There's another thread out there that specifically looks for what people consider a viable/successful player character based entirely on mathematical principles. I'm looking for an answer to the question, what is a viable/successful player character? Except that I don't want any numbers, percentages, statistics, or other empirical data. I realize that math is a part of game mechanics, but I am of the philosophical belief that a player character that is successful is the one that lets you tell a great story because of the actions they play in the conflict. Therefore, what I'm looking for are examples of characters that perhaps weren't "viable" from a mathematical point of view, and maybe even "failed" more than a few times, but were still great fun to role play, and made it through more than one campaign still in one piece. Let the storytelling commence!
|
Sure, I can start it off. I played an archer rogue with rolled stats in 3.0. Ended up with a 10 con, which seemed fine; but bad hp on rolls had him at 21 hp by 8th level. Since our GM didn't allow item purchases and we didn't find a con item for a while, I simply had to rely on skill and a party willing to put a meatshield in front of me to survive. Fairly min-maxed in other ways, and thanks to becoming the "dumping ground" for extra magic items, he was able to do truly impossible activities and, with greater invisible help, dish out far more damage than anyone else. Because the party was working to "wall" away opponents, he survived and thrived, reaching the highest level of the campaign (16th) with the least late-game deaths (naturally this was back when death made you lose a level).
So, lots of fun, fond memories, and signs of just what good teamwork can do that math won't reflect.
So, lots of fun, fond memories, and signs of just what good teamwork can do that math won't reflect.
Here, here! Those are the "viable" characters I'm talking about. Thanks for getting us started Thalin.
This is pretty simple for me, and despite the fact I started that other thread, I agree with you the math doesn't really determine viability, although I know many others disagree. For me a character is viable if it is fun for me to play, if he can contribute in some significant way to party success (doesn't have to be in combat) and if the other players at the table enjoy having him be a member of the group. That does mean that what is viable at one table may not be at another, but I think that accurately reflects reality in the gaming community. I think the reverse is also true - that a character considered just "viable" at one table might be considered a game-wrecking unbalanced monstrosity of munchkinism at another.
This is pretty simple for me, and despite the fact I started that other thread, I agree with you the math doesn't really determine viability, although I know many others disagree. For me a character is viable if it is fun for me to play, if he can contribute in some significant way to party success (doesn't have to be in combat) and if the other players at the table enjoy having him be a member of the group. That does mean that what is viable at one table may not be at another, but I think that accurately reflects reality in the gaming community. I think the reverse is also true - that a character considered just "viable" at one table might be considered a game-wrecking unbalanced monstrosity of munchkinism at another.
Well put, and very true.
For me it all depends on the game, the group, and the player. My group is mostly optimizers, we like effective characters and certainly consider the math most of the time. But there is one of us who usually like 'flashy' characters instead of mechanically sound ones.
I remember one rogue in particular who was about as useful in combat as a broken crossbow. He would spend the combat (in 3.5) using skill tricks to jump/crawl/climb/flip all over the place, but in the end he was doing no damage. But his descriptions of his actions and the character himself was alot of fun.
This kind of character is just fine in my books as long as the dm can and does account for him when creating challenges, both in and out of combat. In combat challenges assume very little contribution from the PC and out of combat the PC is given a chance to shine with all his interesting skills and tricks.
Well there is one fundamental issue with the thread. Without any kind of mathematical foundation, there does not exist a way to not only determine whether or not a particular qualifies as viable (consider a series of infitesimal adjustments away from any particular ideal of viablity and say when the character is no longer viable); there also does not exist a way to compare differing methodologies of determining viablity (I know that in theory this is impossible anyways due to the paradox of inquiry, but ignoring that).
I had a thrice reincarnated warlock. My character could be summed up in one word, narcissistic. I added charisma checks to almost everything I did. I wasn't overly powerful, but I had fun.
I give this thread two more pages before the trolling by the "math and combat are everything" hounds begins. But until then, I'll be happy to chime in.
This is pretty simple for me, and despite the fact I started that other thread, I agree with you the math doesn't really determine viability, although I know many others disagree. For me a character is viable if it is fun for me to play, if he can contribute in some significant way to party success (doesn't have to be in combat) and if the other players at the table enjoy having him be a member of the group. That does mean that what is viable at one table may not be at another, but I think that accurately reflects reality in the gaming community. I think the reverse is also true - that a character considered just "viable" at one table might be considered a game-wrecking unbalanced monstrosity of munchkinism at another.
Precisely! There is this ultimately false notion that pervades the gaming community (specifically, a small percentage of the overall number of gamers who visit gaming forums) that mechanical balance is the be-all and end-all of the game. The problem with this point of view is that since there is no one formula to how people play, then there is no one guideline for balance. In my games, for instance, we play PF RAW, with a single house rule. We have never had a situation where any character felt useless - and it wasn't because I went out of my way to make them feel worthwhile - I rather pointedly just adjudicate the rules and run standard encounters - they feel useful because they find ways to be useful. That's part of the fun.
I give this thread two more pages before the trolling by the "math and combat are everything" hounds begins. But until then, I'll be happy to chime in.
Probably... C'est la vie.
Precisely! There is this ultimately false notion that pervades the gaming community (specifically, a small percentage of the overall number of gamers who visit gaming forums) that mechanical balance is the be-all and end-all of the game. The problem with this point of view is that since there is no one formula to how people play, then there is no one guideline for balance. In my games, for instance, we play PF RAW, with a single house rule. We have never had a situation where any character felt useless - and it wasn't because I went out of my way to make them feel worthwhile - I rather pointedly just adjudicate the rules and run standard encounters - they feel useful because they find ways to be useful. That's part of the fun.
+1
Well there is one fundamental issue with the thread. Without any kind of mathematical foundation, there does not exist a way to not only determine whether or not a particular qualifies as viable (consider a series of infitesimal adjustments away from any particular ideal of viablity and say when the character is no longer viable); there also does not exist a way to compare differing methodologies of determining viablity (I know that in theory this is impossible anyways due to the paradox of inquiry, but ignoring that).
Yeah, that's kind of the point. No math, just discussion. Everyone has differing opinions on what is or isn't viable. With no baseline of mathematical certainty, the conversation can go wherever it wants. It's called open ended discussion.
Well with the caveat that the math is important -- seeing has if you are dead or not contributing that can ruin your own or others fun the key to a successful viable character is something you enjoy playing but doesn't cause others to not have fun.
Fun is the key to me.
|
My favorite one was in a vampire game. Utterly harmless malkavian who had to OCD and had to write down everything I saw. In ancient Gaul...in gibberish. Everyone else was abolutely convinced I was the most dangerous critter on the face of the earth...especially when I took out 3 sabbat gangrels to keep my human ally alive. The human's backstory is that he was a decendent of a priest's family that I had sworn to protect so I basically had no choice but to face the gangrels. It was only by complete luck that I did not die a horrible bloody death...but that really didn't help the OMG he is the most dangerous thing ever reputation I somehow ended up getting :P . By the end, I got one prince killed, started a war, had a secret oganization recuit me, destroyed an elysium, drove a chantry crazy and all the while I was a harmless old scribe hehe. Well I didn't personally do any of these things...but people's reaction to me did.
Well there is one fundamental issue with the thread. Without any kind of mathematical foundation, there does not exist a way to not only determine whether or not a particular qualifies as viable (consider a series of infitesimal adjustments away from any particular ideal of viablity and say when the character is no longer viable); there also does not exist a way to compare differing methodologies of determining viablity (I know that in theory this is impossible anyways due to the paradox of inquiry, but ignoring that).Yeah, that's kind of the point. No math, just discussion. Everyone has differing opinions on what is or isn't viable. With no baseline of mathematical certainty, the conversation can go wherever it wants. It's called open ended discussion.
Yes, open endedness can be a good thing, however all good things come in moderation. Consider a rather common example: You tell someone that you speak Spanish and they say "Ooo say something in Spanish". Goodluck swiftly responding to that.
|
Viable = Stays alive long enough to have a personality & "voice". Doesn't irritate me (as DM or Player) enough to get me plotting against you. Does what you think it does, as a character - Healer can Heal, Fighter can Fight, etc.
Successful = As above, but also helps the table succeed at both In-Game challenges as well as Out-Of-Game stuff. (i.e. you don't have two players at each others' throats because one is a gnome and one is a kobold. alternatively, you don't have a PC who actively tries to keep the party from going on adventures)
Overpowered = Steals the show, possibly the other PC's stuff, and/or irritates enough to get someone to request you change your character.
A recent anecdote about annoying characters and math-fail: We resumed a RotRL game recently, after a long hiatus. One player, seeking to come into this game, wanted to make a new PC. He plays a Gnome Bard in another game, and wanted something kind of different.
Me: "So, what kind of character do you want to play? Swing swords, rain arrow death, cast spells, heal people?"
Him: "Oh I don't know, let me just look at these collections of rules to see what I can do."
Me: "Forget that, just come up with some kind of idea or inspiration. I can help you make anything you want in game rules."
Him: "Oh that's ok, I'd rather look at these words in this book without making any decisions for hours..."
Come game time, he had a Whip-Wielding Gnomish Bard. Different from the other PC by about a pinch of cajun seasoning and 1/4 tsp less salt.
|
I don't get to play nearly as often as I DM, but I've played three NPC-class characters for a session or three I felt were pretty successful.
The first was a commoner who served as the party's Patsy. Since the DM was focusing on a more dialog-driven, political game, my lack of class abilities, skills and combat viability didn't matter as much as my ability to roleplay. I was able to easliy mingle with the servants and common folk to gather information and many of the thugs left me alone when the party got into combat since I wasn't a threat and usually just ran away at the first sign of combat.
A few years later I played a high-level expert for a one-shot game. The DM told us to make level 18 PCs so I decided to make the least powerful character by creating an elderly out-of-his-element merchant of adventuring gear and magic items who had somehow survived a few decades of marketplace treachery and multiple robberies. I contributed to the party by having piles of equipment they could use, and he was fun to play.
My most recent NPC-class character was a human commoner using the young creature template from the bestiary. I only got to play him for one session, but my plan was to turn him the party vet and scout. I spent most of his starting funds on dogs he could train with Animal Handling. He had some potential.
|
I give this thread two more pages before the trolling by the "math and combat are everything" hounds begins. But until then, I'll be happy to chime in.
This is pretty simple for me, and despite the fact I started that other thread, I agree with you the math doesn't really determine viability, although I know many others disagree. For me a character is viable if it is fun for me to play, if he can contribute in some significant way to party success (doesn't have to be in combat) and if the other players at the table enjoy having him be a member of the group. That does mean that what is viable at one table may not be at another, but I think that accurately reflects reality in the gaming community. I think the reverse is also true - that a character considered just "viable" at one table might be considered a game-wrecking unbalanced monstrosity of munchkinism at another.Precisely! There is this ultimately false notion that pervades the gaming community (specifically, a small percentage of the overall number of gamers who visit gaming forums) that mechanical balance is the be-all and end-all of the game. The problem with this point of view is that since there is no one formula to how people play, then there is no one guideline for balance. In my games, for instance, we play PF RAW, with a single house rule. We have never had a situation where any character felt useless - and it wasn't because I went out of my way to make them feel worthwhile - I rather pointedly just adjudicate the rules and run standard encounters - they feel useful because they find ways to be useful. That's part of the fun.
Certainly, the math and combat are not everything in a game supposedly about Roleplaying. But it is the capacity of the Player to understand the math and combat that determines character viability. That has a lot to do with experience and sucessful gameplay.
|
Well there is one fundamental issue with the thread. Without any kind of mathematical foundation, there does not exist a way to not only determine whether or not a particular qualifies as viable (consider a series of infitesimal adjustments away from any particular ideal of viablity and say when the character is no longer viable); there also does not exist a way to compare differing methodologies of determining viablity (I know that in theory this is impossible anyways due to the paradox of inquiry, but ignoring that).
Sure there is.
Did you have fun?
Did the rest of the group have fun?
Then it was viable.
There is no obligation for a single person to ever provide any mathematical justification for their existence. I would flip it around and say that mathematical 'proofs' are themselves invalid. I've seen characters that are great on paper but in play they are frustrating to everyone else at the table or simply never live up to their potential.
Certainly, the math and combat are not everything in a game supposedly about Roleplaying. But it is the capacity of the Player to understand the math and combat that determines character viability. That has a lot to do with experience and sucessful gameplay.
No. That only determines mathematical viability. Viability is not purely, and never has been, a numbers game. Even in combat.
Sure there is.Did you have fun?
Did the rest of the group have fun?
Then it was viable.
There is no obligation for a single person to ever provide any mathematical justification for their existence. I would flip it around and say that mathematical 'proofs' are themselves invalid. I've seen characters that are great on paper but in play they are frustrating to everyone else at the table or simply never live up to their potential.
Exactly.
There is no obligation for a single person to ever provide any mathematical justification for their existence. I would flip it around and say that mathematical 'proofs' are themselves invalid. I've seen characters that are great on paper but in play they are frustrating to everyone else at the table or simply never live up to their potential.
+1
A character that causes party infighting is not viable. Seriously that is one thing that pisses me off as a player and as a GM. I do not come to play a game to have my time spent watching two other player characters duke it out. I hate having to break up the fighting.
Also not viable could also mean not caring about the other PCs like hitting them with spells that harm them in area of affects.
If you cause the game to die because of in character actions your character is not viable just as if your character lead the party to a total party kill.
A character that causes party infighting is not viable. Seriously that is one thing that pisses me off as a player and as a GM. I do not come to play a game to have my time spent watching two other player characters duke it out. I hate having to break up the fighting.
Also not viable could also mean not caring about the other PCs like hitting them with spells that harm them in area of affects.
If you cause the game to die because of in character actions your character is not viable just as if your character lead the party to a total party kill.
This is also viable dependent upon game type. If you are the kind of group that views the game as a 'team effort', then no, this wouldn't work at all. If, however, you are like me and view the game as 'a bunch of individuals who may or may not work in concert to defeat the enemy', then such a character is perfectly viable.
I removed a post. Let's try to keep our posts constructive.
I think you should respect the "weight class" you are playing in.
A super-heavy weight does not belong in the feather weight class, and vice versa. If you are in a casual group and the GM is running a low-powered game, coming in with a super-omptimized wizard with all 7s for str, wis and cha, and 20 int, just to dominate the game with your pinky is kinda rude.
Likewise, if your fellow players are running optimized characters and the GM is running a game for that style of play, it is just as rude to enter as a Con8 aristocrat/bard/monk/rogue. Well... you'll die in the first encounter, but anyways.
The premise of a successful pathfinder character is a "hero", and heroes are not completely incompetent in the face of danger. We had a character die last session because of poorly made characters and poor decisions. Doesn't feel too fun for me to have to alter my character concept just to make up for other people's inability to take care of themselves, when I am arguably the weakest class in the party (only non-caster among casters).
Argue as much as you want that it's your RIGHT to play whatever you want. If you are forcing the others to play the game like one of those loathsome escort missions from a video-game and ruining their fun, you're a douche in my book.
Viable [va~i'abl]: On par with the rest of the party.
I think you should respect the "weight class" you are playing in.
[snipped for brevity]
Argue as much as you want that it's your RIGHT to play whatever you want. If you are forcing the others to play the game like one of those loathsome escort missions from a video-game and ruining their fun, you're a douche in my book.
Viable [va~i'abl]: On par with the rest of the party.
I would tend to agree, with the caveat that there are groups (like mine) with a strong disparity in power levels among regular players, and yet no one has a problem with it.
I would tend to agree, with the caveat that there are groups (like mine) with a strong disparity in power levels among regular players, and yet no one has a problem with it.I think you should respect the "weight class" you are playing in.
[snipped for brevity]
Argue as much as you want that it's your RIGHT to play whatever you want. If you are forcing the others to play the game like one of those loathsome escort missions from a video-game and ruining their fun, you're a douche in my book.
Viable [va~i'abl]: On par with the rest of the party.
There will always be a difference in power levels, just from how the game is designed. But if there are big gaps in the average power level, the GM is left with a conundrum: Does he meet the powerful, and make the fights a challenge, knowing it will decimate the weak? Or does he hold his blows, and let the weak feel accomplished when they actually succeed, and let the strong just chainsaw through?
The group where I play there are two pretty under-optimized characters, and two somewhat optimized ones (Yes, I am in the latter, despite being the single martial character in a party of casters). Been forced to go into babysitter mode several times, where I have just been annoyed the entire fight because once again, it is proved that they logistically SHOULDN'T survive the AP as written.
There will always be a difference in power levels, just from how the game is designed. But if there are big gaps in the average power level, the GM is left with a conundrum: Does he meet the powerful, and make the fights a challenge, knowing it will decimate the weak? Or does he hold his blows, and let the weak feel accomplished when they actually succeed, and let the strong just chainsaw through?
The former, if you're like us. If the weak and helpless get trampled, well, that's their own fault, and we make that clear from the start.
Thog Smash!!!
For me, a fun character is one that can meaningfuly contribute.
That does take a bit of math.
Likewise for me, an adventurer is someone who knows what they're doing and has the actual capacity to survive all the bizarre and incredible tasks set before them.
That means they're at least vaguely competent.
I think you should respect the "weight class" you are playing in.
A super-heavy weight does not belong in the feather weight class, and vice versa. If you are in a casual group and the GM is running a low-powered game, coming in with a super-omptimized wizard with all 7s for str, wis and cha, and 20 int, just to dominate the game with your pinky is kinda rude.
Likewise, if your fellow players are running optimized characters and the GM is running a game for that style of play, it is just as rude to enter as a Con8 aristocrat/bard/monk/rogue. Well... you'll die in the first encounter, but anyways.
The premise of a successful pathfinder character is a "hero", and heroes are not completely incompetent in the face of danger. We had a character die last session because of poorly made characters and poor decisions. Doesn't feel too fun for me to have to alter my character concept just to make up for other people's inability to take care of themselves, when I am arguably the weakest class in the party (only non-caster among casters).
Argue as much as you want that it's your RIGHT to play whatever you want. If you are forcing the others to play the game like one of those loathsome escort missions from a video-game and ruining their fun, you're a douche in my book.
Viable [va~i'abl]: On par with the rest of the party.
Why alter your character because of something someone else has done? The party is an important concept, but it isn't a straightjacket, like you said, if someone really doesn't fit in, they'll probably die. I know we don't agree on much, but as someone who has been told by someone across the table that they are changing their character specifically to keep me alive(and was annoyed that they felt they *had* to do so- I'm a big boy and can handle characters dying on me), I have to object to the idea of the party as a metacharacter that is being forced on me.
From a DM perspective, the most fun i have had is when i ran an FR campaign back in 3.0/3.5. Though the characters weren't the most optimized the personalities and history put into the characters by the players really not only allowed me the ability to fully integrate them into the game world, but made running the game much more enjoyable then many other games i have run before. While i can see a certain art in creating the most Min/Maxed character out their i generally find many of them rather dull, though it COULD just be the people.
As for me i enjoyed playing my trapsmith/face Bard/Rogue back in 3.0/3.5 (back when they just started doing the update) Not really all that combat oriented (he had his moments) but man could he swindle the pants off of anybody :D. Loved playing him and he filled a strange dynamic niche within the party (Paladin, Sorcerer, Rogue Rogue hunter, Ranger, Fighter, and myself) the Conversations between the Paladin, the Sorcerer, and my Rogue were fascinating (I was CG, Sorc CN, Paladin LG obviously) and the whole party got involved. Good times...
Why alter your character because of something someone else has done? The party is an important concept, but it isn't a straightjacket, like you said, if someone really doesn't fit in, they'll probably die. I know we don't agree on much, but as someone who has been told by someone across the table that they are changing their character specifically to keep me alive(and was annoyed that they felt they *had* to do so- I'm a big boy and can handle characters dying on me), I have to object to the idea of the party as a metacharacter that is being forced on me.I think you should respect the "weight class" you are playing in.
A super-heavy weight does not belong in the feather weight class, and vice versa. If you are in a casual group and the GM is running a low-powered game, coming in with a super-omptimized wizard with all 7s for str, wis and cha, and 20 int, just to dominate the game with your pinky is kinda rude.
Likewise, if your fellow players are running optimized characters and the GM is running a game for that style of play, it is just as rude to enter as a Con8 aristocrat/bard/monk/rogue. Well... you'll die in the first encounter, but anyways.
The premise of a successful pathfinder character is a "hero", and heroes are not completely incompetent in the face of danger. We had a character die last session because of poorly made characters and poor decisions. Doesn't feel too fun for me to have to alter my character concept just to make up for other people's inability to take care of themselves, when I am arguably the weakest class in the party (only non-caster among casters).
Argue as much as you want that it's your RIGHT to play whatever you want. If you are forcing the others to play the game like one of those loathsome escort missions from a video-game and ruining their fun, you're a douche in my book.
Viable [va~i'abl]: On par with the rest of the party.
Second time I see you pointing out us not agreeing. O_o
Don't even remember what the disagreements are all about, but if you say so.
I would let them, but truth be told, I like their characters as people, and we weren't told the houserules before lv5, so it ain't REALLY their fault that they suck. If we only were allowed to craft or buy items like the game expects us to, there would be no problems, as actual access to must-have gear would easily mend the problem.
Got the con 10 cleric to start wearing actual armor and a shield, and try to keep the squishy duo in the back where they belong. Since I am a paladin, I am more self-sufficient than most, and can survive somewhat isolated.
I normally develop the full character in my head, not the math part, just the person - voice, annoying habits, why they are there, etc. Then I sit down and make the math match my character.
Another way to do things, though some people frown on this, is to divorce the math from the roleplay. Ergo, roleplay a you wish without worrying about whether the math or system back up your roleplay.
It is under this point that I wish to share a story about one of my favorite characters to roleplay.
I had an elf who was cynical, not diplomatic in the least, had little respect for authority (especially inherited authority), mostly areligious, and whose major life goal was to establish an independent knighthood.
He was a LG paladin. 16 Charisma. Why? Because mechanics don't determine roleplaying viability.
To my way of thinking, back story and generating an engaging character can make a viable contribution as easily as the "math first" characters because the game is bigger than just the math.
Precisely so.
I normally develop the full character in my head, not the math part, just the person - voice, annoying habits, why they are there, etc. Then I sit down and make the math match my character.Another way to do things, though some people frown on this, is to divorce the math from the roleplay. Ergo, roleplay a you wish without worrying about whether the math or system back up your roleplay.
It is under this point that I wish to share a story about one of my favorite characters to roleplay.
I had an elf who was cynical, not diplomatic in the least, had little respect for authority (especially inherited authority), mostly areligious, and whose major life goal was to establish an independent knighthood.
He was a LG paladin. 16 Charisma. Why? Because mechanics don't determine roleplaying viability.
To my way of thinking, back story and generating an engaging character can make a viable contribution as easily as the "math first" characters because the game is bigger than just the math.Precisely so.
While I understand your point on not letting the math determine your character, and even agree to some extent, I do have a couple of bones to pick with your example.
To me, the idea of a non-religious paladin is nonsensical. Devotion to his deity and his code are what defines a paladin. Their powers, like clerics, are directly granted by their gods. Now, in a homebrew world in which that isn't the case, I could see it, but not by the way the PF paladin is written up now.
The part about not respecting authority is less problematic with your disclaimer about "especially inherited". I can see a paladin being disdainful of foppish nobles whose only claim to authority is bloodline. And I've played a paladin who led a rebellion against what he saw as an illegitimate and oppressive government. However, I think it is inherent in the LG alignment and particularly in a paladin's code that they must respect legitimate and just authority, particularly, of course, the authority of their deity and church.
Behind those reasons, I think totally divorcing the mechanics of a paladin from its roleplay could result in the opposite of what you are talking about - someone who played a paladin only because they liked those mechanical benefits, and totally ignored the important fluff that accompanied it. In other words, "I'll take all the benefits please, but none of those pesky restrictions." If you want to play a character with no restrictions on his behavior, paladin is a bad (the worst) choice.
|
My story?
I'm playing a Bone Oracle with Clouded Vision curse in PFS.
Not the worlds best caster, not the worlds best at combat, not the worlds best at anything really.
I built it with the idea of being a semi-blind albino Mwangi-ian (Mwangi-ite? Mwangish? I dunno?). I liked the idea of being a "white necromancer" more than anything else, a sort of alignment neutral sort of guy. Uses the corpses of those he kills to do things with.
Because of the revelations, the spells, and the abilities he has, all around I am one of the best PFS characters around here. He is in high demand. He gets complements for what he can do. Fighters constantly outdamage him, a cleric will constantly out heal him, dedicated spell casters can usually do cooler things than him, but ultimately I slay tons of badguys, I have fun, and my party is glad I'm there.
The funny part was, I really didnt think the class had that much crunch to it. I really looked at it like an opportunity to just have a fun interesting well thought out character.
At 6th lvl, being able to cast Animate Dead, and then with my revelation power also able to summon a 6hd Zombie...there is a LOT of meat to this guy. Unintended crunch, as it were.
I'm having a blast, and the character is incredible "viable". Nowhere near optimized, and frankly if I had read a lot deeper into making the character and its powers first, he could have been amazing...
but as it is, I'm pretty darn good.
There's another thread out there that specifically looks for what people consider a viable/successful player character based entirely on mathematical principles. I'm looking for an answer to the question, what is a viable/successful player character?
Played a rogue that was better at social skills than most bards, it was fun. I couldn't fight my way out of a paper bag, but we all had great fun. I had to switch characters, he keep talking his way out of the combats, and derailing the campaign, the other players didn't enjoy that part.
The problem with asking this question (a non-mathematically based character) is that it's easy to play both. I can build a character that could kill anything, but was incredibly interesting.
Once played a fighter type that was crazy, he had the group rolling on the floor in laughter. He worshiped his weapons, stroking them, saying sweet nothings to them before bed. He was both mechanically viable and fun to play.
I had one player played a barbarian in 3.5. Start out down the min-max path, 20 strength, 3 charisma(due to a low roll + being half orc). He started taking whatever level fit his experiences that level. After a close encounter with Tymora, he took a level of cleric. By level 14 he was half barbarian and half everything else. His saves were insane, but he had plenty of weaknesses to exploit.
The best part of the character was that he played the 3 charisma perfectly. He managed to annoy the crap out of just about everyone, friend or foe.
There's another thread out there that specifically looks for what people consider a viable/successful player character based entirely on mathematical principles. I'm looking for an answer to the question, what is a viable/successful player character? Except that I don't want any numbers, percentages, statistics, or other empirical data. I realize that math is a part of game mechanics, but I am of the philosophical belief that a player character that is successful is the one that lets you tell a great story because of the actions they play in the conflict. Therefore, what I'm looking for are examples of characters that perhaps weren't "viable" from a mathematical point of view, and maybe even "failed" more than a few times, but were still great fun to role play, and made it through more than one campaign still in one piece. Let the storytelling commence!
I've got a few. But before I mention anything, I feel obligated to say the reason many people put so much emphasis on mechanics is because mechanics are the physics of the world. No matter how much description you give, if you're not at least this tall to ride, you ain't riding (if you'll pardon the expression). Most people I know have an idea in mind for a character; a personality; a story, and they want them to be mechanically viable, 'cause while it might be interesting to play a limp-legged commoner named Stevie, he's probably not "viable" in the traditional sense.
I see viable as being able to contribute to the party. Teamwork is my main focus. Some of the more interesting characters I've seen played (or played myself) were a bit off the wall, or did this in unusual ways; but all managed to pull their weight.
I had a psion (3.5 psion) who was built for tanking and soaking damage for her friends, so instead of blasting, she was something of a pacifist (in action, not philosophy; she would fight if needed, but she preferred to make friends instead of enemies). She was funny, because she was always trudging around in heavy armor, even though she took horrible penalties for doing so ("Hey, what are you doing in that full plate?" - "It'll help protect me!" *wobble wobble*); and pretending to be a warrior (she carried a big reach weapon, which, again, she had no business wielding) which made things either A) try to chew on her, so she could soak damage, or B) incorrectly ignore her and then get surprised by sudden spell effects. One of the funniest moments was when she manifested share pain on the party's bard, which allows her to take 1/2 of all the damage that player would take. He then ended up diving onto a green dragon and then detonating a whole necklace of fireballs while holding the dragon. Needless to say, the bard was scolded a bit by a rather smokey psion...yet both survived!
Edit: responding to Ashiel
That is a great example of non traditional, yet viable character. I love when people can come up with something that works, even if all the number crunching in the world says your out of your mind. Also, i especially like the *wobble wobble* part. +1 IMO =)
Heh, thanks. She was a fun PC. Armor doesn't mess with psionics (like divine magic), but she definitely was proficient, so she had something like a -10 to anything resembling an attack roll with her spear (she literally picked it up during their adventure and decided to try and use it, later she got a spiked chain, and such). It was funny because either A) no one knew she was the party's "caster", or B) she was busy absorbing damage ('cause she was built to soak damage).
So she really was bad at what she seemed like she was supposed to be doing, but she was great socially (Diplomacy class skill + charm works wonders), and she did fun things like create hazards on the field, or slow enemies down with random stuff, or throwing grease all over the place, or taking damage for her friends and focusing on keeping herself alive.
She was a ton of fun. Reason #31 why the 3.5 Expanded Psionics Handbook is the boss. It's really versatile, so you can make a lot of unusual things with it without having to find 12 different classes and splatbooks to play with. "Mage-tank" was this one. :P
In response to Eric the Pipe.
I agree, and many others on the forums do too. It is certainly possible to build an interesting character that is also mechanically viable, or vise versa. I think the big problem is, that many players these days consider mechanical viability to be the most important thing. They build a character that is mechanically viable, then build a backstory and personality around it.
I personally feel that this is a backwards approach. This is an RPG after all. Lets take a minute to remember, it's role-playing, not roll-playing. I realize that D&D/PF is more combat based than some of the other RPGs out there, but seeing as the title of the genre of this game type is "Role-Playing", shouldn't the character's concept be more important the the theory crafted viability?
+1
Elven, you and I have the exact same approach. I also want to be clear, I'm not a mechanics hater. I don't want your PC to be all concept and no "real" world applicability. I do, though, want your PC to be more than just a set of numbers on a sheet. I want you to have some ownership in their life, and some interest in how they help tell a story.
|
|
Therefore, what I'm looking for are examples of characters that perhaps weren't "viable" from a mathematical point of view, and maybe even "failed" more than a few times, but were still great fun to role play, and made it through more than one campaign still in one piece. Let the storytelling commence!
Well, I assume folks who played AD&D and earlier games RAW, where players rolled the stat of their PCs instead of assigning them, still had fun. I know I did even though I disliked the systems (but due to the way it simulated fantasy, not necessarily the mechanics themselves. Well, except maybe THAC0.)
The only "viability" test I have for a party member is this: I shouldn't have to ask myself "Why is PC X a member of this party?"
("I'm a member of the party because I have 'PC' tattooed on my forehead" isn't an acceptable answer.)