The PC you want vs the PC you get.

[Ambrus]

I've been mulling over this notion for some time and am curious to offer it up here for discussion. So here it is:

When conceiving of a new player character do you create the character you initially want or, because of the limitations imposed by the rules or the DM, do you end up actually playing something else? That is to say, do you settle for what you can get rather than what you actually want to play?

As an example of what I'm talking about, let's consider two conceptual races that proved popular enough for inclusion as basic playable PC races in 4e; the dragonborn and the tiefling. I contend that the appeal of these two races are their mythic progenitors; mighty dragons and infernal demons. Since neither dragonborn nor tieflings (or creatures conceptually similar) figure much in popular culture, I figure that prospective players attracted to either are more likely to have been inspired by actual dragons and demons in films or books.

So, if you thought that the Balrog in Lord of the Rings was awesome and it inspired you to want to play a big burning martially minded demon in a fantasy game, would you instead settle for a moderately sized tiefling fighter because it's the best you could hope for? Books such as Savage Species do in fact offer up the means to play both actual demonic and draconic PCs, but aren't as commonly used. Why?

It's happened a few times to me as a DM that, after hearing a player speak of their prospective character and the inspiration behind it, that I propose an alternative that's actually closer to the source of their inspiration. Want to play a succubus-inspired tiefling enchantress? Why not simply play a succubus using the Savage Species monster class? Players are usually surprised that such a thing is possible, but are delighted by the possibility. Then again, after reviewing what playing a monster class actually entails, that player might decide to go ahead with their initial tiefling enchantress PC because the rules of the game make it preferable to playing an actual succubus. The result is much the same for those who wish to play a mighty wizard who rains down eldritch destruction across the landscape like a living storm. In light of their inspiration, why are people reduced to playing a 1st level wizard only able to cast magic missile twice a day?

So what this all boils down to is how closely do the characters we end up playing reflect our initial inspiration and how much of them is shaped by the dictates of the game system and/or the DM's mandate? Do you merely settle for the PC that you end up with? Are you happy with this character creation process or do you often wish for more flexibility?

 

[Nagol]

There are three forms of restriction:
Game restrictions on power level
Genre restrictions on appropriateness
Game engine restrictions on expression

Game engine restrictions are a nuisance and that is one of the appeals I feel of more modular “build your own” systems like Hero and Mutants and Masterminds. I’ll try to work with a player to crack this restriction, if I can find a way that is still fair to the player and the other players.

Genre restriction on character appropriateness I have no difficulty enforcing as a DM and no trouble respecting as a player. “Dude, that sounds like an awesome superhero origin. Save it for our next superhero game. This is Robin Hood.”

Game restrictions on power level usually come about for two reasons: genre matching and theme matching.

By genre matching I mean the characters are appropriately powered to match the basic sort of story told in that milieu. Characters in stories about Cops and Robbers are less powerful than Pulp Heroes are less powerful than 1940’s superheroes and they are less powerful than 1980’s superheroes. A particular campaign may play with the power assumptions to see the consequences on the game and genre and to suit player preferences.

By theme matching, I mean the basic archetype of story that a game system is designed to tell well. In the case of D&D, that would be a coming-of-age, growing-into-power story arc for the surviving characters. The power level of the game is deliberately set low initially and deliberately forced much higher as the characters advance. In this case, the player’s image of a a wizard raining destruction from the heavens should be closer to the eventual end goal for the character – not the start of its play. . Contrast this with a system like Hero where the character growth in terms of power is much more modest and constant. Starting a character with that image is easier in a system that doesn’t tie individual power to character growth.

 

[roguerouge]

I mediate between whether the class will be fun at the table, fun on the board, and fun in my mind. All three have to be cherries for me to commit to playing the character for a long period of time.

 

[jdrakeh]

When conceiving of a new player character do you create the character you initially want or, because of the limitations imposed by the rules or the DM, do you end up actually playing something else? That is to say, do you settle for what you can get rather than what you actually want to play?

I had wanted to play a thief modeled on Cugel the Clever in D&D ever since I discovered the game, but the first D&D rule set that actually supported the concept from a mechanical standpoint was 3e (previous editions had no rules for codifying skills such as bluffing or other such things, which were arguably Cugel's biggest assets). Granted, it still wasn't perfect (due largely to Level restrictions and an assumed 1st Level starting point), but it let me get a lot closer to realizing that particular concept than past editions of the game did. So, I guess, I settle. In fact, for me, it seems that this has always been part of D&D.

 

[Zustiur]

This is why I preach and practice making the numbers of your character up first, then working out the background.

"So why does my character have have 18 str? Well, he was a slave hauling wagons..." and so on. If my concept drifts from the stats I'll alter the stats accordingly. Particularly with the skills...


In my opinion too many people assume that having a well built character (rules wise) means there's no role playing to be done. That's far from the truth. Having good stats or bad, your ability to role play is no different.

 

[jdrakeh]

In my opinion too many people assume that having a well built character (rules wise) means there's no role playing to be done. That's far from the truth. Having good stats or bad, your ability to role play is no different.

All that aside, there is a big difference between playing the role that you want to play and the role that the rules allow you to play, which I think was the point of the OP. It's not a question of role-playing being hindered, but of choice being hindered.

 

[Nonlethal Force]

This was always my biggest frustration. [I play 3.x for the record] I was always finding that I had to incorporate elements into a character that weren't part of my plan just to get those that were a part of my plan. I know that this is a natural consequence of a system that uses classes. Sometimes that consequence was okay, but more often than not it was dissappointing. It led me to write Complete Control - a 3.x compatible "completely classless" design engine. {Shameless plug: It has become a popular "copper seller" over on RPGNow! }

Now, every character I play is exactly how I want them to be. I mean that. Every single character is exactly how I want them. And that makes me as a gamer really, really happy. I now love designing characters whether I ever play them or not.

 

[Doug McCrae]

In open-ended systems such as M&M, I start with the concept. In class-based systems such as D&D I start with the mechanics and build a concept to fit.

 

[Umbran]

There are three forms of restriction:
Game restrictions on power level
Genre restrictions on appropriateness
Game engine restrictions on expression

I think this is a cogent way of putting it.

In my years of gaming, I have learned to start with these restrictions - before I ask what I want to play, I ask what I reasonably can expect to play.

Before I make up my mind on what I want, I'll usually add in one more restriction - Group dynamic restrictions on appropriateness. I look at who I'm playing with, and what they are playing, and use those to influence my choices as well.

Having taken those into consideration first, I usually don't have to chop away and compromise - I've front-loaded my compromises, in a way.

Also I note that when making up a character, my concept has a couple of parts - what the character is at the game start, and what the character may become. I try not to preplan the latter much, as I find that gameplay generally gives inspiration for more interesting results than preplanning does.

 

[Nagol]

<snip>

Also I note that when making up a character, my concept has a couple of parts - what the character is at the game start, and what the character may become. I try not to preplan the latter much, as I find that gameplay generally gives inspiration for more interesting results than preplanning does.

I do the same. I do plan the latter. I use it as a comparator/guideline for growth choices discovered through play. I will admit that it is rare for the end result to be the same though you can usually see the skeleton of the initial concept.