This is something I have been thinking about. When players make their characters are they taking pieces of their personality and making it that character? Meaning a slightly moody kid really emphasizes moodiness in this new edgy rogue. Or are they taking things they want to be. Meaning the shy kid is a cocky bard, the jock is a smart wizard, something like that. The players are using a character to experience what they want to be. Or is this the same argument with different ways of saying it.
This has been a debate in my party and it has really been interesting how DND can be taken. What are your thought?
It could most definitely be that, or even just an escape from their mind as a whole and jump to something completely separate from themselves. I've played and DM'd for both ends of the spectrum and either way it always turns out to be a great story told in the end!
I very much like playing characters I'd want to be, but I'm too shy to pull off the RP. For instance, I love the idea of using Persuasion, but because there's no lines of dialogue like in a video game written by people who have had time to think it up, I tend not to use it. I also love the idea of playing a villainous character. For tomorrow's one-shot I might be putting into action a character concept I greatly enjoy writing about: the lawful evil ruler. However I'm rather patient and don't do banter very well, so I may find it difficult to pull off without being an impulsive jerk. But that's what such one-shots are for given my group and I are still quite new.
So I end up playing myself: socially inept characters who keep quiet until their special interest comes up, and are simply there to enjoy the journey.
But to answer the question directly: that depends entirely on each character. Some want to play themselves, others want to heighten the better and/or worse parts of themselves, others want to play something completely different. Everyone's story for coming to D&D is different, no matter how similar, and everything leading up to that point will influence how and why they want to play the character they do. I'm afraid I don't have any unique qualifications such as a degree in psychology to dig deeper; I'm really only qualified to guess, and speak upon my own experiences as best as I can recall.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Zero is the most important number in D&D: Session Zero sets the boundaries and the tone; Rule Zero dictates the Dungeon Master (DM) is the final arbiter; and Zero D&D is better than Bad D&D.
"Let us speak plainly now, and in earnest, for words mean little without the weight of conviction."
Somewhere down the middle for me. I usually play character types that aren't too far removed from my own (bookish, reserved, rational), yet I still gravitate towards bards and rangers more than other classes; I couldn't sing my way out of a wet paper bag and I wouldn't know the first thing about wilderness survival and exploration, but I'd like to and I enjoy my characters having those kinds of qualities.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Want to start playing but don't have anyone to play with? You can try these options: [link].
Random. Characters are no relation to me but are their own living things.
I keep in mind what the characters' experiences were and choose what the character would actually do - and never once was murderhobo-ing ever considered by any of them, even the most violent of them. Is that me? I wouldn't murderhobo in real life, but from my experience with the history of societies, a living person in the fantasy world would end up dead before even meeting with a party that would support such a person's survival, which joining a party would also make little sense to someone who just wants to kill rather than interact with anyone. I don't think that's taking a part of me and sticking it into a character. It's just social common sense for adventuring.
I tried creating what I'd want a hero to be. Nah. Too idealized and unrealistic.
I tried bringing my personal experiences into a character. Nah. Because the influences on my life don't exist in the fantasy lore, it didn't fit in the setting of the campaign.
The characters are my addition to the groups' stories in the same way I would write a character in a story completely written by me: I ask a series of questions to design the path the character took up to the point. Funny thing: XGtE outlines a good chunk of the process, but it skips some things and I think it also goes a bit too far for starting at Level 1 and I do not recommend adhering to its tables nor its method of character generation with dice. (Ideas; not rules.) The difference between a story I write and a campaign is that, in a campaign, I'm responsible for just one character and thazzit.
Human. Male. Possibly. Don't be a divider. My characters' backgrounds are written like instruction manuals rather than stories. My opinion and preferences don't mean you're wrong. I am 99.7603% convinced that the digital dice are messing with me. I roll high when nobody's looking and low when anyone else can see.🎲 “It's a bit early to be thinking about an epitaph. No?” will be my epitaph.
Everyone does it differently. Some are trying to live out their fantasies, some are experimenting with personalities, etc. reality is that everyone includes a bit of their personality in the character but it may be a large piece or a small piece, a good piece or a bad piece and it’s quite likely to change with the character they are playing. I had the fortune/misfortune? To be able to actually play myself and that has sort of freed up things for other characters of mine to be different. They al still have pieces of me embedded however. I don’t think we can really help that.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Wisea$$ DM and Player since 1979.
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
This is something I have been thinking about. When players make their characters are they taking pieces of their personality and making it that character? Meaning a slightly moody kid really emphasizes moodiness in this new edgy rogue. Or are they taking things they want to be. Meaning the shy kid is a cocky bard, the jock is a smart wizard, something like that. The players are using a character to experience what they want to be. Or is this the same argument with different ways of saying it.
This has been a debate in my party and it has really been interesting how DND can be taken. What are your thought?
A New DM up against the World
It could most definitely be that, or even just an escape from their mind as a whole and jump to something completely separate from themselves. I've played and DM'd for both ends of the spectrum and either way it always turns out to be a great story told in the end!
I very much like playing characters I'd want to be, but I'm too shy to pull off the RP. For instance, I love the idea of using Persuasion, but because there's no lines of dialogue like in a video game written by people who have had time to think it up, I tend not to use it. I also love the idea of playing a villainous character. For tomorrow's one-shot I might be putting into action a character concept I greatly enjoy writing about: the lawful evil ruler. However I'm rather patient and don't do banter very well, so I may find it difficult to pull off without being an impulsive jerk. But that's what such one-shots are for given my group and I are still quite new.
So I end up playing myself: socially inept characters who keep quiet until their special interest comes up, and are simply there to enjoy the journey.
But to answer the question directly: that depends entirely on each character. Some want to play themselves, others want to heighten the better and/or worse parts of themselves, others want to play something completely different. Everyone's story for coming to D&D is different, no matter how similar, and everything leading up to that point will influence how and why they want to play the character they do. I'm afraid I don't have any unique qualifications such as a degree in psychology to dig deeper; I'm really only qualified to guess, and speak upon my own experiences as best as I can recall.
Zero is the most important number in D&D: Session Zero sets the boundaries and the tone; Rule Zero dictates the Dungeon Master (DM) is the final arbiter; and Zero D&D is better than Bad D&D.
"Let us speak plainly now, and in earnest, for words mean little without the weight of conviction."
- The Assemblage of Houses, World of Warcraft
Somewhere down the middle for me. I usually play character types that aren't too far removed from my own (bookish, reserved, rational), yet I still gravitate towards bards and rangers more than other classes; I couldn't sing my way out of a wet paper bag and I wouldn't know the first thing about wilderness survival and exploration, but I'd like to and I enjoy my characters having those kinds of qualities.
Want to start playing but don't have anyone to play with? You can try these options: [link].
Random. Characters are no relation to me but are their own living things.
I keep in mind what the characters' experiences were and choose what the character would actually do - and never once was murderhobo-ing ever considered by any of them, even the most violent of them. Is that me? I wouldn't murderhobo in real life, but from my experience with the history of societies, a living person in the fantasy world would end up dead before even meeting with a party that would support such a person's survival, which joining a party would also make little sense to someone who just wants to kill rather than interact with anyone. I don't think that's taking a part of me and sticking it into a character. It's just social common sense for adventuring.
I tried creating what I'd want a hero to be. Nah. Too idealized and unrealistic.
I tried bringing my personal experiences into a character. Nah. Because the influences on my life don't exist in the fantasy lore, it didn't fit in the setting of the campaign.
The characters are my addition to the groups' stories in the same way I would write a character in a story completely written by me: I ask a series of questions to design the path the character took up to the point. Funny thing: XGtE outlines a good chunk of the process, but it skips some things and I think it also goes a bit too far for starting at Level 1 and I do not recommend adhering to its tables nor its method of character generation with dice. (Ideas; not rules.) The difference between a story I write and a campaign is that, in a campaign, I'm responsible for just one character and thazzit.
EDIT: "Too," not "to."🤦🏻♂️
Human. Male. Possibly. Don't be a divider.
My characters' backgrounds are written like instruction manuals rather than stories. My opinion and preferences don't mean you're wrong.
I am 99.7603% convinced that the digital dice are messing with me. I roll high when nobody's looking and low when anyone else can see.🎲
“It's a bit early to be thinking about an epitaph. No?” will be my epitaph.
Everyone does it differently. Some are trying to live out their fantasies, some are experimenting with personalities, etc. reality is that everyone includes a bit of their personality in the character but it may be a large piece or a small piece, a good piece or a bad piece and it’s quite likely to change with the character they are playing. I had the fortune/misfortune? To be able to actually play myself and that has sort of freed up things for other characters of mine to be different. They al still have pieces of me embedded however. I don’t think we can really help that.
Wisea$$ DM and Player since 1979.