Best way to start an "Adventure"

[Drakron]

I suppose the thing a lot of DM's forget (new ones especially) is that if a character is 16 years old they have already had 16 years of life before the player "took over". The character should be a natural part of the world. It should know people and be known (at least locally) have a family, or some reason why it dosnt have have a family. Have friends and all those things that "normal" people have.

DMs usually avoid it because the character players create is their own creation and DMs sould not step into players area by making characters background.

 

A character is never "taken over" by players, their entire live and background is determined by the players that create then.

 

Only exception is when DMs made "generated characters" to fit their adventure story but I never liked that idea, as it stands DMs already have too much power over the world and reducing player input is a bad thing IMHO.

 

but equally you have players who want to be the son of a king , or daughter of a high mage (so daddy can give pressies) and so forth. Things that are generally to give the player an avantage. Imagine if BG was a PnP session and you could only have one Child of Bhaal. It wouldnt be very fair to the other players. So in PnP at least you need to have a somewhat level playing field (or agreement from all the players involved in the game).

 

Its not a advantage unless the DM allows to be a advantage.

 

DMs have the right to refuse characters builds and backgrounds and even if I have a character that is a throne heir the DM can work around it or make it part of the campain, the only "catch" to make it a part is what the other players characters cannot be left out.

 

True that PnP allows the ultimate customization of the game story but the only reason that does not happen on CRPGs is because of time/size considerations, a bad thing is that many times they take the easy way out andsimply throw us a story for a generated character but that is not always true, IWD series allowed great character freedom but most of it could only be played by using imagination.

[ShadowPaladin V1.0]

DMs usually avoid it because the character players create is their own creation and DMs sould not step into players area by making characters background.

 

A character is never "taken over" by players, their entire live and background is determined by the players that create then.

 

Only exception is when DMs made "generated characters" to fit their adventure story but I never liked that idea, as it stands DMs already have too much power over the world and reducing player input is a bad thing IMHO.

 

Its not a advantage unless the DM allows to be a advantage.

 

DMs have the right to refuse characters builds and backgrounds and even if I have a character that is a throne heir the DM can work around it or make it part of the campain, the only "catch" to make it a part is what the other players characters cannot be left out.

 

True that PnP allows the ultimate customization of the game story but the only reason that does not happen on CRPGs is because of time/size considerations, a bad thing is that many times they take the easy way out andsimply throw us a story for a generated character but that is not always true, IWD series allowed great character freedom but most of it could only be played by using imagination.

As long as the creation is in fitting with the game world and the player isnt seeking some sort of advantage I agree.

 

Thats assuming they actually write one. I've played in a lot of groups where the characters suddenly "wake up" like they have been in stasis for 16 years while waiting for their adventuring career to begin

 

Having a character fit into a particular world is fine. But I do draw the line at being forced into a particular mold for adventures. Though there are always exceptions. In one game the entire party belonged to the same Drow house. The campaign revolved around us getting our house to the top of the ladder while at the same time not getting stabbed in the back.

It was a great adventure because the DM could plot the entire campaign around it. And most of our battles were against other sentient creatures rather than monsters which made things more interesting tactically too. I suppose in a lot of ways it was like BG. You are going to be a Drow , you are going to have grown up in this location. But beyond those restrictions were had a lot of freedom in our backgrounds. As well as fact sheets about the area provided by the DM to equip us with the local knowledge a Drow would have (which we as geeky students didnt).

 

 

I disagree I think you are being unfair on the designers here. Time and size are important but unless they can realistically deliver something like that you can hardly blame them for it.

 

That was IWD's great strength (maybe why I played it 11+ times with various parties) but as you say its weakness was that the majority of it was all in the mind.Which dosnt really matter in a single player game, but a lot of people dont get it which is something that is going to be reflected in how they see the game.

[Diogo Ribeiro]

Enviroment is not the only determining factor of who you turn out to be.

 

While i'm not denying that' date=' I question just what that has to do with what was being talked about. Your background in the game is mostly nullified or assumed to have happened despite 1) what you write for your character, and 2) what you do with the character himself.

 

Its very different from BG because its all done for you.

 

You're telling me my choices in PS:T are made for me, but are not in BG2?

 

If you cant get your head around why then thats too bad if your not a PnP player it wouldnt suprise me in the slightest anyway.

 

I can't get my head around it, not because i'm not a PnP player (anymore, at least), but because you're not making sense (again).

 

If your making the choices for the character based on your own wants then your not roleplaying. Thats all there is to it. Creating a "talky" character for the express purpose of talking your way through a game is not roleplaying. It's simply a different form of powergaming.

 

That's ridiculous. How do you define what the character wants, or how the character would act? You can't, period. You can only imagine how he/she would act, and have to carry it our yourself. I find it highly amusing how you have called yourself a PnP gamer in the past, and then make such a mentally challenged claim such as the one above.

 

Of course its player driven. Thats why they removed the characters memory

 

Let me know when you're confident in using common sense again.

 

Oh yes you most certainly can.

The underdark in BGII I was creeping around there as a drow for ages and it felt wrong. I wasnt enjoying the game in the slightest. The reason was it just wasnt in character. My Cavalier was champing at the bit at having to hide his identity.

In the end I gave in dropped the disguise and had one of the most epic battles ever. Hiding his identity was clearly not an option that was applicable to my character. Even though after seeing what was there and coming to the conclusion it was probably a battle I couldnt win at the time it was the option that I as the player wanted to take.

 

So what does that tell me? That you have your own special, personal take on what it means to be out of character, and playing in character. Which obviously doesn't have to be followed by anyone else. You play your characters your own way, that's fine with me. However, the problem is that you assume your way of playing is a universal take on roleplaying itself, when it isn't.

 

It's kind of funny that you were the one preaching for character freedom isnt it ? When PST dosnt have any at all.

 

If you claim PS:T has no character freedom, then you obviously didn't played the game.

 

 

why should you do it? why' date=' because you said it were not hard. so do it.[/quote']

 

Yes, but I'm asking you what is the point of it. It's not like I made a claim originally, and defied others to do something in a similar or better fashion. You came up to me and told me to do it, and my question remains "why?", when it's unwarranted, specially because I already pointed out games which examplified "my" idea that do not impose a burden on players just because they allow for more character freedom.

 

you is acting as if the tendency of developers to make characters with more defined backgrounds is an issue separate from story... and they is not.

 

No, not really. That's not what i'm doing. I question myself what lead you into saying this. SP made the claim that giving character freedom to a player would be placing some form of burden on player's shoulders. And in turn, all I said was that character freedom for players is not a burden at all; a burden is placed on players when they are given a character which they cannot develop in their own way. If character development was a burden for players, then it would have been a highly criticized aspect in games which allowed for it. And wheter statistically or in a roleplaying sense, its often found to be their favourite aspect.

 

you is back to complaining that you is misunderstood... and you is not.

 

Given this is the what? third time? I've explained myself, and you still seem to fail to understand what I meant, and where I was coming from, despite expressing myself fairly well, only leads to that kind of "complaining" on my behalf.

 

you just don't understand the issue.

 

Yup, I'm not surprised the fault would have to be mine.

 

makes others have to work twice as hard if they wish to keep discussing with you.

 

The feeling is mutual everytime I have to deal with either you or SP, so don't sweat it.

[Azarkon]

Look Zant, I don't want to get between you and Gromnir here, but with the amount of time you spend answering their posts you could've already written the story - or maybe you couldn't have, but at least then you'll know. Either way, I have a feeling that it's the best way to end this argument or at least give it some more fuel. As it is, all that I see is "everyone has their own opinions and I won't budge from mine" - which is typically how most internet arguments end up, but still.

 

It's a bit pointless arguing only on theoretical grounds since, after all, game development is not theory.

[Diogo Ribeiro]

My point regarding that was trying to have Grom explain where he was coming from based on his quote of what I said. Seems odd that he'd want me to do something when I was talking of another; weirder still, when you take into account that what I was talking about isn't theoretical only, as I pointed out with examples of games which present what I was talking of.

[ShadowPaladin V1.0]

If you claim PS:T has no character freedom, then you obviously didn't played the game.

Character freedom is the freedom to create a character of your own chosing with a background of your own chosing (perhaps with a few restrictions thrown in) without the GM or in this case the game constantly invalidating it by bringing up past events which had no place in it.

 

Dosnt sound a lot like PST now does it.

 

Maybe Grommy is right and the problem is you dont even know what concept you are arguing against..

[Diogo Ribeiro]

Character freedom is the freedom to create a character of your own chosing with a background of your own chosing (perhaps with a few restrictions thrown in) without the GM or in this case the game constantly invalidating it by bringing up past events which had no place in it.

 

So, to you, character freedom is only about creating a character, nothing else? Excuse me while i try to find PnP players, and CRPG players that think choosing clothing color and a name are the utmost representative elements of character freedom.

 

Dosnt sound a lot like PST now does it.

By that logic, no it doesn't. Then again, by that logic, it also doesn't seem like character freedom.

 

Maybe Grommy is right and the problem is you dont even know what concept you are arguing against..

 

Nah, its just you that's the problem.

[Gromnir]

"Maybe Grommy is right and the problem is you dont even know what concept you are arguing against.. "

 

exactly. poor fella is kinda confused.

 

*shrug*

 

am still wiating for his story... or at least an example of a game where you gots a compelling story focused on a protagonist that can be anything. claims that he gave examples... but we sure not see any. surely wasn't suggesting that morrowind or fallout fit the bill?

 

again, is easy to make silly claims w/o even trying to back up.

 

write us a story. not have to be detailed... just give us the dust jacket version.

 

HA! Good Fun!

[ShadowPaladin V1.0]

So, to you, character freedom is only about creating a character, nothing else? Excuse me while i try to find PnP players, and CRPG players that think choosing clothing color and a name are the utmost representative elements of character freedom.

 

By that logic, no it doesn't. Then again, by that logic, it also doesn't seem like character freedom.

 

Nah, its just you that's the problem.

If you think that choosing clothing colour and a name is what makes a character. Then your a lost cause.

 

But that is what character freedom is. People dont arrive at PnP sessions and play characters created by other people. Thats what actors do , they act out a character created by someone else. A Roleplayer acts out a character that they themselves have created.

 

The problem it would appear here is you not knowing what things mean before you go spouting off.

[Diogo Ribeiro]

If you think that choosing clothing colour and a name is what makes a character. Then your a lost cause.

Lucky for me, I don't, and your insinuation is only that. However, if you think that character freedom is *only* about having the freedom to create a character, then lost cause is too soft a term for you.

 

But that is what character freedom is. People dont arrive at PnP sessions and play characters created by other people. Thats what actors do , they act out a character created by someone else. A Roleplayer acts out a character that they themselves have created.

 

The problem it would appear here is you not knowing what things mean before you go spouting off.

 

This coming from a self proclaimed "roleplayer" is a joke. If you actually are involved in PnP as you claim, then you should know that character freedom goes beyond mere creation and goes into a character's development and improvement, its physical and social expression in the world its inserted into.

 

Then again, given your ludicrous claims troughout the thread on the subject, including the now classic concept of >"Creating a "talky" character for the express purpose of talking your way through a game is not roleplaying. It's simply a different form of powergaming."<, does show in a painfull manner who actually doesn't have an idea of what they're talking about.

 

And while we're at it, why do you call Squaresoft's Final Fantasy series RPGs? You don't create characters at all, you play with premade ones. Why apply them the term "RPG" if they go against your own logic that they're not RPGs? Unless of course in the meantime you've stopped calling them as such?

 

exactly. poor fella is kinda confused.

 

I know you're an intelligent person, so when you tell the truth, I usually have no problems with what you say, but honestly, your idea that i'm confused or something, comes off as an empty and pointless statement, and your refusal to explain your motivation for quoting what i said earlier and make a fuss out of it makes me wonder if this isn't mere trolling.

 

am still wiating for his story...

You were the one who told me to "take my time"... getting itchy?

 

or at least an example of a game where you gots a compelling story focused on a protagonist that can be anything. claims that he gave examples... but we sure not see any. surely wasn't suggesting that morrowind or fallout fit the bill?

 

Surely you forgot the part where i stated that "compelling" is subjective? Wait you didn't forgot - you simply dismissed it as an excuse. Convenient.

[ShadowPaladin V1.0]

I insinuated nothing. Your the one who said it not me. If you dont want to be called out on it, then dont say it.

 

But where is the character freedom of PST ?

 

Yep that ones always touchy with some people. But its very true. A classical powergamer creates a character to be a combat powerhouse because they want to power their way through the game on the combat path.

A "talkie" powergamer creates a talkie character because they want to talk their way through the game.

 

Both different aspects of powergaming because you are engineering your character for a specific task.

 

Why do I call them RPGs ? Because thats the accepted definition. I'm not going against anything I've never not said that by restricting character freedom you can tell a better story.

 

That was the challenge that Grommy set you. Come up with a story concept that allows the depth of involvement between character and world of PST while at the same time giving you the total character freedom of IWD. Dosnt suprise me in the slightest that you cant do it.

[Darque]

But where is the character freedom of PST ?

 

Yep that one always touches with some people. But its very true. A classical powergamer creates a character to be a combat powerhouse because they want to power their way through the game on the combat path.

A "talkie" powergamer creates a talkie character because they want to talk their way through the game.

 

Both different aspects of powergaming because you are engineering your character for a specific task.

 

Maybe we're having a symatic problem... or different views of power...

 

I fail to see how you're a "powergamer" for wanting a combat character... because in most games I have played a simple combat character is far from powerful.

 

But then... I rarely make characters so one dimensional, so I may be wrong.

 

But, on the other hand, I fail to see how specializing is an "aspect" of powergaming. Powergaming as I understand it is min/maxing.

[Diogo Ribeiro]

I insinuated nothing. Your the one who said it not me. If you dont want to be called out on it, then dont say it.

 

Choosing the aspects I mentioned are usually a part of character creation in a CRPG, your zenith when it comes to character freedom. They were there to show how ridiculous it is to limiting the concept of character freedom strictly to things such as those.

 

And given I didn't said i belived them to be defining elements myself - but rather, suggested that they'd be so for you, which would make sense, as they are a part of character creation - your post comes does come off as an assumption.

 

But where is the character freedom of PST ?

 

Yep that ones always touchy with some people. But its very true. A classical powergamer creates a character to be a combat powerhouse because they want to power their way through the game on the combat path.

A "talkie" powergamer creates a talkie character because they want to talk their way through the game.

 

Both different aspects of powergaming because you are engineering your character for a specific task.

Playing trough a game is a specific task. Is it powergaming to decide what would be the best ways to achieve success in it? Hardly. If you go by that reasoning, then any decision a player makes regarding the creation of their character, to ensure they are successful in given fields, then all you decide is powergaming. Unless you want me to believe that unfocused, careless decisions regarding character creation are a better form of roleplaying than deciding where my character should focus? That would be a riot.

 

Why do I call them RPGs ? Because thats the accepted definition. I'm not going against anything I've never not said that by restricting character freedom you can tell a better story.

 

Your opinion is noted. Its good to know you consider an RPG something that generally does not allow character freedom.

 

That was the challenge that Grommy set you. Come up with a story concept that allows the depth of involvement between character and world of PST while at the same time giving you the total character freedom of IWD. Dosnt suprise me in the slightest that you cant do it.

 

He actually had me come up with three different concepts, mostly involving story and characterization. Interaction adn reactivity with the world weren't present in his task, AFAIR, though i will re-check. If they are, i can only provide guidelines for that, obviosuly.

 

Although, what does surprise me is how I've already come up with one of the concepts, and am now only polishing the edges.

[ShadowPaladin V1.0]

I fail to see how you're a "powergamer" for wanting a combat character... because in most games I have played a simple combat character is far from powerful.

 

But then... I rarely make characters so one dimensional, so I may be wrong.

 

But, on the other hand, I fail to see how specializing is an "aspect" of powergaming. Powergaming as I understand it is min/maxing.

Your not. It's just that classically powergamed characters are those that excel in combat.

 

Glad to hear it.

 

It depends on the level of specialisation.

 

Like taking 3 int because you never intend to use it.

 

Or making sure you have max chr max social skills and having zero combat skills because you know if you fail your persuade roll you can reload.

 

Read the how to finish FO without killing anyone FAQ its like a guide to powergaming a talkie character.

[ShadowPaladin V1.0]

Choosing the aspects I mentioned are usually a part of character creation in a CRPG, your zenith when it comes to character freedom. They were there to show how ridiculous it is to limiting the concept of character freedom strictly to things such as those.

 

And given I didn't said i belived them to be defining elements myself - but rather, suggested that they'd be so for you, which would make sense, as they are a part of character creation - your post comes does come off as an assumption.

 

Playing trough a game is a specific task. Is it powergaming to decide what would be the best ways to achieve success in it? Hardly. If you go by that reasoning, then any decision a player makes regarding the creation of their character, to ensure they are successful in given fields, then all you decide is powergaming. Unless you want me to believe that unfocused, careless decisions regarding character creation are a better form of roleplaying than deciding where my character should focus? That would be a riot.

 

Your opinion is noted. Its good to know you consider an RPG something that generally does not allow character freedom.

 

He actually had me come up with three different concepts, mostly involving story and characterization. Interaction adn reactivity with the world weren't present in his task, AFAIR, though i will re-check. If they are, i can only provide guidelines for that, obviosuly.

 

Although, what does surprise me is how I've already come up with one of the concepts, and am now only polishing the edges.

Yes its a shame that they are wrong them isnt it

 

What you assume isnt really my problem.

 

I think you just answered you own question there. It's about making presumsions if you presume that the game is there to allow you to take your chosen path through it and you engineer your character to that then your not roleplaying.

To your character the world is real and the real world dosnt always let people do what they want and niether should a virtual one.

 

Yawn.. really is that the best you can do. You know if you stopped trying to be clever. Emphasis on trying these debates might even prove fruitful.

 

Well I'm sure we are all looking forward to seeing your finished work. If you manage it then I suggest you go get a job in the industry.

[Darque]

It depends on the level of specialisation.

 

Like taking 3 int because you never intend to use it.

 

Exactly, the level.. Not all specialization is powergaming though. It's only "powergaming" if they overly gimp themselves to unrealistic levels. (like dropping int and cha to 3 on a combat character)

 

There is nothing wrong with specialization on it's own though.

[newc0253]

Creating the world dosnt really preclude using character backgrounds. Unless your talking about those DM's who create the world down to the tiniest little detail and then sort of squeeze the player characters in ?

you miss the point. most DMs in PnP could work character backgrounds into the campaign if they badly wanted to. but most don't, because they've got their own story to tell.

 

and besides, ain't there something badly solipsistic about players who believe that the adventure should revolve entirely around their own personal history?

[ShadowPaladin V1.0]

Exactly, the level.. Not all specialization is powergaming though. It's only "powergaming" if they overly gimp themselves to unrealistic levels. (like dropping int and cha to 3 on a combat character)

 

There is nothing wrong with specialization on it's own though.

Pretty much.

 

If you look at FO those are specialised characters that each suggest a certain a certain approach to a situation. But they are not really what you would call powergamed.

 

Well its natural that people with certain stats will end up in certain professions. But that dosnt preclude a well rounded character that can deal with different situations in different ways.

[Darque]

But not everyone likes or wants to play a well rounded character, but wanting to focus on one gaming aspect isn't powergaming in and of itself. Some people enjoy the social aspect of games, and thus make "talkers", some like just the combat and thus make "combatants", some like to do a bit of everything.

 

There's no harm in it.

[ShadowPaladin V1.0]

you miss the point. most DMs in PnP could work character backgrounds into the campaign if they badly wanted to. but most don't, because they've got their own story to tell.

 

and besides, ain't there something badly solipsistic about players who believe that the adventure should revolve entirely around their own personal history?

I dont think I have encountered it quite to that degree. There was the Drow campaign (the DM really liked them) which I suppose could well apply.

 

Thats kind of the point of being a protagonist though. The story is about that character. More a CRPG thing.

I use histories to make the characters more a part of the world. And because a lot of the time they are a very good read.

 

Every DM is going to be different I think the important thing with a CRPG is to realise that its like the DM writing the campaign before they have even met you and then being totally inflexable and unable to change what they have written.

[ShadowPaladin V1.0]

But not everyone likes or wants to play a well rounded character, but wanting to focus on one gaming aspect isn't powergaming in and of itself. Some people enjoy the social aspect of games, and thus make "talkers", some like just the combat and thus make "combatants", some like to do a bit of everything.

 

There's no harm in it.

Heck if they pay for the game they can do what they like with it. It dosnt bother me in the slightest.

 

Some people just seem to have this rather warped idea that by making a character who does a lot of talking you are in fact roleplaying. And that somehow games that allow you to talk your way to the end are better roleplaying games.

Usually at the same time looking down on those who would rather fight and engineer a character to fight. Sometimes its just nice to remind them they are not as far appart as they would like to think

[newc0253]

Every DM is going to be different I think the important thing with a CRPG is to realise that its like the DM writing the campaign before they have even met you and then being totally inflexable and unable to change what they have written.

then what's the difference between a CRPG and a PnP module played off the shelf?

 

nothing.

 

when you played Keep on the Borderlands or Tomb of Horrors or Slave Pits of the Undercity, did the DM work in your personal backstory into the plot?

 

no, i didn't think so. and yet many PnP DMs approach writing campaigns in much the same way as they would be writing a module for the world in general, not as a bespoke effort for their friends' PCs.

[ShadowPaladin V1.0]

then what's the difference between a CRPG and a PnP module played off the shelf?

 

nothing.

 

when you played Keep on the Borderlands or Tomb of Horrors or Slave Pits of the Undercity, did the DM work in your personal backstory into the plot?

 

no, i didn't think so. and yet many PnP DMs approach writing campaigns in much the same way as they would be writing a module for the world in general, not as a bespoke effort for their friends' PCs.

 

Modules for us have always been something to modify.Like moving the entire Temple of Elemental Evil to Faerun(and of course rewriting its history).

 

Very good analogy though. Although modules are not 100% complete in content like a game needs to be.

 

I and the DMs I learned from tend to take a very real world approach. If you live in a world then you must have come from somewhere.

 

On the other hand if you remove the player from that geographical location then you dont have to refer to their histories at all.

 

But would you agree that you would have to respect a history that the player has written and not invalidate it because of something that later occurs in the game? This is the problem with CRPGs with total character freedom vs the trying to make the player feel a part of the world.

[newc0253]

But would you agree that you would have to respect a history that the player has written and not invalidate it because of something that later occurs in the game? This is the problem with CRPGs with total character freedom vs the trying to make the player feel a part of the world.

depends entirely on what they'd written.

 

it's pretty hard to respect something like 'parents killed by orcs' because it's such a cliche.

 

and it would be pretty hard to invalidate something like 'lived on a farm until 17' because it don't exactly demand much by way of validation.

 

my point is that the 'total character freedom' of PnP is about as illusory as that in CRPGs. you can give yourself any backstory you want in either, but most of the time it will be politely ignored.

[Darque]

Wouldn't it be cool if a cRPG had backstory elements you could pick and choose from, like on a salad bar B)

 

Pick "where" you grew up, how old when you left, if your parents are alive or dead and if dead what killed them... then weave this into the story based on what you chose.