Why would you want to play *that*??

[Andor]

There is no such thing as "badfun". Either something is fun, or it is not. If it isn't fun for the person investing the most time (responsibility) into the game, though, that person has the option (right) to veto it. As I said earlier, 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.

However, that doesn't mean that all means of running a game are of equal value.

Repeat: That doesn't mean that all means of running a game are of equal value.

You can say "A lousy player is a lousy player whether he has a human fighter or a dwarven half-fiend favored soul knife" but this begs the question, Why let the lousy player play a dwarven half-fiend favored soul knife in your campaign in the first place?

Ah. You misread me, I thought "Do any of them allow the player to violate rule 0?" covered it, but clearly not. My bad. I in no way intend to say that a player should be allowed whatever they want to the disruption of the campaign. If a gelatinous cube paladin with a giant space hampster as a mount disrupts your campaign, don't allow it. I have no sympathy for GMs who let lunacy into a game and then whine, but neither do I weep for a player who whines that he can't play an orc duid in Rokugan or a nezumi shugenja in Dragonlance.

The OP never mentions campaign disruption or ill-fitting characters, only that he could not get into character as an alien mind, and he did not believe anyone could.

That he can find a group that suits him doesn't mean its badfun. Finding that group doesn't make it goodfun, either. Neither prevents one from looking at the player, the character, the game, or the campaign dynamics with a critical eye.

Here I disagree. If the group is having fun, it's goodfun. You can look at them with a critical eye if you like, but you have no buisness trying to 'correct' them.

 

[Lonely Tylenol]

I'm just trying to figure out why, in a typical D&D campaign, someone would choose to play a bizarre, off-the-wall character concept like some of the ones I see people talking about on here. Are they playing them because they say "Damn, I'd really love to be able to role-play a half-troll, half-elemental whsiper gnome rogue/cloistered cleric?" Or is it because they say "Damn, look at all these bonuses a half-troll, half-elemental whisper gnome rogue/cloistered cleric will give me, and all these phat abilities, and and and..."

I think that this has already been mentioned, but it bears repeating. Any munchkin worth his salt avoids level adjustments like the plague. Just go over to the character optimization boards at wizards.com and ask about the viability of a half-troll, half-elemental anything.

I'm al for variety, but is the game moving more towards a DragonballZ game: "I attack you with my FISTS OF FURY!" "Oh yea?! Well, I counter you with my ELDRITCH BLAST!!!"?

Again with the warlock thing. I don't suppose anyone's mentioned to you that warlocks are actually on the weak side as classes go. And also, other people don't share your taste. That doesn't make them stupid, bad people, or inferior role-players. Deal with it.

 

[Raven Crowking]

Well, alright, I admit I was being facetious. All of my friends(That I rp with) are in their 30's like me, have good jobs, educations, and wives/children.

But still, we have, over the years, had dozens of extra people sit in the "5th chair" at our table, and dozens of them have been unable to rp a human believably. Honest.

Dozens?


I personally believe that the aforementioned "Play the setting, not the rules" is the right way to go, but, as Dr. Awkward pointed out, above, the line between "role=play" and "roll-play" is a blurry one at best. Which is why I strongly recommend rules to make non-humans non-human. Just as the combat rules perforce make the average PC have to be good in combat, rules that link role-playing behavior to success perforce make the average PC have to be better at role-playing.

 

[MoogleEmpMog]

I am with you on genre & gameplay, but I think that emulating genre requires nonhumans to be not human. Or, at least it does for the parts of the genre that I'm interested in. YMMV.

It could really be a genre issue. I'm mostly interested in emulating the pulp sword & sorcery and Japanese-style console RPG genres.

In the former, non-human characters are vanishingly rare. I'd generally disallow them.

In the latter, when it's not itself emulating the former, non-human characters are mostly comic relief/strong silent types, although there's a fair few humans in funny clothing and 'exploration of an alien/artificial psyche' types thrown in for good measure. I'd generally allow almost anything in this type of game, with the understanding that the nonhuman character probably would not be on center stage.

 

[Lonely Tylenol]

No. You're not. You have a very clear idea of why you think people are doing this. What you're doing is complaining about these people and impugning their worthiness as members of our community. You were given a whole bunch of answers by people who do these very things. Your response to answers that didn't agree with your basic theory of why people do this fell into two categories: (a) you ignored the post or (b) you replied, "Oh -- I didn't mean you... I meant to insult the people with bad reasons for doing this."

zing. QFT.

 

[Lonely Tylenol]

If people want to play D&D because they want to recreate FINAL FANTASY, then so be it, but I think there are probably better ways of doing that.

There are better ways of playing a fantasy role-playing game than playing a fantasy role-playing game?

 

[MoogleEmpMog]

Dozens?

I can buy it.

I personally believe that the aforementioned "Play the setting, not the rules" is the right way to go, but, as Dr. Awkward pointed out, above, the line between "role=play" and "roll-play" is a blurry one at best. Which is why I strongly recommend rules to make non-humans non-human. Just as the combat rules perforce make the average PC have to be good in combat, rules that link role-playing behavior to success perforce make the average PC have to be better at role-playing.

The difference is, one set of rules forces the PC to be good at something: combat.

The other forces (or tries to force) the PLAYER to be good at something: roleplaying.

The latter is far more difficult, IMX.

 

[Seeten]

I have been playing D&D since 1977. (Or Rolemaster/Vampire/Cyperpunk/Werewolf/MSH/DC Heroes/Others) I assure you its been dozens. Maybe more than dozens.

 

[MoogleEmpMog]

There are better ways of playing a fantasy role-playing game than playing a fantasy role-playing game?

Actually, D&D handles Final Fantasy pretty badly, albeit not for the reasons Der_Kluge said. Final Fantasy is very much about unique and outlandish human-centric worlds, dramatic emotional sequences, complex storylines, near-narrative combat, and spectacular visual effects attached to the characters' powers.

D&D is more about the powers themselves, about using them effectively in tactical combat, player-created (and generally simpler) storylines, and recreating variations on Greyhawk, which is in turn a sort of Middle Earth Turned Up To 11.

I'd use HERO, Mutants & Masterminds or Exalted for Final Fantasy. Probably Mutants & Masterminds, because its system of allowing the PCs to do almost anything but introducing roleplaying complications to give them the ability to do almost anything (hero points and complications) fits the games to a 't.'

 

[Lonely Tylenol]

Why is this an "or"? Why can't it be both? Furthermore, why can't there be more explanations than that? Why can't people have all kinds of different motivations acting on them to varying degrees at different times, like real people?

Madness! This is the internet. Here, the law of the excluded middle reigns supreme!

Agreed. But let's imagine that it's not a binary here, that there is a continuum of ways of thinking about setting and character between D&D as you play it and a computer "RPG." Let's suppose that somebody playing Final Fantasy is sitting at their computer screen and, when they get into a fight with an adversary, they say a whole bunch of cool-sounding threatening stuff, like a dialogue between James Bond and one of the villains he faces down. The player might feel kind of disappointed that there is no way to represent that cool-sounding dialogue in the game. They might also wish that the villain would say stuff back to them, creative, eloquent stuff. This might be their initial inspiration for going out and buying the core rules with a few friends.

My new group is about 6 or 8 years younger than me, and I can really tell. They obviously live in a different cultural world than I do, or did at their age. That there's a generation gap over such a short duration of time is telling of the rate at which society is churning through cultural fashion. There are places where I know I connect with my players, and places where I know there's a disconnect, after only playing two sessions with them. But I'm easily able to adjust my DMing style to entertain us all, and I don't suppose I'd have any trouble if they were all twelve. I'd figure out what gets them excited about the game, and then shovel it onto them by the bucketload, with the odd conceit thrown in here and there for my old-school benefit. It's an easy and rewarding job to give the audience what they want.