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

[Dannyalcatraz]

From my perspective, any way you design a PC is fine as long as the end product works for you. After all, some people grow up thinking "I want to be a fireman" and become one, and some just kind of find themselves in the job.

Heck...I've even designed PCs by focusing on what weapon I want the guy to use.

The roleplay side of things is less about mechanics and more about getting into the skin of the PC. One of my gaming buddies is about as anti-authoritarian as you can get...and plays a lot of LG/CG PCs...some not far from being Paladins. And he plays them well, not as charicatures.

OTOH, in the same group, we've got a guy who is always a "ranger"- even if he isn't actually playing one. (He even found a way to play one in RIFTS.) Put him in a melee situation, and he's golden. Ask his PC to "negotiate" and you'd swear he's Korben Dallas...or a teenager asking for his first date.

When asked what my character is, my answer will vary from PC to PC. Sometimes, I just give the game mechanical answer of "My guy is a Ftr/Bard" while another character will give the response "Klor-kon is a Bounty Hunter...and I specialize in humans and orcs."

 

[buzz]

I'm saying you don't need rules to role play beliefs or childhood truamas.

Right. I'm just saying that, if you're playing a game with no mechanical support or reward for this stuff, don't be surprised that your players aren't investing time in writing out elaborate backstories. If it later becomes apparent that this stuff is important in play, they'll start fleshing it out as they go.

 

[buzz]

OTOH, in the same group, we've got a guy who is always a "ranger"- even if he isn't actually playing one.

You, too? If only they made an ointment or something.

 

[Dremmen]

Right. I'm just saying that, if you're playing a game with no mechanical support or reward for this stuff, don't be surprised that your players aren't investing time in writing out elaborate backstories. If it later becomes apparent that this stuff is important in play, they'll start fleshing it out as they go.

So one needs to be playing Exalted to get in depth with their role-playing? From my experience it comes down to the players you got together. To some degree the DM/GM can prod those players that are on the fence between playing a "what" and a "who" to go one way or the other (in my case, the "who"). Like you mentioned above buzz, I think the folks on the fence may start out as "what"s, their character a class and race and little else, but with prodding from the DM/GM, with injections of side stories and background and such, some downtime, they may develop a "who" for their "what". However, if you have a whole group that is primarily into playing "what"s, and with little interest in backstories or even names (the paladin does this, the elf does this, etc), then the DM/GM should run a game that caters to that or risk losing the group's interest.

Not my cup of tea, mind you, but one needs to keep in mind the end goal, which is to have fun. And I promise you, if you try to run a game assuming the players are "who"s, when they are "what"s, they will quickly take out a comic book or magic cards to kill time while you go in depth about going ons in the game world and details about events that affect their lives. They just won't care. They are looking for the next leg of the mission, the next step towards completing the quest and getting their XP/gold. So a DM/GM needs to run a game geared for that. At the same token "who"s will quickly get irritated if they are just going from encounter to encounter without time to explore the other PCs, or talk to NPCs, or simply explore one of their characters hobbies completly disregarding their present quest.

I don't believe the carrot/stick method works well - most intelligent players will roll their eyes while you reward extra XP to Maria's Barbarian with the Proffession (seamstress) skill for taking the time to make a particularly handsome shawl for her lesbian life partner. I've also observed that if you have such a reward system in the game "what"s will try to abuse it, trying to squeeze the GM/DM for XP and then arguments rise over the subjective nature of such a system. Groups that are "who"s will find the game play that caters to that reward unto itself, while the "what'"s find reward enough as they see their PCs level up efficiently as they move forward in the game.

 

[Jedi_Solo]

Maybe it is the engineer in me...

But as soon as there is a machanic to help define the "who" doesn't it become a "what" anyway?

D&D Alignment has been brought up as a "who" portion of the game. But to me a "what" description would be 'CE Cleric of X' and such.

To me, as soon as it affacts something on your character sheet it becomes a "what". I guess my point is that, for me at least, there isn't a focus on the 'who' in the rules because it is impossable. As soon as there is a rule for it, it becomes a 'what'. This is true for any game that I have seen. Older D&D editions, oWoD, all computer RPGs. Even games that track your Good/Evil score (some NWN modules, Torment, Fable). As soon as it is a stat that has game effects (outside of a DM plothook at least) it is a 'what' as far as I am concerned.

 

[GoodKingJayIII]

I just don't think the two are mutually exclusive. Who is what, and what is who.

When you've got an ensemble cast (which is what a DnD group really is), you're going to have different character types. Like any good story, the characters will appear to have varying levels of complexity, but as the story progresses we learn more about the individuals. Or sometimes we don't and we have a few static characters. That's ok, there's really nothing wrong with that. But I'm willing to bet that even the most "superficial" characters have surprised us from time to time.

In terms of character creation, I don't think it matters where you start. It's simply different methods of thought. I almost always start with the class combinations first because that's the trigger that makes me ask other questions. "Ok, so I'd like to play a bard with a few levels of barbarian. Well, why? Why Bard? Where'd those Barb levels come from?" That sort of thing. I suppose I could start the other way, but I just don't think like that, and no amount of encouragement or cajoling would change that. Not for lack of trying, but I think I would just automatically default to my usual methods.

 

[buzz]

So one needs to be playing Exalted to get in depth with their role-playing?

Oh, heck no. Don't get me started on Exalted.

I don't believe the carrot/stick method works well - most intelligent players will roll their eyes while you reward extra XP to Maria's Barbarian with the Proffession (seamstress) skill for taking the time to make a particularly handsome shawl for her lesbian life partner. I've also observed that if you have such a reward system in the game "what"s will try to abuse it, trying to squeeze the GM/DM for XP and then arguments rise over the subjective nature of such a system. Groups that are "who"s will find the game play that caters to that reward unto itself, while the "what'"s find reward enough as they see their PCs level up efficiently as they move forward in the game.

This is exactly why I'm not nuts about using XP as a reward for "good roleplaying," and why I think that D&D is not the game to use if you're more interested in Maria's barbarian's lesbian life partner than you are her ability to rage and use Leaping Charge.

 

[buzz]

But as soon as there is a machanic to help define the "who" doesn't it become a "what" anyway?
...
As soon as it is a stat that has game effects (outside of a DM plothook at least) it is a 'what' as far as I am concerned.

Man, all this use of "who" and "what" is getting confusing.

Anyway... maybe. The point I'm trying to make is simply that the system can either encourage you to think about the PC's personality and background or not.

For example, in Heroquest, you create a character by assembling phrases and keywords. One way to do this is to write a 100-word essay. You then pick key bits from that essay that become the PC's traits, e.g.: "Must kill the six-fingered man - 17," "Thinks Ulric is a buffon -20," or "Loyal to father - 13." Coming up with the traits that define the PC's ability to act in the game world requires the player to think about who the heck this PC is.

In D&D, I can plan out an entire 20-level progression knowing absolutely nothing about who my PC is (and could do the same in 1e, Basic, C&C, etc). The system for chargen simply doesn't require me to think about that stuff.

The former game tells me a lot about who the PC is just by looking over the character sheet. D&D, otoh, does not. One way isn't superior to the other, and I'm not going to fault a D&D player for not approaching the game as if he were playing Heroquest.

 

[Crothian]

Right. I'm just saying that, if you're playing a game with no mechanical support or reward for this stuff,

But even D&D can award this through XP if the DM chooses to do so. So, it isn't like there is nothing for this type of play.

 

[buzz]

But even D&D can award this through XP if the DM chooses to do so. So, it isn't like there is nothing for this type of play.

Sure, there's more than nothing should a DM choose to do this. The chargen process, however, doesn't demand thought be given to "who". That's all I'm saying.