Quote from: jhkim;1035156The question is about customization, not optimization. For example, if I'm in a non-D&D fantasy game, I might imagine:

1) A character who is a classic wise woman - who has healing arts, curses, prophecy, and mind magic as well as various potions and herbs. She isn't particularly skilled at combat, but could probably use a bow or staff.

2) A specialist soldier who is thoroughly skilled with a bow including a number of fighting tricks and techniques - but who isn't very skilled at fighting with plate mail, sword, and shield.

3) A rich and foppish arms merchant who has some skill with the weapons he sells, but mainly is a minor magician who enhances and disguises the weapons and armor.

None of these are necessarily optimized at all, but they're all pretty tough to do in D&D - particularly as a starting character.

Why would those characters be tough to do in D&D? I think the merchant that is a minor magician is the hardest but the other two....I don't think it's that difficult. It isn't mechanically enforced but easily could be role-played.

Again, I am admitting that other systems allow people to build specifically what they want from a mechanics perspective. Just from my experience most folks end up reverting to the mean (archetypes) and I have found with class based games it isn't that hard to just....self moderate and roleplay the character we want.

Quote from: Ulairi;1035238Why would those characters be tough to do in D&D? I think the merchant that is a minor magician is the hardest but the other two....I don't think it's that difficult. It isn't mechanically enforced but easily could be role-played.

Again, I am admitting that other systems allow people to build specifically what they want from a mechanics perspective. Just from my experience most folks end up reverting to the mean (archetypes) and I have found with class based games it isn't that hard to just....self moderate and roleplay the character we want.

Well... for my campaigns, the emphasis of the game can shift, and due to the modern versions of class-based games that seek to shoe-horn your character via Feats, Archetypes etc into hyper-optimization that puts you at extreme mechanical disadvantage in other settings. Earlier D&D editions didn't suffer from this nearly as much. Case in point the "Mounted character" - then the game shifts to the Underdark where being mounted where all your class/feat bonuses tied to the fact you need to be mounted are suddenly not feasible. Or the game shifts into a lot of court intrigue and skullduggery requiring the group to be stealthy etc. While you shouldn't be operating at optimal levels at all times - in some editions of D&D you have little recourse, limited skill points, gating of Feats via trees, etc.

As a GM - you want to feed those PC's and players but then you don't want to be forced as a GM to keep the campaign limited to only the content that caters to those mechanical demands. That's the part where after really trying to make it work for years starting in D&D3.x/PF that I began to divorce myself from D&D in general. "The Game" became more important to me than the system. I wanted my players to express what they saw their characters to be, and I increasingly wanted a system that would allow that expression but also allow them to measurably do "other things" with good options to do those things without undue punitive issues based on the conceits of the game.

Ironically it makes a good case for the OSR where aside from class-specific abilities, the expressions of those mechanics are light enough to allow you take those characters nearly anywhere.

Quote from: Ulairi;1035238... Again, I am admitting that other systems allow people to build specifically what they want from a mechanics perspective. Just from my experience most folks end up reverting to the mean (archetypes) and I have found with class based games it isn't that hard to just....self moderate and roleplay the character we want.

So, your answer to "what fantasy rpg's really let you customize your character?" is something like "in my experience most folks don't do that even in GURPS, and can just roleplay a custom character if they want to in D&D"?

Quote from: Gronan of Simmerya;1035087OD&D.  It lets you imagine your character to be almost anything within a few broad archetypes, and the rules don't interfere.

As much as it's tempting to needle you and say it's super restrictive and stupid just to see what happens, a more interesting thought comes to mind.

I wonder if a list of setting appropriate background and cultural options with no mechanical effects at all would bridge the gap.  Say, for instance, you're running a medieval fantasy campaign and you don't want pcs to go around claiming they're the first born son of the king, you could leave that off the list of allowed things you can be.  Just an odd thought about options verses mechanics.

Anyhow, the whiney little creeps I was DMing at the store a couple years ago decided to have a go at the evil king of the evil kingdom of Throndar.  After running them through a gauntlet of challenges in his castle he was amused to let them try before his court.  They were averaging fifth level and he was a twentieth level fighter with an artifact level sword that does damage as a lightning bolt, backed up by two 20th level magic-users and a 20th level evil cleric of the god of foreign policy.  (who'd all been asked to stay back unless things went badly) I'm pretty sure I've told the aftermath of this battle before because it's funny how he eventually parleyed, gave them a kingdom and screwed the over by giving the one his incompetent son had laid waste to.  But anyhow, later when one of the players asked how high level the king was I told them and was told "that's not fair" and I said, "Forget fair, you had every chance to turn back and every warning.  This is D&D and you don't get to be king if you can't keep the throne by main force."

Your second paragraph is right on the mark.  Want to be a merchant who dabbles in magic?  Okay.  Want to be a barbarian?  Okay, you're a barbarian.  You will be different from the plate armored fighter by your lighter gear.  Want to be a wise woman instead of a wizard or a priest?  Okay, you're a wise woman.

And they can claim anything they like.  Now, if they encounter somebody who's MET the first born son of the king, I'm going to laugh myself sick.  And if they get their jollies bullying a bunch of locals in a town five hundred miles from the court, I'm also going to laugh myself sick.

Low Fantasy Gaming rpg encourages you to make your own feats in conjunction with your GM at 3rd, 6th, 9th and 12th. Can't get much more of a custom made PC than that.

Quote from: jhkim1) A character who is a classic wise woman - who has healing arts, curses, prophecy, and mind magic as well as various potions and herbs. She isn't particularly skilled at combat, but could probably use a bow or staff.

2) A specialist soldier who is thoroughly skilled with a bow including a number of fighting tricks and techniques - but who isn't very skilled at fighting with plate mail, sword, and shield.

3) A rich and foppish arms merchant who has some skill with the weapons he sells, but mainly is a minor magician who enhances and disguises the weapons and armor.

Quote from: Ulairi;1035238Why would those characters be tough to do in D&D? I think the merchant that is a minor magician is the hardest but the other two....I don't think it's that difficult. It isn't mechanically enforced but easily could be role-played.

Again, I am admitting that other systems allow people to build specifically what they want from a mechanics perspective. Just from my experience most folks end up reverting to the mean (archetypes) and I have found with class based games it isn't that hard to just....self moderate and roleplay the character we want.

In my experience of class-based systems, players pick from the classes available and add variations. There's enough variety there to satisfy most players. However, they don't start from imagining the character they want and then expect the system to match that. And that's not a necessary feature. I'm a fan of a lot of random-roll systems that explicitly give you unexpected character traits to play. D&D and other class-based systems are good games, but they don't do everything for everyone.

Regarding my examples, can you be more specific about how you'd do these in any version of D&D? I don't see it.

Non-D&D... I'd say GURPS. It reaches insane levels of customization - it's not only that you can choose "talents", "powers", etc., but you can customize THOSE as well.

There is nothing like that in D&D world AFAICT.

D&Dish... probably 3.x with its thousands of feats, classes etc.

But I also wrote a BX/5e retroclone called Dark Fantasy Basic specifically for this purpose, since I LOVE BX but I find it lacking in customization.

The gist of it is that classes are really similar, but each has a collection of feats that any class can take. The specifics of each class are really small: fighter has combat as a primary skill (and so on), but any class can take fighting as a secondary or tertiary skill. Likewise, fighters can take spell-casting as a secondary or tertiary skill - without multi-classing.

Other feats allow clerics to "turn" demons, animals, use swords, etc., Mus to use Charisma or cast in silence, thieves to poison, etc. So each character is different.

Of course, MUs can use swords and armor in my game, fighter can cast spells (at their own risk!), etc.

Quote from: Gronan of Simmerya;1035087OD&D.  It lets you imagine your character to be almost anything within a few broad archetypes, and the rules don't interfere.

Yep, same with BX and AD&D and even 2e. I think 5e is a return to that as you can pretty much make a fighter who is good at thieving or a thief who is good at sleuthing mysteries or whatever you like.

HeroQuest - You design the character to be exactly what you want.

Quote from: Omega;1035347Yep, same with BX and AD&D and even 2e. I think 5e is a return to that as you can pretty much make a fighter who is good at thieving or a thief who is good at sleuthing mysteries or whatever you like.

Can you make a hero who doesn't have a class?

Quote from: Skarg;1035357Can you make a hero who doesn't have a class?

Can you make a GURPS character who doesn't have skills?

FUDGE. You design any character you can think of, even bunnies.

Fate of the Norns: Ragnarok allows for great customization as long as it is within the overall Viking theme of the game. No two characters of teh same archetype need be at all alike.

Quote from: Gronan of Simmerya;1035365Can you make a GURPS character who doesn't have skills?

Absolutely, they'll be a bit subpar as attribute defaults are a bit brutal and a talent doesn't eliminate them.  However, you can use BANG! skills to reduce the skill list and further minimize by putting in the minimum 3 points into them.  You can do effective GURPS characters with relatively short skill lists.  Consider the following characters:

150 point Ranger

Attributes:
ST 13 [30];
DX 13 [60];
IQ 10

• ;

HT 13 [30];

Per 13 [15];

Disadvantages:
Loner [-5]
Dislikes Elves [-1];

Skills:
Brawling 13 [1];
Bow 15 [8];
Climbing 1 [12];
Fast Draw Arrow 13 [1];
Forest Survival 13 [2];
Tracking 13 [2];
Short sword 14 [4];
Stealth 12 [1];
Swimming 13 [1].

150 point Fighter

Attributes:
ST 15 [50];
DX 12 [40];
IQ 10

• ;

HT 12 [20]

Advantages:
High Pain Threshold [10];
Status 2 (Knight) [10];
Wealth (Comfortable [10];

Disadvantages:
Code of Honor (Chivalry) [-15];
Chauvanistic [-5];

Skills:
Brawling 13 [2];
Broad Sword(default) 14

• ;

Climbing 11[1];
Crossbow 13 [2];
Knife 12 [1];
Knife Throwing 12 [1];
Lance 12 [2];
Riding (Horse) 14 [8]
Two-Handed Sword 16 [12];
Savoire Faire (Courtwyse from status) 12

• ;

Swimming [1];

Quote from: AsenRG;1035084Just to let you know, "WOIN" means "warrior" in more than one language, including Bulgarian, Serbian and Russian:). I suspect that it's not a coincidence.

More on the topic of the thread later tonight;).

How do you pronounce that in Bulgarian?