Another thing that I think complicates the issue is how easy it is to optimize. We have pages and pages of guides for every core class, every magical item, and (thanks to a new thread) every archetype. On the otherhand, it would be difficult to put together a guide of how to appropriately play a character or his background. Heck, these boards still have frequent Should-this-paladin-fall-? threads all the time because there's no consensus on what it really means to be a paladin (although there are a few guides for that too). As a result, many new players spend the majority of their time reading optimization guides and focusing primarily on the mechanics of their character. Nothing wrong with that, necessarily, but I think it's one of the reasons this argument comes up so frequently. High levels of optimization are relatively easy to pull off if you grab a guide, while being a unique snowflake who reacts to each scenario in character is something that's tougher for many people. Let's keep it in perspective though, whether you focus more or less on mechanics or background doesn't make you a better or worse player, it's just important to find what works for your group.
|
It's also not helped that the system rewards those who for example build a fighter that is good at hitting and damaging creatures. Instead of one who does the opposite. Take low Str good luck carrying anything. Low Con good luck staying alive for more than a few fights. Or if it can be done requires a specfic kind of build. If the system decoupled attributes from what you could do at the table it would for the better. Otherwise one can make a Bard with low Char but his spell DCs will be much worse than the character who took a high Cha. Without fail because the DCs of spells are based on how high the Cha attribute is
Isn't the point of stats to mean you can't be good at everything? Also not everything should require a roll. Most actions you do, shouldnt require a skill check or stat roll.
|
|
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
I optimize the crap out of characters if I'm playing a 3x based game. I role play the crap out of characters regardless of what game I play.
My last 3x character, Cadogan (built under the optimizer's dream Kirthfinder rules) was role played to the hilt. TOZ, Kirth, and Jess Door can attest to that, I believe.
Why does this keep coming up? One has ZERO to do with the other, crunch is crunch, roleplay is a player deal, not a "backstory" or whatever.
|
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I definitely don't want a system that rewards digging through more and more options with greater character power. Maybe with more flexibility in matching concept.
Why do you play a 3x based game again? System mastery is built into the design, and optimization is a feature.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
My favorite part of optimization is taking totally rediculous and not normally viable character concepts, and using those optimization skills to build a viable character.
Optimization really helps with role playing and expands your options of what can be played.
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).
Actually, a lot of the optimization problems come from the Class and Level system. You have a lot of things 'cooked in' to the class, some of which are much more powerful than others. The archetypes allow you to swap out some of those abilities for others. You have an interlocking set of constraints that makes it not worth it for the casual gamer to learn.
Add to this the complexities of dipping into another class, and it becomes even more complex.
Some people really enjoy the mechanics of character creation. I see nothing wrong with that. There is a problem though when there is too big a gap between the power of an obvious build and a highly optimized build.
If you are limited in how much time you have for roleplaying, how do you want to spend that time? Optimizing a set of numbers on a sheet, or creating a fun and hopefully unique personality?
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Frankly, if you're limited in time investment, you're playing the wrong game. There are other considerably less complex systems besides Pathfinder, you know...including classless systems and/or systems that don't have options baked in OR mechanics married to flavor. If you don't like inherently complex systems that reward mastery, why are you choosing to play one, especially when the alternatives are myriad?
|
|
If the choices you make in building a character have no consequences, why have any choices at all?
(Sigh)
I never said that.
Of course depending on the build their should be consequences. Low Str expect to do less damage and carry less. Low Con less ability to take damage. Their a certain segment in the hobby that want it all. Low stats without penalties. The system imo does not reward that style of play. Certain abilites like Cha you can sort of roleplay a low number. Having a low str means that nice magical suit of full plate is not going to be worn by the character anytime. There 's also so many times a DM can tailor the treasure either.
|
|
I do think their is a certain amount of reward mastery. For example take a fighter give him decent str and con. The right selection of feats os just goin to usually be more successful at the gaming table. Then the guy with average to low str and con and a mix of feats. Both can be played effectively. Just that the first will be a better Fighter than the second imo.
It's the same way a ranged character does not need to take precise shot. The one that does hits more often than the one who chooses skill focus stealth.
Frankly, if you're limited in time investment, you're playing the wrong game. There are other considerably less complex systems besides Pathfinder, you know...including classless systems and/or systems that don't have options baked in OR mechanics married to flavor. If you don't like inherently complex systems that reward mastery, why are you choosing to play one, especially when the alternatives are myriad?
I can choose which system I run, but have a lot less choice in which ones I play in. Even when I run a game, I've been told by some of the players that they will drop if it isn't a D&D variant because they are tired of learning new systems.
The other big reason is that PFS gives me a means to play to my own schedule, rather than having to match the schedules of a regular gaming group. That is a big advantage. Without it, I'm certain I wouldn't have nearly as much Pathfinder material.
That said, I do play other systems by preference. I currently play in two campaigns that aren't using a Class/Level system.
Why do you play a 3x based game again? System mastery is built into the design, and optimization is a feature.I definitely don't want a system that rewards digging through more and more options with greater character power. Maybe with more flexibility in matching concept.
A lot of people played 3rd edition because it was the latest incarnation of our favourite TTRPG. When it was launched optimisations was nothing like the scale of opportunity that there is now. Just as when Pathfinder launched it didn't have the same scale of optimisation. Traits, Archetypes and the plethora of bolt ons came later.
There is the opportunity for optimisation in any system. It just means taking the most effective and powerful set of options to achieve your desired result.
A lot of people, couldn't care less about reaching 100%, they are happy at 50% to 75%. Based on the fact that most APs seem set for 50% that suits us down to the ground.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Why does this keep coming up? One has ZERO to do with the other, crunch is crunch, roleplay is a player deal, not a "backstory" or whatever.
Because not all players are like you? Because there are players who optimise the crap out of their characters and then not role play the crap olut of their characters. And worse, who then claim, that those other players, probably roleplaying without too much optimising, play the game the wrong way?
The thing is, you can have both, but you don't have to. I'm not saying that it's wrong to optimise without roleplaying or that it's wrong to roleplay without optimising, but it can easily create conflict if proponents of those styles land in one campaign.
And I consider the Stormwind fallaca argument not especially helpful, because, while certainly true, it does nothing to solve those conflicts but can be abused as a defense by the non-roleplaying optimisers or to attack the non-optimising roleplayers (and that's how I see it come up in most cases).
Apart from that, crunch and roleplaying have in my eyes a lot to do with another (doesn't matter if you optimise or not) because one influences the other. You want to play Superman (or Batman)? You'll probably not make STR his dump stat. You want to play a character with high Strength? I guess you'll probably not describe him to look (and behave) like Sheldon Cooper.
Why does this keep coming up? One has ZERO to do with the other, crunch is crunch, roleplay is a player deal, not a "backstory" or whatever.Because not all players are like you? Because there are players who optimise the crap out of their characters and then not role play the crap olut of their characters. And worse, who then claim, that those other players, probably roleplaying without too much optimising, play the game the wrong way?
There are people who wear the color blue that smell really bad. There are people who wear pink that smell really good. It doesn't mean the color you wear affects how you smell, or how you smell affects what you wear.
Sometimes things occur together that are utterly, completely, and totally unrelated.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I have a really good story about myself, working at a risque coffee shop and having to wear hot pink pleather shorts.
But this isn't the place for that.
Really, there's only one way to settle if they're related. Science!
We need to get a random sampling of, oh, about 90 people with zero RPG experience, teach 30 of them how to play just the basics of the game as a control group, teach 30 how to play heavily optimized characters, and teach 30 what they think is a good character but is actually a piss poor build, and then record how deep they role play by whatever observable measurement is possible, and see if there's a statistically significant variation between the groups. Only by having a single variable changed and everything else static can we be sure.
And I predict it won't be, because drama queens are drama queens, and hams are hams, and it has NOTHING to do with whether they know how to play the game mechanically if they like and are comfortable with the spotlight, or enjoy writing a story, or anything else people arbitrarily define as roleplaying.
That seems like a lot of work, can't we just tip some cars, and start a few fires, maybe poop in the gazebo.
Sometimes things occur together that are utterly, completely, and totally unrelated.Well yeah but If you had read my post completely, you'd have seen that I already know that.
I did, and you finished by arguing that roleplaying is related to stats, but that doesn't mean its related to optimizing.
Rincewind is a wizard who can't cast spells for anything, and that affects his actions...You would roleplay Rincewind based on his attributes and stats. But not optimization, since he pretty clearly isn't optimized.
Raistlin, similarly with his frail constitution and superb intellect, if played by a character, could equally be RPd based on his attributes and stats, but be could be minmaxed for dumping everything because his GM had a 10 point buy and his player REALLY wanted that high intelligence. Very optimized, equally roleplayable.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Stop gatekeeping, Norgrim!
In seriousness, I find a full slate easier to roleplay than a blank one. Sure, you can add whatever you want to a blank slate, but that emptiness is daunting. It's why it's easier to start roleplaying when someone else has already entered the scene (and why an awkward silence generally follows when the GM says, "Okay, now roleplay for a bit").
Except you never actually start playing with the blank slate, right? In either case, you'd have some idea of the character's background & motivation before you actually sat down to play.
I do agree with the "now roleplay for a bit" thing, but I don't think it's a good parallel to a complicated build.
"Roleplay a person."
"Roleplay a cranky person."The latter is easier, in my opinion, because you have something to work off of.
In this case, though, Jack 2 isn't just a complicated build. He's a complicated character. He's a half-android birdperson (cyborg birdperson) who was raised by dwarves. That's why I objected to the comparison—the complex build clearly has a lot of thought put into it, while the other is a simple build with no proportional effort put into a backstory.
Had the same effort been put into the first rogue, it would be just as easy. I suppose it really depends on your definition of "easy", though. Some people are responding to my comments about blank slates saying a blank slate is easier because you can just say whatever. On the other hand, a full slate gives you a guideline on what to say. Some some people seem to regard that as restrictive, but I guess it comes down to playstyle.
|
|
I did, and you finished by arguing that roleplaying is related to stats,
In direct answer to the claim that crunch (aka rules, which include stats) doesn't have anything to do with roleplaying.
I completely agree with your Rincewind/Raistlin example, but for some reason I find Rincewind much more interesting to roleplay than Raistlin (that's just me though, and nothing I would do in an D&D-like environment). Personally I envision the character first and then think about how to depict him rules-wise. How much optimisation is involved depends on the general behaviour/rules knowledge/play style of my fellow group members.
The thing is, I have no problems with someone playing Raistlin the way you described. What I have a problem with is people playing a Raistlin build who keep to ignore the weaknesses involved. Because they aren't really interested in playing Raistlin (or equivalent), but because they only want to have a wizard with a real high INT value without paying the price involved. And while I wouldn't call those people optimisers, they call themselves that way.
Problem being that you can't even formulate this being a problem without someone jumping in and yelling about you're clearly falling to the Stormwind fallacy (thereby ignoring that you're problem wasn't the optimisational aspect at all).
As far as optimisation is concerned, my main problem is that often everything which isn't optimized suddenly gets considered as badwrongfun. I have played characters perfectly viable for an standard Pathfinder AP environment who were considered as to weak by other, more optimisation-focused characters. To stay in your example, just because it isn't Raistlin doesn't necessarily makes it into Rincewind. but I guess that there's surely a name for this kind of fallacy as well. ^^
Wormys, I agree with you there, since you clarified.
I think those are just two different kinds of jerks, but jerks none the same.
|
|
On a more positive note, I have played with way too much players who are much more into the optimisation game than I AND are great role-players to think that those aspects are mutually exclusive.
But I really don't get how anybody can write pages of "backstory" for RP purposes
Well, I'm known for doing this and I agree, it's mainly because it's fun for me. But it also has its in-game uses. When I run games, I start with a plot in mind (let's say, a Pathfinder AP). But then comes the player characters and their character backgrounds (if any) will define the events of the campaign as much (or even more) as what's written in the original adventure. You don't need to write several pages for me to do this, but the more information I get, the better I can tailor the game to your taste.
I think it was in the old Age of Worms-campaign when the PCs eventually would find out that there was a reason why they were destined to live through this adventure. Nice idea, but it was something out of the player's control. Personally, I think the impact is bigger when such connections are created by the player's input.
Stop gatekeeping, Norgrim!
In seriousness, I find a full slate easier to roleplay than a blank one. Sure, you can add whatever you want to a blank slate, but that emptiness is daunting. It's why it's easier to start roleplaying when someone else has already entered the scene (and why an awkward silence generally follows when the GM says, "Okay, now roleplay for a bit").
Except you never actually start playing with the blank slate, right? In either case, you'd have some idea of the character's background & motivation before you actually sat down to play.
I do agree with the "now roleplay for a bit" thing, but I don't think it's a good parallel to a complicated build.
"Roleplay a person."
"Roleplay a cranky person."The latter is easier, in my opinion, because you have something to work off of.
In this case, though, Jack 2 isn't just a complicated build. He's a complicated character. He's a half-android birdperson (cyborg birdperson) who was raised by dwarves. That's why I objected to the comparison—the complex build clearly has a lot of thought put into it, while the other is a simple build with no proportional effort put into a backstory.
Had the same effort been put into the first rogue, it would be just as easy. I suppose it really depends on your definition of "easy", though. Some people are responding to my comments about blank slates saying a blank slate is easier because you can just say whatever. On the other hand, a full slate gives you a guideline on what to say. Some some people seem to regard that as restrictive, but I guess it comes down to playstyle.
To a degree, yes. With Jack the Cyborg Dwarven Birdman Glaiveguy, most of the dots have been filled in for you. The picture is mostly colored. There is some room for you to make it your own, but less than with Jack the Bland.
Take the earlier reference from Atarlost to Hamlet. We've had a number of portrayals over the years, and because we know a little about the character it can go in a number of different ways. Is he crazy, ala Mel Gibson, or overly dramatic like some of the old school portrayals?
It is not only a matter of play style, of role playing slash acting style, but to a large extent build style as well (as noted above, I forget the poster, sorry.) Do you have an idea for a character's picture, personality, something distinctive first, or do you go for the mechanics and build outwards from there? Or a combination? It isn't right, or wrong, or weird or whatever, it's just different ways to prepare.
Sometimes things occur together that are utterly, completely, and totally unrelated.Rincewind is a wizard who can't cast spells for anything, and that affects his actions...You would roleplay Rincewind based on his attributes and stats. But not optimization, since he pretty clearly isn't optimized.Yes he is.. Rincewind is in fact so damn optimised and jank sauce that his GM talked him out of ever casting the spell he knows. Rincewind's player was just a guy who liked collaborative storytelling more then spotlight stealing.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Some people are confusing writing backstory with roleplaying.
So: if not backstory, what is it about an RPG character that makes them memorable and interesting?
One of my favorite characters was a scythe-wielding maniac who was torn between the desire to mutilate people, the desire to be a good citizen, and an extremely dim understanding of the difference between right and wrong. He'd use the other PCs as his moral compass. "So, would it be OK to, you know, harvest their torsos?"
I think coming up with unusual motivations for your character is the most important thing to do (when you're not too busy optimizing / non-optimizing your stats, of course). This doesn't require backstory, but is better done early.
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
system mastery "doesn't need to be a design goal"
Unfortunately, according to Monte Cook, it WAS a design goal (complete with "trap" options in feats and the like), as in, it's built into the system. Paizo has done nothing to change that, and, to be honest, 3x would have to be completely redesigned to take that out of the system.
I guess my issue here is that there are SERIOUS flaws in the 3x system, and no amount of houseruling or limiting options is going to change the fact that 3x is a flawed system. Same issue I have in the C/MD threads: just because you can handwave some stuff, play opponents on "easy mode", or ban a bunch of stuff doesn't change the math in the actual game, the actual game is still flawed.