The company said in a recent broadcast: "We've set up a new software option that's available on your profile page. The “My Characters” module lets you display mini-profiles of your D&D characters in your Wizards Community profile, for others to browse, critique, and admire. You can import details directly from the D&D Character Builder or manually type them into a form."
In roleplaying there's an unwritten rule that you don't talk about your characters, but it looks like Wizards is trying to change that - but how will this affect play?
It's interesting that they have used the word 'critique' in there, insinuating that people will be offering advice on how to make someone's character better or explaining what is wrong (or right) with it. In my opinion, people should play the characters they want to play, not the character who is most optimised for combat - but I can see min/max-ers getting some use out of this feature.
What worries me is that players may be forced to rethink their perfectly good character just because other people say it's not the best it can be, which could change not only the dynamic of that PC and the overall dynamic of the game.
I'm not saying that everyone is going to ditch their characters, but I can see this new feature as a catalyst for some to revamp their characters. Sure, this could be ok - after all, I have always stood by the principal of making sure the players are enjoying themselves, and if that means changing some powers or even a whole character then I'm ok with it.
However, in an effort to impress online onlookers, it could be a temptation to optimise every character and not do anything just for 'character' or 'flavour'. Some people like to add powers that enhance their character's roleplaying opportunities rather than picking the best min/max power, which is a factor that can make a campaign incredibly interesting. 'My Characters' could do away with that mindset for some players.
I'm not going to rail against the feature completely, but maybe it's something that we should be aware of. I will be interested to see how it goes and to hear your thoughts on the matter. Drop me a comment below or a tweet @scottmalt.
> In roleplaying there's an unwritten rule that you don't talk about your characters, but it looks like Wizards is trying to change that - but how will this affect play?
ReplyDeleteI don't follow. Among my role-playing friends, talking about your characters and their narratively-interesting campaign moments is pretty common.
> Some people like to add powers that enhance their character's roleplaying opportunities rather than picking the best min/max power, which is a factor that can make a campaign incredibly interesting.
Can you give an example? In my experience with Type IV D&D, the game is very well suited to creating characters that are highly-optimized. Apart from narrating your character's background and personalizing your character through play, what options are there for adding narratively-interesting traits to your character?
In many, many years of role-playing, I've never heard of...
ReplyDeleteSM: "In roleplaying there's an unwritten rule that you don't talk about your characters..."
Anyway, getting back to last week or thereabouts...is that it for Fighting Fantasy week? Where was the critique of (at least some of) the gamebooks? What was your evaluation of the best, the worst of the FF range? You know, all those things you said you'd discuss...? No offense, but a presentation of the gamebooks' setting(s) leaves a lot to be desired? I was really hopeful of a discussion of the things you mentioned would be discussed...:(
@John @uwarr I should have rephrased that to 'outside of your own gaming group'. People tend to lose interest when listening to someone talking about their favourite character.
ReplyDelete@uwarr I'm still going to be writing all that good Fighting Fantasy stuff - I just found myself wading though loads of work and couldn't finish it in a week. So apologies for not getting through them, but I look forward to having a discussion soon :)
@John An example I recently came across was speaking to Tracy from Troll in the Corner. Tracy was deciding what to choose for his Paladin and ended up selecting Oath Against Corruption, not because it was the most optimised power for combat, but because it works for the character due to his apparent 'craziness'.
ReplyDeleteI totally agree that 4e is suited for optimising - but min/maxing can lead to meta play rather than involving roleplay.
> @John @uwarr I should have rephrased that to 'outside of your own gaming group'. People tend to lose interest when listening to someone talking about their favourite character.
ReplyDeleteThanks for clarifying. I imagine that's true if the teller lacks social skills, but if you show concern for the interests of the hearers and don't subject them to uninteresting details, I see it as the same as talking about a movie, book, or any other story-based media.
@John
ReplyDeleteMy Paladin is probably considered unoptimized, really. He's a Halfling. He hasn't choosen the "Go to" powers for a Charisma Paladin. He has a Rogue Multiclass skill. He's got Alchemist as a feat! He is not a typical paladin at all, and while he does fine, people are bound to go "Don't use this power, why do you have that? Blah Blah Blah" on his sheet.
However, most of his feats are chosen from, if not a narrative viewpoint, a character chosen one. He's from Amn, the land of shady dealings. He used to help noble sons and daughters fall in love and visit themselves in the night, until he got caught. All his feat selections tend to center around this backstory, which would be much more driving if I was playing any other game then the Living Realms.
http://community.wizards.com/kensan_oni/go/character/view?oid=96117149