Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Ilbranteloth" data-source="post: 7187393" data-attributes="member: 6778044">But that's part of what I don't quite get. I don't know if it's because of when and how I learned how to play, or just a different approach, but to me it's about the characters and the party. It's not a "me" approach, but a "we" approach. We've never been concerned about "the spotlight" but I think that it has to do with the fact that any single moment in the campaign is a small part of the story of the characters. Each character has their story arcs, written largely by the decisions and actions of their characters, with contributions by the DM (me). The party could be all dwarven clerics of Moradin. That would write a different type of story, but the fact that this specific character did something in that combat, and this other one did something else when trying to find a way into a ruined keep, etc. has more to do with their personalities and strengths as characters and people as a whole, rather than one stat or feature.If the character is defined based on the character sheet and their stats, then I can see how it's easy to have a lot of similarities between characters. But back in 2e days we had two bards, both with the gallant kit, and they were completely different. Because their focus was entirely on the character and not their abilities on paper. Part of it might have to do with the size of the groups I run. Most have 6-8 players, some have had more. And back in AD&D days you always had a number of people with the same classes, and that was when a wizard was a wizard. No specialists. Fighters were fighters, and while you could differentiate them to some degree by choice of weapon, it was really the character themselves that set them apart.I find 5e a bit paradoxical in this regard. On the one hand, there are still a lot of options (and a growing number of them) to design a niche by stats. That is, you can design a character that is more specialized and hope that nobody else in the group has that same specialty. On the other hand, the rules are designed to allow everybody to attempt nearly anything. Feats encroach on the specialties of archetypes, and things like that. So I can understand why this is a thing for people, but it's not a feeling I've ever personally experienced. What makes TTRPGs so much more interesting to me is specifically the role-playing. I'm not a good acting type role player, but that's entirely unnecessary. It's really more about getting into the head of the character, and figuring out how they would act in a given situation. What would they do? What would they think? And from a character perspective, I just don't think there are many people in a life-and-death combat that are going to say, "Hey, no fair. I was going to kill that guy with my longsword." A combat is a roadblock, and a potentially deadly one at that. So getting past it in any way that means I don't get hurt or killed is OK with me. A combat is almost never an end, it's just a mean to the end. Even defeating a BBEG doesn't usually require a direct assault, although that's usually the default action taken.While the options have expanded exponentially over the years, there are still only so many combinations of race, class, feats, and other abilities. There are going to be similarities. But as for the character themselves? That's a different story.</blockquote>

Verification