PDA

View Full Version : Originality: Unattainable?



Admiral Squish
2008-03-21, 02:27 AM
One of my big problems as a player, I think, is that I can't be happy playing an elf archer, or a dwarven cleric. No, I always have to play the half-dragon minotaur fighter, or the warforged monk, or the satyr ranger, or something else like that. I always want to play something new, something out of the ordinary. However this either leads to me not being accepted in the first place, or to me falling behind because of LA, RHD, or just it having been a generally bad idea in the first place, disguised with a lot of flashy, glittery abilities.

So, my question is, playground, is there way to be unique and still effective? Fun and exciting, but still acceptable for general consumption? Or am I simply wishing for too much? Should I simply toss my crazy dreams to the darkened back rooms of my mind, and try to find happiness in the ordinary?

Dervag
2008-03-21, 02:30 AM
I suggest that you try finding unique personalities for your characters instead of finding unique physiotypes for them.

Totally Guy
2008-03-21, 02:38 AM
I'd say this is an insecurity in your ability to create unique fluff for your characters, personality types, fleshed out motivations and backstory. You create wild character in order to compensate for this.:smalltongue:

Just kidding, I wanted to try out my false psychologist voice.

Kizara
2008-03-21, 02:39 AM
I suggest that you try finding unique personalities for your characters instead of finding unique physiotypes for them.

Indeed.

Also, pick a template that synergizes with your character mechanically but RP them totally against type.

A balor-heritage half-fiend cleric that struggles with a desire for order, domination and leadership. Still Evil, but struggles against his chaotic destructive nature to try to attain the fame, glory and control he desires.

A goliath fighter that is completely up-beat, postitive and is helpful and generally good-natured all the time.

Alternately, a goliath fighter that is very cosmopolition, coming from a long line of golaith fighters (knights) in service to a particular lord.

See?

Admiral Squish
2008-03-21, 03:01 AM
I have no problem writing backstories and personalities.

For example, the warforged monk had fallen in battle on his first excursion, and his failure forever chafed him, making him a show-off, and battle-hungry.

The minotaur half-dragon was half gold, and was an exile from his tribe for his draconic heritage making him too 'soft', and an exile from the rest of society for his minotaur heritage and generally monstrous appearance. He was on a mission to make a homeland for dragonblooded races, by carving it out from the rest of the lands. Then, when he finally has a homeland, he plans to hand off the crown to one more intelligent than him and live the rest of his days in peace.

And the satyr ranger had been conscripted into the army by a swift-talking politician, where he was assigned elf commander, and fell in love. Eventually, both of them became outcasts, him for his race and her for her relation to one of his race, but even outcasts they were kept apart by the overthrown government, that made everyone but elves second-class citizens. Now he takes bounty work to dull his senses, and keep his mind off her, with the sort of unspoken hope that he'll get himself killed somewhere along the line.

The issue is not backgrounds or personalities. Most of the combinations mesh pretty well, even, crunch-wise.

EDIT: I like to think the backgrounds/personalities are good, at least. Don't tell me if I'm wrong, I like the suspense.

TheOOB
2008-03-21, 03:38 AM
Picking an underplayed race/class does not make you unique, in fact, many of the most generic boring characters are the ones who purposely do for a "unique" race and class combination, while many of the most new and interesting characters I've seen started as tired old archtypes.

There is a couple of reasons for this.

First and foremost, and unique race and class is not a good character concept. I'm not saying you can't have a good character concept with a your mindflayer monk/cleric of rao, but the fact that you are a mindflayer monk/cleric of rao is not, in and of itself, a good character concept, it needs to be fleshed out.

Lets look at it another way. If you are playing the elf ranger specializing in archery, you are more or less forced to flesh out your characters personality and backround, and give them interesting traits and quirks to make them your own. Yes, Tharlious the elven ranger is old and boring, but Tharlious the avenger, who left his loving family in the elf lands to travel to world in search of the demons who killed his parents after a prophet said they would come again for his family years time. The Tharlious who is usually jovial and accommodating, but on occasion can be caught brooding alone, the elf who spends an increasingly larger amount of his time drowning his sorrows in drink as he is away from his family and homelands, and while normally is kind and merciful but is frighteningly merciless when he suspects demons are involved. Ohh yes, he's a ranger too. Thats an interesting character(at least my party thought so).

Now returning to the mindflayer monk/cleric, just because it's uncommon, doesn't make it an interesting character, but many players will just play it straight, without make in interesting personality and background, falsely believing that their unique race and class makes the character interesting an fun by itself, which it really doesn't. Give it an interesting backround and personality, and you're on your way.

The other big reason is that many of the best characters are using fairly generic archtypes as their base is because everyone allready knows what to expect. You don't need to emphasis or explain how your half-orc barbarian lived a dangerous childhood and is angry at the world, thats fairly expected, and you don't need to spend a lot of time explaining how your wizard is a sagacious old man, thats kinda default. This allows you to spend more time and effort showing how your character is unique and different, allowing you to really show off your character. And the archtypes even help. Lets face it Gandalf is awesome, and if your character is based on Gandalf, people will remember how awesome Ganldalf is wen dealing with your character, and that will reflect positively on your character, as long as you play the type well and your character has something unique about them so they aren't just a carbon copy they will be loads of fun.

Unfortunately, when playing a unique character archtype, such as the dryad samurai, you are going to have to spend a good deal of your time explaining what a dryad samurai is, what they do, and why they exist. People don't come to the game with preconceived notions of what your character is, you can't play with their expectations because there is none, and you can't call upon the image of a create character from a popular piece of fantasy because no such characters exist. That means that you not only will have less game time to explain what makes your character unique and interesting, but that your character will be setting the standard for what that character type is, which can compromise the characters originality.

You can make interesting characters using unique archtypes, but it is quite difficult. Just remember the key rule, it's not the character type that makes a good character, it's the character themself. Nobody cares about your minatour paladin/warlock, but people will care about roth-gar, fallen paragon of heroniess and wielding of hextors dark vengance.

EDIT: As for efficiency. As it stands, virtually ever race with an LA (most of them) isn't worth it in the long run. Thems the breaks.

CASTLEMIKE
2008-03-21, 04:11 AM
Nope but since the ECL adjustment is affecting your enjoyment at the table. Consider what the +1 LA Planetouched or +0 LA Lesser Planetouched could do for emphasizing how different the PC is.

They usually have physical differences: Horns, Birthmarks (Of a Power opposite the PC alignment perhaps or more than one), Unusual Eyes (Black, Blood Red, Golden or Silver), Unusual similarly colored hair or White Hair, Claws, Pointy teeth or ears (Mistaken for a half elf by humans but not elves or half elves), some have hooves, some have a tail, some have no shadow, others are "wind touched", perhaps an unnatural aura (animals respond to negatively (Druids and Rangers note). Perhaps the spell like ability is accompanies by special effects in game.

I like planar mixes maybe a L tendency Lawful or (Good or Evil) either from a archon or devil and a Chaotic (Good or Evil) tendency from an asura or demon.

PC doesn't know why he is different and searching for that answer.

SilverClawShift
2008-03-21, 05:10 AM
I've said it before, and I'll say it again.

Everyone who plays D&D should go through at least one major campaign as human NPC classes. With mostly mundane gear at that.

Tempest Fennac
2008-03-21, 05:16 AM
Why should they do that, SilverClawShift? I can't see any real reson for doing so except for if you want a challenge due to being underpowered (I'd get bored due to a lack of special class skills).

sophosbarbaros
2008-03-21, 05:34 AM
I have no problem writing backstories and personalities.

I can see you have a nice history for each, and within the context of those you do have elements of personality.

If I am understanding what you are after here, it is a generally increased enjoyment from your time at the table. What a great thing to pursue! Looking again at some of the "tired old archetypes" could be an option. Also you could take your current trend of character concepts and do a few things to help you enjoy them more. Personally, when I have a character which interests me but doesn't seem to flow right, or ends up feeling to "out there" I like to write out a conversation between my character and Joe Townsman. Of course with some characters it would seem that Joe's reaction would immediately be "Ahhhhhh half mino-half dragon freak!" which of course can be fun to roleplay. If you are wanting to avoid Frankensteins monster effect you might try Joe Townsman being a bit more accepting and tolerant, at least enough to be able to enter a conversation.

Then, when you write this out, dont' worry to much about your character explaining anything so much as having a few simple interactions. Buy a flagon of wine. Purchase a fine dagger, a horse, pawn a tribal totem for some desparately needed cash. Ask for directions. Any of these "common" interactions can help you flesh out the specific personallity of your character, and hopefully make them feel smoother and more fun to play. After all, as we say with my group, If it isn't any fun, lets try something else!

Saph
2008-03-21, 06:54 AM
People have different definitions of originality, but I'd say that coming up with an unusual class/race mix is better described as "novelty"; the details are new, but the execution may not be.

The fact is, anyone can come up with a unique race/class mix just by using a random number generator. Pick a random creature from the Monster Manuals, then pick two random classes from all of D&D. So let's say . . . a sahuagin wizard/soulknife.

Now, that character's unique. I'd be willing to bet at least 50/50 odds that no-one in D&D history has ever played a sahuagin wizard/soulknife. But does just the fact that it's unique make it interesting? Not really, especially since most people don't know what a sahuagin is in the first place.

I think if you want a character to be interesting, the best way to do it is to try and put some of yourself into them. Develop their personalities until you automatically know what they'd do in any situation, and they have a unique 'voice'. Once they get to this point, other players will be able to identify the character just by how you act. You won't need to explain that you're Unusual Race X. I've found this to be the most reliable way to create memorable and interesting characters.

- Saph

Riffington
2008-03-21, 07:07 AM
I'll go halfway to SilverClawShift: you in particular should play a human (or whatever the most common race in your campaign is) without getting fancy on your class combination either. That gives you the most room for creativity on backstory, because you deeply understand how humans act and think, and how different they can be. I mean, of all the books available on Earth (both those of human origin and those of nonhuman origin), all the best ones focus on human characters.

Darrin
2008-03-21, 07:25 AM
So, my question is, playground, is there way to be unique and still effective? Fun and exciting, but still acceptable for general consumption? Or am I simply wishing for too much? Should I simply toss my crazy dreams to the darkened back rooms of my mind, and try to find happiness in the ordinary?

Check the Master Player Race list, all LA +0:

http://forums.gleemax.com/showthread.php?t=697653

You should be able to find something unusual or close to the flavor you're looking for. The Krynn Minotaur, for example, is LA +0.

From there, you can add more flavor with the racial templates from Dragon #306: Arctic, Desert, Magic-Blooded, or Wild. Check the 3.0 templates on Crystalkeep for details.

And finally... you don't need a particular race or template to play a character with an interesting background. You can write "Human" on your character sheet, and then just roleplay that you're a half-dragon/half-beholder who was raised by secular-humanist tree-dwelling albino Drow.

Yeril
2008-03-21, 07:40 AM
Dwarf cleric.. who has taken a vow to never drink an alcoholic beverage.

"No moose-piss for This Dwarf, I'll have a glass of water"

valadil
2008-03-21, 07:45 AM
I agree that you should be unique in a way that isn't your race/class combo. The half balor favored soul character will be memorable because he was a half balor favored soul, not for anything going on in his personality. Most players haven't even seen a half balor PC before, so yours is going to set the trend as a standard, rather than seeming unique.

I think that instead you should go for the elf ranger, gnome wizard, or dwarf cleric, but aim to make your cover of that archetype memorable. Play a race class combo everyone has seen before will force them to look past that and see your character's unique personality.

As a sidenote, I strive for originality a little too much too. I got over this in D&D a couple years ago by playing an archetypical fighter. The goal was rather than to deviate from the norm in a new way, to try to live up to the standard as much as possible. It was a very different RP experience for me and really primed me for some of my best characters.

Arang
2008-03-21, 07:46 AM
Try creating relatively simple characters and letting them grow as you play. For example, my (IMO) best character started out as an extremely cookie-cutter elven archer who reluctantly served as the party negotiator. As we played, he was revealed to be a disillusioned mercenary and later on, an exile for treason following a military scandal involving his unit. As the game went on, he gradually regained his pride by mentoring the much younger human fighter. I was dissatisfied with him early on but as he grew it got more fun to play him.

You could try to play archetypal characters with traits from other archetypes. Say, a Fighter who is very religious.

Deme
2008-03-21, 12:21 PM
The only other player in a small campaign I'm in does this, too. Don't ask me why. The DM has gotten into the habit of saying, when a new concept comes along (both she and the DM are part of my regular DnD group), "tell me....what does this curse/transformation/race/template/etc actually bring to the character, and your enjoyment thereof?" It's a good question, one that I've begun asking myself during character building. Now, when I start to head towards a shiny race/class combo, I ask myself "why am I doing this, other than to be superspecialawesome?" if I can't find a good enough answer quickly, I try something else.

horseboy
2008-03-21, 01:05 PM
For a completely different view point: It sounds like system burn out. I know I get to the point where I feel I've "done it all" and have to start doing terribly silly characters just to keep myself amused, especially in systems as restrictive as D&D.

Flickerdart
2008-03-21, 01:21 PM
Half-infernal half-celestial fallen Paladin-turned-Blackguard. It won't be very powerful, but it'll be damn fun to RP.

sonofzeal
2008-03-21, 02:07 PM
I think the problem (and I've run into it too) comes from the fact that the more unique your character's race and class are, the more they will define who your character is as a person. Even if you play them against type, you're still playing them with reference to type. The best characters I've played have had personalities, not just backstories, that couldn't be adequately summed up in a single line of text.

That may (or may not; I'm just going by what you wrote) be your problem - "depressed/suicidal Satyr Ranger with a tragic backstory" is unusual, but might rapidly lose its unique appeal after the novelty wears off. "Depressed/suicidal Satyr Ranger with a tragic backstory, who wants to redeem himself and his former lover in the eyes of his people, even if he dies in the process" is more dynamic, and will make more difference in the game. Remember, the backstory usually only comes up once, but current motivations pop up everywhere.

Or take your Warforged. He's a show-off and battle-hungry, but what else? How does he interact with other people? What impression would someone get just by talking to him for a few minutes? Is he dominant and looking for praise, or submissive and looking for approval? Is he polite or rude? Does he have any causes or ideals he supports?

Or even the Minotaur (who I really like, by the way). Right now, it sounds like he can be summarized as "exile [race] fights for homeland for his people". What else can you put in there - Temper? Lonely? Bitter? Hopeful? Visionary? What else does he want to accomplish along the way? Would he automatically side with a half-dragon, even if the creature was a vicious rapist and murderer? How does he interact with half-dragons? How does he feel about full-dragons? How does he interact with everyone else? If the party's not half-dragons, how does he feel about them?

Anyway, I hope this helps give you some ideas. You can apply the same types of questions to almost any character, and end up with someone unique and dynamic, who's not reduceable to a single sentence summary.

Ganurath
2008-03-21, 02:15 PM
Half-Giant Psychic Warrior with EWP Greatbow and Zen Archery?

Half-Orc Cleric of Heironeous?

Half-Elf Diplomancer Samurai?

Instead of bizarre races, go for bizarre race/class combos. Heck, do what I did and do something that synergizes well but doesn't seem right at first glance. In my case, Half-Orc Scout using a Monkey Grip + Sizing Longspear and Improved Skirmish.

Indon
2008-03-21, 02:36 PM
One of my big problems as a player, I think, is that I can't be happy playing an elf archer, or a dwarven cleric. No, I always have to play the half-dragon minotaur fighter, or the warforged monk, or the satyr ranger, or something else like that. I always want to play something new, something out of the ordinary. However this either leads to me not being accepted in the first place, or to me falling behind because of LA, RHD, or just it having been a generally bad idea in the first place, disguised with a lot of flashy, glittery abilities.

So, my question is, playground, is there way to be unique and still effective? Fun and exciting, but still acceptable for general consumption? Or am I simply wishing for too much? Should I simply toss my crazy dreams to the darkened back rooms of my mind, and try to find happiness in the ordinary?

My recommendations:

-Always play a character who can be in a party. This means talking with the other party members to see who would and would not be accepted given the group (your group should be accepting, adventurers are strange like that).

-Alert your DM to the existence of the Level-Adjustment Buyoff (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/variant/races/reducingLevelAdjustments.htm) variant, it should help.

-If that's not enough, you could talk with your DM about the possibility of 'trading in' some or all of your racial hit die levels for class levels. If that seems too powerful, have the trade-in be limited to the races' favored class (for many high-RHD classes, this is something like 'Fighter'). If that still seems too powerful, mind that most races with high RHD also have Level Adjustment that is too high to buy off anyway.

Also, have a number of personality aspects that have nothing to do with your gimmick, but you've only heard that from almost everyone in the thread, so meh. No, you aren't any worse at RP'ing for wanting to play a race or class you've never tried before, but no doubt you already know that.

Oh, and Savage Species. The book is 3.0, but for the most part it's compatible with 3.5.

SilverClawShift
2008-03-21, 02:43 PM
Why should they do that, SilverClawShift? I can't see any real reson for doing so except for if you want a challenge due to being underpowered (I'd get bored due to a lack of special class skills).

That mentality is exactly why I suggest it, actually.

Early on in our gaming history, my group did a campaign of human NPCs (1 adept, 1 aristocrat, 1 warrior, and 2 experts). The DM had to be careful not to kill us, mind you, but it really made us fixate on the bare basics of the game, what different levels of experience really mean, and so on (and I like to think it gave us a better understanding of them at the same time).

We roleplayed very heavily, obviously, which I consider a plus.
We looked for new solutions to problems we would have normally hit with a fireball. We had to use our wits, and a bunch of mundane gear instead.
We weren't adventurers, and there were no adventurers around to save our butts. So when we realized someone in the city was a vampire, we were legitimately worried about what we were going to do. Vampire spawn terrified us, and rightly so.

More importantly though, when the campaign was done (and we felt very satisfied with it, it was fun enough that we've done other NPC campaigns too) and we went back to PC classes, everything felt extremly special. It made it really hit us how special an adventurer really is.
Having 1d6 sneak attack felt very important. Being able to Lay On Hands was a very big deal. Being able to cast True Strike was something that made a wizard stand out as someone incredibly valuable in a world of nobodies who were terrified for their lives at the threat we were fighting.
I'm reminded of that scene in cast away, where Tom Hanks is playing with the lighter, marveling at how much it would have meant to him to have had one on the island. Going without something makes you truly appreciate having it on a deeper level.

I think playing as a group of NPCs really helps you throw a world into perspective.
It also teaches you why the game is fun, and it's not because of the class abilities. The game is fun because you're roleplaying an adventure. Class/Race abilities are just perks to that.

(Don't get me wrong though, my group likes to do weird stuff too, like Brain in a Jar Rogues, Aasimar Dread Necromancers, and Kobold Half-Dragon Warlocks... it's just that we don't do those things because we can't have fun any other way).

Admiral Squish
2008-03-21, 03:02 PM
I think the problem (and I've run into it too) comes from the fact that the more unique your character's race and class are, the more they will define who your character is as a person. Even if you play them against type, you're still playing them with reference to type. The best characters I've played have had personalities, not just backstories, that couldn't be adequately summed up in a single line of text.

That may (or may not; I'm just going by what you wrote) be your problem - "depressed/suicidal Satyr Ranger with a tragic backstory" is unusual, but might rapidly lose its unique appeal after the novelty wears off. "Depressed/suicidal Satyr Ranger with a tragic backstory, who wants to redeem himself and his former lover in the eyes of his people, even if he dies in the process" is more dynamic, and will make more difference in the game. Remember, the backstory usually only comes up once, but current motivations pop up everywhere.

Or take your Warforged. He's a show-off and battle-hungry, but what else? How does he interact with other people? What impression would someone get just by talking to him for a few minutes? Is he dominant and looking for praise, or submissive and looking for approval? Is he polite or rude? Does he have any causes or ideals he supports?

Or even the Minotaur (who I really like, by the way). Right now, it sounds like he can be summarized as "exile [race] fights for homeland for his people". What else can you put in there - Temper? Lonely? Bitter? Hopeful? Visionary? What else does he want to accomplish along the way? Would he automatically side with a half-dragon, even if the creature was a vicious rapist and murderer? How does he interact with half-dragons? How does he feel about full-dragons? How does he interact with everyone else? If the party's not half-dragons, how does he feel about them?

Anyway, I hope this helps give you some ideas. You can apply the same types of questions to almost any character, and end up with someone unique and dynamic, who's not reduceable to a single sentence summary.

Well, I would go into more detail, but I didn't want to take up to much more space.

The warforged tends to be prise-seeking and relatively dominant, but more 'They're right there. Why aren't we hurting them?' He tends to do what he wants/feels to be right, with or without permission from the rest of the group. Generally, this leads to him being a bit apart from the rest of the group. He's generally impatient, and a bit irritating socially.

The satyr has a militry approach to many situations, mostly battle. He's the strategist for the group, and often gives the orders. His fey heritage makes him more open that a military mind, though, so his strategies are often well-thought-out and generally atypical. At the moment he's on a long mission through a portal to an unexplored section of the multiverse. When he first went through, he was planning to die there. But as it went on, he began to understand that he had at least one more thing to do before he went to the grave, and that was to kill the politician who had signed him up, ordered the logging of his forest, and had even put the mark of justice on his beloved.

The minotaur is confident, powerful, and driven. He's not stupid, but he's no genius, and he's even relatively charismatic. He's smart enough to know to let other, smarter people do the thinking but he's definitely capable of working on his own. He was running a small army before the nations he was trying to 'borrow' some land from shut him down. He admires full dragons, mostly the metallic ones, and he is generally more favorable to dragonblood races, but his experience tells him that he can't simply trust someone for their heritage, so he largely greets everyone similarly. He's actually relatively calm and level-headed for a barbarian, and his rage is more accurately described as a battle-fervor, a sort of lust for combat.

gm_rand
2008-03-21, 03:07 PM
Try creating relatively simple characters and letting them grow as you play. For example, my (IMO) best character started out as an extremely cookie-cutter elven archer who reluctantly served as the party negotiator. As we played, he was revealed to be a disillusioned mercenary and later on, an exile for treason following a military scandal involving his unit. As the game went on, he gradually regained his pride by mentoring the much younger human fighter. I was dissatisfied with him early on but as he grew it got more fun to play him.

You could try to play archetypal characters with traits from other archetypes. Say, a Fighter who is very religious.

I've come up with some in depth and original characters both in race and back ground but I'd have to say the most fun I had was a dwarven fighter who's backgroud and personality developed as I played him. Sometimes a big background or race combo puts your character in a box and can limit you in the long run. If your path is set you can't change it as well to fit a more fun play style for you.

I've personally become tired of big backgrounds for my characters and if I'm ever able to play(I only run now days) I'm playing a human fighter with no big hoopla, back story or tourtured past. Just a guy trying to keep food on the table for his family.

sonofzeal
2008-03-21, 03:20 PM
{snip}
Ah, excellent! Those all look like very fun people to see at the table. And all three could have been Human Fights and get just about the same idea. Heck, even "Human Warrior" could still capture the general gameplay idea.

Point is that these characters all have nice fluff that's independent of how they're actually statted out. So, when statting them out, go with what actually works - what fits in, matches what you expect your character to do, and gives you the mechanical edge to actually be effective.

I often game with people who forgot my race after the first session, and couldn't tell you my full class loadout to save their life, but who found my character to be fascinating and unique and, most importantly, fun to play with. I may have a wonderfully unconventional mental image of my character, but that rarely matters. All that does matter is {a} what your character can do, and {b} how they behave. And as long as those two are interesting and unique, it doesn't really matter so much if you're a 9-foot-tall minotaur with wings and a breath weapon, or a human fighter with a few interesting magic items.

Oh, and have you tried Tome of Battle? It makes martial characters much more fun to play.

Telonius
2008-03-21, 03:28 PM
Well, I would go into more detail, but I didn't want to take up to much more space.

The warforged tends to be prise-seeking and relatively dominant, but more 'They're right there. Why aren't we hurting them?' He tends to do what he wants/feels to be right, with or without permission from the rest of the group. Generally, this leads to him being a bit apart from the rest of the group. He's generally impatient, and a bit irritating socially.

The satyr has a militry approach to many situations, mostly battle. He's the strategist for the group, and often gives the orders. His fey heritage makes him more open that a military mind, though, so his strategies are often well-thought-out and generally atypical. At the moment he's on a long mission through a portal to an unexplored section of the multiverse. When he first went through, he was planning to die there. But as it went on, he began to understand that he had at least one more thing to do before he went to the grave, and that was to kill the politician who had signed him up, ordered the logging of his forest, and had even put the mark of justice on his beloved.

The minotaur is confident, powerful, and driven. He's not stupid, but he's no genius, and he's even relatively charismatic. He's smart enough to know to let other, smarter people do the thinking but he's definitely capable of working on his own. He was running a small army before the nations he was trying to 'borrow' some land from shut him down. He admires full dragons, mostly the metallic ones, and he is generally more favorable to dragonblood races, but his experience tells him that he can't simply trust someone for their heritage, so he largely greets everyone similarly. He's actually relatively calm and level-headed for a barbarian, and his rage is more accurately described as a battle-fervor, a sort of lust for combat.

Thought experiment for you. Remove the words "Minotaur," "Satyr," and "Warforged" from those posts, and replace them with "first character," "second character," and "third character." Is there anything in those paragraphs that gives you a hint of the character's race? I don't think there is. You've created three distinct personalities - three original characters - but that characterization could work in just about any race. If the Warforged had been a Half-Orc or a Human, it would work just as well.

Magnificence
2008-03-21, 03:39 PM
I'm not quite sure what your after, as far as originality goes, my last character was a human expert, a Cartographer that was travelling with the party purely to record the landscape. After many battles he became the leader of a small clan of travellers and famed for his maps, revealing much of the world to the common folk. :)

Magnificence
2008-03-21, 03:40 PM
I'm not quite sure what your after, as far as originality goes, my last character was a human expert, a Cartographer that was travelling with the party purely to record the landscape. After many battles he became the leader of a small clan of travellers and famed for his maps, revealing much of the world to the common folk. :)

So really its all about personality and goals, not even classes!

Weiser_Cain
2008-03-21, 03:43 PM
I create the character (imagine a short story starring her) then try to shoehorn them into dnd (some DM arm twisting is usual).

Hadrian_Emrys
2008-03-21, 03:49 PM
That mentality is exactly why I suggest it, actually.

Early on in our gaming history, my group did a campaign of human NPCs (1 adept, 1 aristocrat, 1 warrior, and 2 experts). The DM had to be careful not to kill us, mind you, but it really made us fixate on the bare basics of the game, what different levels of experience really mean, and so on (and I like to think it gave us a better understanding of them at the same time).

We roleplayed very heavily, obviously, which I consider a plus.
We looked for new solutions to problems we would have normally hit with a fireball. We had to use our wits, and a bunch of mundane gear instead.
We weren't adventurers, and there were no adventurers around to save our butts. So when we realized someone in the city was a vampire, we were legitimately worried about what we were going to do. Vampire spawn terrified us, and rightly so.

More importantly though, when the campaign was done (and we felt very satisfied with it, it was fun enough that we've done other NPC campaigns too) and we went back to PC classes, everything felt extremly special. It made it really hit us how special an adventurer really is.
Having 1d6 sneak attack felt very important. Being able to Lay On Hands was a very big deal. Being able to cast True Strike was something that made a wizard stand out as someone incredibly valuable in a world of nobodies who were terrified for their lives at the threat we were fighting.
I'm reminded of that scene in cast away, where Tom Hanks is playing with the lighter, marveling at how much it would have meant to him to have had one on the island. Going without something makes you truly appreciate having it on a deeper level.

I think playing as a group of NPCs really helps you throw a world into perspective.
It also teaches you why the game is fun, and it's not because of the class abilities. The game is fun because you're roleplaying an adventure. Class/Race abilities are just perks to that.

(Don't get me wrong though, my group likes to do weird stuff too, like Brain in a Jar Rogues, Aasimar Dread Necromancers, and Kobold Half-Dragon Warlocks... it's just that we don't do those things because we can't have fun any other way).

Makes me wish my first DnD experience was like that. I love playing in, and running, games where folks feel that intense reaction towards events that get mage-fu'd away in normal games. To balance that out, I adore running gestalt games because they shatter a lot of limitations on concepts and challange me to come up with compelling play outside of the norm. Both make for wonderful stories.

Admiral Squish
2008-03-21, 04:02 PM
Ah, excellent! Those all look like very fun people to see at the table. And all three could have been Human Fights and get just about the same idea. Heck, even "Human Warrior" could still capture the general gameplay idea.

Point is that these characters all have nice fluff that's independent of how they're actually statted out. So, when statting them out, go with what actually works - what fits in, matches what you expect your character to do, and gives you the mechanical edge to actually be effective.

I often game with people who forgot my race after the first session, and couldn't tell you my full class loadout to save their life, but who found my character to be fascinating and unique and, most importantly, fun to play with. I may have a wonderfully unconventional mental image of my character, but that rarely matters. All that does matter is {a} what your character can do, and {b} how they behave. And as long as those two are interesting and unique, it doesn't really matter so much if you're a 9-foot-tall minotaur with wings and a breath weapon, or a human fighter with a few interesting magic items.

Oh, and have you tried Tome of Battle? It makes martial characters much more fun to play.

I like fighty-types, so I think ToB would be a good investment, but alas, I'm poor, and it takes a lot of work to rustle up thirty bucks from people you already owe money to.

I'm mostly following those suggestions already. The minotaur has 34 strength, improved bull rush and awesome blow. Cleave, too. He makes a VERY impressive figure on the field, swatting aside foes, charging ahead, goring, stepping back to loose a gout of flame into the opposing forces. There's nothing quite like a massive, winged and scale-covered minotaur diving into the fray from above, and throwing a foe aside with his horns before wading into the gap with a greatsword.

The satyr uses his headbutt when things get too close, then steps back and sends a flight of arrows into them. He also makes full use of his ridiculous spot, hide, climb and jump checks.

The warforged is the only one who doesn't make his race overly obvious, except when he's not sleeping, eating, or breathing.

Mostly, I think race should play a pretty big part of who you are in-game. If they don't know, or at least notice you're different in-game by your roleplaying, then you're doing something wrong. The minotaur throws his weight around, the satyr refers to all the core races as 'humankin', and the warforged repeatedly makes mention of mechanical superiority to flesh.

Swordguy
2008-03-21, 06:13 PM
I think playing as a group of NPCs really helps you throw a world into perspective.
It also teaches you why the game is fun, and it's not because of the class abilities. The game is fun because you're roleplaying an adventure. Class/Race abilities are just perks to that.


http://i115.photobucket.com/albums/n294/wolffe42/applause-1.gif

Ye gods I wish more people thought this way.

sonofzeal
2008-03-21, 07:14 PM
I like fighty-types, so I think ToB would be a good investment, but alas, I'm poor, and it takes a lot of work to rustle up thirty bucks from people you already owe money to.

I'm mostly following those suggestions already. The minotaur has 34 strength, improved bull rush and awesome blow. Cleave, too. He makes a VERY impressive figure on the field, swatting aside foes, charging ahead, goring, stepping back to loose a gout of flame into the opposing forces. There's nothing quite like a massive, winged and scale-covered minotaur diving into the fray from above, and throwing a foe aside with his horns before wading into the gap with a greatsword.

The satyr uses his headbutt when things get too close, then steps back and sends a flight of arrows into them. He also makes full use of his ridiculous spot, hide, climb and jump checks.

The warforged is the only one who doesn't make his race overly obvious, except when he's not sleeping, eating, or breathing.

Mostly, I think race should play a pretty big part of who you are in-game. If they don't know, or at least notice you're different in-game by your roleplaying, then you're doing something wrong. The minotaur throws his weight around, the satyr refers to all the core races as 'humankin', and the warforged repeatedly makes mention of mechanical superiority to flesh.
I disagree. Race should give you a starting point of inspiration when designing characters, and an added mechanical edge, but I'd rather just leave it at that.

For example, one of my current characters is a Poison Dusk Lizardfolk Rogue/Swordsage. What ended up developing was a very polite sort of carnivore - she'd eat human flesh gladly, but would never be so crude as to do so in front of other humanoids. She's also a good worker, very loyal, and virtually never expresses any sort of emotion. She's also got a very thorough backstory that I won't bore you with. Point is, I made use of her race when deciding her personality, but very rarely will it matter what her race is beyond "a carnivore species". I see that as less a flaw in how I'm playing the character, and more me seeing and playing the character as a person rather than as a cliche.

Signmaker
2008-03-21, 09:23 PM
I'm currently running a PC in an online campaign.

Half-Elf
Musical Prodigy(Bard)
Bookworm/Intellectually-stimulated (Skill-monkey that knows 14 languages)
Traversed the northern climates with parents, tieing in to the language and skill versatility, but also provides reason for:

Stormsinger.

It's actually quite easy to be original in DnD. The trick is, don't rely solely on mechanics. It's better, usually, to think "What do I want?" and attempt to find a DnD-equivalent, rather than work a technical base without an real 'character' in mind. My bard was originally a book-worm that had a penchant for singing, but then I learned of Versatile Performer, and she became a virtuoso (not the class) of various art forms, but still retaining the love of books and social situations that she held in her travels with her expeditioner parents. Stormsinger provides both an RP and Mechanical advantage to her sheet, and the race I haphazardly chose happened to correlate well with the skills I would eventually give to her (Her diplomacy, due to magic items that also aid Sing checks, and skill synergies, is around +25 at 9th level. Naturally, I rarely try and use it.)

If you find a quirk that works well mechanically, good for you. If not, you've got the option to start over, or to keep the build. Why? Cause it's a quirk.

Admiral Squish
2008-03-21, 10:02 PM
Yes it's a mechanical edge, and an inspiration. But a mechanical edge should affect the game beyond the battlegrid, and a race is part of how you see yourself, and others see you. You shouldn't be able to 'forget' that someone's a nine-foot tower of scaled muscle. Little things make all the difference. Point it out periodically by stooping through a doorframe. Break a chandelier with your horns. Wrap your wings around yourself to keep warm. Mention hoof-prints rather than footprints. In the world, there's no way to look at him and not realize he's a half-dragon minotaur. If your fellow players somehow manage to forget that, they need to be reminded. Can you imagine seeing a nine-foot man, and not remembering he was nine feet tall twenty minutes later? You'd remember that, because you don't see nine feet tall very often. The same for a minotaur with scales and wings. If the players don't remember that, they need to be reminded until it sticks, because it's something that must be truly known in-character.

Ascension
2008-03-21, 11:00 PM
I actually wish people did more to make their races overt when playing D&D. And not just the monster races.

Take elves, for instance... I don't know about your experiences, but I've seldom seen the age of elves properly emphasized. I've generally seen them played just as humans with pointy ears.

I'm about to start playing an elven swashbuckler in a campaign which is starting with the party investigating an assassination attempt. His reason for joining the party? He pities humans for having such a terribly brief life, and thinks that shortening their existence any further is a terrible, terrible crime. He's a vigilante who travels in human lands hunting down human murderers because he thinks that to have such a short life and not cherish every fleeting moment of it they must be the vilest creatures in existence. While his goals are noble, he'll generally treat the humans in the party with a patronizing tone.

I think exotic races do add additional roleplaying possibilities that are unavailable to humans. That's not to say you can't do a whole heck of a lot with a human, it's just that you won't ever be able to, say, describe events from a century and a half ago first hand, or entertain a crowd by playing two mandolins at once with your four hands, or creep out your fellow party members by staring at them all night while they sleep and you sharpen your weapons.

sonofzeal
2008-03-22, 12:58 AM
I do see your points here. However, if your character's size/age/whatever is falling into the "running gag" territory, I think that's a bad thing. Generally speaking I try to give different races very distinct psychologies (my Goblinoids have little to no sense of individuality; lizardfolk are relatively emotionless and pitiless (but well aware that they must function as a group to flourish); the gnoll mentality revolves around a deeply ingrained mythology of "eaters" and "eaten"; Maugs are unaging and hence endlessly patient and lacking any concept of boredom). Even though none of those are exclusive to those races, and you could easily imagine a human sharing traits like that, they're still things that provide racial identity over and above "human with scales/fur/whatever". Best of all, they're not even particularly gimmicky (except maybe the Gnoll one), and come across naturally in conversation without any special effort on your part. These are traits that are actually fun to RP with across the table, as your hobgoblin gets confused when asked for his name apart from his rank and serial number, or your lizardfolk blithely goes about her business amid massive graphic carnage, picks up a severed arm, and asks the party wizard "Hey, do you think this is Fred?"

TheOOB
2008-03-22, 01:24 AM
By the by, anyone looking to make interesting characters should read this article, by our favorite giant no less.

http://www.giantitp.com/articles/tll307KmEm4H9k6efFP.html

Pocketa
2008-03-22, 01:36 AM
I suggest that you try finding unique personalities for your characters instead of finding unique physiotypes for them.

As a challenge, you should learn to play these characters.

Let's say you play a elf archer, like before.

Flesh out this character.

The basics? Attributes.

Low constitution - act sickly
High - be adventurous

Low strength - pretend to be weak
High - do more heavy lighting

High intelligence - expand your lexicon to include longer, more complex words
Low - haf fun wit dat

High charisma - charm everyone you meet, make them adore you
Low - make them hate you

High wisdom - spout proverbs
Low - be irrational and immature

High dex - quick-footed, hyper
Low - take forever to do things, SLOWPOKE IS SLOOOOOOOW

That's not even covering anything like the lore for the character, their backstory, the history of their village, their alliances, hopes, dreams, wishes, goals.

Play the alignment up. Try playing a different alignment for a change. Chaotic Evil bardic gnome? Who knows, it could work!

BTW, OP, your post is insulting to the players that do like to use the 'boring' characters. I'm guessing you didn't mean it, so I'm letting it slide.

TheOOB
2008-03-22, 01:57 AM
Low constitution - act sickly
High - be adventurous

Low strength - pretend to be weak
High - do more heavy lighting

High intelligence - expand your lexicon to include longer, more complex words
Low - haf fun wit dat

High charisma - charm everyone you meet, make them adore you
Low - make them hate you

High wisdom - spout proverbs
Low - be irrational and immature

High dex - quick-footed, hyper
Low - take forever to do things, SLOWPOKE IS SLOOOOOOOW

These are gimicks, and not really character concepts. The numbers on your character sheet have very little to do with roleplaying, other then the fact that your character can and can't do certain things. Character with high values in a stat don't always flaunt it, and not all those who flaunt it have high values. The reverse is also true, not all characters with low stats make a deal of it, and not all characters who make a big deal of their weaknesses are really weak in a given area.

That said, I feel I should bring out another big no. Don't make your character specifically weak in an important area and think it makes your character unique. I once had a friend who played an elf fighter with a 6 con, thinking that the idea of a sickly fighter would be interesting, and thats all they did was complain about how difficult things where. This acually makes roleplaying worse, why? Because someone with 6 con will never become a fighter and certainly never become an adventurer. Being a fighter requires a great deal of skill and training, and no one with 6 con is going to be able to survive the training neccesary to get their physical skills up to par to escape from warrior into fighter. Also, adventurering is the most dangerous profession in the multiverse, people with huge weaknesses in areas important to their classes die. period. If you play a character like that you're forcing your party to roleplay in a complete unrealistic way, why? because you want talented, skilled people watching your back, not worthless cannon fodder.

Case in point, weak people don't because adventurers, that doesn't mean your characters can't have weaknesses, but they should still be strong at their job.

Admiral Squish
2008-03-22, 02:43 AM
I do see your points here. However, if your character's size/age/whatever is falling into the "running gag" territory, I think that's a bad thing. Generally speaking I try to give different races very distinct psychologies (my Goblinoids have little to no sense of individuality; lizardfolk are relatively emotionless and pitiless (but well aware that they must function as a group to flourish); the gnoll mentality revolves around a deeply ingrained mythology of "eaters" and "eaten"; Maugs are unaging and hence endlessly patient and lacking any concept of boredom). Even though none of those are exclusive to those races, and you could easily imagine a human sharing traits like that, they're still things that provide racial identity over and above "human with scales/fur/whatever". Best of all, they're not even particularly gimmicky (except maybe the Gnoll one), and come across naturally in conversation without any special effort on your part. These are traits that are actually fun to RP with across the table, as your hobgoblin gets confused when asked for his name apart from his rank and serial number, or your lizardfolk blithely goes about her business amid massive graphic carnage, picks up a severed arm, and asks the party wizard "Hey, do you think this is Fred?"

See? Those are good. However, I was referring more towards how physical traits affect mental traits. Lizardfolk hold their breath for extensive periods of times. I had a lizardfolk fighter/barbarian once who could hold his breath for eight minutes straight, as long as he wasn't fighting. Even then, the time limit was in excess of four minutes. Patience became an art form, and his ambush was deadly and undetectable.

A physically large creature sees things from a different perspective than medium-sized ones. A normal room is confining, so a large one would be a great relief, allowing him to finally stand straight. Perhaps this would breed a relatively secluded life, finding some large room away from the stares of the crowds, and spending all their time there. Or, instead, the large one would spend all his time outside, becoming uneasy in tight spaces, or perhaps concerned he may damage the delicate-seeming things.

The point is, physiology has an effect on behavior and personality in general.

Ascension
2008-03-22, 03:03 AM
I wouldn't say not to RP your dump stat at all, but TheOOB is right... if you let it be your defining feature, it gets gimmicky.

Tempest Fennac
2008-03-22, 07:47 AM
SilverClawShift, what sort of mentality were you refering to when you responded to my question? Perosonally, I already understood that PC classes were specal compared to NPC classes from just looking at what the classes could actually do. (Also, I'd still get bored with being stuck as NPC classes, which would mean the game woulodn't be fun for me under those circumstances due to seeing the characters abilities as being a huge part of the game due to how they have the biggest effect on how you deal with problems). Admittedly, I'd also hate playing as a human due to how much I hate being one in real life (I tend to play as LA 0 Gnolls, but I would also consider playing as a Lupin or Phanaton).