Sunday, February 03, 2008

WWTvBD?

Perhaps I'm breaking the silence on some sort of unspoken truth amongst nerdy gamers everywhere, but you can tell a shitload about a person by thier Dungeons and Dragons character. The type of creature they are, each added little quirk of personality, the powers they choose, their weaknesses, all reflect (conciously or not) facets of major personalities in the creators own life, hyperbolized and made even more whimsical on the Fantasy RPG playing field.

So just who is Trixie "VonBadass"? I shant bore you with a long, deep, introspective rant. (As I essentially already have, though if you're in the mood OSKs blog will not fail you) but this is a question worth pondering. Come to think of it, I know alot about Trixie, she's been around for awhile. But who are my other characters? And furthermore, which one of them leapt up, cracked her back from lying low for so long, and started to dance around when I found myself sitting around a table of "mostly n00bs, but a few hardcore fantasy geeks and gamers" playing Dungeons and Dragons. Yes, I admit it, I played Dungeons and Dragons. And fuck you VH1, I loved it. Infact, I wish I had discovered it when I was nine (then again, coming up with your own fantasy world is ten times more fun than following someone elses rules, but if I was ever looking for something a little more surprising...and hey, maybe there's a direct correlation between D&D and math skills? I so could have used that.)

Oh, and for the record: Amelita Shinestone was born into an above average, very well to do clan of Pixies. She was a smart and talented young pixie, although a bit bizarre at times. She was unusually skilled with sharp weapons, which she practiced despite her placid parents' frightened disapproval. Her parents quickly grew concerned over her inherently violent nature and quick temper, turning her hair and eyes into a flaming vermillion hue unseen in any other of her kind. In addition, she had no sense of society's laws, morales, or values, especially those of the Pixies. Though she did not torture the weak for amusement, she took pleasure in a well earned victory, and definitley took no pity on those who could not keep themselves up to par. As she grew older, her small clan's persistant, good-intentioned concern for her well being only further agigtated her. When she was 15, after her dozenth brawl with one of her poor peer pixies, her parents sent her to the local PixieShrink. Just before he could utter his diagnosis from what little conversation he could glean out of her, he found himself knocked to the ground. Just before he lost all conciousness, a towering flame buzzing in the air over him in heated rage quipped "I don't need to put up with this shit." That was the last seen of Amelita by any of the clan. A few days later, news of a brawl in a neighbouring area came back to the group. No one knew exactly who was invovled, but when rumor spread that a Pixie had cleverly tricked the unfortunate loser only before attacking him in fiery rage , none of the clan were surprised, despite such an unbeleivable description of one of their own kind. And so she was, nolonger Ameltia Shinestone, but simply that violent trickster Pixie. Trixie: Pixie Barbarian.

5 comments:

gbz said...

Having read only the first two lines of that post, I can tell you that you're DEAD WRONG. Any roleplayer worth anything has played a ton of different characters because they like trying new things (and they know enough about the setting to play reasonably).

It's like saying you can learn something from an actor by what characters they play.

Juicy said...

I understand that with experience comes the advanced ability to add more variety, but on a subconcious level it's impossible to just make up shit from nowhere, even if you don't even realize it. (though perhaps I over accentuated the importance of that influence, it could be your psyche just as easily as it could be a TV character) It's not like the actor analogy, because actors are chosen by casters and by their role, they do not (at least very rarely) choose, furthermore invent, the roles they get.


And you should read the rest of it, I'm getting really into this...

OSK said...

Yeah the actor analogy is pretty wrong itself. Just watch two actors play the same character; no one has the exact same acting range s anyone else, so each actor brings a bit of him/herself into the character. Like Juicy said, you can't just make stuff up. If you have to act angry. you think of what makes you angry and respond to it in kind. I know someone who had to act OCD, and eventually their inner OCD started coming out so that they noticed it outside of the theater.

Not that anyone but me cares about that. But yes, I would agree that every aspect of a D&D character, just like a theater character, is derived from a person's personality or more often fantasies. There is no such thing as creation without imitation. However, the imagination and range of the versatile actor/D&D gamer is so complex and experimental that the connection between person and facade is extreemely difficult, if not impossible to recognize.

Juicy said...

well said klingon.

dr_koopon said...

I'm not sure exactly how accurately it can hold, but for new players I think juicy's idea is pretty solid. Without much (or any) experience to draw upon, characters tend to be very similar to their players. As time goes by and the player gets better at roleplaying, they can deviate further and further from their own personality and play characters that are very different from themselves.