Gray's 1st Question(s)

[Gray Lensman]

This is silly, guys. Everyone roleplays differently and there is no right way. Even people in the same group can approach roleplaying differently and the game can still function.

And here I thought that this thread was supposed to be about helping me wrap my hands around good 3.5 character generation

Your right kitcik, there are even people like me that really role play the character AND still look for every benefit I can squeeze out of the rules or DM, muwahahahaha.

 

[Dandu]

This is silly, guys. Everyone roleplays differently and there is no right way. Even people in the same group can approach roleplaying differently and the game can still function.

Straw man!

 

[Arrowhawk]

Perhaps we should take a look at how D&D itself defines character and role?

There is one simple sentence that makes it clear.
From the 3.5 PHB, page 4:


The character itself is the role the player plays. This makes sense both from a logical, common sense point of view as well as that of "RAW." Adding onto that, the character might play a role, but it is the character doing that and not the player. If it was the player playing the role then that's just plain breaking the fourth wall.

Emphasis added.

That's right. You play a "character" ..that is what makes it roleplaying. The thing you play in the game is called a "character" not a tank, not rock, not a plant. It has nothing to do with playing a persona. It's the literal use of the word "character" that gives rise to the term "role"playing. If you played an armored unit, it would not be called roleplaying because armored units are not "characters." It doesn't matter if your armored unit had a persona or not. If D&D did not refer to the gamepiece you play as a "character," it would not be a roleplaying game. I've explained this like six times now.

To repeat myself once again, Greenfield wants to debate, in D&D, the significance of the persona versus the class. Do you comprehend how these two topics are wholly separate yet can occur in the same discussion?

 

[Arrowhawk]

If your game is simply about playing "fighter", then you are all the way back at Chainmail, with extremely small unit sizes, and I would have to wonder why you're on a role-playing forum at all.

Ironic statement considering 90% of the posts on these forums and other RPG forums are about the mechanics of the game. I have never participated nor have I read any threads about how to act like a Tiefling or a Drow. I've seen tons of threads on how to optimize builds and how to interpret rules.

we have a disconnect, and I think it's actually intentional on your part.

We definitely have a disconnect. I'm not going to offer explanations.

We seem to agree that the "role" in "role-playing" is the character, the person we pretend to be in the game world. But every time we approach that agreement, you veer off.

No. There is no veering off. Either you simply can't comprehend the distinction being made, or, you are not aware that we are having two separate discussions.

You seem determined not to admit to such an agreement, and keep making up wilder and wilder metaphors for the game to emphasize that disagreement.

I'm hoping something will click for you and I'm forced to explore ever expanding realms of reason, logic, and analogism.

****
Now you have transitioned to your concept of what D&D is about...taking us away from the discussoin of why it's called a roleplaying game.

I mean, I see your point about playing a part of a team. But that's not what the game was supposed to be.

So now you're telling me the that 1e D&D was not about playing as part of a team?

We can simply play "fighter" and work the mechanics, and the game does in fact require us to work the mechanics, but the game is much more than the mechanics, the "roll-play".

And yet the game doesn't require us to work the persona does it? There is nothing that says you have to act any differently than how you would act as you yourself, the real person, would act in the given situation is there? The game allows acting...it enourages it...but it doesn't require it. The game (1e D&D) requires that every character adopt a class...it does not require that you adopt a persona.

 

[Arrowhawk]

And here I thought that this thread was supposed to be about helping me wrap my hands around good 3.5 character generation

I know...I know...

<queue line from The Godfather>

 

[Greenfield]

Are you back to playing "fighter" again? Or Myst? Or was it the game piece on the battle mat?

At least you've stopped inventing bad metaphors.

As mentioned earlier, when you arrive at a coherent position, please let us know. Until then, have a nive day.

 

[Arrowhawk]

On page 4 I said this:

The term roleplaying may be used because you play a "character" who is part of a story. So it's not really about the role/function you play nor is it that you are supposed to be "acting."

On page 5 I said this...

...D&D is always going to be considered roleplaying and chess is not because the pieces in D&D are called "characters"...

and this..

The characters embark on a journey and the DM is their conduit to the world.

On Page 6 I said this:

Scroll back about six or seven posts where I realized it's called a roleplaying game mainly because you play a "character" in a story, as opposed to a vehicle or an inanimate object in a story.

and then this...

It's role playing because you play a "character," as oppose to something else, in a game that is supposed to represent a "story."

On page 7, I wrote this:

I first suggested that the "role" referred to a functional role...then I realized it was more about being a character in a story. I have not changed my position on the latter.

and this...

That's right. You play a "character" ..that is what makes it roleplaying. The thing you play in the game is called a "character" ...

So Green, I really don't know what's wrong with your reading comprehension skills, but maybe when you get some, you might come back to the thread? Until then...have a nice day.

 

[Greenfield]

Perhaps it's because, every time I said we were in agreement on that point, you threw a tantrum and swore that I had it all wrong.

You see, well mixed into the selected quotes you provided, you also compared it to 1st person shooter games, Myst, and my personal favorite...

Your game piece is a character and that is why it's called roleplaying. If your game piece was a tank, it would not be called roleplaying because tank's aren't considered "characters."

Yeah, you're the one who brought mini's in as examples of roleplaying (i.e. "pieces of lead"), not me, but then criticized me for bringing them in when I called you on it.

It's because of this constantly changing message that I criticize your ability to write comprehensibly, and ask for a coherent position.

If your position is that "role-playing" is a game in which you take the role of a character in the game world, then we're in agreement.

If it isn't, then please state your position, and explain how it differs from what I've been saying since the beginning.

 

[Dandu]

As an aside: I thought tanks were characters? Or, at least, a party role.

 

[Greenfield]

As an aside: I thought tanks were characters? Or, at least, a party role.

I suggested that as well, using a tank figure to represent a heavy fighter. He didn't like it.

At this point though I really don't care. He and I are in agreement half the time, and I'm guessing that that's as good as it's going to get. Soooo...

Back to the original question: Becoming proficient in character design and implementation.

Multiclass carefully if at all, at least at first. Some classes complement each other and build towards a coherent whole. Others don't.

For example... Adding a single level of a spell casting class to a fighter can give a valuable edge. Adding a single level of a fighter class to a spell caster, however, usually isn't.

Some that you'd think would work well together, don't. Ranger and Druid, for example. They're each woodlands based, conceptually, and Rangers eventually gain access to a subset of the Druid's spells. But that's actually the problem, since the mixture just adds more of the same thing you already have.

Over all there are two basic approaches to character design: One is intensive, focusing on a relatively narrow aspect of the game and mastering it. The other is extensive, characters who are competent in a broad array of areas, but aren't top of their field in anything.

Characters will usually fit somewhere near the middle of this scale, with extremes being rare. You can design a character who is a holy terror in melee, all but unstoppable, but are medium-useless in non-combat scenarios, and only slightly useful in ranged combat scenes. (think of the mighty warrior with his +37 Blade of Awesomness, and a plus-nothing light crossbow that he usually fires once, then throws rather than take the time to reload, because it does more damage that way.)

Decide what the focus of the character will be, then decide how tight you want that focus to be. Then build towards that goal.