PhoenixPhyre
2022-03-11, 09:41 PM
Another thread (about the Actor) feat got me thinking.
I find the game works best when both players and the DM think of the choices they make during character creation and leveling as part of an extended, non-entirely-verbal conversation. A conversation about what kind of content they want to see more (or less) of. What kinds of challenges do they want to face? What kinds of adventures are most compelling?
A player that creates the thief-iest thief that ever stole tells me that they want opportunities to show off their stealth and pilfering skills. As well as that they want cases where their shtick gets them in trouble or isn't the best option. A player who creates the most "big numbers" combat monster character tells me that they want to see how much they can push things in combat[1]. Character flaws? They're plot eyebolts, explicit permission to attach a plot hook to those points. Just like Ideals and Bonds. A character with weaknesses must be expecting to be confronted on those weaknesses and have them matter; a character with strengths is expecting to get to display those strengths and have them matter.
So taking the Actor feat (for example) is a conversational marker that you want opportunities to mimic people's voices and have it matter. And it's bad form for the DM to deny that--if they were never going to come up and there's no way to work it in, tell the player that up front and recommend that they pick something else instead. And it's bad form for the player to refuse to engage or complain when the weaknesses they designed into their character come up and matter. Just like it's bad form for the DM to never play to someone's strengths. And this is on an individual level--if a character dumps CHA into the ground because he figures "the bard can do it", then that's not great play[2]. Each choice should matter at least once during a campaign. Make a "I'm a sniper who never moves and hates being in melee" character? I'll make sure that sometimes that is put to great effect (dice willing) and sometimes there are flying/teleporting/jumping/burrowing things that will try to get all friendly with you. If you really want something (like a backstory character) to be off limits for OOC reasons, tell me so openly. And I'll respect that. On the flip side, it won't count as a bonus for you either. That said, none of these things are make-or-break--I'm mainly interested in seeing how you play into/off the foils and situations.
Does this generally produce more generalized, less specialized characters? Absolutely. Which I consider a strong feature, not a defect. But it should also even out the perceived power of "situational" features, since it raises the probability they'll come up. Playing a druid? I'll try to ensure that knowing Druidic will matter. Same with a rogue and thieves' cant. I'll target the paladin with a fear effect, but I'll also target the guy with negative Wisdom with one.
[1] It also tells me that that my game won't be a good fit for that character, because I don't run "big combat challenge" games. I have no interest or skill in that. And I say so up front.
[2] If you make a tabaxi character who has the defining trait of being shy around women, I'll make sure that an overly friendly cat-girl shows up somewhere[3]. How you react is up to you, but choices matter. And your character tells me what you're agreeing to react to. Intentionally having weaknesses and then refusing to play into them isn't great form.
[3] Most of these examples are from actual characters I've played across the table from.
I find the game works best when both players and the DM think of the choices they make during character creation and leveling as part of an extended, non-entirely-verbal conversation. A conversation about what kind of content they want to see more (or less) of. What kinds of challenges do they want to face? What kinds of adventures are most compelling?
A player that creates the thief-iest thief that ever stole tells me that they want opportunities to show off their stealth and pilfering skills. As well as that they want cases where their shtick gets them in trouble or isn't the best option. A player who creates the most "big numbers" combat monster character tells me that they want to see how much they can push things in combat[1]. Character flaws? They're plot eyebolts, explicit permission to attach a plot hook to those points. Just like Ideals and Bonds. A character with weaknesses must be expecting to be confronted on those weaknesses and have them matter; a character with strengths is expecting to get to display those strengths and have them matter.
So taking the Actor feat (for example) is a conversational marker that you want opportunities to mimic people's voices and have it matter. And it's bad form for the DM to deny that--if they were never going to come up and there's no way to work it in, tell the player that up front and recommend that they pick something else instead. And it's bad form for the player to refuse to engage or complain when the weaknesses they designed into their character come up and matter. Just like it's bad form for the DM to never play to someone's strengths. And this is on an individual level--if a character dumps CHA into the ground because he figures "the bard can do it", then that's not great play[2]. Each choice should matter at least once during a campaign. Make a "I'm a sniper who never moves and hates being in melee" character? I'll make sure that sometimes that is put to great effect (dice willing) and sometimes there are flying/teleporting/jumping/burrowing things that will try to get all friendly with you. If you really want something (like a backstory character) to be off limits for OOC reasons, tell me so openly. And I'll respect that. On the flip side, it won't count as a bonus for you either. That said, none of these things are make-or-break--I'm mainly interested in seeing how you play into/off the foils and situations.
Does this generally produce more generalized, less specialized characters? Absolutely. Which I consider a strong feature, not a defect. But it should also even out the perceived power of "situational" features, since it raises the probability they'll come up. Playing a druid? I'll try to ensure that knowing Druidic will matter. Same with a rogue and thieves' cant. I'll target the paladin with a fear effect, but I'll also target the guy with negative Wisdom with one.
[1] It also tells me that that my game won't be a good fit for that character, because I don't run "big combat challenge" games. I have no interest or skill in that. And I say so up front.
[2] If you make a tabaxi character who has the defining trait of being shy around women, I'll make sure that an overly friendly cat-girl shows up somewhere[3]. How you react is up to you, but choices matter. And your character tells me what you're agreeing to react to. Intentionally having weaknesses and then refusing to play into them isn't great form.
[3] Most of these examples are from actual characters I've played across the table from.