Why would you want to play *that*??

[Drowbane]

Another "Bad Fun" post.

It boggles my mind that a group of people playing a game viewed by the general public as at best a pursuit of unwashed geeks clustered under a 40 watt bulb in a basement, and at worst as a cover for satanists seeking to lure little Jimmy into killing the neigbors cat, nonetheless feel the need to point fingers at other members of their hobby and sneer proclaiming "They do it wrong! All true gamers know that my way is best. I fear and revile what I do not understand, and I do not understand You!"

Bravo Sir, Bravo.

Well said, Sir!

I'm always looking for something new. Vanilla D&D got somewhat stale half-way through 2e. Then we bought into Planescape and Darksun! Both settings are chock full of whacky goodness!

But hey, if you're happy with your Four Basic classes in merry ol Fantasy-Western-Europe... by all means, enjoy. Personally, I'm over it.

 

[Whisper72]

hrmpfh.... even though I am 'old skool' myself, and do not feel a great need to play wicked combo's of multiple PrC's, there are some things which rile me somewhat in the OP.

first of all, although I am certain that a (large? maybe..) part of the players playing 'phat lewt' combo's do so purely 'because it gives the most plusses', I disagree that it is impossible or even really difficult to truly roleplay strange combo's. Even under 1e and 2nd Ed DnD, playing Drow, Cambions and Dragons was commonplace and it was not that difficult to place oneself in the shoes of such creatures. So what if this was sometimes in line with the stereotype. Nothing inherently wrong with that.

As for DnD being a ROLEplaying game, yeah sure, but then again, there are a billion interpretations of what that means, so there is no surefire way of 'the right way'.

In the end it boils down to rule zero however. Even if 'roleplaying' strange combo's results in simple stereotypes, even if we accept that there is some 'official true way' of playing the game, in the end it is all about having fun. If ppl have fun using the rules for their own type of gaming, then that is their full right, more power (and fun!) to them...

 

[pogre]

Like it or not, DnD is no longer that same game, despite the portions of that nostalgia that really came back like the moaning ghost of Jacob Marley in 3.5 to rattle the chains of assumed use of minis and a grid. If you want to play a wargame rather than an RPG, perhaps DDM might be a better outlet.

*braces self*

Like it or not the new core rules embrace those wargaming origins. Minis and grids are not relics, they are the future - I think your style game view is the other side of the "bad fun" coin.

It's clear it is not your style, but minis can, and do, mix well with roleplaying.

 

[blargney the second]

It's the magic of AND:

I like a good story. They're just as possible with orthodox races as unusual ones. Sometimes a strange mix can even facilitate the generation of interesting plot elements.

AND

I like a character with interesting abilities. Sometimes I can achieve that with a standard race/class combo, sometimes I have to go a little farther afield to achieve the effect I want.

They're mutually compatible goals.
-blarg

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

Like it or not, DnD is no longer that same game, despite the portions of that nostalgia that really came back like the moaning ghost of Jacob Marley in 3.5 to rattle the chains of assumed use of minis and a grid. If you want to play a wargame rather than an RPG, perhaps DDM might be a better outlet.

Having played both with and without minis and grids (and not neccessarily together, either), my personal experience is that it helps n00bs and grognards alike envision the battlespace much more clearly, and really minimizes questions of "Where am I/are you/is the critter again?" or "miraculous teleports" of frontline PCs to the other side of the conflict.

Heck, on one road trip, the mapper was also in charge of "running" the combat. Instead of carting around minis and a battlemap, we just used an pad of graph (hex) paper and pencils. The map = the battlemap (it was in a plastic sleeve), the party was represented by numerals (in red wax pencil), the opponents by letters (in blue wax pencil).

 

[Hussar]

Well, as someone who recently played a character that strayed awfully close to DerKluge's example, let me elucidate.

I started out playing a human priest of Cuthbert. As a twist, I added in the background that his temple sat on a large natural gas deposit that had been capped. The Temple of the Eternal Flame was his home for many years. The clergy in the temple had become somewhat extreme for Cuthberites and believed that fire purified the wicked, thus, the wicked should burn. My 1st level cleric made lots of references to how fire was the primal force of good in the universe, yadda yadda yadda. Very gnostic.

Then I happened to get a Dragon magazine which had an article about half elementals. A three level progression for a half-elemental template. I talked to my DM, he figured it fit perfectly with the character, and I took levels in the template.

Now, this was a campaign that saw maybe six combats in four levels. Very high rp game. Here I was, playing a half-fire elemental, which, according to the OP, means that I should have been a roll-player.

So, in my experience, everything Der Kluge just ranted about, is bunk.

 

[Bagpuss]

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?

Why not? I also question your original premise, what do those things have in common? (Other than rarely being played by anyone)

I HAVE to believe that people who play these things have no desire to come at them from a role-playing perspective.

Then perhaps you are the one with the problem.

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?"

Just because you can't think of any don't assume everyone else can't

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.

Just because your RP skills are limited to humans, don't assume everyone elses are. Also whats so bad about roleplaying a stereotype? What's wrong with playing a gruff dwarven fighter, who drinks a lot. The reason its a stereotype is because that's how the majority of dwarves are, what's so bad about playing a character that true to some of the core concepts of it's culture.

While all Brits don't drink tea would it be so bad to roleplay one that did?

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

Who's stereotyping now? But you are entitled to your beliefs, even if they are prejudice, and flawed.

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?

Yes, that is exactly why I'm playing my Warlock. (I wish they really were phat and k3wl.)

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.

I'm happy for you.

Why the need for all the bizarre character concepts?

Erm because some people have fun playing bizarre concepts. :\ It's a game after all I think we are allowed to have fun.

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

Have you lost site of the fact that this is a roleplaying GAME?

I really hope your post was a troll as it was written in the style of one.

 

[Bagpuss]

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.

No that wasn't because of the stats, it was because of the rules. You were playing Basic D&D. Although for Ranger you ment to say Fighter/Magic User

 

[Tsillanabor]

In my current campaign we have a human, 2 elves, and 2 whacko combos (the aforementioned kobold half dragon and a Drow half dragon). The two half dragons are the weakest in a fight and do the most role-playing, so I have no problem with them.

 

[wmasters]

Hmmm.. guess this makes me a munchkin then. Normally I play with PHB rules. Sometimes I find something and think 'wow, that's neat'. It might be a race, base class or PrC or even a feat or something, but it'll capture my imagination. It doesn't necessarilly matter about the stats, but I admit, I do tend to prefer a character that is competent in a fight.

I'm currently playing a kobold paladin who certainely wasn't put together to maximise the stats. He was put together because it would be fun, and he's been fantastic fun to play. Frankly, I don't care whether I'm getting into character and exploring his motivations or not. I'm enjoying it and surely that's all that matters?