PDA

View Full Version : Do you like playing "normal people"?



Kiero
2009-03-15, 07:46 AM
Elsewhere, I made an offhand statement about normal people as characters, when talking about Ars Magica (though this thread isn't specific to that game by any means). I said I have no interest in playing normal people (which is what grogs in ArM are), which is true. I don't play RPGs to be ordinary, I play to be a Big Damned Hero. I know some people enjoy that mode, I don't. Doesn't appeal to me in the slightest. I won't play a character less competent in sum than myself (which is why I don't like most "starting characters"). I won't run games for them, either.

That's one of my many beefs with WFRP, so many of the careers are completely unheroic (and intentionally so), and I wouldn't want to play most of them. Which is one of the many strands of problem I have with it's random generation, it's pretty much guaranteed to give me a starting character in a career I don't want to play. Fortunately in the WFRP game I'm playing in every week, that never became an issue because we got to choose our starting careers.

It was also one of my issues with WEG/D6 Star Wars, that assumption that all the heroics were for the overpowered signature characters, and you and your group were just some bit-players who weren't really competent enough to be heroic - not until you'd been playing several years of real time, at least. Or worse that dull "tramp freighters" Traveller style, which for me isn't Star Wars at all.

In Buffy/Angel, where one of the assumed modes of play is Hero + White Hats, I have zero interest in playing a White Hat. More DPs don't balance things up for me, the fact is being less competent means you need them. Whereas my experience of playing Hero/Champion characters is that less DPs is no issue, because you don't actually need them as much. Makes it well-balanced, I guess.

Even in a historical or modern game, I expect to be playing someone who is exceptional, set apart from the norm. Indeed I don't see why they should be any different from any other setting, there are lots of people in life who are "better than average", why should we be stuck with playing the majority?

No I don't care that one definition of "hero" is someone who rises above adversity or mediocrity to do exceptional things. That's not a Big Damned Hero. EDIT: Before people jump to the usual of excluding the middle, I'm not talking about playing supers or demi-gods, but competent people like your average action-movie star.

What about you?

arguskos
2009-03-15, 07:51 AM
I don't always prefer the Big Damned Hero, and I don't hate the "hero from normal backgrounds who becomes great" type, but I do prefer someone who has reason to be a hero, and is a cut above the rest, be it for his race, ancestry, special powers, whatever. I don't play a Commoner 1/whatever X, I play a whatever X!

Zincorium
2009-03-15, 08:06 AM
In general, I'm on your side Kiero. Escapist fantasy means doing things I can't do in real life, whether due to physics, consequences, or it being way too much effort.

There is, however, one very good genre in which the fun had from the game is multiplied by limiting you own options: horror. Especially survival horror. Call of Cthulhu is probably the paragon of the genre in RPG terms, but when you add ultra-high powered heroes to a horror game, it becomes an action game instead. The only thing wrong with that is it isn't what everyone else signed up to play, and you are now That Guy.

Kiero
2009-03-15, 08:06 AM
There is, however, one very good genre in which the fun had from the game is multiplied by limiting you own options: horror. Especially survival horror. Call of Cthulhu is probably the paragon of the genre in RPG terms, but when you add ultra-high powered heroes to a horror game, it becomes an action game instead. The only thing wrong with that is it isn't what everyone else signed up to play, and you are now That Guy.

That's intentional; I hate horror. :smallwink:

golentan
2009-03-15, 08:11 AM
Typically, I prefer to start as a BDH, but in such a way that it's clear I'm not a hero yet. Power: Check. Experience: Check. Array of Great Entrances/One liners? Check. Motivation sorely lacking. My current build is a fey that gets bored and is following the BDHs around to see what they do and use his shatter at will ability at inopportune moments. Eventually, yes, I will roleplay his growth into an actual hero and contributing member of the group.

Failing that, I do like starting out as average. If you were to be attacked by zombies on the bus tomorrow, would you be prepared? Would you have a shotgun with holy symbols down the barrel? I certainly hope not, and I wouldn't.

If I survived, I'd invest forthwith, and start looking for more. After a few encounters, I might get enough experience to start calling myself a BDH. Get a group together, hunt zombies in the inner city, and enjoy the knowledge that all my former knowledge was wrong.

I play roleplaying games in lieu of being able to blow away real (un)live zombies. (Though if anyone knows of any I can be anywhere in the world inside of 3 days...) So yes, a character I can associate with, someone who has specialized in reading a certain class of science book or punching numbers in a calculator instead of sprinting around with firearms, does have appeal.

its_all_ogre
2009-03-15, 08:26 AM
bear in mind the paradigm(that word is being used a lot in the 3.5 vs 4e threads at the mo, so i'm stealing it!) of the system you're playing.
specifically WFRP is intended to be a normal guy, in fact sub normal at starting, and not a heroic rp system. or at least you won't be a hero for long as even peasants or goblins with sticks can get lucky!!

however i'd have to say i agree with you in general, the horror film industry make great films out of normal people in extra-ordinary situations (alien and zombie films) but rpg less so

Tsotha-lanti
2009-03-15, 08:46 AM
I like running normal people (or starting campaigns with normal people, at least), which is why I love WFRP, street-level cyberpunk games, and RuneQuest (of course, in RuneQuest, "normal people" means you can perform magic, go on quests in Otherworlds, and so on).

A big part of this is that I think characters should have an arc, and that pre-game background is worthless - if it didn't happen in-game, it might as well not have happened. So I like to start them at the beginning and really tie them to the world, from the ground up. (This does result in long, slow campaigns, but I always prefer running sandboxes.) Another big part is that I just plain like it. It's a staple of fantasy since forever and a day, anyhow; LOTR, Chronicles of Prydain, Arthurian legend, Norse sagas... they feature "normal" people. In the right setting/genre, being "normal" is amazing and cool enough.

Xanedan
2009-03-15, 09:12 AM
I hate magic, playing it anyhow. Fighting against it is quite fun, imho.

I'm a fairly scrawny guy (5'8, 160lbs average I suppose) who in life has had to rely on agility and intelligence to make up for my lack of strength and social skills.

Through it all: two years I worked construction, basic training, my bi-annual physical health exams, I've always been the fast, smart, quiet guy.

Predictably I played a rogue during my D&D days, favor rogue or ranger now, played a rogue during my brief foray into WoW, and maxed sneak first in Oblivion and Fallout 3 (and used the shishkabab almost exclusively, haha). I always choose a variant of human with dark brown hair and green eyes.

I want to play as myself in a fantastical enviroment to imagine how I would act with different training in a different world.

Be me, with less looking at small gross things under a microscope and more cutting off the heads of fearsome, militant, large gross things.

Kiero
2009-03-15, 09:14 AM
A big part of this is that I think characters should have an arc, and that pre-game background is worthless - if it didn't happen in-game, it might as well not have happened. So I like to start them at the beginning and really tie them to the world, from the ground up. (This does result in long, slow campaigns, but I always prefer running sandboxes.)

Whereas both as a player and GM, I don't find playing/running for cyphers who have nothing to tie them to the world before the game starts any fun at all.

Note I don't think backstory should be pages of IC fanfic, but rather a summary of important people and events that brought the character to where they are. I can't play a character without doing that, I struggle to find anything to hook in a PC if I'm running a game without.

Flickerdart
2009-03-15, 09:27 AM
I find it more challenging to make "normal people" characters, especially in freeform games. The reason is, you don't have much in terms of ability to set yourself apart from the bunch, and so you need to have a lot of characterization to make up for it. Overall, I think my normals come out much more well-rounded people. And then I'm writing a story set in Victorian times. And the main character is a postman. Not even a good postman. It's been hard trying to make him interesting, but I think I'm doing a good job of it so far.

And then there are the games I run. The players aren't Big Damn Heroes. They're way above the unwashed masses, but their enemies are just as high above them, and it takes planning and skill to defeat them. Which, to be honest, my players don't have, and so far they've been the cause of two major-scale disasters that tipped the balance of power completely to the south, and destroyed countless priceless artifacts by linking them directly to an entity that devours magic, which they can't be blamed for not knowing because it's an integral part of the game's premise.

Tsotha-lanti
2009-03-15, 09:31 AM
Whereas both as a player and GM, I don't find playing/running for cyphers who have nothing to tie them to the world before the game starts any fun at all.

Note I don't think backstory should be pages of IC fanfic, but rather a summary of important people and events that brought the character to where they are. I can't play a character without doing that, I struggle to find anything to hook in a PC if I'm running a game without.

This is where my method comes out ahead, in my opinion. It's way easier to tie the regular joes to the setting. "You're all karls of the clan, and belong to this bloodline at this stead." That's the basic premise of my RuneQuest heortling campaigns.

The more powerful and exceptional a character is, the more significant history they should have - and significant history that didn't happen in-game always rings really hollow. It's pretty hard to care that Mister Mighty defeated the Big Bad Wolf at Hollowhall or that the Bafflomancer killed his sister in the Year of the Dingus when none of that actually happened. When it all actually takes place at the table, it's a lot more gripping and memorable, and ties both player and character more strongly to the gameworld.

I'd much rather have the characters played through Starbrow's Rebellion, likely the most important event in the life of anyone who participated in it, than have the players write down a line of background about it. It's much more interesting to see how they deal with being conquered and occupied than to ask them to describe it as an out-of-game event.

If I have a specific story to tell (usually I only have general stories, like "living as heortlings in Sartar from 1605 to 1625"), though, it's necessary to start the PCs out with a little background, but then I prefer to create a big bunch of ready characters for the players to pick from (an original character isn't the point in a scenario game like it is in a sandbox game). This is my preferred approach for horror games (and with families taking up more of my players' time, I'm moving my other games to a similar design; ready PCs cut out an entire session of preparation, and we only play 1-2 times a month at most).

Dienekes
2009-03-15, 09:33 AM
Must respectfully disagree Kiero.

I tend to play more grit fantasy DnD (though with my limited experience I'm sure others have far more elegant ways of doing this).

My players all know this, and they understand that they'll start at low levels and will be forced to roleplay up to becoming powerful. I try to make them use their minds and figure out ways to advance and such. And I generally let it be known that those that play Big Damn Heroes will rather realistically end up dead faster than other characters.

Now I understand that's not your style of play, but it suits myself and my players (All of which having been hooked onto ASOIAF and have expressed desire to RP in that form of fantasy world)

I think the reasoning for it, is my players at least want to see their characters develop and learn through mistakes. And develop actual personas that make moral and physical struggles significant.

Now I will admit that playing the hero can be fun as well. I am amused that whenever we finish a campaign (and sometimes go to playing other games) my group continually asks to comeback to mine where they do not have supreme powers of heroism and plot power. Now I don't actually know why but they all seem to like my style.

So that was a long post for saying well some people like it different...

Morty
2009-03-15, 09:33 AM
I love playing normal people and I find it much preferable to playing "heroes". My biggest beef with D&D is that it assumes that PCs are above average and heroic right off the bat. And it's much easier for me to roleplay a character that isn't different from everyone he or she meets. Right, so after playing a long campaign my character might get power and fame, but I don't want to start out with them.

Winterwind
2009-03-15, 10:08 AM
While my primary goal in roleplaying (as player, not gamemaster) is to play a particular character, when I develop that character I do so with a story in mind, and with consideration to how interesting it would be to play that character in the context of the setting. Which means I sometimes end up playing perfectly normal people, or even people whom even normal people would look down upon, if I decide that this particular character might be interesting to play.

Because whether a character ends up being interesting or not is a matter of being a "Big Damned Hero" or particularly skilled alone. It's a matter of the interaction between the character and the story as a whole. And it may well be that a perfectly normal character, who does not believe in magic and monsters, who finds himself confronted with such, is much more interesting to roleplay than a hero who takes these for granted. Or the interaction of the junkie with PCs and NPCs alike, who cares more about getting his next fix rather than the matters any rational person would consider as of uttemost importance, can lead to some funny, amusing or tragical situations. Etc.

woodenbandman
2009-03-15, 11:49 AM
I don't play "Normal people" but I do play "real people." I try to introduce characters with problems just like everyone else. Not having any problems = not having any fun.

Tengu_temp
2009-03-15, 11:58 AM
I like normal people who become Big Damn Heroes. I don't like normal people who stay normal and nonheroic - this is not what RPGs are for me.

There might be exceptions (CoC, Maid RPG, WFRP), but I rarely/never play those.

BlueWizard
2009-03-15, 12:11 PM
I hate power gaming, and I like the challenge of having more normal PCs.
It adds a little fright to your game when the player is at a disadvantage. ANd from my many years experience, those are the only campaigns I remember. The power-gamers just seem to be disliked by everyone.

Xuincherguixe
2009-03-15, 12:56 PM
I wouldn't know how to play a normal person.

And while most of my characters usually end up heroic, they're hardly in the Superman archetype. Anti heroes are a lot more fun.

Valentyne
2009-03-15, 02:21 PM
Well I have never liked playing a "normal person" - not even sure what one is...all that problem of defining "normal". But I don't really like playing the Big Damn Hero either...

I have always like the niche charters, and I always end up playing the joker of the group. I measure fun in the number of laughs during a game....

horseboy
2009-03-15, 04:33 PM
Failing that, I do like starting out as average. If you were to be attacked by zombies on the bus tomorrow, would you be prepared? Would you have a shotgun with holy symbols down the barrel? I certainly hope not, and I wouldn't.Well, first you want to swing by the diving store and pick you up one of those anit-shark suits. Why nobody does this is beyond me. Then you grab a gass grill and A-team it into a flame thrower. Then use the legendary bad path finding of a zombie to glitch them behind chain link fences. There your propane and propane accessories powered fire won't be hot enough to melt the metal links, but will be hot enough to ignite the growing methane build up in the zombies. Then book it to either the National Guard Armoury or a store with enough materials that I'll be able to kill all the zombies (Like Lowe's or The Home Depot). (Yeah, I've got a crappy job, it's thinking about stuff like this that helps me stay sane.)
But anyway, for the the difference between "BDH" and "Schlub" is that the "BDH" actually has a clue. A BDH doesn't so much have to have Olympic level stats but at least paid attention in High School Chemistry to be able to make C4 out of hand lotion. So I don't know if it's "Big Damn" but at least Hero.
By the same context I love to be challenged, to have to pull crazy plans out my sphincter. It's one of the reasons I don't like Capes games, I'm a squirrely bastich, you give me Green Lantern power and there's nothing you can throw at me to challenge me. There's a fine line a system has to ride for me to be entertained.

Kiero
2009-03-15, 04:36 PM
I hate power gaming, and I like the challenge of having more normal PCs.

Powergaming has precisely nothing to do with this topic.

Aron Times
2009-03-15, 04:42 PM
It really depends on the theme of the game you're playing. Surviving the Zombie Apocalypse plays out differently if you're playing D&D (heroic fantasy) as opposed to a grim and gritty game.

I build my character based on what the story needs. If the story calls for great heroes to protect the points of light from the encroaching sea of darkness (D&D), I will build a great hero. If the story calls for an Average Joe trying to survive the Zombie Apocalypse, I will build an Average Joe.

BlueWizard
2009-03-15, 08:28 PM
Powergaming has precisely nothing to do with this topic.

Well, what is normal? I find some players find anything that is not uber-awesome is normal. I find PCs with weak ability scores and flaws actually more interesting. It is a challenge... yes, to keep them alive and make them super by leveling.

Tequila Sunrise
2009-03-15, 08:53 PM
I've never played a 'normal' character, so I can't say for sure whether I'd like it. If my PC was exceptional in one way and sub-par in another way, and was mechanically differentiated from the other 'normal' PCs, I think I'd enjoy it at least for a few sessions. But I don't think I'd want to play 'normal' for long; I play to escape normality too.

Alleine
2009-03-15, 09:00 PM
If I wanted to play a normal character I'd wouldn't play DnD, I would just live my life. :smallannoyed:

I like the idea of a person whose 'daily grind' consists of saving cities/the world.

toasty
2009-03-15, 10:36 PM
I think I'd say I like playing normal people who because of events around them or actions they perform over the course of the RPG become not normal.

So for instance, if I decided to play a CoC game (not that I'm planning on doing so) I wouldn't mind playing a normal person. However I would expect that if my PC was lucky enough to survive that he would no longer be normal.

I wouldn't mind playing a Super Hero RPG so long as my character has only recently discovered his power or ability. That way I can become powerful and heroic.

Saph
2009-03-15, 10:57 PM
Define "normal".

If by "normal" you mean Level 1, but with good stats and a PC class, then sure! It's my favourite way to start a long-running game.

If by "normal" you mean a 0-level commoner with no good stats at all, then no. I don't mind starting low, but I want my character to have potential.

On the other hand, if by "normal" you mean "anybody who isn't the baddest mofo in the whole wide world" then not only do I like it, I really don't like games where it's not true.

My view of starting characters:

Low power, no potential = Bad.
Low power, high potential = Good.
Middle power, high potential = Good.
High power, high potential = Bad.
Super-high power = Awful.

I find the amount of fun you have with a powerful character is directly proportional to the amount of time you've invested in them. A character that you've played all the way from level 1 up to level 10 is a huge amount of fun. A character who springs into existence at level 20 with the ability to disintegrate planets is totally uninteresting.

- Saph

Knaight
2009-03-15, 11:10 PM
I like playing people who are above average overall, but not hugely, that have their weaknesses, and are flawed characters. I generally play two big types of characters, characters that start of arrogant, elitist, whatever, and get better, or characters that start off with a few flaws, that constantly grow to consume them. Right now I'm playing a reckless, slightly paranoid guy on the way to insanity. Its fun, and its a nice aside to my GMing, which I'm still doing, and have a few of both those types in. A spoiled princess nymph of the first type, and somebody who is overprotective of his people, and is crossing boundary after boundary into becoming ruthless in that protection. At this point he has crossed the "villain" line, he crossed the "dangerous fanatic" line a while ago.

That said, normal characters are also fun. One thing I have been thinking about running is a pseudo-horror game. I normally hate horror, but this has one other perk. Everybody plays somebody else at the table as their character, as well as making that character, no point buy, no nothing, just as they see them. But my rational side keeps telling me that this is a really bad idea.

Dixieboy
2009-03-15, 11:13 PM
D&D i like to play the guy who had a pretty average upbringing who just so happens to be at the right place at the right time to do something heroic.

If you look around at your workplace, school or just on the streets you'll notice how different people are despite them being raised atleast somewhat equally, very few of them where son of a demon overlord, (some might, but it is a relatively small number) or be known all around the fey courts as the ultimate mofo.

Examples:

You might have gotten your hands on a spellbook when you were a kid and thus came your rise to wizardry and ultimately casting of karsus's avatar.

Or you dad was a hunter and your playground was the wood, when you grew up you put that to good use and ended up becoming the guardian of a small hamlet at the edge of the woods (Ranger)

These both start out with simple believable pasts (For D&D at least) nothing inherently special about them (Wizard was probably a cut above average intelligence wise though) but due to whatever the hell happens to them through the adventure they ultimately become BDH, most great heroes start out small, that is what makes them so great.

Which one would you prefer to play?
The kid that stumbled upon a sword and through conviction, wits (this may be left out if playing half-orc) and just a little bit of luck managed to rise up from the flock and defeat the dragon, get the princess and possibly live happily ever after?

Or guy whose ancestry included dragons, gods and demons who was brought up on a castle and spend all his time being taught by the very best champions of swordfighting who cut through everything in his path because nothing could stand against his awesome might?

I prefer the first, but it is a matter of taste.

Do i make sense?

Jayngfet
2009-03-15, 11:22 PM
I generally prefer to be a larger than life over the top big damn hero. EVERY OTHER SCENTENCE MUST BE HOT BLOODED YELLING. IF I CAN GET AWAY WITH IT I CALL OUT MY ATTACKS ANIME STYLE.

Kiero
2009-03-16, 05:47 AM
I find the amount of fun you have with a powerful character is directly proportional to the amount of time you've invested in them. A character that you've played all the way from level 1 up to level 10 is a huge amount of fun. A character who springs into existence at level 20 with the ability to disintegrate planets is totally uninteresting.

- Saph

Whereas I don't. I've been playing a weekly WFRP game, and the early parts of the game were simply frustrating. Knowing how fragile my character was, and being nearly killed several times because my character was behaving heroically and standing up for his friends. He lost a Fate Point shielding his mortally wounded fellow PC from an explosion with his body. As in yes, he technically died, but the rules give you an out if you spend a Fate Point (which is permanently lost, unlike Fortune Points). I did it because the PC on question had none left - that would have meant new character.

We're now into our second careers, and a lot more capable. But frankly that's the last time I ever play WFRP that way, anyone wants to tempt me to a game again, it had better be starting out second career. Otherwise I'll pass, thanks.

And you've done what people seem to keep doing. I'm not talking about playing a level 20 (or whatever the maximum power level is) from the off. I'm talking about competent, not godlike. That means, say, 10th level start. I'd quite happily stay there too, with no advancement from that point.

Saph
2009-03-16, 06:00 AM
I'm talking about competent, not godlike. That means, say, 10th level start.

10th-level in 3.5 is not "competent". Level 3-4 is "competent". Level 10 is "superhuman". A 10th-level D&D character can survive being dropped from orbit, break most Olympic records, and take on literally hundreds of mook enemies and expect to win. And those are the ones who CAN'T cast spells.

I don't know what your definition of "competent" is, but I don't think it's the one everyone else uses.

- Saph

Dhavaer
2009-03-16, 06:08 AM
I favour 3-5 in 3.5 or Modern, 10 in M&M, and I haven't yet played enough 4e to form a preference. In general, character power should be high enough to some a few decent options and make success more a matter of competance than luck.

Kiero
2009-03-16, 06:09 AM
10th-level in 3.5 is not "competent". Level 3-4 is "competent". Level 10 is "superhuman". A 10th-level D&D character can survive being dropped from orbit, break most Olympic records, and take on literally hundreds of mook enemies and expect to win. And those are the ones who CAN'T cast spells.

I don't know what your definition of "competent" is, but I don't think it's the one everyone else uses.

- Saph

My definition is action movie star or pulp hero. Jason Bourne is competent, but not superhuman. Same goes the new incarnation of Bond, or Frank Martin from the Transporter films.

Narmoth
2009-03-16, 06:15 AM
10th-level in 3.5 is not "competent". Level 3-4 is "competent". Level 10 is "superhuman". A 10th-level D&D character can survive being dropped from orbit, break most Olympic records, and take on literally hundreds of mook enemies and expect to win. And those are the ones who CAN'T cast spells.

I don't know what your definition of "competent" is, but I don't think it's the one everyone else uses.

- Saph

With greater cleave you can cut through an inextinguishable amount of mooks, as long as their individual hp is less than the dmg you deal

Jayabalard
2009-03-16, 06:29 AM
What about you?I'm fine either way, and generally prefer characters that are are more on the normal side than the larger than life side, about like a competent real person than an action movie star.



I'm talking about competent, not godlike. That means, say, 10th level start. I agree with Saph... 10th level is far beyond competent.


My definition is action movie star or pulp hero. Jason Bourne is competent, but not superhuman. Same goes the new incarnation of Bond, or Frank Martin from the Transporter films.Both of your examples are a bit weaker than a 10th level melee character, let alone spellcasters of that level.

Saph
2009-03-16, 06:32 AM
My definition is action movie star or pulp hero. Jason Bourne is competent, but not superhuman. Same goes the new incarnation of Bond, or Frank Martin from the Transporter films.

That's not competent, that's near-superhuman. No actual person could do the stunts they pull on a regular basis and expect to live. If Frank Martin only counts as "competent" in your books - bear in mind that this is a guy who can beat an entire freaking army solo - then it's probably not surprising that you get frustrated with most campaign's power levels.

- Saph

Satyr
2009-03-16, 06:40 AM
Since versimilitude is one of the most important objectives for my games, I don't think that playing a cinematic larger-than-life hero is that attractive. Often, those become silly caricatures of true heroism and are hurting both the game world's plausibility and the dramaturgy of the narrative, which are both much more important than the "fun" of a single player.

Besides, I have certain disdain for players who use roleplaying games to escape reality and live out their power fantasies. Apart from the general issue, that an artform should not be used as a replacement of real life satisfaction, those players are often terrible roleplayers, with little to no understanding of drama and pace, but a terrible egocentric world view and playing style. Those players are rarely up to the standards I assume for my games for exactly these reasons.

Kiero
2009-03-16, 07:29 AM
That's not competent, that's near-superhuman. No actual person could do the stunts they pull on a regular basis and expect to live. If Frank Martin only counts as "competent" in your books - bear in mind that this is a guy who can beat an entire freaking army solo - then it's probably not surprising that you get frustrated with most campaign's power levels.

- Saph

Martin beat up a room full of mooks, not an "entire freaking army". Mooks being less threatening to action heroes than named opponents would be. Genre convention.

As Jayabalard just pointed out, that's not even 10th level (that was a guess, I don't play 3.x). Which rather beggars your assertion that it's "near-superhuman". I probably shouldn't have mentioned D&D anyway, people on this forum tend to get fixated on that to the exclusion of all other games out there.

If we were talking Star Wars Saga Edition (which I have played) I'd be talking 7th or 8th level. What I'm talking about is exactly where starting characters in Spirit of the Century are, for example. They're pulp heroes.

Actual people can achieve some of the things that are possible in action films (they tend to stretch, but not completely shatter reality), otherwise you'd even struggle to set up the stunts with actual human beings. Compare for example to The Matrix, where they did have to use CGI in places because they are totally, physically impossible otherwise.


Since versimilitude is one of the most important objectives for my games, I don't think that playing a cinematic larger-than-life hero is that attractive. Often, those become silly caricatures of true heroism and are hurting both the game world's plausibility and the dramaturgy of the narrative, which are both much more important than the "fun" of a single player.

And what if it's what the entire group are interested in? It's no different for me when I'm running a game, I have no interest whatsoever in fielding a game about schlubs and their small victories.


Besides, I have certain disdain for players who use roleplaying games to escape reality and live out their power fantasies. Apart from the general issue, that an artform should not be used as a replacement of real life satisfaction, those players are often terrible roleplayers, with little to no understanding of drama and pace, but a terrible egocentric world view and playing style. Those players are rarely up to the standards I assume for my games for exactly these reasons.

Dude, not to worry, everything I've ever read about your views on roleplaying tells me I wouldn't want to play in your group.

Roleplaying as an activity is inherently escapist fantasy. No matter what you're doing or how you're defining things. But some people like to delude themselves that their make-believe is objectively better than anyone elses.

And frankly whenever people start talking about roleplaying as "art" I can only laugh.

Neithan
2009-03-16, 07:46 AM
I almost only play "normal people".

Though "normal people" would also include Indiana Jones and James Bond.
Uncommon training and equipment is okay, but there's few fun for me, when the characters are superhumans. It can be fun at times to be a Jedi or Demi-God, but to me, the greatest sense of archievement is when the characters overcome their own limitations and do what most people are too afraid to try.
If you are simply plain better than normal people and have superpowers, this sense of archievement is mostly lost. You don't have the limitations of normal people to begin with, and you are a hero "by birth", not because of your own archievements.
And archievements are what makes the game fun to play, for me.

Drascin
2009-03-16, 07:53 AM
I like normal people who become Big Damn Heroes. I don't like normal people who stay normal and nonheroic - this is not what RPGs are for me.


What Tengu said. I like to be a hero. I don't mind starting as a normal dude (though when my character is less competent than my real self at almost everything, it gets rather annoying), but before the campaign ends, I want to have grown in ability and made some awesome things. I already have a heroic streak in real life, and it has already almost got me really hurt a couple times - I play RPGs to be able to indulge on it without the chance of permanent grievous bodily harm :smalltongue:.

Saph
2009-03-16, 07:57 AM
If we were talking Star Wars Saga Edition (which I have played) I'd be talking 7th or 8th level. What I'm talking about is exactly where starting characters in Spirit of the Century are, for example. They're pulp heroes.

Then "competent" isn't a good word to describe what you're looking for, because by your standards, not a single living person on the face of the Earth would qualify as "competent".

I think this might be the cause of some of the problems you're having with other systems. You ask "Is a starting character competent?" and other players will say "yes", meaning "they're as competent as a smart, experienced, and well-trained normal human being".

- Saph

Satyr
2009-03-16, 08:02 AM
And what if it's what the entire group are interested in? It's no different for me when I'm running a game, I have no interest whatsoever in fielding a game about schlubs and their small victories.

I never found that a "small" victory is always a small one; that depends completely on the perspective of the characters and the scope of the campaign.
True heroism is to overcome challenges and hindrances that are almost or completely out of the range of the characters, and heroic characters are almost always more interesting than unheroic ones, right? And a seemingly small character, who overcome a normal obstacle is more heroic than a powerful one who slaughter an army of helpless mooks without breaking a sweat. Even though the latter one is the more spectacular one it is still the duller one.



Roleplaying as an activity is inherently escapist fantasy. No matter what you're doing or how you're defining things. But some people like to delude themselves that their make-believe is objectively better than anyone elses.

Roleplaying is a communicative activity that includes a collective narrative. Like every narrative it is a form of art. And like every activity, there is a qualitative difference in it; most of the time it is based on the dedication of the players and the intention and motivation of the group to constantly improve themselves. others are satisfied with mediocre games; I am not. And you should not, either.



And frankly whenever people start talking about roleplaying as "art" I can only laugh.

And whenever someone tries to ridicule somthing they don't seem to understand, I feel pity.

Morty
2009-03-16, 08:50 AM
That's not competent, that's near-superhuman. No actual person could do the stunts they pull on a regular basis and expect to live. If Frank Martin only counts as "competent" in your books - bear in mind that this is a guy who can beat an entire freaking army solo - then it's probably not surprising that you get frustrated with most campaign's power levels.

- Saph

Now, to be fair, action heroes survive not only due to skill but also because they've got plot armor - they won't be shot or stabbed dead by a random disposable mook, because it wouldn't make for a good movie. Which doesn't mean that Bourne or Bond aren't far beyond the "competent" level. And that plot armor is good for an RPG game.
That, and when a movie's hero pulls of an amazing stunt once or twice it's cool. When a character does this on a daily basis... it's silly.

Tengu_temp
2009-03-16, 09:38 AM
Roleplaying is a communicative activity that includes a collective narrative. Like every narrative it is a form of art. And like every activity, there is a qualitative difference in it; most of the time it is based on the dedication of the players and the intention and motivation of the group to constantly improve themselves. others are satisfied with mediocre games; I am not. And you should not, either.


Bzzt, wrong answer. Roleplaying is, first and foremost, a form of entertainment, and the most important thing is for everyone to have fun - if you put something else before the fun of the players, you're completely missing the point. It can be deep, engaging and improving, yes - but it's still entertainment.

Also, I'm trying my hardest to understand the "mediocre games" remark as something else than elitism, and I can't - I just can't stop seeing the implication that it's not about the quality of the narrative, but also about the content (in this case: "normal people = good game, powerful heroes = mediocre game").

Thajocoth
2009-03-16, 10:27 AM
Absolutely not. I won't even play a normal person IRL. Normal == boring.

Winterwind
2009-03-16, 11:18 AM
Hmm... I'm a bit surprised how many people here seem to correlate being "normal" in terms of power (which is what the OP spoke of) with being "normal" in terms of personality and thus not interesting to roleplay (which I don't see him mentioning anywhere). A person could easily be weak, inefficient and incompetent, and yet have a fascinating/funny/tragic/whateveryouwishfor personality and be living a most interesting life that would make that of most adventurers seem bland and pale.



@Tengu: Say, where is this avatar of yours from? It looks vaguely familiar...

Thajocoth
2009-03-16, 11:50 AM
..."normal" in terms of power (which is what the OP spoke of)...

Let's compare. Using 4E for this... Here's Human Rabble, Lvl 2 minion. This would be the average commoner's stats at level 2:
Str 14
Con 12
Dex 10
Int 9
Wis 10
Cha 11

Now let's see the average adventurer's stats at level 2 (Point buy, plus racial bonuses):
Primary: 20
Secondary: 16
Tertiary: 11
Stat: 10
Stat: 10
Dump: 8

Another build:
Primary: 18
Primary: 18
Secondary: 12
Secondary: 12
Stat: 10
Dump: 8

Or, as close to average as possible with the standard point buy and human racial bonus:
Primary: 15
Secondary: 14
Stat: 13
Stat: 13
Stat: 13
Stat: 13

See how each set of PC stats is better than those of the common man? That's because an adventurer is not a common man. One might argue that Human Bandit, Level 2 Skirmisher is comparable to a PC:
Str: 12
Con: 13
Dex: 17
Int: 10
Wis: 11
Cha: 12

But, a bandit isn't really a common person either. They've honed their skills for sneaking, stealing and killing.

You can have the best backstory and character ever for rp, but as a commoner, they're going to die by level 3. Adventurers are above average people in unique situations.

Morty
2009-03-16, 12:07 PM
You can have the best backstory and character ever for rp, but as a commoner, they're going to die by level 3. Adventurers are above average people in unique situations.

In D&D, yes. However, Kiero's question applies to all systems. And in other systems, you might play someone without combat skills and live.

Satyr
2009-03-16, 12:31 PM
Bzzt, wrong answer. Roleplaying is, first and foremost, a form of entertainment, and the most important thing is for everyone to have fun - if you put something else before the fun of the players, you're completely missing the point. It can be deep, engaging and improving, yes - but it's still entertainment.


Every narrative is a form of art. And every roleplaying game is a form of narrative. The reason for the creation of the narrative may be entertainment, but that doesn't mean that it stops being a form of art, only because it is also entertaining. There is just no contradiction between these two terms. or do you really beliefe that something must be unentertaining to be art?

But: if you don't aim for anything more than just entertainment, it certainly won't become anything more. If you are content with this, good for you. I, however, find entertainment alone not interesting nough to capture my attention for long. Without intellectual stimulation (or beer), a game becomes terribly, terribly boring and unsatisfying within a very short time. Fun alone is no justification to insult other people's intelligence, and I am not able to justswith off my brain to enjoy a bit of shallow entertainment (that's what the beer is for). I have certain standards for what I consider an adequate game. If these standards are not fulfilled, the game is bad (or I am too sober). Sometimes, defining quality can be so easy, at least on the individual level.


Also, I'm trying my hardest to understand the "mediocre games" remark as something else than elitism, and I can't

The way you say that, one could almost believe that you'd think that elitism is something bad.


I just can't stop seeing the implication that it's not about the quality of the narrative, but also about the content (in this case: "normal people = good game, powerful heroes = mediocre game").

No, that's not what I wanted to say. Power characters doesn't make a game worse, as much as normal-powered characters improve it in any way; for my personal taste, that depends on the campaign's scope. I just don't think that it is the most desirable trait in a player to long for the centerpoint of attention all the time and to gain a boost from being "better" than the other player's characters.

Winterwind
2009-03-16, 12:51 PM
But, a bandit isn't really a common person either. They've honed their skills for sneaking, stealing and killing.

You can have the best backstory and character ever for rp, but as a commoner, they're going to die by level 3. Adventurers are above average people in unique situations.Ummm...

I speak of roleplaying characters and collectively weaving a narrative, and you answer with statistics, levels and an assumption of a particular lifestyle where some specific power level is necessary for survival?

I believe we may have a complete disconnect with regards to what we are talking about here. I did not presume any particular system (and particularly not D&D, as I don't even play it), and depending on the story being told, particular competence may not be a necessity, or there may even not exist any threats posing immediate danger of death or physical injury (instead, for example, there might be risks for psychological damage or harm to things the character in question considers precious). Nor are the characters necessarily professional adventurers - they might just be perfectly normal people (which, again, does not equate a "normal" personality) accidentally tossed into a highly unusual situation.

In the groups I play in, we are not usually there for the rules, for the sake of using the stats of our characters and dice rolls to overcome encounters (I loathe the very term 'encounter' - it carries the implication of something disjointed from the overall story that is in there only to provide a challenge, rather than viewing the entire story as a whole and providing interesting situations that are not there only to be slaughtered - but I digress), and in fact half the time we play freeform. As you can imagine, presenting me a long list of numbers is not exactly the right way to prove a point to me. :smallwink:

Now, if you said that you prefer the feeling of being an epic hero, that you enjoy flashy, spectacular scenes with superhuman figures, rather than lowlifes struggling against overwhelming odds, this I could perfectly understand. I would not share this preference, as I find that as long as the story is interesting and the characters fascinating personalities with fun interaction with each other and the NPCs, everything is right no matter the power level, but this is a matter of pure preference. Statistics, though, do not enter into this anywhere, as long as we are not presuming one specific playstyle. These can, per definition, be meaningful only under the assumption of one particular power level and one particular, mechanics-oriented playstyle. Which is perfectly meaningful for people using this particular playstyle, but I was under the impression we were talking more generally here.

Xuincherguixe
2009-03-16, 01:08 PM
I generally prefer to be a larger than life over the top big damn hero. EVERY OTHER SCENTENCE MUST BE HOT BLOODED YELLING. IF I CAN GET AWAY WITH IT I CALL OUT MY ATTACKS ANIME STYLE.

WHO THE HELL DO YOU THINK I AM?!

Now that that's out of the way...

I think that in general, in any roleplaying game the characters that you end up playing will be heroic. Even if they're anti-social misfits. Even if they're whinny angst filled emos. While there's a number of alternative games out there, by in general, you set out to accomplish some goal, and the PCs generally will.

It could be, that a character slashes their wrist and the villain slips on the blood and goes flying out the window. Or draws all the bullets from everyone, leaving them distracted long enough for the team Ninja to sneakily snap the opponents necks. And even then, most people won't generally play someone that useless. It's much more likely that the person built such a character purposefully, with regeneration and armor so they can take epic abuse.

Even in Call of Cthulhu, you aren't playing normal people. An investigator in that sort of world would be brave beyond belief. Even when they're screaming in terror running away from whatever thing that cannot be of the week. After awhile, they would know something like that was going to come after them. Or even that dangerous book. They know it's got to be something terrible, but they read it anyways. Because they have to. Maybe it's to save the world. Maybe it's because when confronted with things "man was not meant to know", they decide that we should know.

Real people can be heroic. Regardless of any super powers.

Thajocoth
2009-03-16, 01:09 PM
My first post was about what I thought of roleplaying a normal character... One with a normal background and personality, albeit the above-average stats adventurers have. The second was a response to this:


Hmm... I'm a bit surprised how many people here seem to correlate being "normal" in terms of power (which is what the OP spoke of) with being "normal" in terms of personality and thus not interesting to roleplay (which I don't see him mentioning anywhere). A person could easily be weak, inefficient and incompetent, and yet have a fascinating/funny/tragic/whateveryouwishfor personality and be living a most interesting life that would make that of most adventurers seem bland and pale.

This gives the impression to me that you're saying "a character that's great for RP, but normal in terms of what they're capable of". What one is capable of is in their stats, so I responded with stats. I used 4E as an example as that's a system I know.

I can imagine a system where a commoner thrives as a player, but it's not a system that would appeal to me, as I, personally, find normalcy boring. It may be great for others who like that sort of thing.

Winterwind
2009-03-16, 02:21 PM
This gives the impression to me that you're saying "a character that's great for RP, but normal in terms of what they're capable of". What one is capable of is in their stats, so I responded with stats. I used 4E as an example as that's a system I know.Indeed. But not even within the boundaries of only one specific system - much less when dealing with the multitude of different systems and settings out there - it is possible to make a generalized statement that something is viable or not. This is a question highly dependant on playstyle as well. A character with no combat capabilities whatsoever, whom you would likely declare certainly dead within three levels can work just fine in a story concerned with social interaction and intrigue, for example, or simply one where the gamemaster rewards player creativity more than dice rolls.


I can imagine a system where a commoner thrives as a player, but it's not a system that would appeal to me, as I, personally, find normalcy boring. It may be great for others who like that sort of thing.Which brings us full circle back to my original point - that low power is in no way correlated with normalcy. The weakest character imaginable could have quirks in her/his personality that s/he will be remembered far better in ten years than even the mightiest of heroes, and might get entangled in the most curious and frenzy of events, ultimately having a much bigger impact on the outcome of the campaign than any stronger character might have had.

Tengu_temp
2009-03-16, 03:01 PM
@Tengu: Say, where is this avatar of yours from? It looks vaguely familiar...

Osaka from Azumanga Daioh. Cosplaying as Vincent from Final Fantasy 7.



But: if you don't aim for anything more than just entertainment, it certainly won't become anything more. If you are content with this, good for you. I, however, find entertainment alone not interesting nough to capture my attention for long. Without intellectual stimulation (or beer), a game becomes terribly, terribly boring and unsatisfying within a very short time. Fun alone is no justification to insult other people's intelligence, and I am not able to justswith off my brain to enjoy a bit of shallow entertainment (that's what the beer is for). I have certain standards for what I consider an adequate game. If these standards are not fulfilled, the game is bad (or I am too sober). Sometimes, defining quality can be so easy, at least on the individual level.


I don't see how's that countering what I said. If lack of intellectual stimulation makes a game boring, then the game is not fun. If the game does not meet your standards, then it's not fun. It all still boils down to entertainment.



The way you say that, one could almost believe that you'd think that elitism is something bad.


It depends on the definition of elitism used - elitism in the "the competent should have more to say than the incompetent" way is not bad, elitism in the "I consider some tastes superior to others" way is. I meant the second definition.



No, that's not what I wanted to say. Power characters doesn't make a game worse, as much as normal-powered characters improve it in any way; for my personal taste, that depends on the campaign's scope. I just don't think that it is the most desirable trait in a player to long for the centerpoint of attention all the time and to gain a boost from being "better" than the other player's characters.

And I don't think if many power players want that - the reasonable of them want the other party members to be powerful and receive attention as well, instead of hogging all the spotlight.

FatR
2009-03-16, 03:17 PM
My definition is action movie star or pulp hero. Jason Bourne is competent, but not superhuman. Same goes the new incarnation of Bond, or Frank Martin from the Transporter films.
"Competent" people are level 5-6 tops (even you're willing to accept action movie standards of "realism"). To put things into context, if you're 10th level, you can reliably kill a 15-feet giant that is more agile and perceptive than an average human, has skin that is at least on par with the best non-magical armors ever, wears armor on top of this and lacks special weaknesses. By attacking him in melee head-on, without any cunning tricks.

horseboy
2009-03-16, 07:11 PM
In D&D, yes. However, Kiero's question applies to all systems. And in other systems, you might play someone without combat skills and live.Correct, Daniel Jackson (From either Star Gate) qualifies to me as BDH. He's one of the world's preeminent archeologists/linguists/anthropologist but can barely suppress an area.

weenie
2009-03-16, 07:25 PM
Today I played a lvl1 commoner on the brink of poverty, and was struggling for most of the session to keep him safe and fed. It was one of the best d&d sessions I've ever played.

I'll admit that starting every character as a lvl1 commoner might be a bit frustrating, but after playing a lvl 8 druid I can't help myself but feel the powerlessness and vulnerability of my new character irresistible.

Raum
2009-03-16, 07:36 PM
No I don't care that one definition of "hero" is someone who rises above adversity or mediocrity to do exceptional things. That's not a Big Damned Hero. EDIT: Before people jump to the usual of excluding the middle, I'm not talking about playing supers or demi-gods, but competent people like your average action-movie star.

What about you?I'm not interested in playing an average individual working an 8-5 job. I'm not interested in playing SIMS. That's what normal means to me. However, in many ways, I prefer to play characters who have fairly average abilities as long as they're in interesting situations.

As long as characters have relatively average abilities you a) don't need constant power escalation, and b) maintain a fairly constant level of risk. Yes, I prefer games where a dozen goblin youths can ambush a very experienced character and have a chance of killing him. D&D's 'big damned heroes' wading through armies of low level opponents harms my sense of immersion as well as being counter intuitive.

Besides, games with constant power escalation turn 'heroism' into an illusion. If you're always having encounters set to an 'appropriate' 'Encounter Level', how is that different from playing a character of average abilities with more realistic opponents and situations?

Deepblue706
2009-03-16, 07:59 PM
I think there's a time and place for all kinds of characters. But I tend to obsess less about power since I'm not bound to any preconceptions of what level of power is necessary for "heroics". The DM/GM's ability to do his/her job, paired with the mindset and creativity of the players will do far more than a high point buy or a boosted character level.

So, I find that gives me freedom to enjoy a less-than-pristine character, and in doing so, explore more possibilities of roleplaying.

Raum
2009-03-16, 07:59 PM
Roleplaying is a communicative activity that includes a collective narrative. Like every narrative it is a form of art. And like every activity, there is a qualitative difference in it; most of the time it is based on the dedication of the players and the intention and motivation of the group to constantly improve themselves. others are satisfied with mediocre games; I am not. And you should not, either.First, not every narrative is 'art'. Second, there's definitely a subjective difference between given narratives but qualitative? The only qualitative measures I can think of are purely mechanical - the spelling, punctuation, grammar, paragraph structure, etc. The only way those can be artistic is if they're qualitatively incorrect. :smallwink:


Every narrative is a form of art. And every roleplaying game is a form of narrative. Wrong on both counts. I've mentioned art above, as for every roleplaying game being a narrative, that depends on time. A narrative describes a series of events. A game is a series of events (with other qualities as well), even very 'story oriented' games are generally a series of events which create a narrative.


The reason for the creation of the narrative may be entertainment, but that doesn't mean that it stops being a form of art, only because it is also entertaining. There is just no contradiction between these two terms. or do you really beliefe that something must be unentertaining to be art? Doesn't follow. Just because something can be art doesn't mean all instances of it qualify. Often, recreation is simply recreation.


But: if you don't aim for anything more than just entertainment, it certainly won't become anything more. Absolutely true! Too bad your following statement disparages anything which doesn't strive to be art.


If you are content with this, good for you. I, however, find entertainment alone not interesting nough to capture my attention for long. Without intellectual stimulation (or beer), a game becomes terribly, terribly boring and unsatisfying within a very short time. Fun alone is no justification to insult other people's intelligence, and I am not able to justswith off my brain to enjoy a bit of shallow entertainment (that's what the beer is for). I have certain standards for what I consider an adequate game. If these standards are not fulfilled, the game is bad (or I am too sober). Sometimes, defining quality can be so easy, at least on the individual level.

NeoVid
2009-03-17, 05:09 PM
I prefer playing really high powered characters (Aberrant and Feng Shui are two of my favorite games).

...And even with all my experience with that type of character, the one I played that ended up with the most depth, and the biggest crowning moment of awesome, was the middleaged divorced repairman I played in Hunter.

Satyr
2009-03-19, 06:32 AM
I don't see how's that countering what I said. If lack of intellectual stimulation makes a game boring, then the game is not fun. If the game does not meet your standards, then it's not fun. It all still boils down to entertainment.

I did not try to counter you; I tried to explain my position. The part were I disagree with you is the contradiction between art and entertainment, but that is all.


First, not every narrative is 'art'. Second, there's definitely a subjective difference between given narratives but qualitative? The only qualitative measures I can think of are purely mechanical - the spelling, punctuation, grammar, paragraph structure, etc. The only way those can be artistic is if they're qualitatively incorrect.

I suppose I refer to a more liberal definition of art than you do. I can't think of a narrative that is not a piece of art.
On the other hand, subjective means to determine quality are first and foremeost subjective, ans therefore ot based on mechanisms but personal preferences. On this scale, something is good because someones likes it. And like, every subjective caegorization, the transfer of this quality is almost impossible.


Doesn't follow. Just because something can be art doesn't mean all instances of it qualify. Often, recreation is simply recreation.

Again, I think my idea of art is less excluding than yours. And only because something is art doesn't mean that it has to be good art as well.


Absolutely true! Too bad your following statement disparages anything which doesn't strive to be art.

Thats not true! It does not disparages the use of beer, for instance.

I cold also include a long similee between roleplaying and cooking, or food here, but I am somewhat in a hurry.

Raum
2009-03-19, 05:00 PM
I suppose I refer to a more liberal definition of art than you do. I can't think of a narrative that is not a piece of art. If you've never had to write a 'root cause analysis' or other factual document for a large bureaucracy (corporate or government), consider yourself lucky! But I'd probably go a step beyond that...I don't want simple factual narratives to be modified in any way purely for artistic purposes. A factual narrative should be limited to the facts as known by the author. Do note though, most historical narratives are not what I consider 'simple factual narratives' - most go beyond reporting facts and attempt to present the author's interpretation of the facts. Some are very artistic. :smallwink:

Kantolin
2009-03-19, 06:24 PM
I like playing a variety of characters.

Now, the one thing that would be boring to play (and probably write about) would be utterly normal people doing utterly normal things. Doing the dishes does not strike me as terribly appealing.

The moment you step out of utterly normal things being done, being a normal person can be fine. This can occur due to odd things happening (For example, being a mortal in an Aberrant game), or having a slightly unusual profession (A rather mundane police officer, for example, does things that I'd consider interesting to roleplay)

Two examples I'd use from not D&D involve an Exalted and an Aberrant character of mine.

My exalted character was basically a demigod (In the literary sense; people who know exalted know that this is relatively par for the course) who could fly and effortlessly destroy armies with a wave of his hand (And did so twice).

My Aberrant character went with healing, which we then noted costs an exhorbitant amount of points, and summarily my 'superhero' character was decidedly not superheroic in the slightest, as he had no real purpose in a physical, social, or mental pool and was basically a normal guy dealing with various supermen.

Both of these characters were maddeningly fun to play. I've done similar in D&D - I've played a gestalt character where the rest of the world (and even the PCs!) were not gestalt and lower level than me. I've also played a couple NPC classes and tangoed with dragons.

Really, being normal or having superpowers is relatively moot to a good story. If you ask me, all that's needed is doing neat things. Tracking down a thief through pseudo-victorian-London as a very mundane detective can be really fun, as can being able to fly and shoot fireballs.

If you ask me, you get just as much depth either way. Being a level 1 or a level 18 character does not influence depth of backstory and presence/lack of personality (My two most lengthy backstories are on a level 2 NPC class character and a level 17 fighter).

Satyr
2009-03-19, 06:35 PM
If you've never had to write a 'root cause analysis' or other factual document for a large bureaucracy (corporate or government), consider yourself lucky!

I used narrative in the sense of a fictional text; but that may be a wrong translation of mine; termini like this are often somewhat differently used in German and English, and some of these differences are too subtle for my understanding.
So, what I tried to say is: every roleplay is a fictional tale, every fictional tale is a piece of art, ergo every roleplay is a piece of art.

Knaight
2009-03-19, 06:48 PM
I like playing a variety of characters.

Now, the one thing that would be boring to play (and probably write about) would be utterly normal people doing utterly normal things. Doing the dishes does not strike me as terribly appealing.


On this I totally agree. One thing I have considered doing in the past is a horror esque game(that I have probably brought up on these forums before), where people play normal characters. The player group plays themselves as the characters, with the twist being that everybody plays somebody else. A plays B, B plays C, and C plays A.

BlueWizard
2009-03-20, 06:24 AM
I've thought of running a D&D game of non-typical adventurers. Like chefs, tanners, blacksmiths, and scholars...etc. Might be fun, but I'd definitely scale it so they wouldn't get slaughtered.... perhaps even allow them to learn new skills as they adventured.