The character dies in my head

[jdrakeh]

Triple Post (DSL lag)

 

[jdrakeh]

Triple Post (DSL lag)

 

[jdrakeh]

A flawed analogy.

It's not an analogy. SOME PEOPLE LIKE PLAYING FLAWED CHARACTERS. SOME PEOPLE DISLIKE PLAYING FLAWLESS CHARACTERS. YOU DON'T GET TO DICTATE WHAT PEOPLE LIKE. It's a reality.

 

[Cameron]

Cool.
Because this conversation is intersting, despite us being on opposite ends of the gaming spectrum.



SO, if your world is so deadly, in your opinion, (referencing the "Tyrannical King" bit specifically), would a PC with low Charisma and no Diplomacy ranks be sub-optimal? SHould he be punished by the King?



Tell me more about this "style"; what type of campaign do run?
Using RAW? Core Books only? Kitchen Sink style?
This might help me understand.

And throwing a bone a players way (Throwing a special item his way, digging into his background, having his flaw be a CATALYST for adventure, rahter than a punishment) doesn't seem it would change the style or tone of the game.



Speaking for my group only...
We roll up characters togehter.
Typically, at least two of our characters know each otehr in a "friendly" manner.
And I typically tend to fill the "Vacant" role after everyone ele decides what to be. My new charcatre (Eldritch Ivy, Warforged Sorceress) is the first character where I KNEW what I wanted in advance,and made her accordingly.



Again, sounds like harsh DM'ing to me.

Just becase someone isn't optimitzed,doesn't make the PLAYER or the CHARACTER an idiot.
As I said, everyone excels at SOMETHING, and it doesn't have to be combat.(Referencing the Tyrannical King bit..Maybe this "Sub-Op"character is the one to parlay with the king?)

From the top.

Not if he doesn't do something that will piss off the King. If Mr Sub-Optimal wants to open his mouth when he knows he has Dip 0 and -ve Cha, he gets all he gets.

My campaigns tend to be wide open, with the only restrictions being thematic (ie., no Ninjas in a western European setting).

It would be if it requires that everyone else has to play around him and his weakness. It would also, if people want to play the hero, to do uber things that most normal people cannot even consider (ie., epic fantasy stuff), and this guy is there.

I have no problems with people rolling characters together. In fact, that is generally the case, since I have a "roll in front of witnesses" clause in character generation. If the player was inclined to be friendly, he would not be whining. He would know what the other players expect. It is when he runs afoul of what others expect that the whining starts.

It does make him an idiot if he does not wish to conform to the table's expectations and instead whine his head off about things. I hav a very low tolerance to that because, like I said, I deal with morons like that on a daily basis.

 

[Cameron]

It's not an analogy. SOME PEOPLE LIKE PLAYING FLAWED CHARACTERS. SOME PEOPLE DISLIKE PLAYING FLAWLESS CHARACTERS. YOU DON'T GET TO DICTATE WHAT PEOPLE LIKE. It's a reality.

Incorrect again.

I never said you cannot be a flawless character. I merely said that there is no correlation better an optimised character and an interesting character. It is all based on how they are being played.

*You*, on the other hand, immediately precluded one in the presence of the other.

In short, I ain't restricting you. *You* are restricting me. By extension, I ain't dictating squat. *You* are the one doing the dictation.

 

[Nifft]

I had a curious experience recently. I am planning out a character with a particular concept and realized that it was sub-optimal. I asked for and received advice on how to optimize the character and then found that when I tried to make those changes the character lost something. It effectively died in my head, in the sense that I lost interest in playing it until I "reset" it to the original sub-optimal state.

I don't know if I am even making sense, but do things like this happen to other people?

System mastery is an interesting thing. Being able to see the numeric reality behind the flavorful descriptions may make things initially seem blander than they were before you understood how they worked. This will pass.

However, ownership is also an interesting thing.

I wonder if you lost interest because the character became "more optimal", or because it became less yours.

Try this: next time, ask for less specific advice, and make sure that you come up with the specifics on your own. It'll be more work, but it may be the kind of work that you enjoy -- and that you require in order to feel like the character is really yours.

Cheers, -- N

 

[Particle_Man]

I wonder if you lost interest because the character became "more optimal", or because it became less yours.

I think that is part of it. I don't think I have a problem of "I see the numbers now and lost my sense of wonder.

 

[Psimancer]

Yes, this happened to me a couple of years ago...

The character out grew the original concept during creation. I just couldn't get a handle on it. After a couple of days mulling over the problem, the solution struck me; if its not the same character, why does it have the same name?

I renamed him, and then as a character it worked - simple.

If you didn't name the character before generation, then obviously this solution wouldn't work for you...

And yes, the difference between the original and final character was some degree of optimization...

 

[WarlockLord]

Does anyone run the same characters through different games? I find I am struggling not to...

 

[jdrakeh]

Does anyone run the same characters through different games? I find I am struggling not to...

Actually, I've never done this, though I've had at least two that were similar (one was created to replace the other in a long running campaign).