06-05-2003, 11:07 AM
First off, addressing a few points I've seen raised:
In the original D&D, AD&D 2nd edition, and 3rd editon D&D, you roll stats first. The same goes for HackMaster, which was built using the AD&D 2nd edition rules, so I'm -really- suprised to hear you mentioning that you roll stats last in AD&D. The main problem with choosing a class first is that if you choose wizard and then roll an intelligence of 3, you no longer have a charecter. EVERY class had an attribute you had to have 9+ in (Fighter strength, Rogue dexterity, Wizard intelligence, Cleric wisdom). More advanced classes like Paladin required very good rolls, which made them special - only a few players would roll good enough to qualify.
Sub-point: While people might go in to careers they aren't terribly suited for, we're talking about adventurers here, and midieval times. If you where incredibly smart, the mage guild wanted you and there was a lot of social pressure to be a mage. Not to mention that Strength 9, Intelligence 18 tends to make a short lived and unsuccessful fighter, while as being bad at modern careers merely results in being unsuccessful but still alive. Important distinction :)
Second, if you're interested in making choices and having a lot of freedom, Planescape: Torment is a very nice game. It's easily played through as good or evil, and your alignment actually changes to suit your actions instead of being a choice. It's also got a great story and lots of roleplaying is involved. Not sure about IWD, but I wouldn't consider the Baldur's Gate series very strong on roleplaying due to the very linear nature of the plot.
Third, Raise Dead is a spell just like all the others. Unless you have an Intelligence of 3 it's obviously in charecter to use it on fallen companions (good charecters do it because it's nice, the rest do it because the charecter was obviously useful if they where a companion). A CN might leave someone dead on a whim, and a CE might hire people and get them killed for fun, but otherwise Raise Dead is quite in charecter. Of course, if you just want the challenge then go ahead and let them stay dead :)
Of course you can always impose more rules for an extra challenge, so feel free to choose class before attributes and refuse to use raise dead. Heck, play an unarmored, unarmed cleric who thinks he's a monk if you want to get weird :)
And one last thing: I've always felt that real roleplaying works out a LOT better when you play an actual RPG, not a computer game. Computer games approach the idea of an RPG, and even have a lot of the aspects, but they're still really quite weak on the -roleplaying- aspect. The fun of roleplaying, to me, has always been saying what my charecter would and doing stuff that only they would do. In a computer game you have to pick which option best suits your charecter instead.
And one really last thing: Playing a min/maxed charecter who always makes good choices and uses the good items is still roleplaying. After all, if I'm smart enough to make those choices I'm sure a smart charecter would too. Depending on the game, True Neutral or Neutral Good is going to be compatible with almost all the "best" choices, and the few exceptions can be written off as "serving a greater cause" :) As for min/maxing, some people devote their lives to being the pinnacle of their profession at the cost of everything else. And, really, whoever saves the world -is- probably an amazingly powerful being from the start, thus excusing those suspicious attributes :)
In the original D&D, AD&D 2nd edition, and 3rd editon D&D, you roll stats first. The same goes for HackMaster, which was built using the AD&D 2nd edition rules, so I'm -really- suprised to hear you mentioning that you roll stats last in AD&D. The main problem with choosing a class first is that if you choose wizard and then roll an intelligence of 3, you no longer have a charecter. EVERY class had an attribute you had to have 9+ in (Fighter strength, Rogue dexterity, Wizard intelligence, Cleric wisdom). More advanced classes like Paladin required very good rolls, which made them special - only a few players would roll good enough to qualify.
Sub-point: While people might go in to careers they aren't terribly suited for, we're talking about adventurers here, and midieval times. If you where incredibly smart, the mage guild wanted you and there was a lot of social pressure to be a mage. Not to mention that Strength 9, Intelligence 18 tends to make a short lived and unsuccessful fighter, while as being bad at modern careers merely results in being unsuccessful but still alive. Important distinction :)
Second, if you're interested in making choices and having a lot of freedom, Planescape: Torment is a very nice game. It's easily played through as good or evil, and your alignment actually changes to suit your actions instead of being a choice. It's also got a great story and lots of roleplaying is involved. Not sure about IWD, but I wouldn't consider the Baldur's Gate series very strong on roleplaying due to the very linear nature of the plot.
Third, Raise Dead is a spell just like all the others. Unless you have an Intelligence of 3 it's obviously in charecter to use it on fallen companions (good charecters do it because it's nice, the rest do it because the charecter was obviously useful if they where a companion). A CN might leave someone dead on a whim, and a CE might hire people and get them killed for fun, but otherwise Raise Dead is quite in charecter. Of course, if you just want the challenge then go ahead and let them stay dead :)
Of course you can always impose more rules for an extra challenge, so feel free to choose class before attributes and refuse to use raise dead. Heck, play an unarmored, unarmed cleric who thinks he's a monk if you want to get weird :)
And one last thing: I've always felt that real roleplaying works out a LOT better when you play an actual RPG, not a computer game. Computer games approach the idea of an RPG, and even have a lot of the aspects, but they're still really quite weak on the -roleplaying- aspect. The fun of roleplaying, to me, has always been saying what my charecter would and doing stuff that only they would do. In a computer game you have to pick which option best suits your charecter instead.
And one really last thing: Playing a min/maxed charecter who always makes good choices and uses the good items is still roleplaying. After all, if I'm smart enough to make those choices I'm sure a smart charecter would too. Depending on the game, True Neutral or Neutral Good is going to be compatible with almost all the "best" choices, and the few exceptions can be written off as "serving a greater cause" :) As for min/maxing, some people devote their lives to being the pinnacle of their profession at the cost of everything else. And, really, whoever saves the world -is- probably an amazingly powerful being from the start, thus excusing those suspicious attributes :)