You're assumption that those who value the tactical aspect of the game can't role play is pretty insulting generalization.
Though you are a bit of an elitist.
Yes. I am.
I'm not insensitive to those who just want to have some mindless fun. That's their perogative.
I AM insensitive to those people bitching and whining because when they join a game I run, which I make clear to anyone who joins my games are RP heavy, they can't have all the joyous awesome twinked characters they had in the last game, because it'd totally throw off character balancing.
Need I repeat that I know people pissy over not getting a +5 Vorpal Holy Avenger by level 12?
I have never accepted a previous character from another campaign in my campaigns.
I've accepted people blatantly rebuilding basically the same guy as long as it was within my limits and stamp of approval, but if someone's actually brought a character sheet up to me and been like "Yeah listen since you are running a 10th level campaign I got this Rogue 5/Fighter 4/Monk 1 from another campaign..."
I have never accepted a previous character from another campaign in my campaigns.
I've accepted people blatantly rebuilding basically the same guy as long as it was within my limits and stamp of approval, but if someone's actually brought a character sheet up to me and been like "Yeah listen since you are running a 10th level campaign I got this Rogue 5/Fighter 4/Monk 1 from another campaign..."
the answer is always no.
I have not had to deal with this as much because my circle is smaller, but a bit, yes.
Also, krata: I'm curious now. What sort of restrictions do you put on your characters to keep them untwinky?
Rend on
0
Options
Der Waffle MousBlame this on the misfortune of your birth.New Yark, New Yark.Registered Userregular
edited January 2008
Man. I played a schizophrenic 17 year old fey-blooded girl for about three years. She actually grew as a character proper.
Despite the apparent mary-sue-ness in retrospect, I would not consider myself a "bad roleplayer" even though she was "built" rather competently.
I have never accepted a previous character from another campaign in my campaigns.
I've accepted people blatantly rebuilding basically the same guy as long as it was within my limits and stamp of approval, but if someone's actually brought a character sheet up to me and been like "Yeah listen since you are running a 10th level campaign I got this Rogue 5/Fighter 4/Monk 1 from another campaign..."
the answer is always no.
I have not had to deal with this as much because my circle is smaller, but a bit, yes.
Also, krata: I'm curious now. What sort of restrictions do you put on your characters to keep them untwinky?
I dunno, my D&D gaming circle pretty much had what most people would consider power gamers, but they were also all ravid RPers and plenty of sessions would go by without a single combat die being rolled. Of course, then there were sessions that were all out war for the whole time.
Almost every character I make, I have made mechanics-first. I've been like "Man, I want to play a Sorcerer. These Draconic Heritage feats are neat looking. I'm going to make a Gold Dragon Heritage Sorceror. Human, so I have more Draconic feats."
then after that I made a whole character concept for him as an exiled Shou peasant who puts on the false airs of a mysterious oriental master with a quirky sense of humor, etc.
so
i build based on what will be mechanically interesting first, which is why 4e appeals to me so much.
Almost every character I make, I have made mechanics-first. I've been like "Man, I want to play a Sorcerer. These Draconic Heritage feats are neat looking. I'm going to make a Gold Dragon Heritage Sorceror. Human, so I have more Draconic feats."
then after that I made a whole character concept for him as an exiled Shou peasant who puts on the false airs of a mysterious oriental master with a quirky sense of humor, etc.
so
i build based on what will be mechanically interesting first, which is why 4e appeals to me so much.
Man, I do this. I have had people bitch at me for doing this. I have never quite understood why. I admit that my favorite part of D&D is the combat, beating the hell outta monsters and such. So I pick something that makes that aspect of the game more fun for me. Then I pour on the RP to make it all make sense and so Im not bored as hell between fights.
Der Waffle MousBlame this on the misfortune of your birth.New Yark, New Yark.Registered Userregular
edited January 2008
I have a tendency to inadvertantly create either terribly overpowered characters, or at least ones who the DM hasn't prepared for.
For example, a Thuranni Sorceror I made for one session during a plot-dictated break from my regular character (read: One player was missing, the character went on a seperate mission, my character was the escort).
He was about two levels below the rest of the party. He managed to utterly ruin what the DM intended to be a major encounter via creative use of change self, ranged touch spells, and telekinesis.
D&D is pretty much the only game where I make a character mechanically before personally. All the others (white wolf and shadowrun) have both happening at the same time. Though I usually end up tweaking my D&D character so much after the initial build to go with the persona I've made that it may as well be brand new.
Unfortunately the only group I've ever really played with was very laid back with little to no RP, so I have yet to truly experience a pen and paper roleplaying session. We had great times no doubt, lots of jokes exchanged and laughs had, but in the end it always felt more like a social gathering with D&D as an excuse. Not a bad thing, but after a while you kind of want to experience a genuine RP game.
4E looks like it'll have the roleplay element be much more difficult to ignore without outright imbalancing the entire game. So that'll be awesome. But yeah, on a mechanical level it's also several steps in the right direction.
Edit: The one "advantage" I had with that group was the regular GM was a vet from the original D&D and even times before. He could make better "twinks" than any of us, and understood the game to an incredible degree. We could pretty much go all out as much as we wanted and every fight would still end up a challenge.
Almost every character I make, I have made mechanics-first. I've been like "Man, I want to play a Sorcerer. These Draconic Heritage feats are neat looking. I'm going to make a Gold Dragon Heritage Sorceror. Human, so I have more Draconic feats."
then after that I made a whole character concept for him as an exiled Shou peasant who puts on the false airs of a mysterious oriental master with a quirky sense of humor, etc.
so
i build based on what will be mechanically interesting first, which is why 4e appeals to me so much.
This is the style of character-building D&D has always lent itself to. Doing this is not only perfectly reasonable, it's pretty heavily encouraged by the system itself. This isn't to say you can't make a character who's fun/interesting to RP in D&D, but if you don't start with the mechanical idea first, your character is pretty much guaranteed to suck in any campaign with a normal level of combat/challenge.
This isn't to say you should min/max out every aspect, but if you're starting with a character idea first, then moving on to the mechanical idea, it may or may not be a viable character. Krata, it doesn't surprise me that you talk about playing White Wolf mostly, because in the White Wolf system (and I love the White Wolf system) you are encouraged to come up with a character first, then work out the mechanical shit later, and if you know what you're doing, you're not only going to be viable, you're going to be a total badass, regardless of what your idea is.
Thanatos on
0
Options
Der Waffle MousBlame this on the misfortune of your birth.New Yark, New Yark.Registered Userregular
edited January 2008
It depends on what level, really.
The higher it goes, the more room you get to come up with a concept first and mechanics later.
I mean, at level 20, I've basically made a version of the God-Emperor of Mankind through levels of Favored Soul and Fighter.
And the most ridiculously pulpy and epic backstory ever.
yeah pretty much the style of chargen I prefer works great with D&D
which is why I like D&D!
4e is leaning more in the direction of having more mechanical options within the same concepts.
In 4e, no Wizard, Fighter, Cleric, or Rogue should be the exact same as any other Wizard, Fighter, Cleric, or Rogue. Power choices alone make all classes more customizable.
The power selections will make me go "Oooooo" and will heavily influence what I will play.
Whenever this comes out, I'm gonna have to convert Darksun to a whole new system. Le Sigh.
It was laughably unbalanced when I first translated it to 3e and forgot to give the party halfgiant and thri-kreen level penalties. They got a good run of stomping all competition into the ground for a few sessions before I caught on. I forsee similar problems early on in 4e.
Also, twinks are funny, because the DM can do whatever the fuck he wants, including boosting enemy AC, HP, and saving throws to match the PCs midfight. Its not a video game, you can't "win".
I played this campaign really early on, a year or so after 3e came out, there was some stuff updated by then, but not enough to run a full campaign off of. I had to do alot of it myself, and I'm not really a number cruncher at heart.
4e will probably get me interested in D&D again for a while, and I'll likely want to play some Dsun, since its the only setting that I know well enough to DM, and none of my friends are good DMs. And because its the most awesome, but thats besides the point.
Yes the best GMs are the ones who know how to abruptly change everything but without the player being able to tell. The worst GMs are the ones who are following a very set and linear path and get so enraged when the players find ways to deviate from it.
I played a pretty fun adventure on the WotC "Mature" board awhile back before I had to focus on college. It's definitely doable. It'll be even easier with tools. I had to just describe every single thing.
--
I love non-linear gaming. My design philosophy for 4E adventures is to make at least three different major paths for PCs to take so they're not outright railroaded, and to not get so attached to them making one set of choices.
If they want to spend ten sessions just yammering in the hot tub instead of dungeon hopping, hey, fine with me.
Though eventually a goblin is going to steal their towel.
The main thing about being a DM is being in it to help your friends have fun, and to have fun with them, rather than having some kind of weird authorial power trip.
Pony, are you annoyed that I don't care for the flavor the the 4th edition at all. I mean, I'm trying to like it, but the whole thing smacks of pretension to me. The mechanics look lovely, and I'm sure it will be fun to play, but eeeeeeeeeh.
Also, killing Living Greyhawk annoys the hell out of me.
If they want to spend ten sessions just yammering in the hot tub instead of dungeon hopping, hey, fine with me.
Though eventually a goblin is going to steal their towel.
The main thing about being a DM is being in it to help your friends have fun, and to have fun with them, rather than having some kind of weird authorial power trip.
You are a toy maker.
I usually try to steer my PCs towards playing a plot based game with plenty of fighting. They like fighting a ton, but designing dungeons and rolling too many dice bores me. So I strike a balance that they'll like. I'm not really a fantastic DM, but I know what my friends like playing.
Also, your comment is funny, because thats pretty much what I do. I'm a terrible PC, I pump my CHA to maximum and fool around in whatever towns the DM dumps us in. Stealing, Fraud, Arson, etc.
Most of my later experience with 2E (I've only played the one 3E adventure ) came from DM vs. DM games. We gave each other soooo much stress. :P So I've learned to be as adaptable as possible. Also from doing tons of freeform RP online.
Pony, are you annoyed that I don't care for the flavor the the 4th edition at all. I mean, I'm trying to like it, but the whole thing smacks of pretension to me. The mechanics look lovely, and I'm sure it will be fun to play, but eeeeeeeeeh.
Also, killing Living Greyhawk annoys the hell out of me.
How is it pretentious?
Because it dropped gnomes and some of the more Tolkien-esque elements of the game?
or are you just bitter about Greyhawk no longer being the core setting?
Pony, are you annoyed that I don't care for the flavor the the 4th edition at all. I mean, I'm trying to like it, but the whole thing smacks of pretension to me. The mechanics look lovely, and I'm sure it will be fun to play, but eeeeeeeeeh.
Also, killing Living Greyhawk annoys the hell out of me.
How is it pretentious?
Because it dropped gnomes and some of the more Tolkien-esque elements of the game?
or are you just bitter about Greyhawk no longer being the core setting?
I don't like the points of light/tiefling warlock angle.
They're going to mix things up with every new edition. It's the POINT of new editions.
It's also likely that Living Greyhawk will be continued in some fashion by an indie group, like all the old settings have been.
POL/Tieflock not required to play.
Pony, are you annoyed that I don't care for the flavor the the 4th edition at all. I mean, I'm trying to like it, but the whole thing smacks of pretension to me. The mechanics look lovely, and I'm sure it will be fun to play, but eeeeeeeeeh.
Also, killing Living Greyhawk annoys the hell out of me.
How is it pretentious?
Because it dropped gnomes and some of the more Tolkien-esque elements of the game?
or are you just bitter about Greyhawk no longer being the core setting?
I don't like the points of light/tiefling warlock angle.
that's fine
but disliking something doesn't automatically make it pretentious
pretentious isn't a synonym for "things i don't like" man
Pony, are you annoyed that I don't care for the flavor the the 4th edition at all. I mean, I'm trying to like it, but the whole thing smacks of pretension to me. The mechanics look lovely, and I'm sure it will be fun to play, but eeeeeeeeeh.
Also, killing Living Greyhawk annoys the hell out of me.
How is it pretentious?
Because it dropped gnomes and some of the more Tolkien-esque elements of the game?
or are you just bitter about Greyhawk no longer being the core setting?
I don't like the points of light/tiefling warlock angle.
that's fine
but disliking something doesn't automatically make it pretentious
pretentious isn't a synonym for "things i don't like" man
Well, let me explain how I see it as being pretentious. For D&D, I usually like fun romps of awesome characters messing up bad guys. The "style" of the new system seems to be attempting to be edgier, more extreme, darker. But all in such a way that every hero is looking like an anti-hero, and everyone will have pathos from some terrible past. But it's not *really* dark, it's just dark in the way that emo kids are dark, plastic and manufactured.
Litejedi on
3DS FC: 1907-9450-1017
0
Options
INeedNoSaltwith blood on my teethRegistered Userregular
edited January 2008
I don't really understand what the 'points of light' thing really is meant to represent. It gives me a headache when I think 'everything outside of town is ruled by monsters!' Ack.
I'll try, but then again I just bought three 3.5 books in the past three months (DM2, PHB, Eberron). Grrr!
The first and the last aren't going to be reprinted anytime soon. Hell Eberron has quite a large amount of very nice fluff.
PHB2...uhm....I'm not a huge fan of it as I think it's got some bad ideas in it to begin with.
Edit: Er...DMG2? Because oddly I was thinking of some of the magic items in that...I just can't read today it seems.
Yeah, getting the PHB 3.5 was probably a waste to begin with since I had the 3.0 version. Oh well. And yeah, Eberron should be emerge relatively unscathed, since that seems to be one of Wizards' main settings.
Just for the hell of it, I clicked on their "settings" button.
Posts
I've accepted people blatantly rebuilding basically the same guy as long as it was within my limits and stamp of approval, but if someone's actually brought a character sheet up to me and been like "Yeah listen since you are running a 10th level campaign I got this Rogue 5/Fighter 4/Monk 1 from another campaign..."
the answer is always no.
I have not had to deal with this as much because my circle is smaller, but a bit, yes.
Also, krata: I'm curious now. What sort of restrictions do you put on your characters to keep them untwinky?
Despite the apparent mary-sue-ness in retrospect, I would not consider myself a "bad roleplayer" even though she was "built" rather competently.
So many.
then after that I made a whole character concept for him as an exiled Shou peasant who puts on the false airs of a mysterious oriental master with a quirky sense of humor, etc.
so
i build based on what will be mechanically interesting first, which is why 4e appeals to me so much.
Man, I do this. I have had people bitch at me for doing this. I have never quite understood why. I admit that my favorite part of D&D is the combat, beating the hell outta monsters and such. So I pick something that makes that aspect of the game more fun for me. Then I pour on the RP to make it all make sense and so Im not bored as hell between fights.
Jordan of Elienor, Human Shaman
For example, a Thuranni Sorceror I made for one session during a plot-dictated break from my regular character (read: One player was missing, the character went on a seperate mission, my character was the escort).
He was about two levels below the rest of the party. He managed to utterly ruin what the DM intended to be a major encounter via creative use of change self, ranged touch spells, and telekinesis.
Unfortunately the only group I've ever really played with was very laid back with little to no RP, so I have yet to truly experience a pen and paper roleplaying session. We had great times no doubt, lots of jokes exchanged and laughs had, but in the end it always felt more like a social gathering with D&D as an excuse. Not a bad thing, but after a while you kind of want to experience a genuine RP game.
4E looks like it'll have the roleplay element be much more difficult to ignore without outright imbalancing the entire game. So that'll be awesome. But yeah, on a mechanical level it's also several steps in the right direction.
Edit: The one "advantage" I had with that group was the regular GM was a vet from the original D&D and even times before. He could make better "twinks" than any of us, and understood the game to an incredible degree. We could pretty much go all out as much as we wanted and every fight would still end up a challenge.
This isn't to say you should min/max out every aspect, but if you're starting with a character idea first, then moving on to the mechanical idea, it may or may not be a viable character. Krata, it doesn't surprise me that you talk about playing White Wolf mostly, because in the White Wolf system (and I love the White Wolf system) you are encouraged to come up with a character first, then work out the mechanical shit later, and if you know what you're doing, you're not only going to be viable, you're going to be a total badass, regardless of what your idea is.
The higher it goes, the more room you get to come up with a concept first and mechanics later.
I mean, at level 20, I've basically made a version of the God-Emperor of Mankind through levels of Favored Soul and Fighter.
And the most ridiculously pulpy and epic backstory ever.
which is why I like D&D!
4e is leaning more in the direction of having more mechanical options within the same concepts.
In 4e, no Wizard, Fighter, Cleric, or Rogue should be the exact same as any other Wizard, Fighter, Cleric, or Rogue. Power choices alone make all classes more customizable.
The power selections will make me go "Oooooo" and will heavily influence what I will play.
All these choices are going to overload my system. I will be in pleasure overload.
It will be awesome.
Jordan of Elienor, Human Shaman
there will be an entire program for running 4e online you see
online campaigns will not be so ill-fated
It was laughably unbalanced when I first translated it to 3e and forgot to give the party halfgiant and thri-kreen level penalties. They got a good run of stomping all competition into the ground for a few sessions before I caught on. I forsee similar problems early on in 4e.
Also, twinks are funny, because the DM can do whatever the fuck he wants, including boosting enemy AC, HP, and saving throws to match the PCs midfight. Its not a video game, you can't "win".
I played this campaign really early on, a year or so after 3e came out, there was some stuff updated by then, but not enough to run a full campaign off of. I had to do alot of it myself, and I'm not really a number cruncher at heart.
4e will probably get me interested in D&D again for a while, and I'll likely want to play some Dsun, since its the only setting that I know well enough to DM, and none of my friends are good DMs. And because its the most awesome, but thats besides the point.
--
I love non-linear gaming. My design philosophy for 4E adventures is to make at least three different major paths for PCs to take so they're not outright railroaded, and to not get so attached to them making one set of choices.
If they want to spend ten sessions just yammering in the hot tub instead of dungeon hopping, hey, fine with me.
Though eventually a goblin is going to steal their towel.
The main thing about being a DM is being in it to help your friends have fun, and to have fun with them, rather than having some kind of weird authorial power trip.
You are a toy maker.
Also, killing Living Greyhawk annoys the hell out of me.
I usually try to steer my PCs towards playing a plot based game with plenty of fighting. They like fighting a ton, but designing dungeons and rolling too many dice bores me. So I strike a balance that they'll like. I'm not really a fantastic DM, but I know what my friends like playing.
Also, your comment is funny, because thats pretty much what I do. I'm a terrible PC, I pump my CHA to maximum and fool around in whatever towns the DM dumps us in. Stealing, Fraud, Arson, etc.
How is it pretentious?
Because it dropped gnomes and some of the more Tolkien-esque elements of the game?
or are you just bitter about Greyhawk no longer being the core setting?
I don't like the points of light/tiefling warlock angle.
It's also likely that Living Greyhawk will be continued in some fashion by an indie group, like all the old settings have been.
POL/Tieflock not required to play.
that's fine
but disliking something doesn't automatically make it pretentious
pretentious isn't a synonym for "things i don't like" man
Well, let me explain how I see it as being pretentious. For D&D, I usually like fun romps of awesome characters messing up bad guys. The "style" of the new system seems to be attempting to be edgier, more extreme, darker. But all in such a way that every hero is looking like an anti-hero, and everyone will have pathos from some terrible past. But it's not *really* dark, it's just dark in the way that emo kids are dark, plastic and manufactured.
Just for the hell of it, I clicked on their "settings" button.
-Eberron
-Forgotten Realms
Embarassing.
Also, Bards better make 4e.