3d6 in order....

[deaddmwalking]

but the thing is in his "cooperating" DDMW is always talking about ME, ME, ME, MY CHARACTER, MY CHARACTER.... "thus where does his character begin to become his?" when does the player take control of the character? at birth, since it had to exist prior to the game or there is a newborn PC that gestated with the ability scores and now has to wait until adventuring age in-game time, for the player to play it?

Yes, when I talk about character creation, I talk about 'my character'. I could create your character, too, but I imagine you'd prefer to handle that. When you hear me talking about my character creation process, be aware that everyone is simultaneoulsy doing the same things for THEIR characters.

If I haven't stressed it enough, there is a discussion occuring with the DM and the other players to make sure our concepts work together. If one person wants to play a black-hearted assassin and another wants to play a paladin devoted to truth, justice and the American way, we might have a problem. We either find a way to work out the concepts in conjunction with the other players or we modify our ideals to ensure our party possesses sufficient cohesion.

Finally, the DM is involved as well. If I want to play the bastard son of the King, he might very well allow it. That's a background that has all kinds of potential (depending on whether the king knows that I'm his progeny and the inheritance laws I could have hordes of assassins heading my direction) but that might not work if a major campaign plot is going to revolve around the King actually being a red dragon.

When I DM, I like players to come up with creative backgrounds. I'd like to say 'yes' to what they want to play. Though I'll be a little reticent about blantant powergrabs. I might allow you to play a bastard son of the king, but I wouldn't let you play Buck Rogers crash landed into this world with deflector shields and ray guns.

As long as your concept works with the milieu and works with the other players and the major campaign foundations, the more you want to flesh it out, the better.

Not only will I allow you to develop your past from birth to 'start', I'll let you tell me about your parents and the family you were born into. Maybe your parents are dirt farmers, but that's not all. If you want to be a runaway from a noble family, that's cool. If you want to be an Archmage who was level-drained by a Succubus when you miscalculated the duration of your defensive spells while enjoying your interplanar harem and now need to scramble to regain your power before your enemies learn about your current status, I'd probably allow it - with the caveat that you had to run so don't have access to your wizard fortress...

I like it when the players have fun. Therefore, I will accomodate them as long as that works out to be fun for everyone else.

i prefer something designed by the DM that conforms to the players at the table rather than those people at T$R or Wot¢.

I know this is from another thread, but I don't understand where this comes from. If everyone is only allowed to be "commoner #56168 with potential" I don't know why you have to tailor the adventure to the characters. At least at first they're all the same, right? I like different characters, and at 1st level, the best way to represent that is a backstory. Usually the backstory is going to be pretty limited (because if you had lots of adventures, you're not likely to be 1st level).

thus why i pointed out in the other thread, but people failed to read, your character is your connection to the world, it shouldnt be your entire world of D&D, thus making sucj great focus on your character you are jsut writing your own mini novella about that character, and have lost sight of the game itself.

Even if you have developed a novel's worth of material prior to the game 'start', from the point that you begin playing you're building new experiences that aren't based entirely on what you think is interesting. If your character was a Mary Sue prior to the game start, that's not going to continue. If you play the game, you're going to have bad things happen. You'll experience setbacks and defeats. Heck, if your backstory was any good, that already happened.

but really when does the character become the player's? it had to be born, unless some DM forced backstory or DM agreed upon backstory allows magical creation of the PCs as the first d6 drops. then they have no connection to ANYTHING in the world, as they have never lived in it before.

Yeah, the character becomes the player's from whatever point he thinks is best. You don't just spring into the world fully formed. If you're a Rogue and you have a 25% Pick Pockets, you probably have a history that explains that feature. If the player wants to be a street urchin trying to make his way in the world and inspired by real adventurers, that can justify both their prior skills and their current plan to become an adventurer. If they instead want to be a successful businessman who's business was burned after refusing a shakedown by the thieve's guild and now he's trying to master their trade so he can infiltrate and murder the current guild leader, I'd allow that, too. Hopefully you'll have some Profession ranks or something that explain that.

The more player input you allow, the more interesting the characters are going to be. The more interesting the characters, the more fun everyone at the table is going to have.

[Wiseman]

The more player input you allow, the more interesting the characters are going to be. The more interesting the characters, the more fun everyone at the table is going to have.

Sigged.

[shadzar]

First, I don't know why you put cooperating in quotes. I'm pretty sure working together with DM and other players is the very definition of that word.

because even though you rearranged some words, you still mean cooperating in telling a story, but it is about cooperating in playing out the adventure. there is different things going on here. they may not be entirely exclusive, but they are really independant of each other. DDMW's story bits never have to after Player #4 at the able, nor should they if Player #5 doesn't give a shit about them and jsut want to get on with the adventure. YOUR characters story, is for YOU. Not everyone wants to take part in it, they want their own. so it doesnt all matter to everyone else, that isnt helpful cooperating. the helpful cooperating is if DDMW is getting his part done during play.

The stats that a character has are the ones that character has when the player sta[r]ts playing.

but that is the thing that goes to the core of 3d6 in order, vs other ability score method... how much control a player needs over his character.

there are some people who, for whatever reason, just cannot play something they have had less control over, as DDMW has expressed many times. he refuse to play a pre-gen. he will feel no connection to it at all. this makes no sense at all. the game D&D is about the adventure, not your personal uber-dream character. playing D&D isnt about writing a novel. writing a novel is where you get to tell your story of your uber-dream cxharacter. (see "Harry Potter and the....")

That's why Dead's character had relatives and friends, to make a deeper connection to the created world that his/her group created.

but WHO should decide those? how many generations of relatives does the player NEED control over to be able to play? enough so that they get to define a single ability score to 18 without rolling any dice? how much control over the ability scores, should the player-created backstory be allowed to have?

do you not see the distinction with such things how they can affect the game?

One of the great temptations for players is to create super characters. While this is not true of every player all the time, the desire for power above everything else afflicts most players at one time or another.
Many players see their characters as nothing more than a collection of numbers that affects game systems. They don't think of their characters as personalities to be developed. Players like this want to "win" the game. These players are missing out on a lot of fun.

If players are creating new characters for your campaign, you probably won't have to deal with such super characters. Players can start with ability scores greater than 18 only if the race grants a bonus, but this is extremely rare. Later in the campaign, magic might raise ability scores higher.
The greatest difficulty occurs when a player asks to bring in a character from another campaign where characters are more powerful. Unless you are prepared to handle them, super characters can seriously disrupt a campaign: Players with average characters gradually become bored and irritated as the powerful characters dominate the action. And players with powerful characters feel held back by their weaker companions. None of this contributes to harmony and cooperation among the characters or the players.

Cooperation is a key element of role-playing. In any group of player characters, everyone has strengths to contribute and weaknesses to overcome. This is the basis for the adventuring party--even a small group with sufficiently diverse talents can accomplish deeds far greater than its size would indicate.
Now, throw in a character who is an army by himself. He doesn't need the other characters, except perhaps as cannon fodder or bearers. He doesn't need allies. His presence alone destroys one of the most fundamental aspects of the game--cooperation.

Copyright 1999 TSR Inc.

while this passage goes against everything 3rd,min-maxxer/optimizer there is, it also really defines the cooperation and how the backstory shouldn't really afect he game too much. it is also a key thing in where "Living" game came about and failed. when bringing in a new character that was made for another game, he could have to lsoe items and such so he isnt that "army by himself".

now i know people here hate the DM having any control over anything in D&D and jsut like him to push buttons and tell what is the result of monster attacks and the players decide everything else.. but that isnt really D&D.

cooperating is what is done DURING play. notice how it mentions cooperating is the basis for the adventuring party? not for the party sitting at the bar that hasnt been made yet, but ON THE ADVENTURE. you have to have a complete character BEFORE it can become a member of a party, thus there is less say in the creation other than "hey who is going to be the cleric?" and one person that hasnt made a character yet decides to be a cleric or everyone decides to go cleric-less. not every married couple that plays wants their characters to also be husband and wife and have that backstory.

3.5 kender character, one of 2 in the party....
3 books if even brought together could destroy the world...
neutral kender "hired" or bequeathed the job with the party to get the books so they don't fall into the hands of evil.

in the end of the campaign (because the DM threw a temper tantrum), the second book was found and in possession of an evil NPC. first book already having been returned to the "good" deity that "hired" the adventurers, the chase was on down stairs after the evil NPC, when one kender stabber the ranger that was charging down the stairs. kender thoughts, if each alignment has one book, then they should be safe and not able to be brought together since the deity couldnt get them all herself, then she wouldnt be able to use them either. party fight begins. DM decides to blow up the world with the evil NPC having just one book. not something mentioned or detailed, just got pissed the party was fighting. took 2 hours for everyone to explain that was the best part of the game where everyone was playing to alignment and character within the world to the DM and the ranger player. 2 hours to explain why the players jumped off the DMs railroad and decided to paly and ended up having fun until the DM turned into a punk crybaby.

cooperation through play, not exactly character ideas. did everyone cooperate int hat? yes, they all fought each other as players. some sided with the kender, others the ranger. would ahve been fun for everyone still had the DM not blown things up, but the ability score or character backstory did not come into play, nor did it need to be cooperatively made by all players for each PC. the players rolled their independent scores, and made the character that was needed, and the kenders were the "thieves" for the party.

so your "cooperation" being in quotes, is because you are missing where it belongs. playing the game, not creating the characters with exacting details, such as often people here balk at someone making a less than optimal character, you people want to chastise them for making a character they want.. or anyone else of the 3tards for trying to drag someone in to play and force them to use nonsense like feats and such. like in the linked thread, the character has taken precedence over the adventure, and that is a problem.

i think it might have been you, maybe not, that proclaimed that a good DM should be able to run anything for his players despite his own likes. well a good player can PLAY any character even if it isnt his personal dream character. i offer that as my refutation to your claims of "cooperating" in what DDMW was describing. and still it has little to do with the ability score generation method, which should be up to the DM, not the players.

EDIT: FUCK! another page i didnt see. i will reply to things on this page later when i have more energy to do so.

[Grek]

but WHO should decide those? how many generations of relatives does the player NEED control over to be able to play? enough so that they get to define a single ability score to 18 without rolling any dice? how much control over the ability scores, should the player-created backstory be allowed to have?

A minimum of one (players should always be able to define what their character's parents were like) with the option of describing at least one ancestor from further back (for the purposes of doing "Character is the long lost heir of X seeking to reclaim their heritage", "Character has 1/16th demon blood" and "Character inherited X from their badass grandpa" backstories).

This is independent of defining attributes, which should generally be done using a point-buy system because that's the sane and fair way to do it, not because of any pretensions of narrative control.

[deaddmwalking]

From my perspective, there is a whole world full of potential characters.

There are literally thousands of dwarves in the Shield Lands. There are thousands of horse nomads on the Plains of Ash. There are thousands of elves in the Forest of Snobbery. Any existing person in the would could be used as a suitable character.

So, in the event that the DM has defined every single individual in every single community, there's nothing wrong with choosing one to play. Maybe I want to play the one dwarf that can't grow a beard, or maybe I want to play the one dwarf that replaced his arm with a metal prosthetic after a forge accident. As long as those characters exist in the world, there's no reason that a player couldn't choose them.

But DMs don't actually create every individual in their worlds. They have general ideas about what fits and what doesn't fit. So the DM asks the player to create an individual that fits in the game world that they're interested in playing. And since all the dwarves of the Shield Lands are Dwarf #158017 until either the DM or a Player fleshes it out, as long as you don't choose anything crazy, that's fine.

You could choose to play 'the strongest dwarf' or the 'smartest dwarf' or the 'dwarf with the largest dong'. As long as such dwarves exist, and as long as the specific dwarves with those traits have not yet been defined, the player can do so. If they already have been defined by the DM, it makes sense that you can't have that character (unless offered as a pre-gen).

But since so many individuals have not been defined, it doesn't hurt anything to pick the one that you are interested in and go from there. You define the relevant bits as long as they're in accordance with the world as it stands.

[Ancient History]

"I am Urist McDong of Clan McDong. The only dwarf longer than he is tall."

[shadzar]

If I haven't stressed it enough, there is a discussion occuring with the DM and the other players to make sure our concepts work together. If one person wants to play a black-hearted assassin and another wants to play a paladin devoted to truth, justice and the American way, we might have a problem. We either find a way to work out the concepts in conjunction with the other players or we modify our ideals to ensure our party possesses sufficient cohesion.

No. this is whee you think you have the right to step on another players ideas. does your paladin have any right to deny the assassin player (bad example because stupid fucking class concept) his right to play an assassin?

you arent working together, you are trying to coerce one or the other into something they do not want.

party cohesion is based on the goal at hand, not that everyone wants to buttfuck each other with a smile. does the assassin have the things needed by the party to fill some missing skills, role, duty that the other party members dont have? THAT is party cooperation.

Raistlin an Strum had no love for each other, yet they worked together for the most part AND helped each other out. it wasnt about personal goals all the time, that isnt cooperating, and actually gets mentioned when looking for Fistandantalus' spellbook. cooperating is doing what needs to be done for the group ABOVE your own person needs.

this is what i am saying many new players fail to do, they are more interested in THEIR character and wanting to change some players character BECAUSE they want to play an assassin which is going to conflict with their own paladin.

again, this goes back to old-school, where players don't supply every iota of information about their character to others because it isn't needed to play, but just used as a bitching point.

Paladin: WAAAAH! he is going to play an assassin, so im goint to have to argue with him all the time about morales and shit!
DM and Assassin: no you don't just play YOUR character and only bother with morals when they come up.

like i said in the other thread it is new-school thinking that only worries about personal pet character concepts neglecting the game itself to achieve those pet character concepts, because people have gotten pampered with WWF wrestling and football, and every other video game that offers some character create that allows you to color your eyes and hair and fashion weight etc into some stupid 3D sprite and icon.

in trying to play D&D you are missing the forest because you are too focused on your one tree in it.

From my perspective, there is a whole world full of potential characters.

~~~~

But since so many individuals have not been defined, it doesn't hurt anything to pick the one that you are interested in and go from there. You define the relevant bits as long as they're in accordance with the world as it stands.

but the thing is, EVERY game doesnt need this shit. maybe there isnt a defined STRONGEST DWARF.

i am wondering exactly how you interface your backstories as defiend as they are with othe people to even get a party together? does that mean you have to compromise on the backstories so that one player may get to override another's backstory so they can meet, or more bullshit like "was once a noble" which belongs in NO D&D game ever, as this is what NPCs get, and PCs should be setting out to start anew not reclaim an old. that gives one player way too much story for that character and the other players are just his pawns in the game. fuck that.

or do you just have backstories that never connect and do the whole "so you are all in a tavern sitting at different tables, now what?"

again, too much focus on your mini novella and pet character that you lost sight of the game itself. you MAKE the story through play, the backstory is just LITTLE bits of data that can give the DM some info to use later to the world:

I saw my best friend of 10 years killed by orcs and wanted to avenge the weak since that day and trained to do so.

well later after you have earned a name, the friend's parents seek you out and spread word of your accomplishments so your character has gained his fame and glory, and more pay from people seeking adventurers for hire as well more job opportunities because your character is in the party. hell maybe another who trained at the same place will join the PCs as an NPC to help them, that is where backstories fit in. stop trying to write the whole story of the game BEFORE you play, and write the story about what happened DURING play.

this is the failing of the Chronicles series because it took a novel series and made it into adventure. while other books took adventures that were written TO BE PLAYED, and then told the story of HOW it played out. best of both worlds. adventures made to adventure in, and novels that told a good story, as opposed to the Chronicles that were maglev level railroads.

backstory can ALSO be created through play to add to it what little bit was already down. you are just too focused on trying to write your own personal pet character's novel, like many other new-school players, that just cant see the game anymore.

[deaddmwalking]

If I haven't stressed it enough, there is a discussion occuring with the DM and the other players to make sure our concepts work together. If one person wants to play a black-hearted assassin and another wants to play a paladin devoted to truth, justice and the American way, we might have a problem. We either find a way to work out the concepts in conjunction with the other players or we modify our ideals to ensure our party possesses sufficient cohesion.

No. this is whee you think you have the right to step on another players ideas. does your paladin have any right to deny the assassin player (bad example because stupid fucking class concept) his right to play an assassin?

No - that's kind of the point. But per the rules, Paladins can't associate with people of evil alignment. Since Paladins have the ability to detect alignment, it's unlikely that the Paladin is going to accept working with an assassin, even if they have a common cause. But due to differences in motivations/alignment, having common cause is automatically suspect.

Players may want the same thing from a game. Sometimes they want to explore (through play) the challenges of cooperating despite major personality conflicts, but other times, players are more interested in being on the same team.

you arent working together, you are trying to coerce one or the other into something they do not want.

This seems bizarre since you seem pretty committed to not allowing anyone any choice at all. But assuming that you are permitting choice, it does not have to be coercion. Since these are my friends (I know - some people don't have the luxury of playing with their friends), it's no big deal. I usually would come to the table with a couple of ideas for characters I'm interested in. So when I say 'I'm thinking of playing a pretentious prick Paladin who is always exhorting his companions to live up to his shining example or a more morally ambiguous rogue character based on Han Solo who's interested in working for the good guys, but only for profit - and might betray them if there was enough in it for him' the group can discuss it. Player A might say 'Well, I was thinking of being an assassin. We were white hats in the last game - I'd like to play something darker', that might decide both my character and the direction the campaign will be heading.

party cohesion is based on the goal at hand, not that everyone wants to buttfuck each other with a smile. does the assassin have the things needed by the party to fill some missing skills, role, duty that the other party members dont have? THAT is party cooperation.

And I play my characters based on what the character would do, not metagame considerations. Rather than work with people who don't share his motivations, he might walk. Then I make a new character that does fit with the group. I don't want playing the game to be a chore. So I'll play a character that I can have fun with - and part of that is finding a way to fit in with the group.

Raistlin an Strum had no love for each other, yet they worked together for the most part AND helped each other out. it wasnt about personal goals all the time, that isnt cooperating, and actually gets mentioned when looking for Fistandantalus' spellbook. cooperating is doing what needs to be done for the group ABOVE your own person needs.

So now you're using novels as examples of what the game is supposed to be like? I thought you were opposed to having any kind of narrative determined ahead of time.

Personally, I am. I want to know what my character is like before he encounters events, that way I know how he'll respond. I value the experience of being 'in character', so it's important to me to have a developed character before the first 5 minutes of play.

this is what i am saying many new players fail to do, they are more interested in THEIR character and wanting to change some players character BECAUSE they want to play an assassin which is going to conflict with their own paladin.

Sounds like a people problem. Are you willing to admit that in a situation where everyone has the character they want to play and there are no conflicts, that would be better than a situation where everyone has a character they don't want?

I find that free choice is more likely to create situations where everyone has what they want, and the minor issues of accomodation are just that - minor.

From my perspective, there is a whole world full of potential characters.

~~~~

But since so many individuals have not been defined, it doesn't hurt anything to pick the one that you are interested in and go from there. You define the relevant bits as long as they're in accordance with the world as it stands.

but the thing is, EVERY game doesnt need this shit. maybe there isnt a defined STRONGEST DWARF.

Right. That's my point. Somewhere in the Shield Lands there is a Dwarf with an 18 Strength and a 15 Con. Somewhere in the Shield Lands is a Dwarf with a 10 Strength and a 10 Con. Maybe they both want to be fighters. That's fine. But maybe Player A would enjoy the Fighter more with a high strength and high con. Since that character could reasonably be expected to exist, there's not much reason he couldn't play that character...

On the other hand, it is very unlikely (maybe even impossible based on character generation) that there is a Dwarf with an 18 in every attribute.

The character creation process should allow you to create a character that could reasoably exist in the world. If you create a character that 'fits', which does involve some limits on your creative expression, you're golden. There's nothing wrong with wanting to play a strong/tough dwarven fighter (because they reasonably would exist), but you can't necessarily play a Dwarf descended from the stars above with advanced knowledge of energy weapons (since that wouldn't fit).

There's a huge area of 'players can be trusted to have freedom to develop the character they want' between 'random everything' or 'pre-gen' and 'players will create the entire game world and there's no reason for a DM'.

i am wondering exactly how you interface your backstories as defiend as they are with othe people to even get a party together? does that mean you have to compromise on the backstories so that one player may get to override another's backstory so they can meet, or more bullshit like "was once a noble" which belongs in NO D&D game ever, as this is what NPCs get, and PCs should be setting out to start anew not reclaim an old. that gives one player way too much story for that character and the other players are just his pawns in the game. fuck that.

Never worked that way for me. We've talked about ways we could reasonably know each other. It becomes a collaborative/cooperative process. If Player A says, "I want to be a fallen noble. My father was murdered, his title usurped and I escaped, but have to hide my identity until I can gather enough strength to avenge him," Player B might say something like "I wanted to play a grizzled veteran who's an expert swordsman. I could have been your father's sword master who failed to defend him because I was passed out drunk in a brothel. I'd like to explore that character with his guilt - and helping your character could be a way to redeem himself". Maybe both players think that is awesome, and it works well for them to start the game with a strong bond. Player C might not want to have a relationship with the first two PCs, but their story might inspire his own. "My character's family suffered under the usurper. My mother was the most beautiful woman in town and he tried to take her by force. When my father resisted, he was killed. My mother killed herself rather than be raped by her husband's murderer. I'm young, but I take on after my mother's looks. On the mean streets I've honed my thief skills."

Now we have a party that all has some common interests (killing a particular evil noble) and for me, that's much more interesting then another 'you all meet at the inn. A wizard appears and says I'm hiring!'.

or do you just have backstories that never connect and do the whole "so you are all in a tavern sitting at different tables, now what?"

No. But even if the backstories don't connect (which happens) we work with the DM to figure out how we could reasonably meet. Usually that's where we start the game. Again, using the example above, it's totally possible that Player A & B have never met Player C. But the DM could start the session where Player C has just been spotted trying to pickpocket one of the noble's guards. She's outnumbered and she's worried that if she's taken to him he'll recognize her and force himself on her. Player A and B see this happening and if they jump in, suddenly they have all met and realize they have a common interest against the Noble.

again, too much focus on your mini novella and pet character that you lost sight of the game itself. you MAKE the story through play, the backstory is just LITTLE bits of data that can give the DM some info to use later to the world

I find having extensive backgrounds cues the DM to what the players are interested in. While some people might think that the players should just do what the DM wants (railroad), I think a good DM considers the adventure the players want and helps make it happen. In the example from above, the DM knows that the noble is going to be part of the game as a villain. But he can expand the role. Maybe the villain is actually a demon. Revealing him will only be one arc - after that they'll realize his sinisiter plot and probably want to stop that. And if he has some ideas about Dungeons he wants to run, he can tie them in. "The Library of Voss, which included the Book of Noble Lineages that could show the usurper is not connected to any noble blood was looted when the city was sacked. Periodically, a book turns up, and they all seem to originate in this area. Rumor is it that a wizard purchased the entire library from the goblin horde and they didn't burn them all." Now they have a reason to go to the Dungeon of the Wizard III.


But ultimately, you're arguing for a way of playing that you like, and you think everyone should like it. I'm telling you that not only do I not like it, but I have reasons for not liking it. I have a different way of playing I like better, and I can tell you my reasons for liking it. You want a system where everyone likes what they're served. I like getting to choose what I want from a menu. And while I may be entitled, I'm not above asking for a baked potato instead of the rice. Choice, followed by extra customization. It't not as crazy as you might think.

[sabs]

I feel shame for replying to a Shadzar thread. That being said, part of playing an rpg is actually having the game. If you make a character that fundementally cannot join the party. Or two of the players make characters that will implode the campaign within 2 sessions. You've failed on first principles. Any character you make should reasonably be able to go on the adventure.

If someone wants to play a Paladin of Sun, and the other an Anti-Paladin of Gromsh. Someone has to give somewhere.

[PoliteNewb]

I might allow you to play a bastard son of the king, but I wouldn't let you play Buck Rogers crash landed into this world with deflector shields and ray guns.

Straight talk? I would probably let you play Buck Rogers crash-landed, albeit without the deflector shields and ray guns. Hell, I might even let you have the ray gun (giving the other PCs an equivalent appropriate bonus), because I'm a big fan of the whole "sword & planet" genre, and because shooting illithids with laser guns is gonzo and awesome.

[Parthenon]

party cohesion is based on the goal at hand, not that everyone wants to buttfuck each other with a smile. does the assassin have the things needed by the party to fill some missing skills, role, duty that the other party members dont have? THAT is party cooperation.

Did shadzar just say that the personality and character of the PC doesn't matter, but instead only the mechanical abilities they have? That you should decide on PCs as a rollplayer?

[Avoraciopoctules]

Straight talk? I would probably let you play Buck Rogers crash-landed, albeit without the deflector shields and ray guns. Hell, I might even let you have the ray gun (giving the other PCs an equivalent appropriate bonus), because I'm a big fan of the whole "sword & planet" genre, and because shooting illithids with laser guns is gonzo and awesome.

"Wands" of Scorching Ray and Mage Armor. Count against character wealth. Maybe throw in a universal translator too. Fairly simple in 3.x, and if they're playing fighter types the future tech can be their hidden artifact sword class feature.

[deaddmwalking]

I might allow you to play a bastard son of the king, but I wouldn't let you play Buck Rogers crash landed into this world with deflector shields and ray guns.

Straight talk? I would probably let you play Buck Rogers crash-landed, albeit without the deflector shields and ray guns. Hell, I might even let you have the ray gun (giving the other PCs an equivalent appropriate bonus), because I'm a big fan of the whole "sword & planet" genre, and because shooting illithids with laser guns is gonzo and awesome.

I'm not totally against it, either, but that could have a pretty big impact on the world.

The campaign setting I'm tinkering with basically has that as the backstory. The world (and many races) were on the brink of extinction after dragons and later demons (released to scour the world of dragons) reduced the races to small isolated pockets. Advanced human ships arrived and after serious damage were forced to colonize the planet. Before too long they got involved in saving the world, using energy weapons on dragons and such. Of course, with the world mostly a lifeless rock, they added earth standard life forms which came to dominate. Then, of course, there were conflicts among them with their super science, and eventually the decision was made to abandon advanced technology and fit in with the tech level (and magic) of the world they came to. I like it because it explains why there are so many earth critters and plants on a different world, and also it allows me to use anything from real history or culture that I want (Shakespearean plays, yep, people know about them! Mongols, sure, once they abandoned technology one group chose that lifestyle to emulate!).

But even with that as the backstory, Buck Rodgers would be a little disruptive.

[Voss]

Hmm, yeah. I can see how someone from an enclave of people who rejected idiocy instead of super-science could potentially be disruptive.

[Omegonthesane]

I might allow you to play a bastard son of the king, but I wouldn't let you play Buck Rogers crash landed into this world with deflector shields and ray guns.

Straight talk? I would probably let you play Buck Rogers crash-landed, albeit without the deflector shields and ray guns. Hell, I might even let you have the ray gun (giving the other PCs an equivalent appropriate bonus), because I'm a big fan of the whole "sword & planet" genre, and because shooting illithids with laser guns is gonzo and awesome.

I'm not totally against it, either, but that could have a pretty big impact on the world.

The campaign setting I'm tinkering with basically has that as the backstory. The world (and many races) were on the brink of extinction after dragons and later demons (released to scour the world of dragons) reduced the races to small isolated pockets. Advanced human ships arrived and after serious damage were forced to colonize the planet. Before too long they got involved in saving the world, using energy weapons on dragons and such. Of course, with the world mostly a lifeless rock, they added earth standard life forms which came to dominate. Then, of course, there were conflicts among them with their super science, and eventually the decision was made to abandon advanced technology and fit in with the tech level (and magic) of the world they came to. I like it because it explains why there are so many earth critters and plants on a different world, and also it allows me to use anything from real history or culture that I want (Shakespearean plays, yep, people know about them! Mongols, sure, once they abandoned technology one group chose that lifestyle to emulate!).

But even with that as the backstory, Buck Rodgers would be a little disruptive.

That's not a decision humans would make entirely by choice. If there was also the explicit factor that they were simply running out of fuel for their super science induced technologies, and thus were going to have to switch sooner or later, and believed that they would run out before they had exterminated their enemies, that would make it believable.

[deaddmwalking]

That's not a decision humans would make entirely by choice. If there was also the explicit factor that they were simply running out of fuel for their super science induced technologies, and thus were going to have to switch sooner or later, and believed that they would run out before they had exterminated their enemies, that would make it believable.

I get that. There's a lot more, but it's ancient history that really nobody knows except for the 'immortals', humans that were part of the first wave of colonization that are still alive. When all laid out, I think it makes sense, provides an internally consistent logic, and yields results consistent with what I actually want (without recourse to active deities, which I despise).

[Voss]

It sounds like immortal super-science humans from the first landing would be utterly indistinguishable from active godlings, so I'm not sure it really is consistent.

But I'm pretty predisposed to dislike fantasy settings with secret sci-fi backgrounds, because they rarely make any sort of sense. Far too many bad ones out there, and no good ones that come to mind.

[shadzar]

If I haven't stressed it enough, there is a discussion occuring with the DM and the other players to make sure our concepts work together. If one person wants to play a black-hearted assassin and another wants to play a paladin devoted to truth, justice and the American way, we might have a problem. We either find a way to work out the concepts in conjunction with the other players or we modify our ideals to ensure our party possesses sufficient cohesion.

No. this is whee you think you have the right to step on another players ideas. does your paladin have any right to deny the assassin player (bad example because stupid fucking class concept) his right to play an assassin?

No - that's kind of the point. But per the rules, Paladins can't associate with people of evil alignment. Since Paladins have the ability to detect alignment, it's unlikely that the Paladin is going to accept working with an assassin, even if they have a common cause. But due to differences in motivations/alignment, having common cause is automatically suspect.

too much here, so just going to respond to this part and will come back to the others later if i have time..

paladins do have know alignment, but it doesnt mean they are using it on everyone all the time. also being a gift of a deity then should the deity deem the paladin work with ANYONE, then that deity can skew the alignment to whatever it sees fit.

you are also trying to paint paladins as just murderous morons. here is the killing blow to your arguement. i know that alignments confuse many people but...

Assassin alignments allowed (DMG p.28):
Lawful Neutral
Chaotic Evil

so in your initial argument you were not only forcing the assassin player to not be able to play the class wanted, because you foresaw it to conflict with your paladin, but it was BECAUSE you were forcing an alignment onto the player as well. the same as is bolded in your latest post i am responding to.

[deaddmwalking]

too much here, so just going to respond to this part and will come back to the others later if i have time..

Still no time? In that case, I'll rebut what you've said.

paladins do have know alignment, but it doesnt mean they are using it on everyone all the time. also being a gift of a deity then should the deity deem the paladin work with ANYONE, then that deity can skew the alignment to whatever it sees fit.

So you're saying that if you had a Paladin, rather than just change the way detect evil works or restrictions on associating with evil folks, you'd have the deity that represents truth, justice, and moral courage lie to their own paladin. And you don't realize what's wrong with that?

you are also trying to paint paladins as just murderous morons. here is the killing blow to your arguement. i know that alignments confuse many people but...

Actually, my larger point is making characters that have reasons to work together. Because I don't require PCs to stick together because they're PCs. If the group doesn't like a character, they don't associate with him. Rather than run a solo adventure for that player, he makes a character the others want to put up with.

Assassin alignments allowed (DMG p.28):
Lawful Neutral
Chaotic Evil

I assumed you'd be using 2nd edition, but that doesn't make sense since Assassin is 1st edition. In the 2nd edition DMG it does talk about alignment on page 28, but nothing about assassins. On page 28 of the 1st edition DMG it talks about Hirelings. The place that would make sense is if you're referring to Page 28 of the 1st edition Player's handbook, specifically the section on 'The Assassin'.

If you are, your reading comprehension is extremely poor. The DMG says:

Assassins are evil in alignment (perforce, as the killing of humans and other intelligent life forms for the purpose of profit is basically held to be the antithesis of weal). They can, of course, be neutral as regards lawful and chaotic evil.

Once you translate from High Gygaxian, it reads:
Killing people for money is evil. Assassins can be Chaotic Evil, Neutral Evil, or Lawful Evil.

so in your initial argument you were not only forcing the assassin player to not be able to play the class wanted, because you foresaw it to conflict with your paladin, but it was BECAUSE you were forcing an alignment onto the player as well. the same as is bolded in your latest post i am responding to.

No. You're missing the forest for the trees.

First off, I think that a system where two players potentially have a conflict regarding whether their characters can both exist is a relatively minor problem that results from allowing players to choose. The issue between the assassin and paladin is an example it - but so is the group where everyone wants to be a wizard and nobody wants to be a cleric. Ultimately, some players will likely choose characters that help the rest of the group - but I'd rather they have the option to play what they want and work it out together.

You seem to be claiming that a system where nobody gets to play what they want is inherently better than a system where everyone could potentially play exactly what they want because it is the only way to be fair.

Gaming is not a chore. It should not be a burden where you give up having fun to be able to play. You should be able to play the character you want to play within the confines of the game world as established by the DM and the other players.

3d6 in order tends not to allow players the character they desire. As such, it is my least preferred method for character creation.

You seem to think that everyone should play what they're given and like it. While that might be ideal, the premise is false. People don't like playing randomly generated characters. At least, there are a lot of people who dislike it.

[shadzar]

too much here, so just going to respond to this part and will come back to the others later if i have time..

Still no time?

nope, very busy lately...

Once you translate from High Gygaxian, it reads:
Killing people for money is evil. Assassins can be Chaotic Evil, Neutral Evil, or Lawful Evil.

thus why i quit playing with those books, cause Polish is easier to learn and read than High Gygaxian. that and assassin's were never allowed so that section has been read so few times the ink still smells fresh. assassin like thief need not be classes as they are what adventurers are.

[deaddmwalking]

thus why i quit playing with those books, cause Polish is easier to learn and read than High Gygaxian. that and assassin's were never allowed so that section has been read so few times the ink still smells fresh. assassin like thief need not be classes as they are what adventurers are.

So you're quoting rules that you neither use nor understand to support your position?

And my position, which is independent of any rules, you object to?

We live in some crazy mirror-world.

You don't have to accept alignment, or alignment restrictions to accept that people will sometimes want to play incompatible character types. But even with that possibility, you don't have to take all the choice out of players hands. Because most of the time, they're quite capable of making characters they'll enjoy playing and will work well together. And in the rare instances they don't, the DM can help resolve the issue to everyone's satisfaction. This is in all ways a superior option that randomly assigning people characters that they are not interested in.

Once you grant that some people (like myself) prefer to create a character that they consider interesting, you should also accept that a system that allows such choice is superior. If you're not interested in choice for yourself, there is no reason you can't randomly roll/assign stats, class(es) etc. And since you don't care about what any other player's character is like, there's no reason for you to complain that they didn't use the 3d6 in order or arrange to suit or whatever you did. Allowing others to choose in no way abrogates your ability to allow random chance to make your character decisions.

[Voss]

thus why i quit playing with those books, cause Polish is easier to learn and read than High Gygaxian. that and assassin's were never allowed so that section has been read so few times the ink still smells fresh. assassin like thief need not be classes as they are what adventurers are.

Suddenly shadzar's viewpoint makes sense. He should team up with silva to a create a thread entitled 'Arguing from Ignorance, how insupportable arguments can seem logical to you if you avoid even basic understanding of the topic at hand.' And neither should ever be allowed to post in any other thread.

[silva]

Coming late to the discussion to say shadzar is right.

And Voss is an asshole.

Moving on.

[Stinktopus]

Old School Gaming: Where your sword has a back-story and your PC doesn't.

[RobbyPants]

Suddenly shadzar's viewpoint makes sense. He should team up with silva to a create a thread entitled 'Arguing from Ignorance, how insupportable arguments can seem logical to you if you avoid even basic understanding of the topic at hand.' And neither should ever be allowed to post in any other thread.

Coming late to the discussion to say shadzar is right. .

Holy shit! He just proved you right!

Old School Gaming: Where your sword has a back-story and your PC doesn't.

Sigged!