D&D 5E Whats so hard about character creation?

[steeldragons]

sorry i didnt reply earlier but i was trying to figure out how to word this so that it wasn't just me rambling.

Meh, don't sweat it. I'm usually floatin' around here someplace.

Think back to the 4e DMG.

Can't. Never saw one.

They presented, was it 8?, player types to help the DM make adventures.

Oohhhhohoho. I bet that went over well.

Three of them were the "Roleplayer" "Storyteller" and "Slayer". The first two like to act out there characters and be part of the story. I never understood why these were two different types but they are pretty much the same thing. To these two people what background they pick is going to be a cosmic choice along with the sub-race.

For a slayer sub race and background wouldn't be as important as class and specialty Picking how you want to kill things (class) and how you want to do it better (specialty)

Ok. I see, kinda, what you're getting at...I think. And no, someone who's just looking to "kick butt" with their character would not be a very strong role-player, I imagine. Now...how can I put this that's not gonna seem editionwarry or flamey-something....ummmmm...ok...

Simply because the developers can identify [i.e. assign an arbitrary label to] these "slayer" type players does not mean D&D should or needs to be developed to cater to, endorse or encourage them.

D&D is not an MMO. It's not a wargame. It's not a math game. It's not a board game. It's an RPG. The original fantasy RPG or, if you prefer, FRPG. A role-playing game...even if the extent of the role-playing is "I'm Grog the Barbarian. I kill things and take their stuff...and I do it well."

Developers should not be trying to make a game that minimizes or changes that defining aspect of what D&D is and let "role-players" go do something else.

EDIT: I suppose this could spin off into a separate thread discussion since it seems to have strayed a bit from simple/complex character creation.

 

[Neonchameleon]

Oohhhhohoho. I bet that went over well.

It actually did. It's mostly Robin Laws' player types which have a fairly venerable history and are themselves based on WotC's 1999 survey results. Basically the message was "Not everyone gets the same thing out of roleplaying games. Here are some common motivations - bear that in mind when designing and running games."

Ok. I see, kinda, what you're getting at...I think. And no, someone who's just looking to "kick butt" with their character would not be a very strong role-player, I imagine. Now...how can I put this that's not gonna seem editionwarry or flamey-something....ummmmm...ok...

Simply because the developers can identify [i.e. assign an arbitrary label to] these "slayer" type players does not mean D&D should or needs to be developed to cater to, endorse or encourage them.

Dungeons and Dragons is about Dungeons and Dragons. In other words exploring strange and hostile environments and kicking the crap out of really powerful monsters. There are other role playing games out there (Call of Cthulu being an obvious one) that are not built for such player types but from the very beginning Dungeons and Dragons evolved out of tactical wargaming.

D&D is not an MMO.

No. It's just one of the biggest external influences on MMOs.

It's not a wargame.

It's not a math game. It's not a board game. It's an RPG. The original fantasy RPG or, if you prefer, FRPG. A role-playing game...even if the extent of the role-playing is "I'm Grog the Barbarian. I kill things and take their stuff...and I do it well."

And that's precisely what butt-kickers want to do.

Developers should not be trying to make a game that minimizes or changes that defining aspect of what D&D is and let "role-players" go do something else.

Indeed. If you don't like what your fellow D&D players want to do, there are plenty of other roleplaying games out there.

And that was post #94 in a long running series entitled "So you think that the hobby isn't big enough for you and a specific other group who aren't actually hurting anyone. In which case you should be the one to leave. Here's why."

 

[steeldragons]

It actually did. It's mostly Robin Laws' player types which have a fairly venerable history and are themselves based on WotC's 1999 survey results. Basically the message was "Not everyone gets the same thing out of roleplaying games. Here are some common motivations - bear that in mind when designing and running games."

Obviously. "Not everyone gets the same thing out of roleplaying games." But, it is still, a roleplaying game. Developing it, purposely, to say "well, ya don't really have to have any role-play in your role-playing game" seems...not "wrong" but backwards...? No...self-defeating, somehow. That's what I'm trying, apparently unsuccessfully, to say.

Dungeons and Dragons is about Dungeons and Dragons. In other words exploring strange and hostile environments and kicking the crap out of really powerful monsters.

That is one way to look at it. I think Dungeons and Dragons is about playing characters in an imagined creative fantasy-genre world. That, most definitely, hopefully does include exploring strange places and fighting monsters.

There are other role playing games out there (Call of Cthulu being an obvious one) that are not built for such player types but from the very beginning Dungeons and Dragons evolved out of tactical wargaming.

Quite right. Because they wanted to create a game that experienced things more individually, a game of individual characters...playing a role in an adventure. Why should it devolve back into them and be just about stats/figures/movements/tactics?

No. It's just one of the biggest external influences on MMOs.

Yeah...

Indeed. If you don't like what your fellow D&D players want to do, there are plenty of other roleplaying games out there.

And that was post #94 in a long running series entitled "So you think that the hobby isn't big enough for you and a specific other group who aren't actually hurting anyone. In which case you should be the one to leave. Here's why."

I think "the hobby" (assuming by "the hobby" you mean playing table top rpgs) is plenty big enough for lots of things. Lots of preferences. I am saying D&D, the game itself, doesn't have to be heightening those things that do not support "rp", when it is [supposed to be] an RPG.

But, I sense this is a losing or lost discussion and not at all what the OP was about. So, I'll be leaving it off now. We can discuss this elsewhere, some other time, Neonchameleon. Late here. I'm heading to bed now.

Cheers, nite all.
--SD

 

[Neonchameleon]

Obviously. "Not everyone gets the same thing out of roleplaying games." But, it is still, a roleplaying game. Developing it, purposely, to say "well, ya don't really have to have any role-play in your role-playing game" seems...not "wrong" but backwards...? No...self-defeating, somehow. That's what I'm trying, apparently unsuccessfully, to say.

It's all a matter of where you weight things. How prominant the game should be as a part of the roleplaying game.

That is one way to look at it. I think Dungeons and Dragons is about playing characters in an imagined creative fantasy-genre world. That, most definitely, hopefully does include exploring strange places and fighting monsters.

I think what differentiates Dungeons and Dragons from other fantasy roleplaying games are Dungeons and Dragons (surprisingly enough). GURPS or WFRP characters will only normally touch either under extreme protest.

Quite right. Because they wanted to create a game that experienced things more individually, a game of individual characters...playing a role in an adventure. Why should it devolve back into them and be just about stats/figures/movements/tactics?

Um... what they were doing was closer to taking wargaming to the next level than anything about playing in character. I've gone into more on my blog - but by zooming in they got a vastly better step-on-up challenge than they'd had with larger scale wargames. Players at the time (at least according to Mike Mornard) would have thought you were crazy to take options you knew were bad because they were in character, and player skill was an important thing.

I think "the hobby" (assuming by "the hobby" you mean playing table top rpgs) is plenty big enough for lots of things. Lots of preferences. I am saying D&D, the game itself, doesn't have to be heightening those things that do not support "rp", when it is [supposed to be] an RPG.

D&D has allowed and enabled RP. It has never in any edition or iteration of official D&D actively gone out of its way to support RP. It isn't something like Spirit of the Century. It has, however, always allowed and enabled gamist play and step on up challenges - and early editions actively supported gamist play with such things as XP for GP. Your objection seems to be to those who like gamist play.

But, I sense this is a losing or lost discussion and not at all what the OP was about. So, I'll be leaving it off now. We can discuss this elsewhere, some other time, Neonchameleon. Late here. I'm heading to bed now.

I think this thread has pretty much run its course for the initial discussion. Night - and my own bed is now calling

 

[Gargoyle]

Why the heck would they do that? As far as I can tell, they don't WANT you to just playtest some parts of the rules. They want you to playtest ALL of the rules. Why in the world would they distinguish core bits and module bits, knowing full well a bunch of you will only test the "core" bits because you're under the mistaken idea that the D&D playtest game is just your toy to use as you please... rather than your JOB as a playtester to check over EVERYTHING?

If you don't want to play D&D with all the rules they are asking you to test... you shouldn't be playtesting.

Nonsense. If they are designing a system that is modular, it is designed to be used with some modules and not others. That should be playtested. How the game works without something that will be designated as optional is just as important as how it works with it.

 

[DEFCON 1]

Nonsense. If they are designing a system that is modular, it is designed to be used with some modules and not others. That should be playtested. How the game works without something that will be designated as optional is just as important as how it works with it.

And when it gets to the point of doing that, making sure all the final bits fit together nicely... I'm sure they will. But right now... they don't need to know if the "core works" because that was stuff we all tested over the summer. So putting in explanations at this point in time on how to continue testing the core without testing any of the new modules they are working on is much less useful to them right now.

They're confident in their core basic game. They don't need it still proven to them over and over that it works. But the new stuff? THAT'S what they want info on because they're much less confident on whether it works and/or is wanted. And if you don't give it to them, then your usefulness as a playtester starts approaching zero.