Why can't you aspire to both? An optimized character that is interesting to role play as well; that's a real challenge!In general I would say no, you can't do both honestly.
Generally you will do one, and try you best to make the other fit.
Sorry I really should have been more specific:
This statement right here is where the stormwind fallacy comes in. The blanket statement made is that you cannot do both.
|
The only issue I see with a 'rules lite' version emphasizing roleplay is, what would that book entail? Massive amounts of fluff, and essays on proper character techniques? The target audience would already have that I dare say, and the ones who need the guidance would be 'where's the crunch in this?'. I suppose it would be wrong of me to pass judgement on it being a success, since one never knows. Still, remove too much of the rules and we're back to magical tea party and we don't need books to play that.
|
Still, remove too much of the rules and we're back to magical tea party and we don't need books to play that.
hahah.
Funny. Rules-lite would have to be better thought out than my meager skills could come up with. I would leave it to a game designer. Rules-lite would be great to immerse my kids in. I think things would come easy when you remove bottlenecks from speed of play.
Why can't you aspire to both? An optimized character that is interesting to role play as well; that's a real challenge!In general I would say no, you can't do both honestly.
Generally you will do one, and try you best to make the other fit.
Sorry I really should have been more specific:
This statement right here is where the stormwind fallacy comes in. The blanket statement made is that you cannot do both.
However, for most character concepts you MUST make a choice about how much priotity you assign to both roleplaying and character optimisation.
The if you assign full priority is assigned to both the options availiable are limits to a mere handful. However, if you choose to lower the priority assigned to either roleplaying or optimisation, the list of concepts opens up again.
I personally believe that those observations are fact and pretty much beyond dispute. However, that is not to say that it is innately right or wrong to consider one or the other element more important.
I simply place a values judgement that roleplaying should be the greater proirity.
I think it's pretty obvious that discussing roleplaying is harder than discussing min/maxing. In fact I'm going to start a thread to test this.
Why can't you aspire to both? An optimized character that is interesting to role play as well; that's a real challenge!In general I would say no, you can't do both honestly.
Generally you will do one, and try you best to make the other fit.
Sorry I really should have been more specific:
This statement right here is where the stormwind fallacy comes in. The blanket statement made is that you cannot do both.
I'm saying that you will run into issues were either optimizing or RP will have to give way to the other. I didn't say you can't do both, I did say there will be conflicts of interest where you will need to decide to favor one over the other.
|
BUT when you hear Cthulhu, or World of Darkness (for example), one immediately thinks of roleplaying (of the 'acting' type).
Having played both, in Con environments and in multiple individual groups, I can say *I* certainly think of min/maxing. Cthulhu con-gamers are the worst sort of metagaming twinks you'll ever run into, and there's a reason many Werewolf games in the mid-nineties were called "Furry Superfriends" by folks not in those campaigns. Vampire LARPers stigmatized the game for years with their "I'm a 5th generation unique True Brujah/Cappadocian hybrid with four custom disciplines" bullcrap; I'd honestly rather have had them min/max and optimize characters with the rules than take Rule 0 as a license to make whatever uber-abusive character they could come up with "because it's my concept!"
But then, I hate everyone, and everybody kinda sucks.
|
I didn't say you can't do both...
Actually you did, but I forgive you. :)
Role-play vs rollplay is fraught with numerous conflicts of interest. Sometimes you go with the numbers, others you go with the story. It depends on what makes the most sense and what's gonna be the most fun. It's not a perfect system, but nothing is.
I didn't say you can't do both...Actually you did, but I forgive you. :)
Role-play vs rollplay is fraught with numerous conflicts of interest. Sometimes you go with the numbers, others you go with the story. It depends on what makes the most sense and what's gonna be the most fun. It's not a perfect system, but nothing is.
Well I did, but I said you can't do both honestly, I should have said completely. As I do believe at some point you will end up with them in conflict and at that time you will need to favor one over the others.
Ok back to my first guy the Half-Orc who grew up on the streets but was brought in by the church and raised by them. He's devoted to the clergy more then the god they worship but he does also worship the same diety.
Fine that's the story how do we optimize the guy?
Honestly no character in 3.5 is optimized unless their first level is in one of three classes, Rogue, Ranger, or Bard. The difference in skill points from not taking one of them is huge. Ok so we want max optimization and go with Rogue. Completely explainable within our RP at this time. Take two levels in rogue though, it's worth it. Fine now we really need a martial class, but we have a problem we're a half-orc our favored class is barbarian if you take any other martial class it means keeping the levels between rogue and whatever we choose close. Fighter is out, we're headed to Pious templar and will get specialization for free. Paladin is too devoted to the god but we can justify it, problem is we can't level in both the rogue and paladin back and forth so we need to make sure we can qualify for the prestige class with 2 levels of rogue and no more then 3 levels of paladin or we hit an XP penalty. We can't so we need to go barbarian only how do we justify that being a city boy? Change the RP or deal with a less optimal character is how.
That is what I mean about eventually hitting a point were we need to pick one over the other. Thus you aren't really fully optimized if you pick fighter all the way but you're certainly a strong character all the same. And your not really fully keeping your RP if you do go jump on those barbarian levels just to avoid the XP issue. You still have a solid RP story and all, but you needed to twist it a bit.
Other choices might come up later that bring it more into balance, this time you stick with the RP, next time you decide to stick with the optimal choice. It need not always mean the aspect will suffer for the other, it can alternate.
|
|
Ok back to my first guy the Half-Orc who grew up on the streets but was brought in by the church and raised by them. He's devoted to the clergy more then the god they worship but he does also worship the same diety.Fine that's the story how do we optimize the guy?
All right. Here's one of the disconnects in this thread. First, this ain't a story. It's not even a character sketch. It's a character trait.
That's not enough for lots of people, and is more than enough for others. Witness the train-wreck that was Joey Virtue wanting "a paladin wielding a greatsword." If things such as that and the above are what we're building from, yeah, it's trivial to have story and character match with optimization.
Ok back to my first guy the Half-Orc who grew up on the streets but was brought in by the church and raised by them. He's devoted to the clergy more then the god they worship but he does also worship the same diety.Fine that's the story how do we optimize the guy?
All right. Here's one of the disconnects in this thread. First, this ain't a story. It's not even a character sketch. It's a character trait.
That's not enough for lots of people, and is more than enough for others. Witness the train-wreck that was Joey Virtue wanting "a paladin wielding a greatsword." If things such as that and the above are what we're building from, yeah, it's trivial to have story and character match with optimization.
But you end up focusing first on either optimization or the story, whichever you do second is there to make the first thing work, but it will bend as needed to make the first part do what you wanted it to.
A trait would be his devotion to the clergy, the backstory is why he has that devotion. I gave both. In the end I gave him a drive, a reason to be who he will be and a way to make judgement calls that will come up as the game progresses. As it is played he will change, maybe he will find that devotion to his god, maybe he will loose it all, maybe he will find a love of music at some point and become a bard, who knows that is to be played out.
At first level I never felt the need to go nuts with a backstory, they haven't done all that much with their lives yet, they may have dreams aspirations, and maybe some more interesting events in their past. But their story will be told by the game playing and RP that starts after you being playing. To me real good RP takes place between people (players and DM). The stuff you write down before hand is just a starting point not the end point I have seen too many "RPer" think it is.
The whole reason I rarely plan out what my character will do as far as prestige classes is because I want him/her to grow naturally with the story. If the story takes us to the point were becoming a bard makes the most sense, or even just spending some time studying music does then I want the freedom to do so. I don't want the need to be a Pious Templar to override the story/RP.
Joey's thing became a train wreck because one poster decided to make it such. Jeoy was just asking a rules question and someone decided to be a tool about it. We can turn any thread into a train wreck if we all want to act out.
Why can't you aspire to both? An optimized character that is interesting to role play as well; that's a real challenge!In general I would say no, you can't do both honestly.
Generally you will do one, and try you best to make the other fit.
Sorry I really should have been more specific:
This statement right here is where the stormwind fallacy comes in. The blanket statement made is that you cannot do both.
However, for most character concepts you MUST make a choice about how much priotity you assign to both roleplaying and character optimisation.
The if you assign full priority is assigned to both the options availiable are limits to a mere handful. However, if you choose to lower the priority assigned to either roleplaying or optimisation, the list of concepts opens up again.
I personally believe that those observations are fact and pretty much beyond dispute. However, that is not to say that it is innately right or wrong to consider one or the other element more important.
I simply place a values judgement that roleplaying should be the greater proirity.
I'll disagree. If you want to have a "weakness" and optimize a character you can still both, it just takes some looking at what's available.
Take a bumbling monk for example:
I could easily take the following stats using 15 point pathfinder point buy:
14 Str 7 Dex 14 Con 10 Int 16 Wis 9 Cha Human
Take the Zen Archery feat, and weapon proficiency longbow. then stay back and hit them with arrows, if they close in then hit them with a stunning fist, later you can take point blank shot, precise shot, rapid shot, et al, and still get the gorgon's wraith feat tree.
If they get close you stun then hit them with a full flury of blows.
Or a wizard:
14 Str 7 Dex 14 Con 16 Int 14 Wis 9 Cha Human
Toughness and light armor proficiency. A country bumpkin that got into wizard's college off the fact he was smart, and got kicked out for bumbling into a teacher's project and destroying it. He's still ackward from going up in the boonies, however he also has all his mom's wise sayings to fall back on too. Grab a few levels of ranger to get two weapon fighting, then go eldritch knight. Completely acceptable even though you normally wouldn't dump dex... Heck if you really want to dump Int down to 13. You can't cast spells over 3rd level... but you can still use the slots to metamagic (since a metamagiced spell still counts as its lower level). Use the extra points to get some more Con. Possible interests could be a staff fighter with an arcane bond on the staff (leading up to a staff of Ice and Fire).
A fighter with only a 5 Con? It's doable too though I would want a 20 point buy:
14 Str 20 Dex 5 Con 11 Int 14 Wis 8 Cha Elf
You'll want quick draw two weapon fighting and the point blank shot trees. This elf is very graceful but sickly thin which affects his charisma (too sickly to look good). You can two weapon throw and you'll want vital strike... you'll be throwing light hammers for 1d4+2 damage but at +4 to hit at 20 ft. Far shot will double that and +1 distance light hammers would be great (even at higher level). You'll use vital strike to turn that into 2d4 (then 3d4 damage with improved vital strike) which isn't going to be too big of an issue numbers wise: You get the rapid shot and all the two weapon fighting throws (a total of -4 on your first 3 attacks with 2 at second attack 1 at third attack).
In the end it can be done. However just like in real life you have to realize that weakness while fun to play also means that you have a hole in your defense: You can't expect it to be waved away just for your "role playing", that ruins the reason to have a weakness (the mad props for "role playing") you can't have it both ways (be perfect and be weak).
|
I'll disagree. If you want to have a "weakness" and optimize a character you can still both, it just takes some looking at what's available.Take a bumbling monk for example:
I could easily take the following stats using 15 point pathfinder point buy:
14 Str 7 Dex 14 Con 10 Int 16 Wis 9 Cha Human
Take the Zen Archery feat, and weapon proficiency longbow. then stay back and hit them with arrows, if they close in then hit them with a stunning fist, later you can take point blank shot, precise shot, rapid shot, et al, and still get the gorgon's wraith feat tree.
If they get close you stun then hit them with a full flury of blows.
Or a wizard:
14 Str 7 Dex 14 Con 16 Int 14 Wis 9 Cha HumanToughness and light armor proficiency. A country bumpkin that got into wizard's college off...
This is a good example of a good idea on how to manage one of these characters. It is a little to min/max (focusing on numbers rather than why the elf is sickly, or why the monk is clumsy)for me, but as the original poster said, this type of post is an exception. Looking as most post the focus always seem on why you wouldn't want to do this, or why it would not be the best choice.
|
I mean, honestly folks...it seems as though the mechanics have overrun the entire game.
Whatever happened to having a weakness?
Whatever happened to creating an interesting character concept based on the personality and the way it interacted with the class?
Why does everything have to be "the best"?
Consider this thread, and its collection of replies as the answer to your original question.
Even here, most (not all) seem more concerned with "winning" the various tangential arguments and putting up the "best" (or snarkiest) reply in lieu of considering and addressing only the original topic.
Since most posters here are probably gamers, assume these are like the ones at your table, or in your local area's gaming pool.
Assuming that this selection is a relatively fair representation, you can easily see why everything is about winning, as most of the posts are.
Gaming, and even posting about gaming, is no longer simply about interacting with others in a social group where mutual enjoyment is the common goal. It's seemingly more about everyone as an individual striving to differentiate themselves and in doing so, "win" on some level.
Therefore, in gaming, role-playing as simply playing a character as a character and having fun with the character itself isn't enough.
From my experience and observations, I believe that much of the "problem", if it is such, is that the majority of the new crowd of gamers seems to be drawn heavily from the MMO, tactical mini and Magic play groups. This was the target for WotC and others as they each look to expand their sales and player base.
As a result, the "fun" of role-playing as an aspect of a RPG seems diminished in favor of more MMO-style play and a MMO-style "winning". Since you cannot "win" at an MMO or RPG like you can win at chess, you have to display how much "better" you/your characters are than the others around you. Thus, tangible stat-based optimization takes precedence over anything non-tangible or impossible to statistically qualify such as "She's a great role-player".
For what it's worth, I do like what I've seen of the Beta Pathfinder system, but overall I don't believe that any system will really encourage "role-playing" to the extent that it becomes the primary concern over statistics.
Not that you cannot optimize or min/max your character and still role-play. In practice, at home games, public/store games, RPGA/LFR, or Convention events, I do not see any correlation between the two.
Some players do successfully combine the two, making effective but well-role-played characters. Others simply prefer to *either* focus on role-playing *or* "winning" the game/min-maxing the "Best" character/making the best tactical decisions.
A person who prioritizes role-playing can bring any character to life as something beyond its stats.
However, no perfectly optimized set of stats can be anything but those stats if the player simply prefers to play the game on the level of mechanical/statistical optimization for the sole purpose of "winning" the game.
Prioritizing Role-playing, as some form of interactive, in-depth story-telling and/or improvisational acting isn't as fun for many as it's far harder to determine who "wins".
Plus, role-playing is also far more demanding of players on a personal level--where they may feel embarrassed or unwilling to participate in what they consider "stupid". So, they won't participate in role-playing but they'll gladly push a mini around a map, roll dice and try to win.
All "Role Playing Games", despite their title, are built around a mechanical underpinning that is required by the game to determine "success", even in social situations--and that aspect of "winning" appeals more strongly to most people, especially in the post-MMORPG world.
I don't see a way around it. It's not about the games, it's about the players. If you want more in-character, story-centered role-playing, then you'll have to find people pre-disposed to play the game on that level--assuming you can.
Of course not, but practical optimization is making the best of what you have, just like you would have done in 1st and 2nd edition. Also if you are going on an Iron Man game you might not have much choice on what your stats are.
Of course 3.x has much more flexibility than 1st and 2nd did since there are no longer minimum stat requirements and racial limitations.
Optimization doesn't really do much good if its not attached to some idea. Numbers are fun, role play is fun, both can mesh well in one game if the person is willing to look for something to build into a good character instead of "this isn't workable becuase it isn't optimize". Such talk is nonsense just as such statements as "you can't be role playing if you are optimizing and min/maxing".
I'll take a wizard with a Int 13 and have no problems because I pay attention to where my strengths are: Non save spells, possibly touch attacks, buffing my party and self and ranged touch attacks, not to mention the several "save and still suck" spells out there (web, pyrotechnics, stinking cloud for examples). You won't catch me casting hold person, but haste is still good, and fireball will still do half damage. You can't go in with an idiot and expect to be a rocket scientist... so be the pilot instead!
Also consider that having a familiar can double your spell usage: Keep him within 5 feet of you and any spell you have on yourself is also on the familiar -- mage armor, shield, mirror image, blinking with chill touch anyone?
Optimization actually makes "role playing" much more possible becuase you can take a "sucky" character and turn them into something special dispite the fact they aren't "top of the line". The road there is challenging but that's what great adventures, and adventurers, are made of.
Also just becuase your paladin might have to give back that ancestrial +5 holy avenger you found to some NPC doesn't mean you can't turn that event into something worthwhile for your character too. Befriend the NPC, become allies, take the leadership feat, get the NPC to give you a title and some land to take care of as a steward, use your followers to earn you extra wealth:
O.k. For those who are of the opinion that you can role play and optimize at the same time, why do you need to optimize?
|
|
O.k. For those who are of the opinion that you can role play and optimize at the same time, why do you need to optimize?
Because most DMs run a game that is 90% combat, and monster stats, as written, assume an optimized party? Because if even one guy optimizes, he's that much better than any comparable non-optimized character, and thus screws up balance and fun for the rest of the party? Because some people find character creation as much a part of the game as anything else in the PHB, and they play to win?
Folks in my games can do sub-optimal builds because they know I'm a softball DM who cares more about having silly little fun pretending to be an elf or a wizard than in the tactical exercise that is D&D combat. I *am* the exception rather than the rule, in my experience.
Having a weakness to me does not equal roleplaying though. Ok you have a fighter with a low dex....um he trips alot doesn't use much in the way of ranged weapons but is he by default well roleplayed? I don't think so, he is just a pile of stats until someone plays him in a game. Just as a person with all 18s is just stats until someone plays him in a game. At that point either the player roleplays or doesn't.
Generally weakness is used but what to me is roleplaying is when a character flaw exists in your person that makes things happen that the player would not normally do. Having a 4 dex means you have a low stat, nothing more. But your character having a weak spot for the poor may end up having you give away a great deal of gold you would normally perfer to spend on things to help you fight better.
|
|
I think it is more of an Internet attitude than a real issue with the game One of the reason we see it a lot, is because you can't argue with someone about a role-playing moment. You can argue about a rules calling. IMO message boards tend to draw the people who are interested in feeling smarter than the other guy. They want to show off that thier knowledge is better than yours.
Yeah, but players start lurking on the forums, read what is posted, and then they come back to the table insisting that optimizing to the max one stat is the ONE and ONLY way to play...
O.k. For those who are of the opinion that you can role play and optimize at the same time, why do you need to optimize?Because most DMs run a game that is 90% combat, and monster stats, as written, assume an optimized party? Because if even one guy optimizes, he's that much better than any comparable non-optimized character, and thus screws up balance and fun for the rest of the party? Because some people find character creation as much a part of the game as anything else in the PHB, and they play to win?
Folks in my games can do sub-optimal builds because they know I'm a softball DM who cares more about having silly little fun pretending to be an elf or a wizard than in the tactical exercise that is D&D combat. I *am* the exception rather than the rule, in my experience.
You have cause and effect atleast partly mixed up i think.
I think a lot of DMs would like to provide adventures which are less dependant on characters being optimised but which are challanging.
If one player is unable to deal with not always shining like a bright and briliant star, they will tend to optimise their characters which means that the encounters have to be made tougher to retain the challenge for the the group as a whole. This slowly disenfranchises the other players, forcing them to optimise or accept that their imput during combat.
That is the core of the arms race.
|
|
Because if even one guy optimizes, he's that much better than any comparable non-optimized character, and thus screws up balance and fun for the rest of the party?
If one player is unable to deal with not always shining like a bright and briliant star, they will tend to optimise their characters which means that the encounters have to be made tougher to retain the challenge for the the group as a whole. This slowly disenfranchises the other players, forcing them to optimise or accept that their imput during combat.
That's what I said.
O.k. For those who are of the opinion that you can role play and optimize at the same time, why do you need to optimize?
Hm... personally it's more of a tendency to focus. Ok I know I'm bad at something, that doesn't mean I have to spend all my life (or character's life) bemoaning my lack and being pathetic. Instead I look for what I'm good at and try to do better. Applied strength so to speak after all it's all well and good to recongize weaknesses but real heroes/people try to move past them/ focus on what they are good at.
My DM and I want to play a game, and we want to see a story develop out of it. I have a responsibility to play my character well, and to attempt survive to the end of the story: The DM puts the world together around me. He doesn't "break" or "nerf" my character, I don't "break" or "nerf" his world (note, this doesn't mean my character can't die, or even die because of the character's weakness in an area, but I want the death to be more than "you slipped on your shoelaces botched the save throw and broke your neck -- you're dead.")
In order to survive to the end of the story I play the character smartly -- The wizard doesn't go charging the troll at 3rd level, the fighter doesn't jump into a prismatic wall, the cleric doesn't go first down the hallway, while the rogue doesn't go toe to toe with a dragon in the middle of a field of daisies.
Why?
Because those are all good ways to make sure your character doesn't make it to the end of the story and to ensure that you are a burden to the rest of the party making their survival less likely.
Yes there are sometimes good reasons for a character to do those things, but those reasons are the exception not the rule (like the time my wizard jumped pass an angry animal companion and charged the druid -- because we needed someone to stop the druid from Coup'd'Grac the fighter and I was the closest in the best shape with a good AC at that level (AC 21 at level 1)).
And what is optimizing?
If I have a fighter that was a blacksmith in training that got conscripted into a war is it optimizing if he has some toughness and strength to him? Or if he using some of his blacksmith training to try and make good equipment for himself so he can make it back home? What if his adept fiance makes him some potions of cure light wounds to see him through? Maybe taking Iron Will was optimizing even though he's rather bull headed and prone to stubbornly sticking to his ideas with an independent streak born of being in a rural area full of "down to earth sensible folk"?
I guess I get to the point I got to ask why optimizing is a bad thing.
Why shouldn't you use that +2 long sword you just got from the black guard you defeated?
Would it be bad "role playing" if a bard whose paladin husband just died picks up his holy avenger and uses use magic device to activate it and smite the demon that just killed the paladin?
I just don't see a conflict of interest between the two.
Some good role players are still bad players because they don't want their problems to interfere with their "story", it's not just your story it's our story.
Some good roll players are still bad players because they don't want their characters to be any less than perfect, not understanding that it is unrealistic, unlikely, and probably not playable.
However many people are both: Good role players and Good roll players, and that's fine.
I don't mind sitting at the table while people have elaborate and long in game discussions and stories, I enjoy it and their good fun. I don't mind watching someone get the bonuses they think they need in order to defeat opponent "x" because that is good fun too.
I don't see why the first group should have any problem with the second group or visa versa...
It all looks like personal control issues to me.
O.k. For those who are of the opinion that you can role play and optimize at the same time, why do you need to optimize?Because most DMs run a game that is 90% combat, and monster stats, as written, assume an optimized party? Because if even one guy optimizes, he's that much better than any comparable non-optimized character, and thus screws up balance and fun for the rest of the party? Because some people find character creation as much a part of the game as anything else in the PHB, and they play to win?
Folks in my games can do sub-optimal builds because they know I'm a softball DM who cares more about having silly little fun pretending to be an elf or a wizard than in the tactical exercise that is D&D combat. I *am* the exception rather than the rule, in my experience.
You have cause and effect atleast partly mixed up i think.
I think a lot of DMs would like to provide adventures which are less dependant on characters being optimised but which are challanging.
If one player is unable to deal with not always shining like a bright and briliant star, they will tend to optimise their characters which means that the encounters have to be made tougher to retain the challenge for the the group as a whole. This slowly disenfranchises the other players, forcing them to optimise or accept that their imput during combat.
That is the core of the arms race.
Agreed, but that's a bad player not a bad style of play. Optimizing wasn't the problem, the player unable to deal with being any less than perfect is.
O.k. For those who are of the opinion that you can role play and optimize at the same time, why do you need to optimize?
Because, unless the GM is running a very different game, at some point the character is going to get into a life or death situation where how good they are is critical to their survival. Adventuring is a dangerous profession (high risk, high reward) and any character that doesn't take that into consideration will probably die. Saying adventurers shouldn't optimize like saying professional athletes or musicians shouldn't train/practice ("optimize") to be the best they can be.
|
O.k. For those who are of the opinion that you can role play and optimize at the same time, why do you need to optimize?
For me it's a matter of consideration for the people I game with, who are usually my friends. It would be selfish in the extreme for me to design a character that isn't effective or helpful in any of the usual challenging situations around the D&D experience is based.
It's not all about me, or someone's need for the spotlight. It's about *everyone* working together to have a good time, and I make sure that the characters I build are fun for me to play, but also helpful to the group who may be depending on that character to ensure the survival of *their* characters.
I'd feel pretty bad if my roleplaying caused others at the table to have a bad time. (and this sort of behavior seems rife at conventions, as there's always someone at the table who gets the rest of the party killed off with immature attention-seeking antics that they call 'roleplaying' after the fact, but serve only to make real role-players look bad)
I admit, I enjoy maximizing my NPCs and monsters to their full potential and I rarely hold punches back when dealing with PCs. I also encourage my PCs to be all they could be.
IMO, we gather once a week to play HEROES who are LARGER THAN LIFE. Their characters should be able to do things, which they would never be able to do in real life. D&D is an escapist pasttime and nobody wants to be JoetheLoser who gets along really well with the villagers but can't hold his own in a fight.
I don't understand why good roleplaying = wimpy characters. I have some great roleplayers in my group and they really get into their characters, often without me asking them to. They come to the gaming table once every two weeks or so to play that rogue who can tightrope across a 1 cm wire, while throwing daggers at a flying enemy; or the sorcerer who can incinerate a platoon of infantrymen with a flick of a wrist; or the fighter who can hold an oncoming horde of giants at a chokepoint for a couple vital moments to give his companions time to escape.
To be able to play heroic characters, I usually give my players the maximum allowed point buy (32 before Pathfinder and 25 now) with key NPCs using the same point buy or one category lower. I also like to beef up my monsters by giving them increased HD or the elite array. Sometimes, I give my players a stat boost when they do something really cool (one player made a website for our campaign on his own time and another player writes a miniature novel detailing the events of each campaign from her character's perspective) Even though we like to min/max our characters, we've never had a problem with 'roll-playing' vs 'roleplaying. The most important thing is, make sure you and your players are having fun.
Honestly, some min/maxing is a flaw of game design. For example, the absurd skill bonus of the rogue at first level makes it so that any player who wants to multiclass rogue/anything will as a matter of course start with rogue, so you have tons of characters who start out as street urchins before being taken in by the kindly wizard, and virtually none who flunked out of wizards school and then went and learned how to pickpocket.
As a house rule, I give the rogue skill ranks, and the multiplier, to all characters at first level, so I don't have a nation of street rats or unfairly penalize players who didn't choose that as their background.
Rogues keeping the high skills set at later levels is fine, but it's absurd that the finest finishing schools can't turn out a more well-rounded individual than the local Fagin. (<---- Note: The "no bad words" filter is going berserk, as the last word in the previous sentence is not a slur on sexual preference but the Artful Dodger's mentor, a character from Oliver Twist, which was written by Charles Dickens. Curiously, the author's name gets through the filter unmangled. Apparently you can write "Dickens" but not "Fagin.")
The Stormwind Fallacy is not always a fallacy. It is completely possible to build a character who is a ultimately optimized to do one task, and do it well, and have them be be completely unfun to roleplay in any session that does not rotate around that one thing. The overclocked combat monkey is the most common example of this. Come up with a noncombat situation, anything from knowing how to dance a goblin pavane or how to tell goldfish from blowfish, and properly roleplayed, they'll just look baffled and say "Thog no understand" or something.
Honestly, some min/maxing is a flaw of game design. For example, the absurd skill bonus of the rogue at first level...
... has gone the way of the dodo.
The Stormwind Fallacy is not always a fallacy. It is completely possible to build a character who is a ultimately optimized to do one task, and do it well, and have them be be completely unfun to roleplay in any session that does not rotate around that one thing.
Which is a player issue, not a game system issue. Note (again) that the Stormwind Fallacy is the idea that optimizing characters and role-playing are mutually exclusive, not that some players focus on one or the other.
The overclocked combat monkey is the most common example of this. Come up with a noncombat situation, anything from knowing how to dance a goblin pavane or how to tell goldfish from blowfish, and properly roleplayed, they'll just look baffled and say "Thog no understand" or something.
Actually, the "dumb fighter" can be fun to role-play (within limits) at times. The key, as with any other character, is to avoid "one note" characters without depth. All characters who are only effective in one activity or area are boring. This holds just as true with the "diplomat" bard who is only effective with NPC interaction, the "archmage" wizard who only deals with magic, etc.
That "overclocked combat monkey" can easily have a skill or two like Craft or Knowledge (or even <gasp> Diplomacy) without making them ineffective in their primary activity/area.
|
|
The Stormwind Fallacy is not always a fallacy. It is completely possible to build a character who is a ultimately optimized to do one task, and do it well, and have them be be completely unfun to roleplay in any session that does not rotate around that one thing.Which is a player issue, not a game system issue. Note (again) that the Stormwind Fallacy is the idea that optimizing characters and role-playing are mutually exclusive, not that some players focus on one or the other.
The overclocked combat monkey is the most common example of this. Come up with a noncombat situation, anything from knowing how to dance a goblin pavane or how to tell goldfish from blowfish, and properly roleplayed, they'll just look baffled and say "Thog no understand" or something.Actually, the "dumb fighter" can be fun to role-play (within limits) at times. The key, as with any other character, is to avoid "one note" characters without depth. All characters who are only effective in one activity or area are boring. This holds just as true with the "diplomat" bard who is only effective with NPC interaction, the "archmage" wizard who only deals with magic, etc.
That "overclocked combat monkey" can easily have a skill or two like Craft or Knowledge (or even <gasp> Diplomacy) without making them ineffective in their primary activity/area.
Truth.
"Thog no understand." is a player cop-out.
In 2e I had a barbarian (called Krom, naturally) who was a vision of gracelessness. This did not make him socially incapable.
I have great memories of him disgusting effete nobles until the king declared that he respected a man of such valour and honesty (the king was trying to promote himself to a strained citizenry as a "man of the people"). It was great fun to see him winding up nobles who felt forced to talk to him.
And it wasn't just comedy, his unusual social position meant he was the finest distraction a thief could ever wish for (the theif also liked to apply a "This is my friend, Krom." bonus to his intimidate checks).
And Krom was a man of the wilds: he had an eye for sudden changes of speed or sleights of hand because the alternative was being eaten by tigers. He drank the poison once, but held it in his mouth, pinned the poisoner, and spat it in his eyes - something only a high con character could do.
|
|
Honestly, some min/maxing is a flaw of game design. For example, the absurd skill bonus of the rogue at first level...... has gone the way of the dodo.
In theory maybe. I am playing in a Pathfinder Beta game where the halfling rogue is running around with a 20 dex, +1 rank, +3 class skill, +4 size in his Stealth for a total +13 at 1st level, and with the higher average attribute combined with the rolling together of skills into more streamlined skills in Beta the problem is still there. Rogues get 8+int skills that are basically maxed out and most of which rely on Dex. Disable Device, Stealth, Perception, and Diplomacy alone are the new skills that used to be at least 8 different skills for the rogue to put ranks in (4 max at 1st level) which now get the +3 class bonus when he tosses in 1 rank. There is a very minimum difference in what the rogue actually gets. The real difference is that the Rogue doesn't really get to toss a couple 'flavor' points around to dabble in certain skills without missing out on maxing out a class skill.
The Stormwind Fallacy is not always a fallacy. It is completely possible to build a character who is a ultimately optimized to do one task, and do it well, and have them be be completely unfun to roleplay in any session that does not rotate around that one thing. The overclocked combat monkey is the most common example of this. Come up with a noncombat situation, anything from knowing how to dance a goblin pavane or how to tell goldfish from blowfish, and properly roleplayed, they'll just look baffled and say "Thog no understand" or something.
One aspect people often seem to overlook is that the "suboptimal" characters can be very effective spotlight hogs in social encounters. Imagine the adventuring party with Lars the Silvertongued and Thog the Barbarian at a ball. Lars got maxed out diplomacy, some synergy bonuses, Knowledge Nobility&Royality, and has dressed to match the occasion. Thog got bathed and stuffed in some itchy clothes.
There's a not so small chance that Lars will just breeze through the scene, getting his goals in short order thanks to his diplomacy - either by rolling, or by his background making it very unlikely that he'll fail to get the approval of the Lord, or the invitation to the bedchamber of the Lady. But there's a high likelyhood that the group will be looking forward to see what trouble Thog gets into, and how he will get out of it, and that the majority of the scene will be focused on how Thog insulted the Lord's brother by accident, and how the rest of the party has to scramble to make amends. Thog will likely be the center of attention, while the rest of the PCs have to actively get involved to get some spotlight.
The same goes for other occasions. What's more memorable: The rogue scaling the slippery wall of doom with his excellent climbing skills, or how the party managed to get Father Conrad the Clumsy up that wall without a rope long enough to cover the whole height, and no levitate or fly available?
One aspect people often seem to overlook is that the "suboptimal" characters can be very effective spotlight hogs in social encounters...But there's a high likelyhood that the group will be looking forward to see what trouble Thog gets into, and how he will get out of it...
The same goes for other occasions. What's more memorable: The rogue scaling the slippery wall of doom with his excellent climbing skills, or how the party managed to get Father Conrad the Clumsy up that wall without a rope long enough to cover the whole height, and no levitate or fly available?
I dunno, this sounds more fun to me than the alternative.
Conversely, during combat scenes where Thog is master, the roleplaying can and should center on the survival of the characters who are not as mighty as Thog. So where is the problem, exactly?
I think the problem arises not from the gaming system but the chemistry of an individual gaming group. No system can account for two people having fun together if they want totally different styles of play.
|
|
In theory maybe. I am playing in a Pathfinder Beta game where the halfling rogue is running around with a 20 dex, +1 rank, +3 class skill, +4 size in his Stealth for a total +13 at 1st level, and with the higher average attribute combined with the rolling together of skills into more streamlined skills in Beta the problem is still there. Rogues get 8+int skills that are basically maxed out and most of which rely on Dex. Disable Device, Stealth, Perception, and Diplomacy alone are the new skills that used to be at least 8 different skills for the rogue to put ranks in (4 max at 1st level) which now get the +3 class bonus when he tosses in 1 rank. There is a very minimum difference in what the rogue actually gets. The real difference is that the Rogue doesn't really get to toss a couple 'flavor' points around to dabble in certain skills without missing out on maxing out a class skill.
Though you have a point in that the skill system is still a little wonky at low levels, I believe what was being argued is that you now get the same amount of skills whether you start as a level 1 Rogue or if you take a level of Rogue later on, due to the way the class skill bonus works.
I dunno, this sounds more fun to me than the alternative.
Conversely, during combat scenes where Thog is master, the roleplaying can and should center on the survival of the characters who are not as mighty as Thog. So where is the problem, exactly?
I think the problem arises not from the gaming system but the chemistry of an individual gaming group. No system can account for two people having fun together if they want totally different styles of play.
I am not saying this is wrong, I am just stating that one should not assume that a combat monster with no social skills can't be a spotlight hog in social scenes.
However I do not think that the "noncombattants" are spotlight hogs in combat. I think they're more likely to be casualties, having to wait until combat is finished by the combat characters to be raised/treated.
noncombatants can be spotlight hogs in combat too though, generally with very little effort. All it really takes is a sharp eye for ways to survive/ defeat your foes without actually fighting them.
This could include the 6 str rogue climbing to the ceiling and cutting down the chandeler causing it to fall on the ogre for lots of damage,
The illusionist wizard using an illusion of some big baddie to come in and scare off the enemy (turns the combat into a bit of a social encounter where the illusionist's bluffing and the enemies sense motive and will save could come into the picture... heck even the parties fighter if the illusionary monster 'knocks him down' and 'eats him' some before turning to the actual enemy).
How the low con cleric stays out of the combat while still healing people (or buffing them) or while getting some 'civilian' types that are losing their cool out of harms way.
Alchemist fire only needs to hit a touch AC of 5 in order to damage what is in the square, or could be used by a non combatant to set the area on fire (possibly endangering the party too, but maybe not depending on what magic/ races are in the party).
|
|
O.k. For those who are of the opinion that you can role play and optimize at the same time, why do you need to optimize?For me it's a matter of consideration for the people I game with, who are usually my friends. It would be selfish in the extreme for me to design a character that isn't effective or helpful in any of the usual challenging situations around the D&D experience is based.
It's not all about me, or someone's need for the spotlight. It's about *everyone* working together to have a good time, and I make sure that the characters I build are fun for me to play, but also helpful to the group who may be depending on that character to ensure the survival of *their* characters.
I'd feel pretty bad if my roleplaying caused others at the table to have a bad time. (and this sort of behavior seems rife at conventions, as there's always someone at the table who gets the rest of the party killed off with immature attention-seeking antics that they call 'roleplaying' after the fact, but serve only to make real role-players look bad)
I agree completely with Set. The problem is not that making a minimized (ie, opposite of optimised) character is dangerous for said character. The problem is that it is dangerous for the WHOLE group. Thus, it breaks the cardinal rule of cooperative games which is "Thou shall not prevent other people from having fun".
I feel that is why roleplaying has become a four-letter word.
Not because playing the role of a character is a bad thing at all, but because many players use it as an excuse for being selfish and create a weakling that will hinder the other PCs, all under the pretense of "not minmaxing" and "following their concept". Just like the munchkins they so despise, they are dead-set on playing the character they want because it will be fun for them, but without regards for the fact that it might just ruin the fun for the rest of the group.
"Thog no understand." is a player cop-out.
A while back, our group decided to play the World's Largest Dungeon during sessions that everyone couldn't show up. 3d6 characters, no special loot.. see how far you get and roll up a new character.
My first character was the stupid Half-orc. Being that he was dumb, unobservant and had the social capabilities of a rock, the extent of my conversation from him was pointing out the obvious with a single word. Especially if it was in the middle of hurting the rest of the group.
Like.. a room full of refuse, which called for Fort saves for nausea. Of course he succeeds and announces "Stinky" to the rest of the group as they puke in the corners.
Or, when a swarm of rats got into our barricaded closet where we slept, and my announcement to the group as I was being covered by them was "Rats".
All with the same gravelly unconcerned voice.
The group seemed to find it hilarious.
..
Which kind of brings me to my point, and my question.
What are being meaning by "roleplaying".
Because, honestly, you can roleplay a game that has rules amounting to a coin flip. You don't need to blow skillpoints or feats or choose specifically useless stats to be high, to be "roleplaying".
Now.. to have a well rounded character that can participate in influencing the game with rolls outside of combat.. that takes something beyond on "optimized" character.
However, to those of us who are "Powergamers" but not "Munchkins", that is simply changing the terms of the "optimization". Now, the optimal character is one who can simultaneously be great at combat, but be more than a lump when it comes to social or non-combat situations.
None of that is roleplaying though. The "Lump" can still roleplay every single encounter, social or otherwise, right there with the best of them.
He just can't "roll" with the "roleplaying".
..
So really.. what are people asking for here? What are people talking about when they say "role is a four letter word"?
Honestly, some min/maxing is a flaw of game design. For example, the absurd skill bonus of the rogue at first level...... has gone the way of the dodo.In theory maybe. I am playing in a Pathfinder Beta game where the halfling rogue is running around with a 20 dex, +1 rank, +3 class skill, +4 size in his Stealth for a total +13 at 1st level, and with the higher average attribute combined with the rolling together of skills into more streamlined skills in Beta the problem is still there.
But that's not the problem. The problem is that in 3e, you're encouraged (read: the rules all but hold a gun to your head and force you) to start as a rogue, since not doing it will cost you 32 skill points (+3 x Int).
That's simply no longer true.
Rogues get 8+int skills that are basically maxed out and most of which rely on Dex. Disable Device, Stealth, Perception, and Diplomacy alone are the new skills that used to be at least 8 different skills for the rogue to put ranks in (4 max at 1st level) which now get the +3 class bonus when he tosses in 1 rank. There is a very minimum difference in what the rogue actually gets.
The difference is colossal. If you take that level of rogue after 1st level, you no longer miss out on a skillion skill points.
As for rogues getting lots of skill points: That's his schtick. He's supposed to have many, many skill points. I don't see it as a problem, I see it as a class feature.
The real difference is that the Rogue doesn't really get to toss a couple 'flavor' points around to dabble in certain skills without missing out on maxing out a class skill.
He didn't get to do so before. You always had to forsake maxing out something.
In fact, it's a bit better right now, since you can get extra languages and still max out all your skills (provided you use linguistics).
Sure, you don't get to toss token ranks in skills around, but I don't see a problem in that. Not if we gain a vastly improved skill system in the trade.
If you want flavour ranks, introduce a rule that lets people get 4 extra skill points at 1st level or something.
|
|
Not because playing the role of a character is a bad thing at all, but because many players use it as an excuse for being selfish and create a weakling that will hinder the other PCs, all under the pretense of "not minmaxing" and "following their concept". Just like the munchkins they so despise, they are dead-set on playing the character they want because it will be fun for them, but without regards for the fact that it might just ruin the fun for the rest of the group.
Any player that disrupts the game by being selfish and engaging in bad behavior IS a munchkin.
|
|
And what is optimizing?
If I have a fighter that was a blacksmith in training that got conscripted into a war is it optimizing if he has some toughness and strength to him? Or if he using some of his blacksmith training to try and make good equipment for himself so he can make it back home? What if his adept fiance makes him some potions of cure light wounds to see him through? Maybe taking Iron Will was optimizing even though he's rather bull headed and prone to stubbornly sticking to his ideas with an independent streak born of being in a rural area full of "down to earth sensible folk"?
I guess I get to the point I got to ask why optimizing is a bad thing.
Why shouldn't you use that +2 long sword you just got from the black guard you defeated?
Would it be bad "role playing" if a bard whose paladin husband just died picks up his holy avenger and uses use magic device to activate it and smite the demon that just killed the paladin?
I just don't see a conflict of interest between the two.
That's because it's not. Are you being serious here?
If there's a valid game world reason for your game rule character choices then it is role playing.
Does anyone really complain about the kind of things you've listed? From my experience when somebody gripes about 'optimizers' their thinking about crap like the halfling hurler or the spiked chain cheeser. The kind of guys that actually try to play characters built around game rule loopholes that make no actual sense in the game world.
Can they still role play a character like that? Doesn't matter. They've taken a dump all over your game.
So, your definition of 'munchkinism' is "I don't like it".
It's not that a 'min/maxed' character is bad, or that it can't be well role played, or that optimizing is bad it's all a matter of what you do and do not like.
So, your definition of 'munchkinism' is "I don't like it".
It's not that a 'min/maxed' character is bad, or that it can't be well role played, or that optimizing is bad it's all a matter of what you do and do not like.
In all seriousness, I think that is as good a "definition" for Munchkin as you're going to see.
It all comes down to group chemistry. Several groups in this thread have made it clear that every member is expected to optimize or they're a burden. That's not the case for some other groups. Both styles are valid only as long as they are fun for the participants.
A more precise definition of "munchkin" extending the above definition is: someone who optimizes characters when the other members of the group don't "like it." Yes, this is arbitrary, but if the most important thing is for everyone to have fun, and fun is only attainable through consensus, then whether or not people "like it" is all you have to go on.
Anyone read Pirsig's "Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance" ?
The cure for all this is to not be selfish, no matter what style your group likes. If you're in a group of Optimizers who expect you not to be a burden, don't be selfish, put the work in. If you're in a group of thespians who play flawed, plot driven characters under a GM who emphasizes story over challenge, then don't be a d*ck and make a uber-character. GMs, know what your players want. Players, let your GM know what you want. Everyone play nice. Problem solved.
|
|
I don't have a problem with optimization, if it's also roleplayed well. What I don't like are 2 things:
1.- I have to peer a lot of books to find a feat that will grant me a certain thing that will compliment an obscure feat from another book that will make me survive a campaign because monsters are made for min/maxed characters.
2.- I don't like roleplaying with the guy that spends half a day researching feats that make him nigh-invincible and he gains only satisfaction from hitting everything when rolling anything besides a 1, yet never actually roleplaying the character. In town he sleeps out and urges everyone to go on forward to the clue that will get us to the next dungeon as quickly as possible so he can roll dice again. I get bored when your fun comes only from rolling dice and not doing anything else, and actually don't care about the rest.
I don't make seriously flawed characters on purpose, but I don't mind spending a few ranks on something that won't save my life just to add flesh to the character. For example, a wizard with a few ranks in skill that will hum to himself when alone -or so he thinks-, crafting items. The characters may suddenly find themselves going inside their headquarters, hearing the wizard maintaining a high pitched note as he scribes simple runes on a magical armor... that'll give them something to talk about later.
I don't like roleplaying with the guy [whose] ...fun comes only from rolling dice and not doing anything else, and actually [doesn't] care about the rest.
I think this is the sentiment of most roleplayers, but I don't think that this is descriptive of min/maxers universally... it just seems to be the connotation of term to some people.
This kind of really takes us back to the Stormwind Fallacy and the two seperate ranges play. A better way to put it, in my opinion, would be to call this an either or fallacy or a false dichotomy. Someone who only has fun rolling the dice and finds the RP boring is not by necessity a min/maxer. Someone who enjoys understanding the system and building their character to work in concert the way the system works does not necessarily hate role-playing.
Likewise, a person who enjoys a character with flaws does not necessarily have to have those flaws impact the game mechanics. If, for example, I decide my character is an alcoholic and the town drunk, I can have a ton of fun playing this out, but I don't think it is a necessity that the DM force me to take this as a documented flaw for which I get a feat under the UA rules for flaws. In fact, not having rules around the flaw allows me to choose when this comes into play rather than the DM.
Now, you might say the above person is not a min/maxer because they are not just looking for the extra feat, but perhaps the reason for not wanting a documented flaw is to prevent the DM from using it against you. In that case the reasoning would still fall under min/maxer.
I don't know... for me, I just haven't seen any argument that makes me think that RP and Min/Maxing are indeed two sides to spectrum or mutually exclusive.
Sean Mahoney
|
|
Two things:
I don't think they're mutually exclusive, by all means. But I think that the OP meant also that there are now a lot of "flat" characters, lot of stats, no characteristics. I've encountered 2 versions of flat-character-players so far:
S/He likes to be with the people s/he roleplays with and just joins them in their fun, since s/he doesn't care much about the outcome of the dice nor the roleplaying. (Happens in my group, we got a friend that isn't much into RPGing, but since we get together for this and he gets along with us real well, he has now a character and just goes for the fun of being with us).
Or maybe s/he sees the character as a sheet of paper with the only goal of killing everything. The problem is that many aren't characters that are good for a group play, unless everybody else is doing a character like that. When you've got a player that's only interested in killing and being a hindrance when doing anything else in a party that's not all about killing, it can become burdensome.
I don't believe that it's mutually exclusive because, as others have pointed out, you can have a min/maxed character that CAN be called a character and not a sheet. My girlfriend spent half a week researching feats for her dragon shaman and she's an unstoppable hulk, but she enjoys playing her 9 (-1) INT character in large towns and make us laugh with her sheer lack of understanding.
Last but not least: Thanks for correcting my grammar! (Not sarcasm, english isn't my first language and I appreciate the corrections).
Last but not least: Thanks for correcting my grammar! (Not sarcasm, english isn't my first language and I appreciate the corrections).
Your grammer is as good, if not better, than many posters on the internet. I was actually changing things to take different parts of your statement together to make it make sense what I was talking about.
Additionally I meant to say that the point I was arguing against wasn't the one I think you were making... maybe I shouldn't have left as a quote from you.
Anyway, good points all around.
Sean Mahoney
|
|
I think the wrong point is being argued here. It looks like the majority of the the people posting on the thread think you can optimize and roleplay fine. The original poster is right though, in that the focus of games these days is on being optimized. Look at how many post there are with people complaining about how the fighter is broken or how the druid is nerfed. Because these posters are not getting every bang for the buck out of every ability, it send the message that it is more important to have the big bang rather than the cool idea. I you put up a thread asking for bad prestige classes, you will get all kids of results, where the classes have useless abilities, or bad stats, regardless if they have a good roleplaying premise or not. If you find a good RP class and post it, you have have almost every post shooting down anything that may not give a "big bang" for an ability. No one looks at things from a story point of view anymore. (ok, almost no one). That is the reason Roleplaying is a four letter word.
I still think it is more of a board attitude than a player or system attitude. Again, You really can't argue of roleplaying on a message board, so that is why most posts will argue over abilities not being optimized.