What type of character do you usually play in RPG's?

[Triped]

With greater power comes greater risk.

I seem to have a knack with dice, though, so I usually end up getting a string of 10's instead of 1's.

[John-SJ]

Originally posted by Osweld


It's a multiple choice poll, so there have been 18 voters - and category with 8 represents 44% of the voters.

Sorry, but your explanation doesn't address the facts. As the poll stands now there are (it says) 24 total votes, and 3 categories with 9 votes each. 3x9=27, not 24. Also, each category with 9 votes is said to represent 37.5% of the total, 3x37.5=112.5%. And, if you add all of the percentages you get somewhere around 330%. Oh, and the actual total vote count? 81.

Just off hand I'd say the polling software is pretty screwed up! I'm very surprised I'm the only one to have noticed.

John-SJ

[Triped]

Originally posted by John-SJ


Sorry, but your explanation doesn't address the facts. As the poll stands now there are (it says) 24 total votes, and 3 categories with 9 votes each. 3x9=27, not 24. Also, each category with 9 votes is said to represent 37.5% of the total, 3x37.5=112.5%. And, if you add all of the percentages you get somewhere around 330%. Oh, and the actual total vote count? 81.

Just off hand I'd say the polling software is pretty screwed up! I'm very surprised I'm the only one to have noticed.

John-SJ

Each individual voter has the option to check as many categories as they would like.

[Az]

oh Fallout... what a game , what a game...

in that game , as in Fallout 2, I always go for the light arms first, always cool with a combat-automatic shotgun , or an assault rifle.

[loinburger]

I've noticed that most games (Fallout, f'rinstance) have a balance between "weapons/armor that you use early on" and "weapons/armor that you use later on." For example, in Fallout I'd only Tag Big Guns (since I like Big Guns), but then I'd get killed early on since I only had melee weapons or small guns. On the other hand, if I'd Tag Small Guns or Melee Weapons, then I'd be crying later on because I wouldn't have the skills to use my Vindicator.

Same deal with Morrowind. They've got skills for Unarmored, Light Armor, Medium Armor, and Heavy Armor. If I Tag too many of these skills (make them Major or Minor skills) then I find myself with useless skills later in the game. If I only Tag the lower armor types (Unarmored or Light Armor) then I'm crying later when I find that I'm unable to wear my Mega-Super-Duper Heavy Armor. If I only Tag Heavy Armor then I'm too weak to wear armor at lower levels and thus wind up dead.

What we need is the ability to change our Tag skills halfway through a game.

[Urban Ranger]

Grumbold,

I concur with what you said about referees. An excellent one can get a story rolling in just about any system, while a bad one is, well, just bad.

After that said there are still some systems that are more conducive to a good storytelling than others. It seems that systems that dish out experience points on kills - a bad D&D legacy - are rather notorious for encouraging players to develop sets of attributes.


loin,

That would seem like a bad design decision. A good system should allow a character to develop skills dynamically, as the story unfolds.

[Grumbold]

It's the referee that makes/allows players to track Xp in terms of kills, but I totally agree that a person who learns to play and then ref by playing a system like that can certainly fall into bad habits more easily. All the good referees I know only discuss Xp at the end of a session/quest and then tell us what we earned after we have an opportunity to tell them what special actions we think we did that deserve recognition. Killing 12 or 1220 cannon fodder doesn't come into it. Solving a puzzle, making the selfless sacrifice or defeating the key bad guys is what counts. Mind you, it took most of us 5-10 years to grow into that more mature roleplaying and some still haven't lost the desire to grab a million gold pieces or a million XP by doing something cheesy.

[Triped]

I approach experience either way.

Sometimes it's fun to have a good hack n' slash d&d adventure, awarding experience to people who do particularly notable of feats of strength

What exactly is more mature about focusing on the story aspect of a game?

[atawa]

I missed the options for ninja and psyonic, but one of my favourite characters is the bard/priest I've played for over 8 years now

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by Triped
What exactly is more mature about focusing on the story aspect of a game?

That's because these are suppose to be roleplaying games? Players should be rewarded playing their characters, not killing monsters.

D&D is stuck in that model because it was derived from Chainmail, a set of rules for tabletop minature wargaming in fantasy settings. Gaygax never gotten around to rework that whole silliness in AD&D, which gave the game a distinct wargame flavour with roleplaying elements tagged on.

[Triped]

Ah, but the widely-accepted definition of "roleplaying game" is a game in which characters gain experience through quests, and grow more powerful. D&D fits the mold perfectly.

I see what you mean, though. I just think that as long as nobody's being a d*ck about their character, it's all good.

[Grumbold]

One common modern interpretation of the phrase may be as you defined it, but that is because bestseller games like D&D did it that way and others jumped on the bandwagon. D&D regularly violates its own rules anyway, with adventures that would catapult 1st level characters to 4th level in one session etc if you obeyed the Xp rules literally and ignored the ones suggesting several adventuring sessions between level increases etc.

Its all about matching reward to achievement. When you first play it can be exciting to roll up a character, pull the weapon of ultimate l33tness from a stone, kill a goblin for armour of invulnerability then go kick in the face of ther top God before breakfast oand gain 20 levels instantly, then kill all the rest of the pantheon for another 30 levels. The problem is where does that character go from there? Nothing left to do if its already survived the worst challenges and got the best loot.

I don't disagree that a certain amount of mindless hack'n'slashing is still welcome these days, but after a hard week at work I'll happily look for 20 half starved (and preferably paralytic) kobolds to kill, not expect the referee to fudge the rolls so we can achieve the impossible. You treasure your first +1 sword a heck of a lot if you had to pry it from the hands of the baddie who nearly disembowelled you with it (and you've had nothing more magical than a potion of healing for your first few levels of adventuring).

[Dis]

I must say I like the Baldur's gate way of experience. It's not perfect, but it is much more than XP for monsters. In fact the XP for monsters isn't a whole lot. Most XP comes from quests.

[August Borms]

I only play melee characters, I hate messing around with arrows, spell components, spellbooks and scrolls

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by Triped
Ah, but the widely-accepted definition of "roleplaying game" is a game in which characters gain experience through quests, and grow more powerful. D&D fits the mold perfectly.

Quests aren't all about hacking baddies to bits, though.

Clearly, characters in an RPG campaign are generally in one quest or another instead of just milling around town looking for that odd orge to kill

There are many things to quests, which is just a general term of "accomplishing a task for another party." So a quest can be the destruction of the local bandits hideout, or investigating the source of a supernatural plague, or the mundane rescue

Not all quests needed or even advisble to be approached in a brute force way. A good referee will build-in several solutions to a quest, and smart players may even figure out ways that aren't thought of.

So if I have a rogue kind of character, it is not necessary for her to go around stabbing monsters in the back. Maybe she could find an abandoned secret passage to bypass the guards.

[ColdWizard]

i like front-line fighters (be they fighters, cavaliers/paladins, or barbarians) that are hard to hit and dish out tons of damage while going toe to toe with their opponents

sneaky magic-users are nice too


for modern ones i like a nice sharpshooter (critical hit to the eyes, causing severe blindness, woohoo!)

[Jac de Molay]

I like the fighter class, though I had a fondness for the Barbarian sub-class in AD@D.

Dave

[Urban Ranger]

The Barbarians in first edition AD&D is just way too unbalanced. The Dragon monk is quite nice, though.

[ColdWizard]

Originally posted by Urban Ranger
The Barbarians in first edition AD&D is just way too unbalanced.

i disagree, while indeed a kick-ass fighter, i've found the magic-related restrictions to be quite a deterrent

[Grumbold]

I think it depends how magic rich your campaign world was. If the ref kept 12th level characters prizing their +2 shortsword or +1 shield the Barbarian is at considerable advantage. If everyone has +5 plate of ethereality, displacer cloaks and vorpal swords he might as well go back to the wilderness.

[Urban Ranger]

Monty Hall campaigns are bad for everyone. IIRC a barbarian can use a magical item as long as he doesn't know it's magical. So wands of fireballs are out, but weapons, armour, and misc. magic are still distinct possibilities.