Roleplay, roleplay and optimise all you want, please; but in my book, a brute with Int 7 and Cha 5 (and not a single rank in diplomacy) will never succeed in woeing any (sane) princess, never sway any (sane) king with soothing words, no matter how silver-tongued the player may be.
They don't have to. It isn't their job. Their job is to kill things. To death. That's why they are Fighters instead of Bards.
Why doesn't everyone expect the Fighter to be a suave, debonair character but the Barbarian gets a pass? There is no real difference between the focus of the classes other than the flavor.
I said brute, not fighter. And the fighter I quote is an example. Barbarians at least get more skills than the fighter.
And, hell, they are SENTIENT BEINGS!! Not mutants and mindless drones, growing weapons out of their wrists.Hell, the Ranger and Druid should be more charismatic than the Fighter because those classes are designed to deal with animals - which involves being Charismatic if not Intelligent, but no one ever gives them crap about it.
I do. I give a crap. Cause I don't think anyone should get away with having their cake and eating it when it concerns fighting prowess optimization by "just winging the roleplay aspects" (i.e. being a suave player with a character without suave stats) whereas non-number-crunchers are insulted by being called sub-optimal!
If you think you can get away with dropping attributes ridiculously low, feel free, but don't expect to not suffer any negative consequences for it. That goes either way.
Let's face it, over half of the optimization defenders optimize to "better kill things to death" and not to "better represent their roleplaying concept".
I am done with this!
I said brute, not fighter. And the fighter I quote is an example. Barbarians at least get more skills than the fighter.
And, hell, they are SENTIENT BEINGS!! Not mutants and mindless drones, growing weapons out of their wrists.
So they should be bad at their job of being a guard or a fighter (little f) or something combat oriented so they can be the court ambassador?
I do. I give a crap. Cause I don't think anyone should get away with having their cake and eating it when it concerns fighting prowess optimization by "just winging the roleplay aspects" (i.e. being a suave player with a character without suave stats) whereas non-number-crunchers are insulted by being called sub-optimal!
I really don't care what your opinion is. If I put enough points into Diplomacy or Bluff or anything else, my awful Charisma is quickly and easily overcome.
If you think you can get away with dropping attributes ridiculously low, feel free, but don't expect to not suffer any negative consequences for it. That goes either way.
Ok, but remember, when you decide to crank up your secondary stats and bonuses to be better at talking and skill use and let your combat abilities languish, we are now going to start applying ADDITIONAL penalties on top of your already low combat abilities, you know, because it's realistic that you are bad at combat "for reals" in addition to being poor at combat rules wise because you don't focus on it.
Let's face it, over half of the optimization defenders optimize to "better kill things to death" and not to "better represent their roleplaying concept".
I'm a Fighter. My role-playing concept IS to kill things to death. If your concept is "suave, debonair character who occasionally fights but prefers the court" make a Bard, not a Fighter. You always see role-players whining about how optimizers do this or that and then make patently ridiculous builds that don't fit their concept.
Let's face it, half of the optimization defenders optimize to "better kill things to death" and not to "better represent their roleplaying concept".
I daresay more than half of optimizers aim for the "better kill things to death".
However, Treantmonk insists on the fact that optimizers seek to perfect their concept via optimal mechanical choices, but that the concept doesn't have to be "better killing things to death". It certainly can, in which case optimization will focus about doing just that.
But what Treantmonk is trying to say is that if the original concept is "a suave and well-rounded fighter-type adventurer", you can optimize around that concept as well, resulting in a character that will most likely be less efficient at killing things (yet better in its original concept at being a jack-of-all trade).
Optimization according to him (please stop me if I'm wrong), isn't about the choice of the original concept, but how you will implement this concept within the mechanical frame of the game to reach optimal results.
Optimization isn't about mix-maxing and powergaming, although min-maxing and power-building (if that is a word) are forms of optimization.
'findel
Let's face it, half of the optimization defenders optimize to "better kill things to death" and not to "better represent their roleplaying concept".I daresay more than half of optimizers aim for the "better kill things to death".
However, Treantmonk insists on the fact that optimizers seek to perfect their concept via optimal mechanical choices, but that the concept doesn't have to be "better killing things to death". It certainly can, in which case optimization will focus about doing just that.
But what Treantmonk is trying to say is that if the original concept is "a suave and well-rounded fighter-type adventurer", you can optimize around that concept as well, resulting in a character that will most likely be less efficient at killing things (yet better in its original concept at being a jack-of-all trade).
Optimization according to him (please stop me if I'm wrong), isn't about the choice of the original concept, but how you will implement this concept within the mechanical frame of the game to reach optimal results.
Optimization isn't about mix-maxing and powergaming, although min-maxing and power-building (if that is a word) are forms of optimization.
'findel
For some reason I like optimizing blacksmiths. I can come up with a level 1 human blacksmith that has a +13 craft bonus to any craft skill. Take skill focus and prodigy and put that racial +2 into int using the npc array. Of course expert so craft as a class skill. Then the human bonus feat goes into prodigy from ultimate magic which gets a +2 to two craft profession or perform skills. Also he would save up from some expirence and profits and buy masterwork artisans tools.
Heck after a hard day making spears really fast for the town gaurd he can go down the tarvern and sing some songs with a bard even after he gets done with works in the evening and gets some bonuses.
I have realised this is not my kind of rpg, I have never felt at home and I more and more realise, that it is holding me back.
I've had it with the inhumanly strong freaks with the amoebean intellect and the lizard charisma, who believe can walk unnoticed among the populace.
Roleplay, roleplay and optimise all you want, please; but in my book, a brute with Int 7 and Cha 5 (and not a single rank in diplomacy) will never succeed in woeing any (sane) princess, never sway any (sane) king with soothing words, no matter how silver-tongued the player may be.
Well, 1. if your still around,
2. They don´t3. They don´t
To elaborate 2: No, they don´t.
A path opens for them, like: who´s coming, Moses? NO, the pink Hulk clad in armour and many scars. The populace scrambles away in fear and hopes that its leashed. The party-face assures them that is the case and everythings fine.
3. No, they don´t.
The Brute gets gets or takes a massive fortress, lots of gold and a company of soldiers to play with and is happy.
I do find it strange when I read someone saying something about how they all about roleplaying and not game mechanics and then turns around and complains about another player dumping Cha and Int and instead roleplaying around their character's ability and/or skill deficiencies. Seems to me, either you care what is on the paper or you don't.
I daresay more than half of optimizers aim for the "better kill things to death".
So?
That isn't remotely counterproductive to role play. Fine. You're a death machine. You have the charisma of a dead fish, your weapon proficiencies are based on the DPR calculations for your stats and your one skill point is perception so you can hear the lamentations of their women.
So what?
This does not prevent you, the player, from making a richly detailed PERSON out of this character. WHY does he have the feats he does? What drives him to try to be the best at killing things? Is he out to avenge his parents? Does he have a rivalry with his older brother? Does he feel its his duty to the king to be the best that he can regardless of the personal sacrifices it costs his social skills?
How does he feel out of combat? Is he relieved not to have to kill people? Glad that he, personally, will live to see tomorrow, or is he anxious and bored out of his skull because combat is the only thing that makes him feel alive and anything else is a cold, pallid, and soulless pretense of what it means TO BE.
What is he like in a party? Low charisma and no social skills mean that he doesn't do well, but there are ANY number of avenues to failure and each can be as definitive as a persons path to success. Does he stand quietly in the corner like a wallflower? Does he bravely charge into battle, but get sweaty, choked up and tongue tied asking a girl to dance? Has he spent so much time getting hit in the head with training weapons that he just had NO idea how to go about a social situation, and acts like a 14 year old asking someone out for the first time? Does his prowess on the battlefield make him act cocky and arrogant around everyone, driving them off?
THIS is role playing. Putting feats into skill focus: blacksmithing is just making yourself weaker*. You can be a great smith, perhaps even the greatest smith, without it. You can build your whole concept around smithing, adventures are the fire in which you're forged, haste makes waste, slow, steady and dedicated etc without wasting the feat.
*baring prereqs for weird feats, prestige classes,some sort of weird crafting campaign or other acts of god
I daresay more than half of optimizers aim for the "better kill things to death".So?
That isn't remotely counterproductive to role play. Fine. You're a death machine. You have the charisma of a dead fish, your weapon proficiencies are based on the DPR calculations for your stats and your one skill point is perception so you can hear the lamentations of their women.
So what?
This does not prevent you, the player, from making a richly detailed PERSON out of this character. WHY does he have the feats he does? What drives him to try to be the best at killing things? Is he out to avenge his parents? Does he have a rivalry with his older brother? Does he feel its his duty to the king to be the best that he can regardless of the personal sacrifices it costs his social skills?
How does he feel out of combat? Is he relieved not to have to kill people? Glad that he, personally, will live to see tomorrow, or is he anxious and bored out of his skull because combat is the only thing that makes him feel alive and anything else is a cold, pallid, and soulless pretense of what it means TO BE.
What is he like in a party? Low charisma and no social skills mean that he doesn't do well, but there are ANY number of avenues to failure and each can be as definitive as a persons path to success. Does he stand quietly in the corner like a wallflower? Does he bravely charge into battle, but get sweaty, choked up and tongue tied asking a girl to dance? Has he spent so much time getting hit in the head with training weapons that he just had NO idea how to go about a social situation, and acts like a 14 year old asking someone out for the first time? Does his prowess on the battlefield make him act cocky and arrogant around everyone, driving them off?
THIS is role playing. Putting feats into skill focus: blacksmithing is just making yourself weaker*. You can be a great smith, perhaps even the greatest smith, without it. You can build your whole concept around smithing, adventures are the fire in...
I use the blacksmith's as npcs. Also some people might not have fun roleplaying certain character types.
I daresay more than half of optimizers aim for the "better kill things to death".So?
That isn't remotely counterproductive to role play.
It isn't counter-productive to acting out your character, that's true.
I can agree with you guys on the optimization part, but I'm still having reservations on your description of roleplay. Building (exclusively) death-dispensing machines is limiting both in the initial concept of character and in the career choices that this character can take, which I think ought to be included in 'roleplay'.
I can meet you where making the best death-dispensing machine requires optimization, but optimization is not necessarily about making the best death-dispensing machine. It's a 'all squares are rectangles but not all rectangles are square' case.
'findel
People mostly build characters made for murderin' things because D&D is mostly a game about murderin' things. If you want a group made out of a spy, a gadgeteer, a detective, and a charming playboy, then you should probably play something that isn't D&D.
Also class-as-identity died as 2e ended. A suave debonair character is a bard. A suave debonair fighter is a bard that focuses on fighting. A fighter that specializes in survival and fighting in the wilds is a ranger.
Jayne Cobb.
9 int.
8 wis.
7 charisma.
Beloved by an entire city of mud-dwelling farmer people.
Watch scenes with Jayne in them, and you can see. He's dumpstatted all of his mental stats for physical stats. He must have a 15 Con, a 16 Dex and a 17 Strength.
An epic diplomacy failure of his that comes to mind is when he corners Mal with his rifle, accidentally and unintentionally implies that he is going to kill him, and then tries to barter Mal's new "wife" for his favorite rifle.
I don't see how Jayne Cobb's optimizing got in the way of his roleplaying... do you get what I mean?
EDIT: If my roleplaying concept is "a big, incredibly stupid fighter"... am I min-maxing when I dump Int? Am I no longer a roleplayer for dumping Int on a character I purposefully chose to roleplay as stupid?
Now here is what separates heroes from common folk like you and I;
The man they call Jayne turned 'round that plane and LET THAT MONEY HIT THE SKY.
I think it was 60,000 untraceable. I would apply a massive Diplomacy bonus for that, if a player wanted to do such a thing for the sake of roleplaying.
I can meet you where making the best death-dispensing machine requires optimization, but optimization is not necessarily about making the best death-dispensing machine. It's a 'all squares are rectangles but not all rectangles are square' case.
The game is, largely, about killing things, taking their stuff so you can kill more things and having fun along the way. In order to do this you either have to
Kill stuff
Make your friends better at killing stuff for you
Make the stuff easier to kill
You can check out the useful character Olympics for some of the ways of doing things other than killing stuff, but if you're not doing one of these three things... why on earth would anyone take you on an adventure?
Any of these require some degree of optimization to do well.
|
The game is, largely, about killing things, taking their stuff so you can kill more things and having fun along the way. In order to do this you either have to
Kill stuff
Make your friends better at killing stuff for you
Make the stuff easier to killYou can check out the useful character Olympics for some of the ways of doing things other than killing stuff, but if you're not doing one of these three things... why on earth would anyone take you on an adventure?
Any of these require some degree of optimization to do well.
I agree with the idea, but a good part of the game is also not being killed by stuff. Thus you can complement your list with things such as :
- Saving your friends (and yourself) from being killed by stuff
- Making the stuff less able to kill you and your friends
The game is, largely, about killing things, taking their stuff so you can kill more things and having fun along the way. In order to do this you either have toKill stuff
Make your friends better at killing stuff for you
Make the stuff easier to kill
Thankyou! This is a combat simulation with rp elements. I can have that with Descent.
Not my cup of tea, thankyouverymuch.
|
|
Dear OP, I agree with your worldview, but you should be aware that you fell in the same trap (ie, exaggerating) as do most of those people who believe it is roleplaying vs optimization.
There seems to be some kind of weird view that this is somehow no longer meaningful if your character is effective.
I am quite sure that no proponent of roleplaying ever said that.
I would say that it is the other way around : people who like to roleplay but who have not put all the hours in optimizing their character (and especially its damage-dealing aspect) are often looked at with contempt by those who did, usually under the pretense that they are not doing their part.
Mind you, some people can indeed become a hindrance to their party under the pretense of really playing their character. Usually they do not contribute, expecially in combat, except when their character is doing HIS thing.
But, really, not everybody is built to be a ruleslawyer and optimizer of the first order.
My advice :
- have the roleplayers ask the optimizers to help them "pimp their character" so that he mechanically fits the concept they have in mind. This way they will have even more fun playing a character who actually does what they want him to do
- have the optimizers ask the roleplayers to help them create a captivating backstory which makes sense of all their listed traits, feats and envisioned career progression. This way, they will be able to inhabit their character and get pleasure from it all the while still getting the mechanical "rewards" they built him for.
And those who can do both easily, they can ask both roleplayers and optimizers for advice on how to make their character even more fun to play.
Thankyou! This is a combat simulation with rp elements. I can have that with Descent.
I think descent is pretty much blast blast blast.
Not my cup of tea, thankyouverymuch.
So what exactly are you doing?
So what exactly are you doing?
What am I doing?
I just cancelled the CotCT AP I ran, cause the players were not able to follow the plot.
I am wondering how long the RotRL campaign I play in will go on, cause we wiped twice on the druid, and I don't have the slightest idea how the party will ever tackle Thistletop even at level 3.
I am making do, I play PF at the moment, because I frankly have the choice between bad parties and not playing at all. I am sorely tempted to chose the latter soon.
What would I love to do?
Continue the Delta Green campaign my old friend ran. We had a blast for over one and a half years - without one single bloody combat!
I love investigative style. Heck, I love Vampire for all it's dark, romantic, evil, megalomaniacal, angsty awesomeness.
I love rpgs in which you don't have to "fill a slot". I think that evading the monster and talking your way around violence is as valid, if not more rewarding than killkillkill.
I want to tell a story with my friens.
When I want to smash things, count my dps and optimize I play WoW.
Building (exclusively) death-dispensing machines is limiting both in the initial concept of character and in the career choices that this character can take, which I think ought to be included in 'roleplay'.
I'm not sure this comment is meaningful. I mean any choice about a character is ultimately limiting.
Disturbing - I thought I had a post here, and that seems to have been erased, despite it not breaking any rules or insulting others. Hrm.
If you want a really skills heavy based game where the group is a spy, a diplomat, a gadgeteer, and a hacker, that's perfectly alright. It's just not really D&D. D&D has never really been about what we currently see as roleplaying (heck if you look at OD&D, it didn't have what we think of as roleplaying in the slightest. There was literally a character designated as the "caller" to tell the DM what the party did). A heavy diplomacy and intrigue based game with little combat is great, and is very suitable for a skills-based game. D&D is not a skills-based game.
That doesn't mean you can't roleplay in D&D. It just means that the character you are roleplaying is likely killing dragons and/or raiding dungeons.
Is this the one?
People mostly build characters made for murderin' things because D&D is mostly a game about murderin' things. If you want a group made out of a spy, a gadgeteer, a detective, and a charming playboy, then you should probably play something that isn't D&D.
Also class-as-identity died as 2e ended. A suave debonair character is a bard. A suave debonair fighter is a bard that focuses on fighting. A fighter that specializes in survival and fighting in the wilds is a ranger.
Is this the one?
People mostly build characters made for murderin' things because D&D is mostly a game about murderin' things. If you want a group made out of a spy, a gadgeteer, a detective, and a charming playboy, then you should probably play something that isn't D&D.
Also class-as-identity died as 2e ended. A suave debonair character is a bard. A suave debonair fighter is a bard that focuses on fighting. A fighter that specializes in survival and fighting in the wilds is a ranger.
Yeah; doesn't show up for me at all.
Not quite sure what in that post is demeaning and in need of deletion, or if it's just yet another forums bug.
Dear OP, I agree with your worldview, but you should be aware that you fell in the same trap (ie, exaggerating) as do most of those people who believe it is roleplaying vs optimization.
There seems to be some kind of weird view that this is somehow no longer meaningful if your character is effective.I am quite sure that no proponent of roleplaying ever said that.
I would say that it is the other way around : people who like to roleplay but who have not put all the hours in optimizing their character (and especially its damage-dealing aspect) are often looked at with contempt by those who did, usually under the pretense that they are not doing their part.
I am pretty sure you just both misunderstood and proved his point.
The role-players seem to like to become indignant at any suggestion that their character be remotely good at anything an adventuring party might be good at and claim being so destroys their sense of immersion and ability to role-play, in no so many words - it's mostly gnashing of teeth by then.
I can meet you where making the best death-dispensing machine requires optimization, but optimization is not necessarily about making the best death-dispensing machine. It's a 'all squares are rectangles but not all rectangles are square' case.The game is, largely, about killing things, taking their stuff so you can kill more things and having fun along the way.
Combat is an undeniable element of a RPG, but all of a RPG is not about combat, even as the game mechanics goes.
Literature is full of heroes who were not particularly good fighters or gifted wizards. And before you bring the argument, literature is not roleplaying, but many models that are emulated in RPGs come from literature (or movies, or myths, or urban legends etc).
I don't want to degenerate the argument to a 'bag-wrong-fun' case, but the game (and its mechanics) goes beyond killing things and take their stuff.
'findel
The role-players seem to like to become indignant at any suggestion that their character be remotely good at anything an adventuring party might be good at and claim being so destroys their sense of immersion and ability to role-play, in no so many words - it's mostly gnashing of teeth by then.
Who? Seriously.
The role-players seem to like to become indignant at any suggestion that their character be remotely good at anything an adventuring party might be good at and claim being so destroys their sense of immersion and ability to role-play, in no so many words - it's mostly gnashing of teeth by then.Who? Seriously.
Am I supposed to record every case? Seriously. Just make up a list in your mind of everyone who gets indignant when I say that or is on the clear list of "people who are really pro-role-playing."
If it was just me saying things like that, I suppose you could dismiss it out of hand as you are wont to do, but it isn't. Other people have seen that and made similar observations. This is a line by Treantmonk made as the topic post of this thread. This is, in fact, what the entire thread is actually about.
There seems to be some kind of weird view that this is somehow no longer meaningful if your character is effective.
Building (exclusively) death-dispensing machines is limiting both in the initial concept of character and in the career choices that this character can take, which I think ought to be included in 'roleplay'.I'm not sure this comment is meaningful. I mean any choice about a character is ultimately limiting.
No, what I mean is that narrowing your concept to something that will be most efficient at killing things (and keep developing the character along that path for the rest of its career) is limiting, brushing aside all other legitimate character concepts that are not focused on killing things efficiently.
Characters should be allowed to develop organically (Treantmonk suggested 'fluidly') according to the story that unravels around them, to how their priorities and alliances change and to what obstacles adventure throws-in their way.
Its one argument you'll often hear against the opinion that optimization has no impact on roleplay: roleplay should let your character's concept evolve over time, but optimization favours builts that were planned long in advance and to which the player stick to the end.
That's why I think Treantmonk is right about insisting on optimization being about using the system efficiently to render the player's concept mechanically, and adjusting along (still using the best of the system) when the character concept evolves.
That's a quite broader definition than 'making the best killing machine you can built'.
'findel
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
There seems to be some kind of weird view that this is somehow no longer meaningful if your character is effective.
Likewise, I find it strange the view that your character is only meaningful if they are effective.
It has long been established that these are different styles of play. You can sit here an argue with your gimp-playing strawman all week, some people just enjoy embodying a character, effective or not.
Some people enjoy watching the consequences of their action on a story, even if negative. If the whole party is into that, it can be fun.
If you don't like playing with those people, that's fine. I'm sure they would hate playing with you. That doesn't invalidate their participation in the hobby.
Incidentally, I have only dabbled in the gimp-style. It's called comedy. It can be fun. Mostly, I GM, and when I GM I push the characters mechanically and kill some fairly often. My players do not self-gimp and you would probably manage playing alongside them well enough.
EDIT: It's worth pointing out that I agree with the quoted statement. Begrudging the presence of a competent character in a story is by no means good storytelling. Begrudging the presence of an incompetent character might be role-playing, but it isn't good storytelling either.
I think the umbrage described in Treantmonk's quote stems from people who want to play bumbling or "flavorful" characters responding to hostility from players of competent characters. "I chose to include flaws in my character, why are you begrudging me that, why didn't you include flaws in your character?"
There seems to be some kind of weird view that this is somehow no longer meaningful if your character is effective.Likewise, I find it strange the view that your character is only meaningful if they are effective.
If your character isn't effective at what they are trying to do, how are they playing a meaningful character? I don't care how it's role-played. If I role-play to the hilt a deaf and lame character with no combat or social capability who is simply limping along after the rest of the PCs begging, am I playing a meaningful character?
You can sit here an argue with your gimp-playing strawman all week, some people just enjoy embodying a character, effective or not.
It's not a straw man. It's a valid point. I can role-play an effective character or an ineffective character. But if you are such a stern role-player, shouldn't you be asking yourself - and be able to answer - why you are traveling with the party and moreover why the party is letting your travel with them. If you can't assist the party at its task directly or indirectly, why did they let you go with them for any other reason than you are a real person sitting at a gaming table who rolled up a completely nonsensical for the scenario character that they are being forced to accept?
Some people enjoy watching the consequences of their action on a story, even if negative.
Some people should be kicked out of the game.
If the whole party is into that, it can be fun.
If and only if. Which means you are optimizing! You invalidate your argument.
If you don't like playing with those people, that's fine. I'm sure they would hate playing with you. That doesn't invalidate their participation in the hobby.
Who is using straw men now? Perhaps you should research what it is that constitutes such?
Me: "People playing a character in the game should be effective."You: "But some people don't want to, do you want to ban them from D&D?!"
Perhaps I should make that suggestion if that is the response I am going to get from such people when the suggestion is made that they make a valid and measurable contribution to the game with their character.
It's worth pointing out that I agree with the quoted statement. Begrudging the presence of a competent character in a story is by no means good storytelling. Begrudging the presence of an incompetent character might be role-playing, but it isn't good storytelling either.
I think the umbrage described in Treantmonk's quote stems from people who want to play bumbling or "flavorful" characters responding to hostility from players of competent characters. "I chose to include flaws in my character, why are you begrudging me that, why didn't you include flaws in your character?"
Then the point of your previous tirade was what? Pointless devil's advocate?
Quote:
If you don't like playing with those people, that's fine. I'm sure they would hate playing with you. That doesn't invalidate their participation in the hobby.Who is using straw men now? Perhaps you should research what it is that constitutes such?
Me: "People playing a character in the game should be effective."
You: "But some people don't want to, do you want to ban them from D&D?!"
He doesn't say anything about banning them from playing D&D. They're already participating. Invalidation of their participation would be more like intellectually dismissing or discounting their involvement in the hobby.
I daresay more than half of optimizers aim for the "better kill things to death".So?
That isn't remotely counterproductive to role play.
It isn't counter-productive to acting out your character, that's true.
I can agree with you guys on the optimization part, but I'm still having reservations on your description of roleplay. Building (exclusively) death-dispensing machines is limiting both in the initial concept of character and in the career choices that this character can take, which I think ought to be included in 'roleplay'.
I can meet you where making the best death-dispensing machine requires optimization, but optimization is not necessarily about making the best death-dispensing machine. It's a 'all squares are rectangles but not all rectangles are square' case.
'findel
It is limiting of the player but not the character. If that's the character he can role play the best and he always role plays it then yes he's a limited actor -- but he's good inside his limits.
Will Smith always plays the same character type -- but he plays it well. He is a good role player... he just doesn't have much depth of character types he can do.
I enjoy roleplaying my optimized characters.
Is this the one?
People mostly build characters made for murderin' things because D&D is mostly a game about murderin' things. If you want a group made out of a spy, a gadgeteer, a detective, and a charming playboy, then you should probably play something that isn't D&D.
Also class-as-identity died as 2e ended. A suave debonair character is a bard. A suave debonair fighter is a bard that focuses on fighting. A fighter that specializes in survival and fighting in the wilds is a ranger.
Yeah; doesn't show up for me at all.
Not quite sure what in that post is demeaning and in need of deletion, or if it's just yet another forums bug.
It is a glitch in the boards, I found it by looking at your post history, I'm sure you'll find it there as well. I have no idea why the board decided not to display it normally, but every time I tried to click on the newest entry and it was it, it would act funny and not show it. Now that is no longer a problem (since it isn't the newest post any longer).
No, what I mean is that narrowing your concept to something that will be most efficient at killing things (and keep developing the character along that path for the rest of its career) is limiting, brushing aside all other legitimate character concepts that are not focused on killing things efficiently.
Characters should be allowed to develop organically (Treantmonk suggested 'fluidly') according to the story that unravels around them, to how their priorities and alliances change and to what obstacles adventure throws-in their way.
Its one argument you'll often hear against the opinion that optimization has no impact on roleplay: roleplay should let your character's concept evolve over time, but optimization favours builts that were planned long in advance and to which the player stick to the end.
That's why I think Treantmonk is right about insisting on optimization being about using the system efficiently to render the player's concept mechanically, and adjusting along (still using the best of the system) when the character concept evolves.
That's a quite broader definition than 'making the best killing machine you can built'.
'findel
And again, I say that is a meaningless point. If I say I only want to play arcane casters, I am just as much limiting the concepts I can play as if I say I only want to play the most effective killing machine. All choices are limiting (as is not choosing).
As for deciding to be "fluid" or "organic" or whatever with your character design, what about the player that just says, "I'm starting with druid and going to stick to that class all the way through." Aren't they just as guilty of not being "natural" as someone that says that eventually they want to have levels of W 6/X 7/Y 3/Z 4. One just lets the designers do all the planning for them while the other does the planning themselves or gets it from others.
Personally I don't see anything wrong with those, or with someone looking at what has happened "on stage" since the last level (because a lot of stuff happens "off stage") to decide or someone else does a random roll to see what to do.
Things.
I find myself in the strange world of "I agree with Cartigan".
Just going by my group, even the players who aren't so good love the idea of having an effective character. I just can't fathom anyone who relishes in the opposite as being a good team player, and worth bringing along for the ride.
I've always thought of this game as a team effort. Putting someone in there that intentionally fails "for the fun and challenge" while everyone else is there to succeed puts them at uncomfortable odds with the rest of the group.
Anyone who can't and/or doesn't contribute in a meaningful way is a dangerous addition to this game, since the idea of the game front and center is to have brave adventures with awesome characters.
Was Jar-Jar Binks a meaningful character?
I'm not sure which rhetorical direction you are trying to take this.
And again, I say that is a meaningless point. If I say I only want to play arcane casters, I am just as much limiting the concepts I can play as if I say I only want to play the most effective killing machine. All choices are limiting (as is not choosing).
Abraham Spalding is right. I shouldn't have said limiting the character; its limiting the player (in his/her choice of character).
Obviously, one limits its options as soon as a choice is made; that's pretty much the definition of making a choice. But ideally, your options should not be limited until you make that choice.
If optimizing was about making the best killing machine, then concepts where combat is a secondary focus would be excluded; they wouldn't be best at killing things. That's a serious limitation on the initial choice of character concept.
I see how optimizing will use the best of the resources allocated for the character's combat aspect (even if these resources are comparatively low), but I refute that optimizing is about investing as much resources as possible in combat in every character. For me (and to many others), making 'the best death-dispensing machine' means spending 100% of your resources in combat efficiency.
That may be one form of optimization, but is isn't optimization (I'd hope not anyways...)
'findel
I enjoy roleplaying my optimized characters.
Me too!
That doesn't prevent me from thinking that optimization isn't completely separated from role-play.
Optimization and roleplay are not mutually exclusive, but I still believe believe that they can cross at some points and force a decision in one direction or the other.
That off course requires that your definition of roleplay goes above and beyond "acting-out a character".
'findel
Weird glitch with my previous post. It should read:
I enjoy roleplaying my optimized characters.
Me too!
That doesn't prevent me from thinking that optimization isn't completely separated from role-play.
Optimization and roleplay are not mutually exclusive, but I still believe that they can cross at some points and force a decision in one direction or the other.
That of course, requires that your definition of roleplay goes above and beyond "acting-out a character".
'findel
Well, I always thought it an experience issue, both as tenure and the kind of experience the player hopes to have.
Usually the longer a person plays in a game system, the more they learn to tailor mechanics to fit their RP concept during creation;
If a person is looking for a more loose roleplay scenario not concerned with mechanics, then that's how they will make thier characters, and vice versa.
These things arent mutually exclusive, I agree.
Well, I always thought it an experience issue, both as tenure and the kind of experience the player hopes to have.
(snip)
I don't think it only is an experience issue but certainly, the longer a person plays with a game system, the more it learns to adapt its roleplay around the mechanics of the system. Imagination and creativity are also good assets here.
But that's exactly my point, this means that game mechanics (and its optimized use) comes in contact with roleplay on few levels. There are ways to work around it (or even better, work WITH it) but this wouldn't even happen if the two were completely separated.
I applaud those who can wrap their rolplay around the (optimised) mechanics of the system, but I also understand those who feel that optimizing nags on their roleplaying style.
'findel
If your concept is that your character isn't good at what he or she does, I can understand that, seriously, I've seen people play NPC classes and be happy. However...
This reminds me of a part in Divinity II, where you've found your dragon tower, and you have to decide what people on the island you will choose to have serve you. You were to pick a crafter, a trainer, a necromancer and an alchemist. 2 choices for each, and whoever you did not pick, simply was whisked out of existence.
The alchemist choices were, a young man who lies to you and tells you he's a great alchemist, and a guy whose exploits in alchemy are written about (you actually find a book that lauds his accomplishments).
Think of these as character concepts. Why would a party ever choose the poseur?
If your concept is that your character isn't good at what he or she does, I can understand that, seriously, I've seen people play NPC classes and be happy.
I don't think that anyone consciously chooses to play a character that is bad in everything.
There's a world between being the best and being the worst, and while I don't believe in 'choosing the worst for the sake of RP', I do believe that RP can make you chose an option that doesn't make you best.
Some player enjoy the challenge of wrapping their roleplay around 'how to make this (mechanically) optimal choice to fit the story/character development'. Some get actually really good at it and can built any type of character without making it appear forced, odd or tricked in any ways. But that is only one of the many ways to approach a roleplaying game IMO.
I'm a bit surprised how many optimizers accept that roleplay can be adapted to (the mechanic of) the character, but don't see how other players might prefer the other way around.
Once a player start adapting the mechanics of a character around its roleplay, I believe there can be some conflicts.
'findel
I don't think that anyone consciously chooses to play a character that is bad in everything.
Think again, I've done it.
I can meet you where making the best death-dispensing machine requires optimization, but optimization is not necessarily about making the best death-dispensing machine. It's a 'all squares are rectangles but not all rectangles are square' case.The game is, largely, about killing things, taking their stuff so you can kill more things and having fun along the way.
Combat is an undeniable element of a RPG, but all of a RPG is not about combat, even as the game mechanics goes.
Literature is full of heroes who were not particularly good fighters or gifted wizards. And before you bring the argument, literature is not roleplaying, but many models that are emulated in RPGs come from literature (or movies, or myths, or urban legends etc).
I don't want to degenerate the argument to a 'bag-wrong-fun' case, but the game (and its mechanics) goes beyond killing things and take their stuff.
'findel
I don't disagree with this!
However, there are other games out there which are not Dungeons and Dragons! And if you want a very low combat, skills heavy game, then D&D is not your best choice.
D&D in the end is not about aping literature. It is based around killing things and taking their stuff. It has skills but D&D's skills systems are inevitably 1) based around adventuring, and 2) typically not very robust.
I don't want to degenerate the argument to a 'bag-wrong-fun' case, but the game (and its mechanics) goes beyond killing things and take their stuff.
'findel
I don't disagree with this!
However, there are other games out there which are not Dungeons and Dragons! And if you want a very low combat, skills heavy game, then D&D is not your best choice.
D&D in the end is not about aping literature. It is based around killing things and taking their stuff. It has skills but D&D's skills systems are inevitably 1) based around adventuring, and 2) typically not very robust.
I don't disagree with this either!
I'm aware that D&D/Pathfinder RPG is skewed toward 'killing things and taking their stuff' and by extension, it attracts a crowd that (in majority) enjoys doing that. I'm also aware that other games offers a better platforms for playing characters with combat as a secondary or tertiary focus (or that requires less planning in character development).
the only point I'm trying to make is that:
1) optimization and roleplay are not mutually exclusive.
2) optimization and roleplay can occasionally conflict.
Most people agree on 1), not everyone is with me on 2). I blame the latter on the definition of roleplay which, at the moment, does not make the distinction between 'acting out a character' and 'taking charge of the character's ambition/influences/destiny'.
I also want to point that by 'conflict' I don't necessarily mean that one will irrevocably prevent the other. Some players (who define themselves as roleplayers) are bothered by the 'planning ahead 'aspect of optimization and feel restricted/bound/limited when they feel that they need to do so. Please don't forget that in all of this, if you don't have an issue with this, doesn't mean that the problem doesn't exist for another sensible player.
[edit] you was not targeted at Prof Cirno.
'findel
I don't think that anyone consciously chooses to play a character that is bad in everything.Think again, I've done it.
Yeah, well...
You have a beard but no mustache! ... and a hat.
... never mind...
:)