No, he doesn't. It would be a point if he said, "Some new players are excited about the game, but don't understand the rules well enough to optimize yet. Some asshat players just want to optimize to 'win,' and don't understand the whole 'role-playing' thing."
But to say "most people focus on one or the other because there's not enough energy to do both" is flat-out not true, both in terms of frequency ("most" =/= "a vanishingly small minority") and in terms of causation (laziness or "splitting energy" in a game geared towards people with excess time and mental horsepower to spend).
Hmm... I have a theory why the self proclaimed role players are more prone to launch attacks on what they perceive as roll players.
Everyone optimizes to a certain extent, with varying degrees of success. Likewise, everyone roleplays to a certain extent, once again with varying degrees of success.
A group that differs in the talents of role-playing usually can work together quite well. The good actors can do a hell of a job entertaining the whole table, the less stellar actors usually enjoy it.
However, different degrees of optimization lead to drastically different levels of character ability. Suddenly, one character outshines the other, sometimes to a degree that the less-optimized character will be struggling to survive situations his more-optimized cousin still considers a warm-up excercise.
Now, no one likes taking the backseat permanently, being shown that the group works just as well (or even better) without his help, just as no one likes to de demoted into the 'da-doo-wap' choir while Mr. Hero single-handedly beats encounter after ancounter after encounter. So, a group with a wide disparity of optimization levels is much more prone to result in at least part of the troupe having no fun.
Given the fact that everyone invests only a finite amount into the sum of optimizing and roleplay, we come into the situation where a player just is not comfortable with raising his optimization afforts any higher; either because he deems any level above his own 'overoptimized', or because focussing more on optimization would bind enough energy to have a negative impact on what he considers the level of roleplay he wanted to do.
Most of us have a threshold we consider 'going into overkill', and if a player sees people discussing things way beyond his comfort zone, and still heading for more, dismissing these attempts as 'a zone I never wanted to be part of' is, in my opinion, only natural.
Sorry for the TL;DR, also sorry if my rant is difficult to follow (I am not a native speaker, after all)... but does my train of thought contain any major flaw?
@Kirth: Don't get fixated on the 'focus' part. By far most players I have ever experienced do a mixture of both roleplaying and roll-playing.
You should be hostile to ugly people?
I'm, not.
@Kirth: Don't get fixated on the 'focus' part. By far most players I have ever experienced do a mixture of both roleplaying and roll-playing.
+1
Kirth, again. I'm not saying I agree with every word of Adamantine Dragon, but he has a point. As Midnight_Angel put it. Don't get fixated how he/she worded the post, put what is in it.If you've read some of my post on the board you know I'm not in the role playing camp vs. the rollplayes. I don't even like the role player vs. roll players Cliché.
It's just interesting to try to understand what makes people tick.
However, you usually ignore them over pretty ones, right? Unless they approach you first.
true.
Also, nothing in my statement suggested hostility. There are many other consequences than that.
True again. I was just trying to be witty. It came out as a jerk post.
Sorry.| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Yeah, dude was in one of the pioneer punk bands, was famous and relatively rich.
But it was those ranks in Diplomacy that got him laid. Mmmhmm.
More likely the girls in question had low INT or WIS scores...
|
True again. I was just trying to be witty. It came out as a jerk post.
Sorry.
I didn't take it that way, and while it isn't quite relevant to the derail topic, it is a correct statement. People aren't usually hostile to people they consider ugly, but they do prefer dealing with people they consider beautiful. But since appearance is only a part of Charisma, that kind of distracts us from the topic.
|
And what you described is exactly my issue with Charisma. If a player comes to me with a concept that is fringe to fit into the setting, I will generally allow it as long as they are willing to role play it. For example, if you want to be a half-orc when we are playing in areas where Half-Orcs are traditionally shunned, no whining when you are shunned.
Similarly, if you want to dump charisma so you can be a fighting machine, fine, but we are going to have to talk about how you low charisma manifests, and no whining about people generally thinking the bard is cooler than you.
You can role play an optimized character. My argument is that in order to fit into a “role” playing group, you must play your character as you built it, in the same way that if you want to fit into a “Roll” playing group, you must to a degree optimize your character so as not to become a drag on the party.
Where the conflict arises is when people don’t want to either bend to the group they are in, or when on the board people post controversial things and then get offended when they are challenged.
I am militantly moderate on the issue. I get annoyed when players don’t invest the time to make viable characters, and I get annoyed when they aren’t willing to role play the character they build as they built it. I dislike both ends of the spectrum equally and am trying to drag everyone to what I view as the middle. Well made, combat effective classes that you actually play as you designed them. For example, if you don’t want to play low charisma, there is a very easy solution…
I believe the setting and the game combined are generally self correcting. If you decide to min/max, times will occur when your min is exposed and you will go from being “awesome” to “meh”. Hopefully the rest of the party is built to cover weaknesses, and it all works out like the A-Team.
But this limitation isn’t a problem, it is a feature.
If you don’t build viable characters, the system self corrects by killing you. If you try to build characters that don’t make sense in the setting, the GM can point to the setting and say “How are you going to make this work?” which puts the onus on the player to adapt, rather than on the party. And if you can’t, the GM can either say “No” or “I’ll let you do it as long as you understand the consequences.”
|
|
Well fortunately the game doesn't work that way nor does it try and mimic real life down to every detail.
What the consequences of choosing a low Cha should be.
Indeed, we are not making a rules argument, we are arguing playstyles.
Which leads to just as many personal attacks and conversational train wrecks.
|
|
I'm actually lost on the whole Diplomacy argument. What exactly is the argument about?
That diplomacy is a skill used persuade others to agree with your arguments, to resolve differences, and to gather valuable information or rumors from people that can also be used to negotiate conflicts by using the proper etiquette and manners suitable to the problem, but it is not the ability that measures a character's personality, personal magnetism, ability to lead, and appearance.
And what you described is exactly my issue with Charisma. If a player comes to me with a concept that is fringe to fit into the setting, I will generally allow it as long as they are willing to role play it. For example, if you want to be a half-orc when we are playing in areas where Half-Orcs are traditionally shunned, no whining when you are shunned
... and other good stuff
I find charisma be one of the more problematic stats.
You don't get any percs for a high charisma expect it effects skills and spells.Very few people would dump int or wisdom or con or dex. Sure arcane casters can dump str, but if you are up against monsters with str damage or drain then it's no fun.
Also there is no clear rule on what happens if you have low char when you intercat with others.
You don't get any percs for a high charisma expect it effects skills and spells.
What, being "naturaly" good at things like Diplomacy and Bluff isn't a useful in and of itself?
For a combat-specialized Fighter, playing second fiddle in social interactions is fine. A point to remember is that it shouldn't be all the time. Every NPC having the same reaction during each and every social interaction will get old and tedious.
Keep up a nice ebb and flow - you win some, you lose some. Now if there is a 17 CHA character in the party, he probably wins way more than he loses. And that's fine.
|
|
One interaction of Shackled City I liked was in the antiques shop. The owner lives with a blink dog he befriended, and one point in the description was that he would blink over to the most charismatic PC to sniff them. The shopkeeper doesn't treat them any different, but the high Cha character get noticed. That's how it should be handled.
Joe with 8 char, diplomacy and bluff as class skills and rank in both will be better in diplomacy and bluff than Carl with 14 char and no rank in diplomacy and bluff.
As for character's personality, personal magnetism, ability to lead, and appearance. How do you meassure that? Carl have 14 char and Joe 8.
At higher levels it get worse. If both have ranks in both skills and both have the skills as class skill, having +10 or +13 in the skill is really no big deal.
As for character's personality, personal magnetism, ability to lead, and appearance. How do you meassure that? Carl have 14 char and Joe 8.
Irrespective of actual personality (Carl hates people most of the time, because they just don't "get" him), Carl and his 14 CHA just sort of draw people in. It's kind of the like the person who goes out of their way to ignore your cat. Who does kitty gravitate to? Yup, that guy.
CHA 8 Joe on the other hand genuinely likes people, but they just don't see it. Maybe it's the scars or the nervous tick or the fact that he keeps drawing his dagger and playing with it. Who knows exactly why, but for whatever ever reason, Joe likes people and they don't necessarily sense that.
/ personally, if it were me, I'd tend to flip-flop the above. If I wanted a genuinely likable guy, who liked the people right back, then I'd go with a 12 CHA.
// as a practical character builder, I generally find that a 2pt commitment to CHA isn't always the best thing. Bummer.
Blinks wow this kinda exploded on my while i was gone.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
More likely the girls in question had low INT or WIS scores...Yeah, dude was in one of the pioneer punk bands, was famous and relatively rich.
But it was those ranks in Diplomacy that got him laid. Mmmhmm.
Or they were using him to get to the guitar player. He was dreamy.
** spoiler omitted **
Yep. Definitely low WIS scores...
You should be hostile to ugly people?
I'm, not.I start out as "indifferent" to ugly people. But they can sway me by being incredibly diplomatic, or playing a song really well, or having taught their dog some neat tricks, or convincing me they're amazing in bed, or...
:-)
LOL!
So, they can sway you by being incredibly diplomatic.
I guess it works that way for a lot of people. being incredibly diplomatic, playing a song really well, or having taught their dog some neat tricks, or convincing you they're amazing in bed.
Diplomacy is a great skill.
Well, that's Diplomacy, Perform, Handle Animal, and usually Bluff :)
Man, you should post more often.
These Messageboards needs you.