Playing Apparent Losers

[kitsune9]

What was the last character you made who was intentionally 'pathetic'? What rule system did you use, and how did you royally screw him over? Why did you create the character? Were you looking for a tactical challenge? How did the character play out?

I ask this because, honestly, I've never really tried this. I also really haven't seen this much either. I am playing a 3.5 wizard right now who took evocation and necromancy as his banned schools. I created the character because we were all playing elves and I figured who cares about the mechanics, I'm assuming elves might be better enchanters and of all the schools they probably would feel evocation and necromancy would be the most dangerous (I'm playing him as a bit of a pacifist hippy). We've only been playing for like 4th months and he's only level 2, but he's still alive. Sleep for the win!

In the games I've ran, the most pathetic character I ever saw was a basic vanilla 3.5 fighter. The player chose to wield a shortsword and light armor because he'd just seen the movie Troy. Needless to say he didn't survive long.

I had a RPGA character for Living Greyhawk who was a one-trick pony. I really like creating characters as one-trick ponies as that's my kind of play style and have a lot of fun. I created a fighter who wielded a tower shield and flail. He could do two things--have feats and abilities that gave him a sick AC (at 5th level, I think I got it up to 34 or 39 with the feats, magic items, etc.) and could do trip attacks. As far as straight-up fighting as a fighter should, he was terrible. If he did hit, it was only minimal damage of 1d8+2 and he was better off doing trips, Aid Another, or purposely move through the areas and draw AoO's so that the rogue and other weaker characters (hp wise) can just get up for flanking.

He was a "loser" in that with a lot of RPGA modules, they are deadly and they really cater that classes should be maxed out in order to survive some of them (clerics should heal, rogues sneak, fighters fight, and wizards blast away). Well, my guy didn't do that so some modules were really hard for us to do.

Another character I created for the RPGA was having a rogue who banked everything just to have a high UMD check at starting levels so he wasn't effective at lower levels for the typical rogue stuff such as sneaking.

I created other one-trick pony characters that were more effective, and just as fun.

 

[StreamOfTheSky]

I'm playing one right now: the NPC, Thomas (named after my favorite philosopher, who the character is a mockery of). He is a gestalt wizard/rogue (feat variant, no SA) in our gestalt game. He knows not a single offensive/damaging spell, not even grease. ...Except for the cantrips he gets for free, I guess. he does not carry a weapon. He's obsessive-compulsive and afraid terrified of everything, frequently running away, hiding invisibly, or curling up into the fetal position. He was originally a "required" NPC to help the PCs navigate some ruins, and was thus needed to be kept alive. I figured instead of the normal in that situation -- the NPC is frustratingly difficult to protect and gets into trouble -- I'd do the exact opposite. He puts all his resources into AC and not getting hit or even into combat. He has no qualms leaving the PCs behind if things go south, using the time it takes for them to die as a "speed bump" on the aggressors to buy his own self some more escape time.

Surprisingly, the PCs came to like his almost cartoonish annoying qualities and kept him around after that dungeon. Since then, he's actually proven useful on many occasions in various and/or unexpected ways. Like having enough knowledge to identify anything they see. Or in one of the last sessions, when the party had to infiltrate a drow house, kill all inside, and frame a different faction for it (the party is evil, I should mention). The mansion had only one door in/out besides some windows, and he actually had hold portal prepared! So later on, when we entered through the windows and failed to be sneaky...the victims ended up wasting precious rounds struggling with the door fruitlessly. If some had escaped, there'd have been witnesses, and the whole mission would have been a failure.

EDIT: 3.5 rules set. Oh, also, he's the only person in the party with Trapfinding. I guess that also makes him pretty useful.

 

[Particle_Man]

I once played a 1st ed AD&D Cleric/Magic-user with the minimum possible legal stats (lots of 6's, one 9 and I think one 13, but it has been a while).

I did this to show that you can still play a character with crappy stats and do well, as a pointed lessen to a min-maxer in the group.

It went fairly well. Although some of my cleric spells didn't go off (there was a failure chance).

 

[Akaiku]

I played this one person with crazily bad rolled stats on this random custom system on OpenRPG. I then proceeded to raise the stats evenly as I leveled.

Why? Cause random stats are unbalanced and their level up mechanic was messed up, so I needed to prove both and I rolled low.

End result was a character who was about as effective as a normal character half her level. And nobody caring. Also me leaving.

Playing a crappy character is irritating to me. Similarly, having to rely on a crappy character is also that way. The lovably cute and stumbly person who can't really help in combat gets old, same as any other one trick pony. Even more so if a person refuses to have their character adapt to the new situation they find themselfs in to maintain their foible.

Of course, that kinda goes into the playing ACTUAL losers, instead of APPERENT ones. I find I can make up weaknesses and depth of character without mechanical penalites though. And characterize them just fine. But YMMV.

 

[ExploderWizard]

Do you pick your friends based on their skillsets? Yes, I know you aren't an adventurer, but do remember that the typical D&D adventuring party has each other, and that's it. No other friends, nobody else to be with.

Not all adventure stories are about a group of folks who choose their companions for their skills. Not everyone wants to explore the "best of the best of the best".

Best fictional reference I can think of - Peter Beagle's "The Last Unicorn". Schmendrick the Magician is a complete loser, and no party who needed a magician they could really count on would ever have him. But somehow, the Unicorn and Molly Grue and he stick together, depend on each other, and get through to the end.

Sometimes, mutual need and caring for each other has a lot more to do with sticking together than exactly how skillful you are or aren't.

Yes. Well said. Fictional characters can actually be like people that consider things beyond the stats.

Why did the Fellowship put up with Sam, Merry, and Pippen? They were not experienced adventurers and didn't have much to bring to the table as it were.

Zander and Willow in the early episodes of Buffy were just high school kids but they came along and faced danger.

These characters went into harms way without the skills or powers to be "effective" because they were loyal friends and the friendship actually meant something.

 

[Oni]

I don't think I've ever played a character I would describe as pathetic, but I have played some that I intentionally disadvantaged because it made them more interesting to me.

I played a one armed diviner who had his arm destroyed by a magical trap. Before the game started I had envisioned a much more laid back character, but the first in character line every spoke to him was, "hey Stumpy" and he was forever set in stone as a frustrated and caustic little man. Boy did he ever hate asking for help.

Currently my L4W character is a dwarven wizard who is mad, and not just a little mad. It's actually the first character I've ever played that I worry sometimes if I might have went a little too far, because he's the completely cracked, voices in the head kind of insane. More repellent than charmingly eccentric.

 

[Mallus]

Why did the Fellowship put up with Sam, Merry, and Pippen? They were not experienced adventurers and didn't have much to bring to the table as it were.

Zander and Willow in the early episodes of Buffy were just high school kids but they came along and faced danger.

These characters went into harms way without the skills or powers to be "effective" because they were loyal friends and the friendship actually meant something.

Fictional characters survive because of authorial fiat.

PC's do not.

Therefore, PC's need something to compensate for the lack of authorial fiat protecting them, something to give them a fighting chance.

Something like useful abilities and characteristics as expressed in the game's mechanics.

ie Merry, Pippin, Xander, et al wouldn't be 1st level characters if translated into the D&D idiom.

 

[outsider]

I've never done it myself, but seen it done in my groups several times. I despise it. I've never seen it be fun for anybody other than the player that's being deliberately useless. It gets on the other players nerves, and it is entirely unreasonable to expect them to keep dragging the incompetent along, endangering the lives of the other players, wasting their resources, taking shares of the xp/loot that they really don't deserve, etc.

A character sould be useful for -something- that commonly comes up and is valuable in the game. In D&D that means it needs to be able to meaningfully contribute to combat. In other games, combat contribtion probably isn't neccessary, but they should still be contributing something.

If you -really- want to play a pathetic character, make a good character and reflavor all of his bonuses to dumb luck or whatever. That way you get the joy of being comic relief, without dragging down your group's capability to get stuff done.

 

[Ambrus]

I've never played a pathetic character in a tabletop game.

But, after playing various LARP games over the years I've found pathetic PCs to be a perfect fit for the genre. My impression about LARPs is that they're in many ways the opposite of a traditional tabletop RPG game. There are only a handful of PCs in a tabletop game; they are the heroes of the setting and each has an opportunity to shine in that role. In a LARP game however, often with 10, 20 or even 50 or 60 PCs, heroic beings are the norm in the setting rather than the exception. In essence, with everyone trying to be the best and most powerful the only way to stand out in a LARP is to be pathetic.

At least, that's my theory and I've put it into practice in numerous LARPs and have found it to be the key to enjoying myself. My most pathetic character was in a D&Desque LARP in which I played an utterly harmless, pacifistic, mentally-retarded, disfigured, hunchback beggar named Awd Goggie with a severe speech impediment and no sense of pride. His only saving grace was that he was a top shelf healer who'd happily patch up anyone in distress, even injured NPC monsters! His only possessions were a walking staff and a wooden bowl which I'd use to either hide my disfigured face, bang on my head once I'd done something stupid or hold out to passersby to beg for alms. All in all the character was quite successful. Most heroic PCs went to great pains to protect my character from harm, while most villainous PCs wouldn't bother to attack since I was harmless, had nothing worth stealing and I'd heal them for free whenever asked. Some of the monsters even took to not molest me for similar reasons. And, by the end I'd accumulated much more wealth through begging than anyone else had by adventuring!

I've played other pathetic or purposefully weak characters in LARPs since then: a clueless 15th generation caitiff, a ghoul and a gargoyle enslaved to a Tremere chantry in various Vampire LARPs. The latter was particularly fun when my vampiric masters took to using me interchangeably as a footstool or a coat rack.

 

[GMforPowergamers]

Why would you risk your life adventuring with someone who was a liability?

That doesn't answer the question. Pickles JG is asking why the *other* PCs adventure with this person. Why don't they just kick him out the party?

I have never intentionally made a "pathetic" character. Flawed characters can be great fun, but lousy ones - especially in a game as team-oriented as D&D has always been - are, well, lousy.

Fictional characters survive because of authorial fiat.

PC's do not.

Therefore, PC's need something to compensate for the lack of authorial fiat protecting them, something to give them a fighting chance.

Something like useful abilities and characteristics as expressed in the game's mechanics.

ie Merry, Pippin, Xander, et al wouldn't be 1st level characters if translated into the D&D idiom.

ok, well I have played weak, or flawed characters I never played a real loser...I once had a concept for one (classic geeky nerd low con, low str, low cha) but my dice gave me a low stat of 14... and 2 17's...

how ever I do want to say I ran a game that for ha ha;s we ruled was 3d6 place as you get them (in 3.5)

We had Bane (moonbeam) the half drow barbarian/ranger/fighter raised by a hippy druid...he had a good str and con, but a 10 dex, a 7 Int and a 6 cha...
we had a wizard (man his name escapes me) human with an 14 Int, 13 Wis, 13 Cha, and no physical stat above 9
We had a monk with 2 18's Dex and Wis...but a 3 str...
We had a cleric with straight 13's...no really 6 13;s in a row...
and then we had azrethal...human agjur with ok physicals 11-13's, an 18 Int, and 18 Wis and a 17 cha...
we techincly had a rogue too, but he had a 3 con, and a 4 str...he didn't last long...

You know who we talk about to this day...bane. The best character out of them...