PDA

View Full Version : Concept or class first?



illyrus
2010-01-27, 12:01 PM
Oftentimes in my gaming group I'll hear the following: "that's stupid for x class to have" in reference to a particular feat/power combination that they would be perfectly accepting of on another class, even if it meant that it would be stronger/weaker. This is not the case of building something sub-optimal either like an 8 strength 18 int wizard who only swings around a greatsword either.

This got me thinking, personally I come up with a concept and then pick the class and abilities to complement that. So if I wanted to play a pirate I'd try to picture what I'd want them capable of doing and then make choices on how mechanically to make that happen effectively based upon that. I think quite a few people in my group tend to pick the class first then develop the concept around that class. And I realize that some concepts and classes can be one and the same so they're picked at the same time. Still I'm a bit curious which you tend to decide on first and why.

Xenogears
2010-01-27, 12:03 PM
Sometimes A sometimes B. Sometimes I see an awesome class/combo of classes and build around that. Sometimes I think of a cool idea and dig around for the best way to pull that off while remaining true to the idea (i also usully wind up with 4-5 new ideas...) without making it Overpowered.

dsmiles
2010-01-27, 12:16 PM
This got me thinking, personally I come up with a concept and then pick the class and abilities to complement that. So if I wanted to play a pirate I'd try to picture what I'd want them capable of doing and then make choices on how mechanically to make that happen effectively based upon that. I think quite a few people in my group tend to pick the class first then develop the concept around that class. And I realize that some concepts and classes can be one and the same so they're picked at the same time. Still I'm a bit curious which you tend to decide on first and why.

+1 to you! IMO, fluff is more important than crunch. Crunch doesn't drive storytelling/roleplaying. Concept first!

Optimystik
2010-01-27, 12:18 PM
This is not the case of building something sub-optimal either like an 8 strength 18 int wizard who only swings around a greatsword either.

That's not stupid at all, he just needs to polymorph first.


Crunch doesn't drive storytelling/roleplaying.

dsmiles, you have the uncanny ability to invoke Stormwind in every single one of these topics, despite being shown the error of your ways multiple times. :smallconfused:

Saying "I'm a wizard" is fluff... but without the crunch to actually cast arcane spells, you'll have a really hard time convincing anyone.

ScionoftheVoid
2010-01-27, 12:20 PM
Sometimes A sometimes B. Sometimes I see an awesome class/combo of classes and build around that. Sometimes I think of a cool idea and dig around for the best way to pull that off while remaining true to the idea (i also usully wind up with 4-5 new ideas...).

I do something similar. I'm now playing a Sorcadin based on Flay Gunnar of Mana Khemia: Alchemists of Al-revis. (Note: I removed the "without making it overpowered" bit because one of the following would happen: 1. The group doesn't notice, everything is fine. 2. The group notices and encourages my new, awesome ability. 3. The group notices my power and complains, I turn it down or hold it in reserve until we really need it. 4. The DM nerfs my ability in some way (he treats the rules as guides:smallannoyed:)).

Though I can't dig around very far, I've only just introduced the guy who normally DM's to the SRD, we barely have any books past Core (though I'm working on changing that).

Edit: Oh, an arguement with Dsmiles on the Stormwind fallacy. I like watching these. I saw a good explanation of the problem with completely separating fluff and crunch in a recent thread, I'll go and find it.

bosssmiley
2010-01-27, 12:21 PM
+1 to you! IMO, fluff is more important than crunch. Crunch doesn't drive storytelling/roleplaying. Concept first!

Right: "I wanna character like Legolas/Aragorn/Conan/Elric/Captain Blood/whoever. How can I do that?"
Wrong: "I want to make a Foo 6/Bar 3/Skub 4 Whurblemancer built. How can I justify this onanistic abuse of game mechanics as a character in a real game?"

Concept first. Mechanics adapted to it.

WalkingTarget
2010-01-27, 12:24 PM
Saying "I'm a wizard" is fluff... but without the crunch to actually cast arcane spells, you'll have a really hard time convincing anyone.

Well, he could spell it out in sequins on his pointy hat. :smalltongue:

I'm all for taking the class that gives you the mechanics you want but refluffing it to match what your initial concept is, though. Just because I call myself a samurai doesn't mean that I took levels in a class that has that word in its name, after all.

Britter
2010-01-27, 12:24 PM
+1 to you! IMO, fluff is more important than crunch. Crunch doesn't drive storytelling/roleplaying. Concept first!

Ok, though I admire the spirit of this, I am going to disagree.

Yes, it is important to have a good concept in mind. But the fluff and the crunch need to be in harmony with the concept. You should use mechanics that support the fluff you want to apply to your character. That is the mechanical side of role-playing.

I think that focusing too much on either fluff or crunch limits the character. A collection of 3 base classes and 2 prcs that can defeat ecl +4 encounters all by it's lonesome and has no personality is just as flawed as the character with a 75 page backstory detailing it's exploits and a build that doesn't allow said charcter to do any of what he claims to have done.

So, I would say that regardless of what comes first, the fluff and the crunch should support each other. They are both load-bearing parts of the character and need to be in harmony to facilitate a believable character within the confines of the gameworld.

edit - I do believe I was ninjaed at least once

Doc Roc
2010-01-27, 12:25 PM
I play in a totally fluff-stripped system rejiggered to work in Iron Kingdoms or Hallow, but I work from concept first almost exclusively.

Gnaeus
2010-01-27, 12:33 PM
Either, but usually class first.

I find the 2 processes that are uppermost in my mind at character creation tend to be either "Hmm, I've never played an X, I wonder what that's like" or "The party has an A, a B, and a C. Looks like they need a D, an E, or another A. What can I play that fills that role and looks fun?"

Edit: after a long string of playing casters in games that ended before level 5, I now also ask "How high do I expect this to go and will my character be fun at those levels?"

Burley
2010-01-27, 12:37 PM
I, personally, have ideas for power combos all the time. However, I don't actually play them.
I have great charcter concepts that I play, but I wouldn't ever say that I'm a 8Str 18Int Sword-n-Board Wizard.

Why?

Because it is never fun to lose in D&D. There has to be a line where you stop making interesting characters and start to create a character who is fun to play. If all you do is fail because you have a -5 to attacks, or because you refuse to use a certain class feature (i.e. Spells. LoLwut?), then what is the point of selecting that class or that class feature.

D&D and just about every RPG I've ever seen is about taking somebody who is a little better than your average person and building them up to be Shiny Golden Idols of Win and Awesome.
Why would you purposely do that to yourself? Was it a dare, or what?

Dimers
2010-01-27, 12:37 PM
I'm a bit curious which you tend to decide on first and why.

I do some of each. A few favorite character concepts came from concept first; I've done dozens of builds based on what works well mechanically, and justified it with fluff afterward; and most of the memorable characters that are worth revisiting came from good builds that took on a life of their own partway through. Writers say that sometimes their stories' characters just don't do what the author thought they were going to ... that's how it is with my favorite characters.

I remember a passage in the AD&D 2e PHB about playability. It said something along the lines of 'Some people won't play a character without high stats; they think he won't survive. Well, of course he won't, if you're not interested in playing him!' When my character starts to rewrite herself and pick different (and frequently less optimized) crunch, that passage springs to mind.

dsmiles
2010-01-27, 12:43 PM
dsmiles, you have the uncanny ability to invoke Stormwind in every single one of these topics, despite being shown the error of your ways multiple times. :smallconfused:

Whatever, man. The only "error" is if people aren't having fun playing the game. I've said it elsewhere: The only wrong way to play a RPG is for people to not have fun. As long as everyone is having fun, you're doing it right, hence no error. Everyone I game with has fun playing fluff first, so how can it be the "wrong" way?

Everyman
2010-01-27, 12:45 PM
More often than not, I decide on a concept and then build my class choices around it. However, I usually make small alterations to my concept during that step, in order to be supported by the build.

For example, I wanted to create a character that survived entirely on luck and good will. The initial concept was to take a few levels of Bard and then take Fortune's Friend (Comp. Scoundrel). After I started to build it, I realized that a cleric makes a MUCH better FF (especially since there is a luck feat that only cleric's with the Luck domain can take). I didn't originally conceive this character as a cleric, but it worked well for my concept. I then adapted my concept a bit to match my build.

All in all, I guess you could say I'm concept first as a draft, a character build, followed by the final draft of concept.

Chaelos
2010-01-27, 12:45 PM
It can go either way, but I almost universally prefer to start with a concept. The only times I've ever built a character for mechanics are those when the party I'm joining/re-rolling in are missing a critical component, ie a healer or meatshield. But I've always had more fun with a properly fleshed out concept that was then converted into mechanics.

Tengu_temp
2010-01-27, 12:45 PM
Right: "I wanna character like Legolas/Aragorn/Conan/Elric/Captain Blood/whoever. How can I do that?"
Wrong: "I want to make a Foo 6/Bar 3/Skub 4 Whurblemancer built. How can I justify this onanistic abuse of game mechanics as a character in a real game?"

Concept first. Mechanics adapted to it.

No. Assuming the build in question is just powerful, but not broken, both of these are good approaches. The wrong approach is "I want to make a Foo 6/Bar 3/Skub 4 Whurblemancer build, and I don't care about fluff at all". Unless it's a purely HNS game with no roleplaying.

I use both approaches. Sometimes I have this fun build I want to try, and build the character concept over it, and sometimes I have this fun character concept I want to try, and then create a build that fits the character.

SurlySeraph
2010-01-27, 12:48 PM
I think you're assuming a greater separation of concept and mechanics than actually exists. "I want to play a paladin who's good at magic" is both a mechanical and conceptual construct, for example.

Set
2010-01-27, 12:49 PM
Whichever is most fun.

If my *concept* is 'the world's best swordsman, looking for the six-fingered man who killed his father,' I'm going to want mechanics that make him kinda good at swordplay.

If my concept is bumbling idiot who thinks he's competent, a la Don Quixote, then I'll be more likely to choose classes / feats / etc. that don't do what he thinks they do.

ScionoftheVoid
2010-01-27, 12:51 PM
I found the description on concept and mechanics, though Britter said the main point of it earlier.


What he's saying is basically, assuming a group where mechanics matter too, once the mechanics of your character are taken care of, you can focus on RP to your heart's content without ever giving them a second thought; your mechanical capabilities exactly match what you view your character as and things are rosy. However, if your mechanics aren't up-to-par, you're going to run into problems as your abilities don't actually match what your character should be capable, and he/she becomes a baggage on the party eventually leading to a situation where every other party member would probably want to get rid of him/her (either for his/her own safety or because he/she is in the way, depending on their outlook) if not for the metagame agreement to keep the party together. And that's if said incompetence doesn't just get the party killed.

If you RP your guy as a great warrior (not just faking to be a great warrior), he should mechanically be a competent warrior as well. And if you RP your guy as a slick, fast-talking face, he should have some competence socially in mechanics. And if you RP your guy as a genius, having some Int may be in order.

From the "3.5 Awful Character Concept...what to do?" thread.

drengnikrafe
2010-01-27, 12:55 PM
I can't help but optimize, so my order of operations generally goes like this:
1: DM tells me what the party is missing.
2: I pick a tier 3 or lower class that fills that spot.
3: I optimize it.
4: I justify everything I did.

I have built a character based on a concept only a finite number of times. I wish I did that more though, but I'm too much of an optimzer.

Zaydos
2010-01-27, 12:55 PM
I have 2 characters right now

3.5: A chaos mage build from the concept of a wild mage. He has a pixie familiar that acts as his imaginary friend. He's a powerful character although mostly by accident and by a good choice of spells.

4e: The party had 2 strikers and a leader when I joined (got a 3rd striker since) so I built a defender. I then figured out a concept (he focuses on defensive powers and teleportation powers).

So I'll do either. If the party already exists I will try and make a character that helps it, choosing a class to fill a role that is needed. If it doesn't I figure out a concept, whether that's game mechanical (hey ToB looks cool) or fluff, and then build it choosing a class based on what I want.

Godskook
2010-01-27, 01:17 PM
Whatever, man. The only "error" is if people aren't having fun playing the game. I've said it elsewhere: The only wrong way to play a RPG is for people to not have fun. As long as everyone is having fun, you're doing it right, hence no error. Everyone I game with has fun playing fluff first, so how can it be the "wrong" way?

Optimystik isn't referring to how you play the game. He's referring to your gamer's logic. The phrase:

"crunch doesn't drive roleplay"

Is wrong. The fact of the matter is that crunch *CAN* drive roleplay, and for some people, is even necessary to have roleplay. To make the assertion you made is called the stormwind fallacy.

-----------------------

Personally, I make all my characters starting on the crunch side, then I fluff it, and then I go back and re-crunch as necessary to match the fluff I stick with. For instance, my current character is a Daggerspell Mage who was built for a game starting at L2, but I built him solely to get to and play as a daggerspell. That game ended prematurely and I've revived him for a L6 campaign, and by now, he's got a solid layer of fluff behind his crunch, to the point where he refuses to take a +1 dagger because the masterwork daggers he inherited from his father are sufficient for his current needs and will be enchanted next time we reach a town big enough, I'm sure. He's more interesting to me now, now that there's fluff, but he's built from crunch, through and through.

Susano-wo
2010-01-27, 01:17 PM
I definitely do both, though in a class based system, the "oo, it would be fun to play X, or I want to do a Y with Z" factor kicks in a lot, causing me to work my way up from mechanical concept to character concept.
In point buy systems, I am much more likely to have a char concept first, mechanical concept second.

The thing I think is important for be to enjoy playing is for characters (both myself and other people's) to not forget that Character Concept part. It doesn't matter where you start from, as long as the character is believable and is not obviously a stat pile with some half-assed AI algorithms tacked on :D

Also, I'm not sure what the whole Stormwind thing is, but you definitely can't have story without both sides of the coin. Concept has to match Capability. There is some wiggle room, I think, especailly in areas that dont much impact the game (I don't care too much if a character says he is a weaver, but didn't take craft: weaver >.>), but if I am "Minmax, the Unstoppable Warrior", I'd better be pretty badassed ^ ^

Optimystik
2010-01-27, 01:23 PM
Whatever, man. The only "error" is if people aren't having fun playing the game. I've said it elsewhere: The only wrong way to play a RPG is for people to not have fun. As long as everyone is having fun, you're doing it right, hence no error. Everyone I game with has fun playing fluff first, so how can it be the "wrong" way?

Where did I say it's wrong to have fun? Putting words into other people's mouths is a very poor way to argue.

You made a blanket statement - "crunch doesn't drive storytelling/roleplaying" - this is quite plainly WRONG, as crunch can drive both just fine.

oxybe
2010-01-27, 01:29 PM
i go both ways :smallbiggrin:

sometimes i see a class that makes me want to play it right away so i write up a character, other times i'm daydreaming at work & a character pops up so i write him up.

Dienekes
2010-01-27, 01:52 PM
Generally my thought process is

Hmm that's a cool character I just saw/read/watched/played with. How can I manipulate that so that I could play it in my style.

Groovy got that done, now which classes/abilities make sense?

Groovy got that done, now since it was inevitably a magicless fighter-type how can I make it useful?

Umael
2010-01-27, 02:07 PM
I believe that dsmiles was correct about one thing, over and above everything else that has been said - the point is to have fun.

However, I think what dsmiles missed is that a game that emphasizes storytelling isn't necessarily going to be fun. I don't play poker for the dramatic plot twists.

If everyone is playing a game that is just fluff and enjoying it - great. Or just crunch and having a blast - wonderful. But if the game uses both, then I got to go with what Britter said - crunch and fluff should be in harmony.

As for the question, let me personally kick the idea of "class" in the head. Why? Because when I make a character for an RPG that doesn't use "class", I don't need to hamstring my thought processes on the matter. Instead of "class", substitute mechanics, people. You can decide to play a character based on a race, a feat or series of feats, etc. - and that's just using D&D as an example.

Next, everything is ALWAYS concept - just that sometimes, the mechanics ARE the concept.

One of the Champions books discussed how character creation really begins. Some times, it is a concept, like an orphaned boy who grows up to be a vigilante. Other times, it is a costume, like a black body suit with matching cape, pointed ears, and special insignia on the chest. Maybe it's just a name, like Batman.

Me, when I create a character for any system, I see what gets my attention, and I go with it. Could be the mechanics, could be a barely-mentioned bit of history, could be an image that captures part of the essence of the game.

DabblerWizard
2010-01-27, 02:10 PM
I enjoy experimenting with both character concept and race/class mechanics.

When I picked up 4e I looked through the races provided in the phb 1, and 2, and decided that I wanted to play a particular race / class. That would be mechanics first.

I've also created character concepts that coincidentally fit the wizard mechanic, for instance.

Either way, meshing both of these elements is important.

If I chose a race/class that seemed interesting, but didn't have an equally enjoyable backstory, I'd lose interest quickly.

If I made a character concept / background but couldn't find a feasible mechanic to work with, I'd also lose interest then too.

JohnnyCancer
2010-01-27, 02:20 PM
If I'm in a game from the start, I usually think of the concept first. If I'm a later addition to a campaign in progress, I try to fill whatever niche is needed most and so I go with class first.

Starbuck_II
2010-01-27, 02:37 PM
I believe that dsmiles was correct about one thing, over and above everything else that has been said - the point is to have fun.

However, I think what dsmiles missed is that a game that emphasizes storytelling isn't necessarily going to be fun. I don't play poker for the dramatic plot twists.


Am I the only one who says, "What a Twist" when I lose at poker?

Terazul
2010-01-27, 02:42 PM
Honestly, I tend to opt for mechanics first. Mostly because regardless of the system, I'll usually end up browsing the book, and end up finding some feat/ability/class that I find really interesting (it may be the fluff of said class too), and then find myself building around it. Unfortunately, alot of times I bring this up in discussion of people and they autmatically assume I don't care about flavor whatsoever, because I don't prioritize it :smallannoyed:. But I do, I just like making sure the crunch matches the fluff first, because it's annoying when I cant pull off stuff the character should.

For example, recently in a low level game I decided I wanted to play a masked demon (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=71073). Shortly after I realized half of our party was dealing with unnatural mental influence anyway (yay we have a theme!). So I came up with the concept of a monastery where students, as part of their training, worked to conquer their "inner demons", the sins of life that plagued them. A promising student, my character in particular had his family butchered by a group of roaming barbarians (there's always one), and thus always harbored a deep rage for them. Of course his primary sin is Wrath. Come time to 'conquer it', he is consumed by it and lays waste to the monastery. Cut to campaign start, he's on the lamb from the authorities (two of the other PCs), being labeled as a serial killer since every person who's tried to capture him has triggered his Inner Demon feat and made him go berserk. So his motivation is to clear his name, and of course reach a point where he isn't controlled by his hatred (reach level 6 basically).
At least one person I've mentioned it to outside the campaign seemed upset that because I was focusing on numbers first (getting his discipline list/maneuver progression outlined, spreadsheeting the order/effect of Demon Abilities I was gonna take), as opposed to the fluffiness. But eh, it all went full circle. Without deciding to pick up Iron Heart Surge first, I couldn't have modeled his first breakthrough in his rehabilitation at 5 :smallamused:.

tl;dr: I like finding cool numbers/feats/abilities and molding fluff around them. Eventually.

Yukitsu
2010-01-27, 02:46 PM
I always do a concept first, then focus the mechanics to match that concept. I find it easier to RP my character that way. That and I've not yet had a concept that I couldn't build towards if I tried hard enough.

valadil
2010-01-27, 02:53 PM
Honestly it depends on the game. I know a lot of powergamers who are only interested in slaying dragons in as few actions as possible. If I'm playing with a group full of them I'll optimize first and fill in the details later.

That's not my preferred playstyle though. I'd rather come up with a character and then build around that. In 3.5 this usually means finding all prestige classses that are appropriate and choosing the most powerful of those.

chiasaur11
2010-01-27, 02:57 PM
Well, he could spell it out in sequins on his pointy hat. :smalltongue:


Would need an extra Z.

jebob
2010-01-27, 03:19 PM
I don't know about D&D, but in my current RP game (Traveller), we use a life-path system where you generate your statline, and then pick a career (e.g. Navy pilot, Missionary etc) and accumilate skills as your character ages. However, humans are still people (some non-humans are people too), and accidents happen, generating backstory.

For example, let say the party needs a pilot. I apply for the navy, get rejected so I join a pirate crew. I serve for a few years, pick up some skills, but then my character's ship is attacked by a rival gang. I roll on the injury table, take some stat damage. I decide that piracy is a tad risky for my character, so I take my share of the plunder, and then leave for safer work. Cue other PCs. (This can actually happen)

nightwyrm
2010-01-27, 03:28 PM
I start with a concept first, but my concept usually involves my character killing things in really awesome ways or just doing awesome things.

So instead of "an orphan mercenary turned bard", I would have "an orphan mercenary turned bard singing people to death".

Xzeno
2010-01-27, 03:44 PM
The first D&D character I made was, needless to say, concept based. Basically, I wanted to be a Jedi. I found the paladin class to my liking for this purpose.

Most of the time, I do both simultaneously. I could not tell you whether I decided to play a cleric (class) before or after I decided to play a politician (job), but both aspects are essential to the identity of the character, in mechanics and back story.

Jayabalard
2010-01-27, 03:52 PM
dsmiles, you have the uncanny ability to invoke Stormwind in every single one of these topics, despite being shown the error of your ways multiple times. I really don't see how his statement invokes Stormwind at all. It really looks like you're falling prey to the Stormwind-Fallacy-Fallacy.


Saying "I'm a wizard" is fluff... but without the crunch to actually cast arcane spells, you'll have a really hard time convincing anyone.Nah, just keep introducing yourself as "Bill the wizard" and wear a pointy hat. If that's not working, embroider "wizzard" on your pointy hat; if you're still having problems, keep adding Zeds until it works.

Britter
2010-01-27, 04:03 PM
I think part of the conflict is that some people assume that having a mechanical way to represent your character automatically equates to having a mechanically powerful character. In otherwords, "only optimizers/roll-players/munchkins would start with class before concept because they wish to be better than everyone else."

I fundamentally disagree with that assumption. It is possible to mechanically justify characters that are conceptually not powerful, every bit as much as it is possible to mechanically justify characters who ARE powerful.

If you are playing a game which has a strong system for representing power and competence within the context of the game world, and you fail to use it to accurately portray your character, I would consider that a breakdown between concept and mechanics. Mind you, I am not saying it is wrong, just saying that a player who disconnects his characters capabilities as determined by the rules with his characters capabilities as determined by the concept may be missing out on some very interesting role-play.

Ormur
2010-01-27, 04:07 PM
Classes in D&D are often synonymous with concepts so how can you separate them and pick which one comes first. The first time I played D&D I wanted to play the arch-typical wizard and guess what there was a class with that name. The ranger is another, or a versatile know it all, factotum. Usually when I think up characters I'm not doing it purely for optimizing some class but I also haven't often started with some totally class-neutral concept. I might be able to say whether class or concept were more important for some characters but in general I'd have a very hard time saying which comes first.

Britter
2010-01-27, 04:24 PM
In pre- and post- 3.x DnD, I would agree that classes and concepts are very closely linked. However, given the vast amount of material in 3.x, someone with sufficent system knowledge could adapt many different classes, multi-class combinations, and PrCs to create several different mechanical representations of the same concept. This does provide a sort of freedom, in that you can very accurately portray your concept while providing yourself with a mechanically interesting platform to represent your character.

I.e., I would be willing to wager that the concept of a wise and stealthy woodsman could be represented in many ways without even requiring a level in Ranger, unless you wanted your character to have some set of abilities only availible from being a ranger. As I am a total novice when it comes to manipulation of the 3.x rules, I myself can only suggest that it could be done with scout or perhaps even druid, but I am sure others could give you almost endless variations on the concept using varying mechanics.

Kallisti
2010-01-27, 04:30 PM
Concept first, although sometimes a class/prestige class will inspire my concept. Like when I see a PrC with very good flavor and I want to find a way to test it out.

Akal Saris
2010-01-27, 05:19 PM
First off, here's the responses so far in this thread:
Concept first always: 10 responses
Mechanics first always: 7 responses
A little of both: 14 responses

Anyhow, this thread caught my attention mostly because I just applied to a game last night, and ended up spending 2 hours making the character. (I got in! Yay!) Having just gone through the process, I can say conclusively that at least for this character and the previous few that I've made, I'm a mechanics first guy. And there's no good reason that you can't start with the mechanics and then come up with a strong character. For those interested, here's how the process went...

The game was D&D 4E, so I already knew that I didn't like the baseline mechanics very much. So I went to the character builder and looked at the classes. Rogue, fighter, warlock - done those already (loved the warlock). Defenders and leaders - not my style. That left the strikers and controllers. I tried sketching out a ranger build, but it felt too generic. So I looked at the wizard and sorcerer, but I couldn't find a real theme that I wanted to focus on, and the mechanics were too bland for my taste. Druid I considered, but left out because I knew I would play one in another game soon.

Finally I noticed Psion, and was immediately interested by the power points mechanics and the way that the fluff fit the setting we'd be playing in. Very limited powers and support because only the preview was available, but I figured I'd go with it. Next up I went back and looked at races. Psions need Int primary, Cha secondary. So I made a list of the int primary races: human, tiefling, eladrin, devas, drow. Tieflings fit the stats perfectly, but I crossed tieflings and drow off the list because the races didn't fit the CS at all, and I couldn't see myself playing either of them. I went with eladrin and did my stats, then reread the campaign notes and saw that eladrins were the bad guys in it too. Left with two decent choices, I went for human.

Next came powers - those were limited so I just went with whatever seemed good at the time. My utility power ended up strongly influencing my character history, because it lets the character substitute a Knowledge (History) check for any basic Int checks. Alright, so now my character has a 20 int and uses her knowledge of history to inform her about nearly everything in life.

Feats were also constrained largely by the lack of choices in 4E, so there wasn't really room for me to take any of the RP feats I'd like, such as linguist. Attack bonuses came first, followed by initiative. Items were also constrained by the sheer lack of imagination for 4E items. I went with a pair of magic items that gave me teleports for mobility.

Anyhow, that's basically the process that I went through for the basic character build, and then I sat down and worked out the fluff for the character after I had everything statted out and on paper. For what it's worth, here was the final character I submitted at the end. I think it's hard to argue that my method of "mechanics first" didn't result in a pretty interesting character by the end of it.

Final result: (It's pretty long...)

Character Information:
Isolde Kappel, Human, Psion, Controller

Who are you:
Isolde Kappel is a serious young woman with short, curly blond hair and light, freckled skin. Though she appears to be the archetypal Bellic citizen, Isolde is one of the rare humans able to manifest limited psychic potential. Psychics, or "Minders" as the Sentinels refer to them, are considered by many within the government to be extremely dangerous because of the unpredictability of their powers and the lack of knowledge surrounding them. Kappel was "lucky" enough to be a member of a military family - both her father and older sister served in the Bellic army as members of the Inquisition.

Raised under the assumption that she and her sister would enter the intelligence service, the two were given exemplary schooling, taught by private tutors and forbidden to make friends outside of the household. Isolde grew up with a clinical knowledge of the war and its decimation, but without ever seeing it firsthand. When she secretly visited her sister at the Inquisition, however, she recoiled at the cold logic and systematic interrogations that she witnessed in passing. The changes she witnessed in her sister made her blood run cold, though she kept her thoughts private.

At the age of eighteen, she was told that it was time for her to enter the service. Slipping away from her handlers, Isolde raced to the Sentinels and asked to join. The men there were reluctant to allow a young woman into the force until she mentioned that her family were in intelligence - then the officers there were all too willing to spite the Inquisition and bring her into the fold. Now one of the youngest members of the Sentinels, Isolde has cut off ties from her family and has thrown herself into her work with them, eager to live her life on her own terms and idealistic enough to believe she can make a difference.

Personality:
Despite her father, Isolde grew into a thoughtful and caring person. She understands the need for violence logically, but seeks to prevent her companions and innocents from feeling the pain of war. Rarely stubborn unless her morals compel her, Isolde has little direct experience with corruption or violence, but has read dozens of case studies on both. Her clinical knowledge provides her with the foundation to control her feelings and operate in conflicts, while her intuition and young, friendly demeanor have made her an unusually adept face for the Sentinels.

Reasons for being in Solenir:
Isolde's knowledge of the war and general history is nearly unmatched, though she lacks experience. As far as she knows, she is the only Minder within the Sentinels, which gives her a unique position within the forces. So far her assignments have placed her in PR positions with the Sentinels, working with RAKS and similar units. Her telepathic abilities also help her to direct forces in combat, though she's seen only limited engagements so far.

Writing Sample:
The screams seemed to echo endlessly off the walls. Tar-Gotha had a foul reputation as a prison that held the worst scum that Chaos could muster, but all Isolde could do was hold her hands to her ears, cringing. Her sister, Julia, noticed the gesture and smiled mirthlessly, though the smile never quite reached her cold eyes.

"You get used to it," Julia said offhand. "Don't worry - they're only goblins." Her smile disappeared, leaving a scowl that seemed etched into her face, creating tiny worry lines that Isolde had never seen on her sister's face before.

"Do you?" Isolde asked wonderingly. Julia shrugged, lighting a cigarette.

"No, not really. But enough talk. Somehow you got into this facility. How? Why?"

"I...I wanted to see you," said Isolde haltingly. She stopped suddenly, feeling a strange, chilly sensation in the back of her mind, like a wet finger running down her back. Instinctively she pushed the horrible sensation out! Her sister suddenly gasped, spitting the cigarette out.

"You - you went into my head!" she accused, staring at Julia in shock. "We promised NEVER to do that!"

Julia shrugged, looking at her levelly.

"I needed to know that you weren't a security risk. Now I know. No problem. You'll learn how to do the same once you're here. You can't trust people, little sister. Not without knowing their thoughts."

"No...I guess you can't," she replied slowly. Another nerve-wracking scream rang through the chamber during the silence that followed. Julia perked up, listening to a voice that only she could hear.

"So...they're holed up in Saltorini," she murmured with satisfaction before turning to her sister. "I'll see you soon - I have work to do. Leave the way you came. I'll find you in three months, when you start your indoctrination sessions here."

Isolde nodded quietly, watching her sister depart.

"No...you won't," she told the departing figure silently. "You won't find me...ever..."

AslanCross
2010-01-27, 06:13 PM
Concept, then class, but those usually come at the same time or in close succession. For me it typically starts with a picture I want the character to look like.

Optimystik
2010-01-27, 06:28 PM
Put me down for "both" since I haven't actually answered the question yet.

Wings of Peace
2010-01-27, 07:10 PM
I would likely fall into the half and half side though personally I do not see either as exclusive/separate from the other.

One Step Two
2010-01-27, 07:48 PM
I'll go for both, as I do usually think of a concept then build something that suits it while being mechanically viable.

That said, depending on the GM I may need to revise that opinion because of how they run a game. For my ususal DnD game, mechanics are needed because of the fiendish manner in which the GM plays the game. For Exalted, concept means more because the story is a big necessity (though it's hard to not be mechanically strong in Exalted when you are not playing as a mortal) .

Devils_Advocate
2010-01-27, 07:49 PM
+1 to you! IMO, fluff is more important than crunch. Crunch doesn't drive storytelling/roleplaying. Concept first!

I think you're assuming a greater separation of concept and mechanics than actually exists. "I want to play a paladin who's good at magic" is both a mechanical and conceptual construct, for example.

Classes in D&D are often synonymous with concepts so how can you separate them and pick which one comes first. The first time I played D&D I wanted to play the arch-typical wizard and guess what there was a class with that name. The ranger is another, or a versatile know it all, factotum. Usually when I think up characters I'm not doing it for purely for optimizing some class but I also haven't often started with some totally class-neutral concept. I might be able to say whether class or concept were more important for some characters but in general I'd have a very hard time saying which come first.
The material for an RPG defines what exists in the game world. This material will take the form of both crunch and fluff, since an RPG by its very nature works by having game rules and statistics correspond to things within a fictional world and vice versa. Crunch detached from fluff makes for a non-roleplaying game and fluff detached from crunch makes for freeform roleplaying.

A cyborg who uses his cybernetic implants to hack into computer networks is not an appropriate character in a normal D&D setting. Because even if the DM allows someone in a character's backstory to have invented cybernetic implants, he's probably not going to add any computer networks to the setting. The character might be one that's perfectly reasonable in other games, he might even be balanced with other members of the party, that's not the point. The point is that the setting determines what sorts of characteristics, abilities, possessions, knowledge, backstories, etc. characters can have and which ones they can't have.

It's fine to think in broad general terms like "melee warrior", "divine spellcaster", "arcane spellcaster", "jack of all trades", etc. before getting specific. But it's only sensible to think of things in the game's terms, since characters in the game exist on the game's terms.

It's also fine to look through a list of specific options, pick one you like, and fit other stuff around it. Nor is it unreasonable to have a character who tries to acquire the training, items, and/or whatever that will let him be very good at something. Trying to be as good as you can at something is really not all that strange. This really seems like it should be a default attitude for D&D characters, since the path that the game sets out for them is gradual transformation into superhuman demigods. My credulity feels less strained when there's a bit more to this than "Oh, yeah, I just kept on killing increasingly powerful monsters until I was good enough at killing monsters to take down a pit fiend. Practice makes perfect, I guess."

Xenogears
2010-01-27, 08:02 PM
(Note: I removed the "without making it overpowered" bit because one of the following would happen: 1. The group doesn't notice, everything is fine. 2. The group notices and encourages my new, awesome ability. 3. The group notices my power and complains, I turn it down or hold it in reserve until we really need it. 4. The DM nerfs my ability in some way (he treats the rules as guides:smallannoyed:)).

Yeah I put that in because the level of power that I enjoy most is less than what is usually considered Overpowered. Not that being overpowered in of itself is wrong but if I can one-shot everything or end encounters with a thought (I never play full casters in fact) its not as enjoyable for me. So that line should really read more like "Bring the power up or down so as to match what I consider a good level of power." It's just that by the end of a build I usually realize I shoved more power into the build than I really want so it winds up as lowering more often than increasing.

denthor
2010-01-27, 08:39 PM
I have found in the course of a game my characters tend to come together as a result of my choices.

I start with stats, pick a race and class.

Examples I ran a cleric of Bacob a Neutral deity god of knowledge and magic.

Valmont was Neutral good in his first meeting with the party (I started late) his task from the church was to find a chasm and see if there was anything from the past.

The party had already raided the chasm in question and I found them on the way back. Valmont detailed the names, equipment and character classes and races for each member of the party.

He informed the party that this was for a report to be given over to his order. This set the character up for the rest of the game Church over party. He sold them down the river for his order three different times paying 20,000 to 30,000 gold to the party for the right. They did not complain.

Vizzerdrix
2010-01-27, 08:51 PM
Concept first. Then as much CRUNCH! as needed to be the best at it :smallcool: Optimize towards a concept :)

Foryn Gilnith
2010-01-27, 08:57 PM
Eh. I go and make a heartless optimized power build. And then I see what concepts might work with it, then tweak the build to match the concept (and vice-versa), so that when I'm done I have a concept that mostly matches the mechanics, and a not-too-powerful build ("not-too" because it got unoptimized by the tweaks).

Runestar
2010-01-27, 09:01 PM
A mix of both. I don't usually start out with a fixed or predetermined concept or build in mind. They take turns influencing each other in turn until the end product is some amalgamation of the two.:smallsmile:

Jayabalard
2010-01-27, 10:05 PM
A cyborg who uses his cybernetic implants to hack into computer networks is not an appropriate character in a normal D&D setting. Because even if the DM allows someone in a character's backstory to have invented cybernetic implants, he's probably not going to add any computer networks to the setting. The character might be one that's perfectly reasonable in other games, he might even be balanced with other members of the party, that's not the point. The point is that the setting determines what sorts of characteristics, abilities, possessions, knowledge, backstories, etc. characters can have and which ones they can't have.I'm not sure this is really a good example of your point; this alleged cyborg fits into the crunch of D&D far better than it does it's fluff, meaning that at least some of the things you would want for him would be covered by mechanics. Really, the reason that D&D lacks specific crunch for a "cyborg who uses his cybernetic implants to hack into computer networks" is because it doesn't fit fluff, not the other way around.


I think part of the conflict is that some people assume that having a mechanical way to represent your character automatically equates to having a mechanically powerful character. In otherwords, "only optimizers/roll-players/munchkins would start with class before concept because they wish to be better than everyone else."I don't think I've actually seen anyone make that assumption.

Now, you will see people assume that if you are focused on mechanics, you're trying to make a character that is more mechanically powerful than someone who has the abilities as fluff with very little mechanical backing. This is pretty much undeniably the case.

Demons_eye
2010-01-27, 10:12 PM
I'm not sure this is really a good example of your point; this alleged cyborg fits into the crunch of D&D far better than it does it's fluff, meaning that at least some of the thing you would want for him would be covered by mechanics.

Really, the reason that D&D lacks specific crunch for a "cyborg who uses his cybernetic implants to hack into computer networks" is because it doesn't fit fluff.



How so? My cyborg hacker is just that a Human with a metal arm graft and high intelligences. His cruch? Wizard and all his spells are hack's like in the matrix.

Jayabalard
2010-01-27, 10:13 PM
How so? My cyborg hacker is just that a Human with a metal arm graft and high intelligences. His cruch? Wizard and all his spells are hack like in the matrix.I'm not sure I understand what you're trying to say.

Cyborgs, cybernetics, computers, hacking... none of these fit the fluff of D&D. They're all terms from the Sci-Fi (or even in some cases Science fiction) genre, rather than the high fantasy genre.

Demons_eye
2010-01-27, 10:19 PM
I'm not sure I understand what you're trying to say.

Cyborgs, cybernetics, computers, hacking... none of these fit the fluff of D&D. They're all terms from the Sci-Fi (or even in some cases Science fiction) genre, rather than the high fantasy genre.

Fluff is fluff so if you can pull it off then you can pull it off. If I play this in a DnD game people might not see me as a Reality hacking cyborg but as a wizard, that fine but I am a Reality Hacking Cyborg from the future. I dont see it not fitting when you have steam punk monsters (http://www.wizards.com/dnd/images/MM35_gallery/MM35_PG158.jpg) and Robotic races. (http://www.rumblepurrlion.com/starwars/warforged.jpg)

Jayabalard
2010-01-27, 10:22 PM
Fluff is fluff so if you can pull it off then you can pull it off.what?

If I play this in a DnD game people might not see me as a Reality hacking cyborg but as a wizard, that fine but I am a Reality Hacking Cyborg from the future. I really don't see what this has to do with Devil's advocate's example, or my counter example. Neither of us were talking about hacking reality

Demons_eye
2010-01-27, 10:25 PM
A cyborg who uses his cybernetic implants to hack into computer networks is not an appropriate character in a normal D&D setting.

My cyborg (Human with grafts) uses his cybernetic implants (Magic/spells) to hack into computer networks (Change reality). It can be done in plain DnD because Fluff is Fluff and you can change it.

Ozymandias9
2010-01-28, 12:43 AM
what?

He's saying that you can alter setting to make the fluff fit a cybernetic character trope while still mechanically playing D&D.



I generally make a concept first and build the mechanical character around it.

Grumman
2010-01-28, 01:25 AM
My cyborg (Human with grafts) uses his cybernetic implants (Magic/spells) to hack into computer networks (Change reality). It can be done in plain DnD because Fluff is Fluff and you can change it.
I'd have no problem with someone using Warforged/Maug grafts to play a magitech cyborg, but there's no way in hell you're pulling that Matrix **** in my campaign. Reality is reality, and I'm not changing it to being a simulation just for the sake of your character.

frogspawner
2010-01-28, 03:51 AM
Oftentimes in my gaming group I'll hear the following: "that's stupid for x class to have" ... Still I'm a bit curious which you tend to decide on first and why.
Concept. Because that's all that's 'real' to your character.

"Class" is just a game-mechanic D&D uses to try to implement character concepts. And not a very good mechanic at that. A quick-and-dirty entry point for beginners, admittedly - but for more experienced players, Classes get in the way of the role-playing.

Other RPGs do it better.

Dimers
2010-01-28, 03:57 AM
If I'm in a game from the start, I usually think of the concept first. If I'm a later addition to a campaign in progress, I try to fill whatever niche is needed most and so I go with class first.

That reminds me of a point I'd meant to make -- that the party often provides impetus. I was just talking about independent character creation, but party needs can determine my characters' crunch, and chargen with shared background can determine my characters' fluff.

Fortuna
2010-01-28, 04:35 AM
For me, this question is almost meaningless. I think of what I want to play. That includes role, concept and class (to a certain extent), all summed up in a character. Then I fill in the gaps with actual thought. Where required, I adapt, and where there is no way around it I'll change radically, but on the whole my characters begin holistically, and then expand.

Nameless Ghost
2010-01-28, 04:36 AM
I will generally go with concept over everything else. If I don't enjoy playing the character other than when I'm pulling off a combo to do a ridiculous amount of damage, I'm not going to be playing that character much longer.

Kol Korran
2010-01-28, 04:45 AM
nothing much new to add, just wanted to add my 2 copper pieces- i usually develop fluff and crunch simultaneously. usually i try to have my feats and other mechanical choices fit the concept, but not at the cost of crippling my character or making it more annoying. i'm ok with suboptimal choices, just not with downright bad choices...
id do however try and leave soem place for the character to develop in game, according to the campaign and more, rather than have it fully planned to level 20, and her personality fully fleshed out from the get go. i like my characters to grow and develop.

anyway, that's how i do it.
Kol.

Jayabalard
2010-01-28, 08:04 AM
My cyborg (Human with grafts) uses his cybernetic implants (Magic/spells) to hack into computer networks (Change reality). It can be done in plain DnD because Fluff is Fluff and you can change it.Like I said, I would not agree that those are equivalent changes; I'm not sure what sort of point you're trying to make based on the text that you've been quoting. I think you're the only one talking about the Matrix, so you should bear in mind that "Hacking computer systems" does not "change reality", so the fluff change you're suggesting isn't equivalent.

In any case, in D&D Crunch is Crunch and you can change it.


He's saying that you can alter setting to make the fluff fit a cybernetic character trope while still mechanically playing D&D.Well, like I said, I'm not sure what that has to do with my counter example, or the example I was disagreeing with. The problem with that particular character is that it doesn't fit into the setting, not that there aren't mechanics that can handle it. You have to significantly change the fluff, but crunch already exists that can be used to support it.

Grifthin
2010-01-28, 09:14 AM
I tend to think "what's cool ?". Example

Current character is a crossbow slinger, I realized early on that I need tons of feats and that I wanted him to be a "badass normal". So magic/psionics was out. Result - fighter, tons of feats (the whole TWF tree, Weapon focus feats as well as ranged tree). To build my idealized crossbow slinger I picked the class that would support the abilities I wanted.

For another character I thought necromancer was funky (love the undead) - So I didn't want a religious character so Cleric was out. So I went with a specialist wizard. I dropped some of the more powerful schools on purpose because I wanted him to believe in the superiority of necromancy over other types of magic.

So it really depends.

Foryn Gilnith
2010-01-28, 09:20 AM
you're trying to make a character that is more mechanically powerful than someone who has the abilities as fluff with very little mechanical backing. This is pretty much undeniably the case.

The word "trying" in this scenario makes the statement quite deniable. Am I going to end up with a character more mechanically powerful? Quite possibly. But I'm not going in with the express intent of making a MOAR POWERFUL character; I'm just making a powerful character. If that ends up being more powerful than the character of the fluff-first fellow, I'm not especially delighted by that result.


but for more experienced players, Classes get in the way of the role-playing.

I'd assume (and currently believe) that "experienced" players aren't impeded by such pedestrian constructs as class.

Britter
2010-01-28, 09:51 AM
I would say that class only impedes roleplaying to the degree that if the class/classes you've selected don't give you the ability to represent your character concepts abilities through the mechanics of the game, it will be hard to play that concept.

It could be argued that by starting from class/mechanics, you can create a more fulfilling character from a roleplay perspective, because you will already know that characters abilities and limitations as defined by the rules, and can extrapolate a personality and backstory from there. I believe that several people in this thread have said they do exactly that. I know that I have used a similar approach myself on occasion.

frogspawner
2010-01-28, 10:58 AM
It could be argued that by starting from class/mechanics, you can create a more fulfilling character from a roleplay perspective, because you will already know that characters abilities and limitations...
Certainly "classes" can be a helpful starting point, like for beginners as I said before. (I wouldn't say it would be a more fulfilling character simply because it was created from a class rather than a skill-based mechanism, though). For example, BRP is class-free and yet still gives that help by providing 'professions' with listed skill suggestions.


I would say that class only impedes roleplaying to the degree that if the class/classes you've selected don't give you the ability to represent your character concepts abilities through the mechanics of the game, it will be hard to play that concept.
And I would say the new classes that are constantly invented show people do want new character concepts, but find them too hard to play within the limits of previous D&D classes.

Publication of new classes is itself evidence that classes hinder roleplaying.

Britter
2010-01-28, 11:16 AM
Alternately, the publication of new classes could be an attempt to provide ways to represent concepts that could not be mechanically represented in the game world with the existing rules.

I have played in both class and non-class based systems, and frankly I have yet to encounter a system that doesn't add mechanics over the course of it's life time (I am sure that there are systems out there that have never had expansions, errata or splat-books. I have not encountered them personally). In my opinion, adding mechanics is a way to make it easier to play a role. Unless you are working free-form or very rules-lite, it is quite possible you have an idea that the mechanics of the system can not support. Rules expansions are, imo, a way that the developers of a game can say "here are new mechanics for you, the player, to use to expand your options. Go forth and be awesome."

Also, please note that I am trying to stress class AND mechanics. While I do sometimes feel that class can be a straight-jacket and a hinderance to developing a character, I categorically reject the notion that you can ignore mechanics if you are trying to play a role. The way your characters abilities and powers are represented by the system should, imo, line up with what you want that character to be able to do.

Though I don't consider it the best solution, I find that the 3.x "plug-and-play" multiclassing really rewards a player who has system knowledge by allowing him to make a character concept using a variety of components (classes and PRCs, races, templates etc.) that combine in interesting ways to create a desired effect. Although it is not my prefered method of play, I would not consider the 3.x class system a hinderance on character devlopment and roleplay, unless the GM is being very arbitrary in what he is allowing the players to use.

Boci
2010-01-28, 11:23 AM
I'd have no problem with someone using Warforged/Maug grafts to play a magitech cyborg,

What about a human?


but there's no way in hell you're pulling that Matrix **** in my campaign. Reality is reality, and I'm not changing it to being a simulation just for the sake of your character.

You as the DM do not have to change the game, its just how the character explains his abilities to others.

ericgrau
2010-01-28, 11:39 AM
All of my shelved character concepts are based on mechanics. Because I can't be sure about the fluff until after I see the campaign. And no, I refuse to keep stereotype fluff on my "shelf" b/c it's 1 dimensional. Then once a campaign comes I pull one of my shelved concepts if it fits the campaign style and fluff I want, or if not then I start from scratch.

If you want to focus on your concept then it seems the based way to do that would be to pick the concept first but without including mechanics. Only goals. Then optimize towards the goal of your concept with the best mechanics you can get.

Godskook
2010-01-28, 11:42 AM
Nah, just keep introducing yourself as "Bill the wizard" and wear a pointy hat. If that's not working, embroider "wizzard" on your pointy hat; if you're still having problems, keep adding Zeds until it works.


Margaret Thatcher: Being a wizard is like being a lady. If you have to tell people you are, you aren't.

I had to, I just had to tie these together.

Mastikator
2010-01-28, 11:44 AM
+1 to you! IMO, fluff is more important than crunch. Crunch doesn't drive storytelling/roleplaying. Concept first!
This.
Freeform roleplay is roleplay, yahtzee is not.

Archpaladin Zousha
2010-01-28, 11:44 AM
I personally go both ways. Sometimes I come up with an awesome concept, and try to make a character that fits that vision, but sometimes I see a mechanical combo that really excites me, and I try to make up a story that fits that combo well.

frogspawner
2010-01-28, 12:00 PM
Alternately, the publication of new classes could be an attempt to provide ways to represent concepts that could not be mechanically represented in the game world with the existing rules.
So... until publication of the new classes those character concepts could not be used - that role-playing was impeded. I'm glad we agree.


I have played in both class and non-class based systems, and frankly I have yet to encounter a system that doesn't add mechanics over the course of it's life time...
Basic RolePlaying has remained very constant over it's illustrious 30+ year history. (You probably have encountered it, in it's incarnations as RuneQuest/CallOfCthulhu/Stormbringer/Elric!/etc). "If it ain't broke, don't fix it!" :smallsmile:


...Rules expansions are, imo, a way that the developers of a game can say "here are new mechanics for you, the player, to use to expand your options. Go forth and be awesome."
True. And that's a related problem. Only by building-in limits in the first place can those developers then sell you stuff to overcome those limitations... But if the latest supplement allows you to be "awesome" compared to what has gone before, power-hungry players will pay for it. The developers of such games - i.e. D&D - are cashing-in on this arms race.


While I do sometimes feel that class can be a straight-jacket and a hinderance to developing a character...
Hey, that's all I said...!

...I categorically reject the notion that you can ignore mechanics if you are trying to play a role.
...but I'm not saying that either. Just that class mechanics are unnecessary.


Though I don't consider it the best solution, I find that the 3.x "plug-and-play" multiclassing really rewards a player...
What do you consider the best solution, then?

Demons_eye
2010-01-28, 12:26 PM
Like I said, I would not agree that those are equivalent changes; I'm not sure what sort of point you're trying to make based on the text that you've been quoting. I think you're the only one talking about the Matrix, so you should bear in mind that "Hacking computer systems" does not "change reality", so the fluff change you're suggesting isn't equivalent.

What I am trying to say or you are failing to understand is that since there are no computers in DnD reality becomes his computer. By hacking, casting spells, I can change a 1 here and a 0 there and bam I have created a fireball.

Ex?


Ironically, it was Wish. I had a Wiz 17 who really DESPERATELY needed to get out of where he was, and so, I used a Wish spell to get out of dodge. Took the whole party too.

The fluff was that when I cast it, I got a momentary look at the underlying principles of magic for the world, and I made a tiny tiny alteration, just enough to move me and mine somewhere else.





In any case, in D&D Crunch is Crunch and you can change it.

Then your not playing DnD anymore. Your playing MnM or GRUPS or Shadowrun. In DnD or any table top game crunch makes your person just as much as Fluff. If you want to play a super hero MnM makes it more easy to play one but you can still play one in DnD. If I want to play The Doctor or Shurlock Holmes I am more inclined to play MnM because I can make them more easily then in DnD.



Well, like I said, I'm not sure what that has to do with my counter example, or the example I was disagreeing with. The problem with that particular character is that it doesn't fit into the setting, not that there aren't mechanics that can handle it. You have to significantly change the fluff, but crunch already exists that can be used to support it.

But you dont, I played Iron man awhile back with warlock and this gear armor (like a full suit but took damage from cold and would be stopped). I am playing captain America right now. I have said it before and will say it again DnD have Steam punk monster's (http://www.wizards.com/dnd/images/MM35_gallery/MM35_PG158.jpg) Robotic races (http://www.rumblepurrlion.com/starwars/warforged.jpg) and people that are psionic (http://www.wizards.com/dnd/images/xph_gallery/80489.jpg). You'r DnD is just different from mine I guess.


I had to, I just had to tie these together.

QFT

Boci
2010-01-28, 12:27 PM
True. And that's a related problem. Only by building-in limits in the first place can those developers then sell you stuff to overcome those limitations...

Yeah, I mean would it be too much to ask for MMs 1 and III, PH I and II, DMG I and II, the whole complete series, ToB, ToM, MoI, EPH, Dscape, Frost, Sand and HoH in one book? Honestly, WoTC, stop deliberatly limiting your initial books.

Demons_eye
2010-01-28, 12:30 PM
True. And that's a related problem. Only by building-in limits in the first place can those developers then sell you stuff to overcome those limitations... But if the latest supplement allows you to be "awesome" compared to what has gone before, power-hungry players will pay for it. The developers of such games - i.e. D&D - are cashing-in on this arms race.


That is kind of rude as you can be awesome but not powerful at the same time. When I herd of Binders/Totemis/True Namers my mind was full of the awesome things I could do but that did not make me a power-hungry player.

Morithias
2010-01-28, 12:36 PM
Concept. Even if you're trying to min/max you can break anything if you work hard enough at it. Proof-of-concept is Lupin the Third. A character I made. What was his build?

Rogue 5/Merchant Prince 5/Exemplar 10

Yeah, one other person in the part was a wizard who could do like 16 negative levels once a day in one round.

Cut to a year later when my Prince is making a trillion gold pieces a month and buying +8000 weapons.

Oh and that last statement wasn't an exaggeration.

Other concepts I've done? How about a girl who attacks you via taking her clothes off? Throw Seeker of the Song from Complete Arcane and perform(stripper) and you have the weirdest way to attack someone.

You hate running out of spells as a spell caster? Rather than just picking mystic thergue. Why not use cleric and DMM persist time stop.

If you can think of a concept there's a way to break it. Anyone can break a wizard or make "Standard DruidZilla build #7" that they found online.

I'm sure the majority of the people reading this post haven't even heard of the Merchant Prince class because it's a concept they never really thought would be used in 99% of given camps.

Britter
2010-01-28, 12:37 PM
Frogspawner, we are pretty much on the same page. I am just trying to clarify that I believe within any given system, you should make your character concept and the mechanical "in-game" workings of said concept line up.

Now, one specific point. You said:

"So... until publication of the new classes those character concepts could not be used - that role-playing was impeded. I'm glad we agree."

No, I don't agree. I sort of feel that this was a disingenuous comment on your part, as it is fairly obvious, I think, that I am categorically rejecting anything about classes impeding roleplaying. (Part of this may be that we are defining roleplaying differently as well) Let me clarify what I mean.

Where you see impeded roleplaying because of lack of options until those options are published, I see a desire to increase the mechanical ability of a system to support more options. That desire doesn't need to be coming from the developers. Frankly, the vast majority of GMs have probably made up/homebrewed/fiated things that were not covered in the rules but were totaly reasonable character concepts proposed by players. The introduction of new mechanics simply increases the amount of availible tools, both offical and unoffical, to assist in using mechanics to corespond to concept.

In other words, no matter what tools you have a player will eventually want to do something outside the scope of what you have. The larger the scope of your tool kit, the more likely you as a GM are going to be able to say yes AND not run into mechanical imbalance.

---

I don't agree with your premise that newer options exist to appeal to be snatched up by power gamers, nor do I consider it an "arms race". I do agree that many players will probably be interested in and drawn to newer and shinier. Most people want a change or a more accurate representation, not necessarily "power". Heck, most of the best-balanced DnD classes are from non-core sources. Of course, it is a fact that someone who wants to build a very powerful character will benefit directly from expanded rules. In that way I do agree that the splatbook is often considered the realm of the powergamer.

I didn't think that anyone built in intentional system limitations, as much as I believed that after the product is finished someone says "Hey, what about this idea that I didn't think off till RIGHT NOW?" Then I encountered 4e, and I must say that the way it is being rationed out, a few things at a time, really does make me mad. That aside, how a system is marketed and sold is really beyond the scope of this discussion, in my opinion, but there is obviously a demand for ways to expand the players mechanical options.

As far as the solution, well, there isn't one. Depending on the flavor of the game, the players and gm involved, the systems availible, and the needs and expirience of the group, the system and approach selected will be the one that works best for them. For me, it has consistently been Shadowrun or GURPS, both of which allow you to actualize a wide variety of mechanically supported characters, and neither of which are class based (though Shadowrun does love it's archetypes). I play mostly modern/cyberpunk/sci-fi games when I GM, so that is a contributing factor.

For the record frogspawner, I think we have similar views on things. It is just that statements such as, to quote you "but for more experienced players, Classes get in the way of the role-playing" really get my dander up because they are opinions masquerading as fact. I would agree that the more free-form or broad-spectrum mechanics are, the more options are availible. Since 3.x is no longer being expanded on in an offical way, we can look at it as a discrete entity and I think it directly refutes your statement, as it is class-based and yet allows a very wide variety of concepts to be mechanically represented. That is all.

Respectfully,

--Britter

Artanis
2010-01-28, 12:39 PM
What I am trying to say or you are failing to understand is that since there are no computers in DnD reality becomes his computer. By hacking, casting spells, I can change a 1 here and a 0 there and bam I have created a fireball.

You can't change 1s and 0s if there are no 1s and 0s to change.

In DnD, there are no 1s and 0s to change.

You may THINK of is as "hacking", but the character would either be metaphorical or delusional because he is not actually inside a computer.

Tinydwarfman
2010-01-28, 12:39 PM
A bit of both. I don't separate class and concept as much though, because, you know, a class IS a concept:smallwink: I really love monks (flavor, not class) and animalistic fighters, but sometimes I just wanna have fun with a sorcerer.
I search for cool classes to give inspiration for new concepts, but most of the time I base my decisions around flavor.
Also: a player says "I want to play a fey warlock" - is he doing for flavor or mechanics? they are not all ways separate.

Demons_eye
2010-01-28, 12:40 PM
You can't change 1s and 0s if there are no 1s and 0s to change.

In DnD, there are no 1s and 0s to change.

Thats fluff though, in my DnD I would allow this.

Artanis
2010-01-28, 12:42 PM
Thats fluff though, in my DnD I would allow this.

And that's homebrew.

Demons_eye
2010-01-28, 12:44 PM
And that's homebrew.

How? If his class is wizard with a warforged race and all he does is cast spells how is that homebrew?

Artanis
2010-01-28, 12:45 PM
How? If his class is wizard with a warforged race and all he does is cast spells how is that homebrew?

You're homebrewing a campaign setting where everybody is actually in The Matrix and it just looks to them like a typical DnD setting.

Demons_eye
2010-01-28, 12:48 PM
You're homebrewing a campaign setting where everybody is actually in The Matrix and it just looks to them like a typical DnD setting.

No, I am not. If a player came to me with a warforged wizard but said his power came from changing reality and called himself a hacker from the future? I would say fine but your going to get some stares. I have changed nothing.

arguskos
2010-01-28, 12:51 PM
You're homebrewing a campaign setting where everybody is actually in The Matrix and it just looks to them like a typical DnD setting.
Or... the setting is totally normal, and the warforged is bonkers? That seems to be what the deal is here. :smallconfused:

Artanis
2010-01-28, 12:54 PM
No, I am not. If a player came to me with a warforged wizard but said his power came from changing reality and called himself a hacker from the future? I would say fine but your going to get some stares. I have changed nothing.

Hence "delusional or metaphorical" in my edit which got ninja'd.

If it's somebody who just calls himself a "hacker", then that's fine. Terms change over time.

If they AREN'T in The Matrix, but somebody believes they actually are and that their spellcasting is actually hacking The Matrix, then that's fine too. There's nothing wrong with a delusional character.

You aren't talking about either. You aren't talking about merely using a weird term from the future, and you aren't talking about a delusional character. You're talking about actually, really and truly being in The Matrix. DnD is not in The Matrix, so the only way for it to be there is to homebrew it as such.

It may not seem like much, but a one-sentence homebrew is still homebrew.


Edit: Addendum

Or... the setting is totally normal, and the warforged is bonkers? That seems to be what the deal is here. :smallconfused:

He has made it clear that this is not the case. The Warforged actually is hacking the computer that contains the universe.

Demons_eye
2010-01-28, 12:57 PM
Hence "delusional or metaphorical" in my edit which got ninja'd.

If it's somebody who just calls himself a "hacker", then that's fine. Terms change over time.

If they AREN'T in The Matrix, but somebody believes they actually are and that their spellcasting is actually hacking The Matrix, then that's fine too. There's nothing wrong with a delusional character.




I don't see the problem then as this is what I have been saying.

frogspawner
2010-01-28, 12:57 PM
Yeah, I mean would it be too much to ask for MMs 1 and III, PH I and II, DMG I and II, the whole complete series, ToB, ToM, MoI, EPH, Dscape, Frost, Sand and HoH in one book? Honestly, WoTC, stop deliberatly limiting your initial books.
New monsters, settings, adventures, ways to use existing rules the best - all fine things to sell. PHB/DMG II? Not so sure.

Artanis
2010-01-28, 12:58 PM
I don't see the problem then as this is what I have been saying.

You've been saying that he actually is hacking the computer that contains the universe, not that he's using a strange term, and not that he's nuts.

Boci
2010-01-28, 12:58 PM
If they AREN'T in The Matrix, but somebody believes they actually are and that their spellcasting is actually hacking The Matrix, then that's fine too. There's nothing wrong with a delusional character.

But how does whether he's delusion or correct actually influence game play at all?

Artanis
2010-01-28, 12:59 PM
But how does whether he's delusion or correct actually influence game play at all?

It doesn't. I'm not talking about gameplay.

He's saying that he isn't changing fluff when he actually is. I'm pointing out that he is, indeed, changing things.

No more, no less.

Boci
2010-01-28, 01:01 PM
New monsters, settings, adventures, ways to use existing rules the best - all fine things to sell. PHB/DMG II? Not so sure.

So all you want in core is MM, PH I+II, DMG I+II and the complete series? How much would you be willing to pay for that?

frogspawner
2010-01-28, 01:01 PM
That is kind of rude ... my mind was full of the awesome things I could do but that did not make me a power-hungry player.
Sorry, I didn't mean you.


Rogue 5/Merchant Prince 5/Exemplar 10

Yeah, one other person in the part was a wizard who could do like 16 negative levels once a day in one round.

Cut to a year later when my Prince is making a trillion gold pieces a month and buying +8000 weapons.

Demons_eye
2010-01-28, 01:04 PM
It doesn't. I'm not talking about gameplay.

He's saying that he isn't changing fluff when he actually is. I'm pointing out that he is, indeed, changing things.

No more, no less.

I am not changing the settings fluff just my characters. That is my concept for a character so I fluff him as such.

Also there is no true DnD settings that I can recall. They give you classes, gods, races, magic, items, fluff, but no settings. There is Dragonlace and the lot but thats dragonlance not plain DnD. So arguing my DnD is not DnD is pointless.

Artanis
2010-01-28, 01:07 PM
There is a default setting where it's assumed things take place if you aren't using Eberron/FR/whatever.

Changing a character's fluff is fine. The particular character and the particular fluff you're talking about, however, requires an entirely different universe than any of those presented, including the default one.

Demons_eye
2010-01-28, 01:08 PM
There is a default setting where it's assumed things take place if you aren't using Eberron/FR/whatever.


Tell me where I can find this?

Boci
2010-01-28, 01:11 PM
The particular character and the particular fluff you're talking about, however, requires an entirely different universe than any of those presented, including the default one.

No its doesn't. You play that character and whether he's correct or not is never truely found out.

ScionoftheVoid
2010-01-28, 01:33 PM
No its doesn't. You play that character and whether he's correct or not is never truely found out.

Or it is found out and no-one cares. Or it is found out but almost nobody is told. I agree this really would not change anything about the game world at large.

I would also like to see this "default setting" for D&D, I've not heard of it before either.

Optimystik
2010-01-28, 01:34 PM
Tell me where I can find this?

It's called Greyhawk, and it's where all the core deities come from - Boccob, Vecna, Wee Jas, Obad-Hai, Pelor etc.

Umael
2010-01-28, 01:36 PM
In Mage, reality is subjective, not objective. Or, taken the other way, why CAN'T a warforged wizard be a hacker from the future? After all, the whole POINT about the philosophy of the Matrix was the question of reality and perception. What we call "reality" is often just the illusion of a shared hallucination - I have a paradigm that the words I am using to talk to you will make sense, and by my perception, you are responding accordingly.

In the Wizardry Compiled book series, the main character is a hacker from our world who gets sucked into a world where magic exists. He can't do magic, or at least, he can't do magic the way the wizards do it. But when he starts to figure out the system of magic, he treats it like computer programming, and it works. His style of magic turns out to be very powerful in some ways, but very weak in others - and the wizards who were already there can still cast spells their way.

You can play a D&D reality which is actually inside a computer simulation (aka, the Matrix), or the warforged could be bonkers (possible, even though it references computer terms, which don't exist), or the truth could never be known, or both could be true at the same time (reality IS subjective).

So what's the problem?

Terazul
2010-01-28, 01:49 PM
So what's the problem?
It's not really a problem. By default, the DnD world assumes "magic works this way". So if you have a character who believes otherwise (such as the 1s and 0s Warforged), he may or may not be right, but the rest of the world says he's nuts regardless of his fluff. You can change the "magic works this way" to "Greyhawk is now the Matrix", but now it's a different world and 'technically' homebrew as it deviates from the base setting, which is what some people are saying. Some people disagree.

And that's basically the little bit of disagreement that is going on right now. Nobody is saying that you can't portray DnD as a computer simulation if you don't want to, but that's not how the default setting works.

Umael
2010-01-28, 01:57 PM
And that's basically the little bit of disagreement that is going on right now. Nobody is saying that you can't portray DnD as a computer simulation if you don't want to, but that's not how the default setting works.

Fair enough, but let me ask this:

Let's say I was this great role-player, lots of fun, etc., and you wanted me to join your game. The trouble is, I only played science-fiction games, couldn't stand fantasy games. If you told me that it wasn't a fantasy game, but really a science-fiction game that was set in a computer simulation, and I bought it, would that be so bad? If instead of telling me it was a science-fiction game, you suggested I treat it as a computer simulation reality, would that be bad?

What if I flat refused to believe that I was playing a fantasy game and told you that it was actually a science fiction computer simulation game?

Yeah, you might think of me as insane, but if that is my only issue, is that so bad that you couldn't get me in a game? Keep in mind, in this theoretical thought experiment, I am, in all other ways, a great role-player.

illyrus
2010-01-28, 02:02 PM
Greyhawk Patch Notes 3.5.0.3:
- Fighters now gain a flight speed equal to their speed at level 10, hover.
- Paladins now can be of any alignment.
- Removed Grappling.

Artanis
2010-01-28, 02:32 PM
It's not really a problem. By default, the DnD world assumes "magic works this way". So if you have a character who believes otherwise (such as the 1s and 0s Warforged), he may or may not be right, but the rest of the world says he's nuts regardless of his fluff. You can change the "magic works this way" to "Greyhawk is now the Matrix", but now it's a different world and 'technically' homebrew as it deviates from the base setting, which is what some people are saying. Some people disagree.

And that's basically the little bit of disagreement that is going on right now. Nobody is saying that you can't portray DnD as a computer simulation if you don't want to, but that's not how the default setting works.

Exactly. This this this this this this this.




Fair enough, but let me ask this:

Let's say I was this great role-player, lots of fun, etc., and you wanted me to join your game. The trouble is, I only played science-fiction games, couldn't stand fantasy games. If you told me that it wasn't a fantasy game, but really a science-fiction game that was set in a computer simulation, and I bought it, would that be so bad? If instead of telling me it was a science-fiction game, you suggested I treat it as a computer simulation reality, would that be bad?

What if I flat refused to believe that I was playing a fantasy game and told you that it was actually a science fiction computer simulation game?

Yeah, you might think of me as insane, but if that is my only issue, is that so bad that you couldn't get me in a game? Keep in mind, in this theoretical thought experiment, I am, in all other ways, a great role-player.

There's nothing wrong with it. I never said there's something wrong with anything even remotely resembling this sort of situation, whether IC or OOC.

All I said - the ONLY thing I have said - is that Demons_eye is changing the fluff. I've said repeatedly that the character can believe whatever he wants, because him believing something doesn't change what it is.

Once more for emphasis, this is about what it is.

If Demons_eye's character believes that the "real world" is really The Matrix when it's not, that doesn't change the fact that he's not in The Matrix. If your example player believes a fantasy game is actually a Sci-Fi game or treats the game as a Sci-Fi game, that doesn't change the fact that it's still a fantasy game, regardless of what that player thinks it is.

Thus, both of those situations are entirely and completely beside the point. Both of those situations are irrelevant to the discussion at hand.

My assertion - my ONLY assertion - is that Demons_eye's character requires changing what the setting is.

Boci
2010-01-28, 02:36 PM
My assertion - my ONLY assertion - is that Demons_eye's character requires changing what the setting is.

No it does not. It requires the existent of a PC with an unconventional view of the setting and some wierd abilities to back up his claim. But since whether he is correct or not does not influence game play, the truth never need be revealed.

frogspawner
2010-01-28, 02:36 PM
You said: "So... until publication of the new classes those character concepts could not be used - that role-playing was impeded. I'm glad we agree." No, I don't agree. I sort of feel that this was a disingenuous comment on your part, as it is fairly obvious, I think, that I am categorically rejecting anything about classes impeding roleplaying.
Let's just say sarcastic! :smallwink: OK, you don't agree. Fair enough, I don't agree with some of what you say. But, you are right - we do seem to have many matching views.

I agree they didn't invent character classes to sell more books to powergamers. But WotC don't have any interest in eliminating the need for classes now, even though they are not an ideal mechanism, and it could be done. And it seems we also agree they have a 'rules rationing' ethos, which I suspect was in place before 4E. But I don't agree that their marketing strategies are off-limits for discussion, though, because I think it has a bearing. And I think (or at least hope) that there is a solution...

OK, "Classes get in the way" is fighting talk, especially in a predominantly D&D forum as this appears to be, but I stand by it. And I can live with classes, I'm not an anti-D&D fanatic, it's just not my preferred system. Right, I'd better go now and get ready to run the weekend game.... of 3.x. :smallsmile:

Artanis
2010-01-28, 02:45 PM
No it does not. It requires the existent of a PC with an unconventional view of the setting and some wierd abilities to back up his claim. But since whether he is correct or not does not influence game play, the truth never need be revealed.

Demons_eye said that the character is correct that it's not just merely "an unconventional view and some weird abilities".

And I never said it affected gameplay. Whether or not it affects gameplay has nothing to do with the discussion.


--The character's background requires the setting to be a certain way. Not look a certain way, not seem a certain way to the character, but outright, objectively, undeniably be that way.
--No official setting is the way the character's background requires.
--Thus, the character requires a setting that is technically homebrew, even if the change is trivial and has no effect on gameplay.

Britter
2010-01-28, 02:47 PM
Fair is fair. I think overall we are in the same general boat, that being people who prefer classless systems. I also think that, since I took a big break between DnD 2e and DnD 4e, I came to 3.x with it whole and complete, and was never affected by the marketing and selling of power creep until I got invovled with 4e. 4e is definitely victim of power rationing, no arguement there!:smallsmile:

TSR seemed to focus marketing on things that opened up options and concepts to the existing mechanics, and felt a lot more open, even within it's class structure, than many of it's descendents, at least to me. When the focus of the developers changed, I will concede that the marketing and feel of the game did in fact morph into something different.

For the record, currently I play 3.5 and 4e DnD, and GM in 3.5 (though I tend to use the E6 variant) and Shadowrun, so I too am not really against any given approach or system.

Boci
2010-01-28, 02:52 PM
--Thus, the character requires a setting that is technically homebrew, even if the change is trivial and has no effect on gameplay.

So? Having pointed out that technically the character concept requires homebrew, just like technically death has no negative affects, what happens? Can the game actually begin or do you want a written statement from the player that their character requires a homebred setting that does not change gameplay at all.

Jayabalard
2010-01-28, 02:56 PM
I am not changing the settings fluff just my characters. That is my concept for a character so I fluff him as such. No, if there's a computer for the character to hack into to change reality, you've changed the setting's fluff as well.


Also there is no true DnD settings that I can recall. Off the top of my head: Dragonlance, Greyhawk, Forgotten Realms, Al'Qadim, Darksun, Ravenloft, Blackmoor, Kara-Tur, Planescape, Spelljammer, Eberron. I think that Greyhawk has been the default setting for the last few editions at least.

In addition, I think every edition of the D&D DMG/PHB both describe the general cosmology of the default setting, and in no edition does this default cosmology include some sort of computer that can be hacked into to change reality. What you're talking about is changing the setting's fluff. Which is fine. It's just kind of absurd to continue to insist that what you're suggesting isn't changing the fluff.

You're probably also changing the crunch, since the cosmology of the setting has some crunchiness involved as well.

Umael
2010-01-28, 03:03 PM
Demons_eye said that the character is correct that it's not just merely "an unconventional view and some weird abilities".

And I never said it affected gameplay. Whether or not it affects gameplay has nothing to do with the discussion.


--The character's background requires the setting to be a certain way. Not look a certain way, not seem a certain way to the character, but outright, objectively, undeniably be that way.
--No official setting is the way the character's background requires.
--Thus, the character requires a setting that is technically homebrew, even if the change is trivial and has no effect on gameplay.

Wow.

I can see the hair splitting - this is being said in reverence of something cool going on, by the way.

Okay, first of all, yes, I believe I see your point now, what you are getting at. My apologizes for mistaking you.

You aren't arguing the character's viewpoint as being invalid, or even the player's viewpoint as being invalid, but this particular assertion that invalidates the consentual viewpoint of D&D.

To wit, TSR/WotC pretty much explicitly says, "This is a fantasy game", something that thousands of gamers everywhere understand and accept. In which case, having someone, in- or out-of-game saying, "This isn't fantasy, it is science-fiction" does not make it so.

Or, to go back to what I was saying about perception and reality, to declare that my perception of reality is going to change reality does not force you to change your perception of reality, hence, force you (or anyone else) to change your reality.

Is this paraphrase more or less accurate of your point?


(For some reason, I am reminded of the theory of relativity and frames of reference and how some of us might be forward or backwards in time with respect to others - but I can't tell you what time it is, only what time is my time.)

Optimystik
2010-01-28, 03:05 PM
Off the top of my head: Dragonlance, Greyhawk, Forgotten Realms, Al'Qadim, Darksun, Ravenloft, Blackmoor, Kara-Tur, Planescape, Spelljammer, Eberron. I think that Greyhawk has been the default setting for the last few editions at least.

It has (and I think Blackmoor was the "core" setting before it.)

But correct me if I'm wrong - isn't Kara-Tur part of FR? It's another nation on Toril IIRC, east of Faerun.

arguskos
2010-01-28, 03:07 PM
It has (and I think Blackmoor was the "core" setting before it.)

But correct me if I'm wrong - isn't Kara-Tur part of FR? It's another nation on Toril IIRC, east of Faerun.
Kara-Tur is part of Abeir-Toril, yes, but it is not part of the Realms. The Forgotten Realms is pretty exclusively Faerun and Maztica, and not the whole of Toril.

Now, if he said Realmspace, then yeah, you'd be right. Also, Al-Quadim was set in Zakhara, IIRC, making it a part of Toril as well.

Superglucose
2010-01-28, 03:07 PM
Sometimes A sometimes B. Sometimes I see an awesome class/combo of classes and build around that. Sometimes I think of a cool idea and dig around for the best way to pull that off while remaining true to the idea
+1

For instance, right now I'm trying to play a 14th level Initiate of the Seven Fold Veil because I've always wanted to play a high-level wizard.

I'm also considering an archer character who's a solitary hunter (Ranger class, for animal companion, but then I don't know where to go from there) that was designed purely from the concept of "Man, it would be cool to play an evil character who isn't mean, or rude, he just doesn't give a rat's ass about anything except what's convenient for him."

Jayabalard
2010-01-28, 03:16 PM
It has (and I think Blackmoor was the "core" setting before it.)I think that blackmoor was the default setting for OD&D after it was released (it was the first suppliment), and I think that Greyhawk was the default setting for 2e AD&D and later. Since Greyhawk was a separate book in 1e, I'm not sure that it was the default setting in 1e AD&D.


But correct me if I'm wrong - isn't Kara-Tur part of FR? It's another nation on Toril IIRC, east of Faerun.As I recall, Kara-Tur was originally (in it's release for 1e in 1985) it's own setting, before Forgotten Realms existed; there are a lot of settings that have been kind of absorbed into FR and I'm pretty sure you're right, that it is now part of FR.

Terazul
2010-01-28, 03:18 PM
So? Having pointed out that technically the character concept requires homebrew, just like technically death has no negative affects, what happens? Can the game actually begin or do you want a written statement from the player that their character requires a homebred setting that does not change gameplay at all.

Ok, so now you have changed the setting so that "1s and 0s" is now the foundation and basis of all magic. Now the other guy who was originally playing a regular spellcaster is considered loony instead of you, and his concept is in the same boat as robotboy before. Circular!

Again, the point being with this particular character is, if you want him to be "right", you have to change the entire setting. It's cool and all, but the concept is now inherently different, sorta. He's no longer the crazy guy who thinks magic is run by numbers, he's now the average hacker. And the guy who was the average spellcaster is now "that crazy guy who thinks he's tapping into the weave or some crap". And we end up with the same situation.

It's more that the concept changes how everything works for everyone else in the world, moreso than just the character in question (him being right, as opposed to being crazy). Which kind of gets out of hand, if you have more than one person in the game, all who which want to change how the laws of the game universe function. Well, assuming you want to be consistent, anyway.

tl;dr: It does kinda affect gameplay, in a perspective point of view. Since it's now a different game. I personally find it easiest to just say he's crazy and move on.

Boci
2010-01-28, 03:31 PM
Ok, so now you have changed the setting so that "1s and 0s" is now the foundation and basis of all magic. Now the other guy who was originally playing a regular spellcaster is considered loony instead of you, and his concept is in the same boat as robotboy before. Circular!

Again, the point being with this particular character is, if you want him to be "right", you have to change the entire setting. It's cool and all, but the concept is now inherently different, sorta. He's no longer the crazy guy who thinks magic is run by numbers, he's now the average hacker. And the guy who was the average spellcaster is now "that crazy guy who thinks he's tapping into the weave or some crap". And we end up with the same situation.

It's more that the concept changes how everything works for everyone else in the world, moreso than just the character in question (him being right, as opposed to being crazy). Which kind of gets out of hand, if you have more than one person in the game, all who which want to change how the laws of the game universe function. Well, assuming you want to be consistent, anyway.

tl;dr: It does kinda affect gameplay, in a perspective point of view. Since it's now a different game. I personally find it easiest to just say he's crazy and move on.

It would make for some interesting IC discussions. Also, what does tl;dr mean?

arguskos
2010-01-28, 03:32 PM
It would make for some interesting IC discussions. Also, what does tl;dr mean?
too long; didn't read. It's used as a way of abbreviating a posts content into a brief form.

Gentleman Bard
2010-01-28, 03:35 PM
To give a break to the ones who are reading this thread, how about my take on the original topic?

It's actually 3/4 for me. It depends who I'm building for. If it's for me, sometimes I get a concept, and bend the classes to it, or vice-versa. If it's for some one else, I ask what they want to do, unless I know they have a certain knowledge of the system or they specifically say that they want to see the rules before building. Then I help them build a character according to their specifications.

Umael
2010-01-28, 03:37 PM
It's more that the concept changes how everything works for everyone else in the world, moreso than just the character in question (him being right, as opposed to being crazy). Which kind of gets out of hand, if you have more than one person in the game, all who which want to change how the laws of the game universe function. Well, assuming you want to be consistent, anyway.

...you haven't played Mage, have you?

Jayabalard
2010-01-28, 03:40 PM
So? Having pointed out that technically the character concept requires homebrew, just like technically death has no negative affects, what happens? Can the game actually begin or do you want a written statement from the player that their character requires a homebred setting that does not change gameplay at all.I think that you've kind of missed some of the context of that line of argument; Demons_eye started off arguing against me when I was saying that Devils_Advocate's example of a computer hacking cyborg (CHC) didn't fit into D&D due to fluff, not because it wouldn't fit into the crunch (as Devils_Advocate seemed to be implying), and that the primary reason that there isn't crunch to specifically support that particular character is that it doesn't fit into the fluff.

I'm personally still really confused by his earlier statements; he seems to be trying to argue with me by the language choice he picked, but he's arguing that you can have a CHC in a game, just by changing the fluff of the game... which doesn't actually contradict what he initially quoted at all.

Add to that: his interpretation of what is meant by the CHC does not seem to have anything to do with the CHC that Devil's Advocate was talking about so his entire line of argument seems to be coming from out of left field.


When people started questioning what he was talking about, he seems to start asserting that his example of a CHC doesn't involve changing the fluff either. So there is a 2nd line of argument of people (including, I think, Artanis, in the post that you quoted) who are arguing against that absurd line of reasoning in specific, and nothing else.

Vikazc
2010-01-28, 04:06 PM
Just to throw in my two cents on the hacker topic, it does not technically require any homebrew for the concept itself, just the variation your all choosing to discuss.

I could play a warforged wizard from the future who has a direct comm link to a computer in the far future. By communicating with said computer, the warforged is able to generate spell like effects in his present time by manipulating time and space with future tech. This does not require any change to the setting, no presence of future tech items, or any homebrew whatsoever because it does not step on any established setting fact because the future is unwritten and mutable in all current settings.

On a side note, I personally start with basic crunch ideas and build my concept over the first few levels. My current character is a 14 year old druid whos about to start branching into warlock at level 4 as he is seeking a deep connection with the fey spirits of nature, after which he is moving into a DM modified version of the Eldritch Theurge adapted for druids. Wierd I know.

Optimystik
2010-01-28, 04:17 PM
I think that blackmoor was the default setting for OD&D after it was released (it was the first suppliment), and I think that Greyhawk was the default setting for 2e AD&D and later. Since Greyhawk was a separate book in 1e, I'm not sure that it was the default setting in 1e AD&D.

Yes, that's what I meant - Blackmoor was core first, followed by Greyhawk, which has been core ever since.


As I recall, Kara-Tur was originally (in it's release for 1e in 1985) it's own setting, before Forgotten Realms existed; there are a lot of settings that have been kind of absorbed into FR and I'm pretty sure you're right, that it is now part of FR.

Ah, that makes sense.

The point of course, is that core D&D today remains the Greyhawk setting (even in 4e) with old faces making their appearances - Vecna, Ioun, Asmodeus, Pelor etc.

frogspawner
2010-01-28, 04:24 PM
Fair is fair. I think overall we are in the same general boat, that being people who prefer classless systems...
Agreed! :smallsmile: Me, though I'd prefer to play some BRP-related system, am stuck running 3.25 (3.0 + 3.5's feats & skills) and, all next weekend, playing strict 1st-ed AD&D! :smallwink:

Happy gaming, and see you around...!

PS: Thanks for the E6 reference - I'd not seen that before, but having now looked it up, it looks just my style. :smallcool:

Demons_eye
2010-01-28, 04:41 PM
I think that you've kind of missed some of the context of that line of argument; Demons_eye started off arguing against me when I was saying that Devils_Advocate's example of a computer hacking cyborg (CHC) didn't fit into D&D due to fluff, not because it wouldn't fit into the crunch (as Devils_Advocate seemed to be implying), and that the primary reason that there isn't crunch to specifically support that particular character is that it doesn't fit into the fluff.

I'm personally still really confused by his earlier statements; he seems to be trying to argue with me by the language choice he picked, but he's arguing that you can have a CHC in a game, just by changing the fluff of the game... which doesn't actually contradict what he initially quoted at all.

Add to that: his interpretation of what is meant by the CHC does not seem to have anything to do with the CHC that Devil's Advocate was talking about so his entire line of argument seems to be coming from out of left field.


When people started questioning what he was talking about, he seems to start asserting that his example of a CHC doesn't involve changing the fluff either. So there is a 2nd line of argument of people (including, I think, Artanis, in the post that you quoted) who are arguing against that absurd line of reasoning in specific, and nothing else.





I'm not sure this is really a good example of your point; this alleged cyborg fits into the crunch of D&D far better than it does it's fluff, meaning that at least some of the things you would want for him would be covered by mechanics. Really, the reason that D&D lacks specific crunch for a "cyborg who uses his cybernetic implants to hack into computer networks" is because it doesn't fit fluff, not the other way around.

I don't think I've actually seen anyone make that assumption.

Now, you will see people assume that if you are focused on mechanics, you're trying to make a character that is more mechanically powerful than someone who has the abilities as fluff with very little mechanical backing. This is pretty much undeniably the case.

How so? My cyborg hacker is just that a Human with a metal arm graft and high intelligences. His cruch? Wizard and all his spells are hack's like in the matrix.

My original point was fluff is fluff and you can change fluff while not changing the game. If you want to play a "cyborg who uses his cybernetic implants to hack into computer networks" it takes some tweaking but you can do it. Just play a wizard and Fluff him as such.

You want to play bob the demon lord that turned human? Duskblade/Fighter/Wizard/Whatever and Fluff him as such.

In DnD and I dare say any game You can play what ever concept you want because it is fluff making it work is a little harder based on the game but you could do it.


Also it maybe common knowledge but can I get a page number or a post by one of the makers that says its in Greyhawk?

Optimystik
2010-01-28, 04:46 PM
Also it maybe common knowledge but can I get a page number or a post by one of the makers that says its in Greyhawk?

As I said before, the deities are the biggest giveaway as to what setting you're currently in. Complete Divine page 4 says the deities it describes are from Greyhawk, and various other pages suggest adapting its material (such as Radiant Servant of Pelor) to fit other campaign settings.

Dr.Epic
2010-01-28, 04:57 PM
I usually go concept first though sometimes I think of a great build I've never played before and just go with that.

Demons_eye
2010-01-28, 05:01 PM
As I said before, the deities are the biggest giveaway as to what setting you're currently in. Complete Divine page 4 says the deities it describes are from Greyhawk, and various other pages suggest adapting its material (such as Radiant Servant of Pelor) to fit other campaign settings.

So there is nothing that says is straight out this is greyhawk?

Britter
2010-01-28, 05:02 PM
frogspawner, for my money E6 is the best of 3.x flexibility combined with decent balance and the gritty feel I like. If you like that sort of thing it will be your cup of tea. If you prefer higher power, well, it doesn't do that very well :)

Godskook
2010-01-28, 05:02 PM
Can we please move the hacker argument to its own thread?

It deserves one.

Dr.Epic
2010-01-28, 05:05 PM
Has anyone said they think of race first before anything else because sometimes I pick a race and go with the most ironic way to play it: halfling barbarian, dwarf bard, orc rogue (though these are not such a tough build).

frogspawner
2010-01-28, 07:22 PM
frogspawner, for my money E6 is the best of 3.x flexibility combined with decent balance and the gritty feel I like. If you like that sort of thing it will be your cup of tea. If you prefer higher power, well, it doesn't do that very well :)
Oh, I absolutely prefer gritty fantasy! (Well, perhaps edging into heroic...) I only ran this 3.0/5 reluctantly. But this E6 is looking good, and has re-engaged my interest - Cheers!

Boci
2010-01-28, 07:28 PM
Has anyone said they think of race first before anything else because sometimes I pick a race and go with the most ironic way to play it: halfling barbarian, dwarf bard, orc rogue (though these are not such a tough build).

Depends how far you take it. Breaking the stereotype is good, but take it too far and you just end up with a stupid adventurer begging for a Darwing Award.

Artanis
2010-01-28, 07:42 PM
Wow.

I can see the hair splitting - this is being said in reverence of something cool going on, by the way.

Okay, first of all, yes, I believe I see your point now, what you are getting at. My apologizes for mistaking you.

You aren't arguing the character's viewpoint as being invalid, or even the player's viewpoint as being invalid, but this particular assertion that invalidates the consentual viewpoint of D&D.

To wit, TSR/WotC pretty much explicitly says, "This is a fantasy game", something that thousands of gamers everywhere understand and accept. In which case, having someone, in- or out-of-game saying, "This isn't fantasy, it is science-fiction" does not make it so.

*snip*

Is this paraphrase more or less accurate of your point?

That's pretty much spot-on.

...though I can't quite figure out what the snipped paragraph is trying to say. But other than that, yeah. :smallsmile:

Thurbane
2010-01-28, 08:23 PM
Honestly? Im about 50/50 - half the time, I have a concept in my head, and then reverse engineer it to see what race/class/feat combo will best emulate it. The other half of the time, I chose a race/class combo that intrigues me, then decide what concept to aim for with the build.

randomhero00
2010-01-28, 08:43 PM
I pick class/mechanics first then concept, cause I can come up with endless concepts, but there are limited class combos. Helps narrow things down.

Dr.Epic
2010-01-28, 09:00 PM
Depends how far you take it. Breaking the stereotype is good, but take it too far and you just end up with a stupid adventurer begging for a Darwing Award.

Well yeah, so long as you don't make an orc sorcerer or wizard.

Susano-wo
2010-01-28, 09:05 PM
Yes, God save me from a Darwing award :D (sorry--had to)

Optimystik
2010-01-28, 09:48 PM
So there is nothing that says is straight out this is greyhawk?

...The core setting in 3.5 is Greyhawk. I really can't think of any other ways to say it.

Unless Wee Jas and Heironeus are making cameos over in Forgotten Realms or something without my knowledge, anyway.

ZombieGenesis
2010-01-28, 09:53 PM
Unless I have a taste for giving a certain class a go, I will always go by my concept first and foremost. My first attempt being a specifically rigged Necromancer, which sounds like more of a class choice on the surface but really does mould itself around the character idea in execution.
Plus I love to write stories, and what is more fun than seeing your exisiting characters come to life on a D&D adventure? Atlas, the economic superpowers live-in mage, prepare to meet a fire dragon...