PDA

View Full Version : Openness of player characters



Mordante
2021-11-29, 09:23 AM
Out of curiosity do you or the players in your group share exactly what character they play? What the stats are, what class, race etc?

How open are your groups? Do you say I'm a level X character class, or do you describe your character? I find it more fun if I don't know exactly what characters my group is playing.

Phhase
2021-11-29, 09:45 AM
We don't always tell each other what we might be doing NEXT, but in general, we have always told everyone where we're starting when we start out (mostly). Basically, if it's not a particularly IC secret, it's usually not a particularly OC secret either, sometimes not even then. Now, if someone were to suddenly start taking warlock levels or do something else in a clandestine manner, that's another matter.

Oh, and as master of arbitration, our groups usually tell the DMs everything about them. Although that might not be as nonstandard, they kind of need that.

Mastikator
2021-11-29, 09:46 AM
Fully open with the other players. Unless it's a one-shot the players should know what kind of character the other players have even if the characters don't. I describe my character in RP terms and talk about mechanics OOC. There's no conflict IMO.

Like this "you see a short figure in metal armor and a red hat, he has a multiple weapons and a robot besides him, he's a 6th level artificer gnome"

When I GM I encourage players to describe what their character looks like and if they are bad at it I'll help them. In my experience it is extremely risky to have PCs with secret allegiances or motives that do not align with the interest of the party, if the players decide to not allow PVP then that kind of secrecy is also not allowed (unless the player states it openly).

KorvinStarmast
2021-11-29, 09:49 AM
Out of curiosity do you or the players in your group share exactly what character they play? What the stats are, what class, race etc? Depending on the group, it varies. In our Wednesday group it's very much "I am a barbarian" or "I am a bard" but our Strahd group doesn't do that.

Silly Name
2021-11-29, 10:04 AM
I have never seen reason to hide my character's build from my fellow players, I don't think it really serves any function or enhanche the way we play. The only things I would keep secret are the sort of things I may come up with the DM to act as a twist in the story, but otherwise, at least OOC, I'll be clear on what my character can do and what they are like. If I don't say something outright, it's because I don't think it's relevant, but if asked I am unlikely to not tell what my character's stats are or how many spells they can cast or whatever.

Now, in character, I'm unlikely to say "I'm a 4th level barbarian", because that takes me out of the game. I may say "I am Rahl, of the Red Fangs" or stuff like that, but, again, if a fellow player asks "so, you're playing a Barbarian?" I will say "yeah".

Quertus
2021-11-29, 10:21 AM
Like all OOC information, knowledge of stats / race / class / etc that the player possesses but the character does not taints the role-playing. So, while I wouldn't say that I hide such information, I certainly don't make a habit of broadcasting it, either. No spoilers. Explain what the character perceives.

That said, I'm big on running characters who suss out such information the Clan way: by directly asking. It's hard to work with a group when nobody knows anybody else's capabilities.

One of my characters described themselves as "a sorcerer of some skill". Later, fighting an enemy caster, as we hid, I explained, "I am a sorcerer of some skill. He is a sorcerer of much greater skill."

Class wise, my character wasn't a Sorcerer at all. More like a Cerebremancer. And afaik, our opponent wasn't a Sorcerer, either. But it matched our understanding of events.

Anonymouswizard
2021-11-29, 10:47 AM
Everybody knows broad strokes archetypes, and in D&D most likely race and class, but nobody knows the exact stats of anybody else. It's partially because nobody in my groups have really cared about 'how good are you at It' beyond 'I'm higher than you'.

Catullus64
2021-11-29, 11:04 AM
I must admit that I like the idea of keeping the exact mechanical details of a character to one's self. It allows for those neat moments of genuine surprise or coolness when someone pulls out a trick that others didn't know about. The surprise value would necessarily be short-lived but it would certainly be an interesting roleplaying aid.

As it is, me and my regular group spend far too much time talking about D&D and character builds for this to ever be practicable!

Grod_The_Giant
2021-11-29, 11:05 AM
Everybody knows broad strokes archetypes, and in D&D most likely race and class, but nobody knows the exact stats of anybody else.
This has been my general experience too-- no one's hiding anything, but people also aren't usually interested in other peoples' precise builds beyond "can you do [thing that the archetype suggests]?"

Actana
2021-11-29, 11:10 AM
As a GM I don't even hide the stats of the threats the players are facing. Players can share whatever they want with each other, as far as I'm concerned, and attitudes of "I'm not gonna tell you even though you asked me politely" haven't really ever showed up. And if they did, it'd likely be prefaced with letting everyone know there are some secrets in play for that character and everyone agreed the game might be better if they aren't known.

To me, hiding stats is a bit alien unless it's done for a specific purpose. When it comes to PCs, it just helps teamwork and general coherency. For NPCs, I find it's more interesting to watch the players try to figure out ways around a threat rather than to watch them try to figure out what the threat is.

Easy e
2021-11-29, 11:21 AM
Mostly just the broad strokes, and the rest we discover as we play.

No one in my group really wants to sit around and talk about the PCs mechanics, when we could be actually playing instead.

Anonymouswizard
2021-11-29, 11:52 AM
I must admit that I like the idea of keeping the exact mechanical details of a character to one's self. It allows for those neat moments of genuine surprise or coolness when someone pulls out a trick that others didn't know about. The surprise value would necessarily be short-lived but it would certainly be an interesting roleplaying aid.

As it is, me and my regular group spend far too much time talking about D&D and character builds for this to ever be practicable!

I've actually pulled it on the GM once, despite them reading the sheet. When you're double checking 4+ characters for maths and thematics it can be very easy to forget just what skills people invested a single point into.

I couldn't do it particularly well, but it's useful to have somebody with a Trained-only skill, whether that's Knowledge (History) or Lockpicking.

Plus none of us cared about builds that much beyond 'do the numbers add up'. At the end of the day the most boring characters ended up being the ones with nothing outside of their role (even if it never came out in game, like my reformed occultist with the Cooking skill).

dafrca
2021-11-29, 01:53 PM
I have never seen reason to hide my character's build from my fellow players, I don't think it really serves any function or enhanche the way we play. The only things I would keep secret are the sort of things I may come up with the DM to act as a twist in the story, but otherwise, at least OOC, I'll be clear on what my character can do and what they are like. If I don't say something outright, it's because I don't think it's relevant, but if asked I am unlikely to not tell what my character's stats are or how many spells they can cast or whatever.

Now, in character, I'm unlikely to say "I'm a 4th level barbarian", because that takes me out of the game. I may say "I am Rahl, of the Red Fangs" or stuff like that, but, again, if a fellow player asks "so, you're playing a Barbarian?" I will say "yeah".

This is how I feel as well. Player to player, I see no reason to keep the basic info "secret" but character to character is different. I will also hold back some things if they are part of the character's background that the info is a secret. :smallsmile:

Milodiah
2021-11-29, 02:03 PM
One game I played in I had the pleasure of being a villain PC in an online game. I was an evil changeling rogue/warlock mix who had all sorts of stealth and illusion abilities that I was using to trick the rest of the party into believing the inn we were in was being haunted by some sort of undead that lived in the lake.

I had a decoy character sheet up for the other players to see that had me pegged as a jolly old chaotic good gnome artificer which matched my character's outward appearance and behavior, and since none of my class abilities came up, I never had to use the prepared contingencies to cover up that I wasn't really an artificer.

Since it was online, it was no problem to send the dm private messages saying what I was doing rather than conspicuously handing notes across the table. It was honestly super fun, because the DM and I hadn't colluded on this ahead of time. The other players figured something was unusual ooc, but they never once suspected that it was me, another player, pulling the strings.

Of course, this is a very special situation, and normally I would never advocate for such a thing unless it was the core concept of the scenario like this was.

But there are more cases where you wouldn't want to just straight up hand someone your whole character sheet to read top to bottom, since it would give away a lot of stuff you might want to reveal through roleplay. Examples of this are stuff like the Haunted One backstory, the fact that you're actually undead or a changeling or something, that you worship a...controversial god, etc.

There's a difference between your party knowing your general capabilities and knowing everything about them. I tend to discourage people from passing their whole ass finished character sheet around the table, since if someone were suddenly apprehensive about doing so when they weren't earlier they obviously have a Surprise Twist Character.

J-H
2021-11-29, 02:09 PM
Everyone's sheets are pretty wide open thanks to DND Beyond.
As the DM I check everyone's sheets, especially at character creation (I once caught a 20 point buy character when it was 27 point buy...his numbers were all bad).
Shared information also makes it easier for people to remind each other of spells, items, etc. that someone may have forgotten about. "You're an orc, you're not dead yet." "Don't you have a cantrip for that?" "Hey, are you still carrying the javelin of lightning?"

PhoenixPhyre
2021-11-29, 06:54 PM
I strongly prefer open OOC discussion of characters, while IC not referring to class/level and specific mechanics as such. In practice, the two blur together quite heavily and I just don't care.

Pauly
2021-11-29, 07:25 PM
In an environment with PvP on the table, absolutely not. In that case you only reveal what is mechanically visible to the other players.

In the groups I regularly play with character creation is done at the table in session zero. In which case we are fully aware of each other’s starting abilities. We also develop collaborative backstories that help explain why this group has come together so we don’t have secret backstories. Not that we’d object in principle, it just isn’t how we roll.

In the few campaigns I’ve been involved off table character creation the characters have done an IC introduction, kind if like a job interview in which the main abilities and backstory elements are delivered. Minor elements of backstories and minor abilities aren’t fleshed out so they can come up as surprises in the campaign. I haven't had the experience of a character with a big bad black secret that suddenly creates a major impact in the campaign, and I would feel cheated if that did happen.

I’ve had the experience many years ago where a Rogue character was secretly evil and stealing from other players, keeping treasure for himself and so forth. When he was discovered an ax was put through his head, and my cleric decided not to waste a resurrection spell on him and no one was prepared to take the body to a temple. The rogue player was very upset, but when challenged he couldn’t come up with a reason why any of the characters would have a good IC reason to resurrect him.

Vhaidara
2021-11-29, 08:03 PM
All of my games, the sheets are at least available for everyone to see. We rarely look at them unless like, someone is having power troubles and we're passing along information from their sheet for them.

Now, there are sometimes deceptions present on the sheet, depending on the game. I had an exalted game where I was playing a Lunar in a mixed Exalt party, and IC the party didn't know I was a Lunar. OoC, of course, they did know, because they heard me tell the Storyteller what charms I was activating and they got to witness my ventures as a weasel sneaking around camp.

What they didn't know was that I was always in a stolen human form, and that my character had essentially been in deep cover/been in denial about who she really was for 2 years. She hated herself and was trying to become someone different, because she had been weak and the person who hurt her (whose shape she claimed after exalting) had been strong. It took them about 3 months IC to find out I was a Lunar, and then another 4 months before they found out who she really was, and it was an incredibly emotionally loaded scene because it also came with a dump of my character's full backstory.

False God
2021-11-29, 10:12 PM
They do, though I discourage it during the game. Before or after or on your own time is your business. But during the game I find that discussing PCs in terms of their mechanical elements severely impedes roleplaying. I encourage people to introduce their characters in a flavorful and descriptive manner, rather than their mechanical parts.

Pex
2021-11-29, 10:37 PM
I prefer fully open. If you want the fun of a secret backstory that doesn't hurt the party to be revealed and played out as the campaign progresses that's fine. I find it rude to refuse to give your character's name, race, and class. To me it's an inherent adversarial attitude that I don't stand for between players. If I can't trust you I don't want to play with you, and being smug and secretive is immediate mistrust. Play your character with the other players, not against them and not in spite of them. I do not accept the excuse it's metagame information. It's not about in game or out of game knowledge. It's about getting to know you and understand what the party can do. It doesn't matter if we're complete strangers meeting at the tavern. Go with the metaphorical glowing PC on the foreheads of everyone's character and choose to play together.

Mordante
2021-11-30, 02:08 AM
Nice to read how different people/groups are dealing with it.

What I normally do is that me group knows what base class I play. But if we get to PrC levels I don't tell them explicitly what PrC I play. Some people I play with are very open with it. Some not so, there is a group I play in where one player won't reveal the class or race he is playing. I suspect he plays a Drow Cleric. Not sure though.

In character, does you character know what a druid, warlock, hexblade, swashbuckler is etc? Normally we start at level 1. So my character is pretty green. Chances are my PC has never met most classes or even know that they exist.


Pex
Re: Openness of player characters

I prefer fully open. If you want the fun of a secret backstory that doesn't hurt the party to be revealed and played out as the campaign progresses that's fine. I find it rude to refuse to give your character's name, race, and class. To me it's an inherent adversarial attitude that I don't stand for between players. If I can't trust you I don't want to play with you, and being smug and secretive is immediate mistrust. Play your character with the other players, not against them and not in spite of them. I do not accept the excuse it's metagame information. It's not about in game or out of game knowledge. It's about getting to know you and understand what the party can do. It doesn't matter if we're complete strangers meeting at the tavern. Go with the metaphorical glowing PC on the foreheads of everyone's character and choose to play together.

I don't agree with this. Why would it be rude? Why would it be bad for roleplaying?

Silly Name
2021-11-30, 04:15 AM
What I normally do is that me group knows what base class I play. But if we get to PrC levels I don't tell them explicitly what PrC I play. Some people I play with are very open with it. Some not so, there is a group I play in where one player won't reveal the class or race he is playing. I suspect he plays a Drow Cleric. Not sure though.

Has the player never described how their character looks? I find it pretty odd that someone would be so secretive as to refuse to explicitely state the outward appearance of their PC.
On PrCs: that sort of stuff heavily depends on how narratively impactful the PrC (or equivalent "upgrade") is. The sort of stuff that's deeply ingrained in the game's fiction, like joining a knightly order or studying at a specific wizard school? Pretty hard to not be clear on what's going at the table, and requires voluntarly obscuring information.

Even for purely mechanical choices, I'm likely to discuss them with my party beforehand, mostly to get a second opinion. Our group always discusses what feats to take, what stats to improve, etc. It's a fun moment where the more mechanically adept players also help those with less system mastery with their choices.


In character, does you character know what a druid, warlock, hexblade, swashbuckler is etc? Normally we start at level 1. So my character is pretty green. Chances are my PC has never met most classes or even know that they exist.

Heavily depends on the character - for one, all casters could be a variation of "mage", while another may be expert enough in magic to be able to tell druids from clerics and warlocks from sorcerers, etc. A lot of classes, however, don't map neatly to the game fiction and I treat as purely mechanical terms for packages of abilities - "swashbukcler" is not an useful information in the game world if I want to describe what a person does, I'm more likely to call them "an agile fighter", nor am I going to always call a Fighter "fighter": they may be a soldier, a knight, a brute, etc.


I don't agree with this. Why would it be rude? Why would it be bad for roleplaying?

Most roleplaying games are predicated on the assumption that the player characters are working together towards a common goal. If the characters have no reason to trust each other and work together, it strains credibility for them to venture into dangerous locations together. I'm not going into a dungeon filled with deadly monster along with a guy who refuses to tell me what he's capable of doing.

Tarmor
2021-11-30, 05:57 AM
Generally, my group is very open about their characters.
In my group/campaigns, each player has always known what each other PC's race and class are/were. There's always free discussion when they level about abilities, feats and using skill points, so there's a general knowledge about what other PC's can do and possibly their strengths and weakness. Everyone quickly forgets what other PC's have for Ability Scores, actual skills (ranks/proficiencies, etc), Spells, or whatever...
When I'm a player myself, I like to keep some details about my character quiet (maybe not a secret, but I won't advertise it) either as part of my background, or just be a little surprising occasionally. A few of my players are like that too.

Mordante
2021-11-30, 09:10 AM
Fully open with the other players. Unless it's a one-shot the players should know what kind of character the other players have even if the characters don't. I describe my character in RP terms and talk about mechanics OOC. There's no conflict IMO.

Like this "you see a short figure in metal armor and a red hat, he has a multiple weapons and a robot besides him, he's a 6th level artificer gnome"

When I GM I encourage players to describe what their character looks like and if they are bad at it I'll help them. In my experience it is extremely risky to have PCs with secret allegiances or motives that do not align with the interest of the party, if the players decide to not allow PVP then that kind of secrecy is also not allowed (unless the player states it openly).

Describing what they look like is common. Not sure why you should state class and level. Everyone is the same level and class is a bit weird to state.


Generally, my group is very open about their characters.
In my group/campaigns, each player has always known what each other PC's race and class are/were. There's always free discussion when they level about abilities, feats and using skill points, so there's a general knowledge about what other PC's can do and possibly their strengths and weakness. Everyone quickly forgets what other PC's have for Ability Scores, actual skills (ranks/proficiencies, etc), Spells, or whatever...
When I'm a player myself, I like to keep some details about my character quiet (maybe not a secret, but I won't advertise it) either as part of my background, or just be a little surprising occasionally. A few of my players are like that too.


We level between sessions and everyone does it in private. There is no discussion. I did once ask the party if i should chose feat A or B. the answer was, which ever fits your character best.

Mastikator
2021-11-30, 09:32 AM
Describing what they look like is common. Not sure why you should state class and level. Everyone is the same level and class is a bit weird to state.

I don't think it's weird to state class, it tells everyone roughly what you can do. I usually tell (future) subclass too if anyone asks, if someone says "I don't want to tell you" that immediately raises red flags. I've had enough of players being openly hostile/collaborative while literally surrounded by actual deadly enemies*. I insist on cooperating and playing as a team. Both in and out of character. I do not want to have to wonder who's side are you on, that stuff is only acceptable in a one-shot where it's explicitly said to be acceptable.

*as a side note I think the DM should increase the difficulty when such a party dynamic arises, that should be an "evolve or die" moment.

Vahnavoi
2021-11-30, 10:52 AM
Depends on what type of game it is. On the live-action side, we've done games where players don't even know how many other players there are or who they are. In murder mystery games or any other "spot the impostor" type of game, character information is only available to players of said characters, plus a game master if there is such a thing. On tabletop and play-by-post, character information typically has at least two layers: public and private. Public is out there for all to see, private is shared between players at their discretion. Public information typically includes callsigns, physical description and visible equipment, everything else varies. On tabletop, there is also often a third layer of information: game master's, for character details they track and decide (such as alignment, standing with gods, properties of unidentified items etc.). It is possible to hold a roleplaying game where only the game master sees the character sheets, though I don't recall doing that.

HidesHisEyes
2021-11-30, 11:04 AM
Out of curiosity do you or the players in your group share exactly what character they play? What the stats are, what class, race etc?

How open are your groups? Do you say I'm a level X character class, or do you describe your character? I find it more fun if I don't know exactly what characters my group is playing.

I prefer if everyone knows. As much as we are roleplaying unique characters, we’re also playing a game, and the classes etc are part of the game’s apparatus. I think we get the best results if everyone knows what everyone is in game terms as that can help with decision-making on a game level, which hopefully feeds into decision-making on a rp level.

Reathin
2021-11-30, 11:07 AM
We're very open, and we don't mind discussing plans for next actions out of character. True, it might detract from the "purity" of the experience, not be as realistic, but it lets them be comfortable coming up with ludicrous (and often interesting) takes and strategies that ultimate make for better memories. I would only insist on a more closed game if I were running, say, a mystery one-off or something.

Psyren
2021-11-30, 11:15 AM
We usually know OOC, class levels at least if not every detail. IC might vary, this or that character might claim to be a bard or sorcerer when they're actually a rogue with a bunch of wands for instance, or might claim to be a wizard when they're mechanically an artificer or tome warlock. This can be due to the character being a bit mistrusting or shy, or they might even genuinely believe they are X (or even are considered to be X by the world), when in game terms they would actually be Y.

The GM of course is required to know everything about all of us, and also has perpetual access to our sheets at all times.

Vahnavoi
2021-11-30, 11:34 AM
Forgot two variants from my previous post: games where I as a game master didn't know private character information until end of the game, and games where I as a game master didn't even seen the character sheets. (If you wonder how this works, it's possible to set up random character generation so that each player has a valid character, without the game master seeing who has what kind of character.)

dafrca
2021-11-30, 12:34 PM
I don't agree with this. Why would it be rude? Why would it be bad for roleplaying?

I think there is a large difference between in character and OOC. In character, if you want to play that the character has some secrets, great I will respect it and make sure I play my character as lacking that information. But if you are saying OOC you just sat down at the table and refused to share anything in a player to player conversation, at least I woudl wonder if you really wanted to play at all. :smalleek:

Vahnavoi
2021-11-30, 01:23 PM
I don't agree with this. Why would it be rude? Why would it be bad for roleplaying?

Not even giving your name when prompted is generally rude - it implies the relevant parties aren't in speaking terms. It's not bad roleplaying as any general rule, your character might have a legitimate reason to be rude, a lot of tabletop players are just unable or unwilling to handle anything beyond uncomplicated co-operation.

Mordante
2021-11-30, 02:23 PM
Forgot two variants from my previous post: games where I as a game master didn't know private character information until end of the game, and games where I as a game master didn't even seen the character sheets. (If you wonder how this works, it's possible to set up random character generation so that each player has a valid character, without the game master seeing who has what kind of character.)

I have done some DMing but i haven't seen the player character sheet. I know vaguely what character they are playing. But not exact details.

Mordante
2021-11-30, 02:27 PM
I think there is a large difference between in character and OOC. In character, if you want to play that the character has some secrets, great I will respect it and make sure I play my character as lacking that information. But if you are saying OOC you just sat down at the table and refused to share anything in a player to player conversation, at least I woudl wonder if you really wanted to play at all. :smalleek:

Your party doesn't need to know you are a Cleric of Pelor. You can just tell them that you will be playing a religious healer type of character who worships the God of the Sun. No one at the table needs to know your stats or feats.

Psyren
2021-11-30, 02:46 PM
I don't agree with keeping the GM in the dark - the more details they can have about the party, the more personal the stakes and challenges can be. But I do acknowledge there are campaigns/systems where that kind of double-blind play can work and even be dramatic/intriguing.

mucat
2021-11-30, 02:58 PM
I think there is a large difference between in character and OOC. In character, if you want to play that the character has some secrets, great I will respect it and make sure I play my character as lacking that information. But if you are saying OOC you just sat down at the table and refused to share anything in a player to player conversation, at least I woudl wonder if you really wanted to play at all. :smalleek:
It's not a matter of "refusing", really. I can't remember us ever asking about each other's classes and feats. Histories, personalities, goals, and beliefs, yes...and the players often discuss these things freely even when the characters keep them private. But the topic of builds just never comes up, unless in the context of helping a novice design their first few characters.

Edit: ...or in the context of brainstorming mechanical ideas with a player, even if they're not a novice. The only character in our old Pathfinder Steampunk campaign whose class and archetype I knew for sure was our roboticist...because several of us worked together to design a custom Summoner archetype to fit the flavor of the character and the game world. (Summoning magic is not a thing there, but could be reflavored as loosing jury-rigged clanks on the world!)

gijoemike
2021-11-30, 03:03 PM
What I prefer to do is describe my character and present the name (maybe as a table tent). This way people can piece together a mental picture of what I look like based on the description and can easily refer to me via character name to assist with roleplay. I also describe the ROLE my PC will fill in the party. Such as frontline defender, melee aggressor/attacker, ranged attacker, assault caster, utility arcane/divine caster, skills guy.

By using this language we don't pigeon hole the table into the archetype patterns of (using D&D) Fighter, Barbarian, Rogue, Wizard, Cleric. Instead a frontline defender could be a sword and board fighter, a paladin, a gun wielding soldier, a heavy armored cleric of war, or a dozen other builds. But had you said cleric that forces most tables to lean towards the ideas of spell support, minor healing, backup frontline. They will be disappointed when the cleric never or almost never casts a spell or buffs anyone else.

Also notice assault spell caster isn't marked divine or arcane. I only list divine or arcane when I play a utility caster due to the limits and types of buffs in games like D&D. I need my table to know if there are tactical gaps in the parties ability.

I ask the playground, why pin yourself to the word fighter when as a platemail wearing frontliner you could easily be a pally, cleric, fighter, or special archtype of another class that grants armor prof?

dafrca
2021-11-30, 03:35 PM
Your party doesn't need to know you are a Cleric of Pelor. You can just tell them that you will be playing a religious healer type of character who worships the God of the Sun. No one at the table needs to know your stats or feats. But the point is, that is sharing things about your character with the other players not keeping it all a big secret. :smallsmile:

Pex
2021-11-30, 06:20 PM
I don't agree with this. Why would it be rude? Why would it be bad for roleplaying?

Experience.

Every single time the player refuses to give his or her character's name, class, and race that player was a donkey cavity. Name a stereotype, that's the player. Steals from the party. Lone wolf drama queens. Unhelpful. Greedy. Selfish. Not all of these at once but meaning that player will play against the party or despite the party. I've had it with these types of players. I will call them out on it. If they change their way, great. If they leave the group, great. If I have to leave the group, great.


Your party doesn't need to know you are a Cleric of Pelor. You can just tell them that you will be playing a religious healer type of character who worships the God of the Sun. No one at the table needs to know your stats or feats.

I didn't say anything about stats or feats. Name, rank, serial number.

Name, class, race. That's it. A generic idea of whom I'm playing with.

False God
2021-11-30, 08:33 PM
I didn't say anything about stats or feats. Name, rank, serial number.

Name, class, race. That's it. A generic idea of whom I'm playing with.

Which is exactly why I don't like people sharing race and class information.

Sure, when the party meets up and everyone asks for a name, I agree not giving a name is a warning sign (sometimes). Of course I've also made characters who have multiple names, so the fact that I tell everyone my name is "Michael" doesn't really mean much.

But with class and race I find there are a lot of annoying assumptions that other players make about someone else's character based on race and class. A lot of dumb and borderline racist assumptions based on race. And a lot of dumb assumptions based on class. Clerics must be healers, druids must be good with nature checks, wizards must be smarty-pants, rogues must be thieves. To make it worse, when anyone played against type those aforementioned other players were often offended that their stereotypical assumptions were broken.

Which is why I'd still rather someone introduce their character as "short, stout and bearded" but not explicitly call id as a dwarf (unless they want to). And certainly id as "clean-cut holy man" rather than "cleric". My experience tells me the guy who describes himself as a healer of the people is more likely to actually have healing spells and enjoy that role, rather than the guy who identifies as a cleric.

But hey experiences differ.

dafrca
2021-11-30, 08:52 PM
Which is exactly why I don't like people sharing race and class information.
[snip]
But hey experiences differ.

I wished I could play in your kind of game. Sadly my experiences have been closer to Pex's experiences.

Almost every time I have sat at a table/joined an online game where a player did the "I'm not going to tell" game they ended up messing up the game. Now in game, I get it. Sometimes a little PC level mystery can be fun. But OCC I have not had the kinds of experiences you refer to False God. Trust me though, I wish I had. :smalleek:

False God
2021-11-30, 09:09 PM
I wished I could play in your kind of game. Sadly my experiences have been closer to Pex's experiences.

Almost every time I have sat at a table/joined an online game where a player did the "I'm not going to tell" game they ended up messing up the game. Now in game, I get it. Sometimes a little PC level mystery can be fun. But OCC I have not had the kinds of experiences you refer to False God. Trust me though, I wish I had. :smalleek:

I just primarily don't want people to do it during play. I want people to role-play those elements. I want people to think of their characters in terms of their backstories and personality, not their jobs. I mean, we don't walk up to each other and say "Hi! My name is Frank the American accountant!" We walk up to new people and say "Hi! My name is Frank!" The fact that we're American (like the fact that our character is an Elf or Dwarf) is given away by the descriptice elements. Player Dave: "A short stout man with a long red beard approaches you and says 'My name is Beardfist Thunderbeard, and I hear you be needin an axe!' as he slams his heavily armored hand, and surprisingly large axe on your table."

So we've established a name, a description and manner of speach which probably means a dwarf but not necessarily, and an appearance that suggests a fighter-type, as well as a weapon for an approach to gameplay. He might be a fighter, but that really doesn't matter. The evidence we've been given means he'll probably approach combat via the axe, which tells us far more about the character and how they will play at the table than "fighter" or "barbarian" or "paladin" would.

These cover all of Pex's desires, but don't shorthand creative character building into bland mechanical elements "Beardfist, Dwarf, Fighter with big axe."

Milodiah
2021-11-30, 11:11 PM
I just primarily don't want people to do it during play. I want people to role-play those elements. I want people to think of their characters in terms of their backstories and personality, not their jobs. I mean, we don't walk up to each other and say "Hi! My name is Frank the American accountant!" We walk up to new people and say "Hi! My name is Frank!" The fact that we're American (like the fact that our character is an Elf or Dwarf) is given away by the descriptice elements. Player Dave: "A short stout man with a long red beard approaches you and says 'My name is Beardfist Thunderbeard, and I hear you be needin an axe!' as he slams his heavily armored hand, and surprisingly large axe on your table."

So we've established a name, a description and manner of speach which probably means a dwarf but not necessarily, and an appearance that suggests a fighter-type, as well as a weapon for an approach to gameplay. He might be a fighter, but that really doesn't matter. The evidence we've been given means he'll probably approach combat via the axe, which tells us far more about the character and how they will play at the table than "fighter" or "barbarian" or "paladin" would.

These cover all of Pex's desires, but don't shorthand creative character building into bland mechanical elements "Beardfist, Dwarf, Fighter with big axe."

It does get a little funny that if you know the system well enough in a class and level game you could probably make some pretty accurate educated guesses as to what class someone is just from the most basic description.

He's got two shortswords and a pet dog? Almost certainly a Ranger.

Plate armor and a longsword, but a holy symbol? He's probably a paladin, unless he's a cleric with a god or domain that gave him longsword proficiency, cuz what kind of idiot would burn a feat on martial weapon proficiencies as a cleric?

Two-handed weapon and medium armor? Probably a barbarian, because most of the time a fighter would offset the loss of a shield by upgrading to heavy armor unless he's getting his AC mostly from dexterity, in which case you'd think he'd pick a chain shirt.

They're obviously not always going to be true, though, because one of my favorite characters in 3.5 was a wizard who presented himself as a swashbuckling adventurous rogue but hadn't even cross classed until like level 10, and yes I DID use a rapier even though I wasn't proficient in it. Because that was the kind of guy Lord Kalsimore was, it didn't matter to him that he was taking absolutely silly penalties to his already wimpy BAB. He just wanted to look COOL, and it did help that his highest stat was dex and not int.

It's especially easy to understand once you know that I made Wisdom his dump stat, and played him as such.


Also, I strongly encourage giving your monks pointy hats, quarterstaves shaped like walking sticks, and long white beards, if for no reason than just to **** with people.

Pauly
2021-12-01, 01:57 AM
I just primarily don't want people to do it during play. I want people to role-play those elements. I want people to think of their characters in terms of their backstories and personality, not their jobs. I mean, we don't walk up to each other and say "Hi! My name is Frank the American accountant!" We walk up to new people and say "Hi! My name is Frank!" The fact that we're American (like the fact that our character is an Elf or Dwarf) is given away by the descriptice elements. "

That may be true in social interactions but forming a party to on a dangerous expedition is different. Let’s take Frank and put him on a mission to retrieve an artifact missing in Deepest Darkest [Exotic Jungle] full of savage animals, strange tropical diseases, unexplored regions and dangerous local tribes.
‘This is Frank, he’s the guy funding the expedition and he’s coming with us. He’s been there before and knows the ins and outs of the local bureaucracy and can arrange the financed”.
“Hi I’m Bruce, I run a safari hunting business. I know the locals and the dangerous animals. I’ll be arranging security as well as scouting”.
“Well my turn, I’m Alice. i was a combat medic in the Army then out myself through med school. I did my internship with MSF. I haven’t been to [exotic jungle] before but I know how to patch people up in the field.”
“I’m Suzy, I’m the field archeologist for this jaunt. I mostly run the machines you see behind me, the real brains and expertise is my professor but he doesn’t do field work anymore, so I got sent.”
“So who are you?”
“Not telling you my name”
“A bit odd, but what are you brining to the team?”
“You’ll find out when you need my skills and expertise”
“You do know we are going to be risking life and limb, it’s kind of important we can trust you. Why do you want to join the mission?”
“I have my own reasons”
[Hasty muttered conversation]
“Yeah Mysterio, thanks for coming in, but I don’t think it’s gonna work out. Maybe next time”.

Just because the character may not refer to their class and feats the same way as the player does does not mean that the character
- does not have a meaningful job title from which their class can be established.
- is unable to explain what their skills and abilities are in a way that other players can understand and have their characters respond appropriately.
- has a good reason to fool the other party members as to their true nature
- will not have an ax put through their head once the subterfuge has been discovered. Because frankly if you do that you are setting yourself up for extremely prejudicial responses from every character in the party who feels betrayed. In fact I’d say you are manipulating the players, relying on them to reign in their characters to prevent your character from getting murdered and for the campaign to continue on.

HidesHisEyes
2021-12-01, 03:06 AM
I don't agree with this. Why would it be rude? Why would it be bad for roleplaying?

I wouldn’t put it in terms as strong as Pex did but I do think it’s best to approach every aspect of an RPG with an attitude of openness and transparency, unless you have a really good reason not to. It’s social activity after all.

The other thing is there’s a style of play, which I’m partly invested in, that encourages working together on the meta level to create a story everyone is happy with. When playing this way it really is best if everyone knows at least the main things about the other characters, mechanically, since you might actually that information to make decisions. Even if you’ don’t go fully into “writers’ room” mode with everyone making suggestions for the other characters, you’re also not totally siloed off in your own character with zero need to know what the other characters are in game terms.

On the same lines, with all respects, a lot of the posts here seem to make an implicit assumption that the character concept and the mechanical features are entirely separate. Games designed for the play style I outlined above tend to buck this assumption and give you mechanical features that describe not just what your character can do but who they are. Eg if you play a mage archetype you might have an ability that grants you and another player mechanical rewards when they follow your advice. That’s an incentive and an invitation to treat that pc as the wise mentor of the story, and it helps if all the players know about it so they can lean into it and sort of milk that mechanic for story potential. And I’d argue this logic can extend to D&D as well. If a player is a Ranger that’s a mechanical feature but it also tells you something about the character, and other players can interact with them accordingly.

I know that’s a bit of a ramble but I hope it makes sense.

MoiMagnus
2021-12-01, 05:15 AM
During one-shots with pregen characters, they are secret, as it is assumed that the GM might have planted seeds of potential divergent interests or backstab in the character's sheets. Alternatively, the character sheet might be split into a "public" and a "private" part.

During standard campaigns, it is usually assumed that the character sheets are open for the "technical side" (we often catch mistakes in the others' character sheets, like forgetting to update some values when level up, or misunderstanding some of the rules at character creation, etc).

Non-technical side (backstories, etc) usually falls under the "theoretically open, but in practice peoples don't look at it and prefer asking questions to the player about it". If there is a need for secrets (like secret background only available to the GM, etc), we usually don't put it on our character sheet and keep it on private notes.

False God
2021-12-01, 09:46 AM
That may be true in social interactions but forming a party to on a dangerous expedition is different. Let’s take Frank and put him on a mission to retrieve an artifact missing in Deepest Darkest [Exotic Jungle] full of savage animals, strange tropical diseases, unexplored regions and dangerous local tribes.
‘This is Frank, he’s the guy funding the expedition and he’s coming with us. He’s been there before and knows the ins and outs of the local bureaucracy and can arrange the financed”.
“Hi I’m Bruce, I run a safari hunting business. I know the locals and the dangerous animals. I’ll be arranging security as well as scouting”.
“Well my turn, I’m Alice. i was a combat medic in the Army then out myself through med school. I did my internship with MSF. I haven’t been to [exotic jungle] before but I know how to patch people up in the field.”
“I’m Suzy, I’m the field archeologist for this jaunt. I mostly run the machines you see behind me, the real brains and expertise is my professor but he doesn’t do field work anymore, so I got sent.”
“So who are you?”
“Not telling you my name”
“A bit odd, but what are you brining to the team?”
“You’ll find out when you need my skills and expertise”
“You do know we are going to be risking life and limb, it’s kind of important we can trust you. Why do you want to join the mission?”
“I have my own reasons”
[Hasty muttered conversation]
“Yeah Mysterio, thanks for coming in, but I don’t think it’s gonna work out. Maybe next time”.
I'm not sure why you're responding to me with this "Mysterio" example. I clearly don't support it as I write in the rest of my post you didn't quote. The rest of it is fine for a more interview-styled group get together, though my experience with those has generally been poor in the past.


Just because the character may not refer to their class and feats the same way as the player does does not mean that the character
- does not have a meaningful job title from which their class can be established.
- is unable to explain what their skills and abilities are in a way that other players can understand and have their characters respond appropriately.
- has a good reason to fool the other party members as to their true nature
- will not have an ax put through their head once the subterfuge has been discovered. Because frankly if you do that you are setting yourself up for extremely prejudicial responses from every character in the party who feels betrayed. In fact I’d say you are manipulating the players, relying on them to reign in their characters to prevent your character from getting murdered and for the campaign to continue on.
I'm really not sure what any of this is on about. I favor meaningful, flavorful descriptions of characters, just avoiding shorthanding creativity with Pex-style "Name, Race, Class". Because, again, classes are game abstractions, they're not jobs the same as "Archeologist", though some games may make them real-world concepts. And saying your "race" is just a way to skip player descriptions by relying on other peoples assumptions about how your race looks and behaves.

I want people to roleplay, and I don't want people to operate off of pre-build assumptions about races and classes.

Milodiah
2021-12-01, 10:22 AM
I'm really not sure what any of this is on about. I favor meaningful, flavorful descriptions of characters, just avoiding shorthanding creativity with Pex-style "Name, Race, Class". Because, again, classes are game abstractions, they're not jobs the same as "Archeologist", though some games may make them real-world concepts. And saying your "race" is just a way to skip player descriptions by relying on other peoples assumptions about how your race looks and behaves.

I want people to roleplay, and I don't want people to operate off of pre-build assumptions about races and classes.

I'll agree on the job/class thing, I prefer to introduce my character based on what they consider their actual IC job to. Caravan guard, fur trapper, priest, etc. Sure, some of them are more obvious than others, you wouldn't see a lot of artificers working as caravan guards, a lot of paladins working as fur trappers, or a lot of rogues working as priests, but its definitely a possibility though. There's a certain amount of OOC character build info that's genuinely going to bleed through into the game worlds because they're demonstrable and could even be scientifically evaluated, defined, and categorized if you wanted to. Spell levels are obviously a clearly defined concept in universe, for example, otherwise how could a scroll merchant know to charge one price for a first level spell and another for a third level spell as defined in the rulebook? My homebrew settings for d&d style class and level systems usually feature a ranking system in whatever organized schools of magic that exist, they'll call you an Initiate of the Fourth Order or something, because you can cast fourth level spells. But that definitely doesn't extend to OotS level system savviness, and calling yourself a power attack fighter smacks of that. And it gets kinda funny when I introduce my character with the word "warrior" and someone at the table says "you know that's meant to be an NPC class right". Like, bud, I didn't mean I was a Capital W Warrior, I meant I am a man who does war. Thus, a warrior. Or a wilderness scout that's not a Capital S Scout. We can use other words.

I'll disagree on the race thing, though, unless you're specifically a really off the wall race that isn't something the average person would plausibly be aware of. At that point you're just delaying the inevitable click when people puzzle out what race you're describing.
The pre-assumptions and biases are absolutely part of the world, and I've kinda taught my players to look at the races specifically through the lens of the settings I've made which is cool. But I'll definitely give you the point that "oh he's a half orc, probably not an arcane caster then" is not a fair assumption for people to be jumping to based on your race alone.

HidesHisEyes
2021-12-01, 11:37 AM
I'm really not sure what any of this is on about. I favor meaningful, flavorful descriptions of characters, just avoiding shorthanding creativity with Pex-style "Name, Race, Class". Because, again, classes are game abstractions, they're not jobs the same as "Archeologist", though some games may make them real-world concepts. And saying your "race" is just a way to skip player descriptions by relying on other peoples assumptions about how your race looks and behaves.

I want people to roleplay, and I don't want people to operate off of pre-build assumptions about races and classes.

I have the opposite position. I find meaningful role playing much easier when I can base it (both my own RPing and my understanding of the other characters) on a set of core concepts that are provided by the game and immediately understood by everyone at the table. Ive heard it called “silhouettes”. If I’m a ranger that means something in the world of the game - not just the setting but the implications for our shared narrative. The other players can act on that understanding. Once we start playing I can still surprise them - and myself - by discovering all the things that make my ranger unique, but it’s incredibly helpful to have that solid foundation to start from, in my view.

Jay R
2021-12-01, 11:47 AM
When my PC meets their PCs, I describe what they can see. "Telerion is an elf, wearing green, carrying a rapier and a bow. He has no armor, but he is wearing a pair of bracers. His bow, rapier, and bracers are high quality -- evidently masterwork. He looks quite fit and graceful."


When my northern Ranger Gustav was told to lead a party of southerners through the Great Blue Forest, he didn't tell them all about himself, and it took awhile before he started treating them as worthy adventurers. At one point early on, he said, "My job is to protect you from the Forest. Or to protect the forest from you. I don't know which yet." We worked together any time we were attacked, and slowly grew to believe in each other. [If they had tried to burn the forest down, he'd have had to try to stop them, but they don't work against my interests, either.]


When Ornrandir, my 2e wizard / thief, joined the party, he didn't go up to the paladin and say, "Hi, I'm a thief."



In my experience it is extremely risky to have PCs with secret allegiances or motives that do not align with the interest of the party, ...

Agreed, 100%. But the risky part isn't secret allegiances or motives. The risky part is a player who doesn't align himself with the interest of the party. I have no problem with secret alliances or motives that [I]do align with (or are not opposed to) the interests of the party.


In a game set in the American west, I announced that I was designing a character based on a TV Western. I showed up with Cali Yang, a half-Chinese philosopher / martial artist, clear based on Kwai-Chang Kane from Kung Fu. But he wasn't. In the fourth session, he needed to take off his disguise, and revealed that he was really Cal Young, a disguise-artist federal agent based on Artemus Gordon from The Wild, Wild West.


Gwystyl, my gnome illusionist did not tell the party about his quest when he joined them. That eventually led to the following conversation:

Mycroft: So you're on a quest?
Gwystyl: That's right.
Mycroft: What are you supposed to do?
Gwystyl: No idea.
Mycroft: Well, who put you on the quest?
Gwystyl: I'm not sure.
Mycroft: We, what's it for?
Gwystyl: Couldn't tell you.
Mycroft: Then why don't you abandon it?
Gwystyl: How? Until I know where I'm supposed to go, I have no idea how to turn off that path.

Meanwhile, he stays with the party, searching for more information about his Ancestral Relic, which is tied to the quest. So he's investigating any old stories, ruins, etc. that he can.

These kinds of things aren't risky, because I do not play them against the interests of the party. They are role-playing ideas.

Pex
2021-12-01, 06:38 PM
During one-shots with pregen characters, they are secret, as it is assumed that the GM might have planted seeds of potential divergent interests or backstab in the character's sheets. Alternatively, the character sheet might be split into a "public" and a "private" part.



Being a one-shot is not an excuse to be a donkey cavity, and it is absolutely worse when the DM encourages or instigates such shenanigans. This may be fun for you but not for me. I need to trust the DM as much as the players. If the DM plays adversary the game is over before it began.

icefractal
2021-12-01, 08:02 PM
For most campaign premises, it makes sense that the PCs would know each-other's skillsets, although that's not the same as their classes per-se. But for ones that start like "You're people who didn't know each-other who've been thrown together by this emergency" - then yeah, find out IC.

That said, in practice we usually discuss when creating characters and so usually everyone does know what classes people are. But even then, I find something like "I'm going to be a front-line tank" or "I'm going to be mainly a spy/scout, but decent in combat against living foes" to be more useful information than "I'm going to be a Cleric" or "I'm going to be a Psion" respectively.

Mordante
2021-12-02, 01:53 AM
That may be true in social interactions but forming a party to on a dangerous expedition is different. Let’s take Frank and put him on a mission to retrieve an artifact missing in Deepest Darkest [Exotic Jungle] full of savage animals, strange tropical diseases, unexplored regions and dangerous local tribes.
‘This is Frank, he’s the guy funding the expedition and he’s coming with us. He’s been there before and knows the ins and outs of the local bureaucracy and can arrange the financed”.
“Hi I’m Bruce, I run a safari hunting business. I know the locals and the dangerous animals. I’ll be arranging security as well as scouting”.
“Well my turn, I’m Alice. i was a combat medic in the Army then out myself through med school. I did my internship with MSF. I haven’t been to [exotic jungle] before but I know how to patch people up in the field.”
“I’m Suzy, I’m the field archeologist for this jaunt. I mostly run the machines you see behind me, the real brains and expertise is my professor but he doesn’t do field work anymore, so I got sent.”
“So who are you?”
“Not telling you my name”
“A bit odd, but what are you brining to the team?”
“You’ll find out when you need my skills and expertise”
“You do know we are going to be risking life and limb, it’s kind of important we can trust you. Why do you want to join the mission?”
“I have my own reasons”
[Hasty muttered conversation]
“Yeah Mysterio, thanks for coming in, but I don’t think it’s gonna work out. Maybe next time”.

Just because the character may not refer to their class and feats the same way as the player does does not mean that the character
- does not have a meaningful job title from which their class can be established.
- is unable to explain what their skills and abilities are in a way that other players can understand and have their characters respond appropriately.
- has a good reason to fool the other party members as to their true nature
- will not have an ax put through their head once the subterfuge has been discovered. Because frankly if you do that you are setting yourself up for extremely prejudicial responses from every character in the party who feels betrayed. In fact I’d say you are manipulating the players, relying on them to reign in their characters to prevent your character from getting murdered and for the campaign to continue on.

I think most parties start at level 1. You are describing level 4-6 characters. My rogue/bard character was mostly falling of a stage trying to dance. When they met her. She has one level UA rogue (No sneak attacks, but feats like a fighter) and was still very much trying to figure out who she is and what she wants from life. Now nearly a year later she is level 4.

Yes she did tell her name, but other then that not much, since there really want much to tell. I think my part thinks I'm fully bard with suicidal tendencies.

Saint-Just
2021-12-02, 03:19 AM
I think most parties start at level 1. You are describing level 4-6 characters. My rogue/bard character was mostly falling of a stage trying to dance. When they met her. She has one level UA rogue (No sneak attacks, but feats like a fighter) and was still very much trying to figure out who she is and what she wants from life. Now nearly a year later she is level 4.

Yes she did tell her name, but other then that not much, since there really want much to tell. I think my part thinks I'm fully bard with suicidal tendencies.

This is technically not a D&D subforum, but even within confines of D&D I think the consensus that 1st level characters are supposed to represent functioning self-supporting adults, of at least average abilities, or possibly above average. Being incompetent either stems from choosing wrong benchmarks, or sometimes from dysfunctional rules.

Quertus
2021-12-03, 09:21 AM
What I prefer to do is describe my character and present the name (maybe as a table tent). This way people can piece together a mental picture of what I look like based on the description and can easily refer to me via character name to assist with roleplay. I also describe the ROLE my PC will fill in the party. Such as frontline defender, melee aggressor/attacker, ranged attacker, assault caster, utility arcane/divine caster, skills guy.

By using this language we don't pigeon hole the table into the archetype patterns of (using D&D) Fighter, Barbarian, Rogue, Wizard, Cleric. Instead a frontline defender could be a sword and board fighter, a paladin, a gun wielding soldier, a heavy armored cleric of war, or a dozen other builds. But had you said cleric that forces most tables to lean towards the ideas of spell support, minor healing, backup frontline. They will be disappointed when the cleric never or almost never casts a spell or buffs anyone else.

Also notice assault spell caster isn't marked divine or arcane. I only list divine or arcane when I play a utility caster due to the limits and types of buffs in games like D&D. I need my table to know if there are tactical gaps in the parties ability.

I ask the playground, why pin yourself to the word fighter when as a platemail wearing frontliner you could easily be a pally, cleric, fighter, or special archtype of another class that grants armor prof?

Despite the bow slung across his back, my 10' scaly, winged guy in robes says he prefers to take things head-on, tooth to claw.

I remember when people playing MtG used to ask, "what colour(s) are you playing?", and were quite confused when my blue deck didn't have any of the classic blue spells.

Being me, I'm only likely to give you OOC information when your own assumptions will mislead you, as a lesson about assumptions, and about asking the right questions.

Of course, in character, my character is probably quite proud of being a Planar Shepherd, or a Knight of the Round Table.

flond
2021-12-03, 10:41 AM
Despite the bow slung across his back, my 10' scaly, winged guy in robes says he prefers to take things head-on, tooth to claw.

I remember when people playing MtG used to ask, "what colour(s) are you playing?", and were quite confused when my blue deck didn't have any of the classic blue spells.

Being me, I'm only likely to give you OOC information when your own assumptions will mislead you, as a lesson about assumptions, and about asking the right questions.

Of course, in character, my character is probably quite proud of being a Planar Shepherd, or a Knight of the Round Table.

So you're a pvp metagamer. :smalltongue:

Vahnavoi
2021-12-03, 03:05 PM
Nah, Quertus is, based on his other posts, well within the trend of playing characters as bunch of co-dependents who must toe the Party line like it's 1984. :smalltongue: He just sometimes uses what little goodwill his group has to exercise rudimentary free will.