"Claps Loudly" I couldn't agree more with the OP.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Actually, some of the problem may be...youth.
I've been playing this game for a while (has has the OP, I suspect). I can remember when you HAD to roleplay to differentiate your character from the next guy. We didn't always have archetypes, or prestige classes, or kits, or even non-weapon proficiencies.
If you were new, though, you might take a look at something like Ultimate Combat, and see scores of new weapons and armor and archetypes and think "That's it! This is how I will build a unique character. I will build a scarred half-orc cavalier riding a giant pig wearing bone mail. No one will forget him!"
Except, of course, when it comes time to actually play the game, this interesting character becomes "I roll to hit, aaaaand, that's AC 19, aaaaand that's 9 points of damage". Same as last time. Even worse, this guy think's he's role-playing, and may even call it that.
When we've got two ideas sharing one word, it's going to get confusing really fast. Just look at the thread above, and see how many people added definitions as a way to clear things up. It's a few.
If you already know how to role-play a character, then you don't need anything else. But what if you don't?
So, Paizo, can we get some advice on making interesting characters for people who would like to be better at role-playing but don't know how?
Thanks.
PS I'm also hoping we can name this book "Ultimate Mustache"
I agree with the OP in principle. Honestly if we could post picture here, I'd have drawn one of those big circle graphs... One with 'roleplayer' in it, One with 'Optimizer' and then have the circles overlap a bit.
The two catagories are different... but HOPEFULLY, they overlap. MOST time I try to be in the middle ground there... but if I have to choose, I'll be in the RP catagory.
Let's keep in mind that these activities do not even occur at the same time, so it's not like someone who is focusing on one loses focus on the other. Optimization does not occur during the session, and roleplaying does not occur in between sessions.
These activities may not occur at the same time... but your trying to act like they have no effect on each other? The choices you make OUT of character will have a direct effect on how your character develops.
If I want to play a noble character who disdains combat, and uses a sword cane...
THAT'S a little tough to optimize. It's one of the weakest/worst weapons as written, and his stats aren't going to back him up...
YES, I can work the numbers so that he is the best possible diplomacy/knowledge/skill monkey and such... but few people would refer to that as 'optimized'
HONESTLY, I think the problems occur 'at least for ME...' when people who are rules experts and massive optimizers (bordering on min/maxers...) TELL you how to build your character!
A few suggestions are fine... but when I pick a character, and I try to build him to the picture in my head, and then play him accordingly, it seems the 'pure optomizers' are the ones throwing the tantrums about characters not being 'good enough'.
I suppose it's POSSIBLE, but I've rarely seen anyone interested in characters complaining that another player's character is TOO good, and killing TOO many enemies... But I've seen LOTS of the opposite.
I think it would be a lot better, if everyone designed their own character hwo they wanted... and then played their own character without worrying about 'why aren't they as good as 'me!!!'
|
I think part of the issue is not how roleplaying is defined, but how optimization is defined.
For some, optimization occurs only in a vacuum, independent of the campaign, and taking nothing of the campaign into consideration (unless it's a mechanical house rule). For others, optimization is integrated into the campaign world--the development choices made at each level depend on what has happened in the world, and how to get the best out of the long-term situation presented.
Note that vacuum optimization and campaign optimization say nothing about whether the player is pro-optimization or anti-optimization.
I remember once asking for help on optimizing a character that had one level of sorcerer and one level of oracle. Certainly, from a vacuum-optimization standpoint, just having the two different classes together is a mistake. Some people responded saying that optimization was essentially impossible, because the mistake was already made. Others came back with ideas about favoring one class or the other, and others debated the value of the Mystic Theurge.
I think one of the big differences between vacuum optimization and campaign optimization is that one requires choices to be made independently of the campaign, while the other requires choices to be made in conjunction with the campaign. It becomes highly likely that a vacuum optimizer will made design choices that fly in the face of what the PC's position in the game world would suggest. However, this does not happen with the campaign optimizer.
Thus, it is perfectly possible for there to be an optimizer who eschews roleplaying on account of being an optimizer. It is also perfectly possible for there to be an optimizer who incorporates roleplaying into being an optimizer. There are optimizers of the first style to be found--and these are the people for whom "RP or OP" applies. For the second style, "RP and OP" apply.
Now we can probably agree that "Roleplaying" has a few different definitions. For example, if you play Pathfinder, then you are playing a roleplaying game, and are a role player by definition.That's not the definition I think those who use the above statements are referring to though.
Role Playing would also be what you do with your character. Developing a personality for your character, a set of values, speech patterns, facial ticks, etc. This is likely the definition they are referring to.
That's not the only meaning they may be referring to as well. There are players who plan out their build, usually optimized for some ability, and then don't deviate from that build... no matter what happens in the campaign. There are also players who don't do so much planning out of their character but build in response to things going on in the campaign setting or things their character is doing at the time. It's probably a non-optimal build. That, too, could also be called role playing since you're playing up in-character responses to campaign developments. And in this case, that's a particular style of role playing that can conflict with styles of optimization.
While in the main it's true that optimization and role-playing need not conflict in all cases, there are some varieties of each in which they do.
EDIT: somewhat ninjaed by InVinoVeritas. We seem to be on the same wavelength.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
If min/maxers actually have to play the character they make, they tend not to min/max.Or they play it with much relish, to the detriment of the enjoyment of the rest of the group.
Hey, I'm happy it doesn't seem to have happened to you!
One of my all time favorite players was "George" the mentally slow psionic wilder. He was very, very powerful, but not very bright (the dice giveth in some areas, and take in others.)
The people in the group were his friends, and he was hilariously all win or all fail because he would do really awesome things followed by really dumb things.
A min/maxer builds to win. And optimizer builds to play. I'm fine with the later.
Min/Maxers and rules lawyers try to find loopholes. It's like playing a video game in god mode or using a cheese glitch.Except instead of only cheating in your own personal video game, you are at a table with a group of people, being "that guy".
And nobody likes "That Guy".
"That Guy" is why it is hard to get new people to play. "That Guy" is where all of the negative stereotypes for role players start.
No. No it isn't. Not even remotely.
|
|
In our group, the more experienced and more rules-advanced players tend to make less optimal builds (because we've all played the straight fighter, wizard, archer etc. over the years and are looking for something new) and the less advanced players tend to make more optimized builds (with some coaching from those of us who know the ins and outs of DPR).
This balances the guys who are less tactically savvy with those who have precise tactics all the time. For me, it's a fun way to do optimization to make a workable character from a less than optimal starting point, if that's where my character idea comes from.
This doesn't mean that I'll chose a Sorceror/Wizard or something totally useless but it does mean that I'll play a dirt bag Rogue that reforms his way and becomes a Paladin, or gets even worse and becomes an Assassin or something.
I do think there is something in avoiding pure DPR builds because it can get a little dull if you get sucked into the same attack routine every time.
The goal is to build an effective character and role-play him or her. It does not have to be weak or with inherent flaws but it does not have have to be optimized to squeeze out the most damage possible either. There is a happy medium. Don't be afraid to choose a non optimized choice for something that gives your character a little more flavor, but don't completely gimp combat effectiveness either.
All in all build the character you want to play and build your concept to be as good a character it can be. Then have fun. Do a little of both, I do build back stories for my characters then I optimize that character to fit my theme, I don't optimize just combat I optimize for non-Combat as well, nothing is more boring than sitting in a bar while every one else investigates, waiting for a chance to wade in with a greatsword cleaving may way through hordes of NPCs.
Yup. As with most issues, there are three sides for me: the one side, the other and the truth, which most times is somewhere in the middle.
I want a powerfull character, butt-kicking for goodness, someone who pulls his own weight and makes NPC´s(and sometimes PC´s),cringe at the mere thought of going head-to-head with him.
On the other hand i regulary cringe at seeing stats of 18 or higher on 1st Level characters. I´m propably with my old-school AD&D-sensei-DM there, who ruled an 18 to be almost superhuman. Appropriate maybe with a fighter or barbarian, but there should be a role-play explanation, like say Conan growing up pushing the mill-wheel.
Also i don´t do dump-stats, because i´d feel obliged to play them out and those things have tendency to turn aroun and bite you in the rear at the most inopportune moment. Other players of my group love that.
One of my chars picked profession: scribe and innkeeper, if you play a Bard or a Face-Rogue you almost have to burn a feat on social stuff. (MEEEP- isn´t that optimization, too?)
I´ve read some optimization-guides, mainly because i don´t want to realize AFTER picking 2 or 3 feats that a particular built sucks, i´d like to know that beforehand.
What regularily annoys me somewhat though, is the "dissing" particularly TWF and Vital-Strike are getting.
Note that i don´t include the OP, as i loved the post where he pointed out that TWF was suboptimal in terms of optimization, as his was an optimization-guide for Rangers - btw: thumbs up for this one:).
What i "took home" from this, was not to expect to out-damage a great-sword fighter with a TWF-built. But then: thats not my job as an TWF- Ranger or Rogue/Fighter, as the tactic approach is totally different, for example, with the higher Dex you pump a couple of ranged attacks in to your opponent, to soften him up for the great-sword fighter, then go around an flank.
On that note: Vital Strike works perfectly fine for me, with a two-handed weapon, leaden-blades and Furious-Focus.
The Truth for me: Everything, that everybody does, is done to have fun.
As long as everybody has fun...
1) 1st off, cheer!
2nd) The difference is that the stereotype develops because it is a trend. Some people do tend to do a lot more of one than the other, the same way some people gravitate towards math and some towards english.
A min maxer min maxes within the rules. If a feat is horribly broken (cough cough persisant spell cough cough) they take it.
When you're TRYING to exploit the rules (I disarm the monk! Whats the HP loss for loosing one of your limbs?) You're a MUNCHKIN, which is to min maxers what a square is to rectangles.
Blame White Wolf.
Once upon a time, they said words to the effect of "choose your name, then choose your concepts, then choose everything else, and try to have everything else fit the concept."
I think a lot of us had already intuited this, but they said it early and well, formalising the concept first view of roleplaying.
For a concept first roleplayer, optimisation is a useful but distant tool. It is a way of making a concept work well, not the starting point from which to build the character. It is the way decide between two equally appropriate choices, not a way of selecting options from the raw list.
Optimisation can...
I'm going to respectfully disagree here, unless I'm reading your point wrong in which case I'm going to respectfully make myself look stupid.
With a Storyteller game, you chose your concept and built to it. That didn't mean you passed over things that enhanced your concept for things that were less important. You had to prioritize what made your concept and build top-down with what points you had. If your concept in a Werewolf game was Pack Alpha, you needed strength, combat prowess, and the ability to lead. You built to those aspects and, if you had points left over, you bought a point in the underwater basket weaving skill because that's what your werewolf did on weekends to relax.
The same applies in a PF or D&D-type game. If you're concept is party tank, you build to that concept and optimize the tanking aspects of your character. If you have points left over, you can spend them on skills or other aspects of the character that are less important. It's a matter of priority.
That said, I saw a *lot* of white wolf players that took it to the other end because their prioritizations were not to the point of the game. If your werewolf is a college student, that's fine. But if you know the game is going to be doing a lot of forays into the umbra (spirit realm) and you don't prioritize anything having to do with spirit combat or diplomacy or whatever and, instead, prioritize all of your college coursework skills that have nothing to do with the game, then you have done your concept a disservice unless your concept is "fish-out-of-water-that's-going-to-die-quickly".
To TreantMonk's point... I (the GM) am the only one at the table allowed to have a mustache. If anyone else attempts to grow one, I make them shave it off or dock them xp since they are trying to be too much like the GM at that point... that is to say, too God-like.
If they want to optimize the mechanical aspects of their characters to a given situation, that's great. In those specific situations they are going to shine. In any other situation, they may -- or may not -- be at a disadvantage. Two of my players -- neither or which have mustaches last time I checked, but we play over Skype since they're in Asia so I'm not sure -- have spent the last 6 weeks since I said I was starting this game tweaking and experimenting with concepts and combinations. These are probably some of the best optimized characters around.
One of the two has a ten-page back story for his character and works actively with me to set up plot hooks that revolve around his character's role playing aspect. The two have nothing to do with one another.
Optimzation != inability to roleplay != Mustachiocity
--JD
|
See I need clarification. Currently I play a dwarf fighter at home, his stats are built for being an ok defensive fighter, but what I liked the most is his ability to craft armor and eventually to craft magical arms and armor. Our GM is rather stingey on magic items, so I filled a role that way with a slight sacrifice toward combat ability. Does that make me less optimized and useless because my dwarf fighters stats aren't as awesome combat wise as they could be. The point is play what you think is fun and to hell with the rest.
Its just a bunch of "High Horse" mentality.
Its a clear case of the have-nots trying to take what they perceive to be a moral high-ground against the vile players that actually HAVE.
If you have a character with a 20 strength and a 7 intelligence, then you must SURELY be a min-maxing scum who can't grasp the concept of honest role-play, simply because I don't agree with a set of numbers that appear on your character sheet.
Its the time-tested tradition of "I'm right, so YOU'RE wrong". Even though the very concept of the argument is pointless. Its not even apples to oranges. Its apples to toenail clippings. You can be both. Or neither.
Smart people know there is a no direct correlation between the two concepts.
Bitter people on the other hand...
If you have a character with a 20 strength and a 7 intelligence, then you must SURELY be a min-maxing scum who can't grasp the concept of honest role-play, simply because I don't agree with a set of numbers that appear on your character sheet.
This is only true if said character then begins a treatise on Magical Relativity and Its Effects on the Habitat of Chromatic Dragons and Their Counterparts. Unless that paper is written in crayon and uses no words with more than five letters, it's not an honest role-play of the stats you have chosen.
Unless you have a mustache... and, more to your point, toe-nail clippings.
--JD
Yes, I've given her a very good wisdom and a reasonable charisma, and I've made efforts to allow her to be effective enough to be fun in and out of combat. However, she's clearly far from an optimized cleric. More to the point, every non-optimal decision has been made in a spirit of "what would my character do/want?" as opposed to "what would be the most effective character I could make?"
However you are still making choices that optimize your chosen style(s) and make them functional. Taking the Whip Mastery (etc.) to improve what is normally a sub-optimal weapon. Do you use it for Disarming, Trips, Aid Another? Do you put any spells at all into buffing that or debuffing (painfully) your foes to make those easier?
This is what I call Optimzing, what you are suggesting as the "optimal" cleric is Power Gaming. Do you see the difference now? Optimizing is finding the best way to achieve a result. What that result is can come from many different starting points.
Another example, thanks to some recent conversations what happens if I want to make a magical (Magus based) assassin style character? The silent killer magus is not Power Gamer optimal, but it can be Optimized so it isn't a total failure during play or is ultimately incapable of doing what the concept calls for.
This is only true if said character then begins a treatise on Magical Relativity and Its Effects on the Habitat of Chromatic Dragons and Their Counterparts
Pfffth. Even a character with a 7 int needs toilet paper.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I dunno how y'all missed these guys, but I see them all the time:
Player: ALRIGHT!!!! Check that feat out! Oh man that's totally broken. (Spends next 30 minutes altering numbers and stats for said feat) Done!
DM: Okay, what is your characters name?
Player: Oh right, I need a name...
DM:*facepalm*
As someone who lies firmly in the middle ground of roleplayer adn optimizer adn believes that mechanics should reflect the character and vice versa I'm gonna pull up my chair, order some pizza and watch the fireworks while drinking a YuengLing or three.
Continue on.
I dunno how y'all missed these guys, but I see them all the time:
Player: ALRIGHT!!!! Check that feat out! Oh man that's totally broken. (Spends next 30 minutes altering numbers and stats for said feat) Done!
DM: Okay, what is your characters name?
Player: Oh right, I need a name...
DM:*facepalm*
Hey, names freaking tough. Just go down a classroom roster and you'll see just how hard.
X_x
This is why I regularly use Babyname websites and search based on name meanings.
This is why I regularly use Babyname websites and search based on name meanings.
There's a name generator for everything.
As someone who lies firmly in the middle ground of roleplayer adn optimizer adn believes that mechanics should reflect the character and vice versa...
This just in:
Someone who thinks mechanics should reflect the character concept and vice versa is very firmly in the optimizers camp!
That is to say that you understand that understanding the rules and building your character in a way that the roleplaying and mechanics portion of things are in concert is what most optimizers promote.
Sorry... but you are not fence sitting on this one... you are saying that you agree that optimizing and role-playing are not mutually exclusive and you can do both.
Unless, I suppose, I am completely reading you wrong and you really do try to reign yourself in on both accounts:
"Wow! I am getting a bit too effective at being the greatest swordsman in the world (which is what my character concept is). I better back off or I am an optimizer!"
"Woah! I need to stop writing background and make this character concept a little less interesting... I was almost a roleplayer there!"
Both are silly.
I really do think, whether you know it or not, You are an optimizer and understand you can also role play.
You are also a Tomato
There's a name generator for everything.
This is why I regularly use Babyname websites and search based on name meanings.
Not if your looking for a good name. Especially one that won't get turned into a fart joke by mispronunciation.
I really do think, whether you know it or not, You are an optimizer and understand you can also role play.
Believe what you wish. I have neither desire nor will to get into a pointless argument. Let's just say if both sides were political parties I'd be strictly moderate. I make the characters I want to play.
Ciretose's distinction between "optimizing" and "minmaxing" is (unfortunately common) nonsense. Both optimizing and minmaxing are making the most effective character one can, given a set of conditions. His "minmaxing" is three different disruptive conducts: outright cheating, deliberately seeking soft parts of the rules to get game-disruptive or nonsensical results, and making a character which deliberately overshadows other players in a disruptive fashion. If you need a word for a person who does these things, asshat is much clearer.
Should I be scared that I agree with you?
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
If you have a character with a 20 strength and a 7 intelligence, ...
Really, from a bonus/population distribution Point of View, a 7 intelligence means the person is slower than average by the same amount that a 14 INT is smarter than average.
We are not talking about a serious handicap here. To gauge how far off the mean a 7 is, look at strength:
- 7 STR means you can't lift more than 70 lbs over your head. I know lots of people who can't lift 70 lbs and I'm sure most people do too.
Extrapolating that level of deficit to the other abilities:
- 7 DEX means you trip going up the stairs or can't learn to touch type no matter how many lessons you take
- 7 CON means you catch every cold that goes around or maybe you can't climb a flight of stairs without losing your breath
- 7 INT means you need help with the "internets" or can't program your VCR or aren't the book-learning type
- 7 WIS means you max out your credit cards or you chronically leave home without proper footwear in the winter or you believe in horoscopes and you buy extended warranties
- 7 CHA means you are shy or a little obnoxious or you're the one who is constantly ignored by the waitress and doesn't stand up for yourself
If anything, people tend to overplay 7's.
I agree with everything in the OP.
One of the problems here is the prevalence of labels like "Role-player" and "Optimizer". Add in further entrenched terms like "role vs roll" and to a lesser extent "fluff vs. crunch" and you can see how the RPG vernacular is set up to deliver people into these stereotypes.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
.......
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
It is always foolish to attempt to replace terminology, but if I had to pick two terms that would get to the heart of the actual player-type conflict, it would be: plays-for-challenge vs. plays-for-character.
I almost called play-to-win, but I realized it was inaccurate and somewhat pejorative. There's my own "plays-for-character" bias creeping in there. Plays-for-challenge is the type of person who likes a nice, stable ruleset they can build with, and; GM's job is to test their build to some extent. This type of person may well also play for character, but they make competence a priority. They are less likely to encourage things like GM dice-fudging to keep a character alive.
people prioritize character. They may or may not care if their character is competent, just as long as the character is distinct and accomplishes the concept they had in mind (which doesn't always include competence. These people will accept things like GM dice-fudging if it results in a good story. This person sees the GM's job as creating a good story.
Now, you can see these aren't mutually exclusive either! But I think they're much more appropriate to the actual conflict. The key here is would you emphasize character at the expense of competence? Not every single time, but would you do it at all? For me, the answer is yes.
|
|
Its just a bunch of "High Horse" mentality.
Its a clear case of the have-nots trying to take what they perceive to be a moral high-ground against the vile players that actually HAVE.
If you have a character with a 20 strength and a 7 intelligence, then you must SURELY be a min-maxing scum who can't grasp the concept of honest role-play, simply because I don't agree with a set of numbers that appear on your character sheet.
Its the time-tested tradition of "I'm right, so YOU'RE wrong". Even though the very concept of the argument is pointless. Its not even apples to oranges. Its apples to toenail clippings. You can be both. Or neither.
Smart people know there is a no direct correlation between the two concepts.Bitter people on the other hand...
7 intelligence would historically mean a 70 IQ.
If you are willing to play a character with a 70 IQ, you aren't min/maxing. You are optimizing for a task, sacrificing elsewhere.
If you want people to also think you are smart with your 20 strength, you are min/maxing and trying to game the system.
Which is kind of pathetic.
And you're... a cantaloupe.
I'm 2 graham crackers with sliced bananas and nutella betwixt them. My deliciousness is unparalleled.