|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
The one thing Stormwind fails to take into account, is that optimizing necessarily adjusts your ability scores in certain ways. Playing STR-based melee? Well, you are likely pretty dumb and socially awkward. Not that you'll actually play him that way, but that's where your stats are. INT-based caster? Then you're likely weak as a kitten and some combination of foolish and socially unappealing.
Often these things are ignored. Your character will be as erudite, sensible, and well-spoken as you want him to be, in spite of your stats.
Other times they'll be embraced. Big Stupid Fighter and Crazy/Arrogant Wizards are old, old tropes. But, even then, I wouldn't exactly call this excellent roleplaying.
Stormwind fails to acknowledge that optimizing, at best, pigeonholes you in a lot of ways. Yes, you can roleplay that out well. But, not nearly so well as if character were your primary concern.
(No, your original character concept did not have a 7 Wisdom. That was a mechanical choice and you know it!)
Um, here you seem to mistake optimizing for minmaxing. And the two are quite quite different.
While optimization does make you very effective at what your class is supposed to do (i find it sensible), minmaxing makes you very ineffective in everything else.
Whenever I optimize, I still do not make any stat below 10. And since 10s and 11s are what most humans possess in every stat, that doesn't mean that a character with 20 str and 10 int and wis is a dumb dimwit. He's average.
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I love the assuption that being big and stong makes you dumb. Lets for example say look at a retired football player named Marcellus Wiley. He was a Defensive end who played in the NFL for ten years and made a Pro Bowl. He played on the defensive line, Im pretty sure he didnt have a 10 str score. Dude graduated from Columbia... thats an Ivy League school, they dont accept 10 ints either. Just saying fighters dont have to be dumb... thats a trope, and a tired one at that
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I love the assuption that being big and stong makes you dumb. Lets for example say look at a retired football player named Marcellus Wiley. He was a Defensive end who played in the NFL for ten years and made a Pro Bowl. He played on the defensive line, Im pretty sure he didnt have a 10 str score. Dude graduated from Columbia... thats an Ivy League school, they dont accept 10 ints either. Just saying fighters dont have to be dumb... thats a trope, and a tired one at that
Ivy League schools definitely accept 10 ints. Its all about the money money money...
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I love the assuption that being big and stong makes you dumb. Lets for example say look at a retired football player named Marcellus Wiley. He was a Defensive end who played in the NFL for ten years and made a Pro Bowl. He played on the defensive line, Im pretty sure he didnt have a 10 str score. Dude graduated from Columbia... thats an Ivy League school, they dont accept 10 ints either. Just saying fighters dont have to be dumb... thats a trope, and a tired one at thatIvy League schools definitely accept 10 ints. Its all about the money money money...
Well since we are getting technical, He was his school's Valedictorian and a member of the National Honor Society. Those must also be 10 int feats... Oh and he was Born in Compton. back to my point about being big and strong not equaling dumb
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I don't understand how what you stated means developing system mastery is not a good thing.
Developing system mastery is a neutral thing in my mind. On the pro side, it makes it easier for you bring the character concept you have in mind to life. On the con side (IMO), many people that are into system mastery tend to be optimizers.
If that's not what you mean then I don't understand how what you stated means people start hobbies and want to suck at them.
You can be completely clueless at how to create a character, barely understand the rules, have to have everything written down on your sheet because you don't understand how to figure them out yourself, and still be the best player at the table. How? Because being the best player at the table means that you're bringing your character to life in the game, contributing to the collaborative story.
I agree with you that if you equate "being good at Pathfinder" to "creating mechanically powerful characters" then such a player is "not good at Pathfinder," but I don't equate those two things.
Tormsskull, I need to game with you more. You get it. It all boils down, to me, to a single phrase you've repeated, that succinctly collects the entire point (to me) of a role-playing game...
collaborative story.
Well thanks for the ego boost :) I often times get the feeling that people are playing the game wrong. And of course, when I say wrong, I mean, not the way I play it. There is so much beyond the game mechanics and character "build" in the way I play it. But, each person plays the game the way they learned it. There isn't any right or wrong way to play the game.
Optimizing is much the same way.
"I want a TWFing Elf Barbarian".
Okay.
"Half of his Feats are going to be Skill Focus, to represent his life in the wilderness."
Notice how you've changed the original situation. The original situation was "I want a TWFing elf barbarian." You've decided to add in the "Half his feats" part. In my experience, when someone needs help creating their character mechanically, they don't come in from both angles like this. Half crunchy and half fluffy.
In other words, few players are going to give you their concept, and then also say they want skill focus feats.
Think of a brand new player. Think of how you're explaining the game to them. You can do anything you want. You create a character, and bring it to life in the fantasy world. You get to decide if your character is tall, short, heavy, light, nice, mean, etc.
Then you ask the new player "What kind of character would you like to play?" Then think about it, and then tell you. You should try to get the rules to fit their character concept as best as possible. If they pick something that is truly terrible (such as a wizard with a 9 int), then you're free to say "In this game, wizards with a 9 int can't cast any spells, so they really aren't wizards. If you want a spellcaster that isn't very smart, how about a sorcerer? He gets his powers from something other than reading books, etc."
But the most important thing is to make the other person's concept work, not to change it to something more mechanically powerful.
Then you ask the new player "What kind of character would you like to play?" Then think about it, and then tell you. You should try to get the rules to fit their character concept as best as possible. If they pick something that is truly terrible (such as a wizard with a 9 int), then you're free to say "In this game, wizards with a 9 int can't cast any spells, so they really aren't wizards. If you want a spellcaster that isn't very smart, how about a sorcerer? He gets his powers from something other than reading books, etc."
But the most important thing is to make the other person's concept work, not to change it to something more mechanically powerful.
Erm...that's pretty much the same thing.
I'm working under the opinion that an adventurer that can't do his job is no true adventurer. This is the fundamental basis I work from when making a character.
As you say, 9 Int Wizard is not that.
IMO, neither is 12-14 Str 2H Fighter (in a normal game, before "But I played this 10 PB low fantasy game once..." comes out), the guy who sinks half his Feats into Skill Focus when he needs like 6 Feats to even function with his concept (the TWFing guy), or Wizard who...well it's pretty hard to f*$@ up a Wizard besides the aforementioned stat deficiencies, so insert anything you can think of here.
Having a character who can't fight (or contribute somehow in combat, after all the buffers are often the greatest contributors, even if they never lift a weapon) in a game about save-the-world-heroes is like bringing a 5 Cha character into a social intrigue game. It's not optimal, and it doesn't make sense for the game style.
That bar can be moved sure ("How effective is effective?") but honestly I think if a character can't make it through the average AP without being Raised more than once, he needs to be kicked up a notch mechanically.
I don't believe that doing so sacrifices concept at all, unless your concept is "Burden". It just makes sense logically to optimize your character to at least hit a certain par.
Note Int 19 vs Int 20. So yes, the higher point buy does increase the Witches Int with 20 pts.
No, since as you pointed out, you can't buy more than a 18. And I have seen Fighters with three dumped stats, Paladins with two, wizards with two, etc.
In fact with your builds YOU dump two stats.
The 19 Int only happened due to your rule that stats weren't allowed to start below 10 (before racial mods). Note that in the 25 point buy with that rule, my witch had 20 Int. Under the standard rules for point buy, my witch had 20 Int at a point buy of 15, 20, and 25. I had to look at 10 point buy to reach a point where I would drop his Int---to the low, low value of 19. Higher point buys just decreased the amount I had to dump stats that don't contribute anything to the character.
Which really is kind of the point. It's about what you can do, not about what your raw numbers look like. The 20 Int was important for my witch because it improves pretty much everything he can do: more skill points, better knowledge, linguistics, spellcraft, bluff, and diplomacy, more spells, higher DCs for spells, and higher DCs for hexes. The 8 Str basically just lowers carrying capacity; at 1/2 BAB, hitting with melee weapons was already really unlikely. (It also fits my witch's tiefling heritage---shadow demon---really well, but to be honest, that's a happy coincidence of mechanical choices aligning with background.) The 8 Cha means -1 instead of +0 on a few skill checks (e.g. handle animal) that will likely never be attempted.
You look at this character and just see a collection of numbers (to be fair, you haven't seen the full character sheet and I haven't mentioned anything about the background for the character). I see a character who can do these things really well, can do these other things okay, and can do these other things not at all. (I also see the roleplay sides of the character, but as mentioned in my previous parenthetical, that's not really fair to compare.) I'm not even hurt in roleplaying by the two dump stats (because a -1 as opposed to a +0 is such a big difference...). As I mentioned, the 8 Str fits the character's background. The 8 Cha isn't a hurdle, because I can roleplay the witch as good at lying and diplomacizing, but bad at being scary. That's completely consistent with the collection of numbers that is all you can see.
Erm...that's pretty much the same thing.
I disagree. There's a world of difference between telling a player that has selected a 9 Int wizard that he should change classes and telling a player that selected a TWF elf barbarian that he should change classes.
IMO, neither is 12-14 Str 2H Fighter...
Again, I have to disagree. But I don't play Point-Buy. Point-Buy does lead towards system mastery and optimizing.
That bar can be moved sure ("How effective is effective?") but honestly I think if a character can't make it through the average AP without being Raised more than once, he needs to be kicked up a notch mechanically.
You're probably right. I don't play APs. If one character is incredibly sub-optimal in play as compared to his fellow PCs, then it is up to the GM to grant him boosts in some way or another. Extra magic gear, special powers, etc.
I don't believe that doing so sacrifices concept at all, unless your concept is "Burden". It just makes sense logically to optimize your character to at least hit a certain par.
Ok, but if I had to wager, I would imagine that when you create a character you start with a mechanical concept. Such as "I want to be a 2h melee wielder with Power Attack." Or "I want to be a control wizard."
That's totally fine, but not what I am talking about. I'm talking abut a character concept, not a mechanical one. If the character concept is a TWF elf barbarian, then choosing a more beneficial mechanical option (such as changing race, changing to 2h weapon, etc) destroys the character concept. So yes, you are sacrificing the concept in such a case.
Effective =/= Optimized.
Your 14 STR Fighter might be effective. That is not the same as optimized. If you are making a sacrifice for character, then you are placing an emphasis on roleplaying over mechanics.
I'm not arguing one or the other. By and large, I agree with Stormwind. I'm only saying there is an inadequacy in the Stormwind argument.
I agree that Stormwind is not always the case. I don't find that to be an inadequacy.
Um, here you seem to mistake optimizing for minmaxing. And the two are quite quite different.
While optimization does make you very effective at what your class is supposed to do (i find it sensible), minmaxing makes you very ineffective in everything else.
Whenever I optimize, I still do not make any stat below 10. And since 10s and 11s are what most humans possess in every stat, that doesn't mean that a character with 20 str and 10 int and wis is a dumb dimwit. He's average.
This must just be a matter of degrees. But, just as Effective =/= Optimized, I would say Optimized =/= MinMaxed.
All of which is irrelevant to any discussion of Stormwind's Fallacy, because his argument is that none of those varying stages of mechanical "mastery" are related to roleplaying.
What I am saying, is that as you move from Effective to Optimized to full-on Munchkin, character sheets become more and more uniform. Bring a Big Stupid Fighter to the table, and I bet he'll look an awful lot like the last Big Stupid Fighter and a whole lot like the next one.
The major inadequacy is that he focuses exclusively on the player, and gives no attention to the character. The closer you get to complete uniformity of character, the more Stormwind's argument breaks down.
And I am saying that as greater optimization breeds greater uniformity, the build becomes increasingly relevant.
Stormwind argues that a player can be a great optimizer and a great roleplayer. I have no argument with that statement.
A character can be highly optimized and well roleplayed. But, once you have dozens, hundreds of identical characters, either being roleplayed largely the same way, OR roleplayed in sharp contradiction to their stats/abilities, the argument starts to breakdown.
It's more a systemic thing...
I've actually seen very much the opposite.
The players in my games of characters who are mechanically poor and have difficulty keeping up with the rest of the party (barring one guy whose problem was not his build, he had a great build, but his dice refusing to cooperate) have actually been my poorest roleplayers. One's character has been immensely flat and undeveloped since the first chapter of the game, and despite his claims to the opposite the rest of us have seen almost zilch as far as character development in his play. The only real difference between him now and him at the beginning of the game is higher levels, a class rebuild (went from Barbarian/Cavalier to straight Cavalier), and a reincarnate.
Conversely, my players who were mechanically adept, or who took the advice of mechanically-adept groupmates when putting their characters together (which I, like many others here, regularly offer my players the advice of "what do you want your character to do?" "Okay here's an effective way to do that, here's another if you don't like that one, etc. etc. etc.") also tend to be the better storytellers and more immersive RPers. This includes the guy with the "great build, poor dice luck" mentioned above - I'd go so far as to say he is one of the two best RPers in my group.
This isn't just my current group/current campaign, either. This has been true of my entire gaming career. The one guy in my old group whose characters were always the party lead weight mechanically was also the poorest RPer, no matter which character he played - he had two or three one-note, flat-personalities character ideas that he rotated between, all of which were to some degree a glorified self-insert, and on top of it were constantly struggling to keep up with the rest of the party mechanically. (Amazingly, the one time we got him to break out of that rut, he made not only the most mechanically-effective character he ever played, but also the most interestingly and involvingly roleplayed. ... then he got bored with it and switched characters to another one of his defaults, and became once more unremarkable and boring and inept.) Meanwhile the rest of the group could at least put together decently-effective characters, and could roleplay circles around the first guy blindfolded.
So it's always seemed extremely odd to me to see so many claims that the more mechanically-effective characters are always the ones whose decisions are driven by number-crunching over roleplay, and that they'll always have their attention divided so as to render their immersion and interaction subpar, as my experience has always been the exact opposite.
You're not disproving his point, though, and the whole Ivy League "who gets in and who doesnt" is all rather irrelevant noise. High intellect does not necessarily demand low physical capability, nor vice-versa.
Heck, my Sorcerer in Council of Thieves is running on 14 STR and 16 CON (14 with a +2 racial CON), with a respectable DEX and WIS and of course high CHA; if anything her dump stat is her 10 INT.
I'm just saying his example of a strong guy with an ivy league diploma doesn't actually defacto prove intelligence because Ivy League isn't about intelligence. It's about drive, connections or money or a combination of the three. I totally agree with him that being big and strong doesnt have to make you dumb. As much as the fallacy of 'If you're so smart then why aren't you rich' is. The assumption that an ivy league education is connected with intelligence is as much a fallacy as the idea that a large strong man being unintelligent is a fallacy.
The logical leap about ivy league=smart is just as big a logical leap as the one you're denouncing about big strong people=dumb.
That only happens more frequently in the game because of dump statting and optimizing which is in fact what the thread is about.
I love the assuption that being big and stong makes you dumb. Lets for example say look at a retired football player named Marcellus Wiley. He was a Defensive end who played in the NFL for ten years and made a Pro Bowl. He played on the defensive line, Im pretty sure he didnt have a 10 str score. Dude graduated from Columbia... thats an Ivy League school, they dont accept 10 ints either. Just saying fighters dont have to be dumb... thats a trope, and a tired one at that
So, you're saying real life doesn't work on a 20 point buy system?
The Big Stupid Fighter trope is drawn from min-maxing a point buy for a Strength-based melee character. It exists as a result of game balance rather than real-life example of a person's strength to intelligence ratio...
What percentage of those who optimize determinedly are also above average role-players, in your experience? Have you noticed an inverse ratio related to optimization and quality of role-play?
I would say that the best RPers I know range from not concerned about optimization at all to interested in optimizing somewhat.
I also know players who are terrible optimiziers and terrible roleplayers. They're just there to throw some dice, but generally play the same personality for each of their characters (some reflection of them self.)
I've known a couple players from online campaigns that would come up with powerful characters and were also great roleplayers.
I think a lot of this comes down to how you play the game, what rules you use, if you play APs versus homebrew, and if you've played table-top games for a long time or if you're newer to the hobby.
I've seen some posters mention that a character that is not effective (which they seem to mean optimized) is hurting the party. Which makes sense if you're playing an AP where each encounter is designed at a certain level and the challenge is seeing if the combinations of classes that make up the party can overcome those encounters.
When you play homebrewed campaigns, its different. Bring any characters you'd like to the table, and we'll make a game that is fun. All four players want to be wizards? Great, we'll do a campaign that centers around the wizard's tower, the politics of magic, researching new spells, uncovering lost magic items, etc.
All four players want to be halfling barbarians? Sounds good. How about a campaign centered around a halfling community that is continually coming under attack from goblinoids.
I've never in years of table top gaming had a player say that a PC was killed or a TPK occurred because one of the players didn't create a powerful enough character.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I've never in years of table top gaming had a player say that a PC was killed or a TPK occurred because one of the players didn't create a powerful enough character.
As a DM, I've pulled punches to avoid killing a PC or causing a TPK because some of my players didn't create powerful enough characters. This is in homebrew compaigns, by the way. Sometimes you assume that all your players built their characters to be able to do something against flying opponents and it turns out you were wrong.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I've never in years of table top gaming had a player say that a PC was killed or a TPK occurred because one of the players didn't create a powerful enough character.
I haven't either, but I've seen groups of players being upset at (to the point of ridiculing) a particular player because his player wasn't as optimized as theirs (and in their mind was more of a liability than help).
I've also seen a players having a hard time surviving because the baddies used by the DM (necessary to challenge his better-optimized fellow PCs) were well beyond his league.
While it basically boils down to "play with a group with which you are compatible", hyper-optimization (or lack thereof) can be an issue.
|
|
I've never in years of table top gaming had a player say that a PC was killed or a TPK occurred because one of the players didn't create a powerful enough character.As a DM, I've pulled punches to avoid killing a PC or causing a TPK because some of my players didn't create powerful enough characters. This is in homebrew compaigns, by the way. Sometimes you assume that all your players built their characters to be able to do something against flying opponents and it turns out you were wrong.
Yeah, just this session. A harpy with a longbow nearly did a TPK because she was played smartly. The fight ended when she ran out of arrows and had to go down into melee.
Final tally:Wizard had to use 2 action points not to die (a crit)
Druid was rendered unconscious when, while the harpy was hovering directly above him, attacked her with summoned creatures and she dropped on him from 30 feet.
Rogue had 1 hp left
Cavalier was the least damaged.
Jumping into an already long-running discussion:
In my time as GM I've only seen two problem players in either direction:
One guy who would make characters that were as powerful as possible to the point that they outshined everyone else. He would never reign it in and didnt allow other people to contribute in a lot of cases. Of course, he also had a host of personality problems and was arrogant self-absorbed in every area of his life that I saw, which is ultimately why we don't talk anymore.
Another player focuses heavily on roleplaying and makes incredibly inept characters. It's gotten to the point that some of the other GMs in the club think he does it deliberately as an attention, because he's also a fanatic roleplayer. Sometimes he tries to dominate roleplaying in the same way the previous guy would try to dominate combat, thought in the games of mine he's played in, people have more of an issue with his really poor decision making and lack of understanding the rules governing his character (I can't tell you how many times I've had to tell him his spell didn't work that way). Away from the table, he's kind of a fool and a bit pushy.
Other people who focus on optimization that I've had do so but still make sure other players get a chance to contribute, while other people that care more about roleplaying than crunch try to play simple classes with decent enough builds that can function, and listen to my recommendations (i.e. if you want to be a gish at 3rd level just play a magus)
I think problem players of any kind are probably problem people in general.
And I am saying that as greater optimization breeds greater uniformity, the build becomes increasingly relevant.To an extent, this is a problem with the system. It'd be nice if you could make a crossbow-wielder and not be significantly worse than the bow-wielder. ..Do you sit in on the games of all the people who talk about how they mechanically built their characters?
See, that's where Optimization goes wrong. I don't give a rodents rear end if my repeating CB wielding Inquisitor could be out DPRed by a similar PC with a Comp LB. He still is dangerous, gets good damage and is a significant contributor to the party. Since PF is not a competition, and there's no other dedicated archer to outshine me, then since I wanted to play a CB wielder, I am happy.
And then you go onto state Optimized PC's are so very different when you also said EVERYONE MUST use a Comp LB. (And of course then the feats as suggested in dozens of builds here, I am sure Manyshot, etc). Yes, with every single Optimizer archer having identical weapons, stats and feats- they do start to look a lot alike.
I've never in years of table top gaming had a player say that a PC was killed or a TPK occurred because one of the players didn't create a powerful enough character.I haven't either, but I've seen groups of players being upset at (to the point of ridiculing) a particular player because his player wasn't as optimized as theirs (and in their mind was more of a liability than help).
I've also seen a players having a hard time surviving because the baddies used by the DM (necessary to challenge his better-optimized fellow PCs) were well beyond his league.
While it basically boils down to "play with a group with which you are compatible", hyper-optimization (or lack thereof) can be an issue.
Right. We have this a little in one of our games. We have one player who isn;' as into gaming as the rest and really wanted to do a rogue. Well, he's not Min/max or optimized (and the two usually go hand in hand, along with Powergaming) but also he hasn't even bothered to update his PC with his newest feats & talents. And, altho I disagree with those that say "teh rouge is teh suxxor" the class is not idiot proof by any means, and you need to be careful with your build. He hasn't died YET, but....
I HAVE seen overall an inverse ratio between "Optimized For Combat with Min-Max " vs Roleplaying, but it's not universal by any means. It just trends that way.
But yes, it's important to play with a group where you are compatible. A heavy combat Optimized pC can be bad in a group of serious RPers, but the opposite is true also.
Yeah, just this session. A harpy with a longbow nearly did a TPK because she was played smartly. The fight ended when she ran out of arrows and had to go down into melee.
So, for everyone that replied so far stating that as a GM they've head to tweak encounters on the fly in order to avoid a TPK, do you consider that a bad thing?
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Why can't people learn to love both optimization and role play?!
I know it's truth that we generally favor one side or the other. But WHY belittle the other side?! I love both... I may favor role play but optimization is fun as well. Embrace your strengths whichever side you stand on and accept your weakness. In fact rely on the person sitting next to you at the table to be strong where you are weak and become each others greatest asset.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Find me 5 examples from here at Paizo.com, that fit within the stormwind fallacy as strictly stated.
I am certain you will find comment (even from me), that state that Optimization can impede on roleplay, and vis versa.
I will be very surprised if you can find that many, who say that they are always incompatible.
If you satisfy me, I'll go so far as to buy you a pathfinder players companion pdf of your choice for christmas.
Edit: to qualify, they must originate from before this post was made, to avoid trolling ;)
Hmm. Dig through thousands of posts of GRAR to find five specific examples, all for a PDF I may already have and might not even use? Just to prove you wrong?
VILE DEVIL, AWAY WITH YOUR TEMPTATIONS! :)
|
|
Yeah, just this session. A harpy with a longbow nearly did a TPK because she was played smartly. The fight ended when she ran out of arrows and had to go down into melee.So, for everyone that replied so far stating that as a GM they've head to tweak encounters on the fly in order to avoid a TPK, do you consider that a bad thing?
No. I do that when i overestimate the party and land them deep. Not when I do level appropriate encounters. The party was APL 4. The harpy was CR 6. It was a challenging encounter. And they had above average wealth for their level.
It really came down to luck. I roll well when i GM.
Honestly, as both a GM and a player, I have found that those with lacking system knowledge tend to be the worst RPers also, and I have been in a lot of parties (as military you have to move around a lot and hope into/make new parties a lot). Alot of times the people who have poor grasp and understanding of the system would be the guys going "Uh.... imma us diplomacy (insert noice of guy grumbling trying to figure out everything he adds) and I get a.... 24. So yeah! Imma diplomacy him!" instead of the "(insert RP talk here) (OOC) with a role of 24".
Why do I believe this is the case? Because RP is not a mechanic. It is not hard and written down. And a new player, or a player not adept at the system, is still to busy trying to get everything figured out/flip hrough the book/ does not know what things do to have everything as second nature and focus his whole attention on RP.
One other thing I noticed. The "RP" camp tends to focus more on the numbers on the Character sheet and tend to be more bound to what their character sheet says than most other people...
I have seen time and again from "RPers" the tendency to go "Well your a Paladin so you should be striding in shining armor and be lawful stupid and blah blah blah" when the person only has a 2 level dip in Paladin. Where-as a person who builds strong but sees his sheet as just a bunch of numbers and NOT HIS ENTIRE CHARACTER will play his character as a stealthy SWAT member for his church. Heck a lot of the times the "optimizer" is more free to RP his character BECAUSE they tend to see their character as a character and their character sheet as just a bunch of numbers.
EDIT:
For instance, let say some decided to go Oracle of Lore 1/Archivist Bard 2/Paladin 2/Shadowdancer X. The "RP" guy would get all butt hurt about you simply adding CHA to everything and being a munchkin, focusing on NOTHING but the character sheet. I would say though, that i am building a heavy SWAT like guy for the church who is intuitively knowledge-able in his enemies. His strong conviction along with a blessing from his diety is what helps him survive an conquer his enemies.
Honestly, as both a GM and a player, I have found that those with lacking system knowledge tend to be the worst RPers also, and I have been in a lot of parties (as military you have to move around a lot and hope into/make new parties a lot). Alot of times the people who have poor grasp and understanding of the system would be the guys going "Uh.... imma us diplomacy (insert noice of guy grumbling trying to figure out everything he adds) and I get a.... 24. So yeah! Imma diplomacy him!" instead of the "(insert RP talk here) (OOC) with a role of 24".
Why do I believe this is the case? Because RP is not a mechanic. It is not hard and written down. And a new player, or a player not adept at the system, is still to busy trying to get everything figured out/flip hrough the book/ does not know what things do to have everything as second nature and focus his whole attention on RP.
I think both of those things combined could also just betray a lack of investment/interest in the game, but it's a good point.
I think it's also necessary to draw a distinction between "bad RP" and "not interested in RP". I've had people who largely ignored it and sat in the background during RP scenes and people who tried to push it too hard and looked like bumbling fools. One I think is not interested, the other I think is bad at it.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
For instance, let say some decided to go Oracle of Lore 1/Archivist Bard 2/Paladin 2/Shadowdancer X. The "RP" guy would get all butt hurt about you simply adding CHA to everything and being a munchkin, focusing on NOTHING but the character sheet. I would say though, that i am building a heavy SWAT like guy for the church who is intuitively knowledge-able in his enemies. His strong conviction along with a blessing from his diety is what helps him survive an conquer his enemies.
What is the need for insults? I don't understand.
The hard-core RPers I know have been RPing for a long time, since Basic D&D or AD&D at least. Back then, multiclassing was a lot different. You couldn't be 4 classes, for example. And each class was treated more as a way of life. If you wanted to be a Fighter/Magic-user, for example, you had to pick that at level 1. You couldn't simply "dip" into another class in order to get the mechanics you want.
I believe you're probably running up against this when you mention RPers. They're probably used to the multiclassing as a way of life, and see a player that takes classes on a whim as being a poor roleplayer. RPers tend to read the class description and try to make a character that embodies at least some of those elements.
For example, if I take the paladin class, I'm not going to RP him as not a paladin. In my mind, a paladin is a calling that few characters are able to live up to. I wouldn't choose to "dip" into another class without a good RP reason to do so. Definitely not "I want a mechanical advantage that the paladin class grants, but I'm not really a paladin."
I have to say I've seen the gauntlet -- those bad at optimization but good at role playing, those good at optimization and good at role playing, those bad at both and those that are just 'so so' at both.
Impossible. In PF/D&D someone who is min/maxed cannot be optimized.
How not? Min/Max means minimizing your weaknesses and maximizing your strengths. Optimizing means to make your character the best possible at a specific role. A 3.5 druid that put all his lowest stats in Strength, Dexterity, and Constitution and then simply lived in wildshape form would be both min/maxing and optimizing.
For instance, let say some decided to go Oracle of Lore 1/Archivist Bard 2/Paladin 2/Shadowdancer X. The "RP" guy would get all butt hurt about you simply adding CHA to everything and being a munchkin, focusing on NOTHING but the character sheet. I would say though, that i am building a heavy SWAT like guy for the church who is intuitively knowledge-able in his enemies. His strong conviction along with a blessing from his diety is what helps him survive an conquer his enemies.What is the need for insults? I don't understand.
The hard-core RPers I know have been RPing for a long time, since Basic D&D or AD&D at least. Back then, multiclassing was a lot different. You couldn't be 4 classes, for example. And each class was treated more as a way of life. If you wanted to be a Fighter/Magic-user, for example, you had to pick that at level 1. You couldn't simply "dip" into another class in order to get the mechanics you want.
I believe you're probably running up against this when you mention RPers. They're probably used to the multiclassing as a way of life, and see a player that takes classes on a whim as being a poor roleplayer. RPers tend to read the class description and try to make a character that embodies at least some of those elements.
For example, if I take the paladin class, I'm not going to RP him as not a paladin. In my mind, a paladin is a calling that few characters are able to live up to. I wouldn't choose to "dip" into another class without a good RP reason to do so. Definitely not "I want a mechanical advantage that the paladin class grants, but I'm not really a paladin."
But the thing, sometimes you need to dip FOR the mechanics because they guy you are envisioning just CAN'T be done well with a single class. It is not that uncommon at for this this to be the case.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I'm definitely a Lazy Genius optimizer... I may know *how* to do it. I just don't *want* to do it. It seems to work well for me because I'm happy to leave the other folks at my table who love focusing on the crunchy aspects to that side of the game. We all have different goals when playing and as long as I'm ok with them having their kinda good time and they're ok with me having my kinda good time, it works out well. Not every person is ok with different playstyles but thankfully there's plenty of room in the hobby as a whole that everyone can be free to game while still making the choices that feel right to them.
I'm happy to step away from a table that arbitrarily moderates my kind of playstyle. Not being comfortable allowing my kind of gamer into the hobby would be about as inappropriate as saying other types of perfectly valid life choices aren't appropriate discussion for the hobby and I'm glad that kind of prejudice is discouraged. I'm glad we're able to talk about these kinds of things freely here. The sense of community is... refreshing.
hard-core RPers I know have been RPing for a long time, since Basic D&D or AD&D at least. Back then, multiclassing was a lot different. You couldn't be 4 classes, for example. And each class was treated more as a way of life. If you wanted to be a Fighter/Magic-user, for example, you had to pick that at level 1. You couldn't simply "dip" into another class in order to get the mechanics you want.
I believe you're probably running up against this when you mention RPers. They're probably used to the multiclassing as a way of life, and see a player that takes classes on a whim as being a poor roleplayer. RPers tend to read the class description and try to make a character that embodies at least some of those elements.
If these people have a view of multiclassing that is accurate for older editions of D&D but inaccurate for Pathfinder/3.5, then shouldn't that suggest that their judgements are wrong? They are condemning dips and multiclassing based upon a false premise of how the system works. It might be that there is another reason why dipping is bad for roleplaying (I would disagree). But if so, it isn't the reason they think.