Optimization may or may not be bad , depends on the table/game , one player being a demi god while others pretty much watch can be an issue , with that said i agree it has nothing to do with the RP.
For those that you would call a Fluffkin, sometimes the best solution is a system that supports that style of play, such as FATE.
I agree that a character's backstory and personality should match their sheet. Optimizing should mean making choices that help the roleplaying match the rollplaying not making choices that turn you into a demigod (unless that's what you're playing).
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
The only problem with optimization is that not everyone can do it as well as others can, as well as the comparable options available between what players want their characters to be. Although this stems into Caster/Martial disparity, this also comes into Martial/Martial and Caster/Caster disparity too, such as having Barbarians versus Fighters and Rogues, and Wizards versus Magi (Maguses).
Another problem with optimization is that a lot of these great options that a lot of people select for optimization come pre-flavored, and players are expected to play it off. For example, players who select Slayers are apparently expected to be highly-trained assassins, though one could easily flavor it as someone who's a more naturally-skilled unfair combatant. This stems to more than just class decisions, but feat and ability decisions too, such as Dervish Dance, Thunder and Fang, Fey Foundling, etc.
The way I see it, the barriers need to come off if you want Optimization to not be viewed as a bad thing. If Players were equally skilled in optimization (which means that players as a group should help each of their character's individually with suggestions and tips), their characters had equal value (though had different aspirations and applications), and weren't limited by pre-determined flavor (I could easily play a Fey Foundling feat as a feat that states that I was baptized and imparted some of the divine power into my restorative powers), the concept of Optimization being Munchkinism and badwrongfun would no longer exist.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Awful lot of paladins get found by fairies.
That could actually be cool for a setting. Recruiting your holy warriors from those that have lived in a land where teh gravest wounds are just a bit of pain- no true threat. Warrior that would glading charge onto the blades of the enemies and then get back up to hack away with a naive child's cruelty.
But I will readily admit- some of the things I see repeatedly goes straight for cheese. Such as the rash of half orc raised catfolk that learned the art of growing 4" tusks, who all happened to either be barbarians or alchemists.
Actually, I don't think I have ever seen a suggested use for the adopted trait that didn't slap into this problem HARD. Half the time there is a long rules discussion about a trait, it is because adopted has been used to move it around to an unintended race/ability combo.
| 10 people marked this as a favorite. |
Awful lot of paladins get found by fairies.
That's what happens when specific fluff (found by fairies as a baby) gets attached to generic mechanics (magic healing is more effective on you). The Reactionary trait is another good example.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Awful lot of paladins get found by fairies.That's what happens when specific fluff (found by fairies as a baby) gets attached to generic mechanics (magic healing is more effective on you). The Reactionary trait is another good example.
^^^
This is why we're even having this conversation.
Other games don't tie fluff to mechanics so tightly. Two characters might have the same stats but completely different backstories, and not just because they bought enough books to find redundant traits. Plus, a lot of the time you don't have to work nearly as hard to optimize your character, or else if you do it involves spending effort on things other than a preplanned 1-20 build.
The way Pathfinder does it is practically designed to create resentment, towards people who've mastered the system enough to make effective characters and towards the same fluff that's repeated on each one. (See also: Warhammer 40k list-building.)
|
| 7 people marked this as a favorite. |
"Knock-knock!"
"Who's there?"
"Brick wall!"
"Brick wall who?"
"Have you heard the Good News about the Stormwind Fallacy?"
I'm so sick of this.
The Stormwind Fallacy is itself a fallacy - namely, a strawman: It's trying to counter an argument I don't think anyone's ever actually made, while completely failing to address the real arguments that are being mistaken for the strawman. The Stormwind Fallacy is like a holy scripture of this "Church of Gaming" that's popped up over the past decade or so that has its own codified language and mindset that forces you to either conform to it, regardless of how you thought or spoke before, or not be able to communicate coherently with "the faithful" at all and hence risk getting treated as a kind of second-class gamer.
A wonderful example of how Order causes discord, I suppose.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Optimisation is not the opposite of roleplaying. The Stormwind Fallacy's suggestion that there is a spectrum with Optimisers at one end and roleplaying at the other is obviously false.
Instead there are two parallel spectrums
Roleplay ---------------- No Roleplay
Optimisation ------------- No Optimisation
Saying that someone is a Fluffkin is as distasteful as calling someone a powerplayer, which thankfully is seen rarely now. No player is soley interested in fluff, as long as they are rolling hit points and chosing stats.
The sad thing if it is so difficult to push someone out of a window that no one would ever do it, that is probably a shame. I sometimes think Pathfinder has created so many rules we have reached the point where there is no discretion any more and rules lawyers trump the intention.
In my opinion, mechanics should reflect player choices. Player choices shouldnt be determined by the mechanics. That said, I do think some newer players come to the game expecting to be a superhero power at first level. Thats not a rules issue, its a character issues.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I keep failing spot checks on your click-bait no-substance threads! Seriously dude, you have less than 500 posts and more than 200 OP's.
@RDM42, Could you please elaborate. I am not sure which position that you are taking.
The sad thing if it is so difficult to push someone out of a window that no one would ever do it, that is probably a shame. I sometimes think Pathfinder has created so many rules we have reached the point where there is no discretion any more and rules lawyers trump the intention.
I would tend to agree. Though I agree with a good amount of what was said in Neal's post, I do find it sad that creativity in a roleplaying game would be looked down upon. If a player could come up with some creative way to defeat their enemy, why not let them have at it? Maybe have some sort of check to (grapple?) get a hold on the enemy and letting the enemy take an AoO on the character. Then a strength check to push him out the window. Again, I wasn't GMing in this game, but I just find that players remember a game more fondly if they get to use their creativity to take down the "bad guys."
Yeah, the amount of strict rules enforcement varies from group to group, and I appreciate that. You also need to make sure that a player isn't taking advantage of your allowance of their creativity. If there is a mutual agreement to allow some fun shenanigans to take place, though, roleplaying can be great fun for a roleplaying group! Turning combat into another opportunity to build character helps the combat feel more like a part of the same universe as the roleplaying.
| 8 people marked this as a favorite. |
Optimisation is bad when...
- It means one player enjoys the game to the exclusion of other players or the DM.
- It is done in a game where the DM isn't able to respond to it.
- It is done using perverse interpretations of the rules that the other players or DM don't subscribe to.
Roleplay is bad when...
- It means one player enjoys the game to the exclusion of other players or the DM.
- It is done in a game where the DM isn't able to respond to it.
- It is done using perverse interpretations of the rules that the other players or DM don't subscribe to.
Don't break these rules and you can do what you like as far as I care.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Optimisation is not the opposite of roleplaying. The Stormwind Fallacy's suggestion that there is a spectrum with Optimisers at one end and roleplaying at the other is obviously false.
Instead there are two parallel spectrums
Roleplay ---------------- No Roleplay
Optimisation ------------- No Optimisation
Saying that someone is a Fluffkin is as distasteful as calling someone a powerplayer, which thankfully is seen rarely now. No player is soley interested in fluff, as long as they are rolling hit points and chosing stats.
The sad thing if it is so difficult to push someone out of a window that no one would ever do it, that is probably a shame. I sometimes think Pathfinder has created so many rules we have reached the point where there is no discretion any more and rules lawyers trump the intention.
In my opinion, mechanics should reflect player choices. Player choices shouldnt be determined by the mechanics. That said, I do think some newer players come to the game expecting to be a superhero power at first level. Thats not a rules issue, its a character issues.
I think you need to actually read the Stormwind Fallacy. It doesn't do what you say it does, and it does exactly what you are suggesting it should do. Or at the very least, read the bolded corollary below.
I'm hereby proposing a new logical fallacy. It's not a new idea, but maybe with a catchy name (like the Oberoni Fallacy) it will catch on.The Stormwind Fallacy, aka the Roleplayer vs Rollplayer Fallacy Just because one optimizes his characters mechanically does not mean that they cannot also roleplay, and vice versa.
Corollary: Doing one in a game does not preclude, nor infringe upon, the ability to do the other in the same game.
Generalization 1: One is not automatically a worse roleplayer if he optimizes, and vice versa. Generalization 2: A non-optimized character is not automatically roleplayed better than an optimized one, and vice versa.
(I admit that there are some diehards on both sides -- the RP fanatics who refuse to optimize as if strong characters were the mark of the Devil and the min/max munchkins who couldn't RP their way out of a paper bag without setting it on fire -- though I see these as extreme examples. The vast majority of people are in between, and thus the generalizations hold. The key word is 'automatically')Proof: These two elements rely on different aspects of a player's gameplay. Optimization factors in to how well one understands the rules and handles synergies to produce a very effective end result. Roleplaying deals with how well a player can act in character and behave as if he was someone else. A person can act while understanding the rules, and can build something powerful while still handling an effective character. There is nothing in the game -- mechanical or otherwise -- restricting one if you participate in the other.
Claiming that an optimizer cannot roleplay (or is participating in a playstyle that isn't supportive of roleplaying) because he is an optimizer, or vice versa, is committing the Stormwind Fallacy.How does this impact "builds"? Simple.
In one extreme (say, Pun-Pun), they are thought experiments. Optimization tests that are not intended to see actual gameplay. Because they do not see gameplay, they do not commit the fallacy.
In the other extreme, you get the drama queens. They could care less about the rules, and are, essentially, playing free-form RP. Because the game is not necessary to this particular character, it doesn't fall into the fallacy.
By playing D&D, you opt in to an agreement of sorts -- the rules describe the world you live in, including yourself. To get the most out of those rules, in the same way you would get the most out of yourself, you must optimize in some respect (and don't look at me funny; you do it already, you just don't like to admit it. You don't need multiclassing or splatbooks to optimize). However, because it is a role-playing game, you also agree to play a role. This is dependent completely on you, and is independent of the rules.
And no, this isn't dependent on edition, or even what roleplaying game you're doing. If you are playing a roleplaying game with any form of rules or regulation, this fallacy can apply. The only difference is the nature of the optimization (based on the rules of that game; Tri-Stat optimizes differently than d20) or the flavor of the roleplay (based on the setting; Exalted feels different from Cthulu).Conclusion: D&D, like it or not, has elements of both optimization AND roleplay in it. Any game that involves rules has optimization, and any role-playing game has roleplay. These are inherent to the game.
They go hand-in-hand in this sort of game. Deal with it. And in the name of all that is good and holy, stop committing the Stormwind Fallacy in the meantime.
Edit: Formatting from the other site is messy on paizo's forum :(
Optimisation is not the opposite of roleplaying. The Stormwind Fallacy's suggestion that there is a spectrum with Optimisers at one end and roleplaying at the other is obviously false.
Instead there are two parallel spectrums
Roleplay ---------------- No Roleplay
Optimisation ------------- No Optimisation
Saying that someone is a Fluffkin is as distasteful as calling someone a powerplayer, which thankfully is seen rarely now. No player is soley interested in fluff, as long as they are rolling hit points and chosing stats.
The sad thing if it is so difficult to push someone out of a window that no one would ever do it, that is probably a shame. I sometimes think Pathfinder has created so many rules we have reached the point where there is no discretion any more and rules lawyers trump the intention.
In my opinion, mechanics should reflect player choices. Player choices shouldnt be determined by the mechanics. That said, I do think some newer players come to the game expecting to be a superhero power at first level. Thats not a rules issue, its a character issues.
I think you need to actually read the Stormwind Fallacy. It doesn't do what you say it does, and it does exactly what you are suggesting it should do. Or at the very least, read the bolded corollary below.
Dude, I think you have misunderstood. The Fallacy is that Roleplay is the Opposite of Rollplay. By using the word Fallacy one is showing that one believe's it to be a false statement. The word also suggests that it is a common misconception.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I keep failing spot checks on your click-bait no-substance threads! Seriously dude, you have less than 500 posts and more than 200 OP's.
Hah, just realized that too.
| 8 people marked this as a favorite. |
Oh good, a thread to argue about the Stormwind Fallacy -- because we don't do that enough -- as well as a new slur for people who play a different way. Merry Christmas indeed.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
In the generalizations below the corollary, the talk on the stormwind fallacy pretty much establishes thus:
"Doing one in a game does not necessarily preclude, nor necessarily infringe upon, the ability to do the other in the same game."
There is nothing that inherently makes roleplaying at odds with optimization, and they can often build upon each other. However, both require time and mental energy/focus. When one or both of those resources is not in sufficient quantity it can bring either optimization or roleplaying to be sacrificed for the other.
The trick then is to find the equilibrium of both optimization and roleplaying that works for a given group or individual. Mention of the Stormwind Fallacy can help start a conversation with people unfamiliar with its premise.
On the other hand, it's often an ineffective communication tool in cases of personal conflict where emotions are involved. This happens mostly because conversation around the Fallacy does not address specific cases of when desire for more optimization and the desire for more roleplaying do come into conflict. Yes, there is nothing inherently at odds between optimization and roleplaying without some outside factor. However, this does not prevent them from coming into conflict when other factors (such as lack of time and/or mental energy) are involved.
You have to be careful when mentioning the Stormwind Fallacy because often the problem isn't whether one is inherently at odds with the other, it's finding and addressing the third factor that is driving the two to compete (or the perception that they are competing.) At its best, talk of the Stormwind Fallacy is a conversation starter. At its worst, it is a conversation killer.
In short, optimization does not inherently prevent or imepede with roleplaying and vice versa. However, this does not preclude situations where the can conflict with each other.
However, both require time and mental energy/focus. When one or both of those resources is not in sufficient quantity it can bring either optimization or roleplaying to be sacrificed for the other.Energy and focus aren't really fungible. Optimization happens in non-table time while roleplaying happens during table time. Optimization is in resource tension with other leisure activities. Roleplaying is in tension with things like having to schedule late at night when everyone's tired because someone has to work weekends. You can't use non-table time to roleplay and the extent to which you can use table time to optimize is pretty much limited to zeroth sessions.
I see what you're saying, but I usually write a good two pages of background information about my character before I begin play. I like to get into their shoes during play, so I design those shoes ahead of time.
Optimisation is bad when...
- It means one player enjoys the game to the exclusion of other players or the DM.
- It is done in a game where the DM isn't able to respond to it.
- It is done using perverse interpretations of the rules that the other players or DM don't subscribe to.Roleplay is bad when...
- It means one player enjoys the game to the exclusion of other players or the DM.
- It is done in a game where the DM isn't able to respond to it.
- It is done using perverse interpretations of the rules that the other players or DM don't subscribe to.Don't break these rules and you can do what you like as far as I care.
This. The right level of optimization, much like the right level of role play, is what the overall table is comfortable with. Finding a group that matches a person's preferred style is the hardest part of the game. Not everyone has the time to read all the source books and scour forums between games. Not everyone wants to RP out the entire social encounter. Neither is wrong, just so long as everyone is on the same page with expectations.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
However, both require time and mental energy/focus. When one or both of those resources is not in sufficient quantity it can bring either optimization or roleplaying to be sacrificed for the other.Energy and focus aren't really fungible. Optimization happens in non-table time while roleplaying happens during table time. Optimization is in resource tension with other leisure activities. Roleplaying is in tension with things like having to schedule late at night when everyone's tired because someone has to work weekends. You can't use non-table time to roleplay and the extent to which you can use table time to optimize is pretty much limited to zeroth sessions.
If you only have so much time to dedicate to a hobby, you will only have a certain amount of time to dedicate to that hobby. Roleplaying can require preparation just as mechanics can. A person may only have so much time to come up with a character concept, which entails both coming up with the mechanics and the qualitative characters like background and personality outside of the numbers. Conflict can extend beyond the first session when new characters are generated after character death, or if a person is struggling with developing his character mechanically vs. flavorwise. Conflict can also come when a GM wants to finds herself at odds with her players (or even her herself) on how much she wants to focus her time on designing the flavor details of the world vs. the mechanics necessary to challenge the players.
Mental energy and focus are reflected in that you can only juggle so many things in your head at a time (there is a limit on concentration). For example, some people will like to focus more on numbers and complex mechanical tactical interactions with combat, with the flavor description whereas some will enjoy more florid description with relatively less focus on getting the mechanics exactly straight. I've seen combat focus more often on one than some compromise in the middle.
Players and GMs will sometimes have to focus on playing a character's personality vs. playing a character's mechanics in session, with one or the other taking precedence. Optimization is meaningless without understanding it and using it in game. (Not to mention the many characters whom can reconfigure their abilities on a daily basis) Understanding your character psychologically can be hard, and understanding your character mechanically can also be hard. Optimized characters tend to be more versatile, as such they can require more mental energy to get everything straight. With a limited amount of executive function at any given time, it is understandable how a person might default to .
Clashes of focus can also be seen in what is highlighted as relevant. For example, the social interaction. Some people will prefer a balance of both. Others will prefer to place more importance on the die roll, and others will place more on what the players express to the GM that their characters are saying.
I see what you're saying, but I usually write a good two pages of background information about my character before I begin play. I like to get into their shoes during play, so I design those shoes ahead of time.However, both require time and mental energy/focus. When one or both of those resources is not in sufficient quantity it can bring either optimization or roleplaying to be sacrificed for the other.Energy and focus aren't really fungible. Optimization happens in non-table time while roleplaying happens during table time. Optimization is in resource tension with other leisure activities. Roleplaying is in tension with things like having to schedule late at night when everyone's tired because someone has to work weekends. You can't use non-table time to roleplay and the extent to which you can use table time to optimize is pretty much limited to zeroth sessions.
I did this once , then i found myself in a group of unfocused players in which my background turned to be more of a hassle.
Never again did i do this lols , now i just listen and make quick ones based on whatever concept i want to play instead.
Here is a general question...
Is it easier to role play...
Jack the human rogue 5?
Or
Jack the half android - half strix, slayer 1, unchained rogue 3, cleric (trickery) 1, raised By dwarves trait, glaive-combat reflexes-sping Attack build?
Or is it exactly the same?
Here is a general question...
Is it easier to role play...
Jack the human rogue 5?
Or
Jack the half android - half strix, slayer 1, unchained rogue 3, cleric (trickery) 1, raised By dwarves trait, glaive-combat reflexes-sping Attack build?
Or is it exactly the same?
Man, you just had to make them different races, didn't you? An Android is going to think differently than, say, a Human, or a Elf, Dwarf, etc. Also, depending on where the campaign takes place, you could be facing some severe social issues. Like, good luck getting Chelexians or Ustalavs to like you, or even resort to anything but "BURN IT" in the latter case. Add in the social complications that arise from having a dwarven mindset on top of that, and yeah, one is obviously much harder to RP.
Now, if it comes down to combat, it's obvious what's better. But from an actual RP perspective, you're comparing two very different things.
I've actually noticed that in my group, as we've grown from PF neophytes to avid rules interpreters, homebrewers, optimizers and houserulers, we've still somehow managed to retain the whimsical, narrativist playstyle we inherited from the Swedish-made, rules-lite game we played before PF.
I will say, though, that I have noticed in myself a tendency, as I've gained an increased grasp of the game's mechanics, to focus more on these than the "roleplaying" aspect of the characters I play. This is something I am consciously trying to counteract, since I love putting on silly voices and dreaming up fun/interesting/awesome back stories, but it has undoubtedly always been there, even since I started getting seriously interested in the mechanical aspect of PF. I think the mechanical aspect of the game can get quite addictive, since it's very "game"-like, whereas the roleplaying aspect, being spontaneous, collaborative and purely creative in nature, doesn't really have that kind of a "downside".
Cheers,
- Gears
Here is a general question...
Is it easier to role play...
Jack the human rogue 5?
Or
Jack the half android - half strix, slayer 1, unchained rogue 3, cleric (trickery) 1, raised By dwarves trait, glaive-combat reflexes-sping Attack build?
Or is it exactly the same?
Jack number #2 as that one at least has some background to him. Jack #1 is as generic as they come: the vanilla of characters. You could add any flavor you wished to it while the second one already has some flavor added.
background isn't specified it can be whatever you want.
background isn't specified it can be whatever you want.
But YOU already "specified" some background with half android - half strix, a god that allows the trickery domain and raised by dwarves. The human has a dozen sub-types to pick from so you aren't limited in the least by it: they can be from anywhere.
As I said, #2 has baked in background/flavor while #1 is a blank slate.
Those are Mechanics. You would need to work out your own background to tie those things together.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I did this once , then i found myself in a group of unfocused players in which my background turned to be more of a hassle.
Never again did i do this lols , now i just listen and make quick ones based on whatever concept i want to play instead.
Oh! That's fine too; I didn't mean that everyone has to write out their character's story beforehand. I simply wanted to mention that with roleplaying, as everything else, you can most definetly put thought into it beforehand if you so desire. Granted, I enjoy developing characters. It's one of the most rewarding parts of the game for me. If your group was unfocused and it turned you off to the idea of character preparations, I apologize. I feel as though it can really add something to the game if everyone decides that they want to put some effort into character development.
Now, if it comes down to combat, it's obvious what's better. But from an actual RP perspective, you're comparing two very different things.
I think that's the point. If one is to optimize a character, it often does sound very different than "Jack the Rogue." A person is free to optimize if they want, but their character will often sound quite stilted within the game environment. An optimizer definetly can be a great roleplayer, but it doesn't mean that this hypothetical android-strix raised by dwarves with three multiclasses is going to work with the adventure's environment in most cases.
Some groups may be perfectly accepting of that character, but others might need to have a sit-down talk with the character's creator and lay out what sort of world their campaign takes place in.
Can it work? Absolutely!
Is it as likely to work, roleplay-wise, as Jack the Rogue in most environments? Probably not.
Those are Mechanics. You would need to work out your own background to tie those things together.
You clearly aren't getting what I'm saying...
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Those are Mechanics. You would need to work out your own background to tie those things together.No its not, mechanics are "he can cast divine level spells and he has darkvision"
Backround is he was raised by dwarves and worships a trickery god
See, this guy gets it.