Concepts take way longer to build than mechanics, in every system. You have to go through all the abilities, classes, feats, etc and see what best fits the concept, even if you don't care if it sucks (I mean, there are two feats that make you better at Perception - one for Elves and similar races that sucks and the basic one anyone can take that comparatively doesn't). Just building something mechanically optimal is easy - it's 99% cookie cutter for any particular mechanical target.
Basically, my point is being true to a concept does not mean not optimizing it.This is the sentiment that needs to be spread, in my opinion. Unfortunately, that also comes with more than a few caveats:
For some gamers, the idea of a character concept is an afterthought, if it plays into their thought process at all. A gamer may decide to use an optimization theme or method, then use concept to justify it. At least, in my opinion, "I'm going to play an elf wizard because their stat bonuses and penalties allow me to squeeze more points out of a point-buy (i.e. bonuses in two stats the player wants high, and a penalty that can be overcome by a two-point expenditure)" reflects that; while it is factually accurate and thematically viable, it betrays the notion that concept comes first by suggesting race is being chosen not from concept but rather from mechanics. That's the sentiment that needs to be fought, not simple optimization.
As a GM, one of my long-standing, irrational biases is against players who talk mechanics before concept. I always seem to grit my teeth and think "munchkin" when that happens, despite the fact I recognize that makes little sense in context: a concept is an easy thing to decide and internalize, while mechanics may take discussion and lots of thought. Of course, that's a downside of the d20 system itself opposed to something like the storyteller system because characters take a long time to build in comparison, and feats and classes are not all created equal. That's inherited from my experiences with players for whom concept is not even a consideration, and I have yet to completely shake it.
It's also the GM's duty to provide guidance to all players as to what level of optimization is acceptable in a game, help new players build a viable character, and adapt encounters to the party's power level. Nothing's worse for a game's fun factor than an imbalanced party, and in the vast majority of games high levels of optimization are just plain unnecessary....
Really sometimes concepts take longer than times and I want to work my concept around okay if I have survival as a skill I will have spent time in the wilderness and outdoors.
Also how is mechanical benfit and flavor mutually exclusive If I want to play a half orc natural weapon ranger with a bite attack is it A because I envision my character ripping apart enemies from the mouth or B. I want an extra attack to do more damage. I can want both.
For some gamers, the idea of a character concept is an afterthought, if it plays into their thought process at all. A gamer may decide to use an optimization theme or method, then use concept to justify it. At least, in my opinion, "I'm going to play an elf wizard because their stat bonuses and penalties allow me to squeeze more points out of a point-buy (i.e. bonuses in two stats the player wants high, and a penalty that can be overcome by a two-point expenditure)" reflects that; while it is factually accurate and thematically viable, it betrays the notion that concept comes first by suggesting race is being chosen not from concept but rather from mechanics. That's the sentiment that needs to be fought, not simple optimization.
I'm not sure I have a problem with people who create a mechanical idea and then come up with a concept to support it. It's not how I do things normally, though I sometimes dip into that style (in my example above, note how I decided on a feat I wanted (lucky halfling), and then worked the concept around it, rather than the other way around.
If we are going to tie concept-building and roleplaying, then I would say the one's who are weak in this area are those that don't come up with a concept at all. Or those who's concept is whatever the fluff in the race and class descriptions say. I'm sure you've played with players like that, "I'm a dwarf? Guess I'm grumpy. I'm a fighter? Guess I'm mercenary."
Some of those people (who don't develop interesting concepts) optimize their characters, but if you think there is causation, I would suggest otherwise.
I am sure you could create a bad character with no concept.
As a GM, one of my long-standing, irrational biases is against players who talk mechanics before concept. I always seem to grit my teeth and think "munchkin" when that happens, despite the fact I recognize that makes little sense in context: a concept is an easy thing to decide and internalize, while mechanics may take discussion and lots of thought. Of course, that's a downside of the d20 system itself opposed to something like the storyteller system because characters take a long time to build in comparison, and feats and classes are not all created equal. That's inherited from my experiences with players for whom concept is not even a consideration, and I have yet to completely shake it.
I can't think of a character I spent less time making the concept for than the mechanics for. Its really easy and fast for me to plan out a 10 level progression for just about any class. It may not be optimal, but in 20 minutes I can have a servicable build. I can't think of a character I have spent less time than that on for any campaign I cared remotely about. Hell, my last character I took 4 hours wringing the backstory draft, a few more working it out with the GM, and am now writing a short story to flesh out an NPC who has become more important than initially expected. Meanwhile, I level up in the downtime waiting for the other players to arrive.
|
I've read about half the thread so far so if I recover some ground, forgive me, but I have some thoughts on the role-player vs. Optimizer/Power Gamer/Min-Max debate.
In D&D 3.x onwards, some level of optimization is mandated. Challenge rating specifically states that monsters are built with the expectation of a certain party size with specific levels of gear. If you remove said gear from the party, the encounter level and difficulty changes drastically.
Personally I view Optimizers/Power Gamers/Munchkins/Min-Maxers as varying degrees of the same mentality.
Optimizers are the high school football players. They have some knowledge, and use that to their advantage. They seek to make the most powerful character they can without seeming to blatant or over the top. Role-players can look at the optimizer and think they can get onto the field with them. The optimizer will whine about them being there and not playing the game "right", but the difference in ability isn't so stark as to be detrimental to the party overall. Optimizers tend to like to blame non-optimized party members for TPK's, even though Challenge ratings are not geared to optimized parties, but for a blend of classes and gear ratings.
Power Gamers are like College Football players. They have a strong skill set and advanced knowledge of certain aspects of the game. They make characters that are very focused and skilled in specific areas, expecting other characters to pick their skills around the glaring flaws in their character. This is the fighter that needs a high charisma "Face" in the party etc, if the player is ever isolated/separated from the party; it's very easy to exploit the flaws. Any character creation decision made with the thought, well "such and such class" will handle those situations, is a sign of this mentality. As in real life, when the college football player who coasts through classes on his athletic talent is done with college and meets real life, comedy ensues. Role-players may admire the builds and skill sets, but no one really expects to get onto the same field and compete for long periods.
Min-Maxers/Power Gamers are the Pro-level football players. Their characters are freakish to look at, almost broken in every aspect except those few area's the player chose to excel, and in those areas, they are almost unbeatable or completely broken. No role-player wants to be in a game with one, and in most cases the only way these players find games are with inexperienced GM's or with new groups of players who haven’t heard about them yet.
Overall the primary mentality of these player types (in my experience) is that if you are not seeking to maximize your combat effectiveness, "you're not doing it right". In non combat oriented campaigns with little or no combat, most of these players end up feeling lost/confused or "bored".
Anecdotally, I have seen loads of 'min-maxed' non-combat characters that despised getting in a fight and would use cheaty 3.5 diplomacy. No roleplaying. Just rolling the dice, declaring a result north of 40 at level 2 and saying 'They have to do what I say. I got a 40+; No, I'm not going to RP talking to them.'
Again, optimisation and RP are separate things. You can do one, the other or both. Or none, which is what I'd class a lot of players that get called roleplayers as. Creating a sad and sick concept that bogs down the game is not roleplaying. It's being a jerk just to get attention and be an elitist snob.
Min-Maxers/Power Gamers are the Pro-level football players. Their characters are freakish to look at, almost broken in every aspect except those few area's the player chose to excel, and in those areas, they are almost unbeatable or completely broken. No role-player wants to be in a game with one, and in most cases the only way these players find games are with inexperienced GM's or with new groups of players who haven’t heard about them yet.
-I think you need to read the other half of the thread. This is simply not the case. There is no reason you can't min max the living hell out of a character and then role play him to the hilt.
Certain mindsets may statistically lead one towards being good at one aspect and not the other, but its also possible to get someone who does both or neither.
I've had a lot of fun with my 5 charisma dwarves , including flipping through a dwarven to common dictionary about 200 years out of date and mistranslating the phrases.
"hello, your wife has a lovely fetlock "
I still have a character idea that was a ninja in early life then repents by becoming a paladin of saeranae and tries to help people and fight for good and atone for his earlier sins. Now this could be a powerful combo with two levels of ninja because of ki attacks and smite evil together but the concept seems interesting.
It's easy to say "I'm going to play a grim dual-wielding halfling". That's the concept
No, thats how this whole thing gets started. A grim dual wielding halfling is TWO concepts.
A grim halfling is the CHARACTER concept. Your character was a slave or suffered some other tragedy that soured his outlook on life. Halflings are hard to turn dark, but when they do they go DARK. His kinds normal jovial nature seems like a mocking denial of the real nature of the world to him.
Dual wielding is your MECHANICAL concept. There's nothing about being grim that leads to dual wielding. That's just gnome underwear economics. Even if you say the character has a death wish and thus fights lightly armored and without a shield, there's several (mechanically better) fighting styles that do the same thing.
This is where people get the idea that optimizing costs you role play: You've got the two mixed up. Your grim halfling looses none of his grimness if you decide to give him a great sword or a bow.
Dual wielding is your MECHANICAL concept. There's nothing about being grim that leads to dual wielding. That's just gnome underwear economics. Even if you say the character has a death wish and thus fights lightly armored and without a shield, there's several (mechanically better) fighting styles that do the same thing.
This is where people get the idea that optimizing costs you role play: You've got the two mixed up. Your grim halfling looses none of his grimness if you decide to give him a great sword or a bow.
Dual Wielding is still part of the character concept. Whether or not that halfling decides to take two weapon fighting is mechanical. Weapons are one of those things that fall in both the realm of mechanical and fluff, just as much as a character's race. That's why I said, making an interesting character concept optimized often requires a good deal of game mastery.
Actually roleplaying a gnome as grim has nothing to do with mechanics however.
Concept is just an idea, a goal. Mechanics and Roleplay are a means to that goal. Sometimes being optimized in terms of power is not as important as having the correct mechanics. Other times, optimization is required to correctly represent that goal. Roleplay is important in expressing a character's personality. Some concepts don't incorporate a personality, so often the people who play those concepts aren't much of roleplayers.
Building a character is like building a car. Some people will spend all their money improving the performance of their car, others will spend all their money improving the appearance of their car. Still there are still cars where money was spent to boost both appearance and the performance. And then there are the people who just want a car that will take them places, and don't care about good appearance or performance. A concept is just a the design document to build that car.
You're saying that having a signature weapon or style is not part of characterization.
No, I'm not. You simply have your cause and effect reversed. Its the hero that defines the weapon, not the other way around.
I'm saying that you didn't connect the weapon to the concept.
Dual wielding-----> ????? ---------> Grim.
Now, if your halfling was using the chains he was bound with as a flail, spiked chain, or meteor hammer you might have had a point. That's entangling (sorry) the concept and the role play. Grim + Dual wielding is not. Your halfling would not be any better, role play wise, dual wielding than getting a big honking two hander.
If your character KEEPS the weapon it becomes a part of who and what they are, like most of the examples below, they become special because of who had them.
Yep, forget about Excalibur
What would have changed it if was a magic lance? Or a magic war hammer? Or a magic greatsword?
.44 Remington magnum
Which is known for blowing people apart. It says "i don't want you stopped i want you dead" which matches with
Honjo Masamune
The kingdom's ancestral X is the kingdom's ancestral X.
Icingdeath and Twinkle
Made popular by their wielder.
the Staff of Magius
wizards have staves. and?
ivory-handled (not mother of pearl) Colt SAA and S&W .357
Why would it matter if the same person had been using a different gun?
Dual Wielding is still part of the character concept.
Please demonstrate this. As i see it the dual wielding is completely divorced from the personality.
Dual Wielding is still part of the character concept.Please demonstrate this. As i see it the dual wielding is completely divorced from the personality.
A Character Concept is much more than just personality. Otherwise it would just be personality. Character concept also incorporates method and style. Divorcing methodology from concept is like saying an angry evoker is the same concept as an angry axe wielder. One just uses fireballs and the other uses a large axe, but their both angry.
What you use says a lot about your character. It's part of their dressing. A character that uses a bow has the flavor of an archer or someone who likes to stay distant, while a character wielding a one handed sword gives the character the option to use his free hand for grabbing a potion or using it for making his attacks stronger, while a character who dual wields gives off the feeling of a character who is either violent or has a lot of self control.
The tools being used are as much a part of the appearance and concept as the look on the characters face. What's more terrifying at first glance, a whip, or a warhammer?
tldr; Weapons used have nothing to do with personality, but concept is much more than just personality
What you use says a lot about your character. while a character who dual wields gives off the feeling of a character who is either violent or has a lot of self control.
HOW does dual wielding say this? I'm really not seeing that connection.
|
What you use says a lot about your character. while a character who dual wields gives off the feeling of a character who is either violent or has a lot of self control.HOW does dual wielding say this? I'm really not seeing that connection.
He doesn't use a shield, which means he isn't worried about defending himself, or he thinks he's good enough to not need a shield. He uses two weapons to inflict as much damage on an enemy as possible. He's all about killing it before it kills him. Or maybe he uses two blades to inflict a thousand cuts, torturing his foes as he kills them.
He doesn't use a shield, which means he isn't worried about defending himself, or he thinks he's good enough to not need a shield. He uses two weapons to inflict as much damage on an enemy as possible. He's all about killing it before it kills him. Or maybe he uses two blades to inflict a thousand cuts, torturing his foes as he kills them.
From above
Even if you say the character has a death wish and thus fights lightly armored and without a shield, there's several (mechanically better) fighting styles that do the same thing. <---
Let me be clear (because the next section depends on this). I don't like Dual wielding (two weapon fighting). On paper its a feat investment to bring you up to the level of some guy with a greatsword. In practice i find it is far, far worse because setting up full attacks is a pain in the rear and everyone is moving around far too often for it to be reliable.
Now, how exactly would giving this halfling one large honking weapon instead of two smaller ones make role playing WORSE? What about making a mechanically better choice makes the character less 3 dimensional, not at thought out, or less of a person?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Let me be clear (because the next section depends on this). I don't like Dual wielding (two weapon fighting). On paper its a feat investment to bring you up to the level of some guy with a greatsword. In practice i find it is far, far worse because setting up full attacks is a pain in the rear and everyone is moving around far too often for it to be reliable.
Now, how exactly would giving this halfling one large honking weapon instead of two smaller ones make role playing WORSE? What about making a mechanically better choice makes the character less 3 dimensional, not at thought out, or less of a person?
Noone said that it makes role playing worse, but it's still a different concept. Some people just like the flavor of wielding two weapons at once. The feats to be good at dual wielding are the mechanics. The fact that some concepts are less feasible than others (not supported well by the mechanics) is what makes a divide between those who just want to play with an interesting concept and those who want to be optimized for all the appropriate CRs. You can always roleplay any concept, but you can't always make every concept feasible.
Anecdotally, I have seen loads of 'min-maxed' non-combat characters that despised getting in a fight and would use cheaty 3.5 diplomacy. No roleplaying. Just rolling the dice, declaring a result north of 40 at level 2 and saying 'They have to do what I say. I got a 40+; No, I'm not going to RP talking to them.'
The other side of that coin is the player that neglects all their social skills and abilities and believes that they should be able to roleplay around those weaknesses and thus not be affected by them.
Frankly social skills and abilities are a tricky thing. Do you:
a)ignore them entirely as a group as this is something that should be handled entirely by acting out the scene
b)only roll the dice and let the GM decide how the outcome was reached.
c)roll the dice first and then roleplay the situation as to approximate the already known outcome
d)roleplay the scene first and then roll the check to see how effective the character was truly (perhaps putting in a circumstance bonus/penalty based on what was actually played out)
If grim implied dual wielding what if someone wanted to make a grim halfling with dervish dance. Is that a worse character concept? Since I can play a grim halfling with dervish dance grim does not imply dual wielding nor should it. However this does not mean that Grim dual wielding halfling is not a concept.
No, thats how this whole thing gets started. A grim dual wielding halfling is TWO concepts.
That's only because D&D has a mechanical support for dual wielding but not for being grim, but that doesn't take dual wielding away from the concept.
If a concept can exist outside the mechanical frame of D&D, then I say its a legit concept.
"1930s part-time adventurer/archeologist, part-time college teacher with a whip" is a concept, which indeed is made of multiples parts. Of theses parts, some are easier to represent mechanically in a RPG. But all these parts together make the concept nonetheless.
Otherwise you are right; the grim dual wielding halfling is a concept in three parts, two of them being straightforward mechanically (and therefore easily optimisable). IMO, the 'grim' part is what may make the player move away from a straightforward dual-wielding build, most likely in order to represent this 'grimness' with feats and skills as well as RP.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
..and somehow, I'm the one conflating concept and mechanics. You're the one injecting optimization into this question of concept.
As i see it, Dual wielding adds NOTHING to do with the concept. Nothing, nadda, zip, zero NOTHING. It adds nothing to the character, it says nothing about him, it does nothing for him as a person. It is a mechanical concept, not a character one. It is as much a part of the concept as whether or not the halfling has a mustache. So when i say "give him one big weapon instead of two small ones" you say "I'm not optimizing i'm playing my concept" you are not optimized... you have a mustache.
How does a grim character meet with dual wielding, you ask? Perhaps our halfling is a very violent person who loves to get in really close quarters and use his short stature to his advantage in combat.
Which could be done with a spiked chain or a falchion.
Dual wielding evokes, at least to me, a much more visceral and frantic style of combat than two-handers that may hit hard but are comparatively slow to swing and require space to use to full effect.
I'm just not seeing that.
Maybe he likes to fight so viscerally because he's borderline psychopathic, just has absolutely no patience or believes in overwhelming an enemy with quantity of attacks over quality.
See there's the disconnect again. Psychopath to multiple attacks rather than one has no causality or connection.
In short, you're claiming that dual wielding leads to "grim" here. It's not, and you're putting words into my mouth.
I'm not putting words in your mouth. I'm saying that you don't understand the difference between a character concept and a mechanical one, you've got them intertwined. That entanglement is why people get the impression that optimizing and role playing are opposite ends of a spectrum.
I'm saying that if there's no connection that dual wielding is not part of your CHARACTER concept. Its a mustache.
Yes, that's the point. The weapon or style is inseparable from the character. That's why it's a signature. Association is a powerful thing: think of Han Solo, and right there with the Millennium Falcon comes his DL-44 that he used to blow away Greedo.
The weapon or style BECOMES inseparable from the character over time. It does not however START as inseparable from the character. Showing han solo with a different weapon in a sequel would be sacrilege. (please don't give lucas the idea) Going back in time and giving Han solo a different pistol would result in a different pistol picking up the same association.(ditto)
The man loved the Colt SAA and kept one (and later, an ivory-handled .357 magnum) as his personal sidearm from the Villa expedition up to his death, even after the development and adoption of the M1911. That wasn't from lack of experience or ignorance of firearms, it was because of his personal preference, vague romanticism on the topic of war, and desire to promulgate a flashy and memorable image for his troops.
You didn't answer the question. What would have been different if he'd had the large remmington revolver similarly decked out? (not a gun person here) Look at your own example. He switched guns and kept the same flavor.
If your halfling uses two weapons it will become part of his mystique. If your halfling uses one giant honking mace it will become part of his mystique. The weapon gets its coolness from the character, not the other way around.
Replacing dual wielding with a two handed weapon is like replacing Han Solo's pistol with a rocket launcher, not with another pistol...
Also facial hair (A mustache) is often part of a character's concept, your argument about the mustache contradicts itself.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
As i see it, Dual wielding adds NOTHING to do with the concept. Nothing, nadda, zip, zero NOTHING. It adds nothing to the character, it says nothing about him, it does nothing for him as a person. It is a mechanical concept, not a character one. It is as much a part of the concept as whether or not the halfling has a mustache. So when i say "give him one big weapon instead of two small ones" you say "I'm not optimizing i'm playing my concept" you are not optimized... you have a mustache.
I can't see how picking a particular fighting style can by anything but part of the character's concept. By picking one, you're helping to define the character's concept.
Frankly, I think you're trying to draw a line between aspects of concept that aren't there, certainly not for all characters, and most certainly not for one for which the fighting style is identified.
A grim halfling who prefers to fight with two weapons is a distinct concept from one who prefers a sword and shield or a two-handed weapon. There may be grim halflings who are indifferent to how they fight, but that too is a concept.
And I think a halfling with a big, well-waxed handlebar mustache would contribute to an awesome concept.
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
As i see it, Dual wielding adds NOTHING to do with the concept. Nothing, nadda, zip, zero NOTHING. It adds nothing to the character, it says nothing about him, it does nothing for him as a person. It is a mechanical concept, not a character one. It is as much a part of the concept as whether or not the halfling has a mustache.
"Hey, I want to play a drow that wields two scimitars!"
Is this just a mechanical concept, or are you thinking of a certain character now?
|
|
Now I may be wrong here but it seems to me that Mr. Wolf is saying that the weapon of choice a character has doesn't tell you anything about the who the character is. The character's personality and what weapons the character wields have no connection unless you bring in a story to explain why the character uses the weapon. The weapons merely accent the character.
Now I may be wrong here but it seems to me that Mr. Wolf is saying that the weapon of choice a character has doesn't tell you anything about the who the character is. The character's personality and what weapons the character wields have no connection unless you bring in a story to explain why the character uses the weapon. The weapons merely accent the character.
You could say the same exact thing about race.
That very argument can be said about anything with a visual appearance, because visual appearance is not personality. You could put any personality into anything, any race, any object. Maybe people like to apply more to concepts than just personality. Appearance is one of those things.
If someone suddenly applied stat boosts to hair color and you got a +6 bonus to all of your stats for having pink hair, are you going to say that hair color isn't part of the character so everyone should have pink hair?
Replacing dual wielding with a two handed weapon is like replacing Han Solo's pistol with a rocket launcher, not with another pistol...
No, it's like changing Han solo's pistol to a blaster rifle (like Boba Fett's).
In Empire Strikes Back they changed Han Solo's outfit. Did that change his concept?
Doesn't change the character at all. Han Solo's character with a Blaster Rifle would be essentially the same, and we wouldn't think of him much differently, because Han Solo is not about using a blaster pistol rather than a blaster rifle. It's immaterial from a character concept perspective.
Now when they had Han shoot first...THAT changes the concept.
Don't get me wrong, dual wielding could be part of a character concept (so basically I think both you and BNW are wrong by dealing in absolutes, when it really depends). However, dual-wielding itself is just a mechanic, and not a concept in and of itself unless you do something with it to MAKE it part of the concept.
For example (using star wars again), Darth Vader using a lightsaber instead of a blaster IS part of the concept. The character is not the same if you change it.
Also facial hair (A mustache) is often part of a character's concept, your argument about the mustache contradicts itself.
Not at all. A mustache can be part of a character's image, but they are only part of the concept if they are important to the character itself, otherwise it's immaterial if a character has a mustache or not. (which was BNW's point)
The evil guy who twirls his mustache when he taunts the good guys, for him, mustache is part of the concept.
However, let's go back to Star Wars. Having a mustache is not part of Lando's concept. He just happens to have one.
There is a difference.
|
|
If you see a man with a lightsaber, does that tell you anything about his character?
What about a woman swinging a greatsword sized for a giant?
Is an orc shotput just a mechanical consideration?
Actually, an answer to Treantmonk's post.
If Zorro used a claymore, would that change his character concept? The Three Musketeers using glaives? King Arthur swinging an axe?
Edit: Ah, so TM agrees that weapons CAN be a part of concepts. Just not always.
No, it's like changing Han solo's pistol to a blaster rifle (like Boba Fett's).
In Empire Strikes Back they changed Han Solo's outfit. Did that change his concept?
Doesn't change the character at all. Han Solo's character with a Blaster Rifle would be essentially the same, and we wouldn't think of him much differently, because Han Solo is not about using a blaster pistol rather than a blaster rifle. It's immaterial from a character concept perspective.
Yet notice that Han is back to using a blaster pistol even on his commando raid in Return of the Jedi. Han resorts to using Fett's rifle out of necessity, thus we don't see it as a change in concept. But Han doing any extended fighting with some weapon other than a blaster pistol would leave people with a different impression of him as a character than the one we have.
It's not as big a part of his concept as being a scoundrel with a good heart or a hot shot pilot, but I think it's there.
Replacing dual wielding with a two handed weapon is like replacing Han Solo's pistol with a rocket launcher, not with another pistol...No, it's like changing Han solo's pistol to a blaster rifle (like Boba Fett's).
Doesn't change the character at all. Han Solo's character with a Blaster Rifle would be essentially the same, and we wouldn't think of him much differently, because Han Solo is not about using a blaster pistol rather than a blaster rifle. It's immaterial from a character concept perspective.
I'm not saying that the weapon of choice is always a part of the concept. I'm just refuting BNW's proposal that it's never part of the concept.
Take for example hair color. Link's for one changes from brown to blonde in the many variations of Legend of Zelda, and yet Link is still that same character he always was. But if you took a character like Ichigo from Bleach and turned his Orange hair black, you lose a part of the concept right there.
Also facial hair (A mustache) is often part of a character's concept, your argument about the mustache contradicts itself.Is this for me or for BNW?
Also, what are you talking about?
BNW was saying that dual wielding was a mustache and not thus not important to the concept. But there's a load of difference in the concept of a person who is clean shaven and a character who dons a full beard and well groomed mustache, and then you compare it with someone with a beard of evil. Even if the personality is the same, most people react differently. Not always does facial hair matter, but there are times when it does.
Yeah, I'd have to say sometimes the weapon is closely tied to the concept. Han Solo is a "space cowboy". He's a gunslinger, and as such his weapon of choice is a gun he can draw and get off a couple of quick shots. Skipping the whole Greedo thing (which would be hard to accomplish with a larger weapon), just think of the scene with Vader in cloud city. The door opens, Vader stands and Han tries to unsling his blaster rifle from his shoulder? Nope, that doesn't work. Han whipping out his pistol and taking a couple shots from the hip makes that scene much more iconic.
Sure, you toss a blaster rifle in Han's hands for a scene or two, no big deal, he's still Han. Gunslingers know how to use a variety of weapons, especially if they have to disguise themselves as storm troopers. But what is their preferred, default weapon? The pistol.
Now if you replace Chewies bowcaster with a blaster rifle, you lose a little uniqueness, but functionally it works exactly the same. In fact, I can't remember any scene where the bowcaster acted any differently than a blaster rifle would have. The bowcaster is all flair.
As i see it, Dual wielding adds NOTHING to do with the concept. Nothing, nadda, zip, zero NOTHING.
So... you think weapon style has something to do with the character concept? hehe Forgive me, I couldn’t help myself.
Making heads explode through the internet beside... The thing is, for people that talk about ‘roleplayer vs optimiser’ it is all intertwined to some degree. The way we see it, you can’t take batman’s brain, put it in superman’s body and roleplay him the same way. The type of things being discussed like weapon choice and hair color are simply less extreme variations on that philosophy.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I will agree that the concepts of "grim", "two-weapon fighter", and heck even "halfling" are not dependent. You can have a grim character that doesn't use TWFing and isn't a halfling. You can have a TWFer who isn't grim or a halfling, and you can have a halfling that isn't grim or a TWFer.
Does that mean those concepts are irrelevant to the specific character that is a grim TWFing halfling? Not at all, they help to define the character. But those characteristics are not dependent on each other, they all just influence the end product (the character).
As i see it, Dual wielding adds NOTHING to do with the concept. Nothing, nadda, zip, zero NOTHING. It adds nothing to the character, it says nothing about him, it does nothing for him as a person. It is a mechanical concept, not a character one. It is as much a part of the concept as whether or not the halfling has a mustache.
"Hey, I want to play a drow that wields two scimitars!"
Is this just a mechanical concept, or are you thinking of a certain character now?
This was already answered. Repeatedly
In my opinion a character's favored fighting style or weapons can be a reflection of his personality. A person selects a weapon that fits them. It's as much a part of characterization as more topical matters.
It CAN be, but it isn't automatically, and it isn't as random or automatic as you're making out to be. The ties you tried to show between dual wielding and a grim halfling are incredibly weak.
An iconic weapon becomes iconic because the character uses it. Drizzt dual wields because 2e rangers could dual wield. The mechanical concept lead to the character concept, not the other way around.
I'm answering the allegation that "mechanics" (i.e. a signature weapon or style) can never be a part of characterization
ahem Now, if your halfling was using the chains he was bound with as a flail, spiked chain, or meteor hammer you might have had a point. That's entangling (sorry) the concept and the role play. Grim + Dual wielding is not.
Please don't criticize others or treat them as if they are objectively incorrect for not conforming to your opinion of proper characterization. Especially when you couple that criticism with remarks on how that characterization is mechanically sub-optimal in one hand while accusing others of conflating mechanics and characterization in the other and muddying the waters between munchkinism and role-playing for it.
Because, no offense, that's condescending and hypocritical as hell.
And calling me a munchkin isn't criticism for disagreeing with your opinion that dual wielding wasn't tied to the concept?
Heck, as an edit I'll take it one step further. Maybe our grim halfling doesn't even have TWF. Maybe he dual wields in the sense he carries a weapon in each hand, he just doesn't use them at the same time. Maybe he has a scimitar in one hand, and a sling or sling staff in the other (along with ammo drop), and switch hits. Maybe he carries dual repeating crossbows and New York reloads (slightly different concept than dual wielding proper, but same idea of dual weapons). Jumping to the conclusion he by default takes TWF as a mechanical resolution may be reasonable, but it's still jumping to conclusions my original post may not have necessarily supported.
Well, i was trying to avoid accusing you of thinking that bad optimization automatically leads to better role play but if you want to join that camp feel free. It just makes my point that you've got the two mixed up when you put them as the same variable on a line.
I will agree that the concepts of "grim", "two-weapon fighter", and heck even "halfling" are not dependent.
Grim and halfling are linked through inversion. Halflings are usually either bright and cheery or comic relief, so a grim one has the twist that you can't get with either a grim character or a halfling one. Its like playing a good drow (see how you don't need to mention the scimitars at all) the very juxtaposition tells you a lot about the character.
|
|
Hmm... I guess you can work on a theme and then have a character develop from that.
I wanted a Power Ranger / Sailor Moon type character. I also wanted to continue to use my platypus miniature from reaper. I didn't think just role playing a platypus would work so I used what I knew about the game and chose to be a synthethist. Voila, Platycore, The Great Justice, was born.
Mr. Wolf, what do you think about the character being defined by the theme?
Mr. Wolf, what do you think about the character being defined by the theme?
I like themes, even if they can be a little harder to make work from a mechanics standpoint.
Han Solo is a "space cowboy". He's a gunslinger, and as such his weapon of choice is a gun
Han himself, as another poster mentioned, is a space cowboy. He's a gunslinger. An astute observer would note at a few points in the films
Oh, I get it now, Han Solo's concept of "Space Cowboy" requires him to use a blaster pistol, because a "gunslinger" always uses a pistol, and using a Rifle changes the concept
Kinda like Clint Eastwood in the Good, the Bad and the Ugly...wait, he uses a rifle at the beginning of that one.
I guess more like Lee Van Cleef in For a Few Dollars More...wait, he uses a rifle through that one.
An astute observer would note that a gunslinger can use either a pistol or a rifle and he's still a gunslinger.
I think a pistol (except something like a magnum) does do a better job of saying "I sneak and finesse my way through problems" whereas a BFG says "HERE I AM I WILL SHOOT YOU DEAD". Exceptions for sniper rifles (which says sniper, its right in the name, and sniper= sneak)
I just think there's more than enough ways to send the same message, and more than enough decent mechanical options, that you can find a good mechanics option that sends the message you want to send.