation of a work however, they typically have a 'writer's bible' handy to make sure all future work is consistent with what came before it.

Heck, something quite similar is done when a work is licensed, to make sure the product correctly represents the property.

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.

But again, that's EXACTLY why a lot of people play.

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.

Why for the love of Zod would you want to make sure that the players clearly understood that their characters are NOT special?

Which reminds me, just to make sure my players don't get too full of themselves, my introductory adventure for the new Star Wars will feature their PCs on an exciting journey to pick up some power converters at Toshi station.

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.

Actually, as I said before, expecting them to base their character concept off the rules is actually a less realistic expectation than expecting them to have a character (and even setting or scenario) idea that they gleaned from their own personal experience.

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.

Sure they can. You just don't have a good set of rules to support it. I will admit that quite a few licensed RPGs fail to deliver an experience similar to the work it's based on, but that only proves a particular system (and/or version of it) is unsuited for the license in question.

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...

Other than that twink Boba Fett, both Aragon and Conan often worked with others who played an important part in the events that took place. Being legendary has nothing to do with being unable, or unwilling, to work with others.

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.

So why do these RPG companies keep licensing the damn things >_<

Oh, and I believe you are incorrect

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.

In this context, I agree. But this almost always requires a high level of familiarity with the game.

But I can't offer you anything constructive about the motivation to play a carbon copy character.

The funny thing is that players typically don't want to play a character they feel is a carbon copy of another player's character, which is why I couldn't get all my players to play 'rogues'.

Yet they were all willing to play 'pirates' for some reason? 0_o

I've had players there upset because would-be Lestats wanted Presence all to themselves, thinking it terribly unfair that any vampire on the street can learn their favorite discipline.

If the player considered Presence a unique element of their character's identity, then they have a valid complaint.

IF however they consider Presence to be a mechanical edge which they can potentially use to abuse and marginalize the other player characters, then they shouldn't even be allowed to play.

Knowing why the player considers it unfair is important here, and sometimes you have to be a bit of a mind reader, as asking directly rarely yields a useful or truthful answer.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

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 think that some systems, like HERO, M&M or GURPS, are flexible enough to emulate nearly any kind of PC concept...given enough build points & thought, that is. Class-based systems generally aren't that flexible.

IME, when PCs aren't "buildable," though, its often a case of the Player trying to emulate a character that is either:

1) not buildable at the level at which the campaign is starting- you can build Gandalf in D&D...he just has to be 20+ level;

(Personally, I've run several D&D PCs based on non-fantasy characters- Batman and Indiana Jones, for example- but they weren't fully powered right out of the gate.)

OR

2) not buildable within the strictures of the game's internal logic without HRs. Until Warforged showed up, with all their attendant rules for living constructs, for instance, it would be difficult to build a PC based on Daniel Olivaw (from Asimov's Robot stories) in a D&D game.

And, of course, problems also arise when players are inspired by other sources- mythology, for example. D&D simply doesn't have rules for someone who is a descendant of gods or who is otherwise destined to be epic, like Herakles crushing the serpents as a baby, or Achilles's nigh-invulnerability. In both cases, the characters were more powerful than their contemporaries, even in childhood- not an easy thing to reflect in D&D.

 

[Drowbane]

Honestly, I think alot of this sort of attitude stems from the instant-gratification model that seems to be creeping more and more into the culture (and even beyond gaming, for that matter). I know exactly where you're coming from- in 1997 I saw a spate of white-haired D&D characters with extremely long katanas, and in 2001 a plethora of elven archery specialists. Seems like nobody want to play the neophyte adventurers any more. I know several players that refuse to play anything below 10th-12th level because the characters "aren't interesting enough" and "don't have any options" at lower levels.

But I can't offer you anything constructive about the motivation to play a carbon copy character. I've never wanted to do that myself. Sure, I've had mighty-thewed barbarians dressed in furs and leather but I've never named them Conan or anything like that.

Speaking for myself, low level has become boring. I've been playing D&D for roughly 20yrs now. I know I'm no grognard, but just try to imagine the number of times I've rolled up a level 1 character. Honestly I couldn't put a number to it if I tried, but its been ALOT.

Very rarely have I gotten to play much past 12th level... and its those higher levels that I crave. My longest running D&D character went from 1st to 13th level. In my group's current campaign we started at lvl 11th and are now 13th, and I'm loving it.

I'm done with low level, its just a stepping stone to more interesting play. For the past 6 years, when I run I start people off at 3rd or 6th level (depending on the experience of the group I'm running for).

For all that, I've never had a carbon-copy character either. But if asked, I could show you how to roll up Drizzt as a lvl 18 Gestalt (and he would hold up to the books, though only RA could play him properly ), or Sephiroth (spelling?) as a high level (21st?) gestalt.

 

[Scarbonac]

I figured out games don't make good novels more than 10 years ago. I assumed this is something that dawns on most people after regaling people with what happened in a few campaigns they ran/played in.

Isn't that the truth! It's one thing to reminisce with people you've gamed with about a shared gaming experience ("Remember when Tom's minotaur fell in love with Sally's dwarf?") and have a good mutual chuckle and quite another to see a stranger's face freeze into a distant but polite expression of feigned interest as you relate the same tale.

You know that they're itching for the first plausible excuse to run screaming in the opposite direction.

 

[Storyteller01]

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.

Or the guy who wants to be wolverine, but still dies from a gun shor at the same level (M&M I'm look at you...).

 

[Storyteller01]

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.

Can't say I wholy agree with this. While it might not set something in stone, it can definitely cater to specific genres.

A few examples:
-Putting a Gundam in the Star Wars saga system will definitely change the feel of the game.
-Anyone wanting to play a William Tell or Robin Hood based character in D&D will be noticable behind the damage/tricks curve, as the game tends to favor in your face, Beowulfe or Conan style combat.
-Dragonstar is on the reverse of that equation. You really can't make an effective melee character without power armor, and even then your damage won't match most heavy weapons. Even with a cool sword, Jedis are out the door.


Personally, I let players know ahead of time that even if the character is inspired by a story, they're NOT playing that character. The system may not accomadate their abilities, and frankly the player usually won't play the character as written.

I had a player in Rifts a while back who wanted to play optimus Prime. After much finagelling of the rules, he got his robot. His first act was to start stomping on people. It seems to be typical.

 

[WayneLigon]

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 is probably not reasonable to expect D&D to do this, but it's perfectly reasonable to expect an RPG to do this; D&D - and most easlier RPG's - start you out low and build you up high. Most other games start you out at a higher level of competancy but your progression is slower in most respects.

Sometimes I have a character concept that fits well with being 2nd level, and sometimes not. When I have a concept that's really 'better' than my current character's level, I find ways of showing he's done more or is 'more experienced' than just pure combat. (Though it's really hard to do that with a spellcaster, it's comparatively easy to do that with a rogue or fighter - most of your earlier adventures can be ascribed to pure luck - ie really, really good die rolls.)

I think the game should accomodate most reasonable concepts; the game ain't in charge here, I am. If it doesn't, then the game needs to be changed. I'm confident that as D&D continues to grow up, it'll change more towards a form that allows more choice and more of a sliding scale as far as power levels go. People won't automatically assume 'we start as first level peons'; they'll pick a range of power levels to play with.

Now, I think a majority of fictional fantasy characters can be accomodated quite well in D&D because most people insist on rating fantasy characters as much, much higher level than they actually are. Aragorn must be an Epic Level ranger! Wow! No, I'd put him about 5th level or so with a couple of really darn good items. But that gets back to what I said above; there are a lot of concepts that it's easier to 'fake' being more competant than perhaps the rules really say you are. The Take 10 and Take 20 rules are marvelous for this. A GM who is confident enough to fiddle with the DCs is also a big help.

 

[GreatLemur]

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?

Well, now that I see how broadly you're defining "character types", I certainly agree with your assertion. I only meant that D&D found it difficult to model the mechanical capabilities of characters outside it's particular sub-genre of fantasy.

 

[Hussar]

So why do these RPG companies keep licensing the damn things >_<

Oh, and I believe you are incorrect

Other than Mongoose, who licenses these? Most of the games you listed are all Mongoose games, who have made a pretty decent living out of a niche. Other than Star Wars I suppose.

But, if I'm playing a licensed product, then I am pretty much automatically buying into ONLY that license. I'm not going to play Optimus Prime in a Star Wars campaign, to borrow an example. Star Wars does a very credible job of emulating Star Wars characters. I'm not so sure that it does a great job of handling Mecha combat though.

Likewise, if I play Conan, I'm not likely going to want to base my character off of Elminister. I'm going to base my concept off of what fits in the Conan universe.

D&D does have a broader base to work from and I can certainly draw inspiration from novels as a starting point. But, trying to shoehorn my Belgarath into D&D would be somewhat problematic. Crotchety, know it all wizard, sure. All powerful minor diety? Not so much.