Challenge games; getting outside of your comfort zone.

[Sysryke]

I'm curious to hear about any games people played where you had to get outside of you role-playing box. I know given enough time, most of us play a little of everything. But, if you look below the surface, there's often a common thread of flavor, mechanic, or play style most of us fall into. Have you ever challenged yourself, or been forced to get outside of your box? Sometimes these types of games can lead to great characters. Mostly interested in positive or intriguing experiences, but absolute disaster stories are welcome too.

[Michael Talley 759]

Sysryke wrote:

I'm curious to hear about any games people played where you had to get outside of you role-playing box. I know given enough time, most of us play a little of everything. But, if you look below the surface, there's often a common thread of flavor, mechanic, or play style most of us fall into. Have you ever challenged yourself, or been forced to get outside of your box? Sometimes these types of games can lead to great characters. Mostly interested in positive or intriguing experiences, but absolute disaster stories are welcome too.

Most characters I play are casters, so when I got invited to a game that involved rolling 3d6 down the list and not being able to trade the stats around and class drawn from a grab bag (although you could work any Archetype you wanted at creation related to the class)

I drew the Rogue class, my stats however where ST 13, DX 14, CN 11 IT 11 WS 10 CH 12

My +2 for being human went into Dexterity

It also didn't help I was told it was Cityscape game, and build the Rogue to be a Break and Enter Thief, and it suddenly became a Out of the city Survival game against dark creatures invading the plane.

[Sysryke]

Damn! I'm getting that this was a disaster character. Not great numbers, but at least your stat distribution was about where you want it for a rogue.

The best challenge games I've played in. We built story after we started coming up with characters, or at least we had a more solid framework for reference.

We've done handicaps, or everyone has to take one or two crap stats; but usually the challenge is more role play. Like, the guy who always played female characters had to try a guy; the always sneaky type had to be social and/or front line; the guy who never played anything but humans had to do an exotic race; and I could not play any character with a familiar/mount/animal companion or build around a specific elemental concept. Everyone still had autonomy to make a character they chose; we just had to break out of our ruts.

[Sysryke]

Last time I did a challenge character. I went with a more classically to type combo. Made a dwarf paladin of a dragon god. He had a vow of near total silence going (but a special boon where he could say 5 words per day). The rest of the time he had to sign or pantomime. I built him to max ac as much as possible, and made him a dwarf of few words and decisive action. He wasn't the face, or the investigator/thinker I normally gravitate too; but he was unique in the party and well liked. He usually wasn't the heaviest hitter or the flashiest actor; but he was nearly impossible to put down. And, on those rare occasions where he was compelled to speak, his words carried great weight. The character really made me focus on being mindful of my thoughts, actions, and turns; and made me better appreciate other characters spotlight moments.

[Michael Talley 759]

Sadly as a CN Rogue, most of the group hated that my character was pretty much just in it for the money. If he wasn't going to get some coin out of it, one could count him as not caring. (Although he did end up saving a village because the group bribed him with ten gold to protect the village, his version of protection was leading the villagers all out into the woods and waiting for the enemy to hit and leave the village.)

It was certainly a character played on Hard Mode, and the group didn't much care for the character antics. But ironically he made it longer than everyone else's characters that had rolled fairly well.

[avr]

One time I played a character with Cha 4; random rolls for stats and tho' I could have rerolled, I got dared to play that set. I don't normally play characters who are excluded from the social part of the game unless the game seems likely to bore my socks off anyway.

So I drew inspiration from a talking dog named Gaspode in Terry Pratchetts' novels and not the talking dog part. Keefra had a collection of skin diseases and unpleasant habits. Fairly fun for a while.

[Almarane]

I always play scholars (mostly spellcasters) and silver-tongued characters, since I like gathering lore and interacting with NPCs. Most of the time I end up being the party face, and if not I at least can stand my ground in terms of social encounters when I need to. People with high charisma and intelligence, and most of the time low wisdom.

I am currently playing with a group where everyone wanted to be a party face. So... in the end, I gave my seat to the other players and I'm playing a very polite but mostly silent and docile noble lady (slayer). She's not really good at talking to people and prefer letting others do the negociations. She's also not very clever - or at least feels less clever than most people - and puts her faith in the intelligence of her companions.

It's... really hard sometimes. I have to force myself to not speak and let others do their job, even when they are terrorizing or angering key NPCs because the other PCs are pragmatic as heck or when they don't think about searching for something. It's a really humbling experience.

But at least I can focus on being a murder machine with a big scythe >:)

[Sysryke]

Great share. I hope you get to find more things to purely love about the character, but this is exactly the type of exercise I'm talking about.

[Mark Hoover 330]

I play the "spider-man" of the group usually. By that I mean the plucky underdog who, while not being UNDER-powered certainly isn't the most optimal warrior or conflict-ender in the party. To that end I play a lot of Small sized PCs, usually ranged attackers, who pick niche builds focuses as much on utility as in-combat success.

Recently I got into an already existing campaign, though they were still level 1. The players were all new and there were no square-jawed melee types in the party, also no healing except for a witch. I decided to play a warpriest to step outside my usual cheerleader/utility helper role.

The campaign only lasted a few more sessions but that's for the best since I was really rusty. Not that combat was tough; optimizing a dwarven warpriest to be a heavily armored tank that takes a beating wasn't that hard. No, it was the mentality of the character, the RP aspects that really threw me.

I had an abysmal (for me anyway) Cha of 9. The first real money we got I bought a bunch of scrolls of Cure Light Wounds and was basically a healing battery that used a greatsword to savage enemies. I didn't talk much, never used Aid Another, never buffed a single other PC and rarely gave much advice other than battle strategies.

Also, and I know especially on these boards this will sound weird, but it felt really gross being the DPR guy in the group. Seriously, I LIKE being the guy that flourishes with a slingstaff or an Acid Splash along with a clever quip, secure in the knowledge that I'm just helping others shine. Having to be the brute front and center and just mowing through the minion types we faced didn't make me feel powerful or cool, it just felt like I was taking advantage or playing "easy mode."

There's a reason we get into our "boxes" as players. We play what feels good. Sometimes stepping outside of that is fun or interesting but other times it just serves to remind us what we prefer. I think that's where I came to with this game.

[Michael Talley 759]

Almarane wrote:

I am currently playing with a group where everyone wanted to be a party face.

I feel your pain, I have three players in my group of eight (During the summer we rotate play nights as not all of us have every night free)

That want to be able to do EVERYTHING , They some how want to be the skill Monkey's, The Tank, The Artillery and the face. >.> I would say it's younger players, but I have some younger players that just want to fill one role.

We even have a joke for one of the players when dealing with any character they build with more than one level "What aren't you playing?" SO much multiclassing XD

I've been playing RPG's since I was 16, and have played all the core classes quite a bit.

I've had a Handful of favorite characters.

Jack Bloodmoon, Human Fighter (Archer Build) that loves elves. [Couldn't HIT anything with a Melee attack, but once that bow came out, it was like Crit Central]

Fylee The Kobold Infernal/Fey Sorcerer, that made friends and influenced people....and ate a few after they died. Also quite good at Perform - Comedy to help him put people at ease around a short lizard person. (Not to mention used it to keep up the stereotype that Kobolds are fools)

Dyrll the CN Rogue I was talking about earlier, If there is no coin in it for me, why the heck am I gonna do it? (and ) would run away quickly in overwhelming scary things, after all, how am I gonna spend my money while dead?

Veldrin Faer, Drow Pervy Wizard of Transmutation. Made a great character for an Evil character turned good character.

Those are the top four that come to mind as my favorite challenging characters, each had a different challenge, so the characters I built didn't work out very well for the challenges I gave them.

Like Brenna, the Ifrit Boreal Sorcerer. My attempt at building a reverse Killer Frost...Draining heat from around them to freeze others. Game master didn't much care for the character so I ended up scrapping it before it saw any action

[Sysryke]

Bump. In the spirit of (hopefully permissible) thread necromancy, I'm bringing this topic back up. Always eager for more stories or feedback. These forums really help with creativity and ideas. Thanks folks.

[Name Violation]

I tend to play everything except full casters.

The only real caster I ever ran was in PFS.

Viamil "Princess" Ambrosia. Oracle of life. Just a bubbly half elf girl full of happiness and helpfulness. Just don't hurt her friends. You don't wanna see what happens when you hurt her friends....

[Algarik]

I'm a wizard player at heart and i've always been kind of biased against blasting-type wizard as i think they are not very effective, and i'd much rather control the ennemies and support my team that waste my spell slots one doing what fighters can already do all the time.

One time i decided to challenge myself by running a ''one school wizard'' that used evocation spell only. To make it even worse, i also decided to take an arcane bond in the form of a quarterstaff, that way a simple disarm maneuver could wreck my day as a caster.

I drew inspiration from Megumin, from Konosuba, so i focused a lot of my feat into boosting my fireball spell. It turned out very potent and it was incredibly satisfying to roast multiple ennemies with free empowered fireballs! IIRC i made her a sin wizard with the wrath school so i could get extra evocation spell.

To avoid becoming a one trick pony, I also used a few other control spell, like burst of radiance, Ear-piercing Scream, and ice slick.

At one point my DM gave me a lesser Rod of Maximize spell and... he ended up really regretting it made my character fireball incredibly strong for her level.

The being said my character had a lot of weaknesses. Indead, beside having next to zero defensive spell, my character had no Will targeting spell, and mostly relied on targeting reflex. On the plus side my DCs were fairly high as i took the Spell Focus, and it's greater version, on evocation to boost them.

In the end, i would recommend the ''one school challenge'' to any wizard lover out there as it's incredibly satisfying to pull it off. Bonus point for those who avoid conjuring, cause it's already too versatile. I would probably avoid Abjuration or Divination though, as those school are a little bit too situational. If i ever get the chance to be a player again, i think i would try to go with necromancy.

[VoodistMonk]

Normally, I play big, dumb fighters... not the class, necessarily, but the concept. I like 2H weapons, or putting two hands on 1H weapons, feats like Step Up... real in your face, melee types.

Then I played a Kobold Cleric. Holy crap, what a departure from the norm (for me)! Probably my favorite character, thusfar.

I have also found surprising enjoyment in running spellcaster NPC's despite not being familiar with the mechanics.

You want to put me outside my comfort zone? Make me play a Cheliax slaver... some whip-wielding tyrant... I don't even know if I could play that character without crawling out of my own skin.

I will play a necromancer, an evil Vivisectionist, a diabolical bleeding channel menace... but tyranny is something I just cannot abide.

[Algarik]

VoodistMonk wrote:

You want to put me outside my comfort zone? Make me play a Cheliax slaver... some whip-wielding tyrant... I don't even know if I could play that character without crawling out of my own skin.

What about a whip-wielding Cheliax Slaver, that rely on summoning!? :P

[Quixote]

I don't think I've ever really had a type.
I've played grim-faced mercenary types--the last one carried his trusty cast iron pot wherever he went ("you ever sit down after a 10-hour match and have to eat wet bread?"), and who figured his best interrogation strategy when dealing with the two surviving assassins was to immediately kill one of them.
I've played strong and silent monks of mysticism, graceful wise ones and a gnommish one who lost her arm in a terrible fight and had it replaced with a clockwork/steam-powered piston.
A laughing, gambling prankster-bard with a halberd and a hurdy-gurdy, or the battle-reveling skald with bagpipes and claymore.
In other games, I've played a best-selling author who's also a werewolf, a carefree drifter-wizard who could reverse time and chose his own luck, a brainy cryptozoologist who only slept one out every three days and was always trying to convince people of The Truth despite his terrible social skills.
And there was the wendigo girl who was lonely, cold and scared half the time and furious, desperate and infiniely hungry the other.

Yeah, you name it. Physical, mental, social. A brute or a scholar. Smooth or rough, bright-eyed or jaded. As long as they feel *real*; I don't do jokey, silly characters, but that's about it.

[Mark Hoover 330]

I won't play evil. Not anymore. As a kid I had a couple evil characters across various game systems. In the process I manipulated 2 RL friends into getting their PCs killed so that I could escape unscathed with a relic from a sunken desert temple, I became the tyrannical embodiment of War and went toe-to-toe against my friends, played a selfish Corp in Cyberpunk 2020 and got my party killed to complete a deal and get paid, and still other dark deeds.

When I was evil in a way that DIDN'T affect my friends, I was basically just selfish or maybe a little cruel. The only time I really felt like I was playing "evil" was when I was directly or indirectly putting my party members in harm's way for personal gain... and I was happy about it.

I don't LIKE that feeling. IRL I've been manipulated, betrayed, bullied, victimized, etc, even by people I loved and trusted. If I'm going into a fantasy fiction for a stress reliever from reality for a while I'm not putting myself in that mind.

I do still get dark though.

I was playing a CG Warpriest/Hunter in the Rein of Winter AP. After a while I developed a personal revulsion to the White Witches and they way they treat the people of Irrisen. In one adventure we met one that did some bad things with kids and my character lost it.

When we finally encountered her and had her on the ropes, HP wise, I had her cornered in one room of a tower, tripped to the floor with my Wolf Animal Companion next to her. "Leave the room." I told my party members. "I don't want you to see what I'm going to do next." They did and, according to my GM, I emerged stained as crimson as the ruby cod piece I was wearing.

[VoodistMonk]

Quixote wrote:

Yeah, you name it. Physical, mental, social. A brute or a scholar. Smooth or rough, bright-eyed or jaded. As long as they feel *real*; I don't do jokey, silly characters, but that's about it.

I feel the same way, but I will do silly as long as it's a real part of the character.

What I don't do is gimmicky BS. If it relies on this stringing off of that, leading into whathaveyou... no, none of that. At most, if I am feeling squirrelly, I might, MAYBE, chain together Power Attack, Cornugon Smash, and Hurtful.

[Quixote]

VoodistMonk wrote:

I feel the same way, but I will do silly as long as it's a real part of the character.

Oh, absolutely. If a character has a great sense of humor or is just kind of a clown (or even a professional one; a jester, perhaps?), let the humor insure. Humor is a part of the human condition. I just don't play characters that are jokes themselves. No characters named Medium Rarey or who throw pies at their enemies or who quote Monty Python.

VoodistMonk wrote:

What I don't do is gimmicky BS. If it relies on this stringing off of that, leading into whathaveyou... no, none of that. At most, if I am feeling squirrelly, I might, MAYBE, chain together Power Attack, Cornugon Smash, and Hurtful.

Agreed. I don't want people to build characters that are ineffective, but one-trick ponies and off-the-wall hijinks just never felt like a convincing adventurer type to me. A real adventurer is ready for anything. The point is to survive, not to win. Act my encounters are usually varied enough that the generalists fair better than the hyper-specialized. Which is...not always a popular mode to play in, with Pathfinder. Still, I've found it makes for the most compelling stories.

[Joe Mamma]

My favorite style is the Rogue (or Rogue-adjacent swashbuckling type, since the base class is often on the low end of power in many systems). While I never did the tropey stuff like stealing from the party / switching sides in a combat / prioritizing myself over others; I loved the benefits of high Dex (stealth, flashy acrobatics, decent AC) and trying to use a decent Int and Wis for off the wall shenanigans in and out of combat.

I've tried to get out of that shtick, but it's easy to fall back in to at least parts of it, and seemingly only really succeeding once. My Cleric (PF) took the madness domain for a touch of chaos to combats, but stayed pretty true to using debuffs, AoE control, and the occasional heal to keep the party running. I built a mythic Meduim (+VMC Bard) for "Wrath of the Righteous" that could buff teammates to the stratosphere while being an okay tank, but the game died early in the same book (4?) I brought her in. A pure Bladesinging Wizard (5e) became more of an arcane trickser in everything but name, dancing in and out of combat with quips to draw foes. And my current Warlock/Sorcerer multiclass (5e) built to bend the action economy to heal my allies, has became fond of illusion and enchantment magics to distract or misdirect instead to mitigate damage (and the need to heal).

[Sysryke]

Quixote wrote:

Yeah, you name it. Physical, mental, social. A brute or a scholar. Smooth or rough, bright-eyed or jaded. As long as they feel *real*; I don't do jokey, silly characters, but that's about it.

Loved all of the post. Loved everyone's feedback. Thank you all for rewarding my impulse to bump.

As to the quoted bit. Sounds to me like this would be your challenge if you were ever in the mindset to try it. You'd need to play a gimmicky or joke/silly character. The real challenge, could you have fun, and still find some way to make the character "real"?

Keep it coming folks.

[VoodistMonk]

I just posted in the Advice section asking for help making a Domination/Summoning focused tyrant, probably as absolutely outside of my comfort zone as one can possibly get. Just thinking about it as a concept makes me angry and anxious and apprehensive.

[Sysryke]

VoodistMonk wrote:

I just posted in the Advice section asking for help making a Domination/Summoning focused tyrant, probably as absolutely outside of my comfort zone as one can possibly get. Just thinking about it as a concept makes me angry and anxious and apprehensive.

And hopefully fun? Seriously if it's not a little fun, or at least cathartic, don't waste your energy. The point of challenges is to facilitate finding new aspects of the game to enjoy and/or break out of ruts. Don't torture your self.

[VoodistMonk]

The plan is to torture others... [insert maniacal laugh here]

[Scott Wilhelm]

I actually try to push myself to try new things with every character. I usually start a build with some combinations of Feats, Skills, Class Abilities, and/or Spells that look so awesome, I can't stop smiling. Then I put them together and find out some disaster of things I hadn't thought of: live and learn. They tend to be fighty characters.

Temperamentally, as an old grognard, I tend to do best playing things like Arcane Tricksters, the one who thinks, the one who schemes. The one who finds the information and low-key is the party leader. I have been told I can slow the party down, but I also tend to be the one who prevents the party from getting wiped out by taking precautions against one disaster after another. There was a PFS encounter, for instance where we had to fight an Ooze and a Swarm simultaneously, and I was the only one in the group that had Bludgeoning weapons, and I brought spares. I was also the only one with Lamp Oil and Alchemist Fire.

The last time I played a pure spellcaster, she was effective, but I was just not excited about playing her. Years ago, Paizo decided that Spell-like abilities could count as the ability to cast spells to start taking levels in a Prestige Class, so I made a Tiefling that was going to be a Mystic Theurge by level 3. Lauren Ipsum, a Lawful Neutral Tiefling Cleric of Asmodeus and a Wizard.

The spellcaster before that was one of the best characters I ever played. She was a Wizard named Claire, and the other players started calling her Creepy Claire. It started happening often that when she cast spells, the HM started sometimes imposing aberrations on her. He took me aside, and said, "Your character is neurotically secretive, and also, the only thing you want to eat is fresh blood." Before that she was aggressively dissecting monsters the party killed trying to do things like harvesting spider venom sack, collect dragon skins, etc, which started off being an extension of old-school gamers' looting everything that is not nailed down that might have any conceivable value, but then evolved into disturbing behavior. At the table, I started doodling random shapes that looked like magic rune writing, and when somebody asked what I was doing, I'd loudly and guiltily say, "NOTHING!" The party was a little creeped out when I kept one orc captive alive. When someone asked if I wanted help, I waved them off, "My b@+$!es wear their collars." I really liked roleplaying her.

[Quixote]

Sysryke wrote:

Sounds to me like this would be your challenge if you were ever in the mindset to try it. You'd need to play a gimmicky or joke/silly character. The real challenge, could you have fun, and still find some way to make the character "real"?

I don't think so. As I said above, I'm down with a character that likes humor or that does deliberately silly/funny things for a purpose. My old campaigner lvl1 fighter lvlX bard had a quick wit and a devil-may-care attitude and always made sure his companions stayed nice and humble. He'd make sly quips, pull crazy pranks and talk circles around a lot of the other characters (woe to you if you were going for the "strong and silent" edgelord-type. Cue feeling silly in 3...2...).

The type of character I have an aversion to is the more...hm. I guess a middle school approach to Chaotic Neutral is a good way to define it?

GM: "The innkeeper looks up from the bar. 'Welcome, friends. Is it a room you'll be wanting or perhaps just a bite and a pint before you continue on your way?'."

That Guy: "I pull out a bunch of bananas and start doing the salsa."

GM: "...?"

That Guy: "What? I'm chaotic neutral!"

And gimmicks...that's a little harder. I've played mechanically focused or themed characters. It's just the moment that they go from feeling like a person with an area of expertise (a freed gladiator, a cat burglar or a wandering priest) to feeling like a video game-y pile of numbers, I feel like I might as well leave the pencil, paper and tabletop behind and reinstall Diablo II instead.

If it can feel real by any means, I've either tried it or have no qualms about trying it.
When I start the character creation process, I start with a concept. Not "elven wizard" or "Shikigami Style tree", but like..."heartbroken priest on an unending quest for atonement." Just someone who's story sounds interesting enough to hear/tell. And from there, whatever the character is--because it never feels like I'm making them so much as uncovering them--that's what I do.

The character that sort of pushed me the most, though...that would have been from my first foray into Changeling: The Lost. Really well-written game, but ouphe, the trigger warnings. Definitely not the game for everyone.
Marrow was a high school drop-out with an abusive father who was taken into Arcadia and twisted into a creature made of howling winds, despairing cold and blasphemous hunger. I played her for hundreds of hours and never stopped finding new facets to her. Her fierce loyalty and fiercer jealousy, her surpringly feminine side, and her fear of becoming the monster she appears to be...and giving in to that monster as the need arises.
...looking back, my only hope is that I wasn't *too* terribly insensitive or ignorant in my approach to portraying a woman.

[Darigaaz the Igniter]

Quixote wrote:

The type of character I have an aversion to is the more...hm. I guess a middle school approach to Chaotic Neutral is a good way to define it?

GM: "The innkeeper looks up from the bar. 'Welcome, friends. Is it a room you'll be wanting or perhaps just a bite and a pint before you continue on your way?'."

That Guy: "I pull out a bunch of bananas and start doing the salsa."

GM: "...?"

That Guy: "What? I'm chaotic neutral!"

That's not chaotic neutral, that's chaotic stupid

[VoodistMonk]

Chaotic Stupid will ruin even Deadpool, don't do it... it's a trap.

[Sysryke]

@Quixote, but also in general, thanks for the continued sharing. I appreciate what your saying, but I also get the sense you either have a few years on me in gaming, or just more hours at the tables. We share some ideas about trying and playing all sorts of different characters; but I would also say that maybe I'm a little more random in my character creation process. I've certainly built many characters in the way you describe, but I've also had ones start from a joke.

This was in Marvel, so mechanics are incredibly free form; but I had the at the time amusing idea of Marci DeSade. Yes, a terrible and obvious pun, but I think I'd recenently seen a history channel documentary on the historical figure. What started as a joke idea, developed into a quite interesting and sympathetic character to play.

******* POSSIBLE SENSITIVE CONTENT *********

Sorry, I don't know how to format spoilers.

She was a mutant girl who lacked the capacity to feel any physical sensation except pain. Much of her childhood was spent dealing with both scientific and arcane studies/treatments to figure out why, to no avail. Eventually, the active part of her powers manifested as quills she could grow and launch as projectiles. By drawing her own blood, and therefore causing herself pain, she could enchant the quills to have additional effects.

These mechanical developments led to the exploration of how and why she would interact with others, and why she would choose to actively suffer to be a hero. It also helped me develop aspects of her socially isolated, but aggressively successful civilian persona. There was more as time went on; but the point is that what became a rather rich and memorable character started from just a cheesy pun.

*********** End of potential trigger stuff **********

Not saying any right or wrong in styles, just wanted to share. On the original personal challenges aspect of this thread, I would love to be able to run an analysis of your character/play history and find your common elements that you have to forgo, or the new thing you must try. That's just my OCD and curiosity popping out though. . . . . Honestly that's about half of my threads :p

[Quixote]

Darigaaz the Igniter wrote:

That's not chaotic neutral, that's chaotic stupid

Sure. And yet, those players still exist, they still make those characters and they're still willing to die on that particular hill (and probably many others).

That's really just my point, though. By the time a character becomes something I am genuinely unwilling to play, it's because the character would hurt the game with their nonsensery.

[SheepishEidolon]

Sysryke wrote:

Have you ever challenged yourself, or been forced to get outside of your box? Sometimes these types of games can lead to great characters. Mostly interested in positive or intriguing experiences, but absolute disaster stories are welcome too.

I told this story already, but: Several years ago a GM pushed me into playing a druid. The group would need another healer, and since there was already an oracle, he proposed druid. For once I tried to be openminded and it turned out horrible.

Since the class gives a newbie little clue what to actually do in combat or outside, I tried to stick with what I was familiar with. This resulted in a caster that relied on his single fireball per day (Fire domain) and some mediocre healing. Roleplaying a high Wis wasn't my thing either, back then, so I dragged along. When the barbarian got a fancy new hammer and I earned some measly magical stick, I had enough and quit.

On a more general note, I know hard battlefield control (anything beyond slow) and any mind control (even a suggestion) are outside my box. It simply feels wrong to reduce a worthy enemy to a helpless target or, worse, an unwanting ally. And I see little point in fighting this revulsion - there are enough other character concepts to explore.

[gnoams]

I played in a homebrew game where the gm wanted to do a steampunk setting. He had us all start as 1st level aristocrats (we were all knights), then any other class after that, but magic was illegal. We got one or two magic items over the course of the game, none of the normal required stuff like rings of protection or cloaks of resistance. Everything was very low-powered, and the game stopped at level 5. I definitely struggled with feeling so underpowered (I normally play very optimized builds). My character also aged during the game and ended up taking age penalties, which I of course hadn't planned for so that -1 str/dex/con hurt a lot as a frontline warrior. Even so it was a fun, memorable campaign, and I'm looking forward to the sequel.

[Sysryke]

SheepishEidolon wrote:

Sysryke wrote:

Have you ever challenged yourself, or been forced to get outside of your box? Sometimes these types of games can lead to great characters. Mostly interested in positive or intriguing experiences, but absolute disaster stories are welcome too.

I told this story already, but: Several years ago a GM pushed me into playing a druid. The group would need another healer, and since there was already an oracle, he proposed druid. For once I tried to be openminded and it turned out horrible.

I did say disasters welcome too, and that certainly qualifies. I'm sorry you had that experience. Mostly I'm blaming your GM who strong armed you, that's never okay. When done "properly" a challenge campaign or character is supposed to be a fun creative exercise.

You have a few restrictions or requirements, but then creative freedom for all the rest. It can help encourage acting, story development, and creative problem solving. gnoams example is a striking contrast. Not the only way to do it, but a solid example of what a challenge campaign could be.

[Sysryke]

@SheepishEidolon, I also agree with you on mind control. Dominating psychic types drive me nuts. Only psychic thing I really like is straight telepathy. Only thing that makes compulsions even slightly pallitable is saving throws, at least there's a chance to resist. That might be enough for an enchanter to be a personal challenge character for me someday. I have trouble getting excited about illusions too.

[Neriathale]

I played a barbarian briefly, an optimised 2-handed rager with maxed out Str and Con, and dumped Int/Cha who could one-shot everything in sight.

I hated it.

I think my natural character niche is the bard: social skills and investigation. I veer away from that a bit at times (and I'm currently enjoying playing a laid-back bloodrager who's trying to babysit two socially inept survivalists), but I always come back to playing the character who does the plot stuff.

[Sysryke]

Escaping from the social/story/active role can be hard, especially if the skills or temperments of your fellow players make them less assertive. I run into that problem semi-frequently. Feel like I'm running roughshod over the group sometimes (at least in terms of "screen time"), so I'll try to make a more "background" character, but then (sometimes) nothing gets done.

[Algarik]

Sysryke wrote:

Escaping from the social/story/active role can be hard, especially if the skills or temperments of your fellow players make them less assertive. I run into that problem semi-frequently. Feel like I'm running roughshod over the group sometimes (at least in terms of "screen time"), so I'll try to make a more "background" character, but then (sometimes) nothing gets done.

The same thing happened to me. I'm generally the default leader in most of my gaming group, and when i tried to play a secretive illusionist that avoided any kind of attention in a Drow game. I ended up having to take decisions for the group half of the time, to drive the story forward, or otherwise stuff just wouldn't get done.

[Lucy_Valentine]

Sysryke wrote:

I'm curious to hear about any games people played where you had to get outside of you role-playing box.

Playing Blades in the Dark. It's a game you play in author stance rather than actor stance, so you're deciding stuff because you think its cool or because of the numbers, rather than character motivations, and you're dictating social interaction approaches rather than acting through them.

... that's probably not what you meant. In terms of skillset I tend to default to high int/dex and skills. In terms of attitude I tend to pick NG-CN and team players.

Last time I played evil it was a full evil party trying to save the world from a cosmic horror because the world was where all our stuff was and also our bosses told us to. After we solved the problem, in space, I stole the teleporting machine and abandoned the party... which meant I had a full haul of all four minor artifacts we'd found to buy myself a nice retirement back in Elfland. But still, team player apart from that. ;)

One of my characters is *slightly* outside my usual dynamic in that she's headstrong/cocky/violent enough that she gets stuck in first, without really stopping to think about it.

[SheepishEidolon]

Sysryke wrote:

Mostly I'm blaming your GM who strong armed you, that's never okay.

To be fair: I asked him what I should play. Since I was rather new to Pathfinder, didn't know the campaign and hadn't meet the rest of the group yet. Maybe he wasn't aware that druid and new player don't mesh well - maybe he didn't care too much. He was rather the LN engineering guy who enjoyed the company of RPG tables but didn't have much insight into how people think and feel.

I tried to learn from it. As a player, I will refuse any role I am uncomfortable with. As a GM, I won't push anyone into any role. "Gaps" in the "classic four" (warrior, thief, healer, mage) can be tackled by the GM too, after all.

Quote:

When done "properly" a challenge campaign or character is supposed to be a fun creative exercise.

You have a few restrictions or requirements, but then creative freedom for all the rest. It can help encourage acting, story development, and creative problem solving.

Yeah, described this way it sounds quite promising. This thread made me reconsider whether I should play some "holy be default" PC - meaning aasimar, paladin, Iomedae worship, good spells and so on. Usually I despise such character options, but there are a few ways to make it interesting, I guess. An early Ultimate Mercy comes to my mind...

Sysryke wrote:

I also agree with you on mind control. Dominating psychic types drive me nuts. Only psychic thing I really like is straight telepathy. Only thing that makes compulsions even slightly pallitable is saving throws, at least there's a chance to resist. That might be enough for an enchanter to be a personal challenge character for me someday. I have trouble getting excited about illusions too.

Well, illusions mess with people's heads, too, so it makes sense that you don't like them either. Since I rarely encountered them, I never developed an aversion against them.

IMO there should always be more than one save when a creature becomes manipulated.

[Quixote]

Sysryke wrote:

Escaping from the social/story/active role can be hard...

Algarik wrote:

The same thing happened to me...

On one hand, I know that each of us has a different preference when it comes to engaging the story and setting; some people just want to kill monsters and collect xp/gp, and others may be genuinely interested in the story but are more comfortable observing than engaging.

On the other...I put a TON of work into this setting/campaign/adventure/session/encounter/game, and it would be nice if people actually showed they appreciate it.

I've been told that running a game with me as a player is sort of like having a second GM; help keep the stort moving, get pumped about the world, NPC's and other characters, etc.
Playing a character that's a leader in-game makes that easier, but not by much in my experience. One of my last characters was a surly, bloody-minded caravan guard who was just in it for the purse. But sometimes he'd say something like "I could bust open this lock, but I don't want to notch my sword..." while I give a meaningful look at the party burglar, or "hey, aren't these the woods that old woman was prattling on about? You seemed like you were actually paying attention to her stories. What did she say about the beast that lives here?" --totally an in-the-wings, let-somebody-else-drive kind of guy, but I give little prompts through him when story elements line up with other character's skill sets and the like.

SheepishEidolon wrote:

IMO there should always be more than one save when a creature becomes manipulated.

I'm curious as to the thought process, there. Is it a mechanical thing or an ethical thing? I can certainly see how it would feel a bit...unsavory...but then, I would personally sign up to be the target of Charm/Dominate/Hold Person over Fireball or a +2 keen rapier.

I guess it might be that (hopefully), for most of us, the threat of social or emotional manipulation is much more real and present in our day-to-day lives than physical violence like arson and attempted murder?

[SheepishEidolon]

Quixote wrote:

SheepishEidolon wrote:

IMO there should always be more than one save when a creature becomes manipulated.

I'm curious as to the thought process, there. Is it a mechanical thing or an ethical thing? I can certainly see how it would feel a bit...unsavory...but then, I would personally sign up to be the target of Charm/Dominate/Hold Person over Fireball or a +2 keen rapier.

I guess it might be that (hopefully), for most of us, the threat of social or emotional manipulation is much more real and present in our day-to-day lives than physical violence like arson and attempted murder?

I think it boils down to loss of control. A fireball or rapier hit takes away no control from you, unless it kills your PC / creature. It might force you to reconsider your options (being low on HP is dangerous), but still you are in control to make the decision.

Now if the opponent successfully messes with your PC's / creature's mind, you lose a serious amount of control, and it takes a subjectively long time to regain it.

It's ok to give up control if you can trust the other side. But the last player with a serious interest in mental control I encountered was not trustworthy - only out for his own fun, blind for the consequences for others.

[Quixote]

SheepishEidolon wrote:

I think it boils down to loss of control...

That makes sense. From a game design perspective, anything that removes a player's agency in a type of game that's all about player agency is going to be a delicate process at best. Hindering or altering that agency less so, but still something to bear in mind.

[Sysryke]

Beyond the ethical implications of dominating effects, I do feel there is some merit to a mechanical need for multiple saves. Admittedly I have a strong bias against and revulsion towards compulsions. It seems to me though, that even if you are controlled your mind (and possibly soul/spirit) should still have some awareness of the influence and therefore the chance to resist. Anything that controls you for more than a single action should have subsequent saves on following rounds. I'm okay with penalties that make it all but impossible to break free, but not with being denied the chance to resist at all. Tangentially, this is part of the reason I call B.S. on the very end of the novel 1984.

You might be able to control me by force or manipulation, but you can't make me accept it.

[VoodistMonk]

I do not cry with a love for big brother, that book makes me sick. As is the point, I suppose.

I freaking hate mind control, have in every media it appears. The concept of forcibly removing free will is revolting. As far as this game is concerned, 3.5e Illithid and Vampires really, REALLY made a lasting impression. It's been so long, I don't know if 3.5e Vampires have charms (just the particular one in my homeboy's homebrew campaign sure did...). Disgusting.

I even removed all of Nyrissa's charms in Kingmaker... they wouldn't have saved her anyways. But I felt way better, and had way more fun playing her (the few rounds she got to play).

[VoodistMonk]

No matter what you prefer, no matter your "comfort zone"... I will ALWAYS believe that TPK by domination is a morally pyrrhic victory. Yeah, you won, but you have to take a shower, and probably can't sleep at night...

[Bjørn Røyrvik]

People keep saying X is problematic and I haven't had a problem with it in 30 years of gaming. Paladins, time travel, Wishes, teleportation, mind control, DoMT, etc.
Mind control has never been a sticking point in games I've played. A problem sometimes, but never insurmountable. I've had a bigger problem with mind controlled players trying to interpret 'kill your friends' as 'do stuff that might technically after a few years lead to death but don't try very hard'.
And a vampire's charm isn't domination - you can't force people to kill their friends and loved ones unless they are very inclined to do so normally.

As for moving outside my comfort zone, this hasn't been an issue so far. I would feel super awkward if for some reason the group got into graphic sex scenes unless it was thoroughly Sexy Losers/Oglaf/Ghastly territory, and as far as general unpleasantness, Kult is one of my favorite games ever so no worries there. I could easily see myself playing a session or so of FATAL just to revel in its ridiculousness, as long as everyone else was in on the joke. I think you'd have to go to the lengths of RaHoWa, or anything actually approving of real world horribleness, to make me pass on something.

Mechanically, there are things I like and things I don't like, but this doesn't really count as preference.

[Sysryke]

Fair response. The point is not to make anyone, yourself or others, truly uncomfortable/squeamish/unsettled, more just to shake things up and try something new, when if the game has gotten a little stale or predictable.

[Quixote]

Wow. I'd never heard of FATAL before. So I looked it up.
...I was having a pretty good day, too.

[Sysryke]

I think I'll lump that into the category of things I hear, that I don't need to see. No judgements though. Gaming is just an extension of literature, theatre, and art; and that's all highly subjective. Sorry you got scarred Quixote.

[Sysryke]

Bjørn Røyrvik wrote:

People keep saying X is problematic and I haven't had a problem with it in 30 years of gaming. Paladins, time travel, Wishes, teleportation, mind control, DoMT, etc.

Mind control has never been a sticking point in games I've played. A problem sometimes, but never insurmountable.

I don't think any of those things are necessarily a problem, though they can be in some games/groups. Rather, these issue are just certain elements of fantasy and game play that some like or handle better than others. As most open conversations are wont to do, this thread took a bit of a dovetail. As I said above (and all comments/shares still welcome and appreciated), the intent of the challenge is not to make one uncomfortable in a moral, ethical, mental, or emotional sense, but rather to encourage the exploration or possibly fun alternative character options outside of our "favorites" or preconceptions. More the "variety is the spice of life" approach. In retrospect I didn't consider all of the ramifications of using the term "comfort zone", so I completely see how folks have come to share some very different ideas and approaches on this topic. Ahhh, the vagaries of the English language.