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

[wayne62682]

Because now we can complain about it on the internet

Oh yes, of course, the glory of the interweb

 

[buzz]

I don't recall 1st or 2nd edition having anything to this effect...

The 1e Unearthed Arcana actually had some social standing tables you could roll on. I can't remember if they actually changed your starting gear, though. I think it was pretty much meanignless color that determined whether you could be a cavalier or not.

D&D pretty much assumes that your PC is an "adventurer," a profession unto itself that is essentially outside the normal social strata. If you mess with this, you throw the wealth-by-level thing out of whack.

 

[amethal]

The 1e Unearthed Arcana actually had some social standing tables you could roll on. I can't remember if they actually changed your starting gear, though. I think it was pretty much meanignless color that determined whether you could be a cavalier or not.

In 1e Oriental Adventures social standing made a massive difference to your starting equipment.

I remember rolling up a bushi (fighter) who was the lowest of the low. He used a parang because it was the only weapon he could afford. Potentially, other characters could have been closely related to the Emperor and start off fabulously wealthy.

In 3rd edition, all my character choices have been based around "what".

My first character was a sorcerer because I wanted to see how the new sorcerer class performed.

My second character was an archer cleric because I wanted to see if a cleric could be a better archer than a fighter.

My current character is a binder, because I wanted to see if the class was as weak in actual play as it looked in the book.

The characters' personalities develop over the first few sessions - I never know what they will be like at the start.

 

[Jedi_Solo]

I don't really see how the rules can tell you "who" you are outside of some random table table that says "Congradulations. You are a total jerk!" or "You wouldn't hurt a fly."

Stuff that says something like 'Pyromaniac: Gain +1 caster level to fire based spells' is still more "what" (+1 caster on fire) than "who" (pyromaniac) in my book. Same with the Oriental Adventures list that was mentioned that said you start with almost no cash. After 2 or 3 levels of killing things and taking their stuff will the money issue really matter?

Even in a setting as class dependant (peasant/lord as opposed to fighter/wizard) as OA that is a 'what'. Once you reach a point where you have the same equipment value as the others in your group will you still be a peasant or try to no longer be a peasant? The table said I was a peasant (what) not how I would react to having cash (who). A table can't tell me that. I won't let a table tell me that.

As for myself, when I build a character I usually do the what first. I'm a "this class/prc/ability sounds cool, let's try that" kind of player. I then build a back story to explain why I am where I am and to give the DM a few plot hooks. The backstory may or may not give me a starting point for a personality, but I usually build the personality over a few sessions.

 

[Asmor]

I always define my characters by what they can do, not who they are to use your words.

Then again, I'm very fickle and always have lots of ideas for characters so I don't really get too tied up with any one. I find if I do play the same character too long I start getting bored.

 

[buzz]

I don't really see how the rules can tell you "who" you are outside of some random table table that says "Congradulations. You are a total jerk!" or "You wouldn't hurt a fly."

In D&D, the only mechanic that touches on "who" is Alignment, and even then, it's pretty general (as it should be, given the game's primary focus). This is why I'm always puzzled at the big crossover between "people who value characterization and storytelling" and "people who hate Alignment".

 

[Mark Plemmons]

I think that is the powergamer/videogame mindset that has crept into pen and paper RPGs of recent times. Not that there weren't always powergamers, just the the newest ruleset seems to more readily cater for them.

I think that's sadly true more often than it's not. One example from the PHB II really sticks out in my mind: the expanded barbarian class now offers an automatically activated boost to combat prowess and durability, removing the need for "this often complicated tactical decision", i.e., rage.

Heaven forbid that players should have to consider tactics.

 

[Cor Azer]

And now I have a concept for my next PC.

Shorty McStabstab.

Belkar!

But back on topic... I think I always start with the what... or at least, a mental picture of a cool pose/action/scene, and then try to figure out who would get himself into that situation, along with the how and why.

So I don't always start with "elf fighter", but I may picture having a character hanging from a gnarled old tree sticking out the side of a worn cliff, fumbling to grab his sword from its sheath, and fending off attacking orcs, with grace and deftness... etc... this then may suggest someone capable with the sword and able to do all sort of daring-dos (many feats) so likely a fighter, and then I have to figure out the why is he in the forest, etc...

So, while I don't start with the "who", I don't actually start with the "what" either.

Coincidentally, that's also how I try to build adventures - I get a (to me) cool scene in my head, and try to figure out why this scene has come to pass and how can I get the PCs involved?

 

[buzz]

I think that's sadly true more often than it's not. One example from the PHB II really sticks out in my mind: the expanded barbarian class now offers an automatically activated boost to combat prowess and durability, removing the need for "this often complicated tactical decision", i.e., rage.

Heaven forbid that players should have to consider tactics.

The option pushes barbarians to act according to their idiom: jump into the thick of things and soak up damage. It's akin to how berserkers in Iron Heroes get tokens for being hit.

I don't see how this obviates tactical thinking any more or less than any other class ability.

As for "powergamey/videogamey": could we please not go there?

 

[pawsplay]

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.

Well, characters have names and starting ages. And alignments. And each class has a "background" section describing who might be a member of the profession. And then there's the sections in DMG about how different classes fit into society. Plus the advice from the Hero Builder's Guide, and the PHB II. And prestige classes with in game requirements.

But apart from that, you're right, not much support.