Gray's 1st Question(s)

[Arrowhawk]

I'm not at all clear on the difference between "playing a character in a story" and "acting". On the surface, it looks like you just started agreeing with me.

I guess the distinction is more clear to me when you consider computer RPG's. What is the real difference between a 1st person shooter and an RPG? The extent to which the story is developed and the character makes life path altering decisions. The difference is not really achieved or expresesed by a player having a "colorful and interesting" character.

So it's more about how the game is presented to the players. Consider, I can make up a better story about a chess game than some D&D campaigns...but D&D is always going to be considered roleplaying and chess is not because the pieces in D&D are called "characters" and the DM is supposed to be guiding the players through their "story."

Based on your word choice and the examples you used, I infered that "roleplaying" is more about this concept of people adopting personalties like characters in a play. You talked about Igor Thud and how he can't be replaced because he is unique.

If you don't see that as a distinction, or that's not what you meant, no problem. I'm not trying to say you're wrong, just offering an explanation on why I think there is a distinction.

Not worth debating, but mildly interesting to discuss.

 

[Dandu]

Naw, the backstory had Barbarian 1st then moving to the city and learning from a thief, Ranger was gonna come after, but I think I maid the right choice, there is a second game coming in a couple of months and then I will take a stab at an actual multi-class (probably cleric/wizard cuz I got an idea for that) or maybe a Gestalt (should never turned me onto the SRD muhahahaha.

Here's the difference between you and me: I'd have no problem writing down Ranger first and Barbarian second since I'd be starting as a 3rd level character anyways.

Classes, are, after all, a metagame abstraction. I see them as sets of abilities that a character gets, so I'm fine with an uncivilized forest dweller picking up the skillset of woodmanry and tracking first, then frenzied bloodlust second as this would not contradict the barbarian concept/archetype.

I suppose this makes me a dirty munchkin or something.

 

[Greenfield]

I guess the distinction is more clear to me when you consider computer RPG's. What is the real difference between a 1st person shooter and an RPG? The extent to which the story is developed and the character makes life path altering decisions. The difference is not really achieved or expresesed by a player having a "colorful and interesting" character.

That's one difference.

The other is that the computer neither recognizes nor cares about anything but the mechanics. It only sees "fighter", and never sees the personality of the character. A living, breathing DM sees so much more than the machine ever can.

In a real RPG I'm not so concerned with kill ratios and where I'll find my next ammo pack.

You see, the 1st person shooter game has a set course, with set goals you need to achieve before you can exit the level. In RPGs we call that type of scenario a railroad, and most players I know hate them with a passion.

Based on your word choice and the examples you used, I infered that "roleplaying" is more about this concept of people adopting personalties like characters in a play. You talked about Igor Thud and how he can't be replaced because he is unique.

Not exactly. Igor could be a dime-a-dozen stereotype for all it matters in this discussion, with essentially nothing unique about him. But "fighter" isn't a plug-in replaceable part in a good game, any more than "Quarterback" is a plug-in replaceable part in a good football team.

Yeah, you need one, but which one?

A QB who's got a howitzer for an arm is a great asset, if he has receivers to throw to. If the rest of the team is geared towards the running game, that howitzer is going to sit silent most of the time.

So even in the pure mechanics view of the party, there are nuances to the classes, often expressed in the design of the character build, but even more often expressed at the tactical level in the decisions made during play. Does the fighter charge in to try and take out the enemy spell caster, or does he hold the line and defend his more breakable friends?

Does the cleric take a melee role, or is he more the "laser cleric" build, preferring ranged assault via his spell selection and use? Or maybe his name is "Medic", with the infamous red cross on a white field as his crest, and all he does is follow the big beef around and keep plugging hit points into him whenever he springs a leak.

I'm only comparing the combat facet of the games because the 1st person shooter game you compared D&D to has little else. Rather like viewing a NASCAR race strictly by looking at pit row. The race may be won or lost there, but if that's all you look at you're missing the best part.

I think that, over all, we have very different views of the game. You talk of the DM guiding you through their story. That sort of suggests that you're on a fixed path, and the DM will herd you back onto it if you make a wrong turn or miss a clue.

When I run an adventure, I have certain goals in mind for the party, but I'm also ready for them to side-track, or even get completely lost. I usually know what happens if they fail. It's more an exploration of the game world, with lots of choices and no fixed path or goal.

For example, our current campaign began with political troubles in the empire. The old emperor had been killed in battle, and there were three men trying to claim the throne. This was politics well above the pay grade of a bunch of first level types, and they had been advised to keep their heads down and stay out of that. Their goal was something completely different, to find an agent provocateur in the city. If they'd pursued that they would have discovered that he was selling secrets about the city's defenses to the barbarian hordes, and arranging assassinations of key people to weaken the city and prepare it for invasion.

By the party's decisions they ended up meeting this person, and getting manipulated by him into spreading chaos and inciting the already tense situation between the three emperors. They nearly started a civil war, in fact. That was a completely different story path and outcome than that particular story arc was set up for, but we took it and ran with it, and the consequences have had an impact on the entire campaign.

So, tell me which combination of classes and builds would have made a difference there?

<EDIT>I thought about this a bit after I posted, and realized that it might come across as "More story driven than thou". Sorry I offend, I didn't intend it that way.</EDIT>

 

[Arrowhawk]

That's one difference.

The other is that the computer neither recognizes nor cares about anything but the mechanics. It only sees "fighter", and never sees the personality of the character. A living, breathing DM sees so much more than the machine ever can.

In a real RPG I'm not so concerned with kill ratios and where I'll find my next ammo pack.

You see, the 1st person shooter game has a set course, with set goals you need to achieve before you can exit the level. In RPGs we call that type of scenario a railroad, and most players I know hate them with a passion.

Not exactly. Igor could be a dime-a-dozen stereotype for all it matters in this discussion, with essentially nothing unique about him. But "fighter" isn't a plug-in replaceable part in a good game, any more than "Quarterback" is a plug-in replaceable part in a good football team.

Yeah, you need one, but which one?

A QB who's got a howitzer for an arm is a great asset, if he has receivers to throw to. If the rest of the team is geared towards the running game, that howitzer is going to sit silent most of the time.

So even in the pure mechanics view of the party, there are nuances to the classes, often expressed in the design of the character build, but even more often expressed at the tactical level in the decisions made during play. Does the fighter charge in to try and take out the enemy spell caster, or does he hold the line and defend his more breakable friends?

Does the cleric take a melee role, or is he more the "laser cleric" build, preferring ranged assault via his spell selection and use? Or maybe his name is "Medic", with the infamous red cross on a white field as his crest, and all he does is follow the big beef around and keep plugging hit points into him whenever he springs a leak.

I'm only comparing the combat facet of the games because the 1st person shooter game you compared D&D to has little else. Rather like viewing a NASCAR race strictly by looking at pit row. The race may be won or lost there, but if that's all you look at you're missing the best part.

I think that, over all, we have very different views of the game. You talk of the DM guiding you through their story. That sort of suggests that you're on a fixed path, and the DM will herd you back onto it if you make a wrong turn or miss a clue.

When I run an adventure, I have certain goals in mind for the party, but I'm also ready for them to side-track, or even get completely lost. I usually know what happens if they fail. It's more an exploration of the game world, with lots of choices and no fixed path or goal.

For example, our current campaign began with political troubles in the empire. The old emperor had been killed in battle, and there were three men trying to claim the throne. This was politics well above the pay grade of a bunch of first level types, and they had been advised to keep their heads down and stay out of that. Their goal was something completely different, to find an agent provocateur in the city. If they'd pursued that they would have discovered that he was selling secrets about the city's defenses to the barbarian hordes, and arranging assassinations of key people to weaken the city and prepare it for invasion.

By the party's decisions they ended up meeting this person, and getting manipulated by him into spreading chaos and inciting the already tense situation between the three emperors. They nearly started a civil war, in fact. That was a completely different story path and outcome than that particular story arc was set up for, but we took it and ran with it, and the consequences have had an impact on the entire campaign.

So, tell me which combination of classes and builds would have made a difference there?

<EDIT>I thought about this a bit after I posted, and realized that it might come across as "More story driven than thou". Sorry I offend, I didn't intend it that way.</EDIT>

I don't infer anything offenive in your post. It's the nature of posting that sometimes one adopts a tone that seems more pointed than one would be in a normal conversation.

I think that, over all, we have very different views of the game. You talk of the DM guiding you through their story. That sort of suggests that you're on a fixed path, and the DM will herd you back onto it if you make a wrong turn or miss a clue.

Whether we have different views or not, you're inferring something that I never implied nor stated. You're also misconstruing my point. I said, or I meant to say the DM guides the player through "a" story. The characters embark on a journey and the DM is their conduit to the world. Regardless of what course the characters choose, they are still limited by the DM's decisions on how the world works. The DM is still making aribitrary decisions about which NPC's exist in the world and what those NPC's are are there for. What you describe in your campaign has occured in mine as well. The party killed some key figure and I had intended to escape and I had to change several story arcs as a result.

But Modules do have a path to complete a goal. The module puts obstacles along that path. Those obstacles are dependent upon the party being able to provide certain functional roles. In early 1e, modules expected you to be able to kill things and heal. If you couldn't do that...the module ended in failure. With the advent of the Skills system, I think many modules try to provide multiple methods for overcoming obstacles, but they still expect people to fulfill traditional roles. If your party is well balanced and there is no overlap, you can often play the module straight up. If you're running a pack of Fighters, you're going to have to work a bit harder to make the module doable by the party.

Not sure I understand where this is going?

So, tell me which combination of classes and builds would have made a difference there?

I'm not entirely sure how we got to this question, but as I stated pretty early on, the specific mix of classes was always something that a DM was encouraged to work around. If you party doesn't have a single character with a Strength higher than 6, then it's a good bet the DM won't require the party kill things to advance the story. My point is that in early D&D, character have to be able to do something along the lines of fighting or roguing to make their way through a dungeon so that there could even be a story. But as I said in previous, I no longer think it's called roleplaying solely because of the roles you play...but certainly in part because the game is presented as a game where you play a "character" in an adventure story...an ongoing Fellowship of the Rings, if you will.

One pont of clarification, I'm talking about how 1e AD&D operated. The Skills and Feats and Multiclassing has opened up the game to a much wider range of ways for characters to advance. 1e, you basically had to kill things and take their loot. How you did it just determined how long it took you to level up when you trained.

Again, I feel like we are off on some tangent...but whatever.

 

[Gray Lensman]

Here's the difference between you and me: I'd have no problem writing down Ranger first and Barbarian second since I'd be starting as a 3rd level character anyways.

Classes, are, after all, a metagame abstraction. I see them as sets of abilities that a character gets, so I'm fine with an uncivilized forest dweller picking up the skillset of woodmanry and tracking first, then frenzied bloodlust second as this would not contradict the barbarian concept/archetype.

I suppose this makes me a dirty munchkin or something.

Oh I don't know, dirty? eh, maybe. A munchkin? How tall are you?

Your right, classes are an abstraction. For a lot of years I used N4 or another level 0 variant to start every campaign, and then you are whatever skill set you happen to pick up. Even tried turning every thing (yes spellcasting too) into a proficiency and giving each player so many slots to use. Didn't really work out that well.

When playing a character (back then and now) I generally come up with a concept and back story before I even roll the dice. The next back story is going to include some extra background on Clerics of Boccob. Hmmm... I think I will have to post that bit separate from the character himself.

 

[Greenfield]

I guess my point in the "which classes" question was to make it clear that class selection has exactly zero impact on most story decisions.

They could have been a party of NPC-class Experts specialized as a circus troupe for all it mattered. The decisions they made lead the campaign into a completely different direction, and those decisions were based on the characters' personalities, not their class selection.

D&D isn't a 1st-person shooter game, it's a collective storytelling game, at least the way we play it.

 

[Arrowhawk]

I guess my point in the "which classes" question was to make it clear that class selection has exactly zero impact on most story decisions.

They could have been a party of NPC-class Experts specialized as a circus troupe for all it mattered. The decisions they made lead the campaign into a completely different direction, and those decisions were based on the characters' personalities, not their class selection.

D&D isn't a 1st-person shooter game, it's a collective storytelling game, at least the way we play it.

As I've mentioned several times...In 1e, the specific class chosen is not important so far as some class is chosen. A good DM will create an adventure that is suited to the class choices made by the players. But in 1e, characters have to choose a class...no exceptions.

Even in 3.5, the characters have to be able to do something. D&D is not a game about personalities. There is no game requirement that a player has a personality other than the one they are born with. But they must adopt a starting class, feats, and skills. There is no D&D story without those things (don't confuse my statement with saying the game can't be played if people haven't finished their character sheet). And no, in 1e, the party could not have been an Expert circus troup. In 3.5...sure.

Now, if you guys play some variant where you don't even roll dice...then all bets are off.

 

[GreyLord]

Just a side comment on the first post. Isn't it interesting how people "ALWAYS ROLL AN 18 FAIRLY" with 4d6? And then an additional 17 to boot?

With 4d6. Seems to happen all the time...unless they are rolling in front of me. I just must have that bad DM joojoo with me or something.

 

[Gray Lensman]

Character Generation was 4d6 -lowest, rolled 7 times and discard lowest total

Happens that way sometimes, that is part of the thrill of rolling the dice instead of point systems or arrays.

The character I am currently playing was done the same way. I got two 17s and a sixteen for bonus scores and got stuck with an 8 for a penalty score, the discarded total was a three (yeah I rolled 4 ones , and I bet that if I had rolled a 5th die that time it would have been a one too. Yatzhee anyone?)

1st Edition Options​

Method

II: All scores are recorded and arranged as in Method I. 3d6 are rolled 12 times and the highest 6 scores are retained.

Method III: Scores rolled are according to each ability category, in order, STRENGTH, INTELLIGENCE, WISDOM, DEXTERITY, CONSTITUTION, CHARISMA. 3d6 are rolled 6 times for each ability, and the highest score in each category is retained for that category. This is 36 scores to choose the best six from. You should try it sometime. And yes I know they are in order, but it's still the best of six for each ability.​

2nd Edition actually toned down on these a good bit. Of course, every DM runs things at least somewhat differently. I know I did.​

 

[Greenfield]

As I've mentioned several times...In 1e, the specific class chosen is not important so far as some class is chosen. A good DM will create an adventure that is suited to the class choices made by the players. But in 1e, characters have to choose a class...no exceptions.

Even in 3.5, the characters have to be able to do something. D&D is not a game about personalities. There is no game requirement that a player has a personality other than the one they are born with. But they must adopt a starting class, feats, and skills. There is no D&D story without those things (don't confuse my statement with saying the game can't be played if people haven't finished their character sheet). And no, in 1e, the party could not have been an Expert circus troup. In 3.5...sure.

Now, if you guys play some variant where you don't even roll dice...then all bets are off.

Good point. You do need to play a class of some type. And you do need dice.

Are you sure you aren't representing the dice? Or the set of stats rolled on those dice?

Maybe you're representing the pencil or pen you used to record the stats. You need to have those too.

Okay, sarcasm aside, my point is that the need to select a class of some sort isn't nearly as big a thing as you're making it. That's merely a mechanical thing, a label we wrap around the character skills/abilities/features. There are role-playing games that don't depend on character classes, but are purely proficiency based. The delineations of "fighter" or "cleric" simply don't exist in games like Fantasy Hero or GURPS Fantasy. You pay creation/EXP for your skills and proficiencies, from bladework to spell casting to stealth to everything else, and you mix and match as you choose. No classes.

Yet, somehow, they're still role-playing games.