This thread is baffling to me. If I can imagine a character and the setting supports that character, I can make it and play it. I know I am approching it from a different angle though, as I think playing a role is more about the environment and my play than what the system dictates. In other words, to play the super ninja, yeah, I need some basic thief framework but more important, I need a setting that has ninjas in it and I must be willing to play and be knowledgeable about ninjas.

That said, maybe I just do not have much of an imgination.

For the sake of this discussion, let's keep power out of it;i.e. "I want to play a ninja but couldn't" as opposed to "I want to play the super ninja but couldn't".

Do you find yourself imagining characters in a setting you cannot realize in the system? If so, what setting/system and why?

Bill

Well, sometimes, yeah. Sometimes games (particularly point build games) low-ball the initial point spread to limit abuse, but in doing so also prohibit some reasonable builds. I often feel like I have to make compromises in character design.

Some Franchise games have a particular problem in that they present statistics for characters in the setting that are so far and away more powerful than starting characters, it would take years of play to get close to that power level. One author (a friend of mine in actuality...) of one such product defended his decision by saying he didn't want players to kill his iconic characters. Which had me slapping my head, because it is those iconic characters that the players are going to want to emulate.

This sort of "writing iconic characters onto a pedistal" has been a plague to the hobby for some time (anyone remember Hard Wired for Cyberpunk?)

Thus far, I've only played DnD.
Maybe I'm just a bit of a munchkin, but I usually start with a knowledge of the rules and *then* say "You know what would be cool?"

That said, as a DM I'm more... "thematically oriented"? Is that the right word? Anyway, some things about the system do piss me off in villain design. If I want to make an obese blood magus lich soaking in a victorian-era bathtub full of blood because that just looks scary... Then I'm screwed, because both the obesity and the blood magus stats rely heavily on a character having a constitution score... Or tiefling warlocks... Charisma penalties for the lose!

That said, there is very little you outright *can't* do. If I mention anything specific where that *is* the case, chances are there's a $40 supplement coming out for it next week.

Just my thoughts on the subject.

Quote from: Caesar SlaadWell, sometimes, yeah. Sometimes games (particularly point build games) low-ball the initial point spread to limit abuse, but in doing so also prohibit some reasonable builds. I often feel like I have to make compromises in character design.

I think most point-build games are designed from the perspective that starting characters should be fairly weak, allowing them to develop over time.  I don't see this any different than playing a Level 1 character in a game that uses levels to control how powerful the characters are.

Quote from: HinterWeltDo you find yourself imagining characters in a setting you cannot realize in the system?

I've been playing, almost exclusively, point build games for the last couple years.  Mainly because my players have this thing against randomizing elements in chargen...  :rolleyes:

So far, I have not found a game that holds back creating anything I can imagine.  As you said, leaving power out of it, I can create literally anything with a point-build system.  

It may not be the super ninja, but he's a fighting thief.  
It may not be the ultimate sniper, but he's damn good with a rifle!  
It may not be the uber Lord of Liches, but he can toss a nasty stunbolt, mind probe or hellblast!
It may not be Mario Andretti, but he's can use nearly any vehicle in the game well enough to rival the best.
It may not be Han Solo, but he can easily take command of nearly any starship and maneuver it through a tight passage or two.

It takes time, depending on the structure of the game, to develop the amazing character (and if I want the amazing, I can just increase the starting points), but I've never had any trouble creating exactly the character style that I have in mind.

Some games with classes can prohibit some characters being built. Classes can act as somewhat like shackles to a creative player, depending on how they are implemented.

That is one of the reasons that the Iridium system is one of favorites, you have complete control of how your character is built. Since your class are more or less professions they don't limit the possibilties for chargen.

Quote from: HinterWeltFor the sake of this discussion, let's keep power out of it;i.e. "I want to play a ninja but couldn't" as opposed to "I want to play the super ninja but couldn't".

Actually, with Nobilis the opposite can turn out to be a bit of a problem, in case someone for instance wished to have all the PCs start out as common mortals: the game doesn't provide any mechanical support for playing ordinary human beings (who admittedly aren't supposed to be in the spotlight, either). Going by the book, you could play that superpowered ninja without any worries, but not an underdog ninja student out to prove himself to the others.

Quote from: HinterWeltDo you find yourself imagining characters in a setting you cannot realize in the system? If so, what setting/system and why?

Not for years now. Was a common problem in my D&D days.

Quote from: HinterWeltDo you find yourself imagining characters in a setting you cannot realize in the system? If so, what setting/system and why?

The rec.games.frp.advocacy group identified two approaches to playing a character -- Design At Start (DAS) and Develop In Play (DIP).  I think that underneath that theory, there may be a more fundamental difference.  When some people create characters, they have a crystal clear idea of the character they want to play and what they want them to be able to do, independent of system considerations.  When other people create characters, they start with just a vague idea (perhaps an archetype or theme) and see how it builds out in the system and develops in play.

I think that connects to an even more fundamental issue of rule satisfaction.

There seem to be two reasons why people are unhappy with rules.  Either a rule produces a result that falls outside of the range of results a person considers acceptable (this is where realism and edge-case complaints often come from -- e.g., being able to survive a fall from a 30 story building) or the rule conflicts with the single result the person wants to have happen (this is where you get GM fudgning, freeform character generation, diceless play, and so on).  

I'm not sure how any person who knows what they want will ever be happy with a rule that could possibly conflict with that.

Quote from: HinterWelt
Do you find yourself imagining characters in a setting you cannot realize in the system? If so, what setting/system and why?

Not really.

Pretty baffling to me, too.

Moreover, if the system doesn't let you achieve what you wish, just mess with the system.

:deviousgrin:

Quote from: ReimdallNot really.

Pretty baffling to me, too.

Moreover, if the system doesn't let you achieve what you wish, just mess with the system.

:deviousgrin:

That is where I am at. I still think I must be missing something. When they asked for actual examples most of them sited D20 settings and for the most part, to me, it seemed like a need for every action and every rule to be spelled out.

I mean, so what if the Super Ninja class does not exist, make it up.

Here is a follow up. The nature of systems being called in question, is a strict class system eaiser or harder for this to happen in?

To me, a strict class system (if such a beast still exists) would just mean you make up the class in question, assign attributes to it and roll. Skill systems seem immune to this kind of problem since you can usually craft what you want by picking the appropriate skills during chargen. Again, putting power level aside.

Bill

Quote from: HinterWeltTo me, a strict class system (if such a beast still exists) would just mean you make up the class in question, assign attributes to it and roll. Skill systems seem immune to this kind of problem since you can usually craft what you want by picking the appropriate skills during chargen. Again, putting power level aside.

Bill

true, any gamer worth his weight in dice should be able to make new classes for the game he plays that suit their needs.

Things like "cross-class" skills and such however make things more difficult. An open skill system works best, IMO.

I don't know what the deal is, but I've never once thought of a character I couldn't build.  I can imagine something like that happens, but I've never encountered it in practice.

I guess this means that I (and my players) are squarely in the develop in play camp.  Just because I can't make a level one/base point build spellcasting swashbuckler who Flamenco dances on the arrows of his enemies doesn't mean the system's cold broken.  To me that says I have to bide my time and plan my advances.

Maybe there's an undercurrent of impatience behind it.  Maybe it's a concession to reality: Many campaigns just fizzle out in half a dozen sessions, so why play for the long term?

I've never run into this problem.  Leaving power out of it, it's pretty much possible in the system I use to get what I want, legally or with some little mods.  Then again, perhaps some of it has to do with suitability.  I've never wanted to play a ninja in a Viking campaign, or a mecha pilot in a by-the-book Roman campaign.  I suppose if I did wish to do so, and were insistent upon the fact, I would have some trouble, but I would also be a total jackass.

Quote from: HinterWeltTo me, a strict class system (if such a beast still exists) would just mean you make up the class in question, assign attributes to it and roll.

Agreed.  It does, however, beg the question of flexibility for character growth and change after chargen.  I'm thinking of a knight I once played that tired of violence and wanted to focus on healing and potioncraft to balance out his negative impact on the world.

I can't believe I just wrote that.  :rolleyes:

But still, having even the possibility of occupation or class change, with some retention of the character's ability to affect the game, has always been important to me for character arc purposes.  I think a strict class system might break down a bit there.

I frequently come up with characters that don't work in particular systems because the systems make assumptions that don't mesh with how I see the character.  That was a conspicuous feature of my introduction to roleplaying, in fact: I saw some miniatures and was intrigued with them, bought some of the old D&D boxed sets, then AD&D, and was fascinated with the idea of roleplaying, but I grew frustrated almost immediately with an inability to build the dark elven archmage I was imagining.  I couldn't do it in Rolemaster either.  It wasn't until I discovered GURPS that I got anywhere near close, and then the magic system was describing magic that didn't work in the way I was seeing it, which was also important to the character concept.

My experiences were such that I ended up dropping systems altogether and running diceless for a long time.  Later I ended up making a homebrew partly because I wanted certain mechanical characteristics and partly because I didn't want to deal with a chargen system that fought against my vision of the character.

I suppose this might not be a problem if the characters I'm most interested in weren't the sort to get responses like "You're playing a what?"  But  I tend to get interested in characters who implicitly pose questions like "What happens to sapient psychology if you deviate from the expected condition in this particular way?"

Not to mention that the coming of age story doesn't often hold my attention these days.  (Been there, done that already in real life, would rather do something else now.) I want to explore how powerful characters dispose of their power, not how weak characters become powerful; but a lot of systems have 'start weak and rise to power' as their expected path.

Yeah, I can hack systems apart and put them back together to suit myself -- me, treat a game text as gospel?  It is to laugh -- but sometimes it's just not worth the effort to try to fit a particular character into a particular system, because the amount of redesign I'd have to do is like writing a new game.  And if I'm going to do that, why not write the game I wanted all along?