Darche Schneider |
I often see things in things like Erza from Fairy Tail. I poured myself into the mechanics of creating the character, with a few twists of my own, back in 3.5. To do this, I needed to pull from all sorts of sources, Like all the different 3.5 splatbooks and several of the Dragon Magazine books.
I spent time searching for various alternative classes and alternative class features. Spells and things I'd need to do it. Of course there was still a few things missing, somethings I had to find and find again.
I have another build that is the most powerful magic user I could possible create. A master of Arcane and Divine magics, a Wizard/Archivist. And even as godly powerful as this guy is, I refuse to play him with my groups, because of roleplaying. I do not feel the groups would be conductive to his roleplay and development.
But these things, to some people, make me nothing but a dirty power gamer who just wants to play a video game. Even though I'm pouring my heart into making the character. I've got a palemaster and a fleshwarper, and a spellwarp sniper, who are all characters, who've been characters far more than they've been game characters.
I've had characters who where suppose to be really good snipers or fighters or something like that. But the mechanics of the character... failed, terribly. As a result in game, It doesn't matter if my character was an assassin in fluff or a class name. I couldn't kill anyone. A horse killed more people than I did. A freeking horse.
K177Y C47 |
Honestly I feel like a lot of people seem to think that if your character is mechanically sound then they must be horrid RP characters.. I don't know how many times I've been called a munchkin for playing a half-elf summoner, despite the fact that I often played with the young template and RPed my eidolon as a not so imaginary friend...
Anzyr |
3 people marked this as a favorite. |
As opposed to what others have said in here about not making mechanically sound characters yet trying for an organic progression and being told they're bad at role playing.
You would have a point if that was the case at literally any point in this thread. As it is though, at best the pro-mechanics side has merely pointed out (correctly) that writing Slayer (or Archaeologist Bard, or Vivisectionist Alchemist, or Investigator, or Ninja, or Urban Ranger, or...) instead of Rogue should have 0 effect on your ability to role play a character who meets all of the same criteria.
A character is what they are capable of plus personality. You can play any class with the same kind of personality regardless of whether it is a Commoner or a Wizard. You can't however play both those classes as casting spells, because that's how the game works.
K177Y C47 |
To give an example of how to ROLEPLAY a character and not be tied into class name...
Let's say you go a small village and there is a village healer. Let's say the healer usually brews portions for the villagers to help heal their wounds and ailments. What class would you say that is? Alchemist? Maybe a cleric who took the brew potions feat... our a witch with the cauldron hex... our it could a druid.. there is no way to tell until she does something that distinguishes her (use a hex or wildshape). It is not like people wear badges that say "hi! I'm a rogue!"
Our another example, say you have a guy who sneaks through a district in a city, bulglarizing homes, picking pockets, and terrorizing the streets. Oh and let's say he is good at traps. Oh and he doesn't cast spells. So what is he? He could really be a slayer... our her could be an urban ranger trapper.
blahpers |
1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Flawed wrote:As opposed to what others have said in here about not making mechanically sound characters yet trying for an organic progression and being told they're bad at role playing.You would have a point if that was the case at literally any point in this thread. As it is though, at best the pro-mechanics side has merely pointed out (correctly) that writing Slayer (or Archaeologist Bard, or Vivisectionist Alchemist, or Investigator, or Ninja, or Urban Ranger, or...) instead of Rogue should have 0 effect on your ability to role play a character who meets all of the same criteria.
A character is what they are capable of plus personality. You can play any class with the same kind of personality regardless of whether it is a Commoner or a Wizard. You can't however play both those classes as casting spells, because that's how the game works.
Again, this is all philosophy. I will not play a "slayer" if my character is not a slayer, no matter what the mechanics are. I won't play a puppy-kicking paladin, or a "ninja" who grew up in Taldor and has never heard of Tien. And I won't turn a rogue character into a "vivisectionist" just to pick up a few perks--not if the rogue's character doesn't fit handling extracts and formulae and studying corpses to learn how to better slice them up.
If you want to play classes as flavorless stat blocks, be my guest. I've never claimed that was bad. But a growing number of posters are outright calling the way I (and many others) play "wrong", and to them I say "don't be a jerk".
Darche Schneider |
1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I had a DM who ran things kinda like that. Where the name of the class was what you where, especially if it had anything to do with the Orient.
The first game you could not play a monk, ninja, samurai or anything else that had a name from the orient. One of the characters I had thought of playing as a result, was a guy who ran around with no armor and punched things with his fist, due to all his unarmed combat training and the like. But not a monk of course. Cause no matter how I built the character, the DM only saw the name monk = Oriental guy.
The game he was getting ready to run was an oriental campaign game. The Dm Did it again, where the name was what you where. In his particular case he banned everything he felt wasn't japanese enough, and switched around some classes and the like. Two particular classes of note where Divination Wizard and Shaman. To play a wizard you had to specilize in divination magic, and the reason for this was because to him, this was "an onmyoji"
Looking at Onmyoji through wikipedia articles and other online sources, including various anime, some of which where specifically built around this particularly kind religious shaman of Japanese history, I had concluded that the mechanics of one would be best suited by taking Shaman, as everything came back to their different domains, and spells and the fact the could see spirits.
In order to play a character that called himself an Onmyoji, I was basically shackled to absolutely playing a particular class. Shaman ended up being proclaimed to be mountain priests. (Which where originally another class the DM decided wasn't good enough for his japanese world) Because that is what was deemed as such. If the game ever does start, I have decided I wasn't going to deal with this.
I do find it very funny though that people who say the class name and class fluff is your character, compare the view that being concered with the mechanics of the character is akin to 'playing a video game' when you know, Time and time again in video games, your class dictates who you are. Like in Ragnarok online (Since I didn't play WoW) If you picked a Priest, you had a pre-set appearance. You where also expected to play a certain way. And you always came from the main city's church.
wraithstrike |
1 person marked this as a favorite. |
If you want to play classes as flavorless stat blocks, be my guest.
Nobody is saying to do this. They ARE saying create flavor, and find the mechanics which allow you to best fill that flavor. As an example if I want to use a ranger as my "ninja" instead of the actual ninja that does not mean I am playing a flavorless statblock. It means that I like the ranger better for what I want to do and maybe at worst my view of what I want a ninja(insert other concept/idea as needed) to be is different from what Paizo offered.
Zalman |
blahpers wrote:If you want to play classes as flavorless stat blocks, be my guest. I've never claimed that was bad.And if you want to have zero imagination for developing your character's personality and background beyond what the book tells you, be my guest. I've never claimed that was bad.
These two complaints are far from mutually exclusive. If you are the sort of player who places no value on a class's name or description, then you are playing that class as a "flavorless stat block". That doesn't mean you have to play the character without flavor; rather it means that that the character's class defines abilities only, while the character's personality comes from elsewhere.
I think this is an important distinction, because it raises the question: if class name and description are irrelevant, then why do we play a game with classes at all? Why not just build characters by selecting from a comprehensive list of abilities, a la Rolemaster? If we select classes only for their abilities, wouldn't it be even better to play a game that allowed you to pick and choose which abilities you wanted, instead of having to compromise by using a pre-selected "pack" of abilities?
In this sense, the fluff absolutely and 100% makes the class. As others have noted, you could simply swap around fluff and abilities and it would make no difference whatsoever. So what is it that makes it a "class" at all?
Class names and descriptions provide archetypes, and that for me is a huge difference. I prefer games like D&D and Pathfinder over games like Rolemaster precisely because of this difference. Archetypes are what brings me to that fantastic place in my mind that is populated by dreams, heroes, monsters, and myth. It's what makes the game fun.
9mm |
Honestly I feel like a lot of people seem to think that if your character is mechanically sound then they must be horrid RP characters.. I don't know how many times I've been called a munchkin for playing a half-elf summoner, despite the fact that I often played with the young template and RPed my eidolon as a not so imaginary friend...
Because the Stormwind fallacy refuses to die.
Marcus Robert Hosler |
1 person marked this as a favorite. |
K177Y C47 wrote:Honestly I feel like a lot of people seem to think that if your character is mechanically sound then they must be horrid RP characters.. I don't know how many times I've been called a munchkin for playing a half-elf summoner, despite the fact that I often played with the young template and RPed my eidolon as a not so imaginary friend...Because the Stormwind fallacy refuses to die.
Some people cling to it because it is the only way to justify the existence of certain classes, class features, feats, and spells.
For example, if the rogue doesn't bring some sort of RP weight to the game, then it has no reason to exist.
What's hard for many people to accept is that one of the 4 iconic party classes is trash and page wasting.
Chess Pwn |
1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I hate when people are attached to the names of classes. I've literally had many people say, "I want to use a bow, Guess I'm a Ranger then." Thinking basically that it's the only bow using class.
Like they think about what they want and pick the class whose name they feel is a good match, instead of one that is good. Many times those "Rangers" want none of the nature stuff and want feats, meaning they should have been a fighter. Or people wanting to know everything so they go rogue, the skill guy instead of bard which gets bonuses to knowledge.
K177Y C47 |
1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I hate when people are attached to the names of classes. I've literally had many people say, "I want to use a bow, Guess I'm a Ranger then." Thinking basically that it's the only bow using class.
Like they think about what they want and pick the class whose name they feel is a good match, instead of one that is good. Many times those "Rangers" want none of the nature stuff and want feats, meaning they should have been a fighter. Or people wanting to know everything so they go rogue, the skill guy instead of bard which gets bonuses to knowledge.
On that archer thing...
I have seen that SO MANY TIMES. I mean like, I don't think a lot of people realize that there are SO MANY DIFFERENT ARCHERS:
Zen Archer Monk: If you want to play a Kagome character or a guy who stupid good at archery and machine gunning
Paladin Archer: Archer of divine rightousness!!!!
Inquisitor Archer: like the pally but sneakier
Fighter archer: Pretty much a bad ass archer... just a archer though.
Slayer Archer: Sniper extrodinare.... oh and pretty much fighter archer+
Cavalier Archer: Try beating his horseback archery!
Bard Archer: can be any archer... but with magic xD
W1/F1/EK5/AAX: Pretty much playing Hawkeye and his "arrow for any problem" guy... got a problem? I have an arrow for that!
I mean, Archers are easy to play as near ANY martial class...
knightnday |
1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Chess Pwn wrote:I hate when people are attached to the names of classes. I've literally had many people say, "I want to use a bow, Guess I'm a Ranger then." Thinking basically that it's the only bow using class.
Like they think about what they want and pick the class whose name they feel is a good match, instead of one that is good. Many times those "Rangers" want none of the nature stuff and want feats, meaning they should have been a fighter. Or people wanting to know everything so they go rogue, the skill guy instead of bard which gets bonuses to knowledge.On that archer thing...
I have seen that SO MANY TIMES. I mean like, I don't think a lot of people realize that there are SO MANY DIFFERENT ARCHERS:
Zen Archer Monk: If you want to play a Kagome character or a guy who stupid good at archery and machine gunning
Paladin Archer: Archer of divine rightousness!!!!
Inquisitor Archer: like the pally but sneakier
Fighter archer: Pretty much a bad ass archer... just a archer though.
Slayer Archer: Sniper extrodinare.... oh and pretty much fighter archer+
Cavalier Archer: Try beating his horseback archery!
Bard Archer: can be any archer... but with magic xD
W1/F1/EK5/AAX: Pretty much playing Hawkeye and his "arrow for any problem" guy... got a problem? I have an arrow for that!
I mean, Archers are easy to play as near ANY martial class...
Therein lies the problem I think, there are too many choices for some people. I have had a few players recently that seem overwhelmed by the choices and/or don't want to be bothered. One young lady was very interested in being a rogue. We offered a selection of ways to do what she wanted and her eyes glazed over. She just pointed to the book and wanted that rogue right there. So that's what she played.
To answer the OP's question
Are the older melee classes getting less attractive / obsolete?
the answer is Yes, but. Yes, they can be less attractive or obsolete if you have sufficient system mastery, time, inclination and so on to construct exactly what you want from the toolbox we are given. There are those who are missing one or more of the above (not all of you, put down the pitchforks) and just want to play a Fighter, a Rogue, a whatever.
You can break down the hows and whys that a X is a better fighter or how you can build a rogue with a dash of this and two of that and there are people that don't want that, they want something simple, direct, and without the extra work.
I can show someone how to make a burrito at home that is incredible, but for a large number of those people they aren't going to want to go to the trouble, expensive, or bother when Taco Bell sells something that is like what they want for a buck.
So yes, these classes can be unattractive when you have the know how and the drive to make something out a Witch Doctor, Ninja and Gunslinger that does exactly what you want to a tee. But the average player may not want to go into that level of design, a newer player may just give up if you go into that level, and even an advanced player may just want to grab a Fighter and bang around instead. It isn't good or bad or wrong or right, it is just how people are.
Chess Pwn |
I had a friend whose character that had claws and a bite racially. But she felt that since she was attacking without a weapon she needed to be Monk class. Didn't matter that a fighter fit her play style more. She didn't really want to be Lawful, she didn't feel the ki pool fit her character. But she HAD to be a Monk because what she felt the "Monk" was the name closest to what she wanted.
Marroar Gellantara |
I had a friend whose character that had claws and a bite racially. But she felt that since she was attacking without a weapon she needed to be Monk class. Didn't matter that a fighter fit her play style more. She didn't really want to be Lawful, she didn't feel the ki pool fit her character. But she HAD to be a Monk because what she felt the "Monk" was the name closest to what she wanted.
Well now she can be a brawler.
K177Y C47 |
Chess Pwn wrote:I had a friend whose character that had claws and a bite racially. But she felt that since she was attacking without a weapon she needed to be Monk class. Didn't matter that a fighter fit her play style more. She didn't really want to be Lawful, she didn't feel the ki pool fit her character. But she HAD to be a Monk because what she felt the "Monk" was the name closest to what she wanted.Well now she can be a brawler.
A Bite Bite Claw Brawler can actually be pretty cool to... get the feat that lets you use natural attacks to flurry, BAD ASS.... and actually pretty flavorful :P
wraithstrike |
Lemmy wrote:blahpers wrote:If you want to play classes as flavorless stat blocks, be my guest. I've never claimed that was bad.And if you want to have zero imagination for developing your character's personality and background beyond what the book tells you, be my guest. I've never claimed that was bad.These two complaints are far from mutually exclusive. If you are the sort of player who places no value on a class's name or description, then you are playing that class as a "flavorless stat block". That doesn't mean you have to play the character without flavor; rather it means that that the character's class defines abilities only, while the character's personality comes from elsewhere.
I think this is an important distinction, because it raises the question: if class name and description are irrelevant, then why do we play a game with classes at all? Why not just build characters by selecting from a comprehensive list of abilities, a la Rolemaster? If we select classes only for their abilities, wouldn't it be even better to play a game that allowed you to pick and choose which abilities you wanted, instead of having to compromise by using a pre-selected "pack" of abilities?
In this sense, the fluff absolutely and 100% makes the class. As others have noted, you could simply swap around fluff and abilities and it would make no difference whatsoever. So what is it that makes it a "class" at all?
Class names and descriptions provide archetypes, and that for me is a huge difference. I prefer games like D&D and Pathfinder over games like Rolemaster precisely because of this difference. Archetypes are what brings me to that fantastic place in my mind that is populated by dreams, heroes, monsters, and myth. It's what makes the game fun.
The flavor given by Paizo gives us a frame of reference for the class, but it is not the only way to build a concept, and I like I said we may not agree with the class Paizo gave us to represent X, so there is nothing wrong with using another class for it.
Chris Lambertz Paizo Glitterati Robot |
Chengar Qordath |
These two complaints are far from mutually exclusive. If you are the sort of player who places no value on a class's name or description, then you are playing that class as a "flavorless stat block". That doesn't mean you have to play the character without flavor; rather it means that that the character's class defines abilities only, while the character's personality comes from elsewhere.
I think this is an important distinction, because it raises the question: if class name and description are irrelevant, then why do we play a game with classes at all? Why not just build characters by selecting from a comprehensive list of abilities, a la Rolemaster? If we select classes only for their abilities, wouldn't it be even better to play a game that allowed you to pick and choose which abilities you wanted, instead of having to compromise by using a pre-selected "pack" of abilities?
In this sense, the fluff absolutely and 100% makes the class. As others have noted, you could simply swap around fluff and abilities and it would make no difference whatsoever. So what is it that makes it a "class" at all?
Class names and descriptions provide archetypes, and that for me is a huge difference. I prefer games like D&D and Pathfinder over games like Rolemaster precisely because of this difference. Archetypes are what brings me to that fantastic place in my mind that is populated by dreams, heroes, monsters, and myth. It's what makes the game fun.
I think the main reason for class-based systems is to make the game more approachable for new players. In my experience, one of the easiest ways to scare off a new player is to overwhelm them with too many choices to make. If you go with a more open-ended system where there's total freedom to chose everything, you'll wind up with three players who are lost and confused for every one who loves all the options.
It's one of the main reasons why most class-less RPGs I've played will still have a chapter showing off builds that fit into iconic class roles. Mutants and Masterminds shows you how to make Iron Man, Batman, and Superman. Shadowrun shows you how to make a Street Samurai, a Decker, and a Mage.
Classes give you a pre-packaged thematic skillset, which is very helpful for a lot of players, especially new ones who are still getting the hang of the system. "Pick one class" is a lot easier than "Pick a dozen abilities, and try to pick ones that all tie together to provide a reasonably coherent character."
Personally, I like class-less systems for the greater freedom they provide. However, I also recall a campaign where we about twelve hours on character creation, because we had several new players who didn't know the system very well and were just completely overwhelmed by all the options and freedom. Taking that freedom away can make things go a lot faster.
Darche Schneider |
Class based systems can also offer an incredible amount of diversity.
Take Basic Roleplay for example, completely classes, save for what skills you could put points into from the start of the game. Sadly though, each character is pretty much bland mechanically speaking, unable to really differentiate themselves from other characters. In fact its hard for them to differentiate themselves from themselves at the start of the game.
The end result is a rather dull gameplay, unless everyone is on top of the whole Rping aspect of the game.
But take (twohanded) Fighter and Barbarian in pathfinder. Give them both a greatsword and watch the differences happen practically automatically.
Same stats and everything.
By level 3, you start seeing the two start to pull away from each other, despite both of them being the exact same roll. Fighters start getting the ability to add double his strength instead of 1.5 of his strength on a single attack roll. The Barbarian starts getting a more developed rage and the like, things that allow him to pull off in a different direction.
Corrik |
I often see things in things like Erza from Fairy Tail. I poured myself into the mechanics of creating the character, with a few twists of my own, back in 3.5. To do this, I needed to pull from all sorts of sources, Like all the different 3.5 splatbooks and several of the Dragon Magazine books.
I spent time searching for various alternative classes and alternative class features. Spells and things I'd need to do it. Of course there was still a few things missing, somethings I had to find and find again.
I have another build that is the most powerful magic user I could possible create. A master of Arcane and Divine magics, a Wizard/Archivist. And even as godly powerful as this guy is, I refuse to play him with my groups, because of roleplaying. I do not feel the groups would be conductive to his roleplay and development.
But these things, to some people, make me nothing but a dirty power gamer who just wants to play a video game. Even though I'm pouring my heart into making the character. I've got a palemaster and a fleshwarper, and a spellwarp sniper, who are all characters, who've been characters far more than they've been game characters.
I've had characters who where suppose to be really good snipers or fighters or something like that. But the mechanics of the character... failed, terribly. As a result in game, It doesn't matter if my character was an assassin in fluff or a class name. I couldn't kill anyone. A horse killed more people than I did. A freeking horse.
A bit off topic, but have you tried recreating the Fairy Tail characters with Dreamscarred's Psionics rules? I'm running a Deadly Fist Soul Knife with Dragon Style for Natsu right now and it is just a blast.
A Mind Knight Path Psychic Warrior or Soul Knife/Aegis/Metaforge would be great for Erza.
sunshadow21 |
2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I find that both mechanics and flavor have to be there in the end to have a good character. Which one comes first doesn't matter nearly as much as an end product that incorporates both. A character that lacks either is noticeably less interesting. Either the character can't actually do what I am roleplaying when it comes time to pick up the dice or the game becomes a glorified board game; neither is really the best experience.
On the OP, though, the development cycle of both 3.5 and PF have shown that designing a basic generic class isn't actually as popular as many people like to make it sound. The typical cleric and wizard expectations are hit just as much as fighter and rogue. Witch, oracle, bard, druid, sorcerer, and summoner have in many groups taken the place of the the traditional casting classes. The main advantage all of these more focused classes is that neither mechanics nor flavor are favored; they have good mechanical support and still cover a wide range of flavors quite easily. The traditional classes have strong flavor, but usually lack mechanical support to effectively back most of the flavor up.
The original classic party worked for it's time, but it's probably time to treat all four of the classic roles as broad archetypes covered by multiple mechanics/classes rather than specific classes unto themselves. As classes, they are hard to balance against each other and across multiple tables/groups, which is a major consideration that has to be looked at in today's increasingly mobile world. Paizo has shown that making a fairly focused core class and having archetypes and customizable class features to change the focus while staying within the same general framework is probably the best design going forward. Throw in traits, and you get even more flexibility while maintaining basic mechanical support. Leaving almost everything beyond flavor up to the DM is not a sound idea if the goal is to truly engage the player, and even WotC picked up on this; 5E includes built in subclasses and backgrounds.
DrDeth |
1 person marked this as a favorite. |
K177Y C47 wrote:Honestly I feel like a lot of people seem to think that if your character is mechanically sound then they must be horrid RP characters.. I don't know how many times I've been called a munchkin for playing a half-elf summoner, despite the fact that I often played with the young template and RPed my eidolon as a not so imaginary friend...Because the Stormwind fallacy refuses to die.
And that's a shame. It's actually correct, IRL. We are all just human, and as humans we have just so much capacity. The more of this capacity you spend on mechanics, the less you have for RPing. Now sure, some folks have more capacity that others and can play a PC with a lot of both. But still- the more time/capacity you spend on mechanics the less you can spend on RPing.
Anzyr |
7 people marked this as a favorite. |
Disagreed. Stormwind is an excellent fallacy, because of it's accuracy.
Peoples abilities aren't really regulated by "capacity". I for example can design a character while planning how I want to roleplay my mechanical choices, or come up with a concept I want to roleplay, while planning a mechanical "build" that will achieve the effect I'm aiming for. It's not even an issue of time, because by doing one thing (deciding what kind of character to roleplay / coming up with a build) I'm doing the other simultaneously. This is largely because in TTRPG games, your abilities inform your roleplay (can't be a spellcaster if you can't cast spells) and your roleplay informs your abilities (I want to be a hot-headed young spellcaster with anger issues and a penchant for fire).
The problem some people here have is that instead of roleplaying "A cunning person who learned to fight as a runaway living on the streets turned dungeon delving adventurer." which could be built mechanically as any number of classes, some people want to roleplay "Rogue", which can by their roleplay definition only be filled by the "Rogue" class. Which as has been stated above is very limited kind of roleplay.
Chris Lambertz Paizo Glitterati Robot |
Darche Schneider |
1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I'm one of the some folks then.
Though something interesting, One of our games, we've got a guy who wrote 3-4 page long backstory (at least) for one of his characters, another page of her description, and over all is very invested rp wise in his characters. He'll take things that mechanically flawed ( like extra penalties and the like, because it fits his character's stories.) you know, the whole kit and kaboodle of RP things.
Then we play the game, and he unleashes a monotonous wave of the most boring wooden roleplaying I've ever seen with someone so invested in the character's back story, that I feel like I'm about to fall asleep!
I mean seriously, its bloody difficult to separate his different characters and himself from the character. Now he doesn't need to speak in funny accents or things like that, but I wish he'd at least give a little to his in game RP ability.
I'll admit that sometimes I do it too, like my pilot for our starwars game, who hasn't been able to fly the darned ship since I made him because everyone else is jumping into the pilot seat every time. (Then sometimes people complain that I didn't do anything that session.)
K177Y C47 |
Disagreed. Stormwind is an excellent fallacy, because of it's accuracy.
Peoples abilities aren't really regulated by "capacity". I for example can design a character while planning how I want to roleplay my mechanical choices, or come up with a concept I want to roleplay, while planning a mechanical "build" that will achieve the effect I'm aiming for. It's not even an issue of time, because by doing one thing (deciding what kind of character to roleplay / coming up with a build) I'm doing the other simultaneously. This is largely because in TTRPG games, your abilities inform your roleplay (can't be a spellcaster if you can't cast spells) and your roleplay informs your abilities (I want to be a hot-headed young spellcaster with anger issues and penchant for fire).
The problem some people here have is that instead of roleplaying "A cunning person who learned to fight as a runaway living on the streets turned dungeon delving adventurer." which could be built mechanically as any number of classes, some people want to roleplay "Rogue", which can by their roleplay definition only be filled by the "Rogue" class. Which as has been stated above is very limited kind of roleplay.
This +10000000000000
The other time the whole "roleplay vs rollplay" issue comes up is some people's incorrect ideology that only a flawed character who makes VERY suboptimal choices are "roleplay" characters, where as characters who are very competent and capable are just "rollplaying." This creates an issue when somehow the grizzled war veteran who fights in the most efficient means possible (i.e. is optimized to do his job... to kill things) is a "muchkin" player but somehow this guy who was once a baker and has Skill Focus: Profession (baking) and somehow stumbled into an adventuring party with very little combat experiance (shown by lack of any real focus in character and very poor choices like taking the skill buff feats...) is a more 'roleplayer worthy" character...
Prince of Knives |
3 people marked this as a favorite. |
9mm wrote:And that's a shame. It's actually correct, IRL. We are all just human, and as humans we have just so much capacity. The more of this capacity you spend on mechanics, the less you have for RPing. Now sure, some folks have more capacity that others and can play a PC with a lot of both. But still- the more time/capacity you spend on mechanics the less you can spend on RPing.K177Y C47 wrote:Honestly I feel like a lot of people seem to think that if your character is mechanically sound then they must be horrid RP characters.. I don't know how many times I've been called a munchkin for playing a half-elf summoner, despite the fact that I often played with the young template and RPed my eidolon as a not so imaginary friend...Because the Stormwind fallacy refuses to die.
Yeah...no. I'm gonna point something out that proponents of this version of the fallacy always seem to miss: character creation happens before the session starts. Roleplaying happens during the session. Leveling up happens between sessions. D'ya think we're really spending all our time and effort in-game planning the next level? 'cause you've got another thought coming, my friend.
Marcus Robert Hosler |
1 person marked this as a favorite. |
9mm wrote:And that's a shame. It's actually correct, IRL. We are all just human, and as humans we have just so much capacity. The more of this capacity you spend on mechanics, the less you have for RPing. Now sure, some folks have more capacity that others and can play a PC with a lot of both. But still- the more time/capacity you spend on mechanics the less you can spend on RPing.K177Y C47 wrote:Honestly I feel like a lot of people seem to think that if your character is mechanically sound then they must be horrid RP characters.. I don't know how many times I've been called a munchkin for playing a half-elf summoner, despite the fact that I often played with the young template and RPed my eidolon as a not so imaginary friend...Because the Stormwind fallacy refuses to die.
Wow. No.
I actually find the opposite correlation to generally be more true. It tends to be the unoptimised characters that are the worst RPers because they generally care less about the game or have mistaken philosophies about what constitutes good RPing.
*Also WTF on your reasoning. Build making is done before the campaign, RPing is done during. There is no overlap in effort expenditures needed. Organic builds are more likely to be considering their next build choice mid session (actually I have seen this happen. Said individual was distracted because we were leveling soon and they needed to figure out what their next feat was).
zapbib |
2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Actually, not making a mechanically sound character will seriously hamper your abilities to role-play.
Why? because whole thematic side will be forced upon you by the game.
I have played a couple one-off lately and decided to try to not bother about the mechanic of the class but go for full flavor. After analyzing it I realized that the fiasco of those session was the unavoidable conclusion of the choices I have made. You cannot rp fully without having some kind of system backing in pathfinder. Other games maybe, not pathfinder. Because if you want to play the guy that is a mercenary, but that every breeze kill him, you can't really justify that role play.
Let's say you want to play the savvy cut purse, helping your party with deadly sneak attack and stealthy move. But you picked rogue and the party ranger/barbarian/wizard can almost do everything you can do better. Well you aren't rping a savvy cut purse, you are rping a delusional man whose friend allow to stick around out of pity, even thought any enemy they face would wipe you like one wipe dirt from his shoes.
Your rping doesn't exist in a vacuum, it only exist in your relation with the world. If you can't cast magic, you can't role play you can, if you can't kill anything, well you can't role play you are a good fighter. Class ARE fluffless statblock and MUST be, for they must give you abilities toward the world that match what you want to roleplay.
Those that insist otherwise approach role play the same way theorycrafter approach and actual in-game build: with ignorance and a detrimental vision.
If you want to play classes as flavorless stat blocks, be my guest. I've never claimed that was bad. But a growing number of posters are outright calling the way I (and many others) play "wrong", and to them I say "don't be a jerk".
We aren't jerk because we are pointing you are wrong, you might be if you don't admit to be however.