| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Listen BigNorseWolf, one cannot give you a specific example of how roleplay can conflict with optimisation without mentioning class and/or abilities because optimisation is all about selecting the proper class/ability. Optimisation doesn't work in a vacuum, it needs a system to optimise (or fail to optimise).
I gave myself as an example (without class or abilities relevant to D&D/PF. As for Literature, Raskolnikov from Dostoyevsky's Crime and Punishment? Frederic Henry from Hemingway's Farewell to Arms? Pinnochio from Collodi's book of the same name? In fantasy, the halflings from Tolkien's Lord of the Rings or Ron Weasely from Rowling's Harry Potter series?
The list can go for very long...
Listen BigNorseWolf, one cannot give you a specific example of how roleplay can conflict with optimisation without mentioning class and/or abilities because optimisation is all about selecting the proper class/ability. Optimisation doesn't work in a vacuum, it needs a system to optimise (or fail to optimise).
I gave myself as an example (without class or abilities relevant to D&D/PF. As for Literature, Raskolnikov from Dostoyevsky's Crime and Punishment? Frederic Henry from Hemingway's Farewell to Arms? Pinnochio from Collodi's book of the same name? In fantasy, the halflings from Tolkien's Lord of the Rings or Ron Weasely from Rowling's Harry Potter series?
The list can go for very long...
The Halflings in the Lord of the Rings were tagalongs. The only one that had to go was Frodo, just to carry the ring. On the other hand, Bilbo was brought in to be a thief in The Hobbit, which Halflings are very good at due to being naturally stealthy (as pointed out multiple times in both the Hobbit and Lord of the Rings).
I have no idea what Ron Weasley was supposed to be good at. He's just comic relief as far as I can tell. In fact, Harry isn't particularly good at anything either - maybe the Patronus charm? He's just the drafted main character and protected by plot immunity like Frodo in Lord of the Rings.
Listen BigNorseWolf, one cannot give you a specific example of how roleplay can conflict with optimisation without mentioning class and/or abilities because optimisation is all about selecting the proper class/ability. Optimisation doesn't work in a vacuum, it needs a system to optimise (or fail to optimise).
I gave myself as an example (without class or abilities relevant to D&D/PF. As for Literature, Raskolnikov from Dostoyevsky's Crime and Punishment? Frederic Henry from Hemingway's Farewell to Arms? Pinnochio from Collodi's book of the same name? In fantasy, the halflings from Tolkien's Lord of the Rings or Ron Weasely from Rowling's Harry Potter series?
The list can go for very long...
The Halflings in the Lord of the Rings were tagalongs. The only one that had to go was Frodo, just to carry the ring. On the other hand, Bilbo was brought in to be a thief in The Hobbit, which Halflings are very good at due to being naturally stealthy (as pointed out multiple times in both the Hobbit and Lord of the Rings).
I have no idea what Ron Weasley was supposed to be good at. He's just comic relief as far as I can tell. In fact, Harry isn't particularly good at anything either - maybe the Patronus charm? He's just the drafted main character and protected by plot immunity like Frodo in Lord of the Rings.
Isn't HP a plot armor mechanic so Harry Potter might have the toughness feat?
Isn't HP a plot armor mechanic so Harry Potter might have the toughness feat?Listen BigNorseWolf, one cannot give you a specific example of how roleplay can conflict with optimisation without mentioning class and/or abilities because optimisation is all about selecting the proper class/ability. Optimisation doesn't work in a vacuum, it needs a system to optimise (or fail to optimise).
I gave myself as an example (without class or abilities relevant to D&D/PF. As for Literature, Raskolnikov from Dostoyevsky's Crime and Punishment? Frederic Henry from Hemingway's Farewell to Arms? Pinnochio from Collodi's book of the same name? In fantasy, the halflings from Tolkien's Lord of the Rings or Ron Weasely from Rowling's Harry Potter series?
The list can go for very long...
The Halflings in the Lord of the Rings were tagalongs. The only one that had to go was Frodo, just to carry the ring. On the other hand, Bilbo was brought in to be a thief in The Hobbit, which Halflings are very good at due to being naturally stealthy (as pointed out multiple times in both the Hobbit and Lord of the Rings).
I have no idea what Ron Weasley was supposed to be good at. He's just comic relief as far as I can tell. In fact, Harry isn't particularly good at anything either - maybe the Patronus charm? He's just the drafted main character and protected by plot immunity like Frodo in Lord of the Rings.
And deathwatch.
The Halflings in the Lord of the Rings were tagalongs. The only one that had to go was Frodo, just to carry the ring. On the other hand, Bilbo was brought in to be a thief in The Hobbit, which Halflings are very good at due to being naturally stealthy (as pointed out multiple times in both the Hobbit and Lord of the Rings).
I have no idea what Ron Weasley was supposed to be good at. He's just comic relief as far as I can tell. In fact, Harry isn't particularly good at anything either - maybe the Patronus charm? He's just the drafted main character and protected by plot immunity like Frodo in Lord of the Rings.
That was my points, literature has offered a number of 'unoptimised' characters (in answer of BigNorseWolf request for examples)
As an aside note, I'd say Harry Potter is pretty 'optimised' in the defense against the dark art (low level but optimised nevertheless) to the point of having 'background' points invested with Voldemort that allows him to speak with snake and share his thoughts etc... He's also described as a good flyer.
I want to make a point that literature has offered an equal amount of 'optimised' characters (although that's pretty hard to assess without a system to set against). Optimised does not equal uninteresting or un-roleplay-able. I'm simply trying to say that interest and roleplay-ablility can lead to characters that are not optimised, just as they can lead to optimised character.
'findel
But Hobbits are optimized for stealth. Everyone else would have been tossed out or dead regardless if not protected by plot immunity.
Conan was pretty optimized... He's still the first thing I think of when I hear "barbarian."
Next, I think of the half orc in 3.X. He looks optimized, anyway. Then, I think of Thog. He's dumb, but he gives Roy a run for his money.
But Hobbits are optimized for stealth. Everyone else would have been tossed out or dead regardless if not protected by plot immunity.
Hobbits can be made in optimised stealthy characters.
But without a system and rule reference to compare their stealthiness, it is hard to assess whether the hobbits of the LotR were optimised or not. Did they take all the 'feats' and 'skills' to be as stealthy as possible?
Somehow, I don't think they were but despite their un-optimisation, they were stealthy enough to accomplish what they had to do.
But Hobbits are optimized for stealth. Everyone else would have been tossed out or dead regardless if not protected by plot immunity.Hobbits can be made in optimised stealthy characters.
But without a system and rule reference to compare their stealthiness, it is hard to assess whether the hobbits of the LotR were optimised. Somehow, I don't think they were but despite their un-optimisation, they were stealthy enough to accomplish what they had to do.
Tolkien repeats - a lot - that Hobbits, as a race, are very stealthy.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Tolkien repeats - a lot - that Hobbits, as a race, are very stealthy.But Hobbits are optimized for stealth. Everyone else would have been tossed out or dead regardless if not protected by plot immunity.Hobbits can be made in optimised stealthy characters.
But without a system and rule reference to compare their stealthiness, it is hard to assess whether the hobbits of the LotR were optimised. Somehow, I don't think they were but despite their un-optimisation, they were stealthy enough to accomplish what they had to do.
Yes, which make them good candidates for an optimised character in the stealth department.
But as far as I understood, optimisation is about choosing the most efficient feats, skills and abilities, often in the right order, in order to excel in you field of expertise.
You're talking efficiency, which isn't necessarily optimisation (even if optimisation aims at being more efficient).
Conan was pretty optimized... He's still the first thing I think of when I hear "barbarian."
Next, I think of the half orc in 3.X. He looks optimized, anyway. Then, I think of Thog. He's dumb, but he gives Roy a run for his money.
Yes, literature (and movies and other sources of pop cultures) also describe a lot of what seem to be optimised characters.
Robert Langdon in Brown's Da Vinci Code is another good example of a character that is 'best' in what he is supposed to do. In fantasy, you can look at Aragorn. He isn't only 'higher level' than the hobbits, but his training and development is a lot more focused than that of the hobbits. He isn't a Ranger of the North, he is THE Ranger of the North.
The Halflings in the Lord of the Rings were tagalongs. The only one that had to go was Frodo, just to carry the ring. On the other hand, Bilbo was brought in to be a thief in The Hobbit, which Halflings are very good at due to being naturally stealthy (as pointed out multiple times in both the Hobbit and Lord of the Rings).
Hobbits are pretty good at stealth, that's true. But, if we were to apply a gaming perspective to the potential Gandalf saw in Bilbo, the real reason Bilbo was drafted by Gandalf to be the burglar was because Gandalf recognized the "PC aura" Bilbo had, indicating that he'd have the potential to be played resourcefully even outside his use of stealth and despite average other abilities by the player.
I have no idea what Ron Weasley was supposed to be good at. He's just comic relief as far as I can tell.
He's a relatively average wizarding-world insider and provides that perspective for both Harry and Hermione, both of whom are outsiders.
He's a relatively average wizarding-world insider and provides that perspective for both Harry and Hermione, both of whom are outsiders.
So Recurring Wizard Character A?
So Recurring Wizard Character A?
He's a relatively average wizarding-world insider and provides that perspective for both Harry and Hermione, both of whom are outsiders.
Not necessarily; he is fully developed as far as character goes, but his contribution to the story/team isn't measured terms of magical talents (he is much more defined than for example, Legolas and Gimly who are on the contrary very efficient at kicking butts).
But that's the nature of the whole debate. Some players say "I want to play Ron Weasely". Other players say "Sure, but you can play a competent Ron Weasely". Then the first players say "But then it won't be Ron Weasely anymore". The others are saying " That's bull$hit", the firsts are saying "you don't understand roleplay", names are called and the debate is going nowhere.
But that's the nature of the whole debate. Some players say "I want to play Ron Weasely". Other players say "Sure, but you can play a competent Ron Weasely". Then the first players say "But then it won't be Ron Weasely anymore". The others are saying " That's bull$hit", the firsts are saying "you don't understand roleplay", names are called and the debate is going nowhere.
Or even more appropriate, you have people who would be interested in playing Neville Longbottom. Ron Weasley, at least, is more competent at adventurish stuff than Longbottom as long as his wand isn't actually broken.
Ron also was optimized for strategy, see game of Wizards Chess that he overcame at a young age.
It's a common mistake to use literature as justification for design or gameplay. There's nothing wrong with using literature as inspiration for RPG stuff, and in fact, it's often good. However, just because a story has a party of adventurers where some are more burdens than help, that does not mean it's automatically good for an RPG.
A story does not need to make sure the characters are enjoying their adventure more or less equally and that none are being left out.
Listen BigNorseWolf, one cannot give you a specific example of how roleplay can conflict with optimisation without mentioning class and/or abilities because optimisation is all about selecting the proper class/ability.
Optimization is all about selecting class and ability. Character concept is not. What i was asking you to do, (and what you said was impossible) you did in the next paragraph.
When people say this, their response is usually to confuse concept with a class, ie, i want to make a weak fighter.
I gave myself as an example
And since i don't know you that's not particularly helpful.
As for Literature, Raskolnikov from Dostoyevsky's Crime and Punishment?
Never read it. Hitting TV tropes...
Ok, I don't see anything that would prevent you from using that character as inspiration for ANY class except cleric, inquisitor or paladin. His concept is that he thinks he's above the law and is able to decide right and wrong on his own. His actual ability to do so is pretty much divorced from his abilities.
This looks like a mustache situation. Very few of your in game choices would be affected by the character's persona.
Frederic Henry from Hemingway's Farewell to Arms?
... grumble grumble literature types...
You're basically making Hemingway into a character, so a deep brooding barbarian, fighter, or barbarian/fighter.
Pinnochio from Collodi's book of the same name?
Small Warforged whatever.
In fantasy, the halflings from Tolkien's Lord of the Rings
That's easy. Play a first level rogue when the rest of the party is 10th level.
ALternatively, since the campaign is about sneaking into mordor, you could viably build a character around the stealth skill.
Ron Weasely from Rowling's Harry Potter series?
Make whatever character you want and just stand around in the background? I suggest a druid in plant form so you can turn into an actual wallflower.
On a more serious note, his main ability seems to be having some bizzare skill or talent that somehow becomes relevant to the plot, so either a skill monkey or there's a feat in the APG that gives you the trained bonus to every craft and profession skill.
The list can go for very long...
I have no life.
In fact, Harry isn't particularly good at anything either - maybe the Patronus charm? He's just the drafted main character and protected by plot immunity like Frodo in Lord of the Rings.
-I think the opposite. He's like a low level optimized fighter type for the sort of fights wizards in his world get into. He's fast, quick, agile, and has good reflexes.
Half of a wizard fight seems to be actually HITTING your opponent with the ray/charm, which near as i can tell is actually aimed with the wand. Harry is an athlete and broom rider extraordinaire: ie, he has a high dex.
That improves his touch ac (he's frequently shown getting the BLEEP out of the way of incomming spells) and helps his accuracy with the spells he shoots out.
He is good at expeliarmus, they even call it his signature spell almost by name. (improved disarm... not bad when very few wizards can cast without wands)
He is good at casting a patronus, which seems to indicate a high willpower/wisdom
He is good at throwing off the imperious curse, which is a high wisdom and or iron will feat: a damned handy thing to have when half the ministry was walking around saying "Imhotep" during the last dark wizard take over.
|
The Halflings in the Lord of the Rings were tagalongs. The only one that had to go was Frodo, just to carry the ring. On the other hand, Bilbo was brought in to be a thief in The Hobbit, which Halflings are very good at due to being naturally stealthy (as pointed out multiple times in both the Hobbit and Lord of the Rings).
Except without the others, Sam in particular, Sauron would have been victorious on several occasions. Most notably Sam finding the ring after Frodo had lost it, and saving Frodo from Shelob.
Merry provided a distraction that allowed Éowyn to triumph over the Witch-King.
Pippen saved Faramir's life when Denethor tried to burn Faramir and himself alive.
Without the experience that Sam, Merry, and Pippen gained during their travels, Frodo alone never would have been able to overthrow Saruman's control of the Shire.
The Halflings in the Lord of the Rings were tagalongs. The only one that had to go was Frodo, just to carry the ring. On the other hand, Bilbo was brought in to be a thief in The Hobbit, which Halflings are very good at due to being naturally stealthy (as pointed out multiple times in both the Hobbit and Lord of the Rings).Except without the others, Sam in particular, Sauron would have been victorious on several occasions. Most notably Sam finding the ring after Frodo had lost it, and saving Frodo from Shelob.
Merry provided a distraction that allowed Éowyn to triumph over the Witch-King.
Pippen saved Faramir's life when Denethor tried to burn Faramir and himself alive.
Without the experience that Sam, Merry, and Pippen gained during their travels, Frodo alone never would have been able to overthrow Saruman's control of the Shire.
What about Gollum! Frodo failed, Gollum brought the ring to the fires of Mount Doom...sorta.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I gave myself as an exampleAnd since i don't know you that's not particularly helpful.
... and you don't know the system that 'regulates' my life. Pretty much my whole point.
Without the notion of class and abilities, you can't tell if a character is optimised or not.
As for the rest, I never argue that these characters wouldn't be playable in a RPG, but they are the best examples of 'unoptimised' character (in the vacuum of system) that I could think when you asked for specific examples. Again, unoptimised doesn't mean useless, it only means that resources were not distributed at their best in order to perform in a particular field of expertise.
Actually, what is your stance? I'd hope you aren't arguing with me for the sake of arguing with me.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
What about Gollum! Frodo failed, Gollum brought the ring to the fires of Mount Doom...sorta.The Halflings in the Lord of the Rings were tagalongs. The only one that had to go was Frodo, just to carry the ring. On the other hand, Bilbo was brought in to be a thief in The Hobbit, which Halflings are very good at due to being naturally stealthy (as pointed out multiple times in both the Hobbit and Lord of the Rings).Except without the others, Sam in particular, Sauron would have been victorious on several occasions. Most notably Sam finding the ring after Frodo had lost it, and saving Frodo from Shelob.
Merry provided a distraction that allowed Éowyn to triumph over the Witch-King.
Pippen saved Faramir's life when Denethor tried to burn Faramir and himself alive.
Without the experience that Sam, Merry, and Pippen gained during their travels, Frodo alone never would have been able to overthrow Saruman's control of the Shire.
Where does Tom Bombadil fit in?
... and you don't know the system that 'regulates' my life. Pretty much my whole point.
Wait, you're not playing world of darkness 24/7 Larp?
Without the notion of class and abilities, you can't tell if a character is optimised or not.
Groan.. again, all i meant by that was don't give me "weak fighter" as a role playing concept when its really a roll playing concept.
As for the rest, I never argue that these characters wouldn't be playable in a RPG, but they are the best examples of 'unoptimised' character (in the vacuum of system) that I could think when you asked for specific examples. Again, unoptimised doesn't mean useless, it only means that resources were not distributed at their best in order to perform in a particular field of expertise.
Actually, what is your stance? I'd hope you aren't arguing with me for the sake of arguing with me.
My position is 95% mustach. There's no reason the two need to be incompatible, although every once in a while you might see a feat that would fit your character but not his build.
Something that keeps popping up but not mentioned is Game Mastery. First thing first, when building a concept, don't start with the class, a class is a means to a concept the same as feats. As Big Norse Wolf said, "Charismatic Fighter" is not a character concept, a leader of an army who is diplomatic could just as well and may even fit better being a Cavalier, a Paladin, or even a Bard. To be optimal with your concept sometimes requires gamemastery.
And yet this has absolutely nothing to do with Roleplaying which is getting into your character.
Character Concept is not the the same thing as roleplaying.
Roleplaying is only about getting into character and a good roleplayer can use just about any concept and play along with it. Not all may be fun or effective and some may even be overpowering; it has nothing to with the concept and all with the player's ability to play the role.
If anything thing, it should be interesting concepts vs optimization.
If roleplay is limited by anything regarding game mechanics, it most definitely has nothing to do with optimization, and a lot to do with leveling. Suddenly your character gains more stamina after a couple of fights, learns new techniques or spells, and has suddenly become more skillful. Some players or GMs might play it off by having the players require an instructor or downtime to actually level up. But there are other things that cause roleplaying inconsistencies such falling off a cliff and surviving without major harm (or jumping off because you know you have enough HP). Again GMs may houserule against such silliness but they're still things that need to be houseruled and some people enjoy the silliness and don't bother houseruling it. And of course, how does your character react knowing she can heal commoners from near death to full health with a cure light but has to use cure serious to remove scratches off the experienced warrior.
And yet none of those roleplaying issues have anything to do with optimization.
And yet this has absolutely nothing to do with Roleplaying which is getting into your character.
Character Concept is not the the same thing as roleplaying.
Roleplaying is only about getting into character and a good roleplayer can use just about any concept and play along with it. Not all may be fun or effective and some may even be overpowering; it has nothing to with the concept and all with the player's ability to play the role.
I agree with you insofar as 'getting in character' also encompass taking charge of the character's intentions, interests and 'destiny' which may want to be represented mechanically in the place of a more optimal mechanical decision (in terms of character optimisation).
That's why I don't agree that roleplay is completely separate from optimisation; I don't see them as extremities of a single continuum, but as two lines that can cross each others on certain occasions.
Perhaps we're arguing for the same thing but with different semantics.
Actually, I have a question for you and the others: Can a character concept conflict with optimisation, or can you optimise a 'crappy' character concept? Also, a character concept may evolve into something radically different than its original concept; how does that stand in terms of optimisation? In other words, is the whole debate about concept vs optimisation? (as opposed to roleplay vs optimisation?). If so, what to do with the in-character decisions that follow the character's concept (or in-game shift of concepts): isn't that part of roleplay?
'findel
I think what you are talking about is "closing the circle".
1. Come up with a character concept.
2. Try to come up with the best way of representing that concept using the tools of the system in use to design the character. [Note: Concept may be tweaked if the tools of the system don't support a particular concept.]
3. Roleplay the character in actual game play.
4. Evaluate if concept should be continued, tweaked, abandoned. What has "worked", what was "interesting", how have things progressed. Return to #1.
And yet this has absolutely nothing to do with Roleplaying which is getting into your character.
Character Concept is not the the same thing as roleplaying.
Roleplaying is only about getting into character and a good roleplayer can use just about any concept and play along with it. Not all may be fun or effective and some may even be overpowering; it has nothing to with the concept and all with the player's ability to play the role.
I agree with you insofar as 'getting in character' also encompass taking charge of the character's intentions, interests and 'destiny' which may want to be represented mechanically in the place of a more optimal mechanical decision (in terms of character optimisation).
That's why I don't agree that roleplay is completely separate from optimisation; I don't see them as extremities of a single continuum, but as two lines that can cross each others on certain occasions.
Perhaps we're arguing for the same thing but with different semantics.
Actually, I have a question for you and the others: Can a character concept conflict with optimisation, or can you optimise a 'crappy' character concept? Also, a character concept may evolve into something radically different than its original concept; how does that stand in terms of optimisation? In other words, is the whole debate about concept vs optimisation? (as opposed to roleplay vs optimisation?). If so, what to do with the in-character decisions that follow the character's concept (or in-game shift of concepts): isn't that part of roleplay?
'findel
It might just be semantics getting in the way.
I think what you're addressing is a static character compared to a dynamic character. Where the static character's concept and advancement is rigid has been set in advance, the dynamic character is more organic and flows with the setting. Both characters could be roleplayed well, but both characters could also be roleplayed poorly and not have any true feel to them. In the end they are both just concepts, one's just more cohesive with the setting. (Roleplaying a character that is out of place and unaffected by the setting can still be roleplaying)
As to "optimizing a 'crappy' concept", I'm not sure if you mean:
or
I highly doubt C or D
I have actually seen people compete to make the weakest and most useless character ever, and it was all for fun and silliness; but it's only fun when everyone is on board for it. Otherwise your instigating the party by stalking them and not actually being able to help.
I've also seen a druid character with terribly low physical stats that optimized via shapeshifting (3.5). I've also partied with a witch with terribly low stats that was extremely useful because she buffed the party where she could and kept out of fights she knew would get her could.
So I guess the answer to your question is yes.
A dynamic concept can end less optimized than a static one because sometimes feats and skills were chosen in the beginning that don't fit the concept the character has evolved into. This is not so bad if your GM allows retraining of feats and sometimes even classes.
Where does Tom Bombadil fit in?
IIRC, Tolkein thought LOTR wasn't long enough, so he padded it a little.
It might just be semantics getting in the way.
I think what you're addressing is a static character compared to a dynamic character. Where the static character's concept and advancement is rigid has been set in advance, the dynamic character is more organic and flows with the setting. Both characters could be roleplayed well, but both characters could also be roleplayed poorly and not have any true feel to them. In the end they are both just concepts, one's just more cohesive with the setting. (Roleplaying a character that is out of place and unaffected by the setting can still be roleplaying)
I agree with that.
As to "optimizing a 'crappy' concept", I'm not sure if you mean...
I was wondering if you can be considered optimising if your original concept isn't particularly suited for optimisation. Can you optimise a charismatic fighter for example, or is the original concept an obstacle for optimisation form the get go?
'findel
Where does Tom Bombadil fit in?
There are entire essays about that very same question.
As far a RPG goes, he's part of the first adventure the characters get in order to familiarise themselves with their characters.
I was wondering if you can be considered optimising if your original concept isn't particularly suited for optimisation. Can you optimise a charismatic fighter for example, or is the original concept an obstacle for optimisation form the get go?
'findel
'Charismatic Fighter' isn't any more of a concept than a 'Dumb Wizard' or a 'Monk that uses weapons and armor'. It's like trying to build a train using the frame of a car. I'm not saying it's impossible, but if you wanted a train, why are using a car frame?
A character who fights and is a charismatic leader gives much more freedom and is easier to work with and is a much stronger concept over all. A character who is idiotic but casts powerful spells is a sorcerer, and trying to make a sorcerer out of a wizard is just straining yourself. Again, game mastery comes in when trying to fit a proper build to your concept.
Of course, not all concepts can be effectively made with the rules. As far as I know, making Wolverine without the GMs interference is impossible. (If it is, it's definitely not at level 1)
You know, maybe the inability to make characters in D&D is due to the fact that D&D isn't meant to portray everything.
I mean seriously once you start trying to argue that Harry Potter was "unoptimized" I think you've left the realm of understandable debate.
You know, maybe the inability to make characters in D&D is due to the fact that D&D isn't meant to portray everything.
I mean seriously once you start trying to argue that Harry Potter was "unoptimized" I think you've left the realm of understandable debate.
Thats crazy thats the best use of the feats to boost a Patronus EVER!
You know, maybe the inability to make characters in D&D is due to the fact that D&D isn't meant to portray everything.
But it can still support a martial leader type that is not a horse trainer, holyman, musician or whatever. Maybe not quite as well, but some people are happy with the tradeoff. They choose roleplaying (including character concept) over more power mechanically.
That is the roleplayer vs optimizer divide. They are just labels to describe different approaches to character creation.
Sometimes you want to play the car-train. Yeah, it might not be the sleekest or safest looking transport… but it gets you where you need to go and is a fun ride.
You know, maybe the inability to make characters in D&D is due to the fact that D&D isn't meant to portray everything.But it can still support a martial leader type that is not a horse trainer, holyman, musician or whatever. Maybe not quite as well, but some people are happy with the tradeoff. They choose roleplaying (including character concept) over more power mechanically.
That is the roleplayer vs optimizer divide. They are just labels to describe different approaches to character creation.
Sometimes you want to play the car-train. Yeah, it might not be the sleekest or safest looking transport… but it gets you where you need to go and is a fun ride.
Sometimes playing the car-train is fun, but being a part of the group of race cars who has to slow down and drive by the tracks because otherwise the person playing the car-train will whine is not fun. If there's an off-road train archetype available, then why are you playing your car-train? Is it because you're being purposely annoying or because you just don't know how to effectively build your concept to keep up with everyone else?
EDIT:
Anyway I actually agree with you mostly, but what you're describing is still concept and not roleplaying. Just because someone decides against a concept because it's not effective does not make them a bad roleplayer and just because someone decides to go with an interesting concept over a powerful one does not make them a good roleplayer. Which is what Treantmonk has been trying to point out from the beginning.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The issue isn't necessarily playing a car-train. It is choosing to do so in about the worst way possible. If there was a better way of modeling for that concept, why would you purposefully choose a worse way? Now maybe there is no great way, that is sometimes the case (and why you see "class creep" in game systems) doesn't mean that some ways aren't worse than others.
'Charismatic Fighter' isn't any more of a concept than a 'Dumb Wizard' or a 'Monk that uses weapons and armor'. It's like trying to build a train using the frame of a car. I'm not saying it's impossible, but if you wanted a train, why are using a car frame?
'Charismatic fighter' IS a concept, only one that may not end-up using the fighter (TM) class. I also don't like comparing the charismatic fighter to the dumb wizard because charismatic does not necessarily equal weak. That being said, Dumb wizard is a concept too, whether or not the wizard class is used (as your examples state out).
We can argue that such a concept can be 'optimisation suicide', but it's a concept nonetheless.
'findel
We can argue that such a concept can be 'optimisation suicide', but it's a concept nonetheless.
-It IS a concept. It is not however a ROLE PLAYING concept.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
... but what you're describing is still concept and not roleplaying.
BigNorseWolf It IS a concept. It is not however a ROLE PLAYING concept.
While I get what you guys are saying, I'm not ready to detach concept from roleplay that easily. Concepts such as charismatic fighter and dump wizards exist (and have been portrayed) in literature, movies and pop culture several times, i.e. in contexts not involving system rules and game design.
The more I think about it, the more I agree with Evil Lncoln's post on page 2, this all come from your initial approach to the game as a whole (never mind character conceptualisastion).
Do you play the game for challenge, of for character development. Chances are that most players expect to experience both, but whichever takes precedence may color your approach to the game (and you interation with its rules). Since D&D (especially from 3e) and Pathfinder's system favours the mechanical situationist aspect of RPGs, the proportion of players approaching the game for the 'player challenge' part of the game is probably greater.
'findel
the halflings from Tolkien's Lord of the Rings
Just a nitpick...
If you read the Hobbit, the only optimized characters would be Gandalf and Bilbo (the hobbit).
In LOTR Merry is more competent and intelligent than most of the other heroes (in the books, not the movie)
I'll give you Pippin though.
While I get what you guys are saying, I'm not ready to detach concept from roleplay that easily.
Its not detaching them, its hooking them up where they belong and uncoupling them when they don't belong together, for example...
Concepts such as charismatic fighter and dump wizards exist (and have been portrayed) in literature, movies and pop culture several times, i.e. in contexts not involving system rules and game design.
... A person who fights is not necessarily the fighter CLASS. Here you see the classic entanglement of the concept specifically the name, getting hung up with and confused with the CONCEPT.
Its like people playing a Rogue (the class) because they want to play a scoundrel and a ne'r do well who doesn't play by anyone's rules. Its equivocation: one is a profession the other is a personality.
If you want to be a charismatic battle leader the system does support that, you can play a melee bard or an inquisitor sharing teamwork feats. The name "fighter" is meaningless to the character concept: its a mechanical name for an ability.
Do you play the game for challenge, of for character development. Chances are that most players expect to experience both, but whichever takes precedence may color your approach to the game (and you interation with its rules).
Why on earth is this even an or question?
Do both!
Since D&D (especially from 3e) and Pathfinder's system favours the mechanical situationist aspect of RPGs, the proportion of players approaching the game for the 'player challenge' part of the game is probably greater.
Again, a false dichotomy.
Concepts such as charismatic fighter and dump wizards exist (and have been portrayed) in literature, movies and pop culture several times, i.e. in contexts not involving system rules and game design.... A person who fights is not necessarily the fighter CLASS. Here you see the classic entanglement of the concept specifically the name, getting hung up with and confused with the CONCEPT.
QFT.
If I want to play a "charismatic fighter", by no means do I need to take the fighter class.
In a current campaign I wanted to play a "charismatic fighter" who was a halfling (personality largely inspired by reading "the Hobbit" with my daughter).
I wanted him to be charismatic and polite, pure and good, an excellent cook, a singer of fun little "Bilbo style" songs, an excellent pipe-smoker(which is an art of course), sneaky, a good luck charm (read the "lucky halfling" feat and knew I wanted to fit that into a character concept), and very "hobbitish"
Talked to my GM to see if making a Hobbit-style halfling was OK (mechanically a halfling, but the big hairy feet etc), it was. Then I went to work on optimizing the concept. Ended up with a dip in Bard, then went Paladin. Never ended up with a single level of Fighter or Rogue. In the end, optimizing the concept allowed for neither class. I won't betray a concept just because a certain class "sounds" more fitting. My character describes himself as neither a bard nor paladin, nor fighter or rogue. If asked, he is the party cook.
He is the most charismatic member of the party, and outdamages the party fighter in combat (uses archery). He is also the best at cooking of any character I've ever made, and keeps a masterwork kitchen set and tea set in his portable hole. He also has a masterwork pipe with over 1000gp worth of pipeweed (must have the best). His stealth is fantastically high, and he is maxed out with diplomacy (the charismatic fighter concept)
He's also very lucky (lucky halfing feat) which is optimized with a charismatic paladin build, which makes him very lucky indeed. (conveniently, his name is "Lucky", well "Lucernickel Lahgerstout" actually, but nobody calls him that.)
Basically, my point is being true to a concept does not mean not optimizing it.
You know, maybe the inability to make characters in D&D is due to the fact that D&D isn't meant to portray everything.But it can still support a martial leader type that is not a horse trainer, holyman, musician or whatever. Maybe not quite as well, but some people are happy with the tradeoff. They choose roleplaying (including character concept) over more power mechanically.
Tch, I think you'll find it supports that incredibly well, and that it is indeed incredibly powerful mechanically speaking...depending on your edition ;)
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I agree that there doesn't need to be a conflict between optimization and role-playing. However, I don't think it's as simple as you make it sound. Depending on the level of optimization, fewer and fewer different roles are viable, and for anyone not wanting to play that certain role, optimization is limited.
Take for example a certain poster's (won't mention his name, but he's been a lot in the wizard vs. martials discussions) style of playing and party makeup and level of optimization - more or less, only full casters, all are "god"-style, having about the same spells, only difference is one is a druid with an optimized tiger.
While you CAN roleplay a group of four casters and do it well, anyone NOT wanting to play God-Wizard with SF (Transmutation) and a compsognatus companion no. 452, cannot optimize "enough" for the group and is just considered a liability.
Likewise, if you ascribe to the level of optimization that all barbarians HAVE to be supersticious human barbarians wielding heavy lances and riding leadership'd bronze dragons, you've also severely limited the roleplaying opportunities.
On the other hand, if one wants to roleplay a fey sorcerer focusing on blasts and dual-wielding Katanas, no amount of in-theme optimization is going to change that that character may very well be a liability due to lack of optimization.
So, I don't think in-theme optimization limits roleplaying, and I don't think roleplaying limits viability as long as it's not really crazy stuff you're trying to do, but I do think that the higher the required level of optimization, the smaller the amount of roles that can be well-played.
... A person who fights is not necessarily the fighter CLASS. Here you see the classic entanglement of the concept specifically the name, getting hung up with and confused with the CONCEPT.
Yes, I do agree with that, hence I said
'Charismatic fighter' IS a concept, only one that may not end-up using the fighter (TM) class.
That's not where I was going with that post.