Developing a Character within a game! [Archive] - Wizards Community

Developing a Character within a game! [Archive] - Wizards Community

Post/Author/DateTime Post
edveal
04-21-05, 11:40 AM Not just and Eberron issue but I would love your thoughts.

OK, I am taking a bunch of grief from my group because I have not plotted my characters entire career out. We were starting a campaign and the DM told us our characters were to be 1st lvl and older adolescents (15-20). We were also told we had to dump at least a skill point or more into a craft. Trying to keep in line with this I created a young male fighter with skill points in weaponsmithing. I thought that was appropriate given that we were also told that our characters were to be from small poor villages with limited exposure to the world at large. We were then told that we were drafted into an army and the adventures begin.

Given all that I didn’t think it was appropriate to plot out a whole course for my character to drudge through level by level. I am however, developing skills as they develop within the campaign. The character is confusion the other players because he is just beginning to adapt to his physical abilities and learn his place in the group. For example: because he was a kid and a weaponsmith’s son he had a long sword and ranks in weapon drill, after all how else would he be spending his childhood other than working with his father and working on swordsmanship? However, strength is not is strong suit dexterity is where his strength lies. He has picked up on this and is working to develop his bow ability, with great success.

Now other players seem confused that I didn’t just start him that way. They all got their stats and built the best class and character they could come up with and then filled in all the backstory to suit their need. I find this backwards or am I the one doing it backward?
Grymar
04-21-05, 11:45 AM That depends. It goes back on the old question of role-playing or roll-playing. It sounds like they are min/maxing or at least doing some minor powergaming. There is nothing wrong with that at all, it allows them to have the most effective combat character possible.

You, however, are playing a dynamic character, allowing him to develop natually as he grows. Again, there is nothing wrong with this approach and it is something that I prefer to do myself, but it isn't as natually effective from a pure combat sense as what they are doing.
Setherial
04-21-05, 01:59 PM I wish we were more like you man, once the powergaming frenzy kicks in it's hard not to tweak a character 14 levels in advance so that he has inhuman strenght, farts lightning bolds and dreams of ruling entire kingdoms :)

I would as a DM encourage your way of playing, it's what roleplaying is about, bringing real life to an invented character and seeing him grow, evolve take choices...
Ofcourse part of the fun is combat and when a party works well together it's usually way more fun then a very one sided party. For instance a Cleric with 9 Wisdom, a blind archer and a pixie barbarian aren't going to be rememberd throughout history for their successes :)
BMStroh
04-21-05, 03:14 PM For instance a Cleric with 9 Wisdom, a blind archer and a pixie barbarian aren't going to be rememberd throughout history for their successes .

The other way to look at this, rather than "this character was built to be an archer." How about "this character had a phenomenal physical dexterity, making him a born archer."

It's not always min/maxing; some of it is logical evolution. A 98 pound weakling will probably not become an effective melee fighter, simply because he can't hit hard enough, often enough. A drooling idiot will not become an earthshaking archmage because he blows himself up trying to learn magic missile.
Setherial
04-22-05, 03:42 AM Actually, reading this again, the idea of a blind archer would make a phenomenal roleplaying character, the two others ofcourse are useless but the archer idea I'm starting to like.

He could come from a long line of hunters, trackers and scouts. His parents were extremly proud of him as he showed great promise to become an archer of legend. He won competition after competition, learned the hunting and tracking trade from his father and showed great skill and everything just looked fantastic for our young man until the day he was blinded. This could be either by a monster attack, some traumatic event or disease.

Anyway he recovered and despite his handicap continued to persue what he was great at, he made a living as a hunter. It was though at first but he learned to rely on his other senses now that his sight was gone.

I guess for combat purposes he could take the blind fight feat to increase his hit chances. Maybe a level in psion to reflect his other improved senses, and with the DM's permission and a bit of tweaking spells like detect thoughts could be used to find a target and take him out with a bow.
A DM might allow certain psychic benefits or ability bonus to make up for the handicap just to balance this, but even without levelling the unbalance he would still be fun to play.
Beleriphon
04-22-05, 05:13 AM Ofcourse part of the fun is combat and when a party works well together it's usually way more fun then a very one sided party. For instance a Cleric with 9 Wisdom, a blind archer and a pixie barbarian aren't going to be rememberd throughout history for their successes :)

Or rather that is the only thing they will be remembered for, since to be sucessful one must be very lucky.
Territan
04-23-05, 01:49 PM I can mostly see both ways working. People can dream, and they can develop and push themselves early on to try to achieve that dream.

That said, it does seem kind of unrealistic to assume that a 16-year-old 1st-level fighter could state categorically that when he grows up he'll be so strong, have these weapons, and rule this kingdom. The opportunities may not exist or may require extraordinary effort—for example, the current ruler of this kingdom probably won't want to step down for that snot-nosed greenie.

A person's past will influence their current self and may give them some idea where they want to go in the future, not where they will go.

Then you work a DM in who has particular ideas about how the story should run, and the characters' plans might as well be written out on two-ply, squeezably soft notepaper.

Just stirrin' the pot here... and using too many italics.
Gurv
04-23-05, 03:24 PM I think what you are doing is perfect. Building a perfect character, then explaining how he became that way is fine. But it is also cool to create a reasonable character, and then explain what he is doing to become better.

To be honest, a character is not defined as much by what he can do well, as by what he does about the things he can not do. Who cares if your archer can hit a lot with a bow? They all do that. No surprise or roleplaying there. It is his solution to getting caught in melee that people will remember.

Post/Author/DateTime	Post
edveal 04-21-05, 11:40 AM	Not just and Eberron issue but I would love your thoughts. OK, I am taking a bunch of grief from my group because I have not plotted my characters entire career out. We were starting a campaign and the DM told us our characters were to be 1st lvl and older adolescents (15-20). We were also told we had to dump at least a skill point or more into a craft. Trying to keep in line with this I created a young male fighter with skill points in weaponsmithing. I thought that was appropriate given that we were also told that our characters were to be from small poor villages with limited exposure to the world at large. We were then told that we were drafted into an army and the adventures begin. Given all that I didn’t think it was appropriate to plot out a whole course for my character to drudge through level by level. I am however, developing skills as they develop within the campaign. The character is confusion the other players because he is just beginning to adapt to his physical abilities and learn his place in the group. For example: because he was a kid and a weaponsmith’s son he had a long sword and ranks in weapon drill, after all how else would he be spending his childhood other than working with his father and working on swordsmanship? However, strength is not is strong suit dexterity is where his strength lies. He has picked up on this and is working to develop his bow ability, with great success. Now other players seem confused that I didn’t just start him that way. They all got their stats and built the best class and character they could come up with and then filled in all the backstory to suit their need. I find this backwards or am I the one doing it backward?
Grymar 04-21-05, 11:45 AM	That depends. It goes back on the old question of role-playing or roll-playing. It sounds like they are min/maxing or at least doing some minor powergaming. There is nothing wrong with that at all, it allows them to have the most effective combat character possible. You, however, are playing a dynamic character, allowing him to develop natually as he grows. Again, there is nothing wrong with this approach and it is something that I prefer to do myself, but it isn't as natually effective from a pure combat sense as what they are doing.
Setherial 04-21-05, 01:59 PM	I wish we were more like you man, once the powergaming frenzy kicks in it's hard not to tweak a character 14 levels in advance so that he has inhuman strenght, farts lightning bolds and dreams of ruling entire kingdoms :) I would as a DM encourage your way of playing, it's what roleplaying is about, bringing real life to an invented character and seeing him grow, evolve take choices... Ofcourse part of the fun is combat and when a party works well together it's usually way more fun then a very one sided party. For instance a Cleric with 9 Wisdom, a blind archer and a pixie barbarian aren't going to be rememberd throughout history for their successes :)
BMStroh 04-21-05, 03:14 PM	For instance a Cleric with 9 Wisdom, a blind archer and a pixie barbarian aren't going to be rememberd throughout history for their successes . The other way to look at this, rather than "this character was built to be an archer." How about "this character had a phenomenal physical dexterity, making him a born archer." It's not always min/maxing; some of it is logical evolution. A 98 pound weakling will probably not become an effective melee fighter, simply because he can't hit hard enough, often enough. A drooling idiot will not become an earthshaking archmage because he blows himself up trying to learn magic missile.
Setherial 04-22-05, 03:42 AM	Actually, reading this again, the idea of a blind archer would make a phenomenal roleplaying character, the two others ofcourse are useless but the archer idea I'm starting to like. He could come from a long line of hunters, trackers and scouts. His parents were extremly proud of him as he showed great promise to become an archer of legend. He won competition after competition, learned the hunting and tracking trade from his father and showed great skill and everything just looked fantastic for our young man until the day he was blinded. This could be either by a monster attack, some traumatic event or disease. Anyway he recovered and despite his handicap continued to persue what he was great at, he made a living as a hunter. It was though at first but he learned to rely on his other senses now that his sight was gone. I guess for combat purposes he could take the blind fight feat to increase his hit chances. Maybe a level in psion to reflect his other improved senses, and with the DM's permission and a bit of tweaking spells like detect thoughts could be used to find a target and take him out with a bow. A DM might allow certain psychic benefits or ability bonus to make up for the handicap just to balance this, but even without levelling the unbalance he would still be fun to play.
Beleriphon 04-22-05, 05:13 AM	Ofcourse part of the fun is combat and when a party works well together it's usually way more fun then a very one sided party. For instance a Cleric with 9 Wisdom, a blind archer and a pixie barbarian aren't going to be rememberd throughout history for their successes :) Or rather that is the only thing they will be remembered for, since to be sucessful one must be very lucky.
Territan 04-23-05, 01:49 PM	I can mostly see both ways working. People can dream, and they can develop and push themselves early on to try to achieve that dream. That said, it does seem kind of unrealistic to assume that a 16-year-old 1st-level fighter could state categorically that when he grows up he'll be so strong, have these weapons, and rule this kingdom. The opportunities may not exist or may require extraordinary effort—for example, the current ruler of this kingdom probably won't want to step down for that snot-nosed greenie. A person's past will influence their current self and may give them some idea where they want to go in the future, not where they will go. Then you work a DM in who has particular ideas about how the story should run, and the characters' plans might as well be written out on two-ply, squeezably soft notepaper. Just stirrin' the pot here... and using too many italics.
Gurv 04-23-05, 03:24 PM	I think what you are doing is perfect. Building a perfect character, then explaining how he became that way is fine. But it is also cool to create a reasonable character, and then explain what he is doing to become better. To be honest, a character is not defined as much by what he can do well, as by what he does about the things he can not do. Who cares if your archer can hit a lot with a bow? They all do that. No surprise or roleplaying there. It is his solution to getting caught in melee that people will remember.