What makes a character 'stand out' in a game?

[Inkpot]

This is an ongoing debate I have with some D&D 3.5 cultists (sorry, couldn't help myself). They say that the lack of prestige classes in C&C makes it so that your character doesn't 'stand out' in a crowd. I say this is utter b*llo*k.

My very firmly held opinion is that what separates your character from all the rest is how you roleplay it. Think back on your games, what do you remember the most: a characters' abilities or their personality (or lack thereof)? It's like roleplaying is becoming a dirty word or something. My high school band teacher used to quote Frank Zappa all the time: "Music ain't just ink on paper, man". I will amend this (with apologies to Mr. Zappa) to read:
A character ain't just stats on a page, man!!!

Your thoughts?

Ink
_________________
Check out Inkpot's C&C Downloads: http://www.cncplayer.net/inkpot/index.htm

C&C: Blissfully devoid of gestalt neko-hin rogue/fighter/mages!!

[mordrene]

Harumph.

A hero is based on their actions, not on the pluses and minuses of a characteristic. keep up the good fight inkpot.

[gideon_thorne]

Me, I'm as inclined to play a Joxer as a Hercules.

I tend to drift towards the characters with personality though. Take, for example, a rather lyrical illusionist I have been playing in Steve's convention run games.

He's a sharp and charming fellow, but he also tends to make up rather rybald ditties about his travelling companions. Also possessed of a decent dexterity, he plays a variety of musical instruments. (primes, INT, DEX, CHA)

No, he's not a bard. But he surely can enhance his musical skills with good visual effects. ^_^
_________________
"We'll go out through the kitchen!" Tanis Half-Elven

Peter Bradley

[Tadhg]

gideon_thorne wrote:
a Joxer

Eh, what's this then? Must be an ozzie term. Couldn't find it on my Australian slang site!
But I did find "Mappa Tassie" ~ map of Tasmanian - a woman's pubic area!
_________________
Count Rhuveinus - Lejendary Keeper of Castle Franqueforte

"Enjoy a 'world' where the fantastic is fact and magic really works!" ~ Gary Gygax

"By the pricking of my thumbs, Something wicked this way comes:" - Macbeth

[Treebore]

Joxer is the "joke" character in the Hercules series, that despite being cowardly and whimpy and inept still managed to save the day a few times.

I am with you Inkpot. There are a lot of reasons today why so many people don't even know what "character" is when it comes up and punches them in the face.

[gideon_thorne]

Rhuvein wrote:
Eh, what's this then? Must be an ozzie term. Couldn't find it on my Australian slang site!
But I did find "Mappa Tassie" ~ map of Tasmanian - a woman's pubic area!

"Joxer the Mighty!" *chants*
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joxer

He's actually my favorite character in the series. While I have a fine appreciation for looking at babes in leather armour, I tend to appreciate the funny side characters as well
_________________
"We'll go out through the kitchen!" Tanis Half-Elven

Peter Bradley

[Jyrdan Fairblade]

Too true.

There were plenty of exemplary characters that I remember from past editions.

Heck, the memorable characters from 3e are remembered not for how many points and levels they had in what, but what they did and how they acted.

mordrene wrote:
A hero is based on their actions, not on the pluses and minuses of a characteristic.

[johns]

Absolutely - it's all the role-play. I'm in a hybrid 3.5/C&C thing right now, and nobody has shown even a slight interest in prestige classes. However, all of the characters are notable for the way they act. As a DM/CK, I try to help this along. We had one character, a human ranger, played by someone new to D&D. Dakk didn't have much background or personality, so when the party visited his home town, a city inhabited by humans and dwarves, I took the liberty of giving him some background. When they visited his parent's home, it was revealed that they were dwarves - Dakk was adopted, but his mother cautioned the party that he didn't know. I played the dwarven parents like Frank and Estelle Costanza from Seinfeld.

So, Dakk's personality began to develop. Dakk's player embraced the notion that he was just a tall dwarf and ran with it, and he's become a very distinctive character. We learned one night that he wears long pajamas to bed that have a hood and beard sewn on, by his mom, so he wouldn't feel left out. Etc etc etc. I think it's key that the DM and player collaborate on the character, meaning that the player's should surrender a little control of their character's background to the DM, and the DM should surrender a little control of his campaign world to the players.

So, Dakk is a 12th level human ranger, no prestige class, no amazing feats or skills. But he has become a very memorable character.

[Treebore]

Yeah, even my kids have come to value their C&C characters over their 3E characters. They like and appreciate the fact that their characters are important to them because of the history of their accomplishments, the NPC friends and allies they have, and that when they level they "feel" that they have earned it.

Even they no longer desire to go back to 3E, character building, rather than level building, is what makes for a truly good, fun, and fulfilling game. I am so proud of them for finally "seeing" that.

Even my 10 year old gets the difference. But being 10 years old the "quick path to ultimate power" still appeals strongly to him. But he also realizes he has plenty of PS2 games for that fix.

[Jynx]

Inkpot wrote:
This is an ongoing debate I have with some D&D 3.5 cultists (sorry, couldn't help myself). They say that the lack of prestige classes in C&C makes it so that your character doesn't 'stand out' in a crowd. ...... Your thoughts?

When asked what makes a C&C character different from another of the same class, or in any RPG, I always answer with the same response and leave it at that....

"What makes a character different, is the player! YOU MAKE THE CHARACTER DIFFERENT"

If the player doesn't 'GET IT' then they are obviosly not meant to be in my game.

[Inkpot]

Jynx wrote:
When asked what makes a C&C character different from another of the same class, or in any RPG, I always answer with the same response and leave it at that....

"What makes a character different, is the player! YOU MAKE THE CHARACTER DIFFERENT"

If the player doesn't 'GET IT' then they are obviosly not meant to be in my game.

Yeah, I'm beginning to see that some people just don't get it, too. I guess all we can do is run our games the way we love and the people who DO get it, will be drawn toward us.

If you roleplay, they will come......
Ink
_________________
Check out Inkpot's C&C Downloads: http://www.cncplayer.net/inkpot/index.htm

C&C: Blissfully devoid of gestalt neko-hin rogue/fighter/mages!!

[moriarty777]

Exactly... it's all in roleplay!

Moriarty the Red
_________________
"You face Death itself in the form of... 1d4 Tarrasques!"

Partner to Brave Halfling Publishing
http://www.arcanacreations.com

[Dristram]

Inkpot wrote:
This is an ongoing debate I have with some D&D 3.5 cultists (sorry, couldn't help myself). They say that the lack of prestige classes in C&C makes it so that your character doesn't 'stand out' in a crowd.

To that I say...So, how is it that D&D was the most popular roleplaying game in the world before there were such things as Prestige Classes?

I will admit that I was a huge 3e fan. When it first came out, I loved the idea that the skills and abilities I roleplayed with my character could now have game mechanics to back them up. From a mechanics perspective I was frustrated that in AD&D, two 10th level fighters stripped of their magic items were essentially the same mechanically, except for stats. That's where I thought Feats were a god-send because no longer did magic items dictate the power flavor of a character.

If all that existed in 3e were core classes and some basic Feats, then I would have been quite happy. But with the popularity of Prestige Classes and endless number of Feats to overcome any limits the game mechanics presented, and that the Skills could be abused, I got disenchanted. I see 3e as a good idea taken too far.

What I've learned now, is that having less options through mechanics to differenciate your characters causes you to roleplay the character more to make it different. Having a mechanic to represent every aspect of your character leaves no motivation for real roleplaying. I've noticed that roleplaying in 3e D&D games is much lower than in the days of AD&D. Particularly 1st Edition.

[johns]

Quote:
Even my 10 year old gets the difference. But being 10 years old the "quick path to ultimate power" still appeals strongly to him. But he also realizes he has plenty of PS2 games for that fix.

Maybe this is the ultimate value of C&C. I think it's plausible to suggest that many of the changes in 3E were made in order to make pen & paper role-playing more interesting to video game players. But, of course, pen & paper can never beat the strengths of video games. Trying to ape those strengths just makes the old fashioned RPGs look old fashioned.

C&C, instead, plays more to the strengths of pen & paper RPGs. It gives video game players a viable option for entertainment, rather than a poor imitation of what they already love.

[Barrataria]

I suppose at some point, if you have enough prestige classes and add-on hoohahs, you end up with every character being a separate class, in which case you might as well play a purely skill-based system.

BB

[Tadhg]

Inkpot wrote:
Your thoughts?

Well:

Frank Zappa's music is some of the best I've ever listened too. I enjoyed his concert as well. I think he would have appreciated your quote!

With me, it's all about character creation, background and roleplay. I really push this on my gaming group, and they are starting to get it. The nephews have been picking up on my suggestions and see the way I roleplay NPCs and have thus begun to get more into character.

Favorable reactions and unexpected help can come from NPCs who have interacted well with the players and so they see how it might be beneficial to push the roleplay aspect a little further in our games.

Their characters really stand out now and I loath to kill them. But putting a seriously hurt on them from time to time works great!

_________________
Count Rhuveinus - Lejendary Keeper of Castle Franqueforte

"Enjoy a 'world' where the fantastic is fact and magic really works!" ~ Gary Gygax

"By the pricking of my thumbs, Something wicked this way comes:" - Macbeth

[serleran]

The player, and how well they respond to both the good rolls, and the bad. Also, a DM/CK that understands dice aren't needed for everything... some characters just shouldn't have to make checks for certain actions -- do you fail to breathe while tying your shoes?

[Cuchulain]

My very firmly held opinion is that what separates your character from all the rest is how you roleplay it.

That and a few catch phrases...a heroic stance...maybe a theme song...
Frankly I never got the desire to "munchkin" for me it was always about surviving and prospering in a dangerous world rather than having the power to destroy worlds with a fart.

Morty

[cuchulainkevin]

GrrR! posted under the screen name I created but never used.

Morty
_________________
A Room Zoom Zoom. A Room Zoom Zoom. Gilly Gilly Gilly Gilly Ot Zat Za Come open the magic door with me, With your imagination there's so much we can see. There is a doorway that leads to a place. I'll find my way by the smile on your face.

[Omote]

A character is obviously more then just a set of stats on paper. But I also submit to you that a character is more then just how well a player "role plays." Even characters who sit quietly at the table, who say little in game can be a damn fine example of role playing. Yes, you can consider the act of being a quiet character role playing, but to me there is more then that.

The player themselves bring some thing to the whole experience. You can be a good role player, but if you are a jackass and goof off or make the game miserable for others then this invariably marks a character even though it probably shouldn't. The player and the character, no matter how different one another is, is always connected to each other.

.............................................Omote

FPQ
_________________
> Omote's Advanced C&C stuff <
Duke Omote Landwehr, Holy Order of the FPQ ~ Prince of the Castles & Crusades Society

[Inkpot]

Omote wrote:
A character is obviously more then just a set of stats on paper. But I also submit to you that a character is more then just how well a player "role plays." Even characters who sit quietly at the table, who say little in game can be a damn fine example of role playing. Yes, you can consider the act of being a quiet character role playing, but to me there is more then that.

The player themselves bring some thing to the whole experience. You can be a good role player, but if you are a jackass and goof off or make the game miserable for others then this invariably marks a character even though it probably shouldn't. The player and the character, no matter how different one another is, is always connected to each other.

.............................................Omote

FPQ

*nods* I see what you're saying. Honestly, I sort of lump the two together in my mind. To me, roleplaying is a mixture of acting skills, a flair for the dramatic, a good sense of humor, and one's own personality.

Having said that (and forgive me if I go slightly off-topic here), I do *NOT* think that one has to have a degree in Shakespearean Theatre in order to adequately roleplay. For crying out loud, it's just playing cops n' robbers on a more mature level. In my weekly game, I don't care what sort of language my characters use, as long as it's indicative of their characters' personality. "What ho, friends? 'Twould seem that vile brigands hath stolen the vintage away from this simple inn" is easily replaced with "Hello, everyone. Did bandits come and make off with the wine in this place, or what?" And on the flip side, if someone *wants* their character to speak that way, then more power to them - but it's not a requirement.

Hmm...it's 6am here and I'm hoping all of the above makes sense. Sleep dep makes one's mind do the wacky....

Ink

Ink
_________________
Check out Inkpot's C&C Downloads: http://www.cncplayer.net/inkpot/index.htm

C&C: Blissfully devoid of gestalt neko-hin rogue/fighter/mages!!

[Treebore]

I actually separate the player and "roleplaying". I guess because I think you can be a good player and not role play at all. They play more as a choreographer/director. They tell us what their character is saying and doing, but they never actually "become" their character. They never talk from the characters perpective.

[Dristram]

Treebore wrote:
I guess because I think you can be a good player and not role play at all. They play more as a choreographer/director. They tell us what their character is saying and doing, but they never actually "become" their character. They never talk from the characters perpective.

I wouldn't consider that roleplaying though. That's playing the character, sure enough. But not roleplaying the character.

[Treebore]

Exactly why I separate them. I have players who play, and I have players who roleplay.

[Dristram]

Something I used to do in the pre-3e days was force players to get into character. During the game, anything said to each other was "in character" and they could speak to me, the DM out of character. And if they really had to say something out of character, they would say, "out of character..." and then say what they had to say. The exception of course was when dictating what their character was doing during combat. As 3e developed, more and more rules arguements happened making roleplaying and staying in character difficult. Also, the design of 3e didn't seem to promote roleplaying.

With C&C, I'm getting back into the forcing of roleplaying. I've never had a player be turned off by it. I usually get "that was great" because they really want to roleplay but need something to keep their mind focused on it, and result is the game session ended up being so much more dynamic because of all the roleplaying.

[Geleg]

I echo all the above posts. A good player can make even the most generic fighter interesting. It's all about role-playing. This is why I loved the Ars Magica virtues/flaws system (although it is an obvious progenitor to the Feats of 3e). You could choose some really interesting things which had ABSOLUTLY NO GAME MECHANIC AT ALL! And it made characters really interesting. My webhandle comes from my most memorable Ars Magica mage, whom I conceived consciously as diametrically opposite to my own personality traits. The original Geleg was an epicure and aesthete, who loved doing magic so he could do lots of beautiful and fun things, including bake better pies, contemplate the beauty of magic itself, etc, etc. Don't get me wrong - I don't subscribe to the 'characters should be wacky and incapable of defending themselves' school of 'storytelling'. Geleg, although reluctant, pulled his weight when needed, and ended up sacrificing himself for the greater good. He was my favorite character ever, precisely because his character traits were so closely developed that he was a blast to play. I always knew what Geleg would do or say. And that made all the difference, not a bunch of feats or stats on the page. I'd decide what to do, and then see if I could - and sometimes I could, and sometimes I couldn't.

enough ranting. This thread is perhaps the truest thread I've seen in a long time.

G