Totally off topic, but when I saw that Kirth favorited my last post, I suddenly felt like one of the cool kids. Hopefully, the feeling will pass.I don't care so much about the insult war commentary, one way or the other; just thought there was a lot of very good stuff earlier on in that post -- written clearly and engagingly -- and didn't want it to get lost in the melee. But, dog help us, if I'm one of the "cool kids" then we're all in REALLY sad shape.
Thus, "Hopefully, the feeling will pass." ;-)
P: "Newbie" He is new and generally hasn't built his unique play style yet. He listens to build advice from the experts and is awed by simply adventuring.
J: "Munchkin" He rarely pays any heed to a background and loves to combine any and all elements from any number of sources to build a combat monster.
M: "Power Gamer" P's best friend and he loves to build his characters to hit hard. But he also usually has a good background and has no trouble role playing.
K: "Strategist" He hasn't a power gaming instinct to save his life. He is also only an average role player. He loves the shiny stuff. He usually focuses on treasures and places he can use to control battles.
C: "Role Player" She is totally focused on what makes her character tick. Not a very good power gamer, but a wonderful person to interact with during encounters or at any time at all.
E: "Hound" He loves secrets and is the biggest collector of NPCs and information in any game. He frequently recruits NPCs to act as his contacts and loves to control the game from behind the scenes. He fits perfectly in with my play style when I am a player and is P's best friend.
Oddly enough, I am a K first, an M second, and a C third.
Being a strategist powergamer is probably what lead me to being the GM.
When I do get to play, I love getting the chance to prepare for an encounter I know is coming. I love coming up with devious ambushes.
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
"And why can't combat effectiveness BE A CONCEPT." lol sounds like something only a powergamer would say. btw I am copying that and the character description to hard copy and carrying it around with me in my gaming bag to say "never do this" when I start a game.
Most people want to play someone who will finally endorse the clothes of a hero, not those of an hero.
It's hard to roleplay interesting things when you are dead because you are Galahad the-not-really-competent, stormwind crimson snowflake of the group.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
In my home game, I like to have two sets of PCs running conurrently; the players switch back and forth between parties each adventure. Party "A" will generally be relatively well-optimized adventurers who are expected to do things like kill monsters, solve mysteries, and save the world. Party "B" will consist of poorly-optimized "experimental" characters that the players thought would be fun to play, but knew weren't exactly well-suited to standard adventuring. I make adventures for Party "B" that are generally a bit wackier and more off-beat, and quite a bit less deadly, than the hard-mode adventures I concoct for Team "A."
Let me hasten that there was exactly equal role-playing for both sets of characters (a high level, at that); only the level of tactical difficulty and optimization level varied.
Oddly enough, I haven't noticed the difference. :)
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
"And why can't combat effectiveness BE A CONCEPT." lol sounds like something only a powergamer would say. btw I am copying that and the character description to hard copy and carrying it around with me in my gaming bag to say "never do this" when I start a game.Most people want to play someone who will finally endorse the clothes of a hero, not those of an hero.
It's hard to roleplay interesting things when you are dead because you are Galahad the-not-really-competent, stormwind crimson snowflake of the group.
By Baalbamoth's logic, Conan was a terrible RPer.
As is any sword master in literary history.
Hercules was a minmaxing munchkin.
P: "Newbie" He is new and generally hasn't built his unique play style yet. He listens to build advice from the experts and is awed by simply adventuring.
J: "Munchkin" He rarely pays any heed to a background and loves to combine any and all elements from any number of sources to build a combat monster.
M: "Power Gamer" P's best friend and he loves to build his characters to hit hard. But he also usually has a good background and has no trouble role playing.
K: "Strategist" He hasn't a power gaming instinct to save his life. He is also only an average role player. He loves the shiny stuff. He usually focuses on treasures and places he can use to control battles.
C: "Role Player" She is totally focused on what makes her character tick. Not a very good power gamer, but a wonderful person to interact with during encounters or at any time at all.
E: "Hound" He loves secrets and is the biggest collector of NPCs and information in any game. He frequently recruits NPCs to act as his contacts and loves to control the game from behind the scenes. He fits perfectly in with my play style when I am a player and is P's best friend.
Oddly enough, I am a K first, an M second, and a C third.
Being a strategist powergamer is probably what lead me to being the GM.
When I do get to play, I love getting the chance to prepare for an encounter I know is coming. I love coming up with devious ambushes.
I'd say K, C, E, then M. I like coming up with concepts and stories (I can go for pages on a good backstory, though I try to keep it shorter for the game), I like team tactics and planning and scrounging for info (loved that early part of Age of Worms in Whispering Cairn/beginning of Three Faces of Evil where the group has to go all detective-mode), and I like making characters be effective at their job.
Take a gander at the character I played in that game, tell me if she's too powergamey for you.
I'm not good at min/maxing, but I want my characters to be strong. I'm also not good at roleplaying, but I like RPGs. What does that make me?
You are probably good at doing something in game right? If not you might be either a Newbie or a Follower.
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
"And why can't combat effectiveness BE A CONCEPT." lol sounds like something only a powergamer would say. btw I am copying that and the character description to hard copy and carrying it around with me in my gaming bag to say "never do this" when I start a game.Most people want to play someone who will finally endorse the clothes of a hero, not those of an hero.
It's hard to roleplay interesting things when you are dead because you are Galahad the-not-really-competent, stormwind crimson snowflake of the group.By Baalbamoth's logic, Conan was a terrible RPer.
As is any sword master in literary history.
Hercules was a minmaxing munchkin.
Who are these ? Do they come from some obscure mary-sue fanfic ?
Surely the world is falling on his head if such uninteresting characters are getting any success with young people. Only a one-handed, blind 8 Str fighter with terminal disease using Craft (Wood figurines) is worthy to be a real D&D hero and perfect character.| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Going back to the original question...
I ran a group once that included 1 powergamer, 1 incredibly weak (to fit a concept, he voluntarily took about -10 collectively to his stats) character, and a bunch of people inbetween. I cannot tell you how many times the powergamer dropped, and how many times the weakest character saved the day as the only one standing. This had nothing to do with me trying to 'inhibit' the powergamer, it was just the natural progression of a realistic fight: The powergamer was huge and tough, so lots of enemies would (naturally) want to take him down first. The weaker character was always the last to drop because he hid in the back and helped with tactical spells that didn't expose himself as the caster hiding in the trees. Both in and out of combat, no one sucked because they didn't make a single-mindedly focused character, and everyone (weak, powergamer, and inbetween) had fun with what their character could do to help the given situation. Even the powergamer, who could do little more than break things, was a great help outside of combat as they kept finding fun and creative ways to let him bash things to solve out-of-combat problems, often finding great spell-combinations to make him more effective while he did it.
For stopping the power-difference, I would endorse teaching the game to newer players or those who's concepts aren't working the way they wanted. I've never seen a concept character that lagged behind a powergamer, except when the concept character didn't know the whole breadth of options available to him to make his concept. Players who know all the feats and archetypes will always make characters more effectively than those who don't.
When I ran my group, I just asked the newer players what kind of character they wanted to be, then made archetype and feat suggestions to help them reflect it in the build. Once other people learned more about the rules and looked up the suggestions I made for them, they all started being much closer to each other in power level, and the whole group enjoyed the game because of it. They, like the powergamer, just had to feel the joy that comes from really making a character reflect the way they play, and we had no problems at all.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Maxximilius... I think you drifted past a point and into strawman territory.
I think what you are attacking is the love of the everyman hero. The person who rises from humble beginnings into a true hero later in life.
Conan didn't start out as a King. He started as a gladiatorial slave. He worked at it and gained levels becoming a dangerous opponent who earned his freedom and became a hero.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Maxximilius... I think you drifted past a point and into strawman territory.
I think what you are attacking is the love of the everyman hero. The person who rises from humble beginnings into a true hero later in life.
Conan didn't start out as a King. He started as a gladiatorial slave. He worked at it and gained levels becoming a dangerous opponent who earned his freedom and became a hero.
Which is exactly the point the "Powergaming is not the antithesis of Role-Playing" people are trying to make.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
By Baalbamoth's logic, Conan was a terrible RPer.As is any sword master in literary history.
Hercules was a minmaxing munchkin.
Who are these ? Do they come from some obscure mary-sue fanfic ?
Surely the world is falling on his head if such uninteresting characters are getting any success with young people. Only a one-handed, blind 8 Str fighter with terminal disease using Craft (Wood figurines) is worthy to be a real D&D hero and perfect character.
Strangely, I've found people who consider themselves "roleplayers only" create the most absurd and unrealistic characters.
I've played with someone who "role-played" a crazy dwarf who thought he was a sentient city and all the lice living on him were his citizens.
I've played with someone who "role-played" a klepomaniac bisexual duergar with tuerets.
I've played with someone who "role-played" a samurai who only knew the Forgotten Realms equivilant of Japanese (not Common) and attacked anyone who did anything "disrepectful to him," like not bowing to him as they passed.
By all forms of logic and reason, these characters should be dead or in an asylum long before they began the adventure, but because they are PCs, they get to "role-play" these absurd character concepts, and the rest of the party has to live with it.
Oddly enough, I haven't noticed the difference. :)
Really, in retrospect I really should have had you use Falandar for the Team A adventures (a ranger would have been very handy up in the mountains against that druid and his allies), and save Auris for the Team B adventures (a low-STR monk who hadn't quite found his schtick yet), and things would have been a better fit both ways.
Barring that, it was working out very nicely early on:
TEAM A:
Contrast with TEAM B:
By all forms of logic and reason, these characters should be dead or in an asylum long before they began the adventure, but because they are PCs, they get to "role-play" these absurd character concepts, and the rest of the party has to live with it.
Okay, the dwarf sounds kind of funny to watch and travel with, as long as he's just quirky like that. I can just imagine him flying into combat to protect his "citizens" against external threats. "FOR MY PEOPLLLLLLE!!!"
The others though.... Yeah, those sound far more disruptive to gameplay than a barbarian who destroys combat encounters in a few rounds like a barbarian is supposed to.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
By Baalbamoth's logic, Conan was a terrible RPer.As is any sword master in literary history.
Hercules was a minmaxing munchkin.
Who are these ? Do they come from some obscure mary-sue fanfic ?
Surely the world is falling on his head if such uninteresting characters are getting any success with young people. Only a one-handed, blind 8 Str fighter with terminal disease using Craft (Wood figurines) is worthy to be a real D&D hero and perfect character.Strangely, I've found people who consider themselves "roleplayers only" create the most absurd and unrealistic characters.
I've played with someone who "role-played" a crazy dwarf who thought he was a sentient city and all the lice living on him were his citizens.
I've played with someone who "role-played" a klepomaniac bisexual duergar with tuerets.
I've played with someone who "role-played" a samurai who only knew the Forgotten Realms equivilant of Japanese (not Common) and attacked anyone who did anything "disrepectful to him," like not bowing to him as they passed.
By all forms of logic and reason, these characters should be dead or in an asylum long before they began the adventure, but because they are PCs, they get to "role-play" these absurd character concepts, and the rest of the party has to live with it.
I once had a "hardcore RPer" tell me that my character couldn't have a half-orc, half-troll offspring because they can't breed... all the while, this person's character was half-troll, half-harpy.
I kid you not.
|
Thus, "Hopefully, the feeling will pass." ;-)Totally off topic, but when I saw that Kirth favorited my last post, I suddenly felt like one of the cool kids. Hopefully, the feeling will pass.I don't care so much about the insult war commentary, one way or the other; just thought there was a lot of very good stuff earlier on in that post -- written clearly and engagingly -- and didn't want it to get lost in the melee. But, dog help us, if I'm one of the "cool kids" then we're all in REALLY sad shape.
He was cool until he started getting all weird about it, then the cool kids were too cool for him once again. :)
I feel the same way about Kirth and TOZ favoriting one of my posts, by the way.
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Strangely, I've found people who consider themselves "roleplayers only" create the most absurd and unrealistic characters.
I'm quite the optimizer, but this is exactly what I do myself.
Nothing like the faces of your friends when they first get to realize what your new character is ("so you say that the hobo NPC we just met is you ? Like, really ?"); then their other funny face when all their non-expectations or incomprehension over what you are supposed to bring to the group are shattered by sheer Chuckzenegger b4d4ssery and discovery of yet non-exploited-much-by-our-group-but-actually-awesome-under-certain-conditio ns rules. Now, even combat maneuvers are a thing.
They are starting to get more original in the concepts they'd like to play for future characters ; and such originality is possible because they know there is a way we can rebuild them without having to be less efficient than Generic Meatshield 54.
So, optimization : encourages roleplay, fun and creativity.
For our group, at least.
Orthos I am listening I just do not agree...
Your way of playing is not my way if playing. All we want is for you to admit that other styles of play exist rather than screaming impotently to the heavens "I'm right, I'm right!"
scint- ok make it a person in a wheel chair and he says "hey wheels, wanna buy this car" or a person person with dwarfism "hey tiny tim, wanna buy this car?" any way you wanna put it, somebody is "discriminating" and coming out as charming funny etc.
No, a low charisma character says "Hey, buy this." A high charisma character eases into it. "You look as though you're in need of a new car. Allow me to show you some models. You look like the adventurous type, how about a convertible?" Playing a discriminating jerkwad and being accepted as "Oh, you card!" completely breaks immersion.
I am a little confused... Did someone claim the only way to role play was to make a crippled character? That seems to be the target of certain arguments?
@Baal: I believe I have stated this before but it sounds like your group just needs to go its separate ways. It sounds like your DM is burnt out (running three games as you mentioned before) and the players are not happy with each other (and from previous comments actively working against the min-maxer). Really, it just sounds like the game is running on pure stubbornness and it is time to hang it up.
Also, if you want the thread to die simply stop posting on it. Especially since it seems you have already grabbed the advice you wanted (the advice you plan to compile for the other thread).
It's a common mistake, and has scarred some people so that they must preempt the argument.
As both sides carry so much baggage to the conversation, I find it's probably not worth having.
Anyone without that baggage generally doesn't need the conversation.
"Totally in it for the RP!" wizard: (IE: Mechanically unsound)
S12, D12, C12, I14, W12, Cha14
He has unreasonably high stats in ability scores that his class skills cannot support, and fails at being competent in the field that his class is supposed to master.
Min/Maxed wizard: (Mechanically sound)
S8, D14, C14, I19, W10, Cha8
Has lowered his "useless" stats (str/cha, which is used for social skills and martial combat, where he is not predisposed towards success due to his class). He has not lowered them as far as the system allows, nor has he gotten the absolute maximum out of his primary casting stat in favor of helping his secondary helpful stats be above average, and not tanking his wisdom. His mastery of his field is good, without being completely hopeless in secondary fields.
Powergaming wizard: (Mechanically optimized)
S6, D14, C12, I21, W8, Cha8
Has lowered his "useless" stats as far as the system allows, taking advantage of starting at middle age to avoid a penalty to two, while keeping the same mechanical penalty to one. His Int is as high as the system allows, and his secondary helpful stats are as well. His mastery of his field is unparalleled, at the cost of everything else.
I think those guidelines should be about accurate as to where I think the lines between the three "typical" kinds of players.
I am a little confused... Did someone claim the only way to role play was to make a crippled character? That seems to be the target of certain arguments?
I believe the OP expressed frustration because taking feats such as Skill Focus: Profession (merchant), which he thought would be potentially helpful to add to a backstory, and thus support RP considerations, would make him less able to contribute in a group including those whose builds are more optimized. I'm pretty sure he went so far as to say that a feat or two like that ought to be required, and that those who choose only feats which contribute to their combat effectiveness do not meet his criteria for "roleplaying," because their backstories are (assumed to be) based on their builds, rather than vice-versa.
He also expressed disapproval of people dumping stats in the interest of optimization, particularly Charisma, because low stats are, in his experience, not frequently roleplayed; also, they are chosen for mechanical reasons, rather than backstory.
In some quarters, making sure your barbarian has at least 10 Cha (after racial adjustments?) and taking non-combat-related feats would be considered crippling a character, and in some games perhaps that would be a valid assessment. But the extremes of crippledness people (including myself) are talking about in some arguments are hyperbole.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I am a little confused... Did someone claim the only way to role play was to make a crippled character? That seems to be the target of certain arguments?
No, the assumption by some people is that if you build an optimized character, you are not also roleplaying.
It is the entire point of this thread.
It is the subject of its own gaming-related logical fallacy.
And the OP of this thread has stated this assumption several times:
Oss- The most Out of Character thing a soldier could do is waste precious training time on something that will not help him survive.
you read that right? so according to that, if you have any skills that flesh out your character, any skill which conforms to a backstory, its not "helping you survive" and therefore not worthwile for a character to have.
and this guy is a RP-er as well as a min/max-er
"And why can't combat effectiveness BE A CONCEPT." lol sounds like something only a powergamer would say. btw I am copying that and the character description to hard copy and carrying it around with me in my gaming bag to say "never do this" when I start a game.
and no, I dont think only characters that suck are rp characters...
a fighter with INT as his second ability score, and say 3-4 highly ranked less common skills (agriculture and buisness because hs father was a town elder or something) would be a highly RP character to me, hes also not "combat inneffective" he's just not "min/maxed!"
I think to you guys if your not doing the max dammage or having the max AC etc for your class or build or whatever, a character is "inneffective" but thats just not the case. even at first level compared to a common laborer, regardless of how you spend your feats or stats your a fighter, any fighter is a hell of a hero.
the problem is where your slider is, to you if its not a 9 or a 10 in combat effectiveness its a worthless character built by a stupid person.. to me if its not less than a 9 or 10 its a powergamer character, and I dont want it in my game.
understand?
Flesh- nice that you go into attacking my group and my dm rather than really dealing with the flaw in your arguement I pointed out.
you claim to be a RPer and a MIN/MAXer... flesh... if min/maxers are RPers then why does almost every min/maxed build focus on combat effectiveness rather than a build to fit a concept? I dont think I've ever seen something like "BEST FORMER SLAVE NOW MOST CHARATBLE CLERIC BUILD!" which would highlight just how many slave/donation raising skills you can mash into one character... something to think about eh?
The problem with this logic is that everyone has different definitions of optimized. To some people, building a soldier as fighter with 16 Str and Con and 8 Cha is "min-maxing." To some people, if you don't allocate some skillpoints into a worthless skill to reflect your "backstory," you are min-maxing. To some people, even playing a wizard is min-maxing. The only way not to be called a "powergamer" by atleast someone is to build a horribly ineffective character.
Therefore, the joke that you have to be an 8 Str, 1-handed, blind fighter to be a "true" role-player.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I hate when people link to the stormwind fallacy. Such a red herring.
If you make a build, and you play the build as you made it, awesome.
If you make a build, and you try to bend every rule you can find to not play the build as you made it but as you wanted to be before you had to take low scores in one place to get high scores in another STFU and GTFO.
"Totally in it for the RP!" wizard: (IE: Mechanically unsound)
S12, D12, C12, I14, W12, Cha14He has unreasonably high stats in ability scores that his class skills cannot support, and fails at being competent in the field that his class is supposed to master.
Min/Maxed wizard: (Mechanically sound)
S8, D14, C14, I19, W10, Cha8Has lowered his "useless" stats (str/cha, which is used for social skills and martial combat, where he is not predisposed towards success due to his class). He has not lowered them as far as the system allows, nor has he gotten the absolute maximum out of his primary casting stat in favor of helping his secondary helpful stats be above average, and not tanking his wisdom. His mastery of his field is good, without being completely hopeless in secondary fields.
Powergaming wizard: (Mechanically optimized)
S6, D14, C12, I21, W8, Cha8Has lowered his "useless" stats as far as the system allows, taking advantage of starting at middle age to avoid a penalty to two, while keeping the same mechanical penalty to one. His Int is as high as the system allows, and his secondary helpful stats are as well. His mastery of his field is unparalleled, at the cost of everything else.
I think those guidelines should be about accurate as to where I think the lines between the three "typical" kinds of players.
Ironically (?), I would say playing the "min-maxed" wizard would be a stronger choice over the "Powergaming wizard." Sure, 90% of the time, the lower Con and Wis arn't going to matter, and the extra Int is going to make you slightly more powerful, but its the 10% of the time where you really really needed that extra HP or +1 to your saves that gets you killed.
.Also, how does the powergamer carry his phat lootz with a 6 STR?
I hate when people link to the stormwind fallacy. Such a red herring.
If you make a build, and you play the build as you made it, awesome.
If you make a build, and you try to bend every rule you can find to not play the build as you made it but as you wanted to be before you had to take low scores in one place to get high scores in another STFU and GTFO.
The Stormwind Fallacy may be over-used by people who abuse it, but that doesn't make the point invalid.
And I have both built mechanics around backstories, and build backstories around mechanics. Neither one is "the right way."
EDIT:
You can both optimize and role-play. I think most people try too as well. Very few people TRY to build a mechanically weak character, and very few people TRY to role-play badly. Since this game is a combination of both, I assume most people who enjoy the game try to do both.
How successful you are... well thats a different story.
"Totally in it for the RP!" wizard: (IE: Mechanically unsound)
S12, D12, C12, I14, W12, Cha14He has unreasonably high stats in ability scores that his class skills cannot support, and fails at being competent in the field that his class is supposed to master.
Min/Maxed wizard: (Mechanically sound)
S8, D14, C14, I19, W10, Cha8Has lowered his "useless" stats (str/cha, which is used for social skills and martial combat, where he is not predisposed towards success due to his class). He has not lowered them as far as the system allows, nor has he gotten the absolute maximum out of his primary casting stat in favor of helping his secondary helpful stats be above average, and not tanking his wisdom. His mastery of his field is good, without being completely hopeless in secondary fields.
Powergaming wizard: (Mechanically optimized)
S6, D14, C12, I21, W8, Cha8Has lowered his "useless" stats as far as the system allows, taking advantage of starting at middle age to avoid a penalty to two, while keeping the same mechanical penalty to one. His Int is as high as the system allows, and his secondary helpful stats are as well. His mastery of his field is unparalleled, at the cost of everything else.
I think those guidelines should be about accurate as to where I think the lines between the three "typical" kinds of players.
Ironically (?), I would say playing the "min-maxed" wizard would be a stronger choice over the "Powergaming wizard." Sure, 90% of the time, the lower Con and Wis arn't going to matter, and the extra Int is going to make you slightly more powerful, but its the 10% of the time where you really really needed that extra HP or +1 to your saves that gets you killed.
.
Also, how does the powergamer carry his phat lootz with a 6 STR?
That is what martial characters are for, the "all mighty" wizard is just allowing his party members to shine.
|
|
I hate when people link to the stormwind fallacy. Such a red herring.
If you make a build, and you play the build as you made it, awesome.
If you make a build, and you try to bend every rule you can find to not play the build as you made it but as you wanted to be before you had to take low scores in one place to get high scores in another STFU and GTFO.
The Stormwind Fallacy may be over-used by people who abuse it, but that doesn't make the point invalid.
I have both built mechanics around backstories, and build backstories around mechanics. Neither one is "the right way."
As long as they match, which is where the issue is for me.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I am a little confused... Did someone claim the only way to role play was to make a crippled character? That seems to be the target of certain arguments?I believe the OP expressed frustration because taking feats such as Skill Focus: Profession (merchant), which he thought would be potentially helpful to add to a backstory, and thus support RP considerations, would make him less able to contribute in a group including those whose builds are more optimized. I'm pretty sure he went so far as to say that a feat or two like that ought to be required, and that those who choose only feats which contribute to their combat effectiveness do not meet his criteria for "roleplaying," because their backstories are (assumed to be) based on their builds, rather than vice-versa.
He also expressed disapproval of people dumping stats in the interest of optimization, particularly Charisma, because low stats are, in his experience, not frequently roleplayed; also, they are chosen for mechanical reasons, rather than backstory.
In some quarters, making sure your barbarian has at least 10 Cha (after racial adjustments?) and taking non-combat-related feats would be considered crippling a character, and in some games perhaps that would be a valid assessment. But the extremes of crippledness people (including myself) are talking about in some arguments are hyperbole.
Wait, taking Skill Focus in a profession skill is useless and only serves to demonstrate a background? Someone's doing it wrong.
I love profession skills, as they're one of the only things in the game that's completely left up to interpretation. Generally, if the player can give me a good reason why their profession skill applies to the given situation, I let them use it. Heck, for profession (merchant) I'd even let them roll to see if they get discounts when buying things.
Even if the GM is a strict RAW person who hates interpretation, a profession skill still allows a player to roll for info related to their field, and with something as vast as Profession (Merchant), that could be everything from following money trails, to tracking vast economies, all of which are important to a game with a social or political bend.
Here's a link to an article I wrote for Gnome Stew on the subject.
Just adding my two cents to that part of the conversation. We mean it when we say an RP character and an optimized character can really be the same thing, no matter what your interpretation of 'RP' is.
By Baalbamoth's logic, Conan was a terrible RPer.As is any sword master in literary history.
Hercules was a minmaxing munchkin.
Who are these ? Do they come from some obscure mary-sue fanfic ?
Surely the world is falling on his head if such uninteresting characters are getting any success with young people. Only a one-handed, blind 8 Str fighter with terminal disease using Craft (Wood figurines) is worthy to be a real D&D hero and perfect character.Strangely, I've found people who consider themselves "roleplayers only" create the most absurd and unrealistic characters.
I've played with someone who "role-played" a crazy dwarf who thought he was a sentient city and all the lice living on him were his citizens.
I've played with someone who "role-played" a klepomaniac bisexual duergar with tuerets.
I've played with someone who "role-played" a samurai who only knew the Forgotten Realms equivilant of Japanese (not Common) and attacked anyone who did anything "disrepectful to him," like not bowing to him as they passed.
By all forms of logic and reason, these characters should be dead or in an asylum long before they began the adventure, but because they are PCs, they get to "role-play" these absurd character concepts, and the rest of the party has to live with it.
Well that samurai would entirely fit in an early Tokugawa Shogunate setting. As long as he obeyed the edict and only killed commoners that disrespected him.
I am a little confused... Did someone claim the only way to role play was to make a crippled character? That seems to be the target of certain arguments?I believe the OP expressed frustration because taking feats such as Skill Focus: Profession (merchant), which he thought would be potentially helpful to add to a backstory, and thus support RP considerations, would make him less able to contribute in a group including those whose builds are more optimized. I'm pretty sure he went so far as to say that a feat or two like that ought to be required, and that those who choose only feats which contribute to their combat effectiveness do not meet his criteria for "roleplaying," because their backstories are (assumed to be) based on their builds, rather than vice-versa.
He also expressed disapproval of people dumping stats in the interest of optimization, particularly Charisma, because low stats are, in his experience, not frequently roleplayed; also, they are chosen for mechanical reasons, rather than backstory.
In some quarters, making sure your barbarian has at least 10 Cha (after racial adjustments?) and taking non-combat-related feats would be considered crippling a character, and in some games perhaps that would be a valid assessment. But the extremes of crippledness people (including myself) are talking about in some arguments are hyperbole.
By giving more feats than is norm in pathfinder (experimental at this stage), I allow players a dalliance in non combat stuff. Like the new party monk who has an insane sense motive.
I am a little confused... Did someone claim the only way to role play was to make a crippled character? That seems to be the target of certain arguments?I believe the OP expressed frustration because taking feats such as Skill Focus: Profession (merchant), which he thought would be potentially helpful to add to a backstory, and thus support RP considerations, would make him less able to contribute in a group including those whose builds are more optimized. I'm pretty sure he went so far as to say that a feat or two like that ought to be required, and that those who choose only feats which contribute to their combat effectiveness do not meet his criteria for "roleplaying," because their backstories are (assumed to be) based on their builds, rather than vice-versa.
He also expressed disapproval of people dumping stats in the interest of optimization, particularly Charisma, because low stats are, in his experience, not frequently roleplayed; also, they are chosen for mechanical reasons, rather than backstory.
In some quarters, making sure your barbarian has at least 10 Cha (after racial adjustments?) and taking non-combat-related feats would be considered crippling a character, and in some games perhaps that would be a valid assessment. But the extremes of crippledness people (including myself) are talking about in some arguments are hyperbole.
Wait, taking Skill Focus in a profession skill is useless and only serves to demonstrate a background? Someone's doing it wrong.
I love profession skills, as they're one of the only things in the game that's completely left up to interpretation. Generally, if the player can give me a good reason why their profession skill applies to the given situation, I let them use it. Heck, for profession (merchant) I'd even let them roll to see if they get discounts when buying things.
Even if the GM is a strict RAW person who hates interpretation, a profession skill still allows a player to roll for...
Right with you Adam. The latest profession that proved the most useful? Profession: Bandit. Seriously, think of all an experienced bandit could know, and then imagine how helpful that could be to an adventurer. I was using it for investigation type checks, to predict what enemies would do "if I was a bandit", where loot would be.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
By giving more feats than is norm in pathfinder (experimental at this stage), I allow players a dalliance in non combat stuff. Like the new party monk who has an insane sense motive.
We did this in 2E with Proficiencies.
Sometimes it's VERY hard to take 'useless but fun' stuff when you only get a scant few resources to play with.
Paladins with there 2+ INT? One... maybe Two feats to start with??
Hard to go for that 'perform' skill when you REALLY need the diplomacy and Religion skills.....
Wait, taking Skill Focus in a profession skill is useless and only serves to demonstrate a background? Someone's doing it wrong.
Not what I was claiming, or, I think, what the OP I was paraphrasing was claiming. Perhaps that is how it has felt to him in his game, though. If you GM keeps throwing combat after combat, and there's no chance to use your interesting non-combat feats, and the other character who is playing a lizardfolk barbarian falchion-wielder does all the damage, then you start to feel useless.
I don't think the solution is to try to kill "powergaming" though. The solution is to try to get your group to make space for your playstyle, too.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Loyalist, I feel cool now that you've liked me.
Phantom, I'd forgotten about 2E! I think that's the way it should be handled: give a few extra feats that must be taken in general feats, or a few extra skill points that must be in a profession. You gain a character who has that well-rounded setup Baalbamoth (if I understand him right) is after, without sacrificing a build. That way no one need face the dilemma of taking something to make himself more well-rounded, or being labled a Min-Maxer.
|
|
Maybe my experiences are different yet it's not the powergamers who game me trouble in D&D. It's the hardcore roleplayer. For example I had a player who wanted to play a character that was cowardly. It went fine for a few levels except the player started running away from goblins and kobolds at 6th level. It was one thing if the character would at least do ranged attacks. He would barely do even that and expected to be given the full range of treasure from the rest of the party. Eventually he had to stop being so damn cowardly and actually act like a hero and adventurer.
Second the game assumes imo that your going to optimize your character and take the best feats, spells etc. If you take a monk the desingers assumed that your would build the best monk. Can you build a monk with levels of bard. Sure you can. Just don't expect to be effective a a player with an optmized monk. Maybe in Gurps Hero System or Savage Worlds not imo D&D as RAW. Once again have experienced my fair share of that too as a DM. Players makes a less optimized version of a character class then gets angry he can't do as much as the next guy who did optmize.
Third I don't mind building a non-optmized character class as long as the DM does not force the issue. I'm all for taking Profession as a skill yet if I'm not going to be able to benfit from taking that skill and have to take it because the DM has something against optimization then no I'm not going to take that skill. I either try to come to an accomadation or walk away from the group.
Trying to make the best character with the options tht will benefit the character the most has been around since the first rpg was created. It will never go away. Not unless you find a foolproof way to mindcontrol players.
Controlling Powergamers in Pathfinder
Rule #1: Only one Archetype in your build. You can also only multiclass into at most two base classes (not counting prestige classes).
Rule #2: No Leadership, no Style feats, and no races from the ARG with more than 13 race points.
Rule #3: Look over the Paizo forums. If what you're trying to do is hotly debated as something that might or might not be rules-legal, DON'T DO IT.
Rule #4: For the sake of streamlining combat, no necromancer-based characters, and only one combat pet (AKA only one companion that fights with you) in any given fight. You may also want a limit to the number of summoned creatures at once.
Rule #5: No stat lower than 8 (AFTER applying racial bonuses). This is one of the best ways to curb min-maxing. With a 20-point buy, it'll even out very well.
Finally, Rule #6: If the DM thinks you're going nuts, he/she has the right to help you redesign your character (keeping the same concept, but curbing the crazy abilities a bit.)
THIS. Plus also Rule #7: No Ability Score Boosting magical items at all (though temporary spells for boosting Ability Scores are probably OK). No purchasing magical belts that grant +6 to Strength while worn, for example.
Oss- The most Out of Character thing a soldier could do is waste precious training time on something that will not help him survive.As a soldier, I find this statement preposterous.
Presumably that implies you're currently out of character. Obviously a RL munchkin.