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

[Henry]

"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?

Well, think about this -- people do this in real life all the time; when someone asks, "who are you?" Often name and job description, or community where you live, are at the top 4 or 5 responses on the list. At first meeting, you often don't get the, "I collect stamps and love puppies and take care of my invalid parents" type answers until they get to know you better.

Last week when I was dreaming up a new character for a new D&D Planescape game one of our group is running, My first thought was, "Binder", because I haven't tried any of the Tome of Magic stuff yet, and wanted to do something different. Next thought was "Tiefling Binder", because (A) I've never tried a Level Adjustment class, and (B) I wanted a "dark/dangerous element" to him. Third, I changed to "Aasimar Binder" because I wanted to play against type a bit -- ever darned celestial-blooded thing out there is a paladin or cleric of some stripe, it seems, so I wanted to go a different route. What if the guy with the shady heart and dubious morals is the one with gold eyes, silver hair, and casts daylight inherently? So I started with that, setting up home plane, his line of business, his loves and hatreds, his concerns, etc.

It wasn't until the second or third step in that I started thinking of "who" he was before I left the step of thinking in broad archetypal strokes.

 

[nyrfherdr]

"You are what you do. A man is defined by his actions, not his memory." Kuato to Quaid. Total Recall.

In the game, what the character does is the most important.
In a game with lots of dice rolling, WHAT is primary.
In a game of intrigue, WHO is primary.

In a game with both, you need both. Where you started matters little. It is what you do that matters

Game ON!

 

[Gold Roger]

You know, die_kluge

You might want to check back on his username. It's german and "die" is a female form, while he's actually calling himself der_kluge ("der" being male).

Well, maybe you're lucky and he's flattered

 

[buzz]

You might want to check back on his username. It's german and "die" is a female form, while he's actually calling himself der_kluge ("der" being male).

Well, maybe you're lucky and he's flattered

My bad! I always inadvertantly read his name as "die kludge", as in "b0rken mechanics".

Sorry, d_k!

 

[Henry]

Now you've got me wantin' to change his name back for a day!

 

[der_kluge]

My bad! I always inadvertantly read his name as "die kludge", as in "b0rken mechanics".

Sorry, d_k!

It used to be die_kluge, until someone pointed out that I don't know how to speak German.

 

[Agent Oracle]

Well, let's look at this from another perspective:

When you introduce yourself at swanky parties... how do you do it?

"Hi, I'm Agent Oracle, and it's my lifelong ambition to conquer a small section of the western hemisphere, purely because I have psychological issues dating back to when i placed second in a boy scout wooden car race because the track was irregular."

Or:

"Hi, I'm Agent Oracle, I work for Jack over there."

 

[cattoy]

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?

The PHB's support for defining WHAT a character does is pretty extensive.

The PHB's support for defining WHO a character is is limited to gender/race/alignment/diety.

Anything beyond that is handwaving. There is no support for playing a PC that is of noble birth, missing a limb, suffers from allergies, stands to inherit an estate, delusional or addicted to alcohol. You can do it all you want, you're just not supported by the published rules. You get the same starting gold as anyone else at 1st level. You can claim to be the heir to this kingdom or that, but it still doesn't mean you can afford a decent suit of armor at 1st level.

There might be some third party supplement of some sort that addresses this, but I don't take that into account. If the designers of D&D had considered WHO a character was to be important, they would have incorporated support for this in the PHB.

They don't. They didn't.

 

[wayne62682]

Sadly, I agree that they didn't consider WHO a character is to be important, because there ARE no background/upbringing rules that can affect the character. If I want a character who is nobility, I still get the same (roughly) starting gold as the peasant hero turned adventurer from the tiny hamlet. I see the reasoning behind this (if being "noble" affected your wealth then everyone would always pick it), but it does feel rather limited..

Of course, this wasn't the case in ANY edition of D&D in regards to the core set of rules, so I'm not sure why this is only percieved as a "problem" in 3e. I don't recall 1st or 2nd edition having anything to this effect, although Oriental Adventures 1e had the birth/inheritance tables that were pretty neat (hmm.. maybe its time to re-engineer those for 3.5..). 2e had nothing of the sort in any product that I can remember, although certain Kits gave you extra money (Noble Warrior, anyone?).

So.. yeah I agree but why is this a problem now, when D&D has ALWAYS been about what you are versus who you are?

 

[shilsen]

So.. yeah I agree but why is this a problem now, when D&D has ALWAYS been about what you are versus who you are?

Because now we can complain about it on the internet