"What" you are versus "who" you are.

[der_kluge]

I was flipping through some WoTC books today, filled with the requisite prestige classes, feats, and all the other crunchy bits we've come to expect from those books.

And it struck me - the game has become more about "What" the PC is, versus "Who" the PC is. I had to beat this into the head of a former player of mine. When it came time to make a character, he'd instantly blurt out things like "ooh, I want to make a Warlock", or "I've got it! A whispergnome scout!" or "Can I play a stone child?"

"Wait a minute", I'd say, "you're going about this all wrong. Think about *who* you want to make first, and then figure out which class best represents that. Not the other way around."

Am I just a grognard, or have others encountered this phenomenon?

 

[(Psi)SeveredHead]

That's a personality trait. When playing Vampire, an allegedly heavy RP game, someone's always wanting to play a Nosferatu elder or Ventrue private investigator or somesuch.

The classes in DnD aren't flexible, either, so a lot of character concepts are either weak or just not do-able. There's also so many classes that there might be little incentive to try to use the core rules to make a character.

 

[Mouseferatu]

Am I just a grognard, or have others encountered this phenomenon?

I don't think one method is inherently superior to the other. I've been playing since the Red Box, and in every edition, I've enjoyed creating characters both ways. Sometimes I've got a strong idea for who the character is, and choose class, race, and everything else to match. But you know? Sometimes I'm just in the mood to play a fighter, or a wizard, or a what-have-you.

The former method more often results in a deep, layered character. But I've had flat characters come out of it, and I've had some of my best role-playing experiences come out of the "Man, I want to play a Blah" mentality.

I really think it's just a question of mood, and what the player does with the character once he has it.

 

[Sound of Azure]

....

....

....

...hmmm. I've had a tendancy to do just that, mostly from being one of the last to create a PC in a group. It ends up being that I create a number of concepts that I want to try out, some of them being "who" characters, some of them being "what" characters inspired by a PrC, a novel, or maybe just something that I found interesting.

Most recently(the group I just left), I was the last to come to the table and it was necessary to have a "what" character to fill in the gap in the party roster (in this case, a cleric/priest type).

Often, characters hve been referred to as "the Rogue", "the Cleric", "the Elf", or "that Unholy Abomination" rather than the character's name in game. Which is unfortunate. The In-character journals that I write refer to the actual name more often than not however.

You might be on to something there. I guess for me it deends on the circumstances, and what kind of inspiration has struck me in creating a character.

 

[Doug McCrae]

You can start with anything, a signature weapon, a skill set, class, race, a relationship, voice, personality, history, appearance or name. It doesn't matter.

 

[Crothian]

Am I just a grognard, or have others encountered this phenomenon?

This has nothing to do with being a gronard, I know and knew many old timers who approach the game this way.

 

[pawsplay]

I'm not crazy about games full of beautiful, unique snowflakes. A good PC is clearly defined both in terms of who they are and what they are, and should ideally give me a good idea why they are.

For instance, if you want to play a halfling bartender-cleric who talks with an Irish accent and favors picks, I can understand what he is and who he is, but I don't know why. I can work with it, but I'm left wondering, "What is so cool about this character, and what is he going to add to my campaign?"

 

[Shemeska]

Am I just a grognard, or have others encountered this phenomenon?

The options for wilder and more exotic character races have increased with each edition of the game. With PrCs in 3.x, that first trend just lends itself to many PrCs being based around those more exotic races.

I'd peg it largely to that.

 

[Moon-Lancer]

I dont think its a bad thing starting from "what" as long as you dont stop and forget about the "who" and the "why"

I dont think im wrong for starting out wanting to play a elvish druid or a killoren dervish. I may start out with that first thought, but when im done with my charictersheet and ready for play, i cant tell the who from the what, becuse i dont think that the lines are that clear when a charicter is ready for play. the just are.

 

[Whizbang Dustyboots]

Sometimes, of course, what and who are overlapping. I want to play an "archetypal" gnome in Savage Tide, so I want to play an illusionist/bard/gnome paragon to reinforce that idea with mechanics that go hand-in-hand.