Accommodating Character Concepts

[alcyone]

Occasionally I'll have a player who has a concept in mind for a character. In some systems, accommodating the concept is just a matter of taking all of the skills/advantages/disadvantages/quirks/templates they can afford.

In 3.5 D&D there are about 700+ prestige classes and 150+ classes and variants to mix and match to be whatever you want.

In 2e there was Players Option.

Personally, I can do without all of the above, and it's one of the selling points for me for BECMI, 1e, and my favorite, C&C. One of the expectations of new players is that they can play their favorite literary fantasy hero. Well, unless your hero is anything like a first level member of one of the core C&C classes and races, you won't like my game very much, because as much as I enjoy role playing, there is a game going on here also, and certain restrictions that are part of that game. These restrictions help assure that modules, monsters, spells, weapons, whatever, continue to operate in predictable ways.

I like running the game that starts with weak nobodies defined by the core classes that undertake a grim journey that ends gruesomely or culminates in them becoming heroes, lords, arch magi, renowned throughout the kingdoms of the world. I suppose it could get repetitive for some, but not for me; it's something I like about the game.

I am a big fan of Fighter, Wizard, Cleric, and Rogue, and never really understand why they fail to excite some. I still like the BECMI elf, and have no idea why that is not awesome enough.

I get why someone might be disappointed that they can't be Gandalf wielding Glamdring against a Balrog out the gate. I am not going to add a Maiar race and Istari class to make it better, though. I am not going to start the campaign at 15th level so you can approximate it with class-and-a-half. I am kind of a jerk that way.

I am not going to change the game so you, like your heroes, never die despite the odds, are feared by all but the dragons and immortals themselves. It's just part of the game; if you want to be awesome, you have to pay your dues, make the right choices, and play the game.

There's plenty of role playing to be had in the 13(!) classes in C&C. You may not be able to emulate any arbitrary literary or mythical hero, but it's not a novel, it's not a myth, it's a class-and-level based role playing game and where I come from, we like that just fine.

Anyway, that's my opinion. Sorry for the rambling, I think I had a point in there somewhere. I mean no disrespect to people who want a different kind of game; I am just stubborn about mine.
_________________
Sir Aergraith Aethelmar of Cyrswud, CaCS,OotF

[seskis281]

The class and a half rules in the 4th print PHB I think are very handy in this sort of customization.

So far in my group over last 2 campaigns we have seen a Wizard primary/Monk secondary and Ranger primary/Monk secondary and they do indeed create some flavor and distinction.

For the Glamdring wielding wizard? Wizard primary/Ftr secondary

My suggestion here.
_________________
John "Sir Seskis" Wright

Ilshara: Lands of Exile:
http://johnwright281.tripod.com/

High Squire of the C&C Society
www.cncsociety.org

[serleran]

I like it when a player comes to me and says "I want to play this and this, have these abilities, and so on and so forth" because it means they're interested in playing the game, actually playing, and that they're excited about it. Now, I may not let them have everything they wanted at level 1, but I sure will do something to keep them feeling that desire to sit down and play...

If I said, well, that's great but you can only be a dwarf fighter, then they might not want to play. Worse, they might get turned off to the game completely.

The archetypes are good, and they are fun, and they can do all kinds of things. But, I find I use them more in the role of NPC than for the player characters. After all, if the game is about fantasy and imagination... why start adding restrictions?
_________________
If it matters, leave a message at the beep.
Serl's Corner

[Breakdaddy]

Serleran makes a good point here. It's your game, and do it how you want, but I might let a player select some background fluff that has an in game element to keep them happy. If it's small and reasonable, why not? If the human character has something in his background that would account for him having deepvision then why not give him deepvision? It's not terribly unbalancing and if it keeps the player happy (and it's a player worth having around ) hook it up.

On the other hand, if you are a CK who has no use for non BtB gaming then hook that up. My personal litmus test is "are the players happy?" and right behind that "am I enjoying running this game?"

[alcyone]

seskis281 wrote:
For the Glamdring wielding wizard? Wizard primary/Ftr secondary

My suggestion here.

And that's how I'd handle it; with the rules pretty much as they stand. The thing is, they are still going to be a pretty squishy Gandalf at level 1. It's not going to be anything like what they were hoping for. And Glamdring? You're going to have to defeat the trolls to get it, and it's going to like as not just be a +1 sword.

Though I have been experimenting with sort of "legacy" weapons that discover abilities as the character levels, so I can encourage that sort of affinity for an iconic weapon of one's own.
_________________
Sir Aergraith Aethelmar of Cyrswud, CaCS,OotF

[alcyone]

Breakdaddy wrote:
Serleran makes a good point here. It's your game, and do it how you want, but I might let a player select some background fluff that has an in game element to keep them happy. If it's small and reasonable, why not?

Sure, I am exaggerating for effect. If it is in fact reasonable, I'll do it. I guess my point is more that yeah, I like role playing just fine, but I don't elevate it to the extreme where it commands how I implement the game.
_________________
Sir Aergraith Aethelmar of Cyrswud, CaCS,OotF

[Treebore]

The SIEGE engine is awesome because it allows you to ATEMPT to do anything. Which is why in my games I say 3E feats are good inspirational ideas for things you can try and do with a SIEGE check. Its also why my house rules go into a lot as to how players can go about trying such things with the SIEGE system.

In other words, my house rules on such things are not house rules, but an explanation of what the SIEGE engine, as written, allows the C&C game to do, with CK approval. Its in the Players Handbook.

So in my games, with the right rolls, you can be that 3rd level fighter with a bearded axe who cuts down the 6 zombies surrounding you in one round, turning a imminent TPK into a stunning victory. But that required the player to make multiple SIEGE checks, with multiple attack rolls and he also did 10+ points of damage per hit. So to be that awesome he made 6 rolls totalling 14 or higher as SIEGE checks, then made accompanying rolls of attacking an AC 12 to do it. Which all my players thought was awesome, especially the fighter player who did it.

So when the SIEGE engine is used to the fullest extent of its awesome powers, any character concept a player comes up with can happen.

My only house rules is that if they ever pull off a specific SIEGE check (meaning for a specific "signature" action) successfully 25 times I allow it to become a character power, so I do have "signature move" house rules explaining this.

So a player can EARN any character concept ability through play and using the SIEGE engine.

Which all helps maintain the power balance of C&C etc...
_________________
The Ruby Lord, Earl of the Society

Next Con I am attending: http://www.neoncon.com/

My House Rules: http://www.freeyabb.com/phpbb/viewtopic ... llordgames

[mabon5127]

Breakdaddy wrote:
Serleran makes a good point here. It's your game, and do it how you want, but I might let a player select some background fluff that has an in game element to keep them happy. If it's small and reasonable, why not? If the human character has something in his background that would account for him having deepvision then why not give him deepvision? It's not terribly unbalancing and if it keeps the player happy (and it's a player worth having around ) hook it up.

On the other hand, if you are a CK who has no use for non BtB gaming then hook that up. My personal litmus test is "are the players happy?" and right behind that "am I enjoying running this game?"

Players happy is generally a good thing!! They tend to like having a "thing" that makes them different from the other characters. This also can become a focus for development beyond "what do I get next level?".

[Joe]

I've lost count of how many GMs will "allow' this but then ignore unique character concepts throughout the entirety of the campaign.

Or they only focus on one and neglect the others.

It has come to the point that I don't even bother with a background or concept. Why focus energy into something the GM will ignore or hinder?

Sounds like maybe I should have just been in serls game all along.

If it's fluff, or just a simple mechanic thing go for it!

But for gods sake...actually incorporate it into the plot of your game so the player can garner some sense of satisfaction for loyally attending your game week after week.
_________________
'Nosce te Ipsum' -Delphic Maxim

'Follow your bliss.' -Joseph Campbell

[mabon5127]

Joe wrote:
I've lost count of how many GMs will "allow' this but then ignore unique character concepts throughout the entirety of the campaign.

Or they only focus on one and neglect the others.

It has come to the point that I don't even bother with a background or concept. Why focus energy into something the GM will ignore or hinder?

Sounds like maybe I should have just been in serls game all along.

If it's fluff, or just a simple mechanic thing go for it!

But for gods sake...actually incorporate it into the plot of your game so the player can garner some sense of satisfaction for loyally attending your game week after week.

Yeah don't make promises you can't keep. On the other hand some of the best and most memorable "concepts" have unfolded as the campaign progresses.

For our group we simply don't have time like we used to to create lots of character concept outside of actual play. The detailed background has gone to the wayside for the more spontaneous character development of actual play.

Joe, do you do a lot of "concept" and the other players don't so the GM plays to the middle or does everyone create a background and the GM just sort of says thats great but...?

I would love to have players that enthusiastically "concept" their characters but I also understand their life stage and don't push it.

Morgan

[Treebore]

Thats the other reason I write it out, it helps me and my players remember its allowed. The bow shooting stuff are an example of working out rules with a player during play. They are still subject to change, but its what we have worked out so far.
_________________
The Ruby Lord, Earl of the Society

Next Con I am attending: http://www.neoncon.com/

My House Rules: http://www.freeyabb.com/phpbb/viewtopic ... llordgames

[Go0gleplex]

I generally prefer the characters to have a little base history laid out and allow non-mechanic affecting quirks. For stuff that may affect things like to hit or saves, those are the results of occurrences during the course of play, usually rewarding the character for doing something outstanding. Either funny, heroic, or epic fail (such as a paladin developing a fur fetish and fear of cats. - you had to be there)
_________________
The obvious will always trip you up FAR more than the obscure.

Baron Grignak Hammerhand of the Pacifica Provinces-

High Warden of the Castles & Crusades Society

[serleran]

Before I start a game, I ask the players one question:

What do you want this game to be?

And then, I encourage them to ask me questions about what they can be/do.
_________________
If it matters, leave a message at the beep.
Serl's Corner

[Joe]

mabon5127 wrote:
Yeah don't make promises you can't keep. On the other hand some of the best and most memorable "concepts" have unfolded as the campaign progresses.

For our group we simply don't have time like we used to to create lots of character concept outside of actual play. The detailed background has gone to the wayside for the more spontaneous character development of actual play.

Joe, do you do a lot of "concept" and the other players don't so the GM plays to the middle or does everyone create a background and the GM just sort of says thats great but...?

I would love to have players that enthusiastically "concept" their characters but I also understand their life stage and don't push it.

Morgan

Your question brings up a good point. just because i want deep immersion and character concept doesn't mean the others at the table do. this is a group game. I tend to think that YES, i do put more effort into character concept than others do.

And Morgan, I work full time, go to school after work, design game stuff when i can, work on home improvement, have a teenage daughter, and generally have every waking moment busy. (And yet still find five-ten minutes while I drive home from work, or drift off to sleep to spend just a little energy on character concept.

For every person that tells me they are too busy i will bet my shirt it consists of many hours of that "business" spent idly staring at some form of flashing colors while couched up.

I may be thinking about the inner spiritual connection of my pc while the others are thinking, "Pepperoni or sausage?"

yet if those same players can spend hours finding ways to munchkin, and manipulate your rules into forms you never imagined, i think they can come up with a personality for their munchky.

But all things aside, spend a couple minutes while on the can thinking about how you can invest back into the game...trust me...your GM will love you for it, think your awesome, and never realize it was a random thought as a result of taco bell.
_________________
'Nosce te Ipsum' -Delphic Maxim

'Follow your bliss.' -Joseph Campbell

[ArgoForg]

A friend of mine in a game stated this as an issue with some of the 'old school' style systems... that he couldn't make up a character that did exactly what he wanted to.

So first thing, I talked to him, and tried to find out what the issue was, and what sort of character he wanted to play that he found impossible in our game. I honestly immediately took part of the blame on myself-- I started our first C&C game with the characters having amnesia and learning bits and pieces of their background and their quest as they adventured together, which I thought was awesome-- and wanted to see if I could help him out to create a character concept he'd be happy with. (It turned out that wasn't his biggest issue, but that's a story for another day)

I'm a firm believer that the SIEGE system (in fact, many of the old systems) is far less limiting than some players think, but the stubbing toe is that you have to work with an open-minded and helpful GM to work up any concept that's wildly different than those shown in the book. And unlike PF/3.X, you don't always have a ready-baked concept written down in a Splatbook that fits in.

And to me, that's half the fun. That it's NOT there. That you have to think about it.
_________________
- "Sorry, I just happen to prefer games where the GM is an actual arbitrator and not the wall to roll dice off to decide what happens."

[Joe]

ArgoForg wrote:
And to me, that's half the fun. That it's NOT there. That you have to think about it.

Word!

"Games of the Imagination"
_________________
'Nosce te Ipsum' -Delphic Maxim

'Follow your bliss.' -Joseph Campbell

[csperkins1970]

Aergraith wrote:
And that's how I'd handle it; with the rules pretty much as they stand. The thing is, they are still going to be a pretty squishy Gandalf at level 1. It's not going to be anything like what they were hoping for. And Glamdring? You're going to have to defeat the trolls to get it, and it's going to like as not just be a +1 sword.

Though I have been experimenting with sort of "legacy" weapons that discover abilities as the character levels, so I can encourage that sort of affinity for an iconic weapon of one's own.

In my game, if a player wants to slightly tweak their character I usually go along with it... because it won't break the game. For example, if a player wants their wizard to wield a two-handed sword I might make them give up a known spell in order to gain proficiency with the sword.

To help with DEX-based fighters (such as the Gray Mouser, the Three Musketeers, and iajutsu masters) I allow all characters with DEX as a prime to use their DEX bonus in place of their STR bonus on attack rolls with finesse weapons.

On top of that, multiclassing, split-classing and class and 1/2 rules help players recreate most archetypal characters from fiction.
_________________
http://www.angelfire.com/rpg2/dnd3e/cnc.htm

[Julian Grimm]

I have found that the 2e kits work quiet well with C&C. Any time I get a request for a tweaked PC I run it through my kit collection and see if I can go that route.
_________________
The Lord of Ravens
My blog

[koralas]

Aergraith wrote:
And that's how I'd handle it; with the rules pretty much as they stand. The thing is, they are still going to be a pretty squishy Gandalf at level 1. It's not going to be anything like what they were hoping for. And Glamdring? You're going to have to defeat the trolls to get it, and it's going to like as not just be a +1 sword.

Though I have been experimenting with sort of "legacy" weapons that discover abilities as the character levels, so I can encourage that sort of affinity for an iconic weapon of one's own.

I had run a campaign focusing on a weapon similar to your "legacy" weapon concept. Basically it was an ancient battle axe that would awaken as the character used it and hit certain milestone. Slaying a small goblinoid (goblin, kobold, norker, etc.) creature would make it move from a +1 axe to +1/+2 vs. goblinoids, slaying a large goblinoid (hobgoblin, orc, bugbear, etc.), upon slaying an ogre the axe became +2 with limited intelligence (it was like int 5, no ego, special purpose to slay ogres and giants), and so on. At it's peak it was found to contain the spirit of an ancient dwarven king. The axe would eventually get to the point where it's special purpose was to restore this king's kingdom which was over run by giants and goblinoids, and would have many contests of wills to try and force the character (if unwilling) to undertake this quest. Once this was accomplished the spirit of the king could be set free, and the characters directed to a long hidden cache of treasure where a suitable replacement blade was found.