How do you play? Characters and Playstyle

Judging__Eagle · Post by **Judging__Eagle** » Sun Jul 12, 2009 6:52 pm

What goals do you as a player strive for?

Straight out power?

Do your own thing?

Survival no matter what?

I'm finding that my playstyle, and my characters, tend to go somewhere right down the middle of "sages" and "warriors". I'm just as happy chopping something up with an axe, as I am turning the party's best meleer into a super-sized meleer.

On the other hand, I actually don't like having to fight. It's boring to fight and kill everything. I find that I actually enjoy the challenge of having to diplomatically solve a very complex political or social problem.

I think that reading Samuel Griffith's translation of The Art of War (several times, it's a very small book, and it's a guide, so it's an easy read) has been a really big part of why I do that. I've also read Machiavelli's The Prince.... but I dunno, Machiavelli always seems to be cynical and jaded, which keeps him from being as objective as possible.

So... I like to build and design characters that are retard-powerful, but try to avoid having to kill, like... anything remotely sentient. I'd rather take a mummy prisoner than actually kill it once I've beaten it into submission.

I tend to do this much more in an "adventuring" setting. In a "war" setting I'd probably be a lot less magnanimous, so I guess my pacifism has limits. :/

So, what sort of characters do people seem that they tend to build, and/or what sort of goals seem to be more memorable, or show up in your characters?

Koumei · Post by **Koumei** » Mon Jul 13, 2009 3:06 am

I thought your goal was just to piss me off.

My goal as a player is just to have fun until I get bored. Often this can take years, if I like the character to begin with. Seriously. I can go along with whatever adventures or plots are being thrown and happily go kick some orks in the face just like everyone else.

It does, however, mean I have the personal goal of making sure no-one can get in the way of my fun - building powerful characters because death tends to limit your options and because having combat drag out is boring (and when you don't like either of those options, that basically leaves "win quickly" as the remaining choice) and I like to have downtime between adventures so I can go and pursue character goals/find my own entertainment with the DM playing along to keep things interesting.

Mask_De_H · Post by **Mask_De_H** » Mon Jul 13, 2009 5:35 am

I've always tried to be the best I can for the party. I slip into whatever role needs filling and try to do it well. Since I can come up with fluff and character motivation at the drop of a hat, I try to find the mechanically strongest setup to shore up my concept.

If the session has a memorable bit in it, or if I can get my friends to crack up/facepalm/proclaim me epic, then I've done my job.

Psychic Robot · Post by **Psychic Robot** » Mon Jul 13, 2009 5:48 am

As a player? I want to help the party work. I'm actually pretty quiet when it comes to RPing, as I'm fairly shy in real life. (My DM has suggested that I have a drink or two before games.) Generally, I want to help the group succeed--I'm not a glory-hog or powergamer, I just want the party to win. When I make a character, I try to design him around a specific concept (be it palanger, bardadin, or even something as ghastly as a rage mage) and then develop his personality from there. (That's probably the opposite to how I ought to do it, heh.)

Username17 · Post by **Username17** » Mon Jul 13, 2009 5:55 am

I generally do the minimum I estimate will make our team win. I spend a lot of time playing things like Rogues and Wizards where I can ramp up the crazy to over the top if we're falling behind and I can plink away with the rest of the group if we're not.

I just joined a game as a 6th level Dread Necromancer and the rest of the team has yet to see me cast a spell that wasn't a 1st level spell. Just no need to when I can make the fighters win by hanging back and dumping a Silent Image or a Cause Fear.

-Username17

Lago PARANOIA · Post by **Lago PARANOIA** » Mon Jul 13, 2009 6:49 am

For people who intentionally sandbag just enough so that the party can win encounters, have the other players or DM ever noticed that you were doing so? If so, what happened?

ubernoob · Post by **ubernoob** » Mon Jul 13, 2009 6:56 am

I tend to play ridiculously powerful characters that have weaker options available so that I can sandbag to steal the spotlight less. The most recent one was an incantatrix that simply grappled people to death. Worked great with the sorcerer tossing out flesh to stone until the fighter came back from lunch.

And yes, I have had DMs notice that 80% of my spells never get cast and I only cast one spell in combat per day. I've been banned from wizards in one group (Just me; everybody else is allowed to play wizards still).

CatharzGodfoot · Post by **CatharzGodfoot** » Mon Jul 13, 2009 7:02 am

I tend to just play like a moron, either by having a gimped character (e.g. Con 5 sorcerer) and playing mostly outside the rules (not cheating, just focusing on magic tea party), or by making bad decisions with a kickass setup (see SR horror on Mars). In recent history I've been DMing rather than being a player.

virgil · Post by **virgil** » Mon Jul 13, 2009 7:41 am

I've actually tried to do that, set myself up to be able to be really good but only do enough to help the party get past the encounter. This has lead to either me having to ramp up to near full-power because the rest of the party was soo sub-par or it has lead to me going normally with low-level spells and the DM getting frustrated/petulant because he notices that I'm actually pulling my punches; finding the action insulting (not understanding how anyone can enjoy doing that).

Fuchs · Post by **Fuchs** » Mon Jul 13, 2009 8:44 am

I uusally DM. When I am playing I focus on social-oriented rogues and bards, and am not that fond of combat - especially not "birds-eye" miniature type.

mean_liar · Post by **mean_liar** » Mon Jul 13, 2009 2:03 pm

Lago PARANOIA wrote:For people who intentionally sandbag just enough so that the party can win encounters, have the other players or DM ever noticed that you were doing so? If so, what happened?

Yes, they notice. No one cares because it means that everyone's having fun, and the players appreciate it because they know that the odds of a TPK are very low with me around. The GM appreciates it since they know one way or another the game will continue.

Before I started sandbagging I was a hellish player to game with if you couldn't keep up. My favorite group kept up and everyone profited from it. The next group could only watch in horror until a storyteller GM started running the game and combat ceased to really matter, which was fine at the time anyway.

EDIT: I do tend to blow off steam in non-plotline-affecting ways, though. My most recent badass was essentially a non-murderous sociopath who rampaged through every non-important NPC encounter he could, headbutting and bar-fighting and generally being outrageous as possible without derailing the game. The GM didn't care and the events were entertaining, so it worked out good all over. I got to stomp through a few things to feel ridiculous and the other players never felt overshadowed because I stored my peen when it came to anything important.

Roy · Post by **Roy** » Mon Jul 13, 2009 4:07 pm

Like at least half the people here, I often hold back tricks until they are needed. Which means playing something adaptable, so I can actually deal with changing campaigns. If the campaign is not being that hard at the moment, I'll start using the weaker options. If it gets hardcore, out come the DC 35-40 save or dies and the Craft Contingents and the Chain Dispel nukes. I think everyone in the game learned to follow my lead and do something similar.

In any case though, I always optimize for survival because default defenses being not so good + Iterative Probability means you either do something to fix that, or you die all the time like a mook. This is not to be confused with Turtle Fail, as the means to boost saves don't involve offense gimping, and neither do Real Defenses (tm). The default offense levels are a lot closer to what is required, so less work is needed there.

I also have a soft spot for the Xanatos Gambit players, for reasons that should be obvious to those that know me.

Honestly though, this doesn't even take too much optimization. After all, if the DM is one of those 'Lulz, Monks make good opponents' types you can just Glitterdust, Got Them All from 3 to 20.

erik · Post by **erik** » Mon Jul 13, 2009 4:39 pm

Lago PARANOIA wrote:For people who intentionally sandbag just enough so that the party can win encounters, have the other players or DM ever noticed that you were doing so? If so, what happened?

I played a halfling 1 fighter/x druid mounted lancer (it sounds awful, I know, but it was nasty within LG's restrictions) in living greyhawk, flying around on a dire bat killing everything in one hit if I so desired. However I often tried to tone it down unless it was necessary. I'd dismount and wildshape into a dinosaur, or summon a couple dire wolves and heal people, whatever. Some people noticed my sandbagging, some probably just thought I was a moron some of the time.

However, one DM actually requested that I sandbag for the Red Hand of Doom because he was concerned he wouldn't have any fun if I just killed everything with my lance.

I've never actually had anyone complain that I was being too bad ass. Usually folks were grateful that I saved their butts.

My usual choice of characters at least in DnD is to take something crappy and make it competitive, or take something good and make it crappier. Wizard/Pale Master. Wizard who took a fighter level and used all his spells to be a badass archer. Paladin/Bard/Sublime Chord (never got to sublime chord though sadly). Orc Bard/Dragon Disciple. I was guilty once of an elf cleric archer, but the rest of the party had a 1-2 level jump on me and free +2 LA discounts were granted so the rest were non-barely-LA-penalized aasimar, tiefling, lizard folk, bugbear, and half-dragon, so it wasn't totally absurd by comparison.

[edit: Oh yeah, and the halflings, I've attempted a halfling of just about every class except monk. God I hate monks. My favorite was the halfling barbarian who was level 1 and went down against four CR 3 deinonychus (killed one), and saved the rest of the party by holding them off.]

RandomCasualty2 · Post by **RandomCasualty2** » Mon Jul 13, 2009 5:00 pm

I tend to build a character based on the power of the group I'm with. If the group doesn't really know what they're doing I don't try to blow them away. I'll make a pretty tame character that's fun to play.

If the group is a bunch of min/maxers and the DM is one of those anything goes DMs, then I pretty much just bust out a whole load of cheese.

Blicero · Post by **Blicero** » Mon Jul 13, 2009 8:12 pm

For me, it's more knowing that I could win everything without anyone else's help than actually doing it. (As Roy said, this seems to be the most common style on this forum). I enjoy games (as a player or a DM) far more when everyone is doing something than when it's just one person talking to all the NPC's or killing everything.

So, even though my characters tend to be the most powerful in the party, they don't act like they're the most powerful.

Roy · Post by **Roy** » Mon Jul 13, 2009 8:13 pm

As an added bonus to the whole being strong thing, you don't have to worry if you get stuck to a bad/weak party. So if you don't know these people, it's also the safest option since you don't know if they're reliable players and reliable characters.

NineInchNall · Post by **NineInchNall** » Mon Jul 13, 2009 11:20 pm

I build characters with extreme potential for game dominance; e.g., Shadowcraft Mages and Planar Shepherds.

Then I play them as purely supporting characters, providing enough aid to the other characters in the form of buffs, utility, battlefield control, or whatever, to allow them to take most of the spotlight time. It's rewarding somehow to be the one who enables the other characters to dominate. I leave the super-crazy-go-nuts-awesome power in reserve for when it's necessary to save the team from annihilation.

I also try to facilitate party cohesion, as I'm pretty Lawful in and out of game.

CatharzGodfoot · Post by **CatharzGodfoot** » Tue Jul 14, 2009 12:22 am

A whole lotta Gandalfs here.

Meikle641 · Post by **Meikle641** » Tue Jul 14, 2009 1:01 am

I tend to play a lot of DMFs, along with the occasional swashbuckler action dude.

Otherwise I play psychics and stuff. Hate preparing spells, so I typically will only play spont casters if I must.

Sometimes I'm support, sometimes I'm a primary asskicker of the party, or whatever. Varies.

koz · Post by **koz** » Tue Jul 14, 2009 4:00 am

I usually DM. When I don't, I tend to play strongly thematic characters, but always try to ensure their mechanical adeptness. Additionally, I tend to like taking on the talker/leader role in almost every game, which is kinda what I'm like in real life.

TarkisFlux · Post by **TarkisFlux** » Tue Jul 14, 2009 5:06 am

I just finished a many year stint behind the screen, and am rediscovering my playstyle. Right now I'm playing enablers and trying to keep the whole group in the game and in the fun, since I understand their mechanical weaknesses better than most of them do. I've also remembered that I keep getting stuck as the talker/leader in the group, despite actively trying to avoid it. Stupid desires to advance plot.

Roy · Post by **Roy** » Tue Jul 14, 2009 11:01 am

Should be obvious why there are so many 'Gandalfs' here. Everyone knows what they're doing, and knows others do not necessarily know what they are doing. So the only way to ensure mechanical competence is to do it yourself and eliminate as many undesired variables as possible. Which since this is Iterative Probability we're talking about...

Judging__Eagle · Post by **Judging__Eagle** » Tue Jul 14, 2009 4:00 pm

I sometimes play a more "Active" gandalf role. Mostly b/c I don't play enough, and want to see if my non-caster characters really are effective.

I also tend to play "risky", and do things that can kill or nearly kill my characters. DnD lets me take risks that I would otherwise never take in real life, like charging something that could drop me.

I also love playing on the knife's edge. Which is why I almost always get the Blitz feat and use the +1 BaB ability often. I know that I can get hit, but I want to see if I can drop the target before they can drop me without spending too many rounds.

Also, I like to give myself a large amount of restrictions, and then see how powerful a character I can build despite them. Like, someone that isn't a full caster. I've got a lot of love for the RoW fighter; I dip into other classes for features, but the RoW fighter is a very solid non-caster chassis for a character, and I try to see how far, and in what sort of directions, I can take the class.

Crissa · Post by **Crissa** » Tue Jul 14, 2009 11:25 pm

I try to play characters that build upon some theme. Which usually means asking where I can bend the rules.

And I tend to find out the hard way that DMs love to do aggro via damage dealt. Ouch.

-Crissa

Starmaker · Post by **Starmaker** » Wed Jul 15, 2009 1:36 pm

I never write backstories for my characters beyond what Frank suggested in Races of War - instead, I build my characters during the game, via them having a strong opinion about everything and everyone in the setting on a whim and acting on these opinions in an exaggerated fashion.

Pulling that off without dying requires heavy optimization, especially when my fluctuating escort of 3-4 cohorts (due to a gentleman's agreement, only one is usually available for an adventure, except when I really want that king dead NOW and I don't care he's level 17) and yet another murder of an important npc annoy the GM just too much.