Why would you want to play *that*??

[Raven Crowking]

Well, now that everyone's had a chance to jump on the OP a bit.....

Saying that there is a power shift in the game towards players is not evidence of "adversarial DMing". It is evidence that the person making the statement has taken a look at what is going on with the game. It is also, of course, evidence that the person hasn't looked at it as intently as some on EnWorld.

Somewhere in the last couple of months, someone made the observation that the ruleset is the big winner in the power shift that 3.X represents. Both DMs and players have less real power in the game (unless they snatch it back); players just have a larger share of what's left than they had previously. This is, mostly, a good thing (although I have not always been of that opinion). What is a bad thing is the false implication that the DM has less power -- I believe that, if you are going to DM, you should DM the game you are interested in. If no one else is interested, though, you're not going to DM.

Adversarial? Nah.

The DM is there to have a good time, same as anyone else. The DM does a heck of a lot of prep work (unless he's just rehashing modules and the last adventure path). There has to be a reason to do that work. It has to be fun for the DM.

The players are there to have a good time, same as anyone else. The players have a heck of a lot less responsibility than the DM for making the game work -- and there is no rational system by which responsibility does not entail the rights needed to meet that responsibility. Frankly, only a group that divides responsibilities equally should divide rights equally.

They exist, and if you're in one of them, that's wonderful.

The other thing we've learned on this thread is that if someone can demonstrate that tame lions exist, no one should expect the next lion they meet to take a chunk out of them. Seriously. Television might show you someone who can bench press 100 reps at 300 lbs, but how many of those people do you meet in your day to day life? We might have the grand high meeting of People Who Role-Play Funny Characters To The Hilt here on EnWorld, but that doesn't mean that this is the norm....or the norm in the OP's experience.

The norm in my experience of over 25 years of gaming is that people who want to play weird characters do so for the following reasons most frequently (not necessarily in this order):

(1) K3wl powerz.
(2) Expectation that the character will play a central role in the campaign.
(3) The DM kept throwing weird NPCs out there, so why let her have all the fun?
(4) Modules/Dragon/D&D novels kept throwing weird NPCs out there, and they kept doing it for the "Woah!" factor, so why let them have all the fun?
(5) Inability to think of an imaginative way to play a human.
(6) Unwillingness to immerse in the world as presented/desire to change the world to fit a different vision.
(7) It wasn't as though the elf was anything other than a human with k3wl powerz and pointy ears anyway, and that dwarf is just a short surly Scotsman.
(8) Recreation of a character from a movie/novel/video game.
(9) I had a neat idea for an encounter, but I don't want to DM.

These aren't the only reasons, and I am sure that there are many cases that intersect between them. Most of the people I've run into who wanted to pick an unusual species because they wanted to "role play something different" ended up playing a character that, apart from game mechanics and appearance, couldn't be picked out from a lineup of humans.

Of course, that's equally true of elves, gnomes, dwarves, and so on.

The DM has to attempt to provide the experience of encountering the inhuman, but rarely has to maintain the same non-human interaction every session. Reallly, seldom does the DM have to maintain the same non-human interaction for the whole of a single session. It simply isn't the same thing.

 

[Rystil Arden]

The DM has to attempt to provide the experience of encountering the inhuman, but rarely has to maintain the same non-human interaction every session. Reallly, seldom does the DM have to maintain the same non-human interaction for the whole of a single session. It simply isn't the same thing.

Not necessarily--it depends on the GM. I have a lot of fun roleplaying extended non-human interaction as the GM. For instance, in one of my PbP games, one of the characters has had extended philosophical conversations with an intelligent construct on free will, the treatment of constructs, and the nature of a 'person'.

On the less weighty side, the quote in my sig comes after an explanation of one of the NPCs my group interacts with on a regular basis--a magical intelligent tent that has a Magnificent Mansion on the inside and can manifest herself instead of the usual Invisible Servants.

So some GMs do have ongoing or recurring nonhuman NPCs.

 

[der_kluge]

der_kluge, are you a method actor by any chance?
-blarg

Actually, primarily a story teller.

 

[Raven Crowking]

Sure, but are you claiming that this is equivilent to running a non-human PC? The player is creating what is, in essence, his POV character. It is the character through which the player interacts with the world.

My statement was not that DMs never have ongoing, repeat non-human interactions. But rather that the DM "rarely has to maintain the same non-human interaction every session." Simply put, it is easier to make non-human creatures seem believable if you don't follow them on a day-to-day basis, watching everything that they do. The DM's job re: nonhumans is simpler than running a nonhuman as a player if the (or even a) goal is to make the creature seem nonhuman.

If you are running a game in which the PCs remain inside a sentient tent, otherwise providing the opposition for themselves, then I agree that it is the same thing.

 

[Drowbane]

(besides: +8 bonus to starting strength? Natural breath weapon with infinite uses / day (barring the 1d4 round "lag" between shots, even if it is a 4-level adjustment, Lots of other nifty draconic abilities? starting 5th level as a caster class with a +8 melee from strength alone is a darn fine shade of impressive. Getting +10 from being a 1st level fighter with weapon focus is that much better.)

Am I missing something? 1/2 Dragons can breathe Fire (or whatever relates to your color) 1/day.

Unless of course they have 6HD and that feat out of RoD

 

[Rystil Arden]

Sure, but are you claiming that this is equivilent to running a non-human PC? The player is creating what is, in essence, his POV character. It is the character through which the player interacts with the world.

My statement was not that DMs never have ongoing, repeat non-human interactions. But rather that the DM "rarely has to maintain the same non-human interaction every session." Simply put, it is easier to make non-human creatures seem believable if you don't follow them on a day-to-day basis, watching everything that they do. The DM's job re: nonhumans is simpler than running a nonhuman as a player if the (or even a) goal is to make the creature seem nonhuman.

If you are running a game in which the PCs remain inside a sentient tent, otherwise providing the opposition for themselves, then I agree that it is the same thing.

Oh, I agree that the PC's task in total is more difficult and I won't argue against that, although some of this has to do with the mechanics being against them, as Seeten pointed out.

However, sometimes the NPCs are indeed portrayed on a day-to-day basis. The tent was the party's primary residence at higher levels, although she was much more episodic, admittedly, than the intelligent construct, who has been following the bounty hunter who killed her/its only friend ever since he rescued her/it from incarceration.

 

[Raven Crowking]

Oh, I agree that the PC's task in total is more difficult and I won't argue against that, although some of this has to do with the mechanics being against them, as Seeten pointed out.

However, sometimes the NPCs are indeed portrayed on a day-to-day basis. The tent was the party's primary residence at higher levels, although she was much more episodic, admittedly, than the intelligent construct, who has been following the bounty hunter who killed her/its only friend ever since he rescued her/it from incarceration.

But, still, not your POV character.

In fact, especially where the philosophical discussions go, I would hazard that the nonhuman character is specifically designed to throw the more human characters into sharp relief. This is similar to what occurs in the best Star Trek episodes: interaction with something that isn't human is used to illuminate the "human problem" and explore what it means to be human.

This could be wonderful, in the right hands. If a player plays elves and dwarves as something other than tricked-out humans, I would be all for letting her run that tiefling (or whatever), but that player is as rare as a tame lion, IME.

As I said earlier, the norm in my experience of over 25 years of gaming is that people who want to play weird characters do so for the following reasons most frequently (not necessarily in this order):

(1) K3wl powerz.
(2) Expectation that the character will play a central role in the campaign.
(3) The DM kept throwing weird NPCs out there, so why let her have all the fun?
(4) Modules/Dragon/D&D novels kept throwing weird NPCs out there, and they kept doing it for the "Woah!" factor, so why let them have all the fun?
(5) Inability to think of an imaginative way to play a human.
(6) Unwillingness to immerse in the world as presented/desire to change the world to fit a different vision.
(7) It wasn't as though the elf was anything other than a human with k3wl powerz and pointy ears anyway, and that dwarf is just a short surly Scotsman.
(8) Recreation of a character from a movie/novel/video game.
(9) I had a neat idea for an encounter, but I don't want to DM.

These aren't the only reasons, and I am sure that there are many cases that intersect between them. Most of the people I've run into who wanted to pick an unusual species because they wanted to "role play something different" ended up playing a character that, apart from game mechanics and appearance, couldn't be picked out from a lineup of humans.

DM and Player: These are very, very different situations.

RC

BTW: I believe completely in changing the rules to help players play nonhumans differently. I gave a couple of examples in an earlier post in this thread.

 

[blargney the second]

Actually, primarily a story teller.

*nod* Me too. I've found it's just as possible to have a good story with an oddball character as a vanilla one.

-blarg

 

[Andor]

As I said earlier, the norm in my experience of over 25 years of gaming is that people who want to play weird characters do so for the following reasons most frequently (not necessarily in this order):

(1) K3wl powerz.
(2) Expectation that the character will play a central role in the campaign.
(3) The DM kept throwing weird NPCs out there, so why let her have all the fun?
(4) Modules/Dragon/D&D novels kept throwing weird NPCs out there, and they kept doing it for the "Woah!" factor, so why let them have all the fun?
(5) Inability to think of an imaginative way to play a human.
(6) Unwillingness to immerse in the world as presented/desire to change the world to fit a different vision.
(7) It wasn't as though the elf was anything other than a human with k3wl powerz and pointy ears anyway, and that dwarf is just a short surly Scotsman.
(8) Recreation of a character from a movie/novel/video game.
(9) I had a neat idea for an encounter, but I don't want to DM.

And which of those are or aren't acceptable reasons? Do any of them prevent the player from roleplaying the character in a believable way? Do any of them allow the player to violate rule 0? Which of them will lead to the destruction of my game, and how do I tell which is which? Why are they badfun?

With the exception of number (1) which of these supports the OP's position?

I'm not sure how things have played out at your table, but in my experience a lousy player is a lousy player whether he has a human fighter or a dwarven half-fiend favored soul knife. Furthermore the fact that I think he is a lousy player does not mean he cannot find a group that suits him. No matter how badly someone elses play style grates on your own it's not bad fun, it just means one of you is in the wrong group. There is no wrong way to approach RPGs. Unless, perhaps, you play FATAL. Then I want you out of my hobby, And maybe species.

 

[Seeten]

Oh for pity's... look, I don't powergame, so I can't quote the 3.5 variant race and / or template which instantly becomes grossly overpowered if it gets classes X Y and / or Z added to it's starting abilities. So don't quote me for my choice of "half dragon / half celestial". quote me for my choice of "Everyone has to be able to roleplay, at least a little.".

Just to be clear, the paragraph was in response to Der_Kluge's assertion that you had better RP your half-dragons, not in any way related to your abilities or inclinations in that regard.

(besides: +8 bonus to starting strength? Natural breath weapon with infinite uses / day (barring the 1d4 round "lag" between shots, even if it is a 4-level adjustment, Lots of other nifty draconic abilities? starting 5th level as a caster class with a +8 melee from strength alone is a darn fine shade of impressive. Getting +10 from being a 1st level fighter with weapon focus is that much better.)

Yeah, lets look at a sorceror half-dragon who is with a level 4 party: HP: 4+ con. Good luck against CR: 4 opponents. Good luck with the magic missile. Also, don't forget to tear em up with your 1/day breath weapon.

Lets look at the level 10 Half-Dragon Sorceror. He is casting level 5 spells, while his friends cast level 7 spells. He has 3 feats while his human wizard friends have 7. But once per day he has a breath weapon, and he's quite strong. But wait, he has 33 hp and the human wizard has 42.

Level adjustments are BAD. They make your character bad. Its why they exist. And, they are almost always over-estimated, to make the character far worse than a human of the same level. Not just worse, far worse.

People get all caught up in "Oh, but you have a cool breath weapon!" that level 5 wizard has 2 or 3 fireballs a day equal to that 1/day breath weapon and a pile of other spells also. The level 13 wizard laughs at you and your breath weapon. This is my whole point. The breath weapon is the "Kewl Powerz" but it is not a GOOD power. Its flashy, but it has no substance. Substance. True power. Natural Spell Druids. Divine Metamagic Clerics. These are the tools of the true powergamer. The guy who KNOWS what he is doing. The guy who doesnt want flashy(although the druids wildshape CAN get flashy) he wants to massacre a room full of BBEG's all by himself. The cleric who chucks a level 42 holy word at level 20. None of these guys have an LA, because LA kills your munchkinny effectiveness.

I started off by admitting I am a powergamer. I love to rp, also, and I love my concepts, and sometimes, I can be talked into playing something weak as an offspeed pitch, but frankly, I'm a munchkin, and my humans will stomp a mudhole in your half-dragon succubus lich every single time.