Personalizing Your Character

[calithena]

As time went on we sometimes felt that D&D characters needed to be individualized a little more, for our tastes. Subclasses and multiclass combinations sometimes helped with this, as did 'secondary skills' and the cool charts for special abilities we found in Arduin and Thieves' Guild.

I don't tend to like skill systems, the most historically common way to mechanically personalize characters. Backgrounds are OK as long as you have a good way to deal with the 'noble problem'.

What are other ways to personalize your character? I'm especially looking for ones where just one or two lines of description and maybe a number go a long way towards making your character feel more like a person to you.

[coffee]

I like having an heirloom, myself.

I tend to play fighters, so I like having a sword that has been handed down through the generations (like the guy in LadyHawke, for instance, which was a big influence).

It doesn't have to be magical. It just has to be there.

Twice I've had characters with such swords who were captured at low levels. I hate this as a player, but DMs love it.

The first time it happened, the entire party of 1st to 3rd level characters were captured, stripped of our stuff, and later had a chance to escape. On our way out, we came across a cavern with our stuff in it, guarded by a bunch of (sleeping) carrion crawlers. We were too low level to fight them, especially without weapons, so we were going to pass on by.

I said, "Go ahead, if you want, but that's my father's sword and I'm not leaving without it." I was going to wait until they were gone and then try my luck. But others said they wanted their stuff, too, so we all sneaked in and got what we could.

The carrion crawlers woke up, and we fought them and won. But none of that would have happened if I hadn't decided that my sword was an heirloom.

No skills, no magic, no "special abilities". Just a role playing decision.

[ffilz]

I think there's a lot to be said for non-mechanically expressed personalization. I have long felt for example, that personality mechanics such as Psychological Disadvantages in Champions make for flat characters and players who bend those mechanics to every advantage. I also see skill systems as mostly failing. In the worst case, they allow a divergence of play style within the same group. Some players will make a "character" with all sorts of appropriate skills, that have nothing to do with the situation at hand, while other players will "optimize" their characters for the situation at hand. And of course since the mechanics of most game systems are fundamentally a combat system, the most "munchkin" of players "optimizes" for combat...

Taking this back to OD&D, I honestly think the best way is to stick with the simple system, and allow players to customize their character in behavior. You can always find ways to use their attribute scores to help, and nothing says you can't give an occaisional bonus if something really fits the schtick of a particular character. If you don't mind randomness, random ability tables can be fun. I think having players pick or buy an ability will start to be problematical (since the "fun" ones will be passed over for the "optimal" ones, at least by some players).

Frank

[makofan]

Calithena is playing Jaako the hobbit in our group. Now hobbits are fighting men, but Jaako has decided to dress him in leather armor and have him do things like scout and climb walls. So I let him indulge in these fancies - no need to invent a thief class!

[doc]

I have likely mentioned this before, but I have players write down "details" for their characters. Details are brief (one line) notes about the character that can be used in gaming situations. They get one when they are created, and get another one with each level they obtain. Details must have some relavence to what the character has been going through. For example, a character who has spent two months traveling the depths of the Darkhaunt Forest could, upon gaining his next level, announce as his new detail "never gets lost in the Darkhaunt." He could not, however, describe his new detail as "demons no longer frighten him" since there were no demonic encounters during that length of time.

Some sample Details might include:

* Good reputation in Blackmoor.
* Lived with White Hand orcs and knows their ways.
* d**ned hard to intimidate.
* Skilled knife fighter.
* Winning smile.
* Natural gambler.
* Trained at the College of Nemedia.
* Sexually ravenous.
* Resistant to torture.
* Scary grin.

Again, there is no number set to the Detail, as the number will be decided by the DM based on how likely he thinks the Detail will effect the encounter. In general, the character will gain a +1 to +3 bonus in situations where a specific Detail comes into play.

Doc

[James Maliszewski]

doc said:

Again, there is no number set to the Detail, as the number will be decided by the DM based on how likely he thinks the Detail will effect the encounter. In general, the character will gain a +1 to +3 bonus in situations where a specific Detail comes into play.

I really like this approach, as it adds lots of (no pun intended) detail without the need for any mechanical complexity. It's like a very simplified version of the "aspects" system from Spirit of the Century, which is extremely well suited to the spirit of OD&D.

[kesher]

This is something I came up with as an ODD campaign possibility; the mechanic itself is a bit influenced by an interesting game called The Shadow of Yesterday:

As chars progress, starting with second level and occuring every level after that, players can choose to add to one of two lists: THINGS I'M GOOD AT or THINGS I CARE ABOUT. Each advance spent in one of these categories gains them a cumulative +1 to any action relating to whatever they list. These advances must be related to actions taken during play. The two lists together can never total more than five things. Descriptors in THINGS I CARE ABOUT can change, and by burning an existing CARE a new one is created at a +2; however, it must make sense relative to events in the game for this to occur.

Doc, I also really like your "Details" system--- it's play-relevant, which I would say is essential, and mechanically flexible.

In addition, I think an undervalued part of the "personalization" process in ODD has to do with the types of magic items a particular character collects and uses. A hobbit Fighting Man with a Batwing Cloak and a Flaming Sword is going to be a much different character than one with a bandolier of odd potions. I like this because it strikes midway between choice and randomness which, as far as I'm concerned, is part of the power of ODD.

[ffilz]

Kesher,

Yes, I think the magic items is a significant part. Some people very much dislike that, but partially my feeling is that trying to reduce the importance of magic items does too much damage to the game.

The details idea does sound good. I might not do one every level. A cool idea would be one for each combat band you have, thus fighters get them fastest and magic users get them slowest (which is cool, magic users have plenty of ways to express their individualism compared to fighters).

Frank

[Zulgyan]

I totally agree with you ffilz!

Some characters I played where highly defined by their items.

I once had a halfling that found a "Cloak of the Bat", and that item made him very special and unique, as he constantly used it for all kinds of dirty work. I also role-played how the Cloak was changing his personality and habits. He started to sleep by day, hanging from the ceiling (the cloak made that possible), and he lived mostly by night.

That same halfling character once drank 2 potions, and the DM rolled on a potion miscibility table and the result was: "reduce to 1/2 size!".

[coffee]

I think everybody's on the right track here, both with the details and the magic items.

Too often people think they need some specific game mechanic to set their character apart, when a little creativity and flexibility will give a character that's guaranteed not to be like any other.

[Gynsburghe]

Whereas I agree with the above... and, truthfully, what has been said is enough truth to go on...

I may be alone in this regard, but I'm not against a skills system being added into OD&D - the system from the much later Rules Cyclopedia doesn't really offend, and I don't feel it would detract too much from the speed or spirit of the game. I'm starting an OD&D campaign, probably this summer, which will be utilizing a number of variants from both the Expansions, SR/The Dragon, and my own pen. I intend to pull all of the base rules, variants, and campaign specific stuff into small booklets for the players and myself (LBB size, of course).

I love the fast and furious pace of the old rules, but, I fear, all my years playing AD&D 1e has left me thinking, "If I designed it from OD&D, what would I do differently?" I guess it would be like AD&D .75e, dropping alot of what drove me crazy as a BtB DM (which I still, more or less, am for a starting 1e campaign in Kalamar).

Please don't lynch me!

Gynsburghe

[badger2305]

gynsburghe said:

Whereas I agree with the above... and, truthfully, what has been said is enough truth to go on...

I may be alone in this regard, but I'm not against a skills system being added into OD&D - the system from the much later Rules Cyclopedia doesn't really offend, and I don't feel it would detract too much from the speed or spirit of the game. I'm starting an OD&D campaign, probably this summer, which will be utilizing a number of variants from both the Expansions, SR/The Dragon, and my own pen. I intend to pull all of the base rules, variants, and campaign specific stuff into small booklets for the players and myself (LBB size, of course).

I love the fast and furious pace of the old rules, but, I fear, all my years playing AD&D 1e has left me thinking, "If I designed it from OD&D, what would I do differently?" I guess it would be like AD&D .75e, dropping alot of what drove me crazy as a BtB DM (which I still, more or less, am for a starting 1e campaign in Kalamar).

Please don't lynch me!

Gynsburghe

You know, that's exactly what I have in mind - and it took me awhile to realize it. I mean, I knew I wanted something like a campaign circa summer 1977, but more of an evolved OD&D campaign, rather than AD&D. I don't want to play AD&D, because that game went in a different direction from OD&D, just as 2nd Edition, and then 3e, went off in different directions than the previous editions.

One of the things I recall from that year was the on-going discussion of if one should adopt the new AD&D Monster Manual, and consequently, how to adapt to the new rules. A lot of us did adopt the Monster Manual - but what if we hadn't? What if we kept what we had been doing before AD&D came out? What would that look like - particularly if we did that today?

In a sense, what I want is a fully-realized OD&D campaign, right down to house rules and modifications. To some, it might seem like AD&D - but it won't be. It'll still be OD&D - just not the OD&D from 1974 (and that's okay). After all, campaigns quickly evolved and rules additions, modifications, subtractions, divisions, etc. all came along. AD&D just provided the first of several straitjackets, which we're now learning to shed.

Gynsburghe, you should do your own thing, and then tell us how it worked out. One of the great things about OD&D is that you really can do what you want.

[calithena]

I made a background table for human characters only, and something like the 'details' rule will be adopted. Other kinds of personalization, like special abilities, heirlooms, etc., are fine to leave ad hoc and do on a case-by-case basis. I think that will probably do fine for my needs.

I have a general action resolution system that I use instead of skills, with class, race, and level all factoring in in various different ways. But that's a subject for another thread...

[Zulgyan]

Share the table!

And talk us about your task resolution system on a new thread ;D

[calithena]

Hey Zulg -

I'll post the new version later, but the original idea you can find here:

www.knights-n-knaves.com/phpbb/viewtopic.php?t=1266

That one's great but the problem was it didn't interact with class & level very effectively, which Foster and some of my friends convinced me was a problem, esp. if you have any sort of thief/rogue classes. So, now the d6 checks for the 'difficult' column have been replaced by attribute * 3 % checks, plus your level if your class, race, or background is relevant to success at the task in question. Thiefy types get better chances and bonuses on exceptional checks in their area, and nobody else gets bonuses on exceptional stuff...blah, I'll type it up for another thread, or you can just read my homebrew when I finish it.

[James Maliszewski]

badger2305 said:

In a sense, what I want is a fully-realized OD&D campaign, right down to house rules and modifications. To some, it might seem like AD&D - but it won't be. It'll still be OD&D - just not the OD&D from 1974 (and that's okay). After all, campaigns quickly evolved and rules additions, modifications, subtractions, divisions, etc. all came along. AD&D just provided the first of several straitjackets, which we're now learning to shed.

This pretty much echoes my own sentiments. I find OD&D to be a superb foundation on which to build my own vision of the game, but I need to build. I find the three LBBs too skeletal for me, even though I don't like and won't use everything that appeared in the Supplements. Much as I love AD&D, there's a part of me that thinks its appearance heralded the transition of roleplaying from being a "hobby" to becoming an "industry."

While I'm unsatisfied with trying to return to the Garden of Eden that is the LBBs and nothing more, I obviously think there's great value in treating them with respect and understanding. I can't help but wonder what the state of things might be today if the systematization AD&D brought had never occurred.

Sorry to have wandered pretty far afield of the actual topic, but some things are starting to click in my old brain and I wanted to get them down somewhere.

[Zulgyan]

In OD&D you don't really need to build. The game is totally playable as is.

The good thing is that it enables building with great ease.

[James Maliszewski]

zulgyan said:

In OD&D you don't really need to build. The game is totally playable as is.

The good thing is that it enables building with great ease.

Well, as I said, I need to build, but what I love and appreciate about OD&D is that, as you say, it enables building so easily. As D&D -- and roleplaying generally -- evolved, it became less friendly to that approach and I regret that.