Why would you want to play *that*??

[der_kluge]

Given the commonality of such things as half-dragon paragon dwarven clerics of whatever, fiendish tiefling rogue/rangers, stonechildren scouts or reticulated yellow-bellied water diggers, I have to ask WHY?


I HAVE to believe that people who play these things have no desire to come at them from a role-playing perspective. When I see something that is the cross between an earth elemental and a mortal, the roleplayer in me dies a little bit. "How would I even approach something like that as a role-playing concept?" "What is the motivation of such an individual?"

I don't even role-play elves very often because they seem so foreign to my mindset. When I play halflings or gnomes, I try hard to not make them stereotypical. I rarely play dwarves because I think it would be too difficult not to play them at least somewhat stereotypical.

But I have to believe that people who play such mind-boggingly bizarre character concepts ONLY approach them as a collection of statistics. For example, do people who play Warlocks choose them because they would make an interesting role-playing challenge, or do people play Warlocks because they have a lot of phat k3wl special abilities?

For my money, I would be content if I could play nothing more than fighter, wizard, rogue or cleric for the rest of my natural life. I can think of an infinite number of possibilities within just those guidelines. Why the need for all the bizarre character concepts?

Have people lost site of the fact that this is a ROLE-playing game?

 

[Von Ether]

Have people lost sight of the fact that this is a ROLE-playing game?

(Fixed typo)

Uh, when did they ever have it in sight?

All of the old school games I played in, only a fighter was human. Every theif was a hobbit, every ranger, an elf. Not because of role-playing but because of stats.

 

[James Heard]

I've done both. I can, and do, approach any character concept or collection of statistics in the way that I think will most allow me and the rest of the group fun. I think that's the most important thing, rather than looking down my nose at gamers who are having fun in ways that are different than my own.

If the group is ok and has a ball with my elf waving off the adventure and the silly human concepts of urgency, then fine. I had that moment where I didn't play my elf for two years except as bit parts in 2E, because he was "researching". I played all the outrageously silly characters I could think of during that time. Headhunter witchdoctors, taxidermists-turned-adventurers, and another player's kid brother. I think I also played a tree for one adventure for some reason, but it was a long time ago. I've also ran a game where I required everyone to be human, and everyone to be an elf, etc. I haven't ran a game where everyone was required to be a warlock yet, but I don't think it would have much to do with statistics. For my money, I would be content if I never had to play a fighter, wizard, rogue, or cleric for the rest of my life. I can think of an infinite number of possibilities without ever using those guidelines. Why worry about bizarre character concepts in a game that makes the supernatural mundane?

 

[Crothian]

Because it is different and a challenge. It is not about the stats for everyone.

 

[Glyfair]

Because it is different and a challenge. It is not about the stats for everyone.

I agree. There is a large group of players (and DMs) who just want something different. What they want different, and how much different varies from person to person.

Just look at the numbers of complaints when a new setting comes out. You'll always see comments along the lines of "That's not new, I want something different!" It's part of the same thing, just in a different area.

 

[catsclaw227]

I agree. There is a large group of players (and DMs) who just want something different. What they want different, and how much different varies from person to person.

The problem I run into with this mentality in other players is that they often tire of their new experiment after 5 or 6 gamesessions, and then there must be a change either in the game itself or their character -- often times both, since I like to build the campaign around the PCs and their races, classes, background, etc.

I am OK if a player wants to play something unique, but I emphasize how important it is to be sure about why they want to play it. Is it for a unique concept or is it for statistical advantage?

 

[Psion]

Given the commonality of such things as half-dragon paragon dwarven clerics of whatever, fiendish tiefling rogue/rangers, stonechildren scouts or reticulated yellow-bellied water diggers, I have to ask WHY?


I HAVE to believe that people who play these things have no desire to come at them from a role-playing perspective. When I see something that is the cross between an earth elemental and a mortal, the roleplayer in me dies a little bit. "How would I even approach something like that as a role-playing concept?" "What is the motivation of such an individual?"

I don't even role-play elves very often because they seem so foreign to my mindset. When I play halflings or gnomes, I try hard to not make them stereotypical. I rarely play dwarves because I think it would be too difficult not to play them at least somewhat stereotypical.

But I have to believe that people who play such mind-boggingly bizarre character concepts ONLY approach them as a collection of statistics. For example, do people who play Warlocks choose them because they would make an interesting role-playing challenge, or do people play Warlocks because they have a lot of phat k3wl special abilities?

For my money, I would be content if I could play nothing more than fighter, wizard, rogue or cleric for the rest of my natural life. I can think of an infinite number of possibilities within just those guidelines. Why the need for all the bizarre character concepts?

Have people lost site of the fact that this is a ROLE-playing game?

I have never had a player ask for more than one template or prestige class. Whenever I see four or more collective templates, unusual races, prestige classes in an "ohmygosh" post, I have to beleive it's eitehr a mockery or an exception.

I don't particular think that wanting to play a tiefling ranger/rogue is all that astonishing, and sounds like a neat start of a character to me. Why anyone would want to make them fiendish is beyond me... perhaps they really want to drive the "fiendish anscestry" thing home. Was this an actual request? Even if it was, the "why" you are putting forth doesn't sound like a "point monger" character; it seems like a painful lot of ECL.

My "why" is, well, I've played every classic race and class I care to play for years. Sometimes I want something more. You say there is infinite variety in those four classes... well, I think you need to come to grips with the fact that not everyone is going to see it that way and are not going to find appealing ideas in the same places you do. Just because they get fired up by ideas different from yours does not mean that they are not coming from a role-playing perspective, and this sort of thinking seems to me to be simple villifying of people who don't think like you do. Best not fall into that trap.

 

[Turanil]

But I have to believe that people who play such mind-boggingly bizarre character concepts ONLY approach them as a collection of statistics.

Quoted for truth.

 

[Aloïsius]

The strangest the concept, the less likely it is only a collection of statistic. With 3.x, the best characters, from a stats point of view, are usually human fighter, human cleric, human wizard. The poor +1 ECL warlock water genasi sucks. Thus, you choose such a character dor roleplay reasons, not rollplay.

 

[DragonTurtle]

Playing purely for the statistics is often done even with the core four. How many people shudder to take an LA or a PrC when playing a spell caster because they don't want to lose out on one caster level.

Regarding the OP, some people look to milk every advantage they can, others want something new and different. I think it would be fairly easy to find examples of both, no reason to generalize every player for wanting something different then core as being incapable of role-playing.