|
Is this even possible? Or do you just seriously cripple your chances of success?
Hmm, maybe I should be a bit more clear (an example might do). I've been thinking about a character concept for a bard who's motivation for adventuring is that he wants to be famous, but he's also a coward and doesn't want to die. Essentially, he wants the glory without so much of the risk. As such, he tries his best to stay away from combat while still making it appear as if he's doing everything he can to aid his party.
I'm not saying that he doesn't fight, he simply tries to avoid it if at all possible. That is, he'll boost his party as much as possible and try to do as many things away from the area of combat as possible (such as ranged attack). If the odds don't look good--if the party is suffering heavy damage with no appearance of a chance of success--he may cut his losses and run. In a fight in a session when I first put him into play, he stayed back to secure the horses while everyone else went to fight. By the time he caught up with the rest of the group, the combat was over.
So, I know this is a very simplified example, but could a character like this be effective? Are there any rule-based ways to compensate for his obvious problem? Has anyone else played a "flawed" character that might have some advice on the do's and do-not's of this style of gaming?
Playing a character with personality flaws has always been fun. One of my all-time favorites was a GURPS game where I played a werebear. I could cream the opposition in combat, but God forbid I should run across a food joint. I took Gluttony as a character flaw and I had a particular weakness for potstickers. It would distract me to the point where I forgot about what I was supposed to be doing. (I was also strong enough to dual-wield Pancor Jackhammer combat shotguns - glee in mass combat!)
Anyway, playing a character with personality flaws is fun - that's what the game is about.
Mechanics wise, what I would do for your cowardly bard is take ranks in Bluff (a lot of them), Sense Motive, Gather Information and Diplomacy. Hopefully your bard's ability to outwit and outtalk your opponents will make you an invaluable asset to the party, despite any lack of combat skills you may make your bard out to have.
The main problem with playing a character like this is if it causes problems with the other players in your group. This can depend on the maturity of the other players, but also just personality differences and different reasons for gaming.
First, I'd talk to the other people in your group, to explain the character concept I intended to play, and ask if they have any problems with it. (I run a group at our local gaming store, and one guy in particular would probably get really irritated if it seemed like your PC wasn't pulling his own weight in combat; you'd still be able to play your example character with him in the group, but you'd want to be aware of it so you could ensure it didn't turn into a major issue later).
Then, when playing the character, monitor how much the focus of gameplay gets monopolized by your flawed personality. If you're keeping others from getting the spotlight, it's a problem. If you're getting everyone involved in role-playing, it's all good. And if any one particular PC keeps reacting badly to yours in character, it's a good idea to check in with that player out-of-character every once in a while, just to make sure they're having as much fun as you are.
Basically, you need to make sure the rest of the players are cool with what your trying to do and won't start busting your balls, which they will probably do anyway.
I just finished playing a very aged character. He had been a 2nd level sorcerer when he was captured by enemies that put him and the rest of his cabal on an island that had the side effect of draining the magic using abilities out of arcane casters that had the ability born in them. The process took a long period of prolonged exposure, but, well, my character was trapped on the tiny island for about 30 years.
So, I gave him levels of barbarian and then he was introduced back into society as an old man that no longer posed a threat to his enemies (or so they thought!). Mechanic-wise, he got the penalties to Str, Dex, and Con and bonuses to Int, Wis, and Cha.
From a role-playing perspective he was absolutely fun as hell to play. Combat was a bit shaky at times and forget about anything that required a Reflex save - he sucked at that!
The point is, flawed characters can be very fun, but you need to work the details out with your DM and make sure the other players understand what you're going for with the character.
My brother-in-law plays a character in my FR campaign that is a Gigolo (Street Thief) who seduces little old ladies out of their money. He is also a snivling coward who will run from a fight at the drop of a hat. Recently he has run a fowl of Danillo Thann in Waterdeep (After seducing his mother Cassandra.) The famous bard out of revenge has begun building up the Gigolo's reputation as a mighty hero, in an attempt to get him killed by building up a rep no one could survive (Young adventures hunting him down trying to make a name, people dragging him into quests he couldn't hope to survive, etc.) Including a battle with Anth Malar that almost got him destroyed (averted thanks to the rest of his group). He's loved every minute of it, though my sister gets pissy about it! (She hates not having her characters as the center of attention.)
Oh, I also play a goblin character that has a 4 wisdom, and a but load of magical items that he doen't know how to use. He has been responsible for several TPK's (Saved only by his contingent ressurection) by using spells in enclosed spaces that had huge areas of effect. Once he was taken over by a psionisist (DUe to his low wisdom) and went buck wild, killing half his group, and driving the other half away. His name is 'Ooops'.
I think the situation really depends on the kind of character flaw taken. Lilith's Werebear example is a relitivly minor flaw that is unlikely to get other players characters killed. Its the kind of flaw that probably everyone at the table can have fun with.
Cowardice is a flaw of a completely different nature. It weakens the whole group and potentially gets other players killed. For that sort of flaw your need the permission of the DM and the other players. In some campaigns it won't fit.
I don't play one without it.
In my experiences in life, what has always come forth is that my interactions with people are made more interesting by their benefits and their flaws.
So it seems natural that a PC should be the same. They should be Rped though. I don't think you should get benefits statistically for Roleplaying. Thats the point.
As others have said, flaws can be fun and add to the depth of the storyline. In addition to what Blackdragn's mentioned, we've also had players with werecreature chars that have to do a check to avoid bloodlust whenever combat breaks out, chars with innate energy attacks that they have to roll a check for whenver they use to make sure they don't rage out of control, and dragon chars currently having to deal with the Rage in FR.
When the Book of Vile Darkness came out and I ran the companion adventure "Scuttlecove" from Dungeon (wasn't what it was called, but I can't remember real the name... was in the sealed adult content section), one of my players decided to do a char native to Scuttlecove that was addicted to one of the street drugs listed in the Book of Vile Darkness. We sat down ahead of time and figured out how the properties of the drug would play out in stat rolls. After she blew a CON check and sat in a daze while street thugs rolled her, stripping her of every piece of equipment she had, she decided to go look for a 12 step program.
Minor flaws are highly recommended. Major ones require co-operation of DM and/or choice of setting. If the group is bunch of mercenaries doing dungeoncrawls coward characters are useless but being an emotionless coldblooded killer is a plus. If the game concentrates on political discussions in the city it's the other way around.
One of my favorite characters of all time was in Vampire, a Toreador who during the campaign (which involved quite a lot of carnage) fired exactly one shot to one bad guy and never was in hand-to-hand combat. I was the rational one who negotiated with people and tried to come up with plans which didn't involve killing everyone.
|
I look forward to playing with all the vicissitudes of my characters. Currently, I am playing a one character who is suffering from mild depression (my party hasn’t totally picked up on it yet) that has almost killed me by running into the lair of a half-dragon with reckless abandon and at other times seeming detached from what is going on. He is also becoming obsessed with destroying undead and necromancers after loosing his father years earlier.
My other character is dealing with being a wizard and struggling to find a purpose after studying at the academy. I intend to introduce him to a prestige class that will require him to give up his aimless wandering, but in the meantime the group he travels with is just a convenience.
I realize neither flaw is a physical problem, but both the slacker and the depressed character are making me work harder to accomplish things and contribute to each group. And it's cool to not have some hero complex to play but be more "real".
Personally, I think that all PCs should have character flaws. My group and I tend to role-play a lot, so having characters that are 'perfect' tends to detract from it, after all, no one in the real world is perfect, so why should our characters be? My freinds and I are currently playing through the Shackled City Adventure Path, and most of us have character flaws. Our rogue's family was in charge of the theives guild in the town he was from, and he's running from his brother who wants to kill him, so poor Daniel (our rogue) tends to be a bit paranoid, which can cause problems while we're in town. I'm sure sooner or later our DM will have Daniel's brother show up to kill him, and it will be a great role-playing moment when Daniel can point at the rest of us and say 'I told you so!' since we've all been picking on him for being paranoid. Character flaws also give the DM a chance to use your character as a plot point in a story, or maybe even run a story where your charcter overcomes his/her flaw. In a group where role-playing is fairly heavy, I think character flaws are a must and add to the game, though in a 'hack-in-slash' game, they may cause more problems than anything else. It's all really dependent on your group, your DM and your style of playing D and D.
If you couldn't make a character with "Flaws" than how could you feel like the character. We have personality flaws, and trying to act like the perfect character would only detract from the feeling of being in the game. So yay for character flaws. My sorcerer has a few. He always hated trolls and was quite paranoid when fighting one, my DM even gave me -2 on saves and spell DCs when fighting them, but I was ok with it. Actually it was quite fun to get a bit paranoid whenever a troll poped out. Eventually after a few fights I came over that after I chose to get a spell to make sure they would die (forgot what that was) still don't like em though. I would always love to be sarcastic too. I still love trying to annoy the gnomes, ahh tiny little fellows. My character is a bit ummm, how do I say....treasure hoarding. Now I try to save every gold for epic spells, and i'm secretly selling something to one of my friends for an over-priced value. And my friends do like to say i'm evil, but i'm not. I found out about a dire maggot in a book I found and decided to try to get one. And now I have a dire maggot.(named Gubbaffet...) Role playing rocks. Period.
~Flabulator OUT!
A character with obvious personality flaws...what do you think a character with a low mental stat is?
I had a lot of fun with a paladin i ran. The DM read the personality trait i came up with and insisted that it be a family curse, because he was uncomfortable with the idea of a paladin with this particular quirk.
The man had no social grace or tact whatsoever. He was a total paladin, Lawful Good through and through, but he couldn't or wouldn't lie, and he would usually phrase things in the worst passible way. What knowledge of etiquette he had, he would use to point out other's shortcomings in social circumstances. He would criticize the hygiene of his human opponents, and he barely avoided being ran out of town more times than he could count.
My single favorite moment with "Sir Ascher the Rude" was one day when he was introduced to the daughters of a local and unpleasant Duke, and his response was "It's a good thing you're well placed politically, you'd never get them married off otherwise." The whole party got a geas based quest out of that one.
Haha, "Sir Ascher the Rude" sounds like a fun character. Just goes to show that personality flaws can be fun and interesting, just as long as they aren't too restrictive and don't make your character useless.
I think a cowardly character can be interesting, just as long as they aren't so cowardly as to run away from combats. That just leads to a character who is useless in combat, which is a significant part of D&D.
|
|
Wow... This post is giving me flashbacks to one of my favorite characters of all times. It was in a Vampire The Masquerade game and the character was a Malkavian(hard for them not to have obvious personality flaws I suppose) who was totally paranoid. I mean like black helicopters and aluminum foil paranoid.
Every now and then I'd just spit out something that would have everyone just stop and stare at me for a moment. One time we were chasing after some guy who ran into some building and I looked over at the GM and said 'Whats the address?' After a pause he just named off some random number and street. He called out to the others to wait and that it was a trap. They stopped and turned to ask how he knew that and the character pointed at the address and gave this little speach about how if you add the first two numbers together and multiply that number by the last two and then subtract the first number from the last three of the result it equaled 666.
He was quite serious but after a sigh they all charged in after the guy they were originally chasing. It ended up being a trap. They still never -really- took him seriously after that but they at least listened a little more.