A lot of players that grew up using 3.x and 4e have a real problem when coming back to 2e. I've noticed it repeatedly, and its very persistent across the board. Even one of my longtime regulars was once of this mindset before his complete and ultimate conversion to AD&D (I believe at my own hands). It's a strange hang-up that has to do with player choice and freedom and character creation, and I believe I can explain its root causes and the types of character it actually winds up creating.
I feel like I might be flogging a dead (or at the very least dying) horse here to state it, but 3.x and 4e are, (as 5e will be also, I'm sure) the product of a player's revolution. To protect themselves from bad DMs the players established ground rules about what they would allow and what they wouldn't. The chief and most noxious of those rules is that player choice means everything, and what the player wants goes; after all, the game is about fun, right?
The problem that I'm talking about specifically is the lack of creativity in character creation. Players of the later editions have come to identify creativity with playing monstrous races and picking strange classes. It's an easy sign of creativity if you are allowed to be a race that is rarely played (say, gnolls) and a class that is extremely specific (say, magical chef). These "concepts" dominate play in the modern systems. Elves, dwarves, etc. are often derided as being boring or even, in one case that I speak of from life, un-fantastical.
What could this possibly mean? Why is this drive present? Does it truly present some hitherto undreamed of level of creativity? Am I, due to my steadfast desire to repurpose and retrofit old fantasy tropes, somehow less creative than the teenager that wants to play a lifespark awakened canopy bed that knows how to use magic? The possibility exists, and I would be remiss if I didn't examine it before I dismissed it, as ludicrous as the idea seems to me.
My thesis in this argument, however, is going to be as follows: Creativity does not rely on how outlandish your character appears, acts, or seems. This is a false creativity, a shallow method of being creative that completely obscures real creativity. I believe it's a sort of trap that allows you to convince yourself you are being truly creative (after all, no one has thought of this combination of classes and races before) where in fact you are simply mashing together a series of unrelated concepts while jettisoning true potential for something that looks "cool."
So let's look at the first question; why are elves and dwarves, gnomes and halflings, and even men not fantastic? They are certainly tropes of the genre. Fantasy has dealt with these creatures since time immemorial. Grandaddy Tolkien laid most of them out in the beginning of beginnings, drawing on folklore that goes back probably to the Paleolithic. Sure, everyone who knows anything about fantasy knows about elves and dwarves; they're a staple. Does that mean they are not fantastic?
One certainly can't encounter them in one's every day life, or in fact in any life one might live at all on this particular earth. That already puts them in a realm of fantasy for me. I don't think it's fair to judge their level of fantasy based on your own particular familiarity with them as a trope or race in other genre-works. I've gone through great lengths to make them unique and yet archetypal, special and different yet still certainly elves and dwarves in the 10th Age. And even if I hadn't, one cannot simply say that all elves and dwarves are boring without reading the relevant setting material. The fact of the matter is, all elves and dwarves are different based on the setting in which they are encountered. If the simple aesthetic shape of the race is boring you, I would suggest you have a very shallow understanding of creativity.
The second question: is the character creation process of 3.x more "creative" than that of 2e? Does playing a race that is non-human and non-standard make your character a better creation? What is gained by this? Well, first of all, an easy and quick mark of creativity is available. No one has to wait and listen while you explain your elf's history with the blade or how he accidentally killed a noble child he was training in the art of the sword and is now an exile. People can just look at your character and know they are different. Wow, they may say, there goes a gnoll smoking a cigar and wearing a trenchcoat. Look at how creative he was to mix in noir with fantasy.
Is that more creative or less? Does that take more work than rehabilitating real fantasy tropes and turning them into realistic, even gritty, characters? I can come up with these ideas for 3.x characters at a mile a minute because there are no restrictions. Sure, they'll be silly, but they're creative... if creativity is defined as being without limits or boundaries. But true creativity isn't about being allowed to make whatever thing that comes into your head. Everyone can think ridiculous thoughts. It requires real creativity to realize them in a way that is also worthwhile. Rules help us do this.
Story structure is a good example. If you wrote a story and refused to follow a format that people could get into by, for example, omitting all the vowels, you might have done something creative by the standard of doing whatever you want. You certainly did not make anything of value; I can create this story today, easily, and puzzle people for a generation. To add some kind of value to an endeavor of that nature, you need to go beyond the simple act of making it.
So, you naysayers, stop running over to ogres and demons, gnolls and flinds and orcs and cows and oil lamps. Take a minute to appreciate both the challenge and the wonder of the standard PHB races. This game isn't about expressing your innermost desire to be a flying orb of water that can cast spells and is a great diplomat; it's about exploring the depth of fantasy tropes. And these great wide nets you cast for more "creative" characters never reach the deeps, but stay mired in the shallows.
I find 2e and earlier editions to be very limiting in creating an interesting or unique character. Other than the non weapon profs the only real defining factors are your choice of gear and whatever backstory you come up with. The problem with the back story in the earlier editions is that the game mechanics limit your creativity. You can say that your pc grew up on the streets and is very good at surviving in a city but the game does not provide you with any mechanical bonus to back this up. With 3e I can have a back story and choose the skills, especially ones like profession or craft, to back it up. We all have to remember that the game was originally created without refrences to backstory. That elves and dwarves all were practically identical. Gygax himself said " Character background is what happens between levels one and six ".
ReplyDeleteWell, if your character is good at surviving on the streets, ostensibly he didn't have as much time to be good at doing something else; that'd be a thief rather than a fighter, for example.
DeleteNWPs are pretty flavorful, and stats are as well. You don't "create" your character before you roll your stats; your stats determine how you want to create your character.
There are plenty of profession and crafting NWPs in AD&D. The difference between this warrior and that warrior are his choice of weapons, his choice of proficiencies, his statistics (which are major) and the way he thinks.
I don't see that as limiting at all.
That example is exactly what I mean about the system limiting the players creativity. If I want to play a spy vs a cutpurse vs a conartist they are all just a 1st level thief with basically the same skills with basically the same bonus. Other systems let you come up with the exact same creative backstory or character concept but they also back up the concept with actual mechanics that give the chacters variety. Its like giving a kid 10 identical wooden blocks and telling him to create something vs giving the same kid 100 wooden blocks of various sizes and shapes. Hes gonna have a much easier time creating what he envisions when hes given the variety and what he creates isnt gonna just look like what every one else makes. Basically every rpg allows you to be creative. Some just have the ability to back it up in game terms.
ReplyDeleteThat's where I dispute your analysis. A cutpurse would have different focuses in thieving than a con-artist would. They would probably have different scores as well. The fact that there isn't a very granular system for bonuses to mundane skills doesn't mean it doesn't back up your character choices.
DeleteFor example, if you wanted to play a warrior that was a street tough or thug, you would learn to use the club, brawling, the blackjack, and the dagger. You would probably have a higher constitution than dexterity, and you would take proficiencies in areas that represent your upbringing.
Just because you aren't offered a BONUS doesn't mean you can't customize your character in that direction.
If two people were told to make a first level thief they would come back with wildly different characters, mechanically speaking of course.
DeleteFrom the get go your stats will be different which will lend an air of personality to your character, from this you'll decide how to specialize his/her thief skills, weapon choices, NWPs (many DMs give bonus NWPs at level 1) and you'll probably pick a different kit to further modify your class.
2eAD&D had the longest print run out of any edition of D&D, and with this lifespan came more options than you can shake a die at.
You've got some seemingly valid points, dogrodeo, but I think they are ultimately fallacious, and let me explain why.
DeleteFirstly, where are you getting the idea that there is no option in AD&D to differentiate a spy, cutpurse, or con-artist, or to make a fighter who is streetwise? NWPs and kits cover all of these and more, and if you spot a hole you are nothing but encouraged to fill it with some well-considered content of your own (which is easier to do in earlier editions, since they are more minimalist and less densely interwoven with themselves, but that's a whole other argument for a whole other day). Do you really NEED a +1 to streetwalking to be a man who can walk on the streets, ultimately? AD&D characters are much more like regular people in that if they can survive on the streets it isn't because they have a special streetsurvival power, but rather because they are clever - which places the burden of portraying a streetsmart character on the player, rather than the game, to a large extent.
Secondly, I would argue that while WotC editions are CERTAINLY a pile of colorful blocks with many shapes that allow you to make any pile of them that looks like a rough, blocky and gaudy version of anything, AD&D is really more like... a set of paints or pastels and a canvas. At times, much messier, and certainly harder to work with and requiring much more skill, but in the end much more nuanced and, well, recognizably what you meant to portray.
Sorry if I was a little rambling, there. I'm a rambler.
I get what your saying but that same thug is really no better at intimidation, extortion or noticing a mark that any other pc with similar ability scores. Non weapon profs help but they are limiting. Im playing in three different ongoing campaigns at the moment. A by the book od&d, a house ruled 2nd ed and a by the book pathfinder. I have fun with them all ( probably the od&d is the most enjoyable ) but its so much easier to create a unique character in pathfinder because the system is more customizable. That doesnt mean its more fun, just that my rogue is vastly different that the other rogue in the party. My od&d fighter may act differently that the other fighter in the party but on paper they are basically the same.
ReplyDeleteSo what you're saying is that while every character in AD&D is as unique as you are willing to put the effort for it to be (while overlooking that there are actually NWPs for all of those skills that a thug might put extra slots in and such, and that a thief with the thug kit is actually more dangerous and scary in combat due to his +1 to thugcraft, and therefore probably more liable to extort someone for fear of said thugcraft), they just don't have anything on their sheet that says 'this is a unique man' verbatim, and that rustles your jimmies?
DeleteI wouldnt exactly say it rustles my jimmies. More like it gets my panties in a bunch.
DeleteIm not saying 2nd ed has absolutly no options for character customization. Im also not saying that character customization thru the mechanics makes for a more enjoyable game. My least favorite version of d&d is 3.5 and my fave is od&d. Yes, 2nd ed has a plethora of add on books to the phb but its length of time in print has more to do with the state of the industy at the time and not its elegance or lack of as a rules system. You can give me a million options for character customization but what matters most is how they equate to the actual gameplay. All editions allow you to be creative and give you room to fill in holes to some extent. Now if I create a concept that is based around my pc being an expert streetwalker I would hope that the system might give me a little more than a +1 to differentiate me from the average man walking down the street. I want at least a +2.
ReplyDeleteI think there're a few posts about player entitlement on this blog. The most important step toward getting over your problem is admitting you have one.
DeleteThe reward some people feel entitled to when playing rpgs is usually the reward of fun. As I mentioned earlier I have been given that reward by all the editions I have played with. Its a game and all games have rules. Some people think od&d is too basic. Some people think 3.5 is too complex. I like to see the merits and flaws ( if any ) in both. One thing we can all agree on is that Gurps is awful. Just kidding.
Delete