Characters vs IC Reality

[Wyvern76]

I asked, and now I have a bit more respect for her character. I hope she gives others some benifit as well.

[Ash]

...then a crap ton of quirks that might be entertaining for others to interact with. Then think of the race that best fits them. Then I make up a backstory as I play. Having one prewritten to no end usually isn't so fun for me.....

What he said. Have a few ideas to work with yes. Then fill the character out as you play.

As for miniskirts, they're fairly impractical unless you like mud in your knickers.

[Warfire]

Can't say I follow GBX's method all the time, but his method is how I made Jaus.

Just one day I decided I wanted to play a Summoner. One day being able to open Gates into other planes and being a general wizard/Summoner guy. (As a secret hope I always envisioned him being an Emissary of the Planes. )

But, the only reason Jaus got to be all "ACHCKK! HANS! RUN!" and "GEET OUT! GEET OUT NAUW!!" Was because I have expierence playing Russian people. So I just applied it to Jaus.

I sure as hell still don't know Jaus' past very well. Somehow his father died. His mother died birthing him. He has a brother somewhere. That's about all I know.

Now Reth? He's scripted, planned and I have a word document of his history. I know Reth as I know my right arm.

But back on subject, it's good to grow, as many people have said. You can't be the best damn thing ever if someone is already there doing that. You have to grow into the position. And you never know, sometimes your character flows off the path you want...

*COUGH*Lichbinder*COUGH*

[Rhifox]

'nother essay from Rhi again...

Hate to have to do this, But I'd honestly like to see how Jospephine was played at level 3, given Rhifox's comments that always seem to come off as eliteist and always looking down on those who choose to play adventures.
*steps away from the keyboard and oddly gets an umbrella and rain coat*

First off: Josephine was not a Red Wizard until 12th level, and such only resulted from RP. Prior to that, she was simply a Rogue/Wizard. She did not come to Sundren as an already powerful character.

Second, I have always RPed her as weak, and I didn't avoid RP at lower levels (albeit, I DID try to solo a lot simply because my character has no real reason to be adventuring, but more on that later. When I was around other people, then I did RP with them to my fullest). I have never said 'hey, don't RP with me because I want to get a high level first'. Josephine spent most of her time studying. When she WAS in the dungeons, eh, her personality was forced to take mostly a backrole (because otherwise her fear would have kept her away entirely), but she certainly RPed with everyone, and I preferred when the group stopped to RP instead of running everywhere.


As far as looking down on adventurers... my problem isn't with adventurers. My problem is with people who think they are still playing a game when they are RPing. This tends to be grinders, who go to dungeons and half-RP but are mostly there for the mass slaughter of pixelated avatars and toning of number-stat muscles.. No, this is not all people that do dungeons, but from my experience, a great many are like this. Yes, I personally for the life of me can't see the desire to rush into mortal combat for loot and praise and nor can my character, but I accept such characters as long as they don't go too far.

My biggest problem with adventuring is realism. All I want is for people to accept that adventuring is an extremely risky, hazardous profession, not a game that many people make it out to be, where someone can ask, quite non-chalantly, "would you care to go out for a bit of monster slaying today, my dear chap?" "why yes I would, that sounds like an enjoyable pastime. I'm sure we will be back in time for tea."

My other bias against adventuring simply comes from being forced to do it so often. I am sick of having RPGs and so on everywhere forcing characters to rush down through a dungeon to save the world without giving any option to say 'well fuck that'. I am sick of RP systems that force characters to rush through dungeons in order to advance in all facets of their character even though non-combat advancement is certainly possible and in-fact the more common method of advancement (Training regimes, academies, and so on).


I don't have any problem with adventuring characters. I have a problem with adventuring itself being forced upon ALL characters, and sometimes this hate might wrongly target people who play adventurer characters. Then when you have some people who come in and say 'well you don't want to go to a dungeon, that means you should stay at level 1 because dungeoneering should be the only way to advance', who completely ignore that, realistically, there should be many methods of gaining more levels (they are CHARACTER levels, not ADVENTURER levels), where the game mechanics support such thinking, and then I get annoyed. (I am very thankful for RP experience to get over this hurdle, as I have said time and time again)


I'm sorry if you feel targeted wrongly by my remarks, my beef is with adventuring and its forced weaving into the DnD character level system, not with adventurer characters themselves. I am fine with people who play adventurer characters (as long as they aren't circle-grinders who treat it as a videogame, not as an IC activity. Again, I want people to remember that it IS a risky profession, not a videogame where they can never die and don't suffer real pain), I am not fine with adventuring being forced on non-adventuring characters. I am not trying to discriminate against adventurer characters, and I apologize if my comments have come off that way in the past.

Try and imagine it from my perspective. Imagine you have a concept for a character that you'd like to play. Now, imagine that your only way to advance said character, is to do something that your character would never, ever want to do. How would you feel?

For instance, say you want to play a wizard that advances purely from studying, training, apprenticeship, and so on. In reality, most wizards in Faerun advance through this method, most wizards are these 'professional wizards', and they get to high levels through this method. Only a very few wizards are 'adventurer wizards'. Imagine you wanted to be the former. But wait, DnD decrees that, to advance, a player character must do dungeons, even though all the professional NPCs don't have to, and, realistically, adventuring wouldn't be required. In fact, no class requires adventuring, even fighters can get to high levels simply from battle training in military camps. Then, throw in that many other players out there will say that you have to advance by adventuring or somehow 'you' aren't the 'proper' RPer, or that you should only be level 1 (people who assume that Character Levels = Adventurer Levels), just because you wanted to play a concept that is perfectly viable for NPCs, but isn't supported by game mechanics unless DMs help you out (as Sundren has).

So, again... my problem isn't with adventurer characters. My problem is with the adventuring-centric system that denies non-adventurer characters from advancement even when such characters are perfectly realistic. Combined with how other players will try and tell you 'adventure, stay level 1, or gtfo', then you can see why I get so upset over the matter. I am not trying to discriminate against adventurer characters, not at all, and, again, I apologize if my comments in the past have come off that way.

[Scavar]

It wasn't something I had ever seriously thought about, but I have to kind of agree with a lot of what Rhifox said. I have always felt it was kind of weird to get all your XP from going around killing things, when you should be able to do a lot of things to get XP...I don't think I've ever played an RPG that seriously lets you get a good amount of XP from doing something other than adventuring....


I can think of a few games that let you do other things for XP, but it's never that much...I again must think...so many things to think about.

[Krya Flacongrace]

In fact, no class requires adventuring, even fighters can get to high levels simply from battle training in military camps.

I undrestand all the points you brought up and can relate to it. But this statement is a grey area.

As you can, as you say attain a high level but you cant attain the "Experience" that fighting a real [instert whatever here] and thats how I interprate the XP from slaying what ever..

But as you say theres no way that a cRPG rite of the shelf will let you attain levels without twatting some monster or whatever.

[Wyvern76]

All I want is for people to accept that adventuring is an extremely risky, hazardous profession, not a game that many people make it out to be, where someone can ask, quite non-chalantly, "would you care to go out for a bit of monster slaying today, my dear chap?" "why yes I would, that sounds like an enjoyable pastime. I'm sure we will be back in time for tea."

Didn't those Victorian Safari Hunters say just that and act just as silly cavilier about it? And they didn't even have a temple to raise them.


Rhifox, I honestly don't want to get in a fight with you. But, honestly you seem to hate the very concept of D&D.... Dungeons & Dragons. The very core of the game is based around aventures going off to fight monsters in scary places. Which is why the XP is mostly based off monster kills and DM whim.

I know that there are some hard core servers that grant no XP from killing monsters (Haze), perhaps give one of those ago.
I believe also that Sims 2 has online, or was it Sims MMO.... Or that other MMO that is all social based.

To Quote Cartman "If you don't like footbal, get the #$TG out of the stadium"


Your character has her place on the server, you definately add alot. Just feel like your bashing 95% of us for playing the game closer to D&D and PnP than you even are. At least from my 10 years of PnP.

[Krya Flacongrace]

Didn't those Victorian Safari Hunters say just that and act just as silly cavilier about it? And they didn't even have a temple to raise them.

Thats moive crap ..

[Rhifox]

I undrestand all the points you brought up and can relate to it. But this statement is a grey area.

As you can, as you say attain a high level but you cant attain the "Experience" that fighting a real [instert whatever here] and thats how I interprate the XP from slaying what ever..

Then explain how some of the supposedly greatest fighters in real life history have attained such without ever actually fighting anything 'real', who have never actually killed anything? For instance, what about recognized martial artists such as Bruce Lee, and so on. What about famous military commanders who have achieved high ranks through periods of peace from years of service yet are quite capable of performing when real war starts, due to their extensive study of strategies from previous commanders and reenactments?

Training regimes exist because they work. They might be, perhaps, slower and more controlled than a real situation, and there may be some things that can't always be learned outside of 'the field', but they work.

Fighters are a bit different from other classes, however, in that they are built around combat, so experience from killing things is a bit more 'face-value' for them.

[Wyvern76]

Thats moive crap ..

Teddy Theodore Rosevelt!

Oh snap!

[Krya Flacongrace]

Then explain how some of the supposedly greatest fighters in real life history have attained such without ever actually fighting anything 'real', who have never actually killed anything? For instance, what about recognized martial artists such as Bruce Lee, and so on.

Like I said they can attain the high level but they cant attain the Experience of killing something... Because they have not done it.. have not experienced it.

What about famous military commanders who have achieved high ranks through periods of peace from years of service yet are quite capable of performing when real war starts, due to their extensive study of strategies from previous commanders and reenactments?

Not always the case.

Eg. WWI some of the commanders on both side, achieved high ranks though periods of peace from years of service. But as soon as war broke out they were following the same old tactics that they read out of a book...

It was not until they had experience that the tactics changed.

NB:I'm not saying that all the commanders were green, some were veterans from African campaigns and other such campaigns

Another example this time in WWII
British and Canadian shipping first crossed the Atlantic alone. It was not until the Uboats started taking heavy tolls on the shipping that they started making convoys.

When the US entered the war they started crossing the Atlantic alone.. Against the advice earned from costly experiance from both the British and Canadian navies.

[Rhifox]

Rhifox, I honestly don't want to get in a fight with you. But, honestly you seem to hate the very concept of D&D.... Dungeons & Dragons. The very core of the game is based around aventures going off to fight monsters in scary places. Which is why the XP is mostly based off monster kills and DM whim.

Because I don't play DnD for the mechanics, or gameplay, or combat, or rules. I play for storyline, character development, and lore. I like the lore of Faerun. I like the religious aspects, the plots, the intrigue. I don't want to play one of the countless individual adventurer heroes, I personally find more interest in the typically NPC characters who are involved in political and personal intrigue and so on. Such characters do exist. Adventurers are not the dominate amount of people in Faerun, after all.

Also, I don't think you are at liberty to say what the 'core' of DnD is. The core is different for certain people. This is why nearly every rulebook states that the DM is free to change, add to, or even remove any rules they feel appropriate. This is why books like Heroes of Horror suggest removing the alignment system and giving more focus on story, moral conflict, and suspense than in-your-face combat. DnD is what you make of it. Not all players are there for Dungeons. Some people are there for the story, lore, and character development, which doesn't require dungeons at all. City life, political intrigue, underhanded and silent maneuvering of parties... that's what I like out of DnD. For me, I see combat as a rare delicacy to be reserved only for when the situation is at its most tense between two conflicting characters, not something be thrown around all over the place until it is so devalued that it has lost all meaning.

I know that there are some hard core servers that grant no XP from killing monsters (Haze), perhaps give one of those ago.
I believe also that Sims 2 has online, or was it Sims MMO.... Or that other MMO that is all social based.

Why should I? Why is there no place for non-adventurers? Why should such characters be relegated purely for NPCs? As far as the Sims go, I'm interested in RPing in the Forgotten Realms at the moment, not the real world.

Your character has her place on the server, you definately add alot. Just feel like your bashing 95% of us for playing the game closer to D&D and PnP than you even are. At least from my 10 years of PnP.

I'll say it right now, I have never played PnP prior to the various DnD RPGs out there... before that I RPed primarily on message boards. I have most of the books, but I usually gloss over the rule sections and go straight for the lore or the sections that are useful for character development. I care little for the feats that give greater combat ability and instead go for the feats that grant character. I have just been replaying the OC and been utterly bored out of my mind while going through the combat and dungeon-filled first act.

I'm not bashing anyone. I'm arguing against the system for placing too much emphasis on one style of play to the point that other players feel that I am in the wrong for not wanting to be an 'adventurer'. The core of DnD is what the players make of it, not adventuring. Every DnD book states this, DnD is designed to be a global system to be used for whatever stories the DMs feel like telling, and those stories don't have to be dungeons or combat-filled adventures.

[Scavar]

I like how my DM does his campaigns for our PnP group...besides the fact that he lets me make stuff up for my character that doesn't exist in any book....we have very little combat and a lot of exploration and conversation stuff...two members of our party are fighting over who has the rights to a castle

One member has the "Vindicaters" after him for a crime he didn't commit, one member hates men and gets drunk...I'm hunting a previous member because he stole from me...we have a huge rivalry with another band of people...this is all in just one campaign...THREE people in our party. We rarely fight, and when we do fight it takes time and we have to think about it


Except for the room that had an anti magical field around it filled with zombies rendering my other party members useless..I just ran in and spammed whirlwind.


Edit: This was just a light crummy example of how a campaign can have things in it that aren't combat, that are completely central to everything the group is doing. I also forgot the mention the drunken master that follows us around sometimes...he's a halfing who never wears pants......

[R3VOLV360]

I play for storyline, character development, and lore. I like the lore of Faerun. I like the religious aspects, the plots, the intrigue.

Go read a novel then? *ducks for cover*
One of the main reasons I enjoy multiplayer over singleplayer is that the characters are dynamic in the sense that there is someone else controlling them not just a script that only has a finite number of options. But DnD is a combat based game. If you take the combat out of it you have medieval real life and a d20 that is gathering dust.

I'm sure you don't mean to take all combat out, just the "dungeoneering" then you are left with Dragons... haha, wasn't that funny *slinks back into his chair as he moves to his point*. I believe that a core part is about dungeons hence half the title devoted to it. It is an integral part of the game that has attracted a lot of players. No one wants to just chat about how they will develop their character and not do any monster slaying at all.

I read in another post somewhere that someone said Half Life 2 was dull. This was because it was just a shooting game. So what? You don't buy an FPS for a storyline. A friend and I played through Gears of War split screen and we were vaguely aware that there was some reason that we were meant to be going to place X, but we couldn't care; it was a shooting game first, story second.

Dungeons and Dragons mixes this element of combat and plot. You'll have a very weak DnD game if you have a weak plot. But you'll have a boring DnD game if you have no combat. Then again, different strokes for different folks. And I think we have drifted very much off topic...

[Rhifox]

Go read a novel then? *ducks for cover*

Novels don't promote personal character development. I care about the development of my own character and seeing how that development affects the development of other people's characters and the story as a whole. Novels, movies, etc are boring in that you are simply a passive observer. As you say, multiplayer is dynamic.

If you take the combat out of it you have medieval real life and a d20 that is gathering dust.

Actually you wouldn't, because the DnD universe is far too 'perfect'. Even with all the combat. Too much equality, magic does all the work, slave countries are few, and so on.

No one wants to just chat about how they will develop their character and not do any monster slaying at all.

Broad statement. Guess I'm the only one, then. I personally prefer to talk/hide/run away from aggressive opponents rather than slay them.

But you'll have a boring DnD game if you have no combat.

Not in my opinion. For me, games are boring when there is too much combat. I'll repeat myself when I say that I find combat is best when it's only in a few, very rare situations for poignant, climatic impact. I prefer conflict, not combat. But my opinions aren't widely shared, I suppose. *Shrugs*