. . . it would be for all the little children to get together and play a roleplaying game together.
But seriously, here, at the end of the year, I have to say, I'm bummed. I love these boards, and I've always viewed them as a community. We go in waves, and things get better or worse, but what really makes me sad (honestly) is when people I like end up on opposite ends of the debate.
Given that the most contentious debate has (somewhat thankfully) shifted from 4E versus 3.5/Pathfinder to Optimizer/Non-Optimizer, I was hoping to try and bridge the gap between the groups. Probably won't work, but hey, I'm on vacation and I've got the time.
Justifying the way of the Non-Optimizer to the Optimizer
Some people really like the idea that roleplaying games tend to not be competitive, but rather co-operative, games. They like the idea that they aren't trying to win, just trying to portray a character.
Once they get settled into this mindset, its a bit jarring to read that there might be things that they are doing in the game that isn't "optimal." To them, reading an option is a one time thing, often, with a pass fail on whether they want to utilize an option. Even if it isn't, they may not want to look over every possible option, and the next set of possible options, just to evaluate the best possible option.
Even guides may not be a good way to bridge the gap, because this might still indicate that somehow they aren't as good a player as someone else is.
In other words, sometimes the tone of the game might feel as if its shifted if the game is changed to a more tactical, planned out affair. And to the Non-Optimizer's defense, often times the Non-Optimizer does just fine contributing to the party and knowing how the rules work and what they should be doing, they just don't want to analyze the "metagame" as much as the "moment."
What Might A Non-Optimizer Do That Might Be A Valid Issue to An Optimizer
Beyond being more "organic" in selecting their feats, abilities, equipment, spells and the like, some "deep immersion" roleplayers almost go out of their way to make characters that aren't really good at anything.
There are some that will even, for roleplaying purposes, on a repeated basis, make bad choices in combat or even in roleplaying situations, because they have created a character whose roleplaying value is based on conflict and doesn't factor in having a reason to work as part of the team, even though working as part of a team is essentially part of the "social contract" implicit in playing the game.
Why a GM might get a headache from a Non-Optimizer
While Non-Optimizers usually aren't cited as a problem by GMs, its entirely possible to get someone that puts their own character concept way ahead of the campaign, and actually works counter to advancing the scenario.
On top of this, sometimes when a Non-Optimizer gets a bit carried away in running their character in their own way, the GM can't always count on that player's character to fulfill their role in the party (for example, a cleric that doesn't buff or heal when he should, or a fighter that isn't willing to "tank.")
Defending the Ways of the Optimizer to the Non-Optimizer
Optimizers tend to think that if the rules allow for something, and it makes sense for a character, that you should be able to do it to the best of the character's ability. Planning ahead and analyzing options isn't a bad thing when you want to play an archer or an expert swordsman, and you want to make sure you are as effective as possible.
Optimizers will point out, rightly, that when a race or class is suppose to be good at something, its mechanically modeled, so its not really a problem to take advantage of mechanical benefits in the game. People should be rewarded for understanding the system.
Why Optimizers Can Be An Issue to Non-Optimizers
While offering advice is always nice, it can be fairly easy to phrase things in such a way as to make it sound as if one player is a "better" player than another player. Also, such advice, when offered in a combat situation instead of during leveling up, it might seem as if the optimizer is trying to control the other character's actions.
If there are misunderstandings about the rules and how the GM interprets them, it can seem that the optimizer is pushing the limits versus the Non-Optimizer that hasn't invested quite so much in how a given rule might work.
Why Optimizers Can Be A Pain to A GM
A GM has a lot to keep track of, and especially if they are trying to use an established scenario to run a game, knowing that some characters will be more on top of how to defeat a given challenge might mean that it would make more sense to alter a scenario, which adds more time to the GM's prep time.
Sometimes an optimizer can think in "metagame" terms that are accurate, but not what the character would know anything about (for example, knowing a given creature's weaknesses without having anyone identify the monster first).
Because optimizers tend to think in terms of numbers and effectiveness, there are times when encounters can have some of the wind taken out of them by an optimizer saying "well, those things aren't so bad, if they are standard and do X or Y," instead of reacting the way their character might to, say, the undead or a gigantic dragon.
Optimizes can also become disinterested in the parts of the campaign that doesn't revolve around what they have designed a character to be good at, even if they don't need to be specialized in something to function in the encounter, and they may sometimes be uninterested even in aspects of the overall rules that don't pertain to their characters, even if it might not be a bad thing to be familiar with them. Sometimes optimizers rely on an interpretation of how a rule works that has been clarified not to work a certain way, or will build a character based on a rules interpretation that the GM doesn't agree with, but said disagreement doesn't come up until after the character has been moved towards a given direction.
So What Does All of This Mean?
Once we create divisions, its really easy to look for the divisions and keep them in place. On the flip side, even the best of us can fall into bad habits and not realize it, and while normally such a habit might just be a "slip," once you hang someone with a label, that "slip" becomes "proof" of a stereotype.
I think it would do us all some good to actually look at what the stereotypes are and instead of assuming because we are "nice people" and therefore "probably" don't pertain to use, maybe all of us, on all sides of a given issue, should be careful not to look like we correspond to a given stereotype, and give people a chance to know our character, overall, instead of our "type."
|
I'm surprised nobody has responded to this yet. Its a fairly well-written piece and gives a bit of a neutral perspective, which I can respect, even if a few key arguments are missing for both perspectives.
Ultimately, the issue, for me at least, is one of the inane "AH'M ROLEPLAYAN! NOT ROLLPLAYAN!" argument that so often comes up; as if the two concepts were wholly mutually exclusive and the idea of them overlapping was as much a sacrilege as Galileo asking whether or not the Earth revolved around the Sun. That concept is what I rail against more than anything, and it is, quite frankly, insulting.
Other than that, it drives me up a wall when I inevitably run into that same Master Thespian (sic) complaining about my being able to summon a Horde of Celestial Superbeings overshadowing their ability to be comedically inept; this is generally the same person who, not any significant amount of time ago, I tried to help make a good decision, and who brushed me off with some blithe comment about how 'roleplayan' is better than 'rollplayan.' That has happened to me no less than seven times, and until recently: I was betting on a eighth. It is equally, if not more insulting.
Admittedly I can come off as pushy, if not outright hostile. But I'm not the one who drives up to the starting line and then drives my go-cart every which way but the finish line. That isn't to say the game is a competition, but when the pilot is wanting to go left and the co-pilot is pushing the control stick to the right, the plane is going to experience some turbulence. Everyone needs to be on the same page, at least in spirit and intent.
There's a level of mutual cooperation that needs to be taken into consideration, because when all is said and done, if we're trying to really get into our roles as characters, and we want to be sincere about what our characters would do: My Angel Summoner would be summoning a grappling angel at the beginning of every combat, with the sole purpose of holding the BMX Bandit down in order to prevent him from doing more harm than good to himself and his party if all the Bandit wants to do during combat is sweet jumps and flips while drawing ligers.
Very interesting post that cuts to the heart of the matter in so many of these threads. It seems to me that either extreme of the model can be detrimental to an enjoyable gaming session. I have seen cases of the roleplayer taking the absolute wrong action during a delicate situation just because "it's in character". I have also seen cases of the over optimizer single handledly owning the mod with a liberal use (abuse) of the rules (usually overpowering the DM in the process). It seems to me that the optimal environment that keeps a majority of players coming back for more can be found somewhere between both extremes. A happy median where a character can be good at what they do, but still need teamwork to succeed, while still being able to do so within character.
|
|
I believe that the whole situation is simply a matter of play styles that don't mesh well, and that the only way to avoid conflict is to iron out ahead of time what kind of game your group is going to play. Taking it farther than that is simply trying to prove that your way of playing is better than another persons. If you're having fun, who cares.
Our group happens to favor the roleplaying side and isn't offended if you do something non-optimal because it makes sense for the character to do, even if that results in someone dying or (for other reasons) no longer being in the party. We do this because we all find that kind of game more entertaining. We've also played the optimizing style of gameplay and we just happened to like it less. Nothing against those who do it.
See, to be fair, I don't think there is anything wrong with someone doing something, once in a while, that is stupid or detrimental for the sake of roleplaying, especially when the character has been pretty well established as acting along a certain path.
On the other hand, when someone starts to develop a character that has the personality trait of "I always do the worst possible thing in any given situation," I think that's when the problem develops.
See, to be fair, I don't think there is anything wrong with someone doing something, once in a while, that is stupid or detrimental for the sake of roleplaying, especially when the character has been pretty well established as acting along a certain path.
On the other hand, when someone starts to develop a character that has the personality trait of "I always do the worst possible thing in any given situation," I think that's when the problem develops.
Well I think obviously there is no reason you cannot reconcile the two perspectives, my group is a fair mix of optimizers and non-optimizers, and in the end its about players playing to what they enjoy most.
I do however think that people who actively choose a 'poor' option or take the wrong action for roleplay reasons are as much of a headache to the DM as powergamers are, just on the opposite end of things. If for instance the party rogue doesnt carry theives tools because he always forgets them and makes use of improvised implements, it makes traps more dangerous then they are supposed to be, this is additional work for the dm, just like the uber powered character who blows through typical encounters is.
I just really depends on how often you do it, and how dangerous the situation becomes for the party. Its hardly fair to the dm or the rest of the party if one member's actions leads to the PC's getting killed. And in the 'big fight' kind of encounter, if a player actively chooses the 'wrong' thing to do, it can very quickly lead to more trouble for the party then was intended.