I'm sorry, domain choice, race, traits, feats and class are mechanics. I provided the same for option 1. He just didn't use traits which are optional.
The only thing I missed off jack one is the feats so for completions sake he is going for an improved feint feat build.
All this information may direct you to a particular background - but they are mechanical choices.
I'm sorry, domain choice, race, traits, feats and class are mechanics. I provided the same for option 1. He just didn't use traits which are optional.
The only thing I missed off jack one is the feats so for completions sake he is going for an improved feint feat build.
All this information may direct you to a particular background - but they are mexhanixal choices.
Repeating yourself doesn't alter the 'truthiness' of your statement...
Okaaaaay. I'll agree to disagree.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Wasn't Jack 1 in Tekken 1 and then in Tekken 2 they just changed his/her/its name to Jack 2?
Here is a general question...
Is it easier to role play...
Jack the human rogue 5?
Or
Jack the half android - half strix, slayer 1, unchained rogue 3, cleric (trickery) 1, raised By dwarves trait, glaive-combat reflexes-sping Attack build?
Or is it exactly the same?
The first is slightly easier to play. You don't have to explain some of the more colorful aspects of the build.
I've got the whip! Who brought the dead horse?!?!?!
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
Ack! No! Wrong horse! Not dead yet!
|
The first is slightly easier to play. You don't have to explain some of the more colorful aspects of the build.Here is a general question...
Is it easier to role play...
Jack the human rogue 5?
Or
Jack the half android - half strix, slayer 1, unchained rogue 3, cleric (trickery) 1, raised By dwarves trait, glaive-combat reflexes-sping Attack build?
Or is it exactly the same?
Except he said roleplay, not play.
The truth is, it's exactly the same. Jacks 1 & 2 could both be played with the same personality, motives, etc. Their backgrounds might be different, but how you play them at the table is your choice. The only thing that even hints at his background is the Raised by Dwarves trait, which Jack 1 could easily have. But even if he didn't, while one may be more mechanically complex than the other, you can roleplay them however you like.
That's kinda the point of the whole thing. It doesn't matter how good or bad your system mastery is, roleplaying is a separate skill that is as related to the mechanics of the game as you make it. Just because my Gnoll Fighter is a Lore Warden doesn't mean he has to be a member of the Pathfinders. It's just a toolbox that fits the set of skills I perceive him having.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
My ONLY issue with optimizing is players taking the mechanics for mechanics sake and not justifying it with any background/fluff. Not asking for epic rationale, just throw a storyline bone within reason.
Call it, "Dipping into X to get Y benefit for no roleplaying reason beside higher bonuses for Z while not just ignoring the how/why fluff, but looking at you like you have lobsters growing out your ears when you ask."
|
| 7 people marked this as a favorite. |
My ONLY issue with optimizing is players taking the mechanics for mechanics sake and not justifying it with any background/fluff. Not asking for epic rationale, just throw a storyline bone within reason.
Call it, "Dipping into X to get Y benefit for no roleplaying reason beside higher bonuses for Z while not just ignoring the how/why fluff, but looking at you like you have lobsters growing out your ears when you ask."
I really have to wonder WHY you care? How does this impact you? The class names are an abstraction anyways, who's to say in game they actually 'took' a different level instead of having their natural abilities develop a certain way? Really, it feels more metagamey to even mention levels in this concept instead of just thinking "Oh, James learned how to do something new from their experiences!"
I don't know why people think someone should have to story validate going fighter 2/barbarian 4, paladin 2/oracle X, or anything else like that. You don't in game know their levels or even what those are, you just know their abilities are different than others who seem similar to you.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The rogue 5. Because I don't know what the hell the other one is and would fall asleep hearing the player explain it.
That's how it gets you.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
My ONLY issue with optimizing is players taking the mechanics for mechanics sake and not justifying it with any background/fluff. Not asking for epic rationale, just throw a storyline bone within reason.
Call it, "Dipping into X to get Y benefit for no roleplaying reason beside higher bonuses for Z while not just ignoring the how/why fluff, but looking at you like you have lobsters growing out your ears when you ask."
I really have to wonder WHY you care? How does this impact you? The class names are an abstraction anyways, who's to say in game they actually 'took' a different level instead of having their natural abilities develop a certain way? Really, it feels more metagamey to even mention levels in this concept instead of just thinking "Oh, James learned how to do something new from their experiences!"
I don't know why people think someone should have to story validate going fighter 2/barbarian 4, paladin 2/oracle X, or anything else like that. You don't in game know their levels or even what those are, you just know their abilities are different than others who seem similar to you.
Same reason there is a recent thread where the GM wants to decide how to make his PCs train the next level powers.
Some people think the fighter , who has always trained to be a fighter and to use a sword , going out to kill 20 goblins and coming back picking up a spell book and starting to cast spells around like a wizard even if he never actually spent a day training that is weird. In theory if those start ages mean anything , then learning to cast spells like a wizard should take more than 2 days to learn , dont matter how many goblins you killed with your sword.
There are GMs and GMs , to some going swashbuckler 1/fighter 1/monk 3/paladin 3/ slayer 2... wont really work unless the player has one hell of an explanation for all this lols.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Here is a general question...
Is it easier to role play...
Jack the human rogue 5?
Or
Jack the half android - half strix, slayer 1, unchained rogue 3, cleric (trickery) 1, raised By dwarves trait, glaive-combat reflexes-sping Attack build?
Or is it exactly the same?
Easier? I guess Jack #1. But to me, easy doesn't necessarily mean interesting or fun. Where Jack #1 you need to answer how he became a rogue, Jack #2 asks enough questions that help one flesh out a probably interesting and deep backstory and I'm not even talking about all the different classes.
As to the original posed question: I've been gaming with an optimizer in my friend group. Luckily, he focuses on damage output and usually from range. So he's good at one thing, and mediocre at other things. I've taken his optimizing as a challenge to improve my character building skills mechanics wise and I feel it's helped me. Luckily the rest of the party are just as good and are diverse enough for us to run well together in battle. So, in my case, optimizing has sort of improved my games rather than destroy any of it.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
"Knock-knock!"
"Who's there?"
"Brick wall!"
"Brick wall who?"
"Have you heard the Good News about the Stormwind Fallacy?"I'm so sick of this.
The Stormwind Fallacy is itself a fallacy - namely, a strawman: It's trying to counter an argument I don't think anyone's ever actually made, while completely failing to address the real arguments that are being mistaken for the strawman. The Stormwind Fallacy is like a holy scripture of this "Church of Gaming" that's popped up over the past decade or so that has its own codified language and mindset that forces you to either conform to it, regardless of how you thought or spoke before, or not be able to communicate coherently with "the faithful" at all and hence risk getting treated as a kind of second-class gamer.
A wonderful example of how Order causes discord, I suppose.
That argument has been made across several RP'ing forums. Many people have said "I am a roleplayer, not a rollplayer", or other backhanded compliments about someone's ability to build a mechanical viable character and insinuated that it help back their ability to roleplay.
The first is slightly easier to play. You don't have to explain some of the more colorful aspects of the build.Here is a general question...
Is it easier to role play...
Jack the human rogue 5?
Or
Jack the half android - half strix, slayer 1, unchained rogue 3, cleric (trickery) 1, raised By dwarves trait, glaive-combat reflexes-sping Attack build?
Or is it exactly the same?
Except he said roleplay, not play.
The truth is, it's exactly the same. Jacks 1 & 2 could both be played with the same personality, motives, etc. Their backgrounds might be different, but how you play them at the table is your choice. The only thing that even hints at his background is the Raised by Dwarves trait, which Jack 1 could easily have. But even if he didn't, while one may be more mechanically complex than the other, you can roleplay them however you like.
That's kinda the point of the whole thing. It doesn't matter how good or bad your system mastery is, roleplaying is a separate skill that is as related to the mechanics of the game as you make it. Just because my Gnoll Fighter is a Lore Warden doesn't mean he has to be a member of the Pathfinders. It's just a toolbox that fits the set of skills I perceive him having.
Play or roleplay means the same thing to me, my apologies for not being clearer.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The first is slightly easier to play. You don't have to explain some of the more colorful aspects of the build.Here is a general question...
Is it easier to role play...
Jack the human rogue 5?
Or
Jack the half android - half strix, slayer 1, unchained rogue 3, cleric (trickery) 1, raised By dwarves trait, glaive-combat reflexes-sping Attack build?
Or is it exactly the same?
On the other hand, explanation is part of roleplaying. So more "color" makes it easier to come up with ways to express your character. That's why detail is so useful, and why gimmick improv works so well.
I'd say the latter is a little bit easier to roleplay as-is, but only because you gave all the info in the build. If Rogue Jack had an amount of effort put into his story equivalent to the effort put into Android Jack's build, they'd be exactly the same.
As-is, Rogue Jack just has a lazy player. If you switched the levels of effort, Rogue Jack would become the easier PC to roleplay.
|
|
Same reason there is a recent thread where the GM wants to decide how to make his PCs train the next level powers.
Some people think the fighter , who has always trained to be a fighter and to use a sword , going out to kill 20 goblins and coming back picking up a spell book and starting to cast spells around like a wizard even if he never actually spent a day training that is weird. In theory if those start ages mean anything , then learning to cast spells like a wizard should take more than 2 days to learn , dont matter how many goblins you killed with your sword.
There are GMs and GMs , to some going swashbuckler 1/fighter 1/monk 3/paladin 3/ slayer 2... wont really work unless the player has one hell of an explanation for all this lols.
In the same way, there's people who think that a wizard who goes out and kills 20 goblins and comes back learning how to magically open doors with magic is entirely fine. The game doesn't make sense (especially for spellcasters.) This still isn't affecting you aside from selective verisimilitude issues.
Also I can explain swash 1/fighter 1/monk 3/paladin 3/slayer 2, hell aside from paladin that's all really easy.
This character fought people and learned new techniques from it. There, done. Not like there's a straight road to learning how to fight after all. I'm not sure why swash/monk/slayer are that special since they're just different ways of fighting, that's not really a thing unless you (in game) know how a fighter should fight. Hell, I think it's in poor taste to even assume you know another character's levels/feats/skills/etc.
It's not impossible for roleplaying and optimization to conflict. It's not always a failure of roleplaying or optimization that results in such conflicts. Sometimes the game is just poorly designed.
Imagine if you grabbed a feat that said, "You win all combat encounters but can no longer roleplay your character". If I put such a feat in my game and let the players know that they can take it, then Stormwind is not a fallacy. In that game you choose either to optimize or roleplay.
The first is slightly easier to play. You don't have to explain some of the more colorful aspects of the build.Here is a general question...
Is it easier to role play...
Jack the human rogue 5?
Or
Jack the half android - half strix, slayer 1, unchained rogue 3, cleric (trickery) 1, raised By dwarves trait, glaive-combat reflexes-sping Attack build?
Or is it exactly the same?
On the other hand, explanation is part of roleplaying. So more "color" makes it easier to come up with ways to express your character. That's why detail is so useful, and why gimmick improv works so well.
I'd say the latter is a little bit easier to roleplay as-is, but only because you gave all the info in the build. If Rogue Jack had an amount of effort put into his story equivalent to the effort put into Android Jack's build, they'd be exactly the same.
As-is, Rogue Jack just has a lazy player. If you switched the levels of effort, Rogue Jack would become the easier PC to roleplay.
Maybe so. But then, we're given little else other than what The Sword has offered, so it is hard to say that #1 is lazy or whatnot, anymore than saying that #2 threw darts at a group of ideas and mashed them into a character.
While the results of #2's dart throwing gives them some color, from the various threads we have running around I'd wager that #2 would run into some trouble at some tables, where #1, despite being lazy/boring/ordinary, might squeak through. Except tables that hate rogues in general. Then they are both equally in trouble.
The test is skewed, however. We're not given anything about #1 except that he is a human rogue level 5 named Jack. He's a blank slate that you can put anything into, which makes him, at least for my money, easier to RP because he can be just about anything you want right out of the gate.
It's not impossible for roleplaying and optimization to conflict. It's not always a failure of roleplaying or optimization that results in such conflicts. Sometimes the game is just poorly designed.
Imagine if you grabbed a feat that said, "You win all combat encounters but can no longer roleplay your character". If I put such a feat in my game and let the players know that they can take it, then Stormwind is not a fallacy. In that game you choose either to optimize or roleplay.
Well, not really since the character would never have a reason to get into a fight, you'd be choosing between "Playing" or "Sitting out the game".
The first is slightly easier to play. You don't have to explain some of the more colorful aspects of the build.Here is a general question...
Is it easier to role play...
Jack the human rogue 5?
Or
Jack the half android - half strix, slayer 1, unchained rogue 3, cleric (trickery) 1, raised By dwarves trait, glaive-combat reflexes-sping Attack build?
Or is it exactly the same?
On the other hand, explanation is part of roleplaying. So more "color" makes it easier to come up with ways to express your character. That's why detail is so useful, and why gimmick improv works so well.
I'd say the latter is a little bit easier to roleplay as-is, but only because you gave all the info in the build. If Rogue Jack had an amount of effort put into his story equivalent to the effort put into Android Jack's build, they'd be exactly the same.
As-is, Rogue Jack just has a lazy player. If you switched the levels of effort, Rogue Jack would become the easier PC to roleplay.
Maybe so. But then, we're given little else other than what The Sword has offered, so it is hard to say that #1 is lazy or whatnot, anymore than saying that #2 threw darts at a group of ideas and mashed them into a character.
While the results of #2's dart throwing gives them some color, from the various threads we have running around I'd wager that #2 would run into some trouble at some tables, where #1, despite being lazy/boring/ordinary, might squeak through. Except tables that hate rogues in general. Then they are both equally in trouble.
The test is skewed, however. We're not given anything about #1 except that he is a human rogue level 5 named Jack. He's a blank slate that you can put anything into, which makes him, at least for my money, easier to RP because he can be just about anything you want right out of the gate.
The Gate is OP.
|
The Gate is OP.The first is slightly easier to play. You don't have to explain some of the more colorful aspects of the build.Here is a general question...
Is it easier to role play...
Jack the human rogue 5?
Or
Jack the half android - half strix, slayer 1, unchained rogue 3, cleric (trickery) 1, raised By dwarves trait, glaive-combat reflexes-sping Attack build?
Or is it exactly the same?
On the other hand, explanation is part of roleplaying. So more "color" makes it easier to come up with ways to express your character. That's why detail is so useful, and why gimmick improv works so well.
I'd say the latter is a little bit easier to roleplay as-is, but only because you gave all the info in the build. If Rogue Jack had an amount of effort put into his story equivalent to the effort put into Android Jack's build, they'd be exactly the same.
As-is, Rogue Jack just has a lazy player. If you switched the levels of effort, Rogue Jack would become the easier PC to roleplay.
Maybe so. But then, we're given little else other than what The Sword has offered, so it is hard to say that #1 is lazy or whatnot, anymore than saying that #2 threw darts at a group of ideas and mashed them into a character.
While the results of #2's dart throwing gives them some color, from the various threads we have running around I'd wager that #2 would run into some trouble at some tables, where #1, despite being lazy/boring/ordinary, might squeak through. Except tables that hate rogues in general. Then they are both equally in trouble.
The test is skewed, however. We're not given anything about #1 except that he is a human rogue level 5 named Jack. He's a blank slate that you can put anything into, which makes him, at least for my money, easier to RP because he can be just about anything you want right out of the gate.
All my characters have died at the gate.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Stop gatekeeping, Norgrim!
In seriousness, I find a full slate easier to roleplay than a blank one. Sure, you can add whatever you want to a blank slate, but that emptiness is daunting. It's why it's easier to start roleplaying when someone else has already entered the scene (and why an awkward silence generally follows when the GM says, "Okay, now roleplay for a bit").
There better not be a new thread titled 'Nerf the Gate!'
I'm not falling for that one.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Better yet, a supplement
Nerf: the Thousand Year Gate
A thrilling adventure for 5 - 8 players that spans the world of Aeros Oft, a land locked in eternal war. However, hope lies in the form of a prophecy that one day all weapons will be rendered harmless. Your players will go from humble origins as caravan guards to delvers of ancient ruins, in search of the amulet of Ta'zerin, the key to unlocking the Thousand Year Gate. Ultimately, the heroes will face a final guardian to determine if it's Nerf or nothing.
Stop gatekeeping, Norgrim!
In seriousness, I find a full slate easier to roleplay than a blank one. Sure, you can add whatever you want to a blank slate, but that emptiness is daunting. It's why it's easier to start roleplaying when someone else has already entered the scene (and why an awkward silence generally follows when the GM says, "Okay, now roleplay for a bit").
Too many years of bad improv classes means that when I am handed weird things and told to run with it, I cringe internally and wonder if I can drop the class and still graduate. "You are a half android half strix raised by dwarves! GO!" "Um... no? Do we have a pregen I can play instead?"
Too many years of bad improv classes means that when I am handed weird things and told to run with it, I cringe internally and wonder if I can drop the class and still graduate. "You are a half android half strix raised by dwarves! GO!" "Um... no? Do we have a pregen I can play instead?"Stop gatekeeping, Norgrim!
In seriousness, I find a full slate easier to roleplay than a blank one. Sure, you can add whatever you want to a blank slate, but that emptiness is daunting. It's why it's easier to start roleplaying when someone else has already entered the scene (and why an awkward silence generally follows when the GM says, "Okay, now roleplay for a bit").
You will take what you are given. There is no other cure.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Too many years of bad improv classes means that when I am handed weird things and told to run with it, I cringe internally and wonder if I can drop the class and still graduate. "You are a half android half strix raised by dwarves! GO!" "Um... no? Do we have a pregen I can play instead?"Stop gatekeeping, Norgrim!
In seriousness, I find a full slate easier to roleplay than a blank one. Sure, you can add whatever you want to a blank slate, but that emptiness is daunting. It's why it's easier to start roleplaying when someone else has already entered the scene (and why an awkward silence generally follows when the GM says, "Okay, now roleplay for a bit").
I would ask why it is different from a cyborg at least. I mean...half android is cyborg, right? Or is this like...the child of a Cylon with a fully functional reproductive system? But wouldn't that most likely just end up as half human (assuming that the reproductive system was meant to act like a human's and make human babies)?
I might be tempted to just imagine that he is the result of a horrible, horrible tear in causality, causing dogs adn cats to fall in love, to have apples fall up instead of giving Newton 1d3 damage, and for goblins to love libraries. He would just be a mass of arbitrary traits and personality features randomly spawned by the universe.
I might be tempted to give him ALL THE BACKSTORIES, where his dwarven parents where simultaneously killed by an evil overlord, a vampire, an orc, a bandit, and a dragon in a dark alley as they left the movie theater showing Zorro. He swore that he would become the leader of the ninja village that adopted him before he was taken by a half giant to a hidden school to become a wizard, when he stumbled into a battle between a magical girl and a demon that awoke his spiritual powers. He was then summoned to a different world in order to defeat the demon king, but it turned out that was a computer simulation and he had to download kungfu skills in order to take the ring to the volcanoe in Mordor.
Interesting answers. I didn't feel paticularly strongly about it either way. I do think 2 may be easier to write a background for, but as for the day to day roleplaying I think there are a lot more elements to take into account in Jack 2 and therefore he would be harder to roleplay. I guess the challenge is when the player has a high Mastery Score but a Low Roleplay score and attempts Jack 2 that's when people believe the Stormwind Fallacy is true. It isn't Roll v Role because many other players may be able to handle both, but it may appear that way to some. Whereas Jack 1 could be made as complicated or as uncomplicated as you like.
Character optimization and roleplaying are not two opposite sides of a line. They're the X and Y axis on a grid.
You can be both. You can be neither. You can be one or the other.
Imagine it a 20-point scale, from -10 to 10, with 10 being emphatic love and/mastery, zero being "I can take it or leave it", and -10 being "bugger that crap, I hate it and/or "I just suck at that."
Personally I'm about a 7 optimization, 9 roleplaying, (and -9 if you add a third axis, "puzzles, mazes, riddles, and other stuff the player needs to solve instead of his character"), where my wife is a 4 optimization, -9 roleplaying (and 10 puzzles, etc).
Some of the most emphatic roleplayers I have ever met are also the most minmaxing stat squeezing power gaming optimizers. They will NEVER play a single class fighter with a 14 charisma, but they also will make disadvantageous choices in game because it fits their character better, write four pages of backstory, and insist on acting out buying four sets of trail rations.
Conversely, other players I know (mostly GM's or players' girlfriends dragged along against their wills - those there voluntarily are a different story) will be a straight up lump, "Silent Jane", who will not speak until spoken to, only roll dice and day "I attack this one", and couldn't make a mechanically decent character if their life depended on it.
To be fair, N. Jolly has a slight bias because if we don't optimize he's out of a job.
Don't take his jerb
His job nobody pays him for that he does for nothing more than the thanks of the community by strangers who have no idea who he really is and therefore gets no real fame from?
How is that a motivator or does it make his opinion any less valid? Seems like a thinly veiled excuse to write someone's opinion off...
|
|
To be fair, N. Jolly has a slight bias because if we don't optimize he's out of a job.
Don't take his jerb
His job nobody pays him for that he does for nothing more than the thanks of the community by strangers who have no idea who he really is and therefore gets no real fame from?
How is that a motivator or does it make his opinion any less valid? Seems like a thinly veiled excuse to write someone's opinion off...
Thanks GTG, but I honestly assumed Cavall meant that as a joke as per the humorous misspelling of 'jerb' in their second line. I myself am more partial to 'jorb', but Homestar Runner will always have a place in my heart. I'm just glad people appreciate my guides, since I've always liked writing them.
I don't really mind if anyone does optimize, I've never thought of what I write as 'optimization' guides, instead more of 'design goal' guides. Everyone has a different design goal, and really I just want to help the community meet theirs for their games.
I do have a big problem with people trying to police RP and always using the most extreme examples they can for this. I don't really care if someone wants to play a half black dragon war troll to be immune to all damage if that's the kind of game we're playing. Would telling you a short story about how a black dragon was drunk and stupid one night even matter?
Would it matter if I explained how a dwarf found a strix baby who was badly wounded and patched it up to the point where it was half android that took a shine to a trickster god but realized its faith wasn't strong enough, so it decided to honor the god in its own ways through the arts of the slayer and rogue, using the glaive that its adopted father left behind for it?
Or are you just trying to force some arbitrary RP that will only ever matter in a backstory? This needless enforcement of validation behind mechanical choices doesn't make a better character. Hell, I'd be all for refluffing stuff to make it more logical to write a back story for (although cyborg strix sounds SUPER COOL!), so if you don't like the flavor of your options or what someone else is saying, add your own flavor. Jack 1 and Jack 2 (better known as P-Jack to the cool kids) could have the same backstory, just one's a sick cyborg hawk, and the other isn't.
There was a part of me that assumed there was a joke factor with the South Park reference, but sometimes usually humor I rooted in truth, and I wanted to make sure nobody else thought that was a valid reason to write you off.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Optimization isn't bad, but Optimisation is. Why? Because there is no letter "s" in the word optimize.
Those people are complaining that their players are not pessimistic enough.
Optimization isn't bad, but Optimisation is. Why? Because there is no letter "s" in the word optimize.
Those people are complaining that their players are not pessimistic enough.
You are joking right?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
You are joking right?Optimization isn't bad, but Optimisation is. Why? Because there is no letter "s" in the word optimize.
Those people are complaining that their players are not pessimistic enough.
Yes...
...butsometimesusually humor is rooted in truth....
I know you weren't complaining about positivity, but it's still like spelling color with a u - it's just wrong.
That argument has been made across several RP'ing forums. Many people have said "I am a roleplayer, not a rollplayer", or other backhanded compliments about someone's ability to build a mechanical viable character and insinuated that it help back their ability to roleplay."Knock-knock!"
"Who's there?"
"Brick wall!"
"Brick wall who?"
"Have you heard the Good News about the Stormwind Fallacy?"I'm so sick of this.
The Stormwind Fallacy is itself a fallacy - namely, a strawman: It's trying to counter an argument I don't think anyone's ever actually made, while completely failing to address the real arguments that are being mistaken for the strawman. The Stormwind Fallacy is like a holy scripture of this "Church of Gaming" that's popped up over the past decade or so that has its own codified language and mindset that forces you to either conform to it, regardless of how you thought or spoke before, or not be able to communicate coherently with "the faithful" at all and hence risk getting treated as a kind of second-class gamer.
A wonderful example of how Order causes discord, I suppose.
I meant to say "..it hindered their ability to roleplay"
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
it's still like spelling color with a u - it's just wrong.
Flagged for cultural insensitivity.
:p
it's still like spelling color with a u - it's just wrong.Flagged for cultural insensitivity.
:p
I'm not offended. American English is a little like sticking a beautiful painting on two trestles and using it as a wall papering bench.
; D
That's a bit simplistic Mr Pitt. There is an argument that a player that is less proficient at roleplaying but better mechanically will find it harder to roleplay a build that uses large number of features that while mechanically advantageous contain complicated or conflicting concepts, while they would find it easier to play a simpler build.
That is a variance in roleplaying effect based on build.