Paizo Top Nav Branding
  • Hello, Guest! |
  • Sign In |
  • My Account |
  • Shopping Cart |
  • Help/FAQ
About Paizo Messageboards News Paizo Blog Help/FAQ
Pathfinder Roleplaying Game
Pathfinder Society

Pathfinder Beginner Box

Pathfinder Adventure Card Game

Pathfinder Comics

Pathfinder Legends

RPG Superstar 2015

Role-Play vs Roll-Play whats your opinions?


Gamer Talk

151 to 169 of 169 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | next > last >>

offtopic:
Actually I know something with a huge christmas tree effect Gran Tursimo Go from having one not that good car to having like a 100 cars when you are about 90 percent of the way through the game in Gran Turismo 3 several of which are concept cars and lots of rare racing cars then you could possibly need.

Liberty's Edge

3 people marked this as a favorite.

If you're playing a game that uses dice to adjudicate actions, you're already a "rollplayer" whether you like it or not. How much you "roleplay" depends on your personal preferences and the group dynamic.


I think the definition of "roll" player presupposes that role-playing is not a consideration. I prefer the old term: hack-n-slasher.


Personally optimization doesn't necessarily have to be combat oriented. I can be an "Optimized" Face, or an "optimized" skill monkey or any other combination of niches. I have always defined optimization as having a character be effective in their area of influence or expertise. If you are making a barbarian whose background includes lots of warfare and fighting in your tribe, then please don't come to the table with a 10 strength and 8 con or wielding an ancestral kitchen knife and nothing else.

My issues are that it is just not realistic to not optimize. We do it everyday in real life. If I am being sent into a warzone and I have the choice to use a knife which my father gave me, or an assault rifle, no one in their right mind would select the knife.

To give a non-combat related example, exceptional people tend to gravitate to what they are good at. Smart people tend to gravitate towards professions where they can use their intellect (not always but often), Strong people tend to do things that emphasize their strength (athletes and such). Again I am not talking about the average person here but those that have exceptional skills or talents that lead to heroic classes.


Would some patrons feel guilty sending out a weak fighter that looks sickly and is not strong I don't think the town mayor will be to happy about that.

Grand Lodge RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32 , Marathon Voter 2013, Dedicated Voter 2014, Star Voter 2015

1 person marked this as a favorite.
imimrtl wrote:
To give a non-combat related example, exceptional people tend to gravitate to what they are good at. Smart people tend to gravitate towards professions where they can use their intellect (not always but often), Strong people tend to do things that emphasize their strength (athletes and such). Again I am not talking about the average person here but those that have exceptional skills or talents that lead to heroic classes.

This reminds me:

I've seen people criticize players for making casters with high CON scores. The rant is usually something like "seriously, why are ALL the wizards so tough and healthy? Wouldn't some of them be frail and sickly, especially if they've spent their lives studying?"

Thing is, why would someone with an 18+ INT (such as a wizard) choose to go adventuring if they were frail and sickly? Of all the people with sufficient INT to become a wizard, some are going to be frail while others are robust. But the frail ones will, due to their astounding intellect, choose to stay home instead of venturing out into the wild! If an intelligent person has decided to go adventuring, then they must have had some reason to think they could survive it - perhaps because they know they're pretty sturdy!

If you tell me that your smart but frail character is choosing a life of danger, then you're a roleplaying failure.

Yes, sometimes failure to optimize is a failure to roleplay.

Caveat:
Naturally, the above doesn't apply if the PC is thrown into the plot against their will for one reason or another. But I believe that to be the exception, not the rule.


Jiggy wrote:
imimrtl wrote:
To give a non-combat related example, exceptional people tend to gravitate to what they are good at. Smart people tend to gravitate towards professions where they can use their intellect (not always but often), Strong people tend to do things that emphasize their strength (athletes and such). Again I am not talking about the average person here but those that have exceptional skills or talents that lead to heroic classes.

This reminds me:

I've seen people criticize players for making casters with high CON scores. The rant is usually something like "seriously, why are ALL the wizards so tough and healthy? Wouldn't some of them be frail and sickly, especially if they've spent their lives studying?"

Thing is, why would someone with an 18+ INT (such as a wizard) choose to go adventuring if they were frail and sickly? Of all the people with sufficient INT to become a wizard, some are going to be frail while others are robust. But the frail ones will, due to their astounding intellect, choose to stay home instead of venturing out into the wild! If an intelligent person has decided to go adventuring, then they must have had some reason to think they could survive it - perhaps because they know they're pretty sturdy!

If you tell me that your smart but frail character is choosing a life of danger, then you're a roleplaying failure.

Yes, sometimes failure to optimize is a failure to roleplay.

** spoiler omitted **

I completely agree.

Liberty's Edge Star Voter 2015

Jiggy wrote:
If you tell me that your smart but frail character is choosing a life of danger, then you're a roleplaying failure.

Actually that kind of "Is this a good idea?" thinking is more typical of high Wisdom than high Intelligence, IMO.

On the other hand, most such optimized characters do have decently high Wisdom as well...


Jiggy wrote:


I've seen people criticize players for making casters with high CON scores. The rant is usually something like "seriously, why are ALL the wizards so tough and healthy? Wouldn't some of them be frail and sickly, especially if they've spent their lives studying?"

Thing is, why would someone with an 18+ INT (such as a wizard) choose to go adventuring if they were frail and sickly? Of all the people with sufficient INT to become a wizard, some are going to be frail while others are robust. But the frail ones will, due to their astounding intellect, choose to stay home instead of venturing out into the wild! If an intelligent person has decided to go adventuring, then they must have had some reason to think they could survive it - perhaps because they know they're pretty sturdy!

If you tell me that your smart but frail character is choosing a life of danger, then you're a roleplaying failure.

Yes, sometimes failure to optimize is a failure to roleplay.

** spoiler restored** Naturally, the above doesn't apply if the PC is thrown into the plot against their will for one reason or another. But I believe that to be the exception, not the rule.

It's the exception in PFS, obviously, and "against their will" may be a bit of an exaggeration, but most of the characters I've played didn't "decide to go adventuring", a situation arose and they got involved, which led them on to more and more troubles.

Most of the APs, for example can fit that. Certainly Skull and Shackles falls into "thrown into the plot against their will". Even in RotRLm the characters are in town for potentially non-adventuring reasons when the goblins attack and start everything. Kingmaker would be more of the "choose a life of danger" side.
Most of the homebrew games I've played have been closer to RotRL at the start than "a bunch of adventurers decide to go looking for trouble."

Grand Lodge RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32 , Marathon Voter 2013, Dedicated Voter 2014, Star Voter 2015

thejeff wrote:

It's the exception in PFS, obviously, and "against their will" may be a bit of an exaggeration, but most of the characters I've played didn't "decide to go adventuring", a situation arose and they got involved, which led them on to more and more troubles.

Most of the APs, for example can fit that. Certainly Skull and Shackles falls into "thrown into the plot against their will". Even in RotRLm the characters are in town for potentially non-adventuring reasons when the goblins attack and start everything. Kingmaker would be more of the "choose a life of danger" side.
Most of the homebrew games I've played have been closer to RotRL at the start than "a bunch of adventurers decide to go looking for trouble."

Hence why I was careful to specify PCs who decide to go adventuring. :) The criticisms I've seen against high-CON casters has tended to be more of a blanket generalization, ala "healthy casters are metagamey cheese". :/


Jiggy wrote:
imimrtl wrote:
To give a non-combat related example, exceptional people tend to gravitate to what they are good at. Smart people tend to gravitate towards professions where they can use their intellect (not always but often), Strong people tend to do things that emphasize their strength (athletes and such). Again I am not talking about the average person here but those that have exceptional skills or talents that lead to heroic classes.

This reminds me:

I've seen people criticize players for making casters with high CON scores. The rant is usually something like "seriously, why are ALL the wizards so tough and healthy? Wouldn't some of them be frail and sickly, especially if they've spent their lives studying?"

Thing is, why would someone with an 18+ INT (such as a wizard) choose to go adventuring if they were frail and sickly? Of all the people with sufficient INT to become a wizard, some are going to be frail while others are robust. But the frail ones will, due to their astounding intellect, choose to stay home instead of venturing out into the wild! If an intelligent person has decided to go adventuring, then they must have had some reason to think they could survive it - perhaps because they know they're pretty sturdy!

If you tell me that your smart but frail character is choosing a life of danger, then you're a roleplaying failure.

Yes, sometimes failure to optimize is a failure to roleplay.

** spoiler omitted **

I had a sickly wizard once; 8 con (back in 2e). Talk about optimizing; I maxed out every possible 2e way to pimp out his twin specialty spells of minute meteors and cause fear. It was a long hard road to 16th level, filled with LOTS of healing, resurrections and such, but at the end he was known as the living equivalent of the Eye of Fear and Flame; he had gauntlets with barrels built in to fire off ridiculous amounts of meteors almost at will and his cowl gave him a gaze attack to cause fear. BECAUSE of his low con he spoke in a harsh whisper; he became my Batman. God I miss that character! And to think he started as a lecturing scholar until that night he was forced into a life of crime forging documents for the thieve's guild...


Y'know what? I hate these debates, and I consider myself a ROLE player (I did my time in goth clothes when WW first released Vampire. Where are all my Brujas at?)

The fact is that when I was in HS it was easy to sit in a basement, nightly, creating elaborate social experiments and pretending I was both a thespian and poet.

Now with a 50+ hour work week, 2 kids and a wife, not to mention night school, I just don't have the time or energy to be "pithy" to the wicked noble who claims to have poisoned me in my sleep to guarantee my loyalty. So yeah; I pick up a die, give a general description of my desire to ridicule him, and then let fly with a Bluff or Diplomacy or whatever.

This doesn't make me a quitter, a ROLL player or anything else; it makes me old. Now, when I GM I might throw in a silly voice, some fluff in a room description, or perhaps even act out a particularly cool fight scene, but I'm merely a shadow of my former gaming self.

And as for optimization... gimmie a break. Many people in this thread have pointed out how this is done in real life already. Ever take a Strengths Finder test for your job? Guess what; using the data in that test constitutes optimizing.

I'll bring it back to me in real life again. I was on a track team in hs and I'll never forget when Coach Medina came over after a few weeks of me training w/the sprinters and said "Hoover... you're slowing up my WHOLE line." I'm BARELY 5'5" and am built like an engine block; always was. So he hands me a lead ball, sends me to a chalk circle and says "throw"... by the end of the season we were down state and I placed on the gym wall for distance in shotput (I was 10th of 10, but still...)

Anyway, by the reasoning of the non-optimizers I should've OVERCOME ADVERSITY and become the fastest little sprinter I could. The reality is my coach realized I should play to my strengths and thus I almost lost a shoulder to shotput and discus. But I was made for that and therefore that's what I did. As I did those events more, I got even better at them. Get it? I OPTIMIZED.

We optimize, every minute, of every day. The most fun, the most efficiency, the most thrill, the most cholesterol... it's what we're hardwired for. Do you pick a dwarf for their legendary singing voices? No; it's because you can be a cleric and STILL wield a massive axe.

Nowadays in these games I'm all about picking 1 or 2 things with my character, letting that define me and being the best at it that EVER WAS. That isn't always combat; last NPC cleric I played for a few levels was all about channeling; currently I have a plan for a shielded fighter who's all about protecting his friends and being a good teammate; outside combat all his skills and traits are focused on linguistics, diplomacy, and professions like cook and taverner. His dream is to open a home base bar and be the itallian mom of the group "you boys are so skinny you need to EAT! Sit sit sit...I make you a nice plate..."

Bottom line; pick something you like. Do that. Let other people do the same. Like my wife's grandma is fond of saying; work hard and be nice.


And just one more and I'll be done ranting. Why would ANYONE in their RIGHT MIND go off on adventures if they were really smart but sickly? Seriously. Consider; at first level wizard, you're bound to have at least 1 knowledge skill, which includes monsters you can identify with said knowledge. Let's pick a wizard, a simple 13 int (slightly smarter than the typical peasant), and a 7 con (lets assume a 15 point buy or a ridiculous stat that makes no sense in his build, but I digress...)

Now, our hapless first leveler takes 1 rank in knowledge: arcana. This means if he takes a 10 he knows, off the top of his head, that stalking the local swamps JUST OUTSIDE OF TOWN are halfling-sized mosquitos which descend on travelers, bite into their flesh and drain them of an entire PINT of blood inside of 6 seconds (giant stirge CR2).

Now you're buddy the football linebacker (fighter) tracks you down in the campus library and says "grab your kleenex Sniffles; we're going to explore an ancient ruin in the swamp!" I don't know about you guys, but I'd buy a big gold chain that said N P C and call it a day!

Liberty's Edge Star Voter 2015

Mark Hoover wrote:
Y'know what? I hate these debates, and I consider myself a ROLE player (I did my time in goth clothes when WW first released Vampire. Where are all my Brujas at?)

It's Brujah, with an H, man. *puts on cool shades and rebellious leather jacket*


Sorry; I was actually more sucked into werewolf anyway. When will YOU rage? *puts on jean jacket over flannel and checks mullet*


Mark Hoover wrote:

And just one more and I'll be done ranting. Why would ANYONE in their RIGHT MIND go off on adventures if they were really smart but sickly? Seriously. Consider; at first level wizard, you're bound to have at least 1 knowledge skill, which includes monsters you can identify with said knowledge. Let's pick a wizard, a simple 13 int (slightly smarter than the typical peasant), and a 7 con (lets assume a 15 point buy or a ridiculous stat that makes no sense in his build, but I digress...)

Now, our hapless first leveler takes 1 rank in knowledge: arcana. This means if he takes a 10 he knows, off the top of his head, that stalking the local swamps JUST OUTSIDE OF TOWN are halfling-sized mosquitos which descend on travelers, bite into their flesh and drain them of an entire PINT of blood inside of 6 seconds (giant stirge CR2).

Now you're buddy the football linebacker (fighter) tracks you down in the campus library and says "grab your kleenex Sniffles; we're going to explore an ancient ruin in the swamp!" I don't know about you guys, but I'd buy a big gold chain that said N P C and call it a day!

Because you just got press ganged by pirates? Because the goblins just attacked your town and you want to help out? Because your buddy the linebacker is an idiot who'll get himself killed you don't keep an eye on him?

I tend to think the whole "I want to be an adventurer!" thing is silly anyway. It hardly exists outside of gaming. Think of your favorite fantasy books or movies. Did any of the characters just decide to go out looking for adventure? (Ignoring books based on games.)

Plenty of thieves, mercenaries, princesses, farmboys, wizards etc. Damn few who would have listed "adventurer" as their occupation.
The adventures came looking for them. Or they just fell into them and tried to do the right thing.


Jiggy wrote:
thejeff wrote:

It's the exception in PFS, obviously, and "against their will" may be a bit of an exaggeration, but most of the characters I've played didn't "decide to go adventuring", a situation arose and they got involved, which led them on to more and more troubles.

Most of the APs, for example can fit that. Certainly Skull and Shackles falls into "thrown into the plot against their will". Even in RotRLm the characters are in town for potentially non-adventuring reasons when the goblins attack and start everything. Kingmaker would be more of the "choose a life of danger" side.
Most of the homebrew games I've played have been closer to RotRL at the start than "a bunch of adventurers decide to go looking for trouble."
Hence why I was careful to specify PCs who decide to go adventuring. :) The criticisms I've seen against high-CON casters has tended to be more of a blanket generalization, ala "healthy casters are metagamey cheese". :/

But you also claimed that that was the rule, not the exception. It's the other way around in my experience and in a good chunk of the campaign material I've seen.

Liberty's Edge Star Voter 2015

Mark Hoover wrote:
Sorry; I was actually more sucked into werewolf anyway. When will YOU rage? *puts on jean jacket over flannel and checks mullet*

Yeah, me too actually. I was always a big fan of the Fianna and Bone Gnawers, though I did really enjoy my Get of Fenris Ragabash...

I'll stop threadjacking now.


Deadmanwalking wrote:
Mark Hoover wrote:
Sorry; I was actually more sucked into werewolf anyway. When will YOU rage? *puts on jean jacket over flannel and checks mullet*

Yeah, me too actually. I was always a big fan of the Fianna and Bone Gnawers, though I did really enjoy my Get of Fenris Ragabash...

I'll stop threadjacking now.

Pretty partial to a mall rat/hacker Glass Walker Theurge myself. Net spiders...scary stuff.

151 to 169 of 169 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | next > last >>
Paizo / Messageboards / Paizo Community / Gamer Life / Gamer Talk / Role-Play vs Roll-Play whats your opinions? All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.

©2002–2014 Paizo Inc.®. Need help? Email customer.service@paizo.com or call 425-250-0800 during our business hours: Monday–Friday, 10 AM–5 PM Pacific Time. View our privacy policy. Paizo Inc., Paizo, the Paizo golem logo, Pathfinder, the Pathfinder logo, Pathfinder Society, GameMastery, and Planet Stories are registered trademarks of Paizo Inc., and Pathfinder Roleplaying Game, Pathfinder Campaign Setting, Pathfinder Adventure Path, Pathfinder Adventure Card Game, Pathfinder Player Companion, Pathfinder Modules, Pathfinder Tales, Pathfinder Battles, Pathfinder Online, PaizoCon, RPG Superstar, The Golem's Got It, Titanic Games, the Titanic logo, and the Planet Stories planet logo are trademarks of Paizo Inc. Dungeons & Dragons, Dragon, Dungeon, and Polyhedron are registered trademarks of Wizards of the Coast, Inc., a subsidiary of Hasbro, Inc., and have been used by Paizo Inc. under license. Most product names are trademarks owned or used under license by the companies that publish those products; use of such names without mention of trademark status should not be construed as a challenge to such status.