Yahtzee, pop-sychology and Dungeons and Dragons

[Cpu46]

Thats pretty much me in my current D&D group, a Dragonborn Fighter.

I'm playing that in my D&D Forum('cause I lack the means of transportation necessary to go around and buy stuff. Plus I don't have a job)!

OT: Not sure who'd I be.

Yea there's a game store a five minute walk away from my dorm that hosts D&D, magic, warhammer 40k, and other tabletop games. All i needed was a set of dice and a character to play which was nice because I don't have a job either.

 

[Tasachan]

I almost always pick the Cleric (sometimes Druid) - she can cast healing magic, destructive magic AND use all sorts of weapons. I like it because I don't always have to be aggressive and front-line all the time, but I don't like to be a weak target in close combat either. Although half the time I end up running to the front line and swinging swords with the rest of the party.

I'm the quiet one in the group, and the only girl. I'm usually the only cleric. I don't know really what the correlation is, but I just like being able to help everyone and defend myself at the same time. Though the personality of my characters is usually quite different, there is always a part of me in them (the loner, the bubbly girl, the shy one, etc). The hardest RP time I had was when I played a flirty cleric of Sharess. I had a really hard time being in the spotlight and being outgoing... but in the end I think she has been my favourite character so far.

 

[Anachronism]

The Fighter: ... a short tempered person who enjoys simplicity would be the obvious contender ... someone who, in everyday, tends to be quiet and under a lot of stress, the escapist approach.

Pretty much. I'm playing a half-orc fighter in a 4th Edition at the moment, and thoroughly enjoying it. I don't like playing wizards because organising your spells is a pain, and rogues aren't good enough in a fight. I play D&D when I'm not working (obviously), and I don't want to have to think too hard about what builds I should go with and which spells I should prepare; I find simpler characters are much more fun to play because I can just play them with a minimum of fuss.

I like this, how would you account for the alignment choices? ... Assuming we use the 4th ed definitions where you have;

As said above, I'm playing a 4E campaign at the moment, and we've scrapped the 4E alignment system because it is, quite frankly, garbage. The old alignment system was much better and more coherent. 4E alignments are too limiting.

 

[Thomas Talbot]

Thanks everyone who posted and shared an opinion. I posted this this morning thinking I'd come back to two or three replies, hoping to be able to reply to them all individually. Unfortunately is not the case so I'm going to try to answer as much as I can.

To those who were wondering about the healer archetype, I didn't really have any in my party so this is purely speculation. The healer is probably one of the most important figures in the party in that his/her sole purpose is the tending of other characters. I'd image this stand-offish position is attractive to the shy, and the dependance, attractive to the caring.

@grouchy imp Thanks for the compliment!

I agree a problem arises when the notion of multi-classing arises or with players who tend to play a wide berth of characters. I imagine these people enjoy the variety a multi-class character brings, being depended on by all, covering all bases as it were. Perhaps someone who doesn't get a lot of recognition normally? (I don't mean to offend anyone, just speculation) As for those who play multiple characters, boredom, everyone does it. When I'm talking about players and their characters I mean those with an affinity or a favoured class. I find most people have a favourite character make-up.

As for alignments, if we're still going with the wish-fulfilment approach then those who like evil characters probably like the freedom this brings, it does not mean your friends are secret psychotic murderers.

 

[Thomas Talbot]

Sorry for the double post. My internet connection is a joke.

 

[StBishop]

The Fighter: ... a short tempered person who enjoys simplicity would be the obvious contender ... someone who, in everyday, tends to be quiet and under a lot of stress, the escapist approach.

Pretty much. I'm playing a half-orc fighter in a 4th Edition at the moment, and thoroughly enjoying it. I don't like playing wizards because organising your spells is a pain, and rogues aren't good enough in a fight. I play D&D when I'm not working (obviously), and I don't want to have to think too hard about what builds I should go with and which spells I should prepare; I find simpler characters are much more fun to play because I can just play them with a minimum of fuss.

I like this, how would you account for the alignment choices? ... Assuming we use the 4th ed definitions where you have;

As said above, I'm playing a 4E campaign at the moment, and we've scrapped the 4E alignment system because it is, quite frankly, garbage. The old alignment system was much better and more coherent. 4E alignments are too limiting.

It's funny alot of things you said are the opposite of what I believe, it's fun meeting people who disagree.

I think rouges are awesome in a fight, especially in 4th.
I also think that with the new powers system it's just as hard to keep track of any character as a wizard or sorcerer.

I also found that in 3.5 ed that fighters were the most fun to play with (build wise) due to the bonus feats, I would spend hours weeks making sure my build would work most efficiently, then I would buid up a plan and summary for leveling which I'd take along to games.

I also had rules for most things memorised, but with the new rules for 4th and all of the study at uni it's sort of faded.

I do agree that 4th's alignment system is garbage, the old one was the greatest thing ever.
I know that this one is more accessable for new players though, but I must disagree that it's limiting, it's just less specific in how it terms your character's behaviour.

It's not like you make decisions based on what alignment is written down on your character sheet, you play the character how ever you want and just put down the alignemnt that fits with your actions. Alignments can change.

They're only really needed for class/prestige class requirements and when fighting enemies from different planes of existence.

At the moment I'm playing a Good Dwarf, it's difficult though because in my mind he's neutral, but really he's Neutral/Chaotic according to the PH.

I know I said the alignment reflects the actions not the other way around but I use it as a guide, and I keep feeling like I should sort of "Bend the rules" due to the flippant nature that the handbook deals with alignments.
Specifically we're dealing with junkies and we've got this super narcotic opiate sort of substance and I know we could make hell sweet cash but I also know that the character shouldn't condone it. I decided to just pretent he's against drugs or whatever and told the DM.

I just realised that I sound like some hardcore RP dude when really I play for the min/max and the combat.

Or do I? Perhaps I just learned something about my self.

Wow, this feels incoherent, I need tea. It's way too late.