I don't think that anyone consciously chooses to play a character that is bad in everything.Staying just within official Paizo products...isn't that kind of the point of We Be Goblins!
Where all the pre-made characters are fairly competent at their classes and roles, as far as level 1 Goblins go?
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.
Strawman?
It's worth pointing out that I agree with the quoted statement.
Whatever you are on, I hope it's good.
It's worth pointing out that I agree with the quoted statement.Whatever you are on, I hope it's good.
I believe what Evil Lincoln means is that...
There seems to be some kind of weird view that this is somehow no longer meaningful if your character is effective.
...and...
I find it strange the view that your character is only meaningful if they are effective.
...are not mutually exclusive statements; you can agree with both. I tend to agree with that as well.
It's worth pointing out that I agree with the quoted statement.Whatever you are on, I hope it's good.I believe what Evil Lincoln means is that...
There seems to be some kind of weird view that this is somehow no longer meaningful if your character is effective....and...
I find it strange the view that your character is only meaningful if they are effective....are not mutually exclusive statements; you can agree with both. I tend to agree with that as well.
Referring to a statement as a "strawman" means you think it is logically flawed.
Later saying you agree with the same statement, means you agree with a statement that you claim to be logically flawed.
I'm not sure what EL meant when he claimed he claimed a statement was a logical fallacy that he agreed with, *shrug* seems weird to me.
Another question if you agree with a logical fallacy aren't you being illogical?
So does this mean their is a civil war on logic.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Referring to a statement as a "strawman" means you think it is logically flawed.
Not really, it just means you don't think its their position.
Person A: If you let houses in a bad area get run down its going to encourage people to wear then down faster through vandalism and squatting.
Person B: So what, one broken window and the next day commie mutant illiterates move in?
Person A: I never said that.
Person C: That isn't what person A said, so its a strawman. A strawman is a misrepresentation of a persons position, whether the misrepresentation itself is logical or not. Now i'm on the homeowners association and i DO think that one broken window does lead to commie mutant illiterates the next day.
I do think there is a balance between optimization and roleplaying. That is why people contrast them. I also think when discussing ‘an optimizer’ vs ‘a roleplayer’ you are discussing a trend over multiple characters.
There is a fat middle where being effective and a unique character don’t have much effect on each other because there is plenty of room for both. It is near the edges where they don’t exactly become mutually exclusive in totality, but you can’t do both in equal measure. After a certain point, the more your build choices are based on roleplaying reasons, the less focused and/or optimal the builds are. Inversely the more your build choices are based on being as effective as possible i.e. optimal, the more your roleplaying no matter how good or consistent is like a skin.
It seems to me the disconnect here – why you think "He doesn't optimize, he's a roleplayer" is the equivalent of saying "He doesn't optimize, he's got a mustache" is to you that is all roleplaying is, a skin. It is not an integral part of your characters’ builds. For some, ‘roleplaying’ means more than “a set of values, speech patterns, facial ticks, etc.” It is not a skin layered over a cookie-cutter build that gives the character its uniqueness. The build is unique to that character. It is the difference between ‘this fighter has a magnificent mustache’ and ‘this fighter has the Magnificent Mustache’ feat.
Referring to a statement as a "strawman" means you think it is logically flawed.Not really, it just means you don't think its their position.
Person A: If you let houses in a bad area get run down its going to encourage people to wear then down faster through vandalism and squatting.
Person B: So what, one broken window and the next day commie mutant illiterates move in?
Person A: I never said that.
Person C: That isn't what person A said, so its a strawman. A strawman is a misrepresentation of a persons position, whether the misrepresentation itself is logical or not. Now i'm on the homeowners association and i DO think that one broken window does lead to commie mutant illiterates the next day.
Honestly, I've been making up so much stuff on these boards I don't even remember any of the original positions.
after a certain point, the more your build choices are based on roleplaying reasons
I'm a little curious as to what sort of role playing choice you're making that requires a mechanical option like a feat to work.
Inversely the more your build choices are based on being as effective as possible i.e. optimal, the more your roleplaying no matter how good or consistent is like a skin.
It seems to me the disconnect here – why you think "He doesn't optimize, he's a roleplayer" is the equivalent of saying "He doesn't optimize, he's got a mustache" is to you that is all roleplaying is, a skin. It is not an integral part of your characters’ builds.
Or that any particularly effective build is just as much fun to role play as any other particular build.
For some, ‘roleplaying’ means more than “a set of values, speech patterns, facial ticks, etc.” It is not a skin layered over a cookie-cutter build that gives the character its uniqueness. The build is unique to that character. It is the difference between ‘this fighter has a magnificent mustache’ and ‘this fighter has the Magnificent Mustache’ feat.
Example?
For some, ‘roleplaying’ means more than “a set of values, speech patterns, facial ticks, etc.” It is not a skin layered over a cookie-cutter build that gives the character its uniqueness. The build is unique to that character. It is the difference between ‘this fighter has a magnificent mustache’ and ‘this fighter has the Magnificent Mustache’ feat.Example?
A player may design a character, set its personality and its goals and ambitions, and decide that in order to make this character, neither Int nor Cha should be dumped and Int should be above average. This might not be optimal in a fighter built (mechanically speaking), but motivated in terms of 'roleplay' decision. That has nothing to do with 'acting out a character', which Golden Opal suggests is often only skin-deep roleplay.
I guess you could say that this player has optimized the stats according to its original concept, in which case every roleplaying decision (even the worst mechanical ones) is ultimately optimization...
This still leaves me wondering about the definition of roleplay, and about whether or not optimizing is uniquely about making your character better in combat. Treantmonk seem to suggest that optimization isn't all about fighting, but I wonder how far this can go.
But I continue to say that combat optimization and roleplay can comnflict, even if they aren't necessarily mutually exclusive.
'findel
For some, ‘roleplaying’ means more than “a set of values, speech patterns, facial ticks, etc.” It is not a skin layered over a cookie-cutter build that gives the character its uniqueness. The build is unique to that character. It is the difference between ‘this fighter has a magnificent mustache’ and ‘this fighter has the Magnificent Mustache’ feat.Example?A player may design a character, set its personality and its goals and ambitions, and decide that in order to make this character, neither Int nor Cha should be dumped and Int should be above average. This might not be optimal in a fighter built (mechanically speaking), but motivated in terms of 'roleplay' decision. That as nothing to do with 'acting out a character', which Golden Opal suggest as skin-deep roleplay.
I guess you could say that this player has optimized the stats according to its original concept (even if this wields a weaker character in combat).in which case every roleplaying decision (even the worst mechanical ones) is ultimately optimization.
This still leaves me wondering about the definition of roleplay, and about whether or not optimizing is uniquely about making your character better in combat. Treantmonk seem to suggest that optimization isn't all about fighting, but I wonder how far this can go.
'findel
The fact you point out that your character would be a Fighter answers the question. The Fighter's task is.. fighting. A character suboptimized for this task is poorly designed and illogical. I mean, should we start couching these arguments in the form of low intelligent Wizards who buff Strength high (because they were Wizarding weight lifters) but want to focus on Evocation magic? Or very wise but uncharismatic Bards who insist on being the party face due to their great Wisdom?
Note, there are builds for above average Intelligence Fighters. They involve Combat Expertise.
The fact you point out that your character would be a Fighter answers the question. The Fighter's task is... fighting. A character suboptimized for this task is poorly designed and illogical. I mean, should we start couching these arguments in the form of low intelligent Wizards who buff Strength high (because they were Wizarding weight lifters) but want to focus on Evocation magic? Or very wise but uncharismatic Bards who insist on being the party face due to their great Wisdom?
In return, I'd say that the flaw in your reasoning is that you see character as needing to fulfill a task (and therefore must optimally perform in it).
There is nothing wrong with this approach to the game. It is even encouraged in many circles. But It isn't the only, right way of playing the game.
It might be the right way to play with you or with your playing group and that is absolutely fine. Not all players need to be compatible in the way they approach the game. This is similar to a flawlessly railroaded adventure and a masterfully improvised sandbox campaign. Everything done well is equally worthy.
But being a rolplaying game, there is more to Pathfinder than to pick a role and excel at it. That, I'm sure, we both agree with. However, we don't agree in what priority this 'picking a role and excel at it' and the 'more to it' should come.
'findel
The fact you point out that your character would be a Fighter answers the question. The Fighter's task is... fighting. A character suboptimized for this task is poorly designed and illogical. I mean, should we start couching these arguments in the form of low intelligent Wizards who buff Strength high (because they were Wizarding weight lifters) but want to focus on Evocation magic? Or very wise but uncharismatic Bards who insist on being the party face due to their great Wisdom?In return, I'd say that the flaw in your reasoning is that you see character as needing to fulfill a task (and therefore must optimally perform in it).
There is nothing wrong with this approach to the game. It is even encouraged in many circles. But It isn't the only, right way of playing the game.
It might be the right way to play with you or with your playing group and that is absolutely fine. Not all players need to be compatible in the way they approach the game. This is similar to a flawlessly railroaded adventure and a masterfully improvised sandbox campaign. Everything done well is equally worthy.
But being a rolplaying game, there is more to Pathfinder than to pick a role and excel at it. That, I'm sure, we both agree with. However, we don't agree in what priority this 'picking a role and excel at it' and the 'more to it' should come.
'findel
That really avoided my question to try and bring a new approach to this. This debate has always been about combat realistically and more specifically it has always rotated around how people build mainline combatants - specifically Fighters and Barbarians with primary focus on the former. What if we change the direction then? Shine a spotlight on above average Strength but average intelligence Evocation Wizards? Or stupid, uncharismatic Bards with a good Wisdom? Yes, there is more to Pathfinder than excelling at a task, but you have to start there first - pick a task to be good at and then be so, unless you are planning to role-play Pathfinder in a way completely completely unrecognizable to reality. I mean, look at your example even:
A player may design a character, set its personality and its goals and ambitions, and decide that in order to make this character, neither Int nor Cha should be dumped and Int should be above average.
How can he succeed at his goals and ambitions without picking a task to perform and performing it? Your character is being designed for a task and role, one you are implying is intrinsically different than the one a game class is designed to aid in fulfilling. If the task he has picked has nothing to do with adventuring, then why is he? If the task he has picked is clearly not what a certain class is meant to portray, why is he a member of that class?
I don't see optimization and characterization as opposites on a continuum.
The notion that a character must be effective to be worth playing is equally strange as the notion that a character must somehow be in-effective to be worthy of play.
The fact is, the two things are simply unrelated. You can be both, neither, or one of the two. I think Jiggy's play-style alignment system is actually a really excellent descriptor of the situation.
They are also not correlated with jerky behavior, but unfortunately jerkiness has the property of being mistaken for whichever play style the jerk has chosen to adopt.
What I was saying upthread is this: a character can willfully play a self-gimped character AND have fun AND help other players have fun. Playing this kind of character at the expense of others is still being a jerk, just as playing a hyper-optimal character in a game full of flawed or weak characters unbidden is being a jerk. Hybrids are possible, but...
At the heart of the issue is communication. You must communicate the type of game you want to the other players.
The supposition that I am playing the game wrong if I make a deliberately weak or ineffectual character stems from a lack of scope. You can do this, and have fun, and still be playing the game.
I don't see optimization and characterization as opposites on a continuum.
The notion that a character must be effective to be worth playing is equally strange as the notion that a character must somehow be in-effective to be worthy of play.
Effective and ineffective are kind of binary. You are one or you are the other. There isn't really a gray area of effectiveness - see, even the term itself encompasses the positive.
What I was saying upthread is this: a character can willfully play a self-gimped character AND have fun AND help other players have fun.
I have fun by not dieing, repeatedly. Is the "gimped" character helping prevent that? If so, then he isn't gimped, is he? He is playing an effective character.
The supposition that I am playing the game wrong if I make a deliberately weak or ineffectual character stems from a lack of scope. You can do this, and have fun, and still be playing the game.
You can do lots of things while being lots of other things, that doesn't really mean every combination of those is something you should aim for. It's the pretense that being a suboptimal character incapable of supporting yourself or others in the game is an actual good choice that is the problem. I've made patently stupid, gimped decks in CCGs, but I didn't pretend they were anything but silly and ridiculous. You can be having fun, but unless the entire group accepts that the entire thing is an exercise in silliness, you are not contributing to the group as a character in a "roll-play" game or fitting in in a "role-play" game. There are, in fact, wrong choices despite what some of the people trying to moderate this discussion would have you believe. Why would a party - either one being seriously role-played or seriously game oriented - bring along a Cleric that can't/won't heal, buff, or fight? A trapsmith that is bad at disabling traps? A Fighter that is incapable of fighting? An Wizard that is best at Conjuration but only casts Evocation spells?
The GM sets the level of challenge. The GM can choose to set that challenge very low. Or the GM can deliberately exploit the one excellence of a character among many weaknesses. This can even be done in a mixed party, where some PCs are really great at combat, and some are dead weight until their necessary talents kick in.
Or you might have a PC with really no talents, someone really abysmal, who nevertheless bungles his way through a series of adventures with sheer cowardice as his only appreciable skill.
This is almost certainly not how you play the game, and that's okay. It's not really how I play the game either. But it isn't playing the game wrong.
Adding: simply being pathetic is not enough to qualify you as a master of characterization. Nor is being competent grounds to disqualify you as such.
I'm not really looking to battle you on the grounds of badly designed characters — those who fail to embody their concept mechanically. That's pretty undesirable no matter what.
Upthread, I saw people discussing a type of player who felt that being competent meant you weren't characterizing. I was just attempting to understand that mindset from both sides, and understand what produces these attitudes.
|
Effective and ineffective are kind of binary. You are one or you are the other. There isn't really a gray area of effectiveness - see, even the term itself encompasses the positive.
I believe there is a continuum. A first level fighter with a +7 to hit with a falchion is more effective than one with a +6 to hit, who is more effective than one with a +5 to hit, assuming they're all falchion fighters. The border between effective and ineffective isn't crystal clear.
I have fun by not dieing, repeatedly. Is the "gimped" character helping prevent that? If so, then he isn't gimped, is he? He is playing an effective character.
This suggests that there's a difference between an effective and an optimized character. If, say, you've got a first-level wizard casting DC 17 debuffs, and another casting DC 16 debuffs, I think we can agree that the DC 16 caster isn't optimized, or at least is "gimped" compared to the DC 17 caster. But can the DC 16 caster still be effective?
Why would a party - either one being seriously role-played or seriously game oriented - bring along a Cleric that can't/won't heal, buff, or fight? A trapsmith that is bad at disabling traps? A Fighter that is incapable of fighting? An Wizard that is best at Conjuration but only casts Evocation...
Drama. The goal of the character could be to remove a curse that cripples his abilities, or the character could discover a talent in another field of interest, high str wizard, becomes an Elrich Knight, and uses his spells to self buff no save.
Or a clever fighter could become a thief and learn to fight quick and mobile rather than in heavy armor. Character growth. People discover hidden talents everyday, and few people ever see their true potental realized.
Effective is a relative term. "Your victory isn't my defeat." some wise old dude on a cartoon.
If you play to win, you can only have two out comes.
If you play to play you always win.
I believe there is a continuum. A first level fighter with a +7 to hit with a falchion is more effective than one with a +6 to hit, who is more effective than one with a +5 to hit, assuming they're all falchion fighters. The border between effective and ineffective isn't crystal clear.Effective and ineffective are kind of binary. You are one or you are the other. There isn't really a gray area of effectiveness - see, even the term itself encompasses the positive.
Except effectiveness vs ineffectiveness is judged by interactions, not standalone numbers. If the point where a Fighter is more likely to miss most opponents is at +5 to hit with a Falchion vs as likely as not to hit most opponents is at +6, then +5 and below is ineffective and +6 and above is effective.
Why would a party - either one being seriously role-played or seriously game oriented - bring along a Cleric that can't/won't heal, buff, or fight? A trapsmith that is bad at disabling traps? A Fighter that is incapable of fighting? An Wizard that is best at Conjuration but only casts Evocation...Drama. The goal of the character could be to remove a curse that cripples his abilities, or the character could discover a talent in another field of interest, high str wizard, becomes an Elrich Knight, and uses his spells to self buff no save.
Except he wouldn't do that. He refuses to do anything but use Evocation spells.
Or a clever fighter could become a thief and learn to fight quick and mobile rather than in heavy armor. Character growth. People discover hidden talents everyday, and few people ever see their true potental realized.
I'm not sure why, exactly, you are being intentionally obtuse, but it isn't contributing anything to the conversation. Clever fighter is slow and weak. He has middling Dex and Str, but hey, he has high Int. He could.. use Knowledge skills to help us defeat our opponents! Except as a Fighter, he gives the party no benefit for using Knowledge skills and is too weak to possibly benefit from them himself, even if he had the meta abilities to do so.
|
|
I believe there is a continuum. A first level fighter with a +7 to hit with a falchion is more effective than one with a +6 to hit, who is more effective than one with a +5 to hit, assuming they're all falchion fighters. The border between effective and ineffective isn't crystal clear.Effective and ineffective are kind of binary. You are one or you are the other. There isn't really a gray area of effectiveness - see, even the term itself encompasses the positive.
Except effectiveness vs ineffectiveness is judged by interactions, not standalone numbers. If the point where a Fighter is more likely to miss most opponents is at +5 to hit with a Falchion vs as likely as not to hit most opponents is at +6, then +5 and below is ineffective and +6 and above is effective.
However, in most campaigns, we won't know where that boundary lies. Is there a test that can be applied, pre-campaign, to demonstrate where effectiveness lies? If there is, then yes, there is a clear boundary. If there is not, then no, we are left with an apparent continuum with a probability distribution.
|
|
I'm not sure why, exactly, you are being intentionally obtuse, but it isn't contributing anything to the conversation. Clever fighter is slow and weak. He has middling Dex and Str, but hey, he has high Int. He could.. use Knowledge skills to help us defeat our opponents! Except as a Fighter, he gives the party no benefit for using Knowledge skills and is too weak to possibly benefit from them himself, even if he had the meta abilities to do so.
Except, as you said, effectiveness and ineffectiveness are judged by interactions, not standalone numbers. Perhaps middling Dex and Str is effective. We can't know until we see the campaign. Therefore, middling Dex and Str are not sufficient to be able to call a character ineffective.
I'm not sure why, exactly, you are being intentionally obtuse, but it isn't contributing anything to the conversation. Clever fighter is slow and weak. He has middling Dex and Str, but hey, he has high Int. He could.. use Knowledge skills to help us defeat our opponents! Except as a Fighter, he gives the party no benefit for using Knowledge skills and is too weak to possibly benefit from them himself, even if he had the meta abilities to do so.Except, as you said, effectiveness and ineffectiveness are judged by interactions, not standalone numbers. Perhaps middling Dex and Str is effective. We can't know until we see the campaign. Therefore, middling Dex and Str are not sufficient to be able to call a character ineffective.
Sure, if the campaign is designed such that someone with average Dex and Str can succeed at the majority of tasks. Sure, they are effective. I rarely find that to be the case in practice. To be a combat class, you need either Dex or Str (sometimes both), to have neither is very unlikely to put you on the scale of effectiveness.
First is that you counter arguement "NO! you're wrong."?
I'm not sure why, exactly, you are being intentionally obtuse, but it isn't contributing anything to the conversation. Clever fighter is slow and weak.
Since when? You stated this fighter out? Did Mr. Fishy miss that post?
He has middling Dex and Str, but hey, he has high Int. He could.. use Knowledge skills to help us defeat our opponents! Except as a Fighter, he gives the party no benefit for using Knowledge skills and is too weak to possibly benefit from them himself, even if he had the meta abilities to do so.
Actually a successful Knowledge skill could reveal that the monster is weak against fire or has DR silver,totally useless use of a free action. And the fighter is weak and slow? That's new. Is his Cha high, because he could talk the monster to death.
So your changing the character to better suit your arguement, that's a little weak.
Obtuse? You asked a question. Mr. Fishy gave an answer. The answer isn't invalid because you don't like it. The fact that you quoted and responded to Mr. Fishy suggest that your straw man is burning.
[Mr. Fishy loves marshmallows]
However, in most campaigns, we won't know where that boundary lies. Is there a test that can be applied, pre-campaign, to demonstrate where effectiveness lies? If there is, then yes, there is a clear boundary. If there is not, then no, we are left with an apparent continuum with a probability distribution.I believe there is a continuum. A first level fighter with a +7 to hit with a falchion is more effective than one with a +6 to hit, who is more effective than one with a +5 to hit, assuming they're all falchion fighters. The border between effective and ineffective isn't crystal clear.Effective and ineffective are kind of binary. You are one or you are the other. There isn't really a gray area of effectiveness - see, even the term itself encompasses the positive.
Except effectiveness vs ineffectiveness is judged by interactions, not standalone numbers. If the point where a Fighter is more likely to miss most opponents is at +5 to hit with a Falchion vs as likely as not to hit most opponents is at +6, then +5 and below is ineffective and +6 and above is effective.
While someone who misses most of the time with a 5 is ineffective and someone who doesn't with a 6 is effective, that doesn't mean that having higher than a 6 doesn't make you more effective. You can be effective while still being able to improve your effectiveness.
First is that you counter arguement "NO! you're wrong."?
No, of course not. My counter argument is you are being purposefully obtuse in order to create a strawman of my argument.
Since when? You stated this fighter out? Did Mr. Fishy miss that post?
Incapable of fighting implies low Dex and low Str because you need either one or the other. I wasn't statting them out because it is irrelevant.
So your changing the character to better suit your arguement, that's a little weak.
You mean the argument where I said, verbatim, "A Fighter that is incapable of fighting?" The character YOU are changing by, in your first reply, explicitly making him capable of fighting? Really? I'm changing the character to suit my argument? Really?
You can be effective while still being able to improve your effectiveness.If you can be effective, and can yet improve your effectiveness, then effectiveness is not binary.
False. You are effective or ineffective. You can be effective and still improve your effectiveness.
I just demonstrated that.
+5 - hits less than 50% of the time : ineffective
+6 - hits 50% of the time : effective
+7 - hits more than 50% of the time : effective. More effective than +6
Just like school. You pass or you fail, but there are different degrees of passing where there is only one of failing.
|
|
You can be effective while still being able to improve your effectiveness.If you can be effective, and can yet improve your effectiveness, then effectiveness is not binary.False. You are effective or ineffective. You can be effective and still improve your effectiveness.
I just demonstrated that.
+5 - hits less than 50% of the time : ineffective
+6 - hits 50% of the time : effective
+7 - hits more than 50% of the time : effective. More effective than +6Just like school. You pass or you fail, but there are different degrees of passing where there is only one of failing.
1. School grades aren't binary, they have hurdle levels.
2. A binary state can only have two outcomes. If there are more than two outcomes, the state is by definition not binary.
3. Effectiveness isn't defined as 50% success.
The binary measure of effectiveness doesn't work.
And this is where the "strawman" comment comes in. Carty, I haven't ever seen anyone claim that mechanically spurning the character concept is sane or justified, except in cases of extreme comedy.
Who on earth is your tirade against?
You mean the argument where I said, verbatim, "A Fighter that is incapable of fighting?" The character YOU are changing by, in your first reply, explicitly making him capable of fighting? Really? I'm changing the character to suit my argument? Really?
Yep. You never stated the nature of his inability, thus allowing later posters to fillin the reason why this character could not perform as expected. You then after receiving reply changed his deficient to stat based, low Str and or Dex. Mr. Fishy can quote if you like.
You get excited easily huh?
Why is the fighter incapable of fighting. Is he cursed, poisoned, the victim of shadows, DEAD? Sleeping? or are his stat at 7. Because 7 is easy to fix just thrown alchemical items or rocks.
Mr. Fishy wrote up a fighter with a 7 str.
And this is where the "strawman" comment comes in. Carty, I haven't ever seen anyone claim that mechanically spurning the character concept is sane or justified, except in cases of extreme comedy.
Who on earth is your tirade against?
Now that the thread has gone on and I'm roughly the only one here, people like to randomly assert I am making stuff up.
Quote from OP
There seems to be some kind of weird view that this is somehow no longer meaningful if your character is effective. I mean it's pretty obvious right? Look to fantasy literature, how many interesting character are also good at anything? Oh right...most of them.
What is not being effective if not mechanically spurning the character concept?
1. School grades aren't binary, they have hurdle levels.
Around here it's Passing/Failing where passing encompasses more than one level knowledge mastery.
3. Effectiveness isn't defined as 50% success.
Considering effectiveness is subjective and I defined how I am judging effectiveness, yes, it is.
|
|
3. Effectiveness isn't defined as 50% success.Considering effectiveness is subjective and I defined how I am judging effectiveness, yes, it is.
Fine, it's true for your definition. But since effectiveness is subjective, everyone can come up with their own definition, and so, for me, you're wrong. For lots of other people, you're wrong. Not misunderstood, just wrong. Feel free to call me wrong, and it's true, for you. Your world is not my world and I'm not living in it. But since it's all subjective, it can't be objective. Therefore, it can't be true independently of you.
There is no way to have a reasonable discussion from this point.
Thanks, this showed me a lot.
3. Effectiveness isn't defined as 50% success.Considering effectiveness is subjective and I defined how I am judging effectiveness, yes, it is.Fine, it's true for your definition. But since effectiveness is subjective, everyone can come up with their own definition, and so, for me, you're wrong. For lots of other people, you're wrong. Not misunderstood, just wrong. Feel free to call me wrong, and it's true, for you. Your world is not my world and I'm not living in it. But since it's all subjective, it can't be objective. Therefore, it can't be true independently of you.
There is no way to have a reasonable discussion from this point.
Thanks, this showed me a lot.
Fine, you can define effectiveness however you want, but something can't both be effective and ineffective at the same exact thing at the same exact time.
Fine, you can define effectiveness however you want, but something can't both be effective and ineffective at the same exact thing at the same exact time.True. But I never said that.
Then to judge effectiveness, you have to draw an arbitrary line where certain things fall on one side and other things on the other.
This suggests that there's a difference between an effective and an optimized character. If, say, you've got a first-level wizard casting DC 17 debuffs, and another casting DC 16 debuffs, I think we can agree that the DC 16 caster isn't optimized, or at least is "gimped" compared to the DC 17 caster. But can the DC 16 caster still be effective?
^This ^ is what I was getting at. ‘Optimal’ means ‘the best possible’ (mechanically speaking), not effective, not really effective, not effective enough. What is ‘effective’? It is that area between useless and optimal.
after a certain point, the more your build choices are based on roleplaying reasons
I'm a little curious as to what sort of role playing choice you're making that requires a mechanical option like a feat to work.
Most don’t. You can throw a ‘roleplaying skin’ on it and it won’t make much difference. Just like you can have a build that is suboptimal but effective.
An example though would be a ranged rogue whose pre-adventuring life was as a thieving street urchin. An optimizer is going to go with the ranged weapon that will do the most damage possible and be the most versatile possible for the least amount of resources (feats, ect), period. As far as I know [I’m not a huge optimizer, tell me if I am wrong here] that means longbow (or possibly shortbow?). A more roleplaying oriented person might go with a crossbow because that is most likely what a poor urban teenager would learn to use. A more optimizing oriented person who still wants to ‘roleplay’ would just come up with a scenario where the longbow makes sense. A pure optimizer would just handwave and be done with it. Though they probably wouldn’t ever even take the rogue class, but you get the idea.
There is of course the other extreme where the pure roleplayer builds their crossbow wielding rogue without any of the crossbow feats necessary to make them effective at using it, because they spent those feats on stuff like Fleet – ‘That’s why I’m so good at not getting caught by the guards’. Yet they still want to pull it out most fights because ‘that’s my character concept’.
A simpler example would be profession/craft/perform skills. With some exceptions (craft for wizards, perform for bards, ect.) these skills are not optimal. Sure you can say your cleric enjoys preaching or your monk learned to brew beer at the monastery, but it is only ‘skin deep’ unless you actually spend points in the skills. The chances such skills will ever be that beneficial if they come up at all are slim. They are not optimal by any means. Some people are fine with ‘skin deep’. Good for them. Others will find it a little trite that every character is not only mechanically cookie cutter, but also has quite similar personalities. Only extremely focused, ambitious personalities would optimize their ‘training’ (i.e. build).
This suggests that there's a difference between an effective and an optimized character. If, say, you've got a first-level wizard casting DC 17 debuffs, and another casting DC 16 debuffs, I think we can agree that the DC 16 caster isn't optimized, or at least is "gimped" compared to the DC 17 caster. But can the DC 16 caster still be effective?^This ^ is what I was getting at. ‘Optimal’ means ‘the best possible’ (mechanically speaking), not effective, not really effective, not effective enough. What is ‘effective’? It is that area between useless and optimal.
Is optimal not effective? Effective is everything that is not ineffective, ie useless.
|
|
Then to judge effectiveness, you have to draw an arbitrary line where certain things fall on one side and other things on the other.Fine, you can define effectiveness however you want, but something can't both be effective and ineffective at the same exact thing at the same exact time.True. But I never said that.
Or, you can establish a continuum of values.
Is optimal not effective? Effective is everything that is not ineffective, ie useless.
Optimal is also ‘effective’ (at least it effin’ better be), but in the way that red is pink.
Or, you can establish a continuum of values.Then to judge effectiveness, you have to draw an arbitrary line where certain things fall on one side and other things on the other.Fine, you can define effectiveness however you want, but something can't both be effective and ineffective at the same exact thing at the same exact time.True. But I never said that.
Then I don't think you are discussing the difference between effective and ineffective.
You may be discussing levels of performance but that is not the same thing.
player may design a character, set its personality and its goals and ambitions, and decide that in order to make this character, neither Int nor Cha should be dumped and Int should be above average. This might not be optimal in a fighter built (mechanically speaking), but motivated in terms of 'roleplay' decision. That has nothing to do with 'acting out a character', which Golden Opal suggests is often only skin-deep roleplay.
I don't see why you have to go from Character concept to mechanics. You can make them both work together. Relying on a mechanical stat like charisma to describe your character seems, if anything, LESS role playing than doing it it yourself.
This still leaves me wondering about the definition of roleplay, and about whether or not optimizing is uniquely about making your character better in combat. Treantmonk seem to suggest that optimization isn't all about fighting, but I wonder how far this can go.
It has to be about doing something USEFUL that helps the party establish its goals. That depends a lot on the campaign and the group.
But I continue to say that combat optimization and roleplay can comnflict, even if they aren't necessarily mutually exclusive.
Can you give me an example of a CHARACTER , not a class/stat combo, but a character, a person, that can't be made to be effective?
I'm pretty sure a charismatic fighter who's built around rallying his allies is called "A bard with good strength"
And a nimble and dexteritious fighter with a lot of skills is called "a rogue."
I mean really, if someone said "Hey Cirno, I want to make a fighter who's really charismatic and great at talking to people who can one day become a leader, and rallies his allies and gives them buffs," I'd say "Ok, so a bard."
Mr. Fishy says take leadership.
It (optimization) has to be about doing something USEFUL that helps the party establish its goals. That depends a lot on the campaign and the group.
Obviously, but to what degree: that's what I'm wondering about. Optimization isn't about being Ok-ish, it's about using the system to its full potential in order to achieve the best results.
Can you give me an example of a CHARACTER , not a class/stat combo, but a character, a person, that can't be made to be effective?
All characters can be made to a certain level of effectiveness, I was never trying to argue otherwise. My point is simply that not all characters may end up optimal when the player take decisions that impact the character's mechanical aspect for roleplay reasons.
I guess I could give myself as an example. I'm not the best at much, but I have a wide array of interests and aptitudes. Not all the jobs I do take advantage of my greatest strengths, and my greatest strengths are not always applicable to the tasks I undertake. My personal flaws balance some of the best aspects of myself. In short, I'm a generalist and not a specialist; I don't consider myself 'optimized' at all. Yet I enjoy my life which have been more 'adventurous' then many.
Literature is full of characters that aren't the best at what they are supposed to do. They (usually) succeed in the end, proving some degrees of effectiveness, but they often are not 'optimized'. As a matter of fact, literature goes to great efforts about telling how a character ends-up succeeding despite not being the best, or the strongest. Literature is a model (among others) of roleplaying games, and I certainly don't thing it is wrong to enjoy emulating this source of inspiration.
[edit] In short, I'm not trying to argue that a character must be pathetic for you to roleplay it. A player can be both deeply involved in its character roleplay AND character optimization. Only, I stand by the belief that sometimes a decision taken for roleplay purposes can make the character less optimal in its field of expertise. Optimization and roleplay aren't necessarily mutually exclusive, but they can conflict.
'findel
Still looking for a specific example or concept.