You Don't Get Brownie Points For Building Ineffective Characters


Gamer Life General Discussion

1 to 50 of 65 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | next > last >>

4 people marked this as a favorite.

So, I'm going to stand up on a soap box for a moment, and talk about an issue very close to my heart. Some players may agree, others may not. However, I think that the goal of any player should be to build effective characters who can achieve their goals, and back-up their fluff and story with concrete rules.

At the same time, I do not believe that being creative when it comes to character story gives you a free pass on the mechanics. You are bound by the same rules as everyone else at the table, which is what stops the game from turning into a round of playground make-believe where you can conjure an everything-proof shield.

Claiming your character is "well-rounded" doesn't change the fact that we brought you along to help slay the dragon. If you can't hack it, say so up-front instead of explaining why you invested in Perform (Dance) and Run, instead of abilities that would assist the party in getting the job done.

For those who care to read more, You Don't Get Brownie Points For Building Ineffective Characters sums up the rest of my feelings on the subject.

*steps down from soap box*


2 people marked this as a favorite.

Well there can be a situation where one or more players want to play a social centric game or an intrigue based game, and not slaying dragons. There should be a recognition between a GM and the players on the general kind of game you intend to run. If the GM runs combat heavy games, the players need to know this ahead of time, and should be recommended to the kind characters they ought not play.

I'm not an advocate of buiding ineffective characters, at the same time, combat heavy isn't always the goal, and over optimization, I consider a bad thing, something me and my players avoid. It works at our table though may not for others.


Agreed

Sovereign Court

3 people marked this as a favorite.

I will say I definitely think people should read the linked blog, because to me that blog and this post come off saying very different things.

The OP here reads to me like "fluff isn't important if you aren't great in your crunch", but the blog has more of a "don't build around fluff if your mechanics don't match" vibe, which I agree with.

The example in the blog is a good one. A cleric who was a fighter who will always step into combat, but intentionally built a non combat character. That's not just "why would you do that", that causes problems for the rest of the party and shouldn't be done.

However, the comment here about being brought along to slay a dragon - that depends what the players told ahead of time. If you tell me to build a a character for a campaign that's all combat and no roleplay, I'm not going to put skills into Diplomacy, or take feats that help with Disguise. Likewise, if you tell me it's a role play campaign with little combat, I'm probably not going to take things like Power Attack or Cleave.

If you don't tell me anything though, I'm going to build a well rounded character with an obvious focus area. Can I talk to people? Sure, I'm decent at that. Use magic items? Depends on my fluff. Beat stuff up? You bet, because combat kills you more often that failed skill rolls.

There's an important divide between the two sides, and too many people play one and ignore the other. Crunch is not the end all be all, and shouldn't ever be treated as such unless the GM makes it clear you should.


Pathfinder Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber

One thing that you can help a player that wants his background represented is the use of traits. A useful bonus, but it can give your cage-fighter something represent his pick pocketing days. Could that trait be better spent on Reactionary or something similar? Of course, but it does provide an avenue.

Really good read, I agree with pretty much everything you had to say.

Grand Lodge

2 people marked this as a favorite.

I think this sets up a false dichotomy that you either have a mechanically perfect character using all the "right" options or you have a wirthless gimmick character with stuff like Skill Focus (Appraise) or whatever.

In fact, I think there's a third, middle option, and it's a wide gray area. At one end are your min-maxed murder hobos, at the other end is Derpy, the dwarf wizard with 11 Intelligence and max ranks in Perform (Comedy). That whole middle area, however, is made up of characters that are balanced between efficiency and theme. I think most of us fit in there, too, so it's unfair to assume that you're either a power gamer or a useless joker.


So this is a subject i'm kind of familiar with and also havea bit of strong feelings for.

I absolutely hate seeing things like Crossblooded dragon orc's goddamn every where. I respected it as an idea at first but then it became common.

Basically i'm going sum up what i'm trying to say to avoid making a speech. i believe that Fluff and crunch should be 50/50. You should be effective but also creative, that said i hate super min maxy optimizing munchkins i think it ruins the game.

for example reactionary

You were bullied often as a child, but never quite developed an offensive response. Instead, you became adept at anticipating sudden attacks and reacting to danger quickly.

is a really good trait but a see many people ignore the fluff of it which sort of implies that your more a self defense running away person.

but yea what i'm saying is fluff is just as important as Crunch. your character doesn't mean anything if you don't have the crunch to back it up.

That's the reason i like the background skills addition from unchained and i enforce using it for Background things like perform dance or something involved in your character in a more personal manner.

Continuing with that i also hate seeing people ask if they can play Trox or some other race that is clearly intended as a monster race and not a pc race

Don't ignore any amount of fluff, reflavor if you want but fluff and crunch should go hand in hand at all times.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

Definitely an issue some players need to consider. Though as a starting point, I'd rather have the hopelessly fluffy than:

"Just tell me what to build to PwN FaCe!"
"Well, what's your character concept?"
"I told you! PwN FaCe!!!"

It's typically easier to get someone to figure out some decent mechanics than it is to get someone to have some sense of creativity.


4 people marked this as a favorite.

Perhaps game systems shouldn't force people to choose by making "fluff" and "combat" abilities part of the same pool of limited resources.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Or at the very least, allow the fluff to be flexible. A good example is the Draconic Sorcerer Bloodline: Legacy Of Dragons gives a few different ideas about where your Draconic power comes from. Maybe you do have a dragon ancestor, or maybe your grandfather slew a wyrm and being so near to it influenced his bloodline, or maybe it's a result of an alchemist experimenting with dragon blood.

None of those options is presented as the "wrong way" to play a Draconic sorcerer.

The Exchange

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Neal Litherland wrote:
Claiming your character is "well-rounded" doesn't change the fact that we brought you along to help slay the dragon.

edit: decided to let the first paragraph stand in parenthesis, as this was what I first thought, before I read your blog post.

[Oh, did you? Because if that (dragon slaying) is all what your game is about, I wouldn't even bother making any character at all.]

The problem with the term effective is that effectiveness is a relative term. If you're playing in one of my games you don't need to have a character able to slay a dragon, because most of the time there are none. And, depending on the game, you'd rather invest your skill points in Perform (Dance) or even Run. If you want to be effective, that is.

Now I've read your blog post, and I agree that it sounds not as hostile as you come across with your starting post here. I also agree that the avian-PC-player obviously had a problem understanding how the game functions. And naturally I agree that a character's strengths should be visible in the mechanics said character uses

Still, I totally disagree with your idea that specialized heroes are by definition better than the "well-rounded" ones. If the game challenges their specific strength, you're obviously right, but what, if it doesn't? What if you have four highly-specialized PCs and then there arises a problem none of them has a solution for. Uh, if only we had asked the bard to accompany us, right?

What I'm saying is that effectiveness highly depends on the style of your game. And as not every game is about dragon-, demon- or even godslaying, you don't necessarily need a character who is able to do this. Maybe he's effective enough if he is able to catch the Chopper or if he's able to defend his town against the orc intruders. Or if he's able to seduce the Sczarni boss's daughter with his dancing skills. Maybe he mustn't optimize his attacking power because there are no opponents so strong that he is forced to do so. So maybe he has the spare feat to increase his perform skill.

Needless to say that a character effective in my game might not be effective in yours. And vice versa. But that's the beauty of the game. That it lends to different styles.

The Exchange

bugleyman wrote:
Perhaps game systems shouldn't force people to choose by making "fluff" and "combat" abilities part of the same pool of limited resources.

I don't think that it's forcing people to do anything. If you're looking at the difficulty of the official adventures, they're easy enough that you can have mechanical effective characters with a lot of fluff.

I think the problem is that this balance gets disturbed if you stray too much from this difficulty level. The harder to survive the battles get, the more the players will have to invest in the combat power of their characters. And the less room will be to make fluff mechanic decisions.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber

*starts handing out actual brownies instead of the old point system*


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Starfinder Maps, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

I've seen arguments like this before.

Quote:
One of the primary arguments on this topic is players who say they want to play "well-rounded" characters. That they would rather go into a game having a wider set of skills at a mediocre level, then one or two abilities that they excel at. That's a fair opinion to have, but ask yourself if you were hiring someone for a specific job, would you hire the guy with the specialized degree and field research, or the person who's worked in a bunch of different areas, and who has a smattering of skills?

It depends on the job.

If you are a software person and the project is creating a tool for estimating building costs, that time you spent as a laborer in your youth most likely gives you better perspective on what is important. Your familiarity is going to help you in the design process.

Taking it back to fantasy gaming, there are some skills where a small investment prevents you from becoming a hinderance to the rest of the party. If you are a fighter who can't climb a rope, that is likely to cost a lot in terms of Fly potions or spells. Same sort of thing happens if you can't keep your head above water.

It is fine to let the specialist lead the way and put a rope in place. Just make sure that you can follow without requiring extensive help for even simple tasks.

This doesn't mean you shouldn't have any skills that you specialize in -- just that you shouldn't become a hinderance to the rest of the party under a mild load. Having a reasonable chance of being able to "Aid Another" on that critical bluff or diplomacy check takes a lot less resources than the face character invested.

So, can you climb a rope when fully kitted up?

Grand Lodge RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32

Majuba wrote:
*starts handing out actual brownies instead of the old point system*

I would happily tank my casting stat for actual brownies. :D

(If it weren't for this stupid medical diet I'm on...)


One problem that I frequently see with "well rounded" characters is stepping on each others toes. If I have nothing that I'm the best at compared to the party, then I'm severely at risk for spending a great deal of time not doing anything. Yes, there are always arguments for "you have to be able to climb the rope somebody else carried up," or "what if the part is split." But in general, would you rather have the +15 diplomacy check, or the +5? Would you rather let the guy with a +18 sneak or the guy with a +4? Etc. I think the best answer is to find out what everybody else at the table has fun with and decide if you can have fun at that level too. If you can, then it doesn't matter whether you took skill focus 7 times or have cleave on you wizard. If you can't, then find a new group.


LankyOgre wrote:
One problem that I frequently see with "well rounded" characters is stepping on each others toes. If I have nothing that I'm the best at compared to the party, then I'm severely at risk for spending a great deal of time not doing anything. Yes, there are always arguments for "you have to be able to climb the rope somebody else carried up," or "what if the part is split." But in general, would you rather have the +15 diplomacy check, or the +5? Would you rather let the guy with a +18 sneak or the guy with a +4? Etc. I think the best answer is to find out what everybody else at the table has fun with and decide if you can have fun at that level too. If you can, then it doesn't matter whether you took skill focus 7 times or have cleave on you wizard. If you can't, then find a new group.

This is the other way that a character can fail to be part of a party.

To me, a lot of problems, such as stepping on toes and power level differences, can be solved by making characters together as a group.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

Is there a companion article titled "But Then Again, You Don't Get Brownie Points For Buildimg Smashy McSmashFace Either"?
Because there should be.

Obviously, there isn't any "one true way" to play this game, but in general you should try to avoid pushing your character too much on either side of the "crunch-fluff scale".
The 7 Int Wizard with 18 Cha isn't going to help anyone in combat, no matter how cool the idea is; just as the 20 Str/Dex/Con 5 Cha/Int/Wis barbarian isn't going to help the party outside of combat situations.
Disclaimer: may contain exaggeration.

My personal belief in this situation is that you have to find that nice balance between crunch and fluff, that sweet spot that shows off your amazing optimization/number-crunching skills while also proving you could be a novel writer if you wanted to.
"One is not complete without the other", and all that jazz.


Archae wrote:
i believe that Fluff and crunch should be 50/50. You should be effective but also creative, that said i hate super min maxy optimizing munchkins i think it ruins the game.

What's your view on people with fluff and crunch of 100/100?

Quote:
is a really good trait but a see many people ignore the fluff of it which sort of implies that your more a self defense running away person.

Do you still dislike it if people reflavour the trait, or only if they ignore it entirely?

Liberty's Edge

I'm of the opinion that mechanics should be used to properly reflect flavor. Which hopefully involves being competent at a couple of useful things since if you aren't, people wouldn't be adventuring with you.

Which, I think, is what the OP and his linked article are getting at.


Milo v3 wrote:
Archae wrote:
i believe that Fluff and crunch should be 50/50. You should be effective but also creative, that said i hate super min maxy optimizing munchkins i think it ruins the game.

What's your view on people with fluff and crunch of 100/100?

Quote:
is a really good trait but a see many people ignore the fluff of it which sort of implies that your more a self defense running away person.
Do you still dislike it if people reflavour the trait, or only if they ignore it entirely?

100/100 You mad man, that's impossible...though it's fine i mean i was more using 50/50 as in the expression.

Now reflavoring is a bit different, with me personally if your going to reflavor something i want it to be run by me and approved. Ignoring fluff and flavor just makes me really mad, because without it the game is pointless. I try to be a pretty flexible lax gm in general, problem is i have zero tolerance for rules lawyering or abuse of rules.

I just honestly don't like min maxing, fine with optimizing to make a cool idea effective.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Neal Litherland wrote:

So, I'm going to stand up on a soap box for a moment, and talk about an issue very close to my heart. Some players may agree, others may not. However, I think that the goal of any player should be to build effective characters who can achieve their goals, and back-up their fluff and story with concrete rules.

At the same time, I do not believe that being creative when it comes to character story gives you a free pass on the mechanics. You are bound by the same rules as everyone else at the table, which is what stops the game from turning into a round of playground make-believe where you can conjure an everything-proof shield.

Claiming your character is "well-rounded" doesn't change the fact that we brought you along to help slay the dragon. If you can't hack it, say so up-front instead of explaining why you invested in Perform (Dance) and Run, instead of abilities that would assist the party in getting the job done.

For those who care to read more, You Don't Get Brownie Points For Building Ineffective Characters sums up the rest of my feelings on the subject.

*steps down from soap box*

Counterpoint: One need not be optimized to be effective. You can be an effective swimmer without being Michael Phelps, you can be an effective runner without being Usain Bolt.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Neal Litherland wrote:
So, I'm going to stand up on a soap box for a moment, and talk about an issue very close to my heart. Some players may agree, others may not. However, I think that the goal of any player should be to

I agree with you up to about there. The goal of players should be to play in whatever way brings them enjoyment from this GAME (reminder: no matter how much we get into the immersion and whatnot, at the end of the day, Pathfinder is a game). For some, enjoyment comes from making the most min-maxed and efficient build mathematically possible for a given scenario, and for others it's RPing a quirky character or using their abilities in maybe less overall effective but more outside-the-box ways. Sure you have to at least be able to conquer the enemies you face, but beyond that, anything else you do with your build should be based on what makes you happy and what's fun for you. If that means making fights doable but a little more difficult because you put points in Perform (Tap Dance), then go for it.

Liberty's Edge

RDM42 wrote:
Counterpoint: One need not be optimized to be effective. You can be an effective swimmer without being Michael Phelps, you can be an effective runner without being Usain Bolt.

I don't think anyone is arguing you must be As Optimized As Physically Possible(tm)...but a certain level of competence in at least one field is required in most groups to not wind up being completely useless.

What level of competence/optimization that is varies quite a bit from group to group, but almost universally there's some level you need to hit to feel really effective. You should do that.


Honestly, the level of complexity of the ruleset and embarrassment of riches regarding available player options is starting to put me off PFRPG as a system.

Frankly, it's become very difficult to run a PFRPG game with a mix of rules experts and casual players that's fun for both. I'm moving more toward "rules light" systems that emphasize story over the mechanics, like Dungeon World, or FATE Accelerated, or (to a lesser degree) D&D 5e.

Grand Lodge

One thing that hasn't been mentioned yet - this is a very different issue in an ongoing campaign vs. a Pathfinder Society session.

In an ongoing campaign, I think it's most important that everyone is on the same page. I've seen groups where one player is basically the quirky comic relief character who doesn't contribute much to combat, and as long as everyone in the group (including the DM) understands that and is okay with it, no harm done. It's only a problem if that player wants to be able to contribute and can't, or if the other players want a more serious game that this character is undermining.

PFS is a different story. The fifth PFS character who sits down at the table bumps up the difficulty, and if that fifth character is a fighter who can't hit anything or a rogue who keeps getting caught while sneaking because he's wearing half-plate, he's a liability. In other words, in an open sign-up situation, the minimum expected level of effectiveness is higher.


Cenorin wrote:


PFS is a different story. The fifth PFS character who sits down at the table bumps up the difficulty, and if that fifth character is a fighter who can't hit anything or a rogue who keeps getting caught while sneaking because he's wearing half-plate, he's a liability. In other words, in an open sign-up situation, the minimum expected level of effectiveness is higher.

Which means you build your character to survive that situation, which increases the gulf...


5 people marked this as a favorite.

Because there are always new posters joining the forums looking to discuss an issue they're unfamiliar with, I don't resent the perpetual existence of threads like this. The forums have a lot of "recurring issues" where the same old faces always crash the party to repeat points everyone knows by heart (the "dump stats/punishing low Charisma" arguments, the "special snowflake" arguments, the "player entitlement vs. GM tyranny" arguments we used to have so many of, and of course, paladins and C/MD), but sometimes fresher faces just need to rehash subjects most long-time posters have already been over.

This is one of them. There have been a lot of "roleplaying vs. rollplaying" threads here. I'm getting pretty tired of them, as nothing new has ever really come up. It's the same old ideas repeated ad infinitum (did I say that right?).

I tend to build subpar characters, but I don't enjoy a character whose abilities don't match their roleplaying flavor, and I don't enjoy characters who can't do anything in multiple scenes. The rules should match the story, in my view. And I don't enjoy a story where my character frequently has nothing to contribute.

BNW wrote:
Which means you build your character to survive that situation, which increases the gulf...

Does it? In PFS, the problem isn't the gulf between PCs—it's the gulf between a given PC and the scenario difficulty. It's okay to outshine other PCs in PFS, theoretically. You just shouldn't drag them down to the extent that someone is in more danger of dying because of your "roleplaying flair".


Kobold Cleaver wrote:


BNW wrote:
Which means you build your character to survive that situation, which increases the gulf...
Does it? In PFS, the problem isn't the gulf between PCs—it's the gulf between a given PC and the scenario difficulty. It's okay to outshine other PCs in PFS, theoretically. You just shouldn't drag them down to the extent that someone is in more danger of dying because of your "roleplaying flair".

And you also shouldn't build your character to be tough enough to pick up the slack from a couple others - and then complain scenarios are too easy when none of the useless builds show up.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

This is what I don't like about these discussions. One person makes a blanket statement ("Don't build weak characters"), people protest it ("Weak characters can be fun"), and then both sides bust out opposing examples of jerks when it's clear they all essentially agree.

It's mostly an attitude being debated here. One side is slightly more disposed to dislike the weak character, the other the stronger character. But there's no real disagreement for the most part.

Am I making the slightest bit of sense here?

The Exchange

Kobold Cleaver wrote:
Am I making the slightest bit of sense here?

Just for the record, you do. Though I'm not sure if I agree with people making blanket statements as long as I'm not the one making them ;)


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Kobold Cleaver wrote:
]Does it? In PFS, the problem isn't the gulf between PCs—it's the gulf between a given PC and the scenario difficulty. It's okay to outshine other PCs in PFS, theoretically. You just shouldn't drag them down to the extent that someone is in more danger of dying because of your "roleplaying flair".

It can tick off the other players if the gulf is too much. It's not a whole lot of fun if someone nukes the encounters for you before you get to do anything.

It's not AS bad as dying, probably, to most people, but it's less than enjoyable.

The trick is that hyper uber optimizing quizinarts of death aren't WRONG , you just either need to find a group where you're all within one geek standard deviation of each other if you occupy the same niche.


This feels like a slightly tangental version of a breakdown of the Stormwind Fallacy.


Doomed Hero wrote:
This feels like a slightly tangental version of a breakdown of the Stormwind Fallacy.

It's more towards the argument that you have to optimize a bit rather than it won't cost you anything in terms of role playing.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

A well designed game wouldn't allow a player character to exist that can't fill both combat and noncombat roles.

The way the vigilante is forced to choose a mix of combat and noncombat abilities is the only time I've seen any professional game designer in the D&D legacy get this right since the thief screwed everyone else out of noncombat competence by introducing rules for it exclusive to himself.

If feats are the primary form of combat ability and skills the primary form of noncombat ability there should be no feats to boost noncombat capabilities at all and no way to build a character with too few skills to be useful without taking an NPC class. Feats that aren't genuinely useful (looking at you, fleet and run) and skills that do not further being an adventurer (ie. all the dayjob skills) should flat out not exist. Baker should be a line of backstory, not a skill.

If skills can effect combat and noncombat feats exist every character should be both given enough skills and feats to be good both in and out of combat at the same time and required to take a mix the way the vigilante is required to take a mix of vigilante and social talents.


Characters should be built with the idea of what is fun to the player. If having a optimized powerhouse for combat is the player's idea of fun then great, enjoy the character you created. If another player designs their character around personality and social integration rather than heavy combat because that is the type of character they want to play, then that's what they should do.

The goals of most campaign groups will vary considerably unless you play only one type of game....be it hack and slash all the time or city adventures...or politically oriented campaigns. Each character is designed to shine in the focal point they are built around.

In my mind, playing the type of character the player finds fun (so long as it doesn't create intentional rifts between the other players) is the way to go.

Don't build every character on one theme unless it is the only theme you play all the time.

Versatility is your friend in RPG.


EileenProphetofIstus wrote:
If having a optimized powerhouse for combat is the player's idea of fun then great, enjoy the character you created. If another player designs their character around personality and social integration rather than heavy combat because that is the type of character they want to play, then that's what they should do.

Having a personality is in no way diminished by optimizing the living heck out of something

If you want your character to have skills thats fine, but a reasonably well built character can have skills and a presence on the battlefield that characters seem to inevitably wind up on.


I personally favor crunch, but that's just me. I find it helpful for fluff though.

For example I'm making a Samsaran Druid. That's purely for optimazation, but now I can make a story. In a past life, he used to be a selfish greedy priest. Now he's more kind and humble, revering nature.

You could do it the other way, but I like adding fluff after the crunch.

@Neal, I do actually read and enjoy the blog. Keep it up.


BigNorseWolf wrote:
EileenProphetofIstus wrote:
If having a optimized powerhouse for combat is the player's idea of fun then great, enjoy the character you created. If another player designs their character around personality and social integration rather than heavy combat because that is the type of character they want to play, then that's what they should do.

Having a personality is in no way diminished by optimizing the living heck out of something

If you want your character to have skills thats fine, but a reasonably well built character can have skills and a presence on the battlefield that characters seem to inevitably wind up on.

The whole point was that a player should be able to roll up the type of character they want based on the game aspects that they wish. I never said a heavy hitting fighter couldn't have a personality.


mmm sounds like a LN rant to me

Mr Chickenlegs is going to get BBQed some day and the Weejans charge a lot of coin in SCAP since they have the lock on the market.

So have an OLD elven druid do a reincarnate so you can reboot the character. I mean dead is dead . . . .

oh, I can't forget! GO ISTUS! Hands of Fate! wooo hooo!


1 person marked this as a favorite.

it still amazes me how many crossblooded dragon orc children are walking around nowadays.


3 people marked this as a favorite.

I read that as, "crossblooded dragon orc chickens".


Ammon Knight of Ragathiel wrote:
it still amazes me how many crossblooded dragon orc children are walking around nowadays.

Dragons have an attraction to mates with big sharp pointy teeth.


goes with owlbears . . . .

Grand Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Neal Litherland wrote:

So, I'm going to stand up on a soap box for a moment, and talk about an issue very close to my heart. Some players may agree, others may not. However, I think that the goal of any player should be to build effective characters who can achieve their goals, and back-up their fluff and story with concrete rules.

At the same time, I do not believe that being creative when it comes to character story gives you a free pass on the mechanics. You are bound by the same rules as everyone else at the table, which is what stops the game from turning into a round of playground make-believe where you can conjure an everything-proof shield.

Claiming your character is "well-rounded" doesn't change the fact that we brought you along to help slay the dragon. If you can't hack it, say so up-front instead of explaining why you invested in Perform (Dance) and Run, instead of abilities that would assist the party in getting the job done.

For those who care to read more, You Don't Get Brownie Points For Building Ineffective Characters sums up the rest of my feelings on the subject.

*steps down from soap box*

I've read the blog post, which really isn't nearly as inflammatory as your post. Regardless of any other considerations, i wholeheartedly agree that understanding the mechanics and knowing how to use the resources available to you to achieve your goals is vital to every character. PC or Villain.

I have a serious problem with the notion that you shouldn't build to story. I don't care that I'm not "optimized". If I created a compelling reason to have the perform skill in my backstory, I'm not making a bad choice by putting a skill point in it every other level. If I don't spend any resources on my character's story then I am nothing but numbers. There isn't a "correct" way to use tactics on combat, or RP a low charisma, or anything else that makes your character you.

Bottom line is it isn't a wrong choice to use resources to justify a character concept. Without it I find I have an issue justifying my characters emotions and desires.

This is my main issue with PFS. Everyone is entirely too concerned with combat, and noone gives a Damn about RP. The barbarian in the blog post while optimized is fine by me because the player came up with an explanation and reason for the choices he made building the character. As a DM if i wanted to talk with his character through an NPC I could, Because there is substance there.
The cleric example wanted to play a concept, not a character. Regardless of his effectiveness in combat, I wouldn't want to play with him. He doesn't seem to have substance. Now let's say the character after adventuring for a month realizes he isn't a fighter, no matter how much he wants to be. In game that is when he takes the time to reflect and change tactics, or he spends the time/resources to retrain so he can achieve in combat what he wants to. Problem solved, and that is someone I would want to play with.

You dont have to hyper optimize, there is nothing wrong with a middle of the road character, or even a mediocre character. A good DM will find a chance for that player to shine, regardless of the numbers on the paper in front of you. All I care about is whether the player's character is an individual, or a concept. If all I am doing the entire session is worrying about combat I would rather play a video game.


Yep had this happen a lot in our group usually only a couple of players did this. Our group for the most part until within the last few years mostly built characters to be kick down dungeon doors and kill monsters. We didn't spend a lot of energy role playing our characters reflecting this. With our home campaigns we started adding a lot more role playing. While we started adding a lot more role playing we didn't really alter we created our characters simply making our characters interesting through role playing. Now some players decide to make a character so interesting in role playing situations but are worthless in combat. Then to make matters worse complain their characters suck like its some how the rest of the party's fault.
Most of our group design our character to thrive in combat making our characters interesting through role playing. We usually don't sacrifice abilities for role playing. In almost every campaign modules or home grown our characters were different and interesting. One character I loved was my elf wizard in wrath of the righteous. Almost all my abilities were slanted to take out demons. What made him different was he dressed and acted like a dwarf. He knew he was an elf but he had been raised by a dwarf family friend. He took Craft jewelry and Profession miner to reflect that he grew with the dwarf. Two skills for a wizard is painful but everyone liked how I did that and the miner skill actually proved useful.


Ah, this old chestnut.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

when you play, like, dude, you should, um, play the way, you know, you like to, um, play, like, the way that playing is, like fun, and DUDE you should definitely, like, never, I'm serious dude, never, like, play that way that when you play, like, dude, it isn't you know, fun.

1 to 50 of 65 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Gamer Life / General Discussion / You Don't Get Brownie Points For Building Ineffective Characters All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.