"What" you are versus "who" you are.
- Thread starter der_kluge
- Start date
Odhanan
Adventurer
I am pretty free-form when it comes to PrC prerequisites. "Combat Reflexes" can be replaced by "Lightning Reflexes" and such. The prerequisites are guidelines to me as a DM. Never hardcore rules. What matters is the synergy between who the character is and what the PrC represents.
As an aside and more on topic, I think this all comes down to player focus and how I, as a DM, present the game. I know that when I distributed the Ptolus Player's Guide, I would have some really detailed requests for player characters. When we created the characters, we rolled the stats, then we focussed first on the "who they are", fleshing out bits and pieces of backgrounds before the players distributed the scores between the abilities. Then, and only then, did I ask "what race do you think your character is?" After that, came the class. This created a synergy right there.
As an aside and more on topic, I think this all comes down to player focus and how I, as a DM, present the game. I know that when I distributed the Ptolus Player's Guide, I would have some really detailed requests for player characters. When we created the characters, we rolled the stats, then we focussed first on the "who they are", fleshing out bits and pieces of backgrounds before the players distributed the scores between the abilities. Then, and only then, did I ask "what race do you think your character is?" After that, came the class. This created a synergy right there.
Last edited:
Terwox
First Post
I think der_kluge is right, and that going about making characters based on who's rather than what's will land you with a better game.
This does not mean I generate this way. I recently generated for cyberpunk, which made me go "omg handrazors are SO COOL" and then I went from there. Really like the character too... but it did start w/ a schtick.
One of my favorite characters is a seelie boggan I played in Changeling... I simply generated a human child first, wrote a brief backstory for them, and then decided it would make the most sense if he was a boggan. Very fun character...
I can definitely tell the difference in the generation methods, though. If you gen with a schtick, you're going to play up the schtick... if you gen up a character and give them a schtick, then they're a character who also happens to be good at X. But they're a character first.
I don't think schtick characters always evolve into having personality... but they certainly can.
This does not mean I generate this way. I recently generated for cyberpunk, which made me go "omg handrazors are SO COOL" and then I went from there. Really like the character too... but it did start w/ a schtick.
One of my favorite characters is a seelie boggan I played in Changeling... I simply generated a human child first, wrote a brief backstory for them, and then decided it would make the most sense if he was a boggan. Very fun character...
I can definitely tell the difference in the generation methods, though. If you gen with a schtick, you're going to play up the schtick... if you gen up a character and give them a schtick, then they're a character who also happens to be good at X. But they're a character first.
I don't think schtick characters always evolve into having personality... but they certainly can.
Glyfair
Explorer
der_kluge said:
I don't agree that he's going about it "all wrong." I think both methods have value. Honestly, I think roleplaying games (D&D especially) got started by people who were thinking about "what" they wanted to play, rather than "who." Personalities grew into the game, and it's a competely valid way of creating a character (starting with "what" and developing the "who" through play).
In fact, one of my groups of gaming friends has always had strong storytelling and character oriented games. One of the most roleplaying intensive players doesn't believe in starting with a fully fleshed personality, but wants it to develop through play (a favorite comment of his is that "the dice help tell the story"). Admittedly, he doesn't tend to start with mechanics but archetypes (I want to run a wandering storyteller), but the effect is the same.
I don't think it's that you're a grognard, since I think the true grognard's aren't always wrapped deeply into the "develop a fully detailed personality/history" aspects of the game. I think it's mostly that you have a sense of what you believe is the "right way" to play the game, and are committed to it.
Gold Roger
First Post
I agree, generally.
I don't think it's terrible to start at what you are, but I think far to manny people stop there. They play an elven warblade, or human warlock and that's it.
When I make a character, it's very important for me to decide at one point who it is I'm playing. What does he believe in? How did he come to be who he is.
But I'm pretty much the only one in our group. One is just now picking it up, playing his human Shugenja also as the merchant he is through his family tradition.
But that's it, the other three are pretty much playing blank slates with a race/class tag on them and maybe a "cool" quirk.
However, I'm not sure I should condem it. It seems to be the way they enjoy the game and while I'd prefer things where different, it doesn't destroy my gaming.
I also don't think it's something new, or unique to D&D. I've seen it in some other systems (though those where d20 as well) and I've seen it in my earliest days of gaming, that, while it was D&D 3rd edition, had only the good old core classes and races and no PrC's.
I don't think it's terrible to start at what you are, but I think far to manny people stop there. They play an elven warblade, or human warlock and that's it.
When I make a character, it's very important for me to decide at one point who it is I'm playing. What does he believe in? How did he come to be who he is.
But I'm pretty much the only one in our group. One is just now picking it up, playing his human Shugenja also as the merchant he is through his family tradition.
But that's it, the other three are pretty much playing blank slates with a race/class tag on them and maybe a "cool" quirk.
However, I'm not sure I should condem it. It seems to be the way they enjoy the game and while I'd prefer things where different, it doesn't destroy my gaming.
I also don't think it's something new, or unique to D&D. I've seen it in some other systems (though those where d20 as well) and I've seen it in my earliest days of gaming, that, while it was D&D 3rd edition, had only the good old core classes and races and no PrC's.
Nonlethal Force
First Post
I think a fair point to make is that it depends on the game. Anyone playing through AoW is probably not going to spend a long time creating a character and getting attached to it. From what I've seen on this board about death rates ... that one takes the cake.
Typically, though, when I play I like to play in games that the character is not going to die that often. So I create characters I can get attached to because I know the attachment is worthwhile. I think too often DMs ignore the influence they have on player's desire to attach themselves. When players deteach, you get shallow characters regardless of the generation method.
Typically, though, when I play I like to play in games that the character is not going to die that often. So I create characters I can get attached to because I know the attachment is worthwhile. I think too often DMs ignore the influence they have on player's desire to attach themselves. When players deteach, you get shallow characters regardless of the generation method.
WmRAllen67
First Post
der_kluge said:
We encounter this phenomenon every day, and not just in the game. How many people do you meet each day that define themselves by their job? And not just in the quick answer to the question 'what do you do' sense, either?
I do think that, what with the "PrC of the month" or "cool variant for today" production rubric that the sources and supplements follow, the game lends itself to this method of character creation. We did start with the archetypes wizard, fighter, cleric, and thief (doctor, lawyer, Indian chief?) back in the day, after all...
taliesin15
First Post
nah, I've noticed it too and have been griping about it--though you put it in a more succinct way--seemed to me that the kind of player in Austin way back in the early 80s who had these tendencies also really preferred to play Steve Jackson's brilliant game Car Wars--which makes sense, because its all material build and not much personality or role-playing beyond cars smashing into other cars, exploding caltrops, and say hello to my little friend (laser gun), beeyatch!der_kluge said:
Thanee
First Post
der_kluge said:
I'd say that D&D was always like this... it certainly has a strong tendency towards going for class first, personality second.
I would even go so far to say, that this is not a trait of D&D, but of class-based systems in general.
In games where you have more flexibility in character generation (i.e. point based), you basically have to think up a concept before starting to decide where to put the points. With classes, the concepts are pre-designed for you.
Just think about how you make a character for HERO, or Mutants & Masterminds, or even Shadowrun (even though Shadowrun has some very strongly established archetypes, which are somewhat similar to classes here).
Bye
Thanee
Similar Threads
