The Gaming Den

Archmage wrote:

shadzar wrote:no, you failed your relevancy check. i choose shit for myself. i dont take gifts from people and would highly be pissed someone giving me a gift. there are people out there that just dont like gifts. learn this, and never try using that analogy again as a global constant.

People who don't read shadzar posts are missing comedy gold.

Hell yes, I was laughing all the way through this. ...

Thing is, I can genuinely never tell is shadzar serious or not. Some of the ways he approaches his argument, really makes it unclear to me as to whether or not he's just fucking with you. Dude, if you're just fucking around you're epic at trolling the den. Bravo.

On the other hand... if you're not, I just don't understand why the moral indictment. Why all the "fuck you" and "shut up" sentiment about the situation? Makes no sense when people are giving you honest and mostly non-aggressive responses.

I was thinking that if your whole thing is: "Why is it important to play the character you want?" (Fuck you for wanting to be a special hero)
and
Let "the world, luck, fate decide what you're going to play as"
its kinda like at that point just hand me a pregen character and lets play that.
I mean it its just lets play a random class with random stats, then its gonna save us a lot of time just pulling pregens out the book and playing them.
If the goal is to take the player out of the mechanical process of making characters, then do it.
There's no point to rolling the dice "AT ALL" under that rubric.
Let just hop right in the meat grinder, and I'll give some background fluff about the paper the dm hands me and we can dispense with the rolling altogether.

On another note. Shad, said something to "K" about wanting to be a "Marvel Hero" and he ranted about about one of the denners wanting to be a "Fop with a rapier" then feel like he's owed a magic one.
1. I think since the game as long as the game is advertised as anything resembling "a game of heroic fantasy" being able to play something out of low level marvel and/or mythology is fairly close to what they're advertising you'll be able to play.

2. If the guy wants to play a character that is a "fop with a sword", and thats a "valid choice" then yeah... the game (NOT THE DM) needs to provide him with adequate materials to play that concept as long as the developers expect it to be a valid play option. Be it a magic sword, winged boots, or foil action.
The dm should have to give him that particular toy, that particular toy should likely come with the class, like wizards come with a spell book etc.

You'll disagree but thats my humble opinion. A lot of what you're saying shadzar, makes me not sure what difference it really makes, how the stats are rolled. Except to make people feel more or less attached to the character they're playing.

Whipstitch wrote:Why leave people in the dark and throw hissy fits like that when you can simply build a point buy system or shared pool of stat arrays that enforces your standards without any mindgames? Personally, I'm fine having mediocre stats, I just don't want to feel jerked around in the process of getting them.

Classic DnD was mindgames, peer pressure, and DM dickery.

Shadzar wants to go back to the bad old days when DMs laughed about making players cry at the table.

K wrote:

Whipstitch wrote:Why leave people in the dark and throw hissy fits like that when you can simply build a point buy system or shared pool of stat arrays that enforces your standards without any mindgames? Personally, I'm fine having mediocre stats, I just don't want to feel jerked around in the process of getting them.

Classic DnD was mindgames, peer pressure, and DM dickery.

Shadzar wants to go back to the bad old days when DMs laughed about making players cry at the table.

Ok, but why? Since there actually ARE other options for social gaming wouldn't that just make people NOT play rpgs?

I mean dickery's the worst ambassador of this sort of thing isn't it?

BECAUSE IT KEEPS DUNGEONS AND DRAGONS PURE! IT IS ONLY FOR THE FAITHFUL, AND TRYING TO SOFTEN IT IS THE MOST DREADFUL OF CRIMES, HERESY!

This message has been sponsored by the Association for True Roleplayers, who are the only people who do it right. Let there be no heretics here.

shadzar wrote: how? are you talking solely combat? do you understand D&D?

Fighter was the damage dealer/taker
Wizard was the MacGuyver
Cleric, undead destroyer/healer/information gatherer
Thief, scout/bugler/etc

they all contribute equally to the game, jsut different areas of expertise, thus a class based system where the classes are built on archetypes.

That's how the game was designed, but a variety of factors can prevent that from working. Before we even get into game mechanics, what if you have more than four players? With only those four classes, you would have to have at least two people playing the same class. Even assuming thieves automatically contribute less to combat than fighters, you still might have two fighters. Shouldn't those two fighters be contributing equally to combat?

3d6 straight down the line with minimum attributes makes the problem even worse. What if nobody rolls a high enough Intelligence to play a Wizard or high enough Wisdom to play a cleric? The party won't have the tools they need to follow many adventures. What if poor rolls prevent everyone at the table from playing anything but a fighter? The entire party becomes incapable of dealing with most magical problems and traps.

While all of these situations are playable (the party just has to try and avoid doing things they are bad at), they are quite different from the standard assumptions of the game.

shadzar wrote: - snip stuff about eye colour -

have you tried playing D&D. you seem to be another Fuchs that only wants to play his fop swashbuckler with a rapier and the DM owes him a magical rapier because that is his narrow minded character concept. D&D isnt a game of making your fantasy novel character Drizzt clone. i swear this has been gone over before.....NEXT!

That's insane. Do you honestly think that the statement "my character's eyes are green" is as damaging to the game as "I look exactly like [popular fantasy character]" or "I won't play unless you give me more magic swords?" I know you absolutely hate people playing pre-existing characters, but you're literally arguing that being anything more than a pile of stats is poor roleplaying. Let me repeat that: according to what you just said, caring about your character's appearance makes you a worse roleplayer.

A character is more than a page full of mechanics. Characters have personalities and physical descriptions. When someone in the game sees a character, they do not see "Level 3 Human Fighter," they see "a tall young man in half-plate armour with green eyes and short, brown hair." When someone tells me their character has green eyes and hates cats I am happy because they saw past the page of numbers and created a character, a person with thoughts and feelings that they the player will try to convey. That's what you're always saying roleplaying is, so how can you fault people for it?

shadzar wrote: the action should not be decided based upon your scores or the mechanics. see the thing in my signature? "Play the game, not the rules." yeah....

when you take an action, it should be because that is what YOU the player wants to try, not what is the best mechanical option to defeat the RNG your character sheet has on it. Play the game, not the rules.

The problem with this line of thinking is that the action with the biggest bonus is the thing the character is best at, so why wouldn't they try what they were best at first? The character doesn't know what the numbers on their character sheet are, but the big, strong fighter knows he's big and strong and can probably tear that stuck door right off its hinges. A player choosing the most optimal path isn't necessarily metagaming - the player's character would likely have chosen that action based on what he [the character] knew about his own strengths.

Choosing to use your best skill is only metagaming if the character had no reason to suspect that was his best skill. Strong, clumsy people know they are more likely to succeed at knocking a door over than picking the lock, so why would they try to pick the lock? Similarly, a nimble thief should almost never try knocking down a door before trying to pick the lock. You just said that the strong fighter should try to pick the lock because using his biggest number would be metagaming.

I think I see what you mean with your comment, but as stated it is so badly worded it calls acting in character metagaming. The actual problem you're getting at is that sometimes the "optimal choice" is completely ridiculous, which is an actual problem with the rules and not the player. Deliberately exaggerated example: if the rules say wearing a chicken on your head provides better protection than full armour, somebody is going to wear that chicken because in the universe those rules describe it is a perfectly valid choice. The player who chose to wear the chicken wasn't metagaming, he was roleplaying a character that does not want to die in a world where chickens on the head are one of the most effective ways of preventing death by pointed metal stick.

The problem isn't players picking optimal choice where available because the character probably does not want to die. The problem is that the universe described by the rules of the game does not match the universe you actually want to be roleplaying in. The solution isn't to whine at player and call them dirty munchkins for using every means at their disposal to survive, it's to use a system where those actions are not mechanically rewarded.

Midnight_v wrote:

K wrote:

Whipstitch wrote:Why leave people in the dark and throw hissy fits like that when you can simply build a point buy system or shared pool of stat arrays that enforces your standards without any mindgames? Personally, I'm fine having mediocre stats, I just don't want to feel jerked around in the process of getting them.

Classic DnD was mindgames, peer pressure, and DM dickery.

Shadzar wants to go back to the bad old days when DMs laughed about making players cry at the table.

Ok, but why? Since there actually ARE other options for social gaming wouldn't that just make people NOT play rpgs?

I mean dickery's the worst ambassador of this sort of thing isn't it?

Of course it is, but the problem is that functions as a tactic at all.

I mean, how many acknowledged experts are also famously dicks who promote dick behavior? How many people have built communities by courting only the "elite" who get to look down on other people?

In many ways, assembling a DnD group is like assembling a cult. It's based on the personalities of a few charismatic players/DMs. I mean, how many RPGs have you played just because some friends were playing?

RPG games themselves reach the heights of their popularity when they transition from a cult into a religion, thus adopting dogma and unified scripture and being less dependent on charismatic individuals. This means a good, consistent ruleset that takes power away from the DM.

Even though cults are less popular than religions, religion offers a lot less oral sex. For a potential cult-leader, that's an important factor.

Whipstitch wrote:

shadzar wrote:
"Munchkin go home."

the only response you should get to what you said.

Cries of munchkin are part of the problem rather than any sort of solution.

someone saying they can't play without 3 18's and the rest 17 or 16, is pretty much a sign of munchkin if there ever was one...

i missed a few posts i am sure, but i will go back and get the missed ones when i have more time to read them all.

K wrote:

Midnight_v wrote:

K wrote:
Classic DnD was mindgames, peer pressure, and DM dickery.

Shadzar wants to go back to the bad old days when DMs laughed about making players cry at the table.

Ok, but why? Since there actually ARE other options for social gaming wouldn't that just make people NOT play rpgs?

I mean dickery's the worst ambassador of this sort of thing isn't it?

Of course it is, but the problem is that functions as a tactic at all.

I mean, how many acknowledged experts are also famously dicks who promote dick behavior? How many people have built communities by courting only the "elite" who get to look down on other people?

In many ways, assembling a DnD group is like assembling a cult. It's based on the personalities of a few charismatic players/DMs. I mean, how many RPGs have you played just because some friends were playing?

RPG games themselves reach the heights of their popularity when they transition from a cult into a religion, thus adopting dogma and unified scripture and being less dependent on charismatic individuals. This means a good, consistent ruleset that takes power away from the DM.

Even though cults are less popular than religions, religion offers a lot less oral sex. For a potential cult-leader, that's an important factor.

That fits the Den as much, if not more so than gathering a D&D group. That being said: when do we get the Nikes, virgins and Kool-Aid?

Mask_De_H wrote:That fits the Den as much, if not more so than gathering a D&D group. That being said: when do we get the Nikes, virgins and Kool-Aid?

Stereotypically, we are the virgins.

RadiantPhoenix wrote:

Mask_De_H wrote:That fits the Den as much, if not more so than gathering a D&D group. That being said: when do we get the Nikes, virgins and Kool-Aid?

Stereotypically, we are the virgins.

I may be wrong, but I think the Den is typically much older than most other boards, and therefore, this is true for a very small number of people.

I made an account just to point out a humorous part of Shadzar's argument.

Let's say two players are pitching their character concept to a normal DM and Shadzar:

Player A- I want to be an elf wizard, but I wanted to be something like an aboriginal who instead of a spell book casts runes and learns the secrets of the spirits in the Dreamtime, and have lots of shamanistic fluff and trappings

Normal DMs response - that's pretty cool, do you have stuff about your tribe so I can work a few things into the game?

Shadzar- Fucking Drizzit clone! Why would you shit up my game with you bringing in your MMO mindset?

Player B- I dunno man, whatever I guess, just roll some dice

Normal DM- uhhhhh, you sure you want to be here?

Shadzar- this guy GETS it! Player A try to be more like player B!

D&D is not a novel writing tool. try reading this post for some help to understanding that.

if that doesnt help because you dont understand after it, then read about DDN and its "customization" and how many people want every nagging detail to give some mechanical bonus including eye color and some such.

shadzar wrote:then read about DDN and its "customization" and how many people want every nagging detail to give some mechanical bonus including eye color and some such.

Do you have a single source for a person claiming that eye color should provide a mechanical bonus?

I think you're conflating two issues - customization versus 'excessive crunch'.

Here's the thing - if you didn't like 'mechanical bonuses' because they make on character superior to another, that would almost be reasonable - but not if you simultaneously think that it's okay for one player to have all scores above 15 and the other to have all scores below 8.

shadzar wrote:D&D is not a novel writing tool. try reading this post for some help to understanding that.

Okay, but literally no one in this thread has mentioned writing a novel before you.

I think what you are trying to say is "d&d is game about combat first and story second" or maybe "high concept characters are not needed to enjoy d&d"

The problem with that line of reasoning is d&d was created to put narrative, story and characters into a war game. Arguing against interesting characters is arguing for a return to chainmail.

Though it is dumfounding to know you actually would prefer my "player B".

if that doesnt help because you dont understand after it, then read about DDN and its "customization" and how many people want every nagging detail to give some mechanical bonus including eye color and some such.

No one in this thread has argued for mechanical bonuses for character description or background. You keep pulling out this argument acting as though it is a master stroke showing us how terrible roleplay and consistent character concept is, when you are only refuting imaginary positions.

Have you looked at your line of reason in this thread? Let's review!

1. Random stats are good

2. Wanting to play a particular character (class, type or concept) means either you want to be Drizzit or a MMO character

3. Complaining about balance is bad because then we should have one roll and everyone gets the same stat. (The logic here escapes me, but it's important)

4. Wanting to have a character that is easier to play or allowing it to make thematic sense is akin to asking for bonuses on eye color.

You speak ill of video game characters, but what you want are video game characters, thrust into a world with a hodgepodge of stats, that may or may not be good for anything, without an identity, solid concept or any sort of set description/motivation.

Scrivener wrote:Let's say two players are pitching their character concept to a normal DM and Shadzar:

I totally beat you to this one.

I'm starting to think that Shadzar is a troll. He's got the Den arguing with him about 3d6 in order when he has, on several occasions, jumped to the defense of older D&D editions by pointing out that 3d6 was not required and, in fact, was not even the default stat method.

Thinking he's an insane basement dweller is still more fun, though...

Look, it's not hard to understand what Shadzar's POV is if you care to try.

He wants character creation to be simple, quick and straightforward, with your class selection being the main choice you make, and classes being archetypes with clear roles.

This is because he doesn't want you to get too attached to your character. The character is basically just one of those blank-slate JRPG protagonists, like Red from Pokemon, through which you explore the game. Anything formative or defining that distinguishes your character happens in play. When play starts, you're not Aragorn or even Frodo -you're Pippin.

It's only looking back that you can say you're the only Hobbit ever to have killed a troll in hand-to-hand combat or be made a Guard of the Citadel.

This playstyle is an acquired taste and it's a bit tiresome that he acts as if it's the only valid or even possible one, but I have had a lot of fun with it myself on occasion.

Hicks wrote:Crazily enough, I'm halfway with Shadzar with this. I'm with him because 3d6 ability scores in order are fast to generate, but only halfway because that only applies to super deadly games where character generation speed is paramount AND where the bonuses are like:

3-5, +0
6-11, +1
12-17, +2
18, +3

...On a d20. The ability bonus needs to be completely ancillary to basically everything else.

I agree, in spirit -- I have no problem with wildly varying, randomly generated stats in a fast-paced game where most of the fun comes from failing in entertaining ways (e.g. Toon, Paranoia, Dungeon Crawl Classics RPG).

@Schleiermacher: The essential problem with that approach is that you have no investment in your character until after the game. Every character that you didn't do something specifically cool with was just a blank slate.

When play starts, you're not Aragorn or even Frodo -you're Pippin.

And what? Pippin doesn't crawl out of his mother's vagina into Gandalf's stash of fireworks. Pippin had a life and personality before the events of LotR. He grew and changed over the course of the story, but he was still a person before he went running off with Frodo.

If my character isn't a character, then I don't care what happens to them, live or die.

shadzar wrote:D&D is not a novel writing tool. try reading this post for some help to understanding that.

I just re-read that post. While you raise some interesting points, they don't help your case as much as you think. You are correct when you say that Dungeons and Dragons isn't your personal novel, but that applies to the DM as much as it applies to the players. The DM sets up the initial state of the world, but he should strive to make the world react to the characters' actions. As referee, he has to determine what the characters are capable of, and clear, concise rules help remove that burden from the DM and make it clear to the players when the DM is abusing his power as the referee to force the story to move in another direction. Every skill system D&D has ever had is an attempt to get players and the DM on the same page when it comes to the knowledge and abilities of the characters.

Furthermore, the idea that everyone needs to contribute to the story implies that all characters have to have abilities that allow them to contribute to the story. Randomized rolling (especially 3d6 straight down the line) will generate average characters on average, but it can always output a low-attribute character in a high-attribute party or vice-versa. This means one character will be more or less capable of affecting the world than the others. If he's weaker, his "contribution" to the story is failing more often to make the other characters look good. If he's stronger, he contributes by overcoming odds that would be impossible for the rest of the party. Both of those are perfectly good stories, but they are not suited to co-operative storytelling because they introduce inequalities between each player's ability to influence the narrative. That can be very frustrating for everyone involved.

shadzar wrote: if that doesnt help because you dont understand after it, then read about DDN and its "customization" and how many people want every nagging detail to give some mechanical bonus including eye color and some such.

Shadzar, do you have a problem with customization or a problem with characters having abilities at all? I know you don't want people bringing a preconceived character to your games, although you still haven't convinced me that should be the general case. Would you play a game that had feats and skills if they were randomly generated instead of chosen by the player? Do you allow players to choose non-mechanical aspects of their character such as their hometown or their favourite food? How much control do you want players to have over what their characters can do?

I'm having trouble figuring out how much customization you actually want. You want people to roleplay. You don't want them to obsess over their mechanics instead of their statistics. You won't let people choose completely non-mechanical things about their characters. What do you actually want?

I'm going to list a few alternate character generation methods with varying amounts of customization. Which ones would you consider? What do you like about them. Which ones would you avoid, and why?

(a) Every mechanical aspect of each character is randomly generated by a series of dice rolls and tables. Ability scores are rolled, the best ability score or scores are used to determine the character's class, and race, secondary skills, feats, spells, etc are determined by random roll on a table.

(b) The DM creates one hundred statlines (class, race, ability scores, etc.). Players roll percentile dice to determine which statline they will use.

(c) The DM creates a small number of characters. Players take turns picking characters from the list.

(d) Players are randomly assigned a class, then get to choose from a limited list of ability scores for that class. Skills, non-weapon proficiencies, and the like are randomly determined.

(e) As (d), except the player is allowed to choose their skills, feats, etc after they have been assigned a class.

Final question: should player characters have backstories? That is, do player characters exist in the world before the story begins, or do they pop into existence in a tavern somewhere without havign ever interacted with the world at any point. If characters do have backstories, who writes them?

Scrivener wrote:The problem with that line of reasoning is d&d was created to put narrative, story and characters into a war game. Arguing against interesting characters is arguing for a return to chainmail.

the problem is, no it wasnt for that. chainmail was still an armchair general game like ALL other wargames. the purpose of D&D was to take a single character, rather than a disposable army of nobodies and play with that one character through several fights. the D&D PC evolved sort of the same concept of the Warhammer Special Characters. the PC isnt just Ultrasmurf #27846582 with yet another bolt pistol like the 27846581 that came before him.

yes Arneson did want a bit of "story", thus you have the developed world of Blackmoor created before Greyhawk, and Forgotten Realms and its inhabitants created prior to OD&D and Chainmail.

the sole purpose of D&D was to take control of only one character and have it go through multiple fights. that is why rules focus is always on combat over everything else and providing the most rules for combat, and why the player control revolves around 1 PC, and you rarely get anything for running little bands, except your henchmen and the like were, in 4th, pretty much minionized.

@Schleiermacher

i have no idea what the hell you are talking about with pokemon, so i will guess enough info is in your Pippin example...

This is because he doesn't want you to get too attached to your character.

this is wrong, but it isnt a character until it is played. anyone can write up 4 million character sheets from varying editions of D&D and other RPGs, but there is no attachment until it is played, it is just character sheet #2875861897.

It's only looking back that you can say you're the only Hobbit ever to have killed a troll in hand-to-hand combat or be made a Guard of the Citadel.

this is only partially correct. i don't want to play Marvel Superhero from the start of the game like 4th does, i want to play D&D. if i wanted to play Marvel, i would get out the Marvel RPG....

"the journey is the destination."

how can you have attachment to just the series of number on a page, that has not seen play? anyone can make the exact same thing, it is through play and HOW you play it that makes it yours.

ergo, the gift nonsense from before is useless, as someone could just gift you a character and it means what? the character sheet holds some magic power that means under a new DM any of its achievements mean more than jack squat?

playing the character is how you get attached to it, not just the idea of someone else's character (net deck).

you may call it an acquired taste, but in that sense, isnt anything? how if "this playstyle" any different than anything. your first touchdown in football, first hole-in-one in golf, then either learning how to repeat it in the future. do you feel any attachment to Tiger when he makes a hole-in-one, Jerry Rice when he scores a touchdown? you didn't do anything.

as mentioned above, it is the longvity of your character through your play that D&D was created, as opposed to the cannon fodder that was wargames. it wasnt about being cannon fodder anymore, and not about writing a novel either. it is in between. depending on YOUR actions during play, you could be cannon-fodder or the hero, but only AFTER the game is played.

shadzar wrote:as mentioned above, it is the longvity of your character through your play that D&D was created, as opposed to the cannon fodder that was wargames. it wasnt about being cannon fodder anymore, and not about writing a novel either. it is in between. depending on YOUR actions during play, you could be cannon-fodder or the hero, but only AFTER the game is played.

Since you started the topic, can you explain why you think 3d6 in order supports this?



But personally, I think a character can have value even if it has not seen play. I'd prefer a character with ties to the world that helps support the development of a campaign. I'd like to know what family your PC has, your relationship with said family, and plenty about the people you know.

Characters will have existed prior to the start of the game. They were born, they grew up, they may have done things that help define how they'll act in the future. Having a sense of what your character has done will help you as player figure out what they will do through the course of play.

Since I value interacting with the game world as the character, having a sense of the character before I start is important.

3d6 in order gives you a character to play that isnt unnamed cannon-fodder #28959765. that is how it supports that.

rampaging-poet wrote:

shadzar wrote:D&D is not a novel writing tool. try reading this post for some help to understanding that.

I just re-read that post. While you raise some interesting points, they don't help your case as much as you think. You are correct when you say that Dungeons and Dragons isn't your personal novel, but that applies to the DM as much as it applies to the players. The DM sets up the initial state of the world, but he should strive to make the world react to the characters' actions.

AH!, but a problem with that is when the world then revolves around the PCs actions, and it doesnt. do you go into your neighbors house and try to make them throw away anything you are allergic to? of course not. likewise unles you directly interact with some part of the world that seems reason to react to you, then the PCs are ignored by that part of the world, until such time as there needs to be a reaction. you cant have a reaction without an actin first. (see Belkar in OOTS, the king of creating reactions for the sake of there being a reaction)

Furthermore, the idea that everyone needs to contribute to the story implies that all characters have to have abilities that allow them to contribute to the story.

in what way? is the person that only wants a weapon and attack roll forced to take 300 feats and such because someone else wants them? in regards to DDN and it "modules" that seems a bit confusing to have both. but is the person that wants only those few things from a fighter to enjoy the story while bashing skulls not viable because other people want all that other nonsense?

Shadzar, do you have a problem with customization or a problem with characters having abilities at all? I know you don't want people bringing a preconceived character to your games, although you still haven't convinced me that should be the general case. Would you play a game that had feats and skills if they were randomly generated instead of chosen by the player? Do you allow players to choose non-mechanical aspects of their character such as their hometown or their favourite food? How much control do you want players to have over what their characters can do?

i have a problem with needless fiddly bits that prevent either combat, story, or whole of the game to be further while several people either try to find those fiddly bits or argue over them. thus DM sets rule, everyone shuts up and follows it for the game, and after those wanting to argue can do so, and those wanting to do other things can go do other things without losing the time available for the game play itself. (see Rules Lawyers). aka "Just shut up and play!"

it doesnt have to be a general case, but neither does Fuchs swashbuckler that only wields a rapier so stops the game when he doesnt get a magical one in treasure. when people seek to create the ends of the character (even from the concept of tech-trees and "builds"), then their only goal is the outcome they want for their character, not for the sake of the game itself. thus we end up with competitive gaming within the PC party, rather than cooperative and playing WITH the other players.

i dont play games with feats or skills period. those 3.x games i sat in to fill a seat and help the DM with idea, i rarely looked at that nonsense as it was a waste of time. (see fire-building NWP)

hometown? nobody will hardly write a backstory, so it has rarely come up, and rarely do many people know much about the game world because my players have always wanted to just tavern->group->find something to fight....

in D&D you can TRY anything within reason. that is the control the players have over what their character can "do"? the children on the forum will come up with the wild unreasonable shit here quickly like the elf being NEo in the federal building to rescue Morpheus and running up the walls while rapidly shooting arrows from a bow. the line on stupidty has to be drawn somewhere, and SoD works in the Matrix, only because it is all happening in the mind. "Do you think that is air you are breathing?" in D&D the character are confined with some real physics that are Earth connected. example of a slightly les stupid thing tried in a game:

Player: I want to knock the orc out with this cured ham i am carrying.
DM (me): you can hit him with it, treat it like a meat club for attack and damage and breaking/etc. whether it will knock him out depends on your rolls.

the whole style of "i want action to result in outcome", doesnt fly half the time. you can try an action and EVERYONE at the table will see the outcome, when it comes out.

hitting said orc in the head would likely require a called shot, but the "knockout" from the ham is still up to how the dice fall.

I'm having trouble figuring out how much customization you actually want.

lets break it down... with the exception of PHB, DMG, and MM; black reprints of 2E with all their additional stuff and everything created since is trash.

the customization is done with HOW you play your character. YOU as the player decide if your dwarf is a drunk narcissist that is afraid of water and horses, depending on how you play it.

i can play and enjoy the games i have mentioned to DDMW in the past.
i choose: race, class, name
i am given: equipment list

i can play with that little and come up with whatever character i want from there. i can even play with a pre-gen so long as it isnt weighed down with backstory like sitting in for a player so his cavalier isnt absent from the game. TAnis Half-elven when i played him through the classics, didnt act exactly as the one in the books did.

it is how you play the character not what you are given that makes the character yours. what people fail to understand is they are ALL playing pre-gens, as your list of options are still bound by what the company that published the RPG included. there is a finite numebr of permutations these can be made as characters.

(a) too many fiddly bits. wouldnt play it because it includes feats and skills
(b)(c) if it is pre-WotC and pre-PO D&D, when are we playing?
(d)(e) skills and NWPs again so wouldnt play.

Final question: should player characters have backstories? That is, do player characters exist in the world before the story begins, or do they pop into existence in a tavern somewhere without havign ever interacted with the world at any point. If characters do have backstories, who writes them?

i wish they all would, but within reason. see 2E about nonsense backstories. no nobility or wealth that blahblahblah.. to novel related where the character is jsut trying to get back what was lost. not really a tem palyer there and most players cant pull off the transition from being self centered to gain those back and discard the backstory to go with the group of PCs for their goals. Aragorn didnt seek to reclaim the thrown but avoided it until it was forced on him because that was the groups decision he did it. similar backstory, but opposite direction. that one might work?

they exist X years prior and have knowledge of the events local to them or that has spread in rumor.

nobody writes their backstories cause most players i have had are too lazy to do it and i am not going to teah them to have an imagination for their own damn character! they might get a tiny bit if needed based on setting/world if say all wizards had to get a license, then that is forced into a backstory, and may be all that exists, but i dont roll dice for their parents to fuck to see how many kids they had that survived and are alive at home as brothers and sisters to Fred the Fighter. Fred can hav a family, and a bit of it detailed from memories and other bits may be filled in is the game needs them to appear or the PCs decide to go to Freds hometown and it still exists.

Mystara had a product to help players with that where you just rolled up some backstory on a few tables called Player's Survival Kit, and i would pass out the tables for backstory to people often, and nobody would even use them. PCs were either a pawn, or some rip-off character from a book or movie that had the same baggage as that character. that is the type of players i often had.

Stinktopus wrote:

Scrivener wrote:Let's say two players are pitching their character concept to a normal DM and Shadzar:

I totally beat you to this one.

I'm starting to think that Shadzar is a troll. He's got the Den arguing with him about 3d6 in order when he has, on several occasions, jumped to the defense of older D&D editions by pointing out that 3d6 was not required and, in fact, was not even the default stat method.

Thinking he's an insane basement dweller is still more fun, though...

Go back and read Shadzar's earliest posts by clicking on his user name and selecting "view posts" and then go to the Way Back.

Back in the day, when he first got here, he used grammar and coherency.

There's nothing but comedy to be gained from Shadzar.

So either we broke him or he decided we were incredibly easy pickings.

Schleiermacher wrote:This is because he doesn't want you to get too attached to your character.
[paragraph break mine]
The character is basically just one of those blank-slate JRPG protagonists, like Red from Pokemon, through which you explore the game. Anything formative or defining that distinguishes your character happens in play. When play starts, you're not Aragorn or even Frodo -you're Pippin.

It's only looking back that you can say you're the only Hobbit ever to have killed a troll in hand-to-hand combat or be made a Guard of the Citadel.

This playstyle is an acquired taste and it's a bit tiresome that he acts as if it's the only valid or even possible one, but I have had a lot of fun with it myself on occasion.

Ur rong. I love that playstyle. And it's fucking critical to its success that you have a character who does not suck, so that stories about his/her awesomeness could be procedurally generated. If you roll up shit shadzar style, you won't get the hobbit who kills a troll, you'll get a succession of dead hobbits killed by trolls, and then you graduate and move out of town, THE END. Random chargen only flies in games like 3:16 Carnage Among The Stars, which is in every way the opposite of heroic fantasy and the zero to hero stuff that we cipher players like.

Furthermore, Frodo is a nobody, and Aragorn barely avoids being one thanks to some unusual background skills that are presumably on his character sheet. Because "your creepy uncle died and left you something dangerous" is the type of story complete ciphers are plugged into, and "you're sekritly the heir to the throne" is also a zomgsurprisetwist that happens every damn time to completely oblivious characters as a frequently misguided attempt to get the player more engaged with the game.