| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Orthos: just out of curiosity, if a player liked the mechanics of a specific class but agreed that it was underpowered, would you be willing to work with them to use homebrewed improvements?
Absolutely. I've done similar things in bringing 3.5 classes up to Pathfinder - with a few exceptions (cough Archivist cough) most 3.5 classes lag a bit behind their PF counterparts, so tweaking them up usually is required, or at least advised. I wouldn't be against doing similar for a class that's a bit on the weaker side.
However, the usual whipping-boys for this sort of thing - Rogue, Fighter, and Monk (barring certain archetypes) - are just generally easier done by suggesting "play this other class instead", since any attempt of mine to homebrew up an improvement would probably just come from practically stealing everything from another class anyway.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I see racism as part of the flavor for lots of these characters. As a player... if I chose to play a drow or half-orc or dhampir or tiefling... it's BECAUSE I want to play the type of character that the average citizen dislikes or fears. It's part of the challenge.
Otherwise without the flavor of that disadvantage... your just grabbing races because they're powerful and I don't find that as much fun. Nothing worse then having the whole wide world treat your drow the same as any other elf.
That's not to say it can't go TOO far. The hero character should be able to win people over and prove their worth, ESPECIALY in the party. Bruener may hate all drow... but after and adventure or two, he now hates all drow EXCEPT this one!
But random bartenders, guards, shopkeepers who don't want to deal with the goblin or Orc...or even Chelaxian or Asmodeon... that's just part of the world. I'd be very annoyed playing in a sterilized world where everyone is accepted equally regardless of race, nationality, religion.
It comes down to wanting different things out of our fantasy, really.
I'm not interested in pursuing racial conflicts or fictional equivalents of real-world sociopolitical dilemmas in my fantasy games. Mostly because I don't enjoy being on either side of it. I don't enjoy being the one constantly struggling to prove "I'm not like all the others" because of various things - among them that such blanket views of things are uncomfortable to me and because I think there are better, more interesting things to struggle against and build a character concept off of - and I REALLY don't enjoy being the aggressor and constantly having to keep in mind with my actions "rawr every _________ is bad, evil, etc. I hate them so much". It's just not fun for me, and it's not fun to have to live in a world where that's an accepted norm. It's bad enough in real life.
What I AM interested in heroic characters of bizarre species (I am and have long been of the very strong opinion that the "standard seven" races of D&D/PF/etc. are too normal, too mundane, and their omnipresence makes most fantasy worlds themselves too mundane for my taste) and with otherworldly abilities going up against vast evils such as powerful megalomaniacal archmages, evil doomsday cults, dark gods and darker secrets, corrupt monarchs, and sinister prophecies.
So when I created my homebrew setting, I toned racial strifes way, way down. A great many traditional "monstrous" races - most prominent examples being kobolds, orcs, hobgoblins, araneas/driders (I kinda rolled them together), and gnolls - now are part of cultures and societies that don't place them constantly at odds with the "PC races"/"Civilized races". There are parts of my world where even the most bizarre entity can be allowed to live in peace as long as they allow others to do the same.
When I play tieflings and similar races, I'm personally more interested in the internal struggle - how the character deals with the part of them that is Wrong or Evil - than I am with the struggles they'll have to deal with externally with NPCs and other party members.
To make up for it, I make sure the world is more strongly focused on other conflicts: conflicts of culture, of religion (especially involving evil churches and so forth), of personal egos, and so forth. The world is built around the idea that these many races populate it and get along well enough to function, most of the time, and conflict is caused by other sources.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Rolled together aranea and driders? But aranea are one of the coolest creatures in the game! And driders...also exist. Eh, to each their own.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
They are indeed! Hence why I wanted them as major players in my world and available as a PC race.
Basically the creature is born a Medium spider, grows and cocoons and emerges an Aranea, complete with shapeshifting ability. (I removed the racial hit die and innate casting to make them PC'able.) Then after a few centuries they mature further, cocoon again, and emerge as the fully-mature Large-size drider-like Arachne, with shapeshifting intact allowing them now to assume Medium-sized Humanoid or Large-sized Spider forms in addition to their hybrid shape.
The whole point of RPGs is storytelling and escapism. Different players want different things out of the game. And, with enough time and thought, it's possible to get good RP out of almost any concept. However, these 5 archetypes are ones that I think we can agree aren't ones that a lot of players (and particularly players new to RPGs in general) can pull off.
What experiences have you had with The 5 RPG Characters We Should Stop Playing? Namely:
- The Racist
- The Joke
- The Mute
- The Hedonist
- The Misanthrope
There's nothing wrong with any of these concepts, provided the person is playing them tastefully and in moderation. I've played every single one of these concepts without complaints (for the most part) because I kept other people's feelings in mind. Ironically, the characters I've played that my group has hated the most in the past have all been "team first" good guy types.
I'm not a fan of the Hedonists in play. I haven't played as one, and don't like it when I've seen other players do it...
Misanthrope? I'm not a fan of players who don't really want to play with the group... The eternal loner gets old fast... but it can be good in small doses. I've done it myself and it's popular trope. It just needs to be a temporary one.
The mute??
I did that ONCE, and I'll never do it again. Played a wookie in a star wars game. End result one person could translate, so everything at the table was said twice... It was very tedious. The alternative is "I translate what he says...' and that wastes any of the flavor 'mute' in the first place.
I had a friend who wanted to play an ewok and I warned her the frustrations of that choice. Not a fan of the mutes...
The Joke? Depends on the game. Most games could use a little comic relief.
You'd be surprised at how NON-Team many people are. They complain about tiers of characters, how a lower tier drags them down...and all sorts of un-teamlike sportsmanship.Been over this to the point of absurdity.
If everyone wants a casual beer 'n' pretzels game, yes, you're a dick if you bring on the powergaming. Not a team player.
If everyone wants a super-deadly tactical challenge, you're a dick if you play a character who doesn't pull his/her weight and then some. That is generally, but not always, a lower-tier class. That guy is not being a team player, either. Therefore, "complaining about tiers" doesn't automatically make someone a poor team player, but it does if the campaign itself is geared to allow people to ignore them. On the other hand, if the game requires powerful combinations, refusing to reference them might actually be a sign of someone not being a team player.
Thanks for making the point.
99% of the groups I've seen would kick out the guy complaining about others not pulling their weight...since most groups can pull their weight and only have problems when that ONE person comes in to complain about everyone else.
Luckily, haven't really seen it in real gaming...but I see things like your statement ALL the time on these boards.
As the DM I typically adjust CR and challenges according to the group, but if there was anyone who ever was NOT being a team player by complaining about everyone else...I'd be tempted to specifically target them with something to take them out every fight and then let the group continue onwards while they contemplated why they died and everyone else did not.
Not that I would...but it would be awfully tempting.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
To tell the truth, the most annoying people have been some of those who played Kender in Dragonlance.
Totally opposite, some of the best players and coolest ones have also been those who played Kender in Dragonlance.
The difference...some who play the joke really are idiots in how they play...while those who play the Kender (like how I think they should be) actually care about the team and play with the team rather than just focusing on how they can do crazy things and get the team killed.
|
My opinion:
The mute is a valid concept. Just remember: your character is mute, not the player: describe what you are doing, if another PC who can tranlate for your pc is around, just clear with that player that his character does so and get on with it.
Hedonist / Misanthrope aen't bad concepts, but done over the top and against every bit of (un)common sense, they won't work - that goes for a lot of other concepts as well.
Racist is a fine concept to begin your character with (if everyone is on board) but easily becomes tedious if it remains a core concept of the character, but the tensions of bringin such a character into the 'larger' world and see him react and change can make great roleplaying for the whole group.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Racist is a fine concept to begin your character with (if everyone is on board) but easily becomes tedious if it remains a core concept of the character
I'd expand on this and posit that we don't need to list "X" number of examples of characters that don't work well, but rather a single rule: If your character is totally one-dimensional, and has one and only one defining characteristic, then that character will tend to be problematical in any role-playing game.
There's nothing wrong with your elf sneering at halflings, as long as he has enough other characteristics that he's not just "that guy who despises halflings." There's nothing wrong with your mute half-orc, as long as his actions describe a personality that extends beyond just "hulk smash." There's nothing wrong with your hedonist, as long as he's willing to hang up the opium pipe, toss the latest doxy out of bed, and go out adventuring. And so on.
I'm not a fan of the Hedonists in play. I haven't played as one, and don't like it when I've seen other players do it...
Misanthrope? I'm not a fan of players who don't really want to play with the group... The eternal loner gets old fast... but it can be good in small doses. I've done it myself and it's popular trope. It just needs to be a temporary one.
The mute??
I did that ONCE, and I'll never do it again. Played a wookie in a star wars game. End result one person could translate, so everything at the table was said twice... It was very tedious. The alternative is "I translate what he says...' and that wastes any of the flavor 'mute' in the first place.
I had a friend who wanted to play an ewok and I warned her the frustrations of that choice. Not a fan of the mutes...
The Joke? Depends on the game. Most games could use a little comic relief.
A neat way to play the Mute that requires a lot of improv chops and flexibility is to just let the other player make up what you said and respond accordingly. It's not great for serious characters, but I've found it pretty fun for minor characters or more light-hearted campaigns.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I'd also say, even if it seems obvious, make sure the guy playing the halfling's okay with your elf sneering at his character. Sure, it can be great arc as the elf comes to appreciate his little buddy over time if everyone's on board for it, but it can be frustrating for the other player if he doesn't want to deal with that in character.
Well, yeah. I'm not sure I've every played with anyone that fragile, but it doesn't hurt to be sure.
I'm sure we can discuss this like calm, rational adults. Isn't that right, Mr. Poopy-Pants?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
It's not so much about being "fragile". Some people don't want to have to justify their character putting up with constant abuse. If one PC was an ex-slave who refuses to tolerate bigotry, making a Bigot PC is a good way to annoy the other player.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Sure, struggling to overcome prejudice can be a good arc, but it's not always the arc you want to play.
This is also very true. If you're playing a specific character with specific struggles, someone else forcing in a struggle with prejudice might send the character into a direction you both didn't expect and, more importantly, aren't that interested in exploring.
|
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I played with a halfling monk who had a vow of Silence... as long as she was wearing shoes. At particularly critical moments when pantomining wasnt getting through it was always great fun to Watch ol' Jaile Squarefoot hastily removed her footware to tell us the important thing she had to tell us.... to instantly go silent again as she put her shoes back on...
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The Racist Mute can be hilarious, and still be an asset to the party.
Case in point: I misread the adventure summary for a game and showed up with a character with a seething, unquenchable hate for all that Andoran stood for, only to find out that we would actually be playing .as. Andoran undercover agents in Qadira.
So instead of changing the character, I spoke to the DM and we agreed my character didn't speak Common, and had (also) completely misunderstood what the mission was about.
Since the rest of the party was playing as deep-cover spies and saboteaurs, my character took them at face value and hacked and slashed what he considered impious Andoran sons-of-pigs, and communicated with the rest of the party in hilariously misunderstood hand signs and gobbledygook.
There is no wrong concept. There are poor executions.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I will politely disagree.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I played with a halfling monk who had a vow of Silence... as long as she was wearing shoes. At particularly critical moments when pantomining wasnt getting through it was always great fun to Watch ol' Jaile Squarefoot hastily removed her footware to tell us the important thing she had to tell us.... to instantly go silent again as she put her shoes back on...
I'm so stealing some variation of this.
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
I'll provide a fairly recent example, since it was asked.
A few months back, my second PnP group was playing Age of Worms. Anyone who's played that campaign knows it can be a meat grinder and expects top-notch performance of all participants. All of us going into the game were aware of that - most of us had played through the first chapter and a tad into the second once before, before that game fell apart, and the one person who hadn't had heard all the horror stories. So we went in with a party designed to be able to handle things quickly and efficiently. I brought a Zen Archer monk, one player brought a Paladin, one brought a tricked-out Warmage adapted up from 3.5, and one brought a Psion.
The fifth guy, though, brought a Thug Rogue. The concept was more experimental than anything - the player wanted to prove that he, personally, was good enough to make a Rogue work in a campaign as brutal and unforgiving as Age of Worms. But by two or three sessions in, it became obvious that it wasn't going to work. He couldn't hold his own in combat, he became more of a liability for the party to keep alive than a contributing member of the party, and he constantly made demands of the other players/characters to do things like buy specialized equipment (pheromone arrows for my archer were the most common request/demand, but there were others for everyone in the group, except the psion who'd had to leave the game two sessions in) exclusively for the purpose of making his character effective.
Finally, at the end of chapter two, the rest of us approached the player and pointed out the problems that had been caused, and went back to the beginning of the game and how we'd all agreed how brutal AoW is and that we'd need to be all in top shape if we were going to pull through the campaign in one piece. To his credit, the guy took it all very graciously and understandingly, and retired the rogue (via getting hauled off by a monster that awoke at the end of Chapter Two and got carried away into the sunset) and replaced him with a Vitalist instead.
In the end it all worked out well for everyone involved. It comes down to what the group wants and expects out of each participant, which can vary not only from group to group but also from game to game, campaign to campaign. My Legacy of Fire campaign that started up in place of AoW when that GM had to step down due to work schedule conflicts, for example, is far less stressing of group efficiency and a lot more lenient, especially due to having a brand new player in the mix, but it's also a much more lighthearted, much less brutal campaign and can allow for more mistakes than the notoriously-meatgrindery AoW.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I told my players I wasn't pulling punches with Skull and Shackles.
Now we have to have a lottery to see who is "Captain Red shirt" I can't tell you how much plunder has been wasted bribing others to be captain.
I regret nothing!