Post/Author/DateTime	Post
RadicalTaoist 10-21-07, 06:28 PM	This thread is a new home for a debate that formed on this thread here (beginning at about this post). The debate was essentially a competition between two positions on roleplaying vs. optimization and their effects on playgroups that were eventually formulated into theories. This post will be edited to reflect updated evolution of the debate. The first position we will refer to as The Addiction Theory of Rule-Based Roleplay and was originally put forward in its current form by the user Nemo_the_Lost. (I'm giving it this name.) Powergaming, including its subunits munchkinism and min/maxing, encourage poor roleplaying. First appeared here. I criticized the theory as lacking sufficient explanatory power, since it did not offer much of an underlying mechanism. Let's take a look at the theory. Is there any claim of an underlying mechanism to support the phenomena? No. Any support beyond anecdotal evidence? No. Is it specific enough to be tested rigorously? Not really; the only way to test would be to survey all the gaming groups on some very subjective measures (how 'well' they roleplay or optimize, matters which are relative to the group to begin with). Since it does not offer an underlying explanation, it is also hard to pin evidence to. If the evidence falls against it, defense of the theory can claim some other complicating factor is confounding the results. If the evidence falls overwhelmingly for it, criticism of the theory can't look for complicating factors because the defense will claim those factors to be the underlying mechanisms. So, a third no. Found here Nemo responded with a reference to a previous post of his, detailing the account behind his theory further. Any focus on optimization (rather than simple improvement) is courting temptation, and I would say that the very concept of a "build" is actually detrimental to roleplay, in some minor sense. Having a feat track planned for a character is not in keeping with the way character identity should develop, because a character's career and training should be influenced primarily by what he experiences as he advances. Knowing what feat your character is going to take at 12th level when he is 5th level is metagaming, in its own small, quiet, insidious way. Found here. Cited here Nemo also gave a further account of how the conflict between roleplaying and optimizing operates (the cause between the allusion to addiction in the name I have given his theory). I'm sure it also sounds weird to you that I have known so many roleplayers brought low by powergaming. But it happens, and with alarming frequency. Hmm, I begin to see your points about groups in a different light. I have been thinking about powergaming as a sort of drug -- not harmful in small doses, but capable of ruining a life if it is allowed to run unchecked. This is certainly what seems to happen in a group of roleplayers when one of them is a powergamer, because the powergamer learns to enjoy being super-effective and is perhaps not welcomed by the group in roleplay. This is a pretty classic scenario for the encouragement of addiction. Found here. The position I raised in opposition to the Addiction Theory we will refer to as The Confounding Cycle Theory and was coined here. Thesis: An attitude that roleplaying and optimization are in mutual opposition becomes a self-propagating circumstance rather than an accurate account of how the dynamics of the game must develop; likewise, an attitude that the two can be combined to harmonic benefit will in turn propagate players who both optimize and roleplay well. This is because the first attitude implicitly hampers the development of the gaming skills necessary to develop the higher order skill of optimally coordinating mechanics and flavor (a phenomenon we'll call Nemo's Cycle), while the second attitude encourages the growth of both skills. These are rather matter-of-fact statements about how the game is played. Any mechanical feature or element of the game system can be given a different name, and have its flavor determined thus. This may allow it to fit better or worse with any character's roleplaying details. Self-evident. Examples: Check out these linked threads. If you request other examples, I'll work to provide them happily. To clarify a term: a character's roleplaying details include background, personality, relationship with other characters, and the world they live in as a whole (so the new flavor description should fit with the world as well). Any of a character's roleplaying details may possibly be represented by different mechanical features; some of these mechanical features can be stronger or better suited for a particular game than others. Also a self-evident extension of the previous assumption; if mechanical elements A and B and C can all be renamed, there's a chance they can be renamed to the same thing, flavor element X. Mechanical differences between A, B, and C thus can make any one more optimal than another and connected to other mechanical elements in different synergy. Joshua (in-character PC name) inherited a masterful parry from his master David; he refers to the movement as David's Parry. In one incarnation, Joshua is a core-only Fighters and David's Parry is the Dodge feat. He wears light armor because that's Joshua's concept, and suffers for it, being hit by enemies more often. Not exactly the heroic swashbuckler. In another incarnation, Joshua is a Swashbuckler and David's Parry is the Dodge bonus class feature Swashbucklers get. This is more optimal as Joshua is rewarded for staying in light armor, but he's still getting hit a lot. Moreover, there seems to be no difference between his getting hit and his not getting hit as made by the Swashbuckler's Dodge, even though in his backstory David taught Joshua the parry with the warning "Don't expect it to catch the next attack right after". But in an optimal incarnation, Joshua is a Warblade and David's Parry is the Wall of Blades maneuver. This provides Joshua with the excellent, reliable defense against attacks his player always saw the parry to be, and the counter maneuver rules fit the parry as well as Joshua can't use it over and over again. In addition, a lot of David's teachings and abilities sync with other maneuvers in the Iron Heart discipline (the school from which Wall of Blades hails) and Joshua's player finds that making Joshua an Iron Heart-focused Warblade really fleshes him out as David's student quite well. This is from the same post in which the Cycle Theory appeared. So far this is obvious, logical stuff. Now let's get to the ramifications of our assumptions. Adapting mechanics and flavor in the manners described above requires a grasp of the mechanics, a mind for imagining flavor, and the lateral thinking to see new ways the two might mesh. To clarify, a grasp of the mechanics indicates enough familiarity with the mechanics and knowledge of optimizing strategies to come up with the most optimal mechanic you can devise for a situation. A mind for imagining flavor is straightforward enough; you have to be able to come up with cool, rich, detailed character concepts. The lateral thinking requirement is a tricky, often understated feature of creativity. You have to be able to drop how any one game feature is described or implemented and disassociate the flavor from the mechanics. In being able to take it apart, you can bring it together again in a better way. Making a character who is well roleplayed and powerfully optimized is a complex skill consisting of the three lower level skills described above. It's pretty obvious that, to some degree, you have to have a firm grasp of all three of the procedural skills described above to reliably produce characters that demonstrate the Stormwind Fallacy and serve as counterexamples to Nemo's Theory. But what does it mean to call these skills? It means they have to be learned, and that they can be improved with practice. And this is also fairly obvious; us CO regulars are the losers who have gone over two dozen books with a fine-toothed comb to find the awesome combos. I admit it. I have a social life, honest! :P...:twitch:...:weep::allalone: But it takes as much practice to get good at lateral thinking or rich roleplaying (I recommend puzzles/riddles and logic/scientific training for the first, reading good books and writing a little fiction of your own for the second). And to learn the skills in the first place, as any good developmental psychologist will tell you, you've got to work with the learning environment that's given to you. As a learning environment, a playgroup can encourage or discourage the development of the higher-order skill of making a character both well-optimized and well-roleplayed. Warrior cultures tended to produce children who were in good physical shape and capable of defending themselves. Hunter-gatherer cultures tend to produce children who are comfortable surviving in the wild. If you take a kid from a family with two parents who speak different languages, and put him in a culture that accepts diversity, promotes intellectual development, and has multiple languages in common use itself, you're probably going to get a multilingual teenager. Gaming groups are no different. Depending on playstyle and priorities, the things gamers value most out of a game (tough tactical combat, richly developed characters, beating powerful over-the-top enemies, humourous banter, whatever) are going to shape the experience of newer players joining the group. If the new player shows an affinity for a certain playstyle and gaming skillset not shared with the other players, they can a) accomodate the newbie and try to bring him around slowly, or b) reject the newbie and advise them to try a different playgroup. If they choose to reject, however, they lose the opportunity to teach the new player their approach to the game, denying that player the chance to develop certain gaming skills. The also appeared in the same post. Put together, they form the foundations for the Cycle Hypothesis. The Cycle Hypothesis was put forward as superior to the Addiction Hypothesis due to the Cycle Hypothesis being easier to test rigorously (although not easily) and possessing explanatory power that encompassed that of the Addiction Hypothesis. This is my beef with your theory. It's not a descriptive theory (a theory explaining how things are), though it pretends to be. It's an implicitly normative theory (a theory of how things should be) - and as such, it's self-fulfilling prophesy. In a playgroup where the attitude behind Nemo's Cycle is the norm, and the players value roleplaying over optimizing, there will be no incentive to learn the skill of mechanical optimization. In fact, there will be active and explicit disincentive from the other players. One of the key lower level skills is missing. Likewise, there is no necessary incentive to learn the skill of disassociating rules from mechanics, and even if you have a player skilled in that sort of lateral thinking, he may never have the insight of applying that skill into making roleplaying and optimization work together if he's blocked by the assumptions behind the Cycle. That's a fixation effect, the death of insight in any respectable cognitive psychology on problem solving. Meanwhile, when a 'power gamer' gets kicked out of that group, he finds others like him to play with. He has not been exposed to the learning experience necessary to become 'a good roleplayer', and he implicitly carries the assumption with him, continuing the cycle. Since he lacks at least one, possibly two of the three requisite skills to optimal coordination of mechanics and flavor, he is just as unable as the players in the previous group to see past the Cycle. His playgroup never finds any motivation to learn how to roleplay, and they're not interested in teaching a roleplaying-minded new player how - they may in fact reject him, becoming an exact duplicate of the earlier group. You've got a situation where everyone's actively (if unconsciously) trying to prevent the development of X; forgive me if I don't think much of a theory that states "X is an anomaly and shouldn't exist" without taking that into account. But can you break the vicious Cycle? Certainly. In a group where all three of the requisite skills are valued and the assumption behind the Cycle isn't held, new players receive training in all three. They then go out and find the other Cycle-bound groups to be rather odd. The implicit assumptions behind it don't seem to make sense. 'Sacrificing character concept integrity for a boost in effectiveness"? What? Does that mean that if a mechanical change that boosts my effectiveness inspires or meshes well with character concept integrity ('Wow, I didn't know Joshua could do that, but now that I think about it, that's *perfect* and just how I'd imagine him pulling it off!'), then has character concept integrity become dependent on boosts in effectiveness and is leeching of my 'powergaming'? That's just silly. The whole thing seems silly, and the false dichotomy to such a player is basically telling them 'you can only have so much fun' when they're obviously enjoying more. Developing that kind of play experience is what the Cycle opposes. Now, in the course of the thread, other issues were brought up as it was found insufficient to just discuss the nature of the playgroups favouring certain playstyles. The question arose in the old thread of to what degree is player knowledge allowed to affect a character's development, and if this was the same problem as player knowledge deciding character actions. In response to the accusation that to have a build for your character's mechanical development ahead of time was metagaming, and this was intrinsically harmful to organic and realistic roleplaying, I put forward four techniques to demonstrate how mechanical changes can be woven seamlessly into a character's development without compromising suspension of disbelief. For as long as they'd known him, Severas practiced the forms every dawn. With every time a question asked, he'd say he'd kept up a little bit, but always there was technique that would elude him. And more often than not, it was his old teacher's riposte that was cited as his latest frustration. Even as his step became sure and his bladework more refined, still that one quick turn and shift felt to him awkward and poorly placed. So he felt until in the middle of combat he turned to ask his allies to run while he handled the mongrelfolk mercenary set upon them only to realize he'd already killed the foe. The surprised mongrelfolk slid slowly from the blade to the ground; having been impaled up to the hilt, he'd died instantly from the shock of the powerful thrust. Despite the rush of battle, Severas had to grin. He'd finally got it. PCs have goals and development plans too. Wizards work on spells, thieves practice little tricks, and so on. This can make a preplanned ability choice just as organic as any other. The level at which the equivalent abilities appear in the character sheet are just the point at which the character "gets it". This can be assisted by other characters in the party (in fact, a character I'm playing now is going to take a level or two of monk soon, and I've been RPing training under the party monks to represent this). Taisan blinked in surprise. His companions stared gaping at the smouldering pit of ash where the troll had been. The sorceror thought he'd made a few surprising developments over the past months, but this new blast of energy took the cake. He hadn't known such magic was possible, much less that he would be able to call upon a spell of such power. "Since when could you do that?" stammered Yinrak. "...Since twelve seconds ago, it seems." Taisan responded absentmindedly. Who says the PC has to know he's got a new ability until you decide it appears? Anachronistic surprise powers are a staple of fantasy literature and a solid roleplay concept. This trick works best with characters mastering an inborn power, but it can be adapted to many other types as well (in one of my games, the melee lead is a former Valenar blademaster who suffered amnesia due to the Mourning. He's actually relearning combat skills he'd lost in the disaster, and every now and then he'll remember something in the heat of combat that makes the rest of the party's jaws drop. This ties really well into a direction the DM has been playing on - that Elerosse was no normal Valenar soldier but an elite legend tasked with missions of importance to the High King himself). The Red Veil assassin's taunts died off with a sudden gurgle as Vrodek's arrow buried itself in his throat. The archer chuckled as the crimson cloaked form dropped to the floor. "Now just a damned second," cried a still-jittery Shoutha. "How the hell did you do that?" "Remember our last fight with these bastards? We were trying to track them by watching for their footsteps in the water. Reminded me of that game with the ball and blindfold we saw those street kids play, where some track their playmates by noise and the clouds of dust their feet kick up. That's why I spent the last few days hanging out with those kids and doing those funny archery exercises blindfolded in the barn. Thought I'd gotten the hang of it," chuckled Vrodek, giving the corpse in scarlet an insolent kick. "And sure enough, they're not as good at hiding as they think they are." Whether they're talented geniuses who learn fast or just lucky enough to be in the right place at the right time looking at the right details, heroes can pick up the abilities they need to survive in response to events that happen around them. Now, you're probably astute enough to notice that this is the "organic development" you mentioned earlier. What's the difference, you ask? If you're familiar with the mechanics of your planned build, it really doesn't get in the way of organic development. In fact, it can assist this kind of organic development as you know what abilities you're going to pick up a little down the line and can be constantly on the lookout for events happening in the story that could serve as possible inspiration to your PC. You could have your PC develop an ability in response to an encounter that happened like 6 levels back because you thought "Hey, this is similar to/countered by that trick I'm going to pick up in 6 levels" and decided your PC would be significantly affected by the encounter to keep it in memory and train in response to the event. Kugruk shoved the last of the white armored invaders over the castle wall. Hundreds of pounds of ogre and steel were shoved violently back over the ramparts without any more noticeable resistance than a suddenly interrupted grunt of surprise. Sandar chuckled at the half-orc and sheathed his blade. The brutal pushes and headlong charges that marked Kugruk's approach to combat had become the subject of jokes between the two ever since Kugruk demonstrated his usefulness to their lord as a bodyguard by shoving a would-be assassin (and an unfortunate courtier along for the ride) out a 5th story window. "Say Kug," Sandar yelled. "That's a Black Dawn Knight you just sent flying. Didn't you say a long time ago you'd never be crazy enough to take one of them on?" Kugruk looked over the battlements and shrugged at the motionless form in a pool of black ichor below. "So maybe I did." There's also the point that a new ability sometimes really isn't. The words on you character sheet are a metagame concept and so any new advancement may actually not be perceived by your PC as such, but just a natural growth of existing abilities. This of course works best for such abilities that are that kind of growth (for example, Improved Combat Expertise is just Combat Expertise with a higher allowable bonus). So what is metagaming then? Some debate on what metagaming was and why it was problematic was inevitable. You make a powerful argument, and you certainly comport yourself as someone with whom it would be a blast to play... but I remain unconvinced. I still see these examples as metagaming, if the end result is known beforehand. You are steering your character into a desired superior position based on game mechanics. Yes, all right, you can finagle the flavor text to make the steering less apparent and in keeping with your character's story, but the mechanics are the crux of the matter -- after all, you would not be selecting these abilities if they were not the best (or at least very good). That is optimization in a nutshell. You are not allowing your character to be shaped by his environment, you are cherry-picking elements of his environment to shape him around a predetermined model. If this were a novel we were talking about, I would applaud your sense of story, but this is D&D. It is not the players' job to determine what happens to their characters. Players can -- should -- have plans, but all obvious questions of DM evenhandedness aside, uncertainty is why we play this game, isn't it? Otherwise, why do we even need a DM? The dice provide randomization enough. Maybe the difference between our viewpoints is just that -- we are both acting out our parts, and well, but I see reacting to the slings and arrows of fortune as an integral part of roleplaying. It is called roleplaying and not acting because we do not follow scripts. A character build is essentially a script. A character at 20th level should not just be a more powerful version of who he was at 1st level, and likewise a character at 1st level has no realistic reason to expect that he knows what he will be like 20 levels later. [...] I disagree entirely -- the PC is most certainly benefiting from knowledge he should not act on. But only because you used the term PC. The player knows, and the character acts, and that is textbook metagaming. Just because the character is ignorant of the nature of a "feat" does not exonerate the player from choosing it in advance and manipulating events or the interpretation of events to bring it into line with his character concept and story. In response: At what point do you draw the line and call it metagaming? Any choice you make on the character sheet would be metagaming. I don't consider metagaming if it's something the character *would have done anyways* - like choosing his warhammer over a spear when fighting skeletons, because it's obvious a blunt smashing weapon is better than trying to poke holes in something that's already got a ton of holes. [...] I note that the number of classes you take doesn't matter, really. Does your rogue call himself a diplomat, a thief, a spy, a tinkerer, what? You can also make flexible builds that can "branch out" to choose between options at certain points, allowing adjustment to new developments. [...] Ah ah ah - my character is shaped by his environment, to different degrees. It is his BUILD that is based on a predetermined model. You know how I was talking about that skill of separating the mechanics from the description earlier? [...] I'd also like to note that a character build is NOT a script. It is only a mechanical guideline. How you describe the mechanical changes your character will undergo at any given level can depend entirely on in-game circumstances. I don't see how learning to snatch those arrows out of mid air can't be roleplaying. [...] By definition, a character's mechanical aspect at 20th level is not the same thing as that aspect at 1st level. However, build and mechanics are *out of game knowledge* and the character knows neither. After all, a character is not their build. (I'm the optimizer here, I shouldn't have to be telling you this.) [...] Allow me to expand off of this - what makes metagaming bad? I mean, come on, 'manipulating the interpretation of events to bring it into line with his character concept and story' is not roleplaying how? Metagaming is a problem because there's no way Josek has read the Monster Manual and the tactical advantage he'd gain breaks the suspension of disbelief and the balance of the encounter. What I'm describing does neither of those. The suspension of disbelief is paramount and we're assuming a nonproblematic player who doesn't want to throw game balance out the window. Where is the problem? My position so far is that it is impossible to define the two activities of roleplaying and optimization in non-trivial and relevant manner so that they are mutually exclusive. My arguments to that effect for the definition of optimization are as follows. I call these the silverware drawer arguments because they're full of forks. :rimshot: Hey! Ow! Stop throwing stuff! An accusation that has been levelled against my position before is that "optimizing could be any mechanical activity, as you could just say you're using the mechanics to best embody whatever your character happens to be". That's obviously meaningless. I reject this position (I have to; my argument would be circular as hell if I adopted it). The First Fork lies between A: defining any manipulation of the rules as optimization and B: defining optimization as a certain set of rules manipulations towards a certain goal. In this argument I will prove A to be senseless and self-contradictory. After rejecting the bad definition in the First Fork, it could be charged that optimization must then be seeking the highest power of all: total omnipotence. As such, an optimized sneak/scout build who doesn't pursue melee capabilities or spellcasting (or anything and everything else) isn't really being optimized. I counter this with the Pun-Pun as Super Actor argument. That is, with omnipotence comes supreme acting ability, and thus it would be impossible for a truly omnipotent character to *not* be roleplayed as well as his player could want him to be. One of my better-known builds on the CO Boards is the President of Smack. Doing thousands of damage with his claws in a round is not a difficult task for the President. Another build well known on those boards is the Illusionist Killer Gnome, who can produce shadow-based illusions that are more real than the spells they replicate. He can often do that with 0th level spells. If the name of the game is ridiculous damage with hit-and-run teleportation tactics, then the President is more powerful. If the name of the game is having a rabbit to pull out of the hat in virtually any situation and leaving the enemies with virtually no way to counter it, the Killer Gnome is your man. The fact of the game is, as long as no character can do everything, than "power" is going to be dependent on the situation. Of course, there will be more powerful options within a dimension - the Chrono-Legionnaire, who can defeat the highest CR monster ever statted in a Wizards supplement, beats the President of Smack when it comes to high-damage guerilla warfare - and limitations based on what the DM allows. The only optimized character who can get around this is the omnipotent kobold, Pun-Pun (who thankfully will never see light in a real game, I hope). But there is a problem on relying on old PP to challenge the Stormwind Fallacy. Imagine, if you will, that Pun-Pun was allowed into a game. And imagine the player wanted to play that divine caster with a low Wisdom that was mentioned earlier. Now, because Pun-Pun can do everything, he impersonates a human with divine spellcasting and a low wisdom score - voluntarily botching his Spot checks and Will saves on a regular basis (or at least acting like he has), lowering the save DCs and caster level for his spell-like abilities and not using them like they're infinite, so on so forth. Pun-Pun-as-actor, being able to do everything, would be able to impersonate this character perfectly. And, if the player and DM never told the rest of the party, he could fake his death at the dramatic moment, or finish the campaign and be proud at the ending, or any number of dramatic acts, and quite possibly leave the other players thinking that to be the best roleplayed character they'd ever seen. Now, what was the purpose of this thought experiment? To demonstrate that roleplaying is a function of how you play the character, whereas most optimizing and buildmaking takes place outside of that. Now this leaves the criticism of the fallacy at a fork: either you have a character that can't do everything, which means that power becomes relative and the optimizer has many degrees of freedom to which he can work, or you have a character that can do everything, and thus impersonate and roleplay any concept perfectly. Really, once you have a properly optimized build, why NOT roleplay the character as best you can? He/she's strong. She/he'll survive. The Second Fork lies between A: defining optimization as necessarily seeking the most power in all areas without exception and B: defining optimization as improvement of the character's abilities while allowing focus at a certain set. Thanks to the Pun-Pun as Super Actor argument, I can reject A and anyone who wants to argue that roleplaying and optimization are opposed has to reject it as well or concede that playing Pun-Pun is the best way to roleplay. It is also argued that to optimize is to seek a level of character power so that no foe is a challenge anymore. I prefer a definition of optimization that allows the task of optimization to seek a higher level of challenge in gameplay; and can defend it against this definition by noting how effective immunity to the challenges a game presents is relative to every game situation, and depending on the DM 'optimization' can thus either become impossible, or it can mean playing a blind commoner. The Third Fork lies between A: defining optimization as seeking immunity to a challenge, and B: defining optimization as seeking more powerful characters that can still be potentially challenged. I demonstrate A to be ridiculously inconsistent and not even contrary to roleplaying either. Finally, it has been argued that the threat from optimization to roleplay is merely the desire to look through rules for more power. I prefer a definition of optimization as the activity, since a problem with intent or player attitude is playstyle-independent. I thus counter with a claim that we manage separate goals and intentions all the time in our lives; it's unfair to hold optimization's management vis a vis roleplaying to a different standard. The Fourth Fork lies between A: defining optimization as necessarily contrary to roleplay because it is a separate goal demanding its own effort and attention and B: defining optimization as the activity regardless of whatever goal or reasong a player might pursue it. I debunk A as silly unless you think that my desire to eat must necessarily interfere with my goal of walking my dog. Yes, it might possibly interfere; there's a reason it doesn't. I'll come up with an equivalent for definitions of roleplaying. Where I plan to take this debate from here: Questioning situations where it is the DM or other players who are hindering roleplaying, rather than a player's optimization. Say I have an uber psionic monk gish build, and I also had a great idea for a monk backstory where my monk was very sickly as a child. He did his exercises for hours every day until he was finally able to overcome his physical weakness through sheer conditioning. Why, reasonably, should my DM say "...okay, I'm going to impose a -4 handicap penalty on your physical stats to represent this"? If he doesn't like my background or feels it needs that mechanical representation, he should say so out of character and I'll describe it some other way. If he feels my build may be problematic, he should address me out of character; depending on details, I'll convince him otherwise, tone it down, play something else, or make a gentleman's agreement to literally pull my punches and not get out of line. But in any case it's not optimization getting in the way of roleplay. I don't think I captured the thrust of this argument as well as I could have and it deserves a reformulation. It could be made much stronger. Updates will come as the thread progresses.
RadicalTaoist 10-21-07, 06:30 PM	This post is reserved for the latest posts in the debate, so as to help everyone up to speed. Nemo's latest response to Rutrow Rutrow's post My latest response to Nemo Nemo's post
Nemo_the_Lost 10-21-07, 08:04 PM	I'm here. I'm not sure how much more I have to add, but I am here. Here's my last post from the old thread: In fact, after this response I do think I'm going to put the argument on pause until I can compile everything (especially the two competing hypotheses and the four techniques) and get us onto a new thread. You really will appreciate being able to talk to others like I (Stormwind included) on this. Honestly, I'm getting kind of tired of the discussion, no offense to those involved. My interest is just moving on. But you can't depend on the definition of metagaming here or else your argument that optimization threatens roleplaying becomes circular. Either metagaming is not inherently bad/does not encompass optimization/something along those lines, or you can't say optimization is bad (because it's based on metagaming or whatever) without presuming your argument. If I cannot depend on the definitions of metagaming, powergaming, and roleplaying, then neither can you or anyone else, and this entire enterprise is worthless. I've been saying that the arguments on both sides of this debate are academic almost since the beginning. The player controls all those character details *anyways*. I don't see any way to escape this accusation for any character (and science frowns on untestable/undisprovable accusations). There are a lot of scientific theories out there that exist irrespective of real world facts. I'm sure you've heard of the one that says we should never get to anywhere we want to go because every X/2 seconds or whatever we halve the distance left to our goal, ad infinitum. Just because something is scientifically provable (or not) does not necessarily validate (or invalidate) its real world application. It's only a significant problem *if the player compromises the roleplaying environment by his actions* - and I've spent a lot of text proving that he *doesn't have to*. I'm not arguing that he has to. I'm arguing that attention paid to optimization interferes with attention paid to roleplaying. Hypothetical events? Certainly. What, you didn't think that every optimized build was set in stone down to the last skill point and that the slightest deviation would result in a massive decrease in capability, did you? ...Honestly? Yes. The player has no way of knowing how the campaign will go, so a build that you can branch out with - or a build that's got enough options to always have a rabbit to pull out of any hat in any situation - is necessarily an optimized one. Isn't that counter to the very concept of optimization? Everything that has been said up until this point is that a broad character build is antithetical to efficiency. I have yet to play a rogue who would not look at you funny when you asked him where he put his skill points. That's not what I meant. To rephrase: a rogue trains in certain skills because he is a certain kind of rogue. I have personally never played a rogue with any ability in picking pockets. Absolutely not. To make the DM obsolete, you'd have to take randomization too far. "So we rolled a 67 on the Adventure choice table? Lessee...okay, lizardfolk are overrunning a village. *rolls dice* OK, a result of 74 says they attack us in front of the tavern - wait, no, they attack us at the bridge. Pass me two more d100s and the splash weapon scatter dice so I can figure out what weapons they wield and where they are positioned on the map." Yech, no thanks. I'll take the top-down guidance of a DM any day. I can't imagine where you thought I said we could ditch the DM. The horrifying truth is that I actually think that idea sounds awesome, but then I love really complex board games. You said that planning is acceptable because it fails in the face of the randomization provided by the dice. If the dice provide all the necessary randomization, then the DM is obsolete. You have clarified that this is not your position and I drop the statement. But he doesn't need to end up opposite an evil ranger's union or any other specific enemy for Feat X to show up on his sheet. Arguably, no. But if he doesn't, I don't know why he would bother with Deflect Arrows. What a lame build. Can only fight one kind of enemy? One trick pony much? Then the problem is with your example, because Deflect Arrows is a pretty limited power. But you can't draw the line then, as we went over before. If metagaming (even in this incredibly broad definition) can't destroy a session or a campaign because the player is trying incredibly hard to make sure it doesn't - using the skills I described earlier and acting maturely - then where's the problem? The problem is that many players are not mature, and optimization is an option that is open to everyone. And if you say it's still a problem because it's inherently bad - isn't your argument that optimization threatens roleplaying circular? No more than the argument that it is not. Player sense of exagerrated entitlement is a player problem, regardless of player playstyle. Agreed, but entitlement is at the core of a planned character build. Then let's get the build out of the way during splatbook time so that the character can develop during play! I'm not convinced you are listening to me. Actually, I am not the first in this thread to note that this wouldn't slow down a warlock or most other casters at all. Argh! He is not a warlock or a caster! He is not a two-weapon fighter! He is a rogue! Sure. Where's this Bhiny Guild come from, though, and why won't it's members shut up? Probably because their Guildmaster won't let them have access to anything but the library containing the core of their philosophy. A desire for optimization doesn't interfere with roleplaying unless optimization necessarily interferes with roleplaying and I've been arguing heavily that it doesn't. That doesn't make any sense. That's like saying that religion doesn't interfere with politics unless religion necessarily interferes with politics. Lots of things interfere with lots of other things despite the fact that they don't have to.
Leo 10-21-07, 09:23 PM	So one of the main arguments defending the SW fallaccy is that you can change names and flavour of stuff. Guess what...The rules allow us to change ANYTHING. It's in the books. In this game changing the rules is a rule. So by this logic any discussion about D&D is unwinnable because you can counter argument that in your games you do things in a diferent way. And you can't throw me the Oberronni fallaccy whitout being bitten back by it. Rules are based off names and definitions. If you go out there changing names and definitons willy-nilly you're comiting Oberronni. Example: Player 1:Magics are the brokenezt! fighters suck! Player2: What do you mean? In my games all casters can do is magic rush, arcane grapple, fire attack, mystic trip and mormekdain's sunder! And fighters can use their attacks to stop time, travel universes in a blink of an eye, put their enemies to sleep, and much more! Magic sucks! Fighters rule! Player1:hey, how is that possible! Player2:With enough renaming, everything is possible. Now, for the planned builds=goodroleplay... It doesn't matter how good is the history you created. What your character sheet tells us is that: -You never helped your family at their work, since you don't have a single ranks in any profession(and thus can't use them). -You don't have any hobbies. You are a soulless geek who only cared about your training. Every things you know and acquire is usefull. You never trained or bought anything just for your own amusement. -You're a training freak, having spent all your life prearing your mind and body towards a goal, since your stats are just what you needed for it. What a coincidence. Anyway, Im discussing with a guy who suports other guy who not only put his name into a fallaccy, but utterly and completely refuses to explain the foundations of it. You hide behind a wall of everchanging definitions and words. Of course nobody can prove it is wrong. Actually you can't prove anything about it because it has no limitations. You could claim that it was the SW fallaccy that made the nazis being defeated in WW2 and nobody could contest that because you would just change the definition of roleplaying and optimization. Again. Conclusion:starting a discussion claiming the meaning of the main words of a fallaccy are irrelevant is pretty much self defeating.
calronmoonflower 10-21-07, 10:38 PM	So one of the main arguments defending the SW fallaccy is that you can change names and flavour of stuff. Guess what...The rules allow us to change ANYTHING. It's in the books. In this game changing the rules is a rule. So by this logic any discussion about D&D is unwinnable because you can counter argument that in your games you do things in a diferent way. And you can't throw me the Oberronni fallaccy whitout being bitten back by it. Rules are based off names and definitions. If you go out there changing names and definitons willy-nilly you're comiting Oberronni. Actually that's not an Oberoni Fallacy. The Oberoni Fallacy is saying that something isn't broke because you can fix it with Rule 0. Example: Player 1:Magics are the brokenezt! fighters suck! Player2: What do you mean? In my games all casters can do is magic rush, arcane grapple, fire attack, mystic trip and mormekdain's sunder! And fighters can use their attacks to stop time, travel universes in a blink of an eye, put their enemies to sleep, and much more! Magic sucks! Fighters rule! Player1:hey, how is that possible! Player2:With enough renaming, everything is possible. Now, for the planned builds=goodroleplay... He didn't say a thing about changing the crunch, only the fluff. You have taken his argument farther than he did and then refuted your own creation. It doesn't matter how good is the history you created. What your character sheet tells us is that: A argument based off a lack of evidence is invalid. -You never helped your family at their work, since you don't have a single ranks in any profession(and thus can't use them). Objection. Non-skilled labor can help. Moving heavy objects and doing other grunt work all can help others in their work by freeing up time to do skilled labor. Also all jobs do not need a profession check. Perform for example can be used in work for say a performer. And how about an acrobat. Do they need ranks in profession or jump, tumble, and balance. Also retaining is an option by the Rules As Written. -You don't have any hobbies. You are a soulless geek who only cared about your training. Every things you know and acquire is usefull. You never trained or bought anything just for your own amusement. Lack of skill rants in certain skills cannot back this up either. Sword play for example can be a hobbie. Guess what, it isn't represented by skill ranks at all! -You're a training freak, having spent all your life prearing your mind and body towards a goal, since your stats are just what you needed for it. What a coincidence. Some call that dedication. Also once again this is based off a lack of evidence. Anyway, Im discussing with a guy who suports other guy who not only put his name into a fallaccy, but utterly and completely refuses to explain the foundations of it. You hide behind a wall of everchanging definitions and words. Of course nobody can prove it is wrong. Actually you can't prove anything about it because it has no limitations. You could claim that it was the SW fallaccy that made the nazis being defeated in WW2 and nobody could contest that because you would just change the definition of roleplaying and optimization. Again. :gah: Please don't violate Godwin's Law (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwin%27s_law). Also I belive his explained it very well. Conclusion:starting a discussion claiming the meaning of the main words of a fallaccy are irrelevant is pretty much self defeating. Setting the meaning of the definition that you are using is a discussion prevents confusion over the meaning. No less that three fallacies are based on the changing or misunderstanding of the definitions of the words used in an argument.
Novem 10-21-07, 11:09 PM	Personally, I believe that one of the big problems is the (perceived) connection between munchkinism and optimizing- they are often thought of as one and the same. They're not. Munchkins and Optimizers are stereotypes, so I will enter the realm of opinion and conjecture when I say this, but it is an important distinction. Munchkins are poor roleplayers who seek absurd and obviously broken builds with power as the motivation, often failing brilliantly as the DM finally snaps. Optimizers wish for the most mechanical efficiency to accomplish an idea or character concept. As such, optimizers are frequently very intelligent people who have an active imagination and the ability to work with numbers (an ability that has always attracted the envy of "roleplayers"). Munchkins are very poor roleplayers who often strive for power (NOT efficiency) by exploiting broken rules, outright cheating, and planning the character to make it more powerful without explaining the changes from an RP perspective.
B33PH 10-22-07, 12:31 AM	Leo, I think you may be slightly off with what you think skills are: In the PHB, on page 62 in the sidebar, it says: CHARACTER SKILLS ... the skills on your character sheet don't actually define everything your character can do. Your character may have solid familiarity with many skills, without having the actual training that grants skill ranks. ... Ranks ... represent training beyond everyday use ... ... You're always welcome to assume that your character is familiar with - even good at, as far as everyday tasks go - many skills beyond those for which you actually gain ranks. So, what this is saying is that its perfectly reasonable for your character to have helped out at the farm every day as a child, and be pretty good with the animals, but not be good enough to have ranks in Profession(Farmer) and Handle Animal because they don't have enough knowledge about why they're doing things or are only good with the animals because they grew up with them. In the same way, you can have a hobby of playing an instrument, but not be brilliant at it. Enough to play a few tunes and entertain friends/yourself, but no more. I think you may be confused about the fact that your character sheet is not your character. It is a metagame representation of the mechanics behind your character, so that they are easily accessible. The character has no inherent knowledge of whats on the character sheet, or whats changed, or even that they've leveled up. The mechanics dictate what your character is capable of, but your character is not limited to them.
Nemo_the_Lost 10-22-07, 07:40 AM	You hide behind a wall of everchanging definitions and words. Of course nobody can prove it is wrong. Actually you can't prove anything about it because it has no limitations. You could claim that it was the SW fallaccy that made the nazis being defeated in WW2 and nobody could contest that because you would just change the definition of roleplaying and optimization. Again. Yeah, Godwin's Law, page one. Sweet. Leo's basically right about this, though. This was my original point, way back. The Stormwind Fallacy is meaningless, because all it proves is that some powergamers are also roleplayers by their own definition. It doesn't actually defend anybody from any reasonable opposition. The fact that it was needed because at the time it was coined the opposition was being unreasonable doesn't make it relevant to a current, reasoned discussion.
Nidair 10-22-07, 01:19 PM	Okay, let me start by butting heads with everyone here. I think you're all wrong and all right at once. And I mean it seriously. That said, I tell you what is wrong with powergaming. The first problem that usually rises with powergaming is the issue of creating challenging encounters. If you have a party full of straightforward, unoptimized characters, encounters with the same CR value as the party level are usually enough of a challenge. For a party of obscure, powergamed atrocities, add a few extra enemies, toughen them up, or give them DR to let them pose a challenge to the powerhouses. But what if one or two players decide to make optimized characters while the rest enjoy their usual characters with flavorful mechanical choices? The balance is completely gone, and it is very difficult for a DM to make an encounter which is a challenge for the optimizers and survivable for the others. The second problem is the assumption that characters are more fun if you do more damage, and that a party of unoptimized characters is less fun. How much more fun is doing 80 damage to an ancient black dragon than doing 40 damage to a blue slaad? How ineffective your characters are compared to another of the same level with optimal choices is irrelevant if you're having fun with the game. Powergaming is just... not needed at all.
rutrow424 10-22-07, 01:21 PM	Here is your last post to me in the other thread - I will respond in a 2nd post herein: Quote: Originally Posted by rutrow424 Do you/your group create backstories for your PCs? Do you pick nothing but skill focuses or roll feats randomly? Your point is not invalid, but let me flip this around on you. Have you ever picked Skill Focus as a feat for one of your characters? Quote: If need be, I will "retcon" furture choices into the events that have happened to make the whole make more RP sense, or I will change the entire plan if something significant happens to necessitate it. Retroactive continuity is cheating at roleplaying. Part of the challenge of roleplay is dealing with the consequences of previous choices and a lack of information. I'm not certain how many more ways I can say this to make it clearer. Quote: But the sheer number of options available to players, along with things like p-classes and feat chains, make the sort of fly by the seat of your pants, organic PC development nearly impossible. Do you use p-classes? You can't use any of those published based upon your arguments here. I use PrCs in the way they were originally intended, which is to say, in the way that they were described to me at GenCon 2000. They are either based on extant organizations in my homebrew world which it is entirely possible for PCs to learn about during or before their travels, or they are custom tailored for an individual character. I rarely make use of PrCs out of the books, as I feel that the splatbook approach is completely foreign to the original concept. Quote: What do you do for classes that gain new abilities - does a ranger have to choose favored enemies that he has previously fought only? Is there a threshold to qualify for FE-evil outsider? Does a monk have to fight ranged opponents to select Deflect arrows at 2nd level, or make lots of AoO (or "learn" the impact not having the feat) to pick combat reflexes? Well, I'm not a fascist about it, but "yes" all around, really. Quote: Deflect arrows was the next feature of the unarmed fighting skill he already was trained in. I tend to refute this idea that you do not have to be shot at repeatedly in order to learn how to deflect projectiles. The kunai that the older monks are throwing might be padded, but they are still aimed at your head. I am not downplaying the role of training, here, but you don't just wake up some morning and say, "I know Deflect Arrows." "Whoa." Quote: To you, it would be metagaming to decide to make a spellsword, but you can't make an effective fighter-wizard PC without some optimization and pre-planning. Then I would say that is a flaw of the system. It does not make the behavior "okay." Quote: That's why the mantra "optimization and RP are not related" gets repeated so often. I don't agree with that mantra. They are clearly intertwined, as any good roleplayer would agree that your character's class, scores, feats, and skills should reflect his concept just as much as the contents of his backstory should. As I've said before, you can call Deflect Arrows whatever you like -- it still deflects arrows. Quote: 3e makes that play style nearly impossible - at best it is a fusion between what you want and what you appear to fear. It is near impossible, even with just the PHB, for a player not to know and think ahead about what a PC will take at future levels. Some classes basically demand it, others require it to keep the class up to snuff. Again, flaw in the system, not a defense of the playing style. Quote: True, but that does not always mean the palyer made the wrong decision, or did not treat it as importantly as you deem necessary. Perhaps not, but no one addressed this part of the issue until now. Quote: Again, in 3e some PC concepts cannot be made without knowledge of the rules, and it is the rules that put those concepts onto the table. Pre-3e, you could dream up a concept, choose the class that fit (if the die rolls permitted), and that was the end of any real decision making. 3e requires decisions to be made at every level, and some of those should be enabled by the idea of the original concept. Concepts evolve with circumstances. The rules that enable concepts and which are in turn enabled by those concepts must also be allowed to evolve. This eliminates the possibility of character "builds" in any campaign with a non-static, non-linear storyline.
rutrow424 10-22-07, 02:27 PM	Originally Posted by rutrow424 Do you/your group create backstories for your PCs? Do you pick nothing but skill focuses or roll feats randomly? Your point is not invalid, but let me flip this around on you. Have you ever picked Skill Focus as a feat for one of your characters? I think the only PC that had skill focus was a Pale Master, and as such invalidated by the "pre-planning." I have had PCs take the +2/+2 skills (alertness, athletic, animal affinity and their ilk). I have also had PCs take combat-related feats that would likely be deemed sub-optimal and were not really planned. My 14th level Dragon Disciple (planned P-class) has the 3 main archery feats and no PA; the archery feats stem from her chauvanistic barbarian upbringing, and I found other feats more appropriate to the PC's story (like True Believer for her diety, or Leadership to gather forces for her diety). Or EWP-kukri in 3.0 for a cleric who came across a magic one, despite serving a war god and having MWP-battle axe. Quote: If need be, I will "retcon" furture choices into the events that have happened to make the whole make more RP sense, or I will change the entire plan if something significant happens to necessitate it. Retroactive continuity is cheating at roleplaying. Part of the challenge of roleplay is dealing with the consequences of previous choices and a lack of information. I'm not certain how many more ways I can say this to make it clearer. I think you have explained yourself well, perhaps I and RT have not. I am not saying I will change my PC, but see little harm in changing/adding some back story to explain why his 2nd level monk feat is deflect arrows or fiery fist, or took ride-by-attack for his 2nd fighter feat, as necessary. I also noted that I approve of PCs making decisions based upon campaign events, particularly those that affected the PC personally. But the sheer number of options available to players, along with things like p-classes and feat chains, make the sort of fly by the seat of your pants, organic PC development nearly impossible. Do you use p-classes? You can't use any of those published based upon your arguments here. I use PrCs in the way they were originally intended, which is to say, in the way that they were described to me at GenCon 2000. They are either based on extant organizations in my homebrew world which it is entirely possible for PCs to learn about during or before their travels, or they are custom tailored for an individual character. I rarely make use of PrCs out of the books, as I feel that the splatbook approach is completely foreign to the original concept. I agree with you that it is, but it is the world that we play in. I have little use for many of the "official" prcs, but many do provide some mechanical weight to match a concept, and others have sparked new/different concepts for me to play. What do you do for classes that gain new abilities - does a ranger have to choose favored enemies that he has previously fought only? Is there a threshold to qualify for FE-evil outsider? Does a monk have to fight ranged opponents to select Deflect arrows at 2nd level, or make lots of AoO (or "learn" the impact not having the feat) to pick combat reflexes? Well, I'm not a fascist about it, but "yes" all around, really. More power to you - what does a monk do at 2nd level if he hasn't "qualified" for deflect arrows or combat reflexes? What does a 2nd level fighter/wannabe knight concept select at 2nd level if he has had no need to be mounted in the dungeon crawl that allowed him to level. Deflect arrows was the next feature of the unarmed fighting skill he already was trained in. I tend to refute this idea that you do not have to be shot at repeatedly in order to learn how to deflect projectiles. The kunai that the older monks are throwing might be padded, but they are still aimed at your head. I am not downplaying the role of training, here, but you don't just wake up some morning and say, "I know Deflect Arrows." But couldn't it be equally valid that the PC trained onhis own, or that the master that taught the monk unarmed fighting sowed the seed to learn to deflect arrows, but it took the PC some more time to "get it." To you, it would be metagaming to decide to make a spellsword, but you can't make an effective fighter-wizard PC without some optimization and pre-planning. Then I would say that is a flaw of the system. It does not make the behavior "okay." It is a flaw in the system - but you would frown upon the player who wants to play a fighter/wizard and not be ineffective next to his straight class companions? I'd rather allow a planned build to permit a player to realize his concept, you would throw out the concept? That's why the mantra "optimization and RP are not related" gets repeated so often. I don't agree with that mantra. They are clearly intertwined, as any good roleplayer would agree that your character's class, scores, feats, and skills should reflect his concept just as much as the contents of his backstory should. As I've said before, you can call Deflect Arrows whatever you like -- it still deflects arrows. Perhaps I'm confused by your point here - a player can RP regardless of what the PC sheet says the numbers are. To claim that because that player chose those numbers in advance, or because they make the PC closer to the pre-conceived idea, that that player is a bad role-player is what the mantra is meant to refute. I can sit down with an unknown group and after 1 session likely know who the "good" RPs are; I may or may not know whether their PCs are optimized. You are equating optimization with bad RP; it may be the case in your experience, but is disingenuous to claim it is always the case, just like it is foolish to claim that those who do not optimize are good RPs. 3e makes that play style nearly impossible - at best it is a fusion between what you want and what you appear to fear. It is near impossible, even with just the PHB, for a player not to know and think ahead about what a PC will take at future levels. Some classes basically demand it, others require it to keep the class up to snuff. Again, flaw in the system, not a defense of the playing style. And again it is the hand we have been dealt. Again, in 3e some PC concepts cannot be made without knowledge of the rules, and it is the rules that put those concepts onto the table. Pre-3e, you could dream up a concept, choose the class that fit (if the die rolls permitted), and that was the end of any real decision making. 3e requires decisions to be made at every level, and some of those should be enabled by the idea of the original concept. Concepts evolve with circumstances. The rules that enable concepts and which are in turn enabled by those concepts must also be allowed to evolve. This eliminates the possibility of character "builds" in any campaign with a non-static, non-linear storyline. Concepts do evolve with circumstances. However, that evolution is dependent upon campaign specifics, and is controlled by the player. The concept may or not need to change, and the changes may or may not be reflected in the mechanics on the PC sheet. Removing prestige classes in the splatbook sense actually makes evolution much easier by removing much need for builds, especially non-warrior types.
Nemo_the_Lost 10-22-07, 09:02 PM	Or EWP-kukri in 3.0 for a cleric who came across a magic one, despite serving a war god and having MWP-battle axe. So you have, in the past, sacrificed optimization for roleplaying purposes. Now, I ask you this -- could you have made optimized choices equivalent to those you made in order to facilitate your roleplay? I think you have explained yourself well, perhaps I and RT have not. I am not saying I will change my PC, but see little harm in changing/adding some back story to explain why his 2nd level monk feat is deflect arrows or fiery fist, or took ride-by-attack for his 2nd fighter feat, as necessary. I do see harm there, in certain circumstances. That might be a fundamental difference between us. If you don't have a background to speak of, there's no harm in building it as you go -- if that's the kind of campaign you want to run. But in my experience, most roleplaying campaigns require a backstory up front. And it really shouldn't change. I also noted that I approve of PCs making decisions based upon campaign events, particularly those that affected the PC personally. Right, and that's good. But logical thinking suggests that not all of those choices can have optimized results. Not every encounter your character has will be good for him, or will result in him choosing to continue following the path he has been following. I have little use for many of the "official" prcs... Says the Pale Master/Dragon Disciple player! :D More power to you - what does a monk do at 2nd level if he hasn't "qualified" for deflect arrows or combat reflexes? What does a 2nd level fighter/wannabe knight concept select at 2nd level if he has had no need to be mounted in the dungeon crawl that allowed him to level. First of all, I think the only thing you'd have to do to qualify for Combat Reflexes is engage in combat. Not a terribly strict set of guidelines. Also, I have a modified knight in my current campaign who replaced the mounted feats with other feats more appropriate to an adventuring knight. Mounted combat just never seems to fit into my games. But these answers don't really answer your questions. I see what you are saying, and I must assume that being a member of a certain class is training enough for feats that are given as class abilities. As I said before, perhaps the kunai being thrown at the monk's head are made of rubber or wood. But he's still getting kunai thrown at his head. But couldn't it be equally valid that the PC trained onhis own, or that the master that taught the monk unarmed fighting sowed the seed to learn to deflect arrows, but it took the PC some more time to "get it." Perhaps we should limit this part of the argument to feats that are not granted as class abilities? You make a solid point, but it doesn't really oppose my stance, because I was not originally considering that Deflect Arrows was a monk class ability... It is a flaw in the system - but you would frown upon the player who wants to play a fighter/wizard and not be ineffective next to his straight class companions? I'd rather allow a planned build to permit a player to realize his concept, you would throw out the concept? Personally, I use an amalgam of UA rules that more or less eliminate the problem, so I cannot really speak to it. Casters in my homebrew game have spell points determined by their class level, and their maximum castable spell level is determined by character level. But in direct answer to your question, yes, I would prefer that the concept be thrown out if it involved plotting out at which levels the character would take levels of fighter and at which levels he would take levels of wizard, and if it layed out a feat progression to maximize the character's potential. Yes, I would prefer that not happen. Perhaps I'm confused by your point here - a player can RP regardless of what the PC sheet says the numbers are. He can, yes. But humor aside, there is a certain futility to roleplaying a cleric of St. Cuthbert who is clearly a rogue according to his character sheet. To claim that because that player chose those numbers in advance, or because they make the PC closer to the pre-conceived idea, that that player is a bad role-player is what the mantra is meant to refute. ... You are equating optimization with bad RP; it may be the case in your experience, but is disingenuous to claim it is always the case, just like it is foolish to claim that those who do not optimize are good RPs. I do not claim that powergaming always results in bad roleplay. I claim that powergaming encourages bad roleplay, and that one must be a strong roleplayer to overcome the urge to allow powergaming to become one's focus over roleplay. But to claim that character stat generation and character story generation are not related just seems foolish to me. The numbers and the roleplay are two sides of the same coin. And again it is the hand we have been dealt. That's not an excuse, it's just sad. :( Concepts do evolve with circumstances. However, that evolution is dependent upon campaign specifics, and is controlled by the player. That control is very limited. A character's reaction to circumstances laid out by the GM are nominally the player's prerogative, it is true. But they are also limited by the character's concept. If a storyline situation would cause a character to act in a way that the player does not like, a good roleplayer would suck it up and play the character the way she was meant to be played, not the way he wanted to play her. The concept may or not need to change, and the changes may or may not be reflected in the mechanics on the PC sheet. Removing prestige classes in the splatbook sense actually makes evolution much easier by removing much need for builds, especially non-warrior types. Agreed. But when a change in the mechanics is mandated, it should be roleplay that determines what change is made -- not what numbers make the character most efficient.
RadicalTaoist 10-22-07, 11:12 PM	Thanks to others for covering Leo's post for me. Honestly, I'm getting kind of tired of the discussion, no offense to those involved. My interest is just moving on. Entirely understandable. If I cannot depend on the definitions of metagaming, powergaming, and roleplaying, then neither can you or anyone else, and this entire enterprise is worthless. I've been saying that the arguments on both sides of this debate are academic almost since the beginning. Actually, I was going to argue that they were irrelevant in my favor (they really can vary in only so many significant or relevant ways), but I suspect that you are tired of academic arguments and logical proofs. So I'll hold of on that set of logical arguments and avoid the terms altogether. What is getting my goat, and why I get into these debates, is the implicit underlying framework upon which the connection between optimization and bad roleplaying depends. If the terms are so worthless, how come "roleplaying is hindered by optimization" is given the benefit of the doubt? Why do I have to argue my playstyle exists from the ground up? Why isn't the opposing statement considered equally invalid until it decides to clear up the terminology? Anecdotal evidence? Why doesn't my anecdotal evidence, backed up with an explanation, get equal weight? Is semantic vagueness really enough to justify the stigma that 'powergaming' gets, and further justify the assumption that my way of approaching the problem - reconciling the playstyles - is an impossible dream brought up by some min/maxer who's just looking for an 'excuse' to play his ubar build, as though I wasn't playing richly detailed characters that I loved for their personality and story as much as anyone else's? You'll see why I wanted to dispel the debates about definition as much as anyone. I'll let you infer from my comments the kind of debates I have engaged in the past. There are a lot of scientific theories out there that exist irrespective of real world facts. I'm sure you've heard of the one that says we should never get to anywhere we want to go because every X/2 seconds or whatever we halve the distance left to our goal, ad infinitum. Just because something is scientifically provable (or not) does not necessarily validate (or invalidate) its real world application. Agggh, Zeno's Paradox. I came up with a synthetic proof negating his argument in grade school (within minutes of hearing it) before I even knew what an analytic or synthetic proof was. Hmm, I was an odd little kid. You are right on a point though. Though Zeno's Paradox is an argument and not a true theory (or true science), you can challenge a theory on its prescriptive ecological validity. In plain English: "OK, so you play this way, how should I expect other people to?" is a perfectly valid move. I'm not arguing that he has to. I'm arguing that attention paid to optimization interferes with attention paid to roleplaying. Okay. I would like to argue that attention paid to optimization does not have to interfere with attention paid to roleplaying (at least not in the negative sense; it can complicate roleplaying but in a manner that can enrich the roleplaying experience). ...Honestly? Yes. ...Hmm. See the end of my response. Isn't that counter to the very concept of optimization? Everything that has been said up until this point is that a broad character build is antithetical to efficiency. There's a difference between being able to do a lot of things poorly (which in heavily optimized games, translates into not being able to do anything at all) and being able to do enough things that can be used in any situation. Being useless is obviously not optimal. You don't want to be in a situation where you're useless. A character who multiclasses into a billion classes to pick up 'every little thing' will likely be suboptimal. A character who, say, focuses on casting but picks up a lot of versatile spell use so that they can always cast a spell that can turn the tide is optimal. That's not what I meant. To rephrase: a rogue trains in certain skills because he is a certain kind of rogue. I have personally never played a rogue with any ability in picking pockets. Fair enough. That's the concept and mechanics division. The horrifying truth is that I actually think that idea sounds awesome, but then I love really complex board games. ...has anyone actually made a game like that? Arguably, no. But if he doesn't, I don't know why he would bother with Deflect Arrows. Why he would depends on the build and can be fit to the concept, as per the four techniques. Then the problem is with your example, because Deflect Arrows is a pretty limited power. Well, Deflect Arrows or any other feat can be used as example. My point is that a build with a player that has to ask the DM to adopt certain tactics is obviously a suboptimal build. The problem is that many players are not mature, and optimization is an option that is open to everyone. Very true! See the end of my response. No more than the argument that it is not. I've still got the premises behind the theory up there. I think they follow without any circular logic. Agreed, but entitlement is at the core of a planned character build. ...it is? Wait, are you saying that because I put the effort into planning a character build, I feel 'entitled' to it performing well? Well, yes, I suppose, that's kind of what I make builds for. I prefer to think of it as 'earning' a powerful PC. But as I've argued through the techniques, I don't have to compromise the character concept to do this, so what's the harm done? If you're referring to a player maturity issue, see the end of my response. I'm not convinced you are listening to me. Let me reason myself out. We agree that a player going over rulesbooks in the middle of a game is a bad thing. We agree that a player actually playing his character in the middle of a game is a good thing (we apparently have different views on what exactly 'playing the character' should and shouldn't entail, but we both feel that they should happen in game sessions). You have to go over rulesbooks to optimize a character. I propose that they go over the rulesbooks OUTSIDE of game sessions, and that way, they can spend session time playing the game. I certainly don't make builds when I should be playing. I play. Argh! He is not a warlock or a caster! He is not a two-weapon fighter! He is a rogue! OK. I'm just saying class is irrelevant. (For a rogue, make him a wand-using UMD rogue and loss of a hand doesn't slow him down at all). Let's agree that there for any 'build', there are some extreme events that significantly hamper their power level and others that don't really bother them. No need for us to get clogged down in one example. That doesn't make any sense. That's like saying that religion doesn't interfere with politics unless religion necessarily interferes with politics. Lots of things interfere with lots of other things despite the fact that they don't have to. This is the case for many an X and Y. I'll agree with you that it holds here. But if you decide how X and Y interfere with eachother, especially if you can rig things so they actually benefit each other synergistically, then you have proven that the correlation between the two need not be negative. That's what I'm saying is the case for optimization and roleplaying. Yes they can and most often do interfere. This doesn't have to be a problem if we treat it right. The end of my response: I'm seeing in your posts a lot of lack of knowledge of stuff I considered very basic in optimization. This is not a bad thing and I don't wish to imply that it is. I did say that the reconciliation of roleplaying and optimization would involve developing a certain skillset. And no, I don't think my skillset is deathly essential to playing D&D. I believe in the Jell_Moo Principle, and not telling you how to play the game includes not telling you that you should learn to do all this in order to enjoy the game. However, I am tasked to tell you how my big fancy idea is supposed to help you when there's a powergamer in your group who isn't getting along. And then it becomes a player maturity issue. Honestly? There's not much I can tell you there. Immature, disruptive players are a problem regardless of their playstyle, so I don't feel the need to defend optimization here. I do realize, however, that you may feel more capable at dealing with a certain kind of immature player where another may not be what you can deal with without resorting to "Change how you play or get out." And I understand that's a tricky thing. Of course, players tend to be less disruptive when they're having fun, and the powergamer wants to have fun in a way that's tricky for your group. I fully encourage teaching him to roleplay as best as you're able. My whole point is that he doesn't have to give up optimization to fit into your group (assuming he's being mature about the whole thing). But that requires developing the skills I pointed out above, and I've just said you shouldn't have to learn all this to make a place for this guy in your game. So what can you do? I suppose showing him the four techniques and the reflavoring threads I linked is about it. Tell him to send me a PM, maybe I can talk to him, show him how it's done. Of course, I'd have to show him all the other responsibilities he'd have to take on to make the thing work like a mature adult (like helping everyone to be on the same page power-wise, informing the DM of everyone's capabilities so he knows how to provide a challenge, knowing when not to push the uber ownage button, etc. - all stuff we do in my play groups). And that requires player maturity. It wouldn't be easy. It would be easier if there were more powerroleplayers like myself in the gaming community that you could point the kid to and say "Learn from him. If this doesn't work, you may find his game more enjoyable". But as has been noted, I'm not exactly among a common breed. I'm trying to do outreach for my combined play style as best as I can, and ideally we would spread and could ease the real problems your group might face. We can't help you, however, if everyone keeps saying that we don't exist. And a response to Nidair. That said, I tell you what is wrong with powergaming. No offense, but violating the Jell_Moo Principle in your first paragraph isn't the best way to start. The first problem that usually rises with powergaming is the issue of creating challenging encounters. If you have a party full of straightforward, unoptimized characters, encounters with the same CR value as the party level are usually enough of a challenge. For a party of obscure, powergamed atrocities, add a few extra enemies, toughen them up, or give them DR to let them pose a challenge to the powerhouses. But what if one or two players decide to make optimized characters while the rest enjoy their usual characters with flavorful mechanical choices? The balance is completely gone, and it is very difficult for a DM to make an encounter which is a challenge for the optimizers and survivable for the others. Well, obviously a mature player cares about the fun of the rest of his group and helps the others ("Want me to spruce up your build, Matt? I promise I'll stay faithful to your concept.") so that this sort of thing doesn't happen. Being disruptive means not fitting in with your group. This is just an example of where the disruptive behaviour is attached to a specific playstyle. The second problem is the assumption that characters are more fun if you do more damage, and that a party of unoptimized characters is less fun. How much more fun is doing 80 damage to an ancient black dragon than doing 40 damage to a blue slaad? How ineffective your characters are compared to another of the same level with optimal choices is irrelevant if you're having fun with the game. Powergaming is just... not needed at all. Not if you don't enjoy that kind of game. We have fun being able to fight a decent challenge and beat it with our optimized builds. Just because you don't get that fun doesn't mean we should start playing the game differently. We find the game more fun this way. You don't have to. You also don't have to say our fun is just not needed at all and we should do without.
Shadowhowler 10-23-07, 12:11 AM	The existance of these arguments still confuses me. I'd understand them if they were simple debates on the merits of one playstyle vs another... but the way the normaly seem to play out is just very odd to me. Here are a few things *I* have come to belive in my over 15 years of playing RPG's... *A player can be a good roleplayer and a good optimizer at the same time. *A Player can be a good roleplayer, and a bad optimizer. *A Player can be a bad roleplayer, and a good optimizer. I feel pretty safe saying the above with conviction. I have played a lot of games with a lot of players, I have run LARP games with over 100 players at a time... so I have seen ALL kinds of differant players and plystyles. Now... the following are my opinions about players and RPG's based on MY experince. Obvously, YMMV. *To have a fun and sucsessfull, non-stressfull game, it is imparative that, when selecting your players (or if a player, when selecting a game) that you make sure everyone in the game is on the same page. This means if your into heavy immersion roleplaying, don't play with a group that is into optimization and not to intrested in roleplaying... your just going to **** them and yourself off, and no fun will be had. If you like a relaxed, beer and prtezels style of game... don't join a game that is overly serious and intense, be it from deep immersion roleplay or heavy optimization and tactical attention. As a DM, lay out the style of game you want to run to your perspective players... thus letting them decide if they think they would enjoy that style of game. *While players can combine many differant playstyles and traits... and very skillfull and experinced players often do, MOST players I have encountered over the years tend to one style of gaming over another, sometimes to the exclusion of other styles. This basicly means that, in my experince, most players who are REALLY into optimization are not as intrested or at all intrested in character background, immersive or heavy roleplay, and vice versa. This does NOT, by any means, mean the styles are exclusive to one another. I myself can do both and often have... but, following the same above principle, if I *HAD* to chose one that was more important, immersive roleplaying and character development will always be more important to me then optimization. To each their own. I think a lot of the problem comes in people insisting that there way of playing RPG's is the only way... or the best way. I have to admit to some degree of the latter... I would NEVER say there is a right or a wrong way to play D&D... or that everyone should play the way I do. However, *I* find my playstyle much more rewarding... and of course I think my style of play is better... everyone prefers things they like and identify with. :D
calronmoonflower 10-23-07, 02:50 AM	Yeah, Godwin's Law, page one. Sweet. Leo's basically right about this, though. This was my original point, way back. The Stormwind Fallacy is meaningless, because all it proves is that some powergamers are also roleplayers by their own definition. It doesn't actually defend anybody from any reasonable opposition. Actually the Stormwind fallacy is a either/or fallacy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_dilemma). It uses that you power game well as proof that you are not good at roleplaying instead of actually using the quality of the roleplaying to prove the assertion. *A player can be a good roleplayer and a good optimizer at the same time. *A Player can be a good roleplayer, and a bad optimizer. *A Player can be a bad roleplayer, and a good optimizer. Yep.
Drachasor 10-23-07, 04:49 AM	Okay, let me start by butting heads with everyone here. I think you're all wrong and all right at once. And I mean it seriously. That said, I tell you what is wrong with powergaming. The first problem that usually rises with powergaming is the issue of creating challenging encounters. If you have a party full of straightforward, unoptimized characters, encounters with the same CR value as the party level are usually enough of a challenge. For a party of obscure, powergamed atrocities, add a few extra enemies, toughen them up, or give them DR to let them pose a challenge to the powerhouses. But what if one or two players decide to make optimized characters while the rest enjoy their usual characters with flavorful mechanical choices? The balance is completely gone, and it is very difficult for a DM to make an encounter which is a challenge for the optimizers and survivable for the others. The second problem is the assumption that characters are more fun if you do more damage, and that a party of unoptimized characters is less fun. How much more fun is doing 80 damage to an ancient black dragon than doing 40 damage to a blue slaad? How ineffective your characters are compared to another of the same level with optimal choices is irrelevant if you're having fun with the game. Powergaming is just... not needed at all. There's certainly a point to this. You can be so optimized that you are overpowered. Sometimes this is so easy to do a player can stumble upon it (Druid with natural spell). At other times it can take a bit of work (ToB character focused on gazillions of attacks all benefiting from boosts -- pretty sure that's one, though most ToB builds are just fine, imho). This is an inherent problem with the game though. Some stuff IS too powerful, and some combos are too powerful -- even using each rule and ability as designed. For me, personally, as I player I consider it part of my job to make sure I am not too effective. I try to find something I enjoy that won't dominate the game. This is a very tricky balancing act, because the difference between sensible optimization and overpowered optimization is far from clear. Is powergaming not needed then? No, and far from it. If you want to play an effective gish, then you have to powergame, because it is easy to make a crappy gish. The same is true of a fighter. So some classes and concepts need a lot of work, a lot of optimization, to simply be playable and effective (and I am not talking about earth-shattering effectiveness here, merely middle-of-the-road or somewhat better when well-played). On the other hand, some other concepts are so easy to make uber-effective, that a sensible player needs to be careful -- because a guy that's too effective makes things tougher on the DM (and often other players). Also, in D&D, the high-end of effectiveness is reserved for a relatively small number of builds and character concepts, so most of the time making such a character inherently is screwing up other players (either they have to change their character to keep up or they will be relatively ineffective). Now, that might sound like I am largely saying powergaming and optimization is bad, but that's not really the case. You really have to be fairly familiar with the various optimizations out there to avoid what is far too potent (as opposed to what is just merely potent). It also helps you enable fellow players that aren't as good at optimizing -- though to be honest, there is only so much you can do here, because a fair number of players will only accept so much help (ime). So good powergaming, imho, is not just knowing how to optimizing (which everyone has to do), but how much to do it. It would be nice if this wasn't the case as far as character design went -- if every concept could work well, and it was more about how you played that concept that mattered. This isn't the case in 3.5E though, and while it might be better in 4E, it is unlikely to be the case there either (if ever). In all likelihood, powergaming is here to stay. Frankly, "powergaming" is pretty darn common in the real world. Many people plan things out years ahead, such as what profession they want and what jobs/degrees they need to get that profession -- as well as how best to do each step. It seems to me that most any pragmatic adventurer would do the same (which easily justifies level dipping, imho). Powergaming, by and large, isn't a roleplaying issue; it is an issue of gameplay. Which is why the Stormwind Fallacy correctly points out that roleplaying and powergaming are two separate beasts. -Drachasor
Leo 10-23-07, 04:15 PM	Ok, first to Carloonmoonflower,. Did you bother to read your own link? Let me post it for you: (also known as Godwin's Rule of Nazi Analogies)[1] is an adage formulated by Mike Godwin in 1990. The law states:[2] “ As an online discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Nazis or Hitler approaches one. ” The rule does not make any statement as to whether any particular reference or comparison to Hitler or the Nazis might be appropriate, but only asserts that one arising is increasingly probable. So how exactly did I violate it? I actually confirmed it. See, that's what bothers me, youtake all those fallaccies and laws and definitions and twist them to fit your purposes Now as for the SW fallaccy, what nobody bothered to anwer me besides Nemo, it's that it isn't a question of misunderstooding the meaning of roleplaying and optimizing...It's that the starter of the thread claims that what people think about optimizing and roleplaying is irrelevant. They put the fallaccy out without ever bothering to define both words, and untill today they still refuse to do so. Some threads apeared to discuss the matter, but the final results were done in order not to really explain what roleplaying and optimization are but to fit the SW fallaccy. And then people go around throwing the word roleplaying and optimization around like candies, despite nobody really knowing what they mean. So, the only pratical use of the SW fallaccy it's to create these pointless discussions, since the fallaccy itself has no meaning. It basically states that (insert whatever you want here and call it roleplaying) and (insert whatever you want here and call it optimizing) are not related. Or not directly related. Or whatever you want. It's not like the fallaccy itself doesn't change every month. Hell I vote that it should be renamed as the polymorph/shapeshifter fallaccy.:P At least I train my english.
Nemo_the_Lost 10-23-07, 04:57 PM	Actually, I was going to argue that they were irrelevant in my favor (they really can vary in only so many significant or relevant ways), but I suspect that you are tired of academic arguments and logical proofs. So I'll hold of on that set of logical arguments and avoid the terms altogether. You might as well go ahead and make the argument. If the terms are so worthless, how come "roleplaying is hindered by optimization" is given the benefit of the doubt? The terms are not worthless. I did not say that. The terms are nebulous. They all describe sliding scales. The point of metagaming is different for everyone. The point of powergaming is different for everyone. My argument is given the benefit of the doubt because it acknowledges that. To put my stance another way, "As powergaming increases, the chance that roleplaying is hindered increases." If you scour the MM for broken monster races, you are not going to damage your roleplay. If you scour the MM for broken monster races and peruse all of the Complete books to find the perfect class for that monster race, maybe there's some risk. If you scour the MM, peruse all of the Complete books, and turn the Book of Nine Swords, the Book of Exalted Deeds, Dungeonscape, and Oriental Adventures inside out for all the best feats you can find, you're officially building a concept around the rules, and not vice versa. And that's not the point of the game, in my opinion. Your argument does the same. Powergamers can be roleplayers. For some value of powergaming and some value of roleplaying, that is bound to be true. I never said these terms were too vaporous to support an argument. You did. Agggh, Zeno's Paradox. I came up with a synthetic proof negating his argument in grade school (within minutes of hearing it) before I even knew what an analytic or synthetic proof was. Hmm, I was an odd little kid. I'm the sort of logical thinker that just states that Zeno's Paradox is clearly stupid, and demonstrates his synthetic proof by going home. Okay. I would like to argue that attention paid to optimization does not have to interfere with attention paid to roleplaying (at least not in the negative sense; it can complicate roleplaying but in a manner that can enrich the roleplaying experience). You are totally right. But they CAN interfere, and in my experience that interference can be very pronounced! Again, just because something may not be does not mean that it is not. There's a difference between being able to do a lot of things poorly (which in heavily optimized games, translates into not being able to do anything at all) and being able to do enough things that can be used in any situation. Fair enough. ...has anyone actually made a game like that? Not to my knowledge. Unless you count things like the random dungeon generator in the AD&D1 DMG. I've still got the premises behind the theory up there. I think they follow without any circular logic. I agree. I just happen to feel the same way about my argument. Wait, are you saying that because I put the effort into planning a character build, I feel 'entitled' to it performing well? Well, yes, I suppose, that's kind of what I make builds for. I prefer to think of it as 'earning' a powerful PC. Prefer to think of it as you like; the fact remains that if I kill your character (nefarious means aside), you will be upset for two reasons. One, the length of time you spent working on it. Two, your fondness for the character himself. If we assume (erroneously, I'm sure) that all roleplayers are equally fond of their characters, then it stands to reason that optimizers, who spend more time on their characters than non-optimizers, will be more upset than your average gamer upon the death of one of their characters. I call that an enhanced sense of entitlement, for better or for worse. Of course, this is directly refuted by the fact that I am not an optimizer and yet I can take DAYS to roll up a single PC, but I am definitely not your average gamer. I, in fact, suck lots at playing this game. But as I've argued through the techniques, I don't have to compromise the character concept to do this, so what's the harm done? If you're referring to a player maturity issue, see the end of my response. But what if you did have to? No, you don't have to every time, but what of the odd circumstance in which you do? Your kung fu is weak. ...Er, I mean, your techniques are not foolproof. Let me reason myself out. Good luck. I can never seem to reason myself out. I propose that they go over the rulesbooks OUTSIDE of game sessions, and that way, they can spend session time playing the game. I certainly don't make builds when I should be playing. I play. But the build affects the game. The rulebooks, through the build, pervade all aspects of play. An optimized character does not stop being optimized for the four hours a week you roleplay him. He is both optimized and roleplayed. What happens when there is a conflict? Do the rulebooks win, or does the story? But if you decide how X and Y interfere with eachother, [b]especially if you can rig things so they actually benefit each other synergistically, then you have proven that the correlation between the two need not be negative. I do not feel that you have succeeded in this proof beyond a thin veneer of logical positioning. There has been a lot of disproving the Stormwind Fallacy and claiming that you and your fellows are not bad roleplayers, but even you seem to acknowledge from time to time that there is a slippery slope involved in optimization. There comes a point where you ask yourself, "Do I modify my concept so that I can take this excellent feat that defies all attempts at reflavoring? Or do I stay true to my concept and accept that my character will never be as successful as someone who could have taken said feat?" Or perhaps you ask yourself, "This priest of my character's god has just offered to train him in the way of the priesthood. My character is very pious, and he should accept, but if I do, what becomes of my fighter feat track?" I still hold that it takes an exceptional individual to make the right call in those situations. And maybe you and all of your fellows are exceptional individuals. I do not refute that. I barely even know you. All I am saying is that it is dangerous to teach players that optimized characters are part of enjoying a roleplaying game. If a player becomes used to a certain power level in play, or if their campaign is geared toward a certain power level, the two things will inevitably come into conflict, and a choice will have to be made between efficiency and story. As long as the latter is always chosen, I have no complaint. But in my experience, that decision is harder for most people to make than it is for me. It is entirely possible to enjoy the game if you are playing it some other way. I'm not trying to tell anyone how to play the game. This is just my concern, based on what I have seen happen in my campaigns. If you or anyone you know has never reached this breaking point, then more power to you. The game is something different to everybody. But I see a real risk. Regarding the end of your response: The majority of my problems with powergaming have been with completely capable powerroleplayers who suffer some kind of setback and eliminate their character from my game as a result, whether by leaving as a player or just rolling a new optimized PC. I consider these players to be mature for the most part, although I don't consider their final acts very mature. Education is really not the issue for these people. They know how to play the game, in all senses of the phrase. But in the end, their powergaming gets in the way of their roleplaying and it disrupts my game. It would be easier if there were more powerroleplayers like myself in the gaming community that you could point the kid to and say "Learn from him. If this doesn't work, you may find his game more enjoyable". But as has been noted, I'm not exactly among a common breed. This is really the crux of everything that I have been trying to say. We can't help you, however, if everyone keeps saying that we don't exist. I'm not saying you don't exist. I never did. That would mean that I was espousing the Stormwind Fallacy, which I don't.
DaidojiTaidoru 10-23-07, 06:15 PM	The existance of these arguments still confuses me. I'd understand them if they were simple debates on the merits of one playstyle vs another... but the way the normaly seem to play out is just very odd to me. Here are a few things *I* have come to belive in my over 15 years of playing RPG's... *A player can be a good roleplayer and a good optimizer at the same time. *A Player can be a good roleplayer, and a bad optimizer. *A Player can be a bad roleplayer, and a good optimizer. You forgot the most common one. A Player can be a bad roleplayer, and a bad optimizer. I've found a good chunk of people fall into that one. And for some reason they usually claim to be great power gamers.* Just like a number of people in the good at both insist they never optimize (which is why you play 2nd ED Paladins and brake out the Skills and Powers book right? :rolleyes: ). And I think that colors the "experience" portion of the debate. I can't recall the number of times some "expert powergamer" explained how his 20 level pure fighter was unstoppable, or how awesome his straight monk was. And at this point I just shake my head, mentally note how easy it would be for one of my monsters to obliterate the offender, and try to waste the cleric who's actually a threat while giving the guy some chump fodder orcs to feel good about his "leet character building skills." However to someone who's bad at optimization (or who doesn't pay attention to his own combat numbers) it sounds like the guy is a incredible optimizer who can't roleplay his way out of a paper bag. Instead of the cheap hack who stole a few char op tricks off the net and put them together haphazardly like a script kiddy looking for a uber virus. This vast number of "powergamers" who aren't actually good at powergaming or roleplaying (and the smaller but still significant number of roleplayers who just happen to create stone cold badasses for their characters) really skew the visible trends I think. It's probably the only real reason why the concept even exists. * Edit: Now that I think about it this is mainly true for D&D. In Whitewolf games it seems like the people who are horrible at both claim to be roleplayers, despite having no skill in making characters interesting in concept, much less in practice.
Nidair 10-23-07, 06:41 PM	And a response to Nidair. No offense, but violating the Jell_Moo Principle in your first paragraph isn't the best way to start. Well, obviously a mature player cares about the fun of the rest of his group and helps the others ("Want me to spruce up your build, Matt? I promise I'll stay faithful to your concept.") so that this sort of thing doesn't happen. Being disruptive means not fitting in with your group. This is just an example of where the disruptive behaviour is attached to a specific playstyle. Not if you don't enjoy that kind of game. We have fun being able to fight a decent challenge and beat it with our optimized builds. Just because you don't get that fun doesn't mean we should start playing the game differently. We find the game more fun this way. You don't have to. You also don't have to say our fun is just not needed at all and we should do without. It all boils down to 2 styles of playing (and the amount of roleplaying in each of those styles is insignificant) which just do not fit together. Some people want to sit around the round table with a cup of coffee, get into the story, and put some heroics together in some dank basement. Others want to see dangers well above normal adventurers' abilities and solve them with optimized characters. Both styles are right. But throw players of one style in the other campaign and the fun ends quickly. And.... what is the Yell_Moo Principle? Did I just cow you or what?
Novem 10-23-07, 07:20 PM	This argument is absurd. If Powergaming discourages Roleplay, the Roleplay and Powergaming must naturally be opposed, or have negative affects on each other. If Roleplay and Powergaming are opposed, then the more min/maxed a character is, the poorer the roleplayer he is, along a straight curve. 1 powergame=-1 roleplay. Stormwind Fallacy applies here, it has been proven that one can be both. Furthermore, even disregarding the Stormwind Fallacy, we can still discredit this line of thought: If Roleplay and Powergaming are opposed, then creating a very poorly optimized character = better roleplaying. This is false, therefore the original premise (Powergaming is by necessity opposed to Roleplay) is false. However, there is another consideration: Efforts. While the two are not in direct opposition to another, a payer with certain skills has a good chance of deliberately neglecting one and developing the other. Individuals good at Optimizing who have difficulty roleplaying are encouraged by their fellow munchkins to break the game; and poor number-crunchers with good roleplay skills WILL be encouraged to shun optimizing and take the "gimped character" route, thanks to a very old tradition of roleplaying elitism. Thus, the assumption that the two are polar opposites is a type of self-fulfilling prophecy, whereby those who spread the belief that one must be ONE type of of gamer or ANOTHER will encourage new gamers to neglect the "opposing" skills and become hard-liners for whatever "type" of game they play. I'd also like to address Nidair: you're absolutely right in your last post, just though I'd mention that one can still optimize in the former type of game.
Shadowhowler 10-23-07, 10:32 PM	You forgot the most common one. A Player can be a bad roleplayer, and a bad optimizer. You know... your right. My bad. :P That is the most common problem... but I often find once I meet someone like that, I never play with them again, so I don't deal with it too often. I may prefer roleplaying to optimizing... but I respect optimizing... and think someone fixed on that, even if it's to the exclusion of roleplaying, is still infintly better then someone who just sucks at EVERYTHING. Ugh.
Novem 10-24-07, 02:47 PM	You know... your right. My bad. :P That is the most common problem... but I often find once I meet someone like that, I never play with them again, so I don't deal with it too often. I may prefer roleplaying to optimizing... but I respect optimizing... and think someone fixed on that, even if it's to the exclusion of roleplaying, is still infintly better then someone who just sucks at EVERYTHING. Ugh. True, though this attitude will cause these people to further identify themselves as Powergamers in an attempt to raise their standing.
Shadowhowler 10-24-07, 07:50 PM	True, though this attitude will cause these people to further identify themselves as Powergamers in an attempt to raise their standing. Maybe.. but they are not my problem. I gave up trying to right the worlds wrongs years ago... now, I just try to carve out a small slice of happiness for myself. :P
Novem 10-24-07, 08:22 PM	Maybe.. but they are not my problem. I gave up trying to right the worlds wrongs years ago... now, I just try to carve out a small slice of happiness for myself. :P Sounds good by me.
RadicalTaoist 10-25-07, 01:27 PM	Note to everyone; I've personally restricted myself to abstain from responding to debate threads more than once every couple of days, just to keep me from spending all my time on these things. I will respond to Nemo and Leo later today. Daidoji: Interesting theory on how the perspective may be skewed. It all boils down to 2 styles of playing (and the amount of roleplaying in each of those styles is insignificant) which just do not fit together. Some people want to sit around the round table with a cup of coffee, get into the story, and put some heroics together in some dank basement. Others want to see dangers well above normal adventurers' abilities and solve them with optimized characters. Both styles are right. But throw players of one style in the other campaign and the fun ends quickly. I'm saying that doesn't have to be the case. There is another way; you can reconcile the two. And.... what is the Yell_Moo Principle? Did I just cow you or what? For your edification. Jell_Moo Principle (noun): Statement declaring "Do not tell other people how to play the game." Basic etiquette. However, there is another consideration: Efforts. While the two are not in direct opposition to another, a payer with certain skills has a good chance of deliberately neglecting one and developing the other. Individuals good at Optimizing who have difficulty roleplaying are encouraged by their fellow munchkins to break the game; and poor number-crunchers with good roleplay skills WILL be encouraged to shun optimizing and take the "gimped character" route, thanks to a very old tradition of roleplaying elitism. Thus, the assumption that the two are polar opposites is a type of self-fulfilling prophecy, whereby those who spread the belief that one must be ONE type of of gamer or ANOTHER will encourage new gamers to neglect the "opposing" skills and become hard-liners for whatever "type" of game they play. You, my friend, have it. I'm saying that there's an alternative to this self-fulfilling prophecy.
savant_warlord13 10-25-07, 05:20 PM	...The second problem is the assumption that characters are more fun if you do more damage, and that a party of unoptimized characters is less fun. How much more fun is doing 80 damage to an ancient black dragon than doing 40 damage to a blue slaad? How ineffective your characters are compared to another of the same level with optimal choices is irrelevant if you're having fun with the game. Powergaming is just... not needed at all. Having played many different RPGs and been both the only non-powergamer in a group and the only powergamer in a group, I assure you that it is more fun to play a more effective character, for me at least. It is largely a matter of taste. And the reason it is fun is the roleplaying that comes from and occurs during combat. Badasses are inherently more fun than wimps in things like action movies, video games and RPGs. There isn't much that is more enjoyable than coming up with some witty action-oriented quote and ripping your opponent to shreds. Roleplaying a character who doesn't fight very well as being badass is, in my opinion, bad roleplaying. Also, consider how many people want to be the cleric. Not many. Clerics are seen as little more than walking boxes of band aids because that is generally how they are used. The cleric is probably the least effective damage dealing party position, unless you want to almost completely give up on healing and buffing others, which usually incurs the anger of the rest of the party. Those who most enjoy playing the cleric usually enjoy the cleric's strategic role and the roleplaying oppurtunities provided by the cleric's religious connection. Although it is a matter of taste, stating flat out that optimized characters are not more enjoyable to play is an utterly unfounded opinion.
Novem 10-25-07, 05:38 PM	(Thanks, RadicalTaoist, though I'm quite aware of the alternative- I'm just point out that the origins of the "argument") And, Savant_Warlord, I must say you've got the most peculiar perspective I've yet seen in this argument. I like it. To all those debating, in case you want to know (have I already stated this?): I'm in the last and worst group. This is the group of folks who are bad at both roleplaying and optimizing- though I'm a competent DM. I just need more experience, so I can take the second level of my PrC, Roleplaying Powergamer, and be like the Taoist and the great tempest of fury, storm and win(d).
pres_man 10-26-07, 12:06 AM	The most telling argument about optimization not being opposed to roleplaying consider the following situations: Situation 1: Bob, The Greatest Roleplayer, agrees to take over a character in a friend's game, because the original player had to leave. Bob gets handed the character and the character is poorly designed, with alot of flaws and few if any stengths. Now Bob being such a great roleplayer, plays the character wonderfully, he even finds creative ways to make the flaws of the character a great contrabution to the "flavor" of the game. Situation 2: Same as situation 1, except in this situation in this case the character is heavily optimized. The character has no significant flaws, and even borders (but does not crossover) brokenness. Do people that see themselves as "true roleplayers" seriously believe that they are not capable of playing a character that is optimized? That would have to be true if optimization and roleplaying were truly opposed. Yet to me that says more about the skill of the player to roleplay then of the two being opposed. Would a "roleplayer" ever really say to themself, "I can't play this character, it is well built." :looloo:
RadicalTaoist 10-26-07, 12:12 AM	You might as well go ahead and make the argument. Leo has insisted, so I shall. Be ye warned: big logic lies ahead. I've got several assignments to finish in the next few days, however, so for now I've got to just settle for previews. This post, and the first, will be edited with the full updates I call these the silverware drawer arguments because they're full of forks. :rimshot: Hey! Ow! Stop throwing stuff! An accusation that has been levelled against my position before is that "optimizing could be any mechanical activity, as you could just say you're using the mechanics to best embody whatever your character happens to be". That's obviously meaningless. I reject this position (I have to; my argument would be circular as hell if I adopted it). The First Fork lies between A: defining any manipulation of the rules as optimization and B: defining optimization as a certain set of rules manipulations towards a certain goal. In this argument I will prove A to be senseless and self-contradictory. After rejecting the bad definition in the First Fork, it could be charged that optimization must then be seeking the highest power of all: total omnipotence. As such, an optimized sneak/scout build who doesn't pursue melee capabilities or spellcasting (or anything and everything else) isn't really being optimized. I counter this with the Pun-Pun as Super Actor argument. That is, with omnipotence comes supreme acting ability, and thus it would be impossible for a truly omnipotent character to *not* be roleplayed as well as his player could want him to be. The Second Fork lies between A: defining optimization as necessarily seeking the most power in all areas without exception and B: defining optimization as improvement of the character's abilities while allowing focus at a certain set. Thanks to the Pun-Pun as Super Actor argument, I can reject A and anyone who wants to argue that roleplaying and optimization are opposed has to reject it as well or concede that playing Pun-Pun is the best way to roleplay. It is also argued that to optimize is to seek a level of character power so that no foe is a challenge anymore. I prefer a definition of optimization that allows the task of optimization to seek a higher level of challenge in gameplay; and can defend it against this definition by noting how effective immunity to the challenges a game presents is relative to every game situation, and depending on the DM 'optimization' can thus either become impossible, or it can mean playing a blind commoner. The Third Fork lies between A: defining optimization as seeking immunity to a challenge, and B: defining optimization as seeking more powerful characters that can still be potentially challenged. I demonstrate A to be ridiculously inconsistent and not even contrary to roleplaying either. Finally, it has been argued that the threat from optimization to roleplay is merely the desire to look through rules for more power. I prefer a definition of optimization as the activity, since a problem with intent or player attitude is playstyle-independent. I thus counter with a claim that we manage separate goals and intentions all the time in our lives; it's unfair to hold optimization's management vis a vis roleplaying to a different standard. The Fourth Fork lies between A: defining optimization as necessarily contrary to roleplay because it is a separate goal demanding its own effort and attention and B: defining optimization as the activity regardless of whatever goal or reasong a player might pursue it. I debunk A as silly unless you think that my desire to eat must necessarily interfere with my goal of walking my dog. Yes, it might possibly interfere; there's a reason it doesn't. More forks may come. And after I'm done with these, I'll have some similar forks for the definition of roleplaying. The terms are not worthless. I did not say that. The terms are nebulous. They all describe sliding scales. The point of metagaming is different for everyone. The point of powergaming is different for everyone. My argument is given the benefit of the doubt because it acknowledges that. To put my stance another way, "As powergaming increases, the chance that roleplaying is hindered increases." I could, of course, say that this stance, and the line in your sig, are pointless due to the fuzziness of the terms and dismiss them as "As [effort invested in playstyle I dislike] increases, the chance that [effort invested in playstyle I like] is hindered increases," something any Joe can say. I'll acknowledge that personal definitions may vary as long as that's a standard that's applied across the board. If the terms are too nebulous to base arguments upon, then they are too nebulous for anyone to base arguments upon, period. (Big reason why I wanted my argument to be independent of them.) Alternatively, I could not let myself be hindered by their fuzziness, and argue that a reconciliation of the playstyles is possible by putting forward techniques and skills that anyone can develop to reconcile them. I did choose the more difficult position for a reason. (Note: if you have definitions for roleplaying and optimization you use, then I'll gladly accept them for the purposes of convincing you in particular. My arguments are useless if I can't use them to help a specific gamer with their specific position.) If you scour the MM for broken monster races, you are not going to damage your roleplay. If you scour the MM for broken monster races and peruse all of the Complete books to find the perfect class for that monster race, maybe there's some risk. If you scour the MM, peruse all of the Complete books, and turn the Book of Nine Swords, the Book of Exalted Deeds, Dungeonscape, and Oriental Adventures inside out for all the best feats you can find, you're officially building a concept around the rules, and not vice versa. I'm going to have to lodge an official complaint, because it's not necessarily so that I'm building a concept around the rules. Perhaps my detailed character concept just happens to be best realized with a few feats and bits from all those books - and I haven't even touched on whether the resulting creation is optimized or not. Would you like me to come up with a character concept that works best with that kind of wide-searching? (I'd also like to note that you can make optimized and even gamebreakingly powerful characters with just Core material. Number of splatbooks doesn't necessarily translate into level of power.) And that's not the point of the game, in my opinion. Your opinion is acceptable. But - and here's the rub - I'm arguing all that splatbook mining can go on without sacrificing what you consider to be the point of the game at all. And I feel that I have argued that independent of whatever my opinion on the 'point of the game' might be. My opinion in that regard is completely irrelevant to my argument. Or at least I've gone to pains to construct my arguments that way. If you'd like to challenge me on that point, feel free to offer what you think the 'point of the game' is and I'll accomodate it. Your argument does the same. Powergamers can be roleplayers. For some value of powergaming and some value of roleplaying, that is bound to be true. I never said these terms were too vaporous to support an argument. You did. Actually, other people did and I said it doesn't matter, but otherwise we're on the same page. You are totally right. But they CAN interfere, and in my experience that interference can be very pronounced! Again, just because something may not be does not mean that it is not. Well, I won't deny that they can interfere in a negative sense. I had hoped, by using the words 'skillset to develop' and so on, that it would be obvious that I didn't think that this reconciliation between optimizing and roleplaying would just magically happen. :) But, to clarify, no I don't think the state where optimization and roleplaying are reconciled and harmonized comes automatically. I think it takes practice and experience and thoughtful consideration for the needs of your playgroup. This difficulty is the case for reconciling any two activities. I study courses I enjoy at university. I play D&D. I certainly don't think the ability to make the two work together without problem is automatic. :surrender Prefer to think of it as you like; the fact remains that if I kill your character (nefarious means aside), you will be upset for two reasons. *DING* Here I think may lie a difference between me and the 'optimizers' you've run into before. How you kill my character is not an aside; it is the important detail. The 'nefarious means' is the issue. I understand that characters can be killed off and sometimes they don't get raised; that's just the way things go no matter how upset I get. Let me enjoy my character for a while and then whack him in an understandable manner? I can deal with that. One, the length of time you spent working on it. Two, your fondness for the character himself. If we assume (erroneously, I'm sure) that all roleplayers are equally fond of their characters, then it stands to reason that optimizers, who spend more time on their characters than non-optimizers, will be more upset than your average gamer upon the death of one of their characters. I call that an enhanced sense of entitlement, for better or for worse. One, I have spent a lot of time working on many builds that have never seen the light of play. I would much rather play them - even if it's for only an encounter or two before they get disintegrated - than never play them at all. Every moment of play is a gift. Two, as you've noticed, is a standard for all roleplayers. The only thing that effort into optimization entitles me to is a more powerful character. If I use it to be 'entitled' to an invincible character, the challenge is gone. Without challenge, there's no game. I don't optimize to 'win', I optimize to make winning worth more. In short: I don't feel this 'being more upset' is a sign of a playstyle so much as the sign of an attitude. If you're problem is with the attitude, then that's a problem with the attitude. It's not impossible for anyone to share a playstyle with a gamer whose attitude is more disruptive towards the game. Now: I admit my viewpoints on the game taken above are not necessarily the case for the optimizing community as a whole (or really, anyone else besides me). I would be very interested in hearing what others feel about an appropriate attitude of 'entitlement' in regards to an optimized character: what it is reasonable for a player who has put time and effort in to expect, and what isn't. I'll see if I can't get fellow optimizers to put in their two cents on this. Of course, this is directly refuted by the fact that I am not an optimizer and yet I can take DAYS to roll up a single PC, but I am definitely not your average gamer. I, in fact, suck lots at playing this game. I strongly disagree with the notion that you suck at this game. I certainly hope no one has told you that you do just because you're not good at looking through the books and doing the calculations. If that's the kind of assholish 'powergamer' you've had experience with than I've got a bigger PR job set ahead of me than I thought. But what if you did have to? No, you don't have to every time, but what of the odd circumstance in which you do? Your kung fu is weak. ...Er, I mean, your techniques are not foolproof. Well, that's something that just doesn't come up when you've got sufficient grasp of the techniques. I think the disconnect may lie in you looking at the techniques as a 'cure' for this circumstance. They're not corrective; they're preventative. If you practice the techniques, that 'odd circumstance' just doesn't come up. I'm serious. I can't remember a time in my powerroleplaying groups where our awesome tactic or build feature didn't sync with our character concepts. There are just so many possible cool ways that our character could grow that we never wanted for one to attach to the feat we chose this level. PM me and I'll send you play logs over MSN. So if you give us a circumstance where a character concept and a build are so wildly in conflict that they must be retconned somehow and call the techniques on it, my only response is "well no duh it has to be retconned, the genius who got us to this point wasn't thinking of the four techniques when he started with his build". But the build affects the game. The rulebooks, through the build, pervade all aspects of play. An optimized character does not stop being optimized for the four hours a week you roleplay him. He is both optimized and roleplayed. What happens when there is a conflict? Do the rulebooks win, or does the story? What conflict? I employ the techniques, I talk to my DM, I pay close attention to the in-game world and catch possible conflicts ahead of time so I can neutralize them. What conflict? As long as the four hours a week I roleplay him in are not interrupted by book-running, and the suspension of disbelief is not compromised by an unrealistic action or ability development, then there is no conflict. I do not feel that you have succeeded in this proof beyond a thin veneer of logical positioning. There has been a lot of disproving the Stormwind Fallacy and claiming that you and your fellows are not bad roleplayers, but even you seem to acknowledge from time to time that there is a slippery slope involved in optimization. It's not a slippery slope; it's a task that requires skill. See my above comments about it not coming automatically. There comes a point where you ask yourself, "Do I modify my concept so that I can take this excellent feat that defies all attempts at reflavoring? Or do I stay true to my concept and accept that my character will never be as successful as someone who could have taken said feat?" The way I play, that point just doesn't come. Or perhaps you ask yourself, "This priest of my character's god has just offered to train him in the way of the priesthood. My character is very pious, and he should accept, but if I do, what becomes of my fighter feat track?" I start taking Crusader levels and call myself a war priest. Or I start taking psychic warrior levels and call the psionic powers a result of divine inspiration. Or I take some cleric levels and start looking at full BAB divine caster progression prestige classes like the Fist of Raziel. Or any other number of options. I'm not short on choices here. I still hold that it takes an exceptional individual to make the right call in those situations. And maybe you and all of your fellows are exceptional individuals. I do not refute that. I barely even know you. There's nothing exceptional about us. We just don't carry these ideas that create the conflict, and I among us don't like to let those ideas propagate. All I am saying is that it is dangerous to teach players that optimized characters are part of enjoying a roleplaying game. What's dangerous is to teach players that this part or that part of a roleplaying game is not the way to enjoy it. That's something they have to find and learn for themselves. If a player becomes used to a certain power level in play, or if their campaign is geared toward a certain power level, the two things will inevitably come into conflict, and a choice will have to be made between efficiency and story. Power level of a game is a preference, just like game style ("Do I want high-magic space opera fantasy or nitty-gritty military simulation or psychological thriller horror or...?") You have to adapt to the preferences of your playgroup and DM. Compromise is part of making any game work. As long as the latter is always chosen, I have no complaint. But in my experience, that decision is harder for most people to make than it is for me. It doesn't have to be hard. There is another way. It is entirely possible to enjoy the game if you are playing it some other way. I'm not trying to tell anyone how to play the game. This is just my concern, based on what I have seen happen in my campaigns. If you or anyone you know has never reached this breaking point, then more power to you. The game is something different to everybody. But I see a real risk. I honestly think I have found a way to defuse this risk to your games. I see the potential conflict. It can be prevented entirely. The majority of my problems with powergaming have been with completely capable powerroleplayers who suffer some kind of setback and eliminate their character from my game as a result, whether by leaving as a player or just rolling a new optimized PC. I consider these players to be mature for the most part, although I don't consider their final acts very mature. Education is really not the issue for these people. They know how to play the game, in all senses of the phrase. But in the end, their powergaming gets in the way of their roleplaying and it disrupts my game. Hmm. Would you mind if I ask for more details on these situations? This is really the crux of everything that I have been trying to say. Well, I can't argue there. And if you feel that my approach is too difficult or unconventional to be adopted widespread, I guess there's nothing for us aside to agree to disagree. I really hope I can help this way. Final note to Leo: You don't seriously think that suggesting Stormwind or I can be appropriately compared to Nazis is in any way a meaningful contribution to this argument, do you? I mean, come on.
Shadowhowler 10-26-07, 12:28 AM	The most telling argument about optimization not being opposed to roleplaying consider the following situations: Situation 1: Bob, The Greatest Roleplayer, agrees to take over a character in a friend's game, because the original player had to leave. Bob gets handed the character and the character is poorly designed, with alot of flaws and few if any stengths. Now Bob being such a great roleplayer, plays the character wonderfully, he even finds creative ways to make the flaws of the character a great contrabution to the "flavor" of the game. Situation 2: Same as situation 1, except in this situation in this case the character is heavily optimized. The character has no significant flaws, and even borders (but does not crossover) brokenness. Do people that see themselves as "true roleplayers" seriously believe that they are not capable of playing a character that is optimized? That would have to be true if optimization and roleplaying were truly opposed. Yet to me that says more about the skill of the player to roleplay then of the two being opposed. Would a "roleplayer" ever really say to themself, "I can't play this character, it is well built." :looloo: I can't say this argument holds much weight for me. Of course the roleplayer can play the optimized character... but would he have made it in the first place? Character creation and character roleplaying are linked. If you seperate the two, you don't prove anything signifgant about the player. Mind you... I *KNOW* that it's possibe to both optimize and roleplay at the same time... becuase I have done it. However, I rarely chose to optimize. Also, as I have stated before... tho I belive that optimizers can roleplay and roleplayers can optimize, it has been my personal experince that very few people chose to do both. I'm not 100% sure why this is... but I think it boils down to a simple differance in playstyle.
IceFractal 10-26-07, 04:07 AM	it has been my personal experince that very fw people chose to do both. I'm not 100% sure why this is... but I think it boils down to a simple differance in playstyle. Or a difference in perception. I think this may be where a lot of the perceived dualism comes from. Let's say Player A is a heavy roleplayer, not at all concerned with the mechanics. A new player joins the group. There are four categories the new player could fall into: 1) Bad at roleplaying, bad at optimizing. Probably not very memorable, A forgets about him after a while, or just remembers him as a newbie. 2) Bad at roleplaying, good at optimizing. Remembered as a munchkin. 3) Good at roleplaying, bad at optimizing. Remembered as a good roleplayer, and more proof that not optimizing is better. 4) Good at roleplaying, good at optimizing. Remembered primarily as a good roleplayer. Unless optimized to a startling degree, the optimizing may be forgotten. So while the actual possibilities are an even split, the perception is that there's an inverse relationship between roleplaying and optimizing.
Shadowhowler 10-26-07, 11:25 AM	Or a difference in perception. I think this may be where a lot of the perceived dualism comes from. Let's say Player A is a heavy roleplayer, not at all concerned with the mechanics. A new player joins the group. There are four categories the new player could fall into: 1) Bad at roleplaying, bad at optimizing. Probably not very memorable, A forgets about him after a while, or just remembers him as a newbie. 2) Bad at roleplaying, good at optimizing. Remembered as a munchkin. 3) Good at roleplaying, bad at optimizing. Remembered as a good roleplayer, and more proof that not optimizing is better. 4) Good at roleplaying, good at optimizing. Remembered primarily as a good roleplayer. Unless optimized to a startling degree, the optimizing may be forgotten. So while the actual possibilities are an even split, the perception is that there's an inverse relationship between roleplaying and optimizing. While your theroy is certainly possible, and may be the case for some... I feel I can say with a strong degree of certainty that it does not apply to me. I have been gaming for quite some time now, and have been the DM/Storyteller for about 40% of al the games I've ben involved in, from one on on solo games to LARPs with over a hundred players. In other words... I have confidence that when I game with someone for mre then one or two sessions... I get a pretty good feel for the kind of player they are. If I game with them in more then a few games and see them make a few differant characters... and/or I DM/Storytell for the player... then I am VERY confident in my assessment of the player. I stand by my experinces... tho I freely admit that my own personal experinces can not be used to catogorize the player base as a whole. It has been my experince that there is NOTHING that prevents a player from being both a good roleplayer and a good optimizer... nothing at all. The two abilities are NOT exclusive to each other. However, it HAS been my exerince that the overwhelming majority of players who like to optimize do not care much for roleplaying... many of them spend most of a game session spaking 'out of character' as it were and most of them look at people who roleplay as 'drama queens' or as slowing down the game with their unessacary talking and taking away from the killing and looting. Likewise, most players who put roleplaying first don't develop character 'builds', as it were... and lik to take abilities that reflect their characters background, even if it hampers the characters raw combat potential... and they care less about having their character be the single badest thing on the block. As with most things in life... I find the extreme of each philosohpy of play to be annoying and disturbing. I find my happieness somewhere closer to the middle... the 'happy medium' as it were. Some roleplayers say the ultmate game is a diceless system where there is nothing to get in the way of your character development... well, I don't like that. I like rules to govern the world my character exists in, and I like those rules to have a feel of realisim and a sense of internal consistency. Some optimizers belive if a character is not optimized, he is a drain on the party and should just die or leave... and that ALL adventurers should be ptimized and have a build that they stick to. I think that smtimes the coolest characters are NOT battle gods or Stealth Demons or whatever, but a normal prson thrust into extreme cercimstances. I prefer D&D to be about heroics rather then greed, and I like stories about heros over mercs. I also prefer organic, flexible character development rather then following and inflexible and improbable roadmap. I like to think I blend aspects of roleplay and optimization... with a stronger lean towards roleplaying. However... most of the players I have encountered in my over 15 years of gaming tend more one end of one or the other. Not sure why... I wish there were more players who blended the two... or, if there ARE I wish I could game with more of them.
Nemo_the_Lost 10-30-07, 03:29 PM	I call these the silverware drawer arguments because they're full of forks. :rimshot: Hey! Ow! Stop throwing stuff! Groan. The First Fork: Not Everything is Optimizing I'm inclined to agree with your assessment. Adhering to the argument in the First Fork seems ridiculous. The Second Fork: Optimizing Can Include Specialization That is, with omnipotence comes supreme acting ability, and thus it would be impossible for a truly omnipotent character to *not* be roleplayed as well as his player could want him to be. That's not true. Assuming that one optimizes to create character omnipotential, it still has no effect on player potential. It is not the character that roleplays, but the player! The Third Fork: Optimizing Can Allow A Challenge This Fork has nothing to do with roleplaying. The Fourth Fork: Optimizing is Not Just Intent Finally, it has been argued that the threat from optimization to roleplay is merely the desire to look through rules for more power. I prefer a definition of optimization as the activity, since a problem with intent or player attitude is playstyle-independent. This is inherently untrue. One's attitude is a major component of one's playstyle. ...unless you think that my desire to eat must necessarily interfere with my goal of walking my dog. Yes, it might possibly interfere; there's a reason it doesn't. You can eat and walk the dog at the same time, but you must dedicate less attention to each task when you do so. Still, it is a poor analogy for optimization versus roleplaying, because by your own statements optimization is something that occurs asynchronously to roleplay. A better analogy would be the goal to get a good night's sleep and the goal to work a nine-to-five workday. These tasks are asynchronous and they do not specifically conflict, but performing both on a regular basis requires thoughtfulness and discipline. The two tasks encourage and even support one another when in balance, but it is easy to scrimp on one to pad the other. I could, of course, say that this stance, and the line in your sig, are pointless due to the fuzziness of the terms and dismiss them as "As [effort invested in playstyle I dislike] increases, the chance that [effort invested in playstyle I like] is hindered increases," something any Joe can say. Any Joe could make your argument as well. That doesn't invalidate it. I'll acknowledge that personal definitions may vary as long as that's a standard that's applied across the board. If the terms are too nebulous to base arguments upon, then they are too nebulous for anyone to base arguments upon, period. (Big reason why I wanted my argument to be independent of them.) All you are succeeding in doing is proving the counterargument to the Stormwind Fallacy, which is effectively meaningless, and drawing analogies that neither refute my position nor support your own. You might be better off dealing with the terms as they are, since that is the crux of the discussion. If you want us both to be using concrete definitions, then I recommend the following: "Roleplaying is an attempt, whether successful or not, at improvisational acting wherein the challenge arises from portraying a character defined by a previously made clear statement regarding its personality, history, and appearance." "Powergaming occurs when a player makes a conscious choice to optimize his character mechanically because of the mechanical benefit of such a choice, and either does not reconcile the optimization with his statement [see definition of roleplaying] and with his character's experiences since its generation, or modifies said statement or experiences in order that the optimization will be reconciled after its selection." I have reservations about the idea that the "fluff" of any feature of the game can be altered so that it fits any character concept. Many features do not have that much fluff to speak of, and are fairly rooted in their mechanics. I've left this out of the definition of powergaming intentionally, because I don't think I've yet seen enough examples to justify its inclusion. I'm going to have to lodge an official complaint, because it's not necessarily so that I'm building a concept around the rules. Perhaps my detailed character concept just happens to be best realized with a few feats and bits from all those books - and I haven't even touched on whether the resulting creation is optimized or not. Maybe it is; maybe it is not. Defining your character's flavor aside, if you are not trying to define your character mechanically, then you are not optimizing. The optimization of a character is by necessity a mechanical definition of that character. Mechanical definition is the very core of the problem. It is difficult to imagine a circumstance where anyone would bother, but one could mechanically define a character to be ineffective, or even of average effectiveness. If these mechanical definitions were not reconciled with the character's statement [see definition of roleplaying], they would be just as bad as a character designed by a powergamer. The problem here is not "power is antithetical to roleplay." It is not even "the rules are antithetical to roleplay." The problem is "not roleplaying is antithetical to roleplaying," and the rules provide the most available route to not roleplaying. Do they prevent roleplaying? No. Do you have to be thoughtful and disciplined in order to keep them from doing all the work? Yes. Would you like me to come up with a character concept that works best with that kind of wide-searching? Sure. (I'd also like to note that you can make optimized and even gamebreakingly powerful characters with just Core material. Number of splatbooks doesn't necessarily translate into level of power.) I would like to see this done. (Not a challenge, just interest.) Your opinion is acceptable. But - and here's the rub - I'm arguing all that splatbook mining can go on without sacrificing what you consider to be the point of the game at all. I strongly doubt that this is the case. The very existence of splatbooks to mine is antithetical to my concept of the point of the game. But that's an entirely different argument. And I feel that I have argued that independent of whatever my opinion on the 'point of the game' might be. My opinion in that regard is completely irrelevant to my argument. What I feel is the "point of the game" is likewise irrelevant. The argument at hand is "does optimization interfere with roleplaying," and we clearly both have stake in that or we would not be here. Whether or not one or the other of us considers either optimization or roleplaying to be irrelevant or relevant to playing D&D is immaterial. Actually, other people did and I said it doesn't matter, but otherwise we're on the same page. That is not the impression your words gave me, but I am willing to accept that I misinterpreted you. But, to clarify, no I don't think the state where optimization and roleplaying are reconciled and harmonized comes automatically. I think it takes practice and experience and thoughtful consideration for the needs of your playgroup. We are on the same page in this. Our difference lies in that I feel that optimization in its native state (i.e., without practice and experience and thoughtful consideration) is a threat to roleplay, while you feel that is not necessarily the case. This difficulty is the case for reconciling any two activities. I study courses I enjoy at university. I play D&D. I certainly don't think the ability to make the two work together without problem is automatic. :surrender Agreed. A balance requires constant maintenance, and in many cases, people need to be trained to provide that maintenance, even in their own lives. I would say it is the same in roleplaying. Have a cookie, sad smileys depress me. :cookie: *DING* Here I think may lie a difference between me and the 'optimizers' you've run into before. How you kill my character is not an aside; it is the important detail. The 'nefarious means' is the issue. I'm sorry, I was not clear. I meant that my point should be taken with the assumption that the character in question was not killed through nefarious means, not that it did not matter if the means were nefarious. In short: I don't feel this 'being more upset' is a sign of a playstyle so much as the sign of an attitude. If you're problem is with the attitude, then that's a problem with the attitude. As I've said before, I don't feel like the attitude and the playstyle can be completely divorced. I strongly disagree with the notion that you suck at this game. That's very kind of you, but in all honesty, I do. It's more than just simply not being able to optimize with any ability -- I also cannot roll dice. I can use a random number generator on a computer and still routinely roll lower than 5 out of 20. I also have this affectation that causes me to invariably hurl my dice across the room when all I mean to do is toss them gently onto the tabletop. It is embarrassing; only more so because I have been tabletop gaming for more than 20 years, and my fellows have come to expect it. I was designed to sit behind a sturdy cardboard screen and tell stories. I enjoy playing, but I am not good at it. :) I can't remember a time in my powerroleplaying groups where our awesome tactic or build feature didn't sync with our character concepts. I definitely need to see more of this "feature fluff rewriting." Because I fear that I am not understanding it on a fundamental level. A feat does what a feat does, no matter how you flavor it. There are just so many possible cool ways that our character could grow that we never wanted for one to attach to the feat we chose this level. But every possible cool way of growing should not be open to every character. That is why we bother defining our characters as individuals, isn't it? It's not a slippery slope; it's a task that requires skill. See my above comments about it not coming automatically. Agreed. And if the skill is not imparted? What then? I'm not short on choices here. No, you're not. And getting back to the origin of this entire argument, that is part of the problem with D&D3. There are too many options, and most of them exist because players are not willing to sacrifice power for concept. Why does the game really need a crusader class? Were the paladin and cleric not enough? For that matter, why is there a paladin? The cleric is by definition a militant priest. In D&D3, the class pool has exploded, so that there is no need for player-driven character development anymore. The rules do all the work. But I'm not sure this is germane anymore. What's dangerous is to teach players that this part or that part of a roleplaying game is not the way to enjoy it. That's something they have to find and learn for themselves. That is our fundamental disagreement. I honestly think I have found a way to defuse this risk to your games. I see the potential conflict. It can be prevented entirely. I am less concerned about my games than I am about games in general. You are not present to teach every new player the Techniques, but the risk is there to threaten every new player. Hmm. Would you mind if I ask for more details on these situations? The one I remember clearly was a Hackmaster game that never even happened because of the situation. My friend rolled up a character (successfully, which is not easy in Hackmaster). The character was strong, well-equipped, of noble blood, and generally had everything going for him. My friend was very excited to play him. Then, on the last roll of a character generation process that requires many, many rolls, we generated his mount. It was a pack ape. I never heard my friend mention the character or the game ever again, and when I brought it up, he would always wave it off and say that he wasn't in the mood, or some such thing. Pretty unacceptable.
pres_man 10-30-07, 05:45 PM	This Fork has nothing to do with roleplaying. Well it does have to do with playing. It also an issue that alot of "roleplayers" make, that by optimizing the player is trying to avoid being challenged. As if banging your head against a wall repeatedly is considered good "roleplaying" when having a passwall spell is bad "roleplaying". This is inherently untrue. One's attitude is a major component of one's playstyle. But attitude should not be part of the definition of optimization. Why someone optimizes shouldn't matter, in order to call the activity optimization. Still, it is a poor analogy for optimization versus roleplaying, because by your own statements optimization is something that occurs asynchronously to roleplay. A better analogy would be the goal to get a good night's sleep and the goal to work a nine-to-five workday. These tasks are asynchronous and they do not specifically conflict, but performing both on a regular basis requires thoughtfulness and discipline. The two tasks encourage and even support one another when in balance, but it is easy to scrimp on one to pad the other. This is an even worse analogy. Generally speaking you can't sleep and work at the same time, one can roleplay and optimize at the same time. In fact several PrC require it, by having requirements that you meant another member of the PrC before you are allowed to take levels in it. I have reservations about the idea that the "fluff" of any feature of the game can be altered so that it fits any character concept. Many features do not have that much fluff to speak of, and are fairly rooted in their mechanics. I've left this out of the definition of powergaming intentionally, because I don't think I've yet seen enough examples to justify its inclusion. Well that is not necessarily true. Any fluff can be changed, that doesn't necessarily mean that it can be changed into anything. I mean you can't really describe the rage ability as the ability to fly through the air. But you could describe rage as "battle focus" or describe power attack as "raging out of control". I strongly doubt that this is the case. The very existence of splatbooks to mine is antithetical to my concept of the point of the game. But that's an entirely different argument. Perhaps, but there is no more "truth" to a class from the PHB than from a class from a splatbook. We are on the same page in this. Our difference lies in that I feel that optimization in its native state (i.e., without practice and experience and thoughtful consideration) is a threat to roleplay, while you feel that is not necessarily the case. I think what you mean is that when optimization is considered in exclusion of everything else than it is a threat. Sure, that is true. But that is more because that type of person also tends to play "hack-and-slash", not because optimization causes it. You are looking at a symptote and assuming it is the cause, confusing correlation with causation. As I've said before, I don't feel like the attitude and the playstyle can be completely divorced. A person who spent alot of time working on the mechanics of a character is no more likely to throw a hissy fit if the character dies, than someone who spent alot of time "getting into the character's head" (focused deeply on roleplaying). I definitely need to see more of this "feature fluff rewriting." Because I fear that I am not understanding it on a fundamental level. A feat does what a feat does, no matter how you flavor it. Yes, I would say you appear to be missing something. A) Fluff can be described in multiple fashions for a given game mechanic (e.g. power attacking is "raging out of control"). B) Not all describes are appropriate for any given game mechanic (e.g. rage can't be described as fly through the air). C) Game mechanics have game mechanic effects, how these are describe is up to the individual group and the individual situation (e.g. a critical hit might just be a stab through the heart or a foes head exploding). But every possible cool way of growing should not be open to every character. That is why we bother defining our characters as individuals, isn't it? No that is why we have prerequists to certain classes and feats. If you can't play two characters that have the exact same stats as different people than that is not a problem with the stats. No, you're not. And getting back to the origin of this entire argument, that is part of the problem with D&D3. There are too many options, and most of them exist because players are not willing to sacrifice power for concept. Why does the game really need a crusader class? Were the paladin and cleric not enough? For that matter, why is there a paladin? The cleric is by definition a militant priest. In D&D3, the class pool has exploded, so that there is no need for player-driven character development anymore. The rules do all the work. But I'm not sure this is germane anymore. The choice between having many classes is either to squash creativity, something I would think alot of roleplayers would dislike, not use any kind of statistics, something alot of players would dislike (let's make pretend got old by 3rd grade), or to have "basic" classes (warrior, mage, expert, priest) with class mechanics being choosen from a large pool (again with the lots of option). To extent Star Wars: Saga does this last one. The one I remember clearly was a Hackmaster game that never even happened because of the situation. My friend rolled up a character (successfully, which is not easy in Hackmaster). The character was strong, well-equipped, of noble blood, and generally had everything going for him. My friend was very excited to play him. Then, on the last roll of a character generation process that requires many, many rolls, we generated his mount. It was a pack ape. I never heard my friend mention the character or the game ever again, and when I brought it up, he would always wave it off and say that he wasn't in the mood, or some such thing. Pretty unacceptable. Sounds like a problem with a really crappy game system.
RadicalTaoist 10-30-07, 05:46 PM	Gah! I haven't forgotten this thread! I swear!
Nemo_the_Lost 10-30-07, 09:26 PM	...by optimizing the player is trying to avoid being challenged. I am fairly certain that this is not a point I have ever made. This is an even worse analogy. Generally speaking you can't sleep and work at the same time, one can roleplay and optimize at the same time. In fact several PrC require it, by having requirements that you meant another member of the PrC before you are allowed to take levels in it. RT has already established that you do not actually roleplay and optimize simultaneously, and I agree with him. You do your optimizing before the game, and you do your roleplaying during the game. Perhaps, but there is no more "truth" to a class from the PHB than from a class from a splatbook. Again, I don't recall ever saying this. I think what you mean is that when optimization is considered in exclusion of everything else than it is a threat. Sure, that is true. But that is more because that type of person also tends to play "hack-and-slash", not because optimization causes it. You are looking at a symptote and assuming it is the cause, confusing correlation with causation. This would be true if I had not personally seen people whom I otherwise considered good roleplayers crippled by their reliance on their character's mechanical superiority. Yes, I would say you appear to be missing something. A) Fluff can be described in multiple fashions for a given game mechanic (e.g. power attacking is "raging out of control"). B) Not all describes are appropriate for any given game mechanic (e.g. rage can't be described as fly through the air). C) Game mechanics have game mechanic effects, how these are describe is up to the individual group and the individual situation (e.g. a critical hit might just be a stab through the heart or a foes head exploding). Then the following is accurate: if there are features that cannot be described such that they fit any character build, then there are character builds that cannot incorporate every feature according to RT's Techniques. That is in direct conflict with RT's assertion that the Techniques can reconcile any build with its character's concept. No that is why we have prerequists to certain classes and feats. If you can't play two characters that have the exact same stats as different people than that is not a problem with the stats. I'm not sure I follow you, but what I'm hearing is that you think the only limitation on what feats a character can take should be the feat's prerequisites. The choice between having many classes is either to squash creativity, something I would think alot of roleplayers would dislike Surprisingly enough, we did just fine when there were only four. Selecting from among options that have been laid out for you is not creative. not use any kind of statistics, something alot of players would dislike (let's make pretend got old by 3rd grade) There is a huge difference between a roleplaying system that does not use classes and total anarchy. Sounds like a problem with a really crappy game system. It doesn't really matter. D&D has its detractors as well; it doesn't really enter into this argument. The rules are the rules, and by agreeing to play you are bound by them.
Subedei 10-31-07, 12:23 AM	I don't think you're giving the characters enough credit here. The whole point of having rules in the first place is to create a world that is consistent and predictable, something players and characters can make sense of and attempt to influence. The difference between physics and the SRD is really just an issue of complexity and content. The content is different for roleplaying reason, the complexity is different for practical reasons. The game rules still form the 'physics' of your ingame world and characters can observe them and act upon their observations just as well as a smith in the real world can observe that steel is a better material than bronze to make swords and armor out of, and thus use steel. Is the smith metagaming? No, he's just acting acting on his observations intelligently.
Subedei 10-31-07, 01:12 AM	There are too many options, and most of them exist because players are not willing to sacrifice power for concept. Why does the game really need a crusader class? Were the paladin and cleric not enough? For that matter, why is there a paladin? The cleric is by definition a militant priest. "why is there a Paladin" is an excellent point, and excellently relevant to my point. But for now, let's sidetrack into something else... My friend and I both live in the same area, have similar builds, and both practice unarmed martial arts, but the arts we practice are different. When I was considering which art I wanted to practice I did I lot of research to determine what would be most effective for me and what I wanted to do. I wanted to be well rounded, to eliminate any weaknesses I could so as to minimize what my opponent(s) could take advantage of and always have the right tool for whatever situation I was in. I needed to be able to strike with the hands and feet, throw, grapple, throw, joint lock and ground fight. I could see that in the most unrestricted competitions I could find, Jujitsu, western boxing, Muay Thai and karate seemed to be doing very well, so naturally I wanted to practice these. Unfortunately, upon looking for schools that taught these arts I discovered there were no good ones in my area and thus had to adapt my plans. Of the resources available to me, I decided the Tae Kwon Do school taught the best kicking, the Hapkido offered at the same school included groundfighting, hand strikes, joint locking, and throws. I found another source to learn kickboxing. Now the friend I mentioned earlier decided to learn Wushu, Tai Chi, and Tae Kwon Do. Although we both practiced TKD, we did so in very different ways with me focusing on applying the attacks to defeat my opponent and him focusing on being flashy. I once asked him why he spent so much time practicing jumping, spinning wheel kicks when he could never hit anyone with them, his answer was simply "because they look awesome". I see this very same situation translate to how we create D&D characters. I tend to plan out my characters ahead of time, I pick mechanically superior abilities whenever I have a choice, I try to eliminate all of the character's weaknesses etc. He comes up with a cool concept like a 'luck' based character with a bunch of action points and luck feats and while my reaction may be "That's mechanically horrible" it doesn't make him want to play it any less. Is he roleplaying better than I am in D&D? Is he roleplaying better than I am in reality? Metagaming is the use of information your character does not have by the player who does, not making statistically superior decisions based on information they do have. The reality of the world in which you play is that fighters really, really suck and wizards totally rock. If my character says to himself "Man, I really love all this swordplay but I can see that being a wizard is just plain better and I do have the potential to do both" then how is that any different than saying "Man, I really love painting but I'm never going to make any money doing it so I'm going to be a doctor instead". My friend who is decidedly less practical may decide to be a painter anyways, that's just a matter of personality.
Optimator 10-31-07, 01:26 AM	A lot of people I know and/or play with love making characters with "flaws". I don't. I love to be the badass, the superhero, the infallible do-gooder (or do-wronger). My usual response to any criticism is usually "Why don't I/you just play a paraplegic commoner then? Lots of good roleplaying opportunities there!". I honestly can't role-play without having at least a somewhat optimized character. That's just my personality. I think it stems from having a mountain of suck-tacular characters that I envisioned of being really cool and effective, but didn't turn out anywhere near as good as I thought they would or could. Bad feat combos, PrCs, etc. I think I am a disillusioned Johnny-turned-Spike. Just thought I'd share.
pres_man 10-31-07, 03:56 PM	I am fairly certain that this is not a point I have ever made. Which is why I didn't say you did. I said alot of "roleplayers" say that. Is your name "alot", if not then maybe you are not one of those that say it. Try to avoid hatchet jobs on quotes. RT has already established that you do not actually roleplay and optimize simultaneously, and I agree with him. You do your optimizing before the game, and you do your roleplaying during the game. I would agree most optimization and roleplaying occur separately, but I would not agree this is true in all cases. Such as in the case of some PrC that I mentioned, that require you to roleplay an interaction to get the PrC, in that case optimization (the gaining of access to a desired PrC) is going hand-in-hand with roleplaying. There is also the situations where a player and DM may correspond outside of normal game time (through email or phone or just hanging out) and roleplay out some aspect of access to optimization. Then the following is accurate: if there are features that cannot be described such that they fit any character build, then there are character builds that cannot incorporate every feature according to RT's Techniques. That is in direct conflict with RT's assertion that the Techniques can reconcile any build with its character's concept. Could you restate this, I am not really understanding what you are meaning. I looked at the "techniques" in the first post, they all seem to be explaining long term builds, I am not sure what that has to do with this particular issue. The most close issue is this: Any mechanical feature or element of the game system can be given a different name, and have its flavor determined thus. This may allow it to fit better or worse with any character's roleplaying details. Self-evident. Examples: Check out these threads. If you request other examples, I'll work to provide them happily. To clarify a term: a character's roleplaying details include background, personality, relationship with other characters, and the world they live in as a whole (so the new flavor description should fit with the world as well). Any of a character's roleplaying details may possibly be represented by different mechanical features; some of these mechanical features can be stronger or better suited for a particular game than others. Also a self-evident extension of the previous assumption; if mechanical elements A and B and C can all be renamed, there's a chance they can be renamed to the same thing, flavor element X. Mechanical differences between A, B, and C thus can make any one more optimal than another and connected to other mechanical elements in different synergy. Which does not contradict what I said. The fact that you could rename any mechanic does not mean that all renamings of it are valid. Likewise just because there are other mechanics that could represent different roleplaying details does not mean all mechanics could do so. If this is not what you were refering to, then please try to restate your comment. Though the "techniques" I looked over made me realize one of the flaws with complaining about "builds", if one doesn't like builds then they must dislike classes as well, because classes are essentially builds. Most have abilities planned out all the way to 20th level. I'm not sure I follow you, but what I'm hearing is that you think the only limitation on what feats a character can take should be the feat's prerequisites. Well and the group's allowing them in the first place, what other limitation should there be? You can't take TWF until you spent 2 levels fighting with 2 weapons at higher penalties? How does the ranger get his class abilities then? Is he stuck not being able to level until he plays a couple of sessions with inferior TWF attempts? I would say that kind of thinking is fairly assine. It is the same kind of thinking I hear when someone says, "You can't take a level of druid, you were in a city this whole last level." :rolleyes: Surprisingly enough, we did just fine when there were only four. Selecting from among options that have been laid out for you is not creative. And having no options is? It doesn't really matter. D&D has its detractors as well; it doesn't really enter into this argument. The rules are the rules, and by agreeing to play you are bound by them. Which looks like your friend decide not to agree to play in the end, because the game rules sucked so bad. But if the rules are the rules, then why complain about people taking feats or classes or whatever without "roleplaying" reasons? The rules say you can, why complain about it?
Vva70 11-01-07, 06:00 PM	No, you're not. And getting back to the origin of this entire argument, that is part of the problem with D&D3. There are too many options, and most of them exist because players are not willing to sacrifice power for concept. Why does the game really need a crusader class? Were the paladin and cleric not enough? For that matter, why is there a paladin? The cleric is by definition a militant priest. In D&D3, the class pool has exploded, so that there is no need for player-driven character development anymore. The rules do all the work. But I'm not sure this is germane anymore. Okay, I realize that this may be getting a little off-topic, but I think it's still close enough to matter. Why is being able to achieve concept without sacrificing power a problem with D&D3? I'm more inclined to think of it as a benefit. There are too many options, and most of them exist because players are not willing to sacrifice power for concept. Exactly as you say, options allow players to grow their characters in role-appropriate directions without sacrificing power. To a player who is not concerned with character power, this is irrelevant. However, to a player who does wish for a powerful character, but does not wish to sacrifice concept for that power, the options are a blessing. I believe that this plethora of options is greatly helpful in allowing optimizing to occur without a negative impact on roleplay (the other main factor being reflavoring). Surprisingly enough, we did just fine when there were only four. Selecting from among options that have been laid out for you is not creative. You say that selecting from among many options is not creative. I say that selecting from among few options is no more creative. Creativity is developing your concept, and then creating that concept from whatever options are available to you. Having a larger or smaller pool of options does not increase or decrease the creativity involved in concept creation. A small pool just means that being aware of all the options is easier, but making your concept work mechanically is harder. A larger pool increases the difficulty in sorting through options, but allows for a greater degree of success in mechanical realization.
Nemo_the_Lost 11-03-07, 09:46 PM	A lot of people I know and/or play with love making characters with "flaws". I don't. I love to be the badass, the superhero, the infallible do-gooder (or do-wronger). My usual response to any criticism is usually "Why don't I/you just play a paraplegic commoner then? Lots of good roleplaying opportunities there!". I honestly can't role-play without having at least a somewhat optimized character. That's just my personality. And more power to you. I would not enjoy DMing for you, much.
Nemo_the_Lost 11-03-07, 09:58 PM	Which is why I didn't say you did. I said alot of "roleplayers" say that. Is your name "alot", if not then maybe you are not one of those that say it. Try to avoid hatchet jobs on quotes. Please try to avoid making points that have nothing to do with the discussion at hand. I would say that kind of thinking is fairly assine. It is the same kind of thinking I hear when someone says, "You can't take a level of druid, you were in a city this whole last level." :rolleyes: I'm sorry to hear that you feel that way. And having no options is? Coming up with one's own options is; very much so, yes.
Nemo_the_Lost 11-03-07, 10:27 PM	Okay, I realize that this may be getting a little off-topic, but I think it's still close enough to matter. Why is being able to achieve concept without sacrificing power a problem with D&D3? I'm more inclined to think of it as a benefit. First of all, I want to make it clear that this point that I've made about there being too many options in D&D3 is independent of the main thrust of this thread, even though it may be tangentially related. I don't want people to start using what I say about this to pick apart my argument against optimization, because I'd be the first to admit that any defense of the latter based on the former would fall apart quickly. Achieving concept without sacrificing power is not the problem. The problem is failing to achieve concept because it is easier to use the material the books have given us, no matter how it has been palette-swapped. The glut of options does not cause a conflict between power and concept, it causes a conflict between concept and concept. Wizards' versus the players'. You say that selecting from among many options is not creative. I say that selecting from among few options is no more creative. Actually, I agree with you entirely. I never made a distinction regarding the size of the codex of options. Creativity is developing your concept, and then creating that concept from whatever options are available to you. Having a larger or smaller pool of options does not increase or decrease the creativity involved in concept creation. I disagree here only because I feel a larger pool of options encourages players to not come up with their own, and I think your own remarks are indicative of this. Originally, prestige classes were supposed to meet two objectives -- fleshing out a campaign world, and fleshing out a character. According to what I and hundreds of others were told at GenCon 2000, the designers of D&D3.0 intended for DMs to create their own PrCs with their players' input, not use them straight out of the book. The PrCs in the DMG3.0 are examples, not core classes. This comes back to my biggest problem with today's D&D -- what is considered "legal." The only difference between a rules-lawyering min/maxer and a cheating munchkin is what Wizards says is legal. And without intending to cast aspersions, I have to say that I don't trust Wizards at all when it comes to playtesting. Not because they don't try! I am certain that Wizards' playtesting division does everything they can to keep the game balanced. But how many official feats do you figure there are in the game, now? Thousands? It is an absolute impossibility to playtest every combination among thousands of feats and several dozen class/race combinations. If they did not give up on this task before even beginning it then I am upset with them for wasting valuable R&D dollars that could have been better spent elsewhere. Playtesting D&D3 is impossible, and game balance should be the DM's job anyway. He is the ultimate gatekeeper where game content in his campaign is concerned. If he approves something, he alone is responsible for the consequences of his approval. I would like to see fewer DMs fleeing from this responsibility and more of them standing up and embracing it -- shaking off the fear that prevents them from designing their own content instead of just allowing players to regurgitate what they read in Wizards' splatbooks. You say that creativity is creating your character concept from the options that are available to you. I say that creativity is creating options so that you can make your character concept available to you. I've been playing that way since red box D&D, when all elves were gishes and couldn't be anything else, according to the book. The game has come along way since then, but seriously -- use it, don't be used by it.
calronmoonflower 11-04-07, 01:29 AM	I disagree here only because I feel a larger pool of options encourages players to not come up with their own, and I think your own remarks are indicative of this. I disagree. I've made many of my own concepts. In the end material that player make on their own must be approved by the dungeon master and are an application of rule 0. Rule 0 isn't a bad thing, but many of a dungeon master are afraid of home brew material. Originally, prestige classes were supposed to meet two objectives -- fleshing out a campaign world, and fleshing out a character. I not sure of that, however it is encouraged in the Dungeon Master's Guide. According to what I and hundreds of others were told at GenCon 2000, the designers of D&D3.0 intended for DMs to create their own PrCs with their players' input, not use them straight out of the book. The PrCs in the DMG3.0 are examples, not core classes. Told by who? Anyway what about dungeon masters that are pathologically afraid of rule 0. I've heard of many of them on the boards. This comes back to my biggest problem with today's D&D -- what is considered "legal." The only difference between a rules-lawyering min/maxer and a cheating munchkin is what Wizards says is legal. And without intending to cast aspersions, I have to say that I don't trust Wizards at all when it comes to playtesting. :ahem: It my not have been you intent to link these, but at this point I would like to point out that you don't have to be a rules lawyer to min/max or to be a cheater to be a munchkin. It is the duty of the dungeon master to draw limits that prevent abuse. They have say even over the Rules As Written on every issue. Problems with munchkins and rules lawyers are the result of a weak dungeon master. [snip] You say that creativity is creating your character concept from the options that are available to you. I say that creativity is creating options so that you can make your character concept available to you. Home brew material is an option. Therefor I cannot see the point of this argument. Also it need not be either/or (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_dilemma). Unless you throw out the Player's Handbook, Dungeon Master's Guide, Monster Manuel, ect... you are using options available to you. And if you do throw them out can it really be said that you are playing Dungeons and Dragons?
BigMcStrongmuscle 11-04-07, 04:21 AM	In my experience, role-playing and power-gaming *don't* have to interfere with each other. Thing is, unless your group is extremely communicative and creative and has an unusual amount of time and money on its hands (And if yours is like this, congratulations!), they almost always do anyway. I've been running games for the last ten or twelve years now, and have at one point or another subscribed to both ends of the spectrum on this debate. At this stage of my DMing career, I'm pretty firmly against over-optimization and power inflation and for (IMO) good reason. Both perspectives have their issues when someone takes them to extremes. Excessive mechanical emphasis on role-playing is extremely annoying for, say, a single-classed druid who has his character growth frustrated by DM decrees if he's been in a city for a whole level. The character's growth in that direction could easily be re-flavored as a development of existing talent, some time spent learning the city fauna, or a preprepared program of study - There is no reason to assume that a character cannot have a plan for his life, and if your group does not like keeping track of such minutia in detail (and many - I'd guess most - don't) it harms nothing to permit training for that plan to proceed offstage. It is equally bad, however, to get locked into that plan, whether you call it story or build - it stifles new opportunities for developing your character. One of the best characters I've ever seen played completely changed the direction of her build and her role-playing purely on instinct and the spur of the moment no less than three times over 12 levels. Beginning as a CN street pickpocket, she got sick of getting spat on and used her talents and ill-gotten booty to became a borderline CE pirate captain. After awhile she grew disenchanted with being a bloodthirsty queen of the seas and pledged the loyalty of her fleet to an emperor in exchange for political rank. Shortly after that, she had a religious experience, gave away all her ill-gotten material goods to help repay the damages she'd caused in the past and ended up a repentant, extremely pious warrior who was considering joining an order of paladins. Somewhat besides the point maybe, but probably one of the single coolest characters I've ever been exposed to. Thing is, her character build was "sub-optimal", because it was built with four different plans. (I don't have her sheet handy, but IIRC, she ended up something like: Rogue7, Fighter 2, Ranger 2, Dread Pirate 2, Paladin 1, specialized in Two-Weapon Fighting and had several enormous weaknesses even for a normal character, like very low Will saves and a complete inability at 14th level to even damage a CR 1/3 skeleton) Had I been running a highly optimized campaign at the time, this character would have fallen by the wayside beside the others who didn't let themselves get distracted so much. Odds are, the player would probably have gotten tired of being overshadowed and eventually asked to switch characters. The campaign would've been much the poorer for it. No amount of assistance from "more able" optimizers would have helped, because the plan didn't stay constant. Which brings us to the real source of interference I see between optimization and role-playing. If enough people are optimizing their characters that it affects encounter difficulty (and sometimes one is enough), a sort of arms race begins between the players and the DM - to challenge Player A, he needs stronger monsters, which quickly kill off Player B. Player B comes back with an even more optimized character, prompting another rise in monster strength, which then kills off Player C. And resurrection won't help this kind of loss, because the character has fallen behind, and will keep dying, again and again and again. Even if the DM has the foresight to recognize this and stop the cycle, he is still left with that overcharged super-character getting bored. The game becomes zero-sum between the two, until one player or the other abandons their character, killing any role-playing of that character for a mechanical concern. The only way to avoid this scenario is to make sure everybody optimizes to the same degree - whether this is "not at all", "as much we can", or more likely, some middle ground. Okay, so you just make everyone optimize their characters to the max. Thing is, this has problems too. Character optimization means constantly keeping on top of the latest splatbooks. Now every person in the group is shelling out $30.00 a month, and constantly reviewing new material in their spare time. While this makes the sales guys at Wizards really happy, let's be frank: not every gamer can *afford* this: the younger set often has trouble with the money, and the older set with the time. Then, you have to actually *use* the mechanics from those books. When playing all your character's cool abilities suddenly becomes a matter of slogging through a dozen cumbersome rulebooks for that cool mechanic you wanted, you'd better believe that atmosphere and roleplaying are going to suffer. It's the classic systems engineering trade-off between functionality and complexity. Yes, I'm aware that the complexity issue can be fixed with some preparation time... but that too has a cost. I hasten to repeat: preparation time. If in your group, all your players have got that much time on their hands, that's great, and I wish your game the best. Not everyone does: at the very least, barring a few outliers who didn't have any other hobbies, mine never have. My personal policy to combat this effect is not to allow any use of splatbooks at my table. All non-core material any player wishes to use must receive my okay. All of the relevant material must then be copied onto paper as an addendum to that person's character sheet. Each character is permitted up to 2 pages of feats, spells, and such, and one non-Core class. Draconian? Maybe, but no worse than a Kapak. I write a lot of homebrew content anyway, so I just work with anyone who exceeds the limit to create a PrC based on his concept. It's what I'm there for, and honestly, it's a better use of everyone's time than memorizing three dozen splatbooks looking for possible exploits. Then again, YMMV.
WayneTheGame 11-04-07, 09:44 AM	As I commonly say, the only reason why roleplaying and powergaming conflict is because groups contain a mix of players who favor one or the other. There's never a problem in a group that consists of only roleplayers, or only powergamers. When there is a situation where, say, one player is a powergamer and the other three are not, the problem arises. What I've found more intriguing, though, is that the non-powergamers are nearly always the ones who start the problem, and often refuse to accept advice from the powergamer, often dismissing his/her views as being ridiculous and/or "playing D&D wrong". In this way, the powergamer is painted to be a selfish jerk who doesn't care about roleplaying, and who tries to force his/her playstyle on the other players, instead of someone who knows the rules a bit better than the others and is willing to help out. In almost every debate of this nature, it's ALWAYS the anti-powergaming crowd who are unwilling to compromise and accept the alternative playstyle, despite the fact they might learn a thing or two in the process. Let me also say that I enjoy the fact that you can build a concept WITHOUT sacrificing effectiveness; in fact, being forced to sacrifice effectiveness for flavor is the EPITOME of bad game design. Also, IMO it is extremely bad roleplaying to make a character that is useless and unable to contribute meaningfully to the adventuring party. The character cited in the above post falls squarely in this category, I'm sad to say (sad because the flavor and background events leading up to those choices sounds very nice). Not being able to damage a 1/3 CR creature at 14th level is about as worthless as it gets on the mechanics side of things. I'm sure the character was very well roleplayed, but I can't imagine how that character was able to contribute anything worthwhile to the group if it really was that weak. Just remember: Being the best roleplayer in the world and writing an epic novella detailing your character's history does you no good if your character is pathetically weak and gets killed in the first encounter of an adventure. That's not to say we should all be playing Pun-Puns, but at least try to balance the two. Then there would be peace between the two groups, instead of animosity.
Vva70 11-04-07, 11:23 AM	You say that creativity is creating your character concept from the options that are available to you. I say that creativity is creating options so that you can make your character concept available to you. I've been playing that way since red box D&D, when all elves were gishes and couldn't be anything else, according to the book. The game has come along way since then, but seriously -- use it, don't be used by it. I think that we're actually not very far off from agreement here. Creating custom content is sometimes one of the "options that are available to you." However, not all DMs are comfortable with trying to balance custom content. I understand that you may not trust WotC for playtesting, but the material they put out is playtested to some degree, and custom content is not. Now, I say (and I believe you would agree) that willingness and confidence to playtest and balance custom content on-the-fly is a good quality in a DM, but it's a quality that they don't all have. Now, off of the tangent and on to the meat of the argument: "Powergaming occurs when a player makes a conscious choice to optimize his character mechanically because of the mechanical benefit of such a choice, and either does not reconcile the optimization with his statement [see definition of roleplaying] and with his character's experiences since its generation, or modifies said statement or experiences in order that the optimization will be reconciled after its selection." I note that by your definition, a powergamer is required specifically to perform mechanical optimization that does not mesh with the character's "statement or experiences." If a player makes a mechanical optimization and flavors it to match the statement or experiences, or digs something preexisting out of them to apply to the optimization, that would not be powergaming by your definition. While I may be misunderstanding you, it seems like you are using a set of definitions that are inherently contradictory, in a manner that is not necessarily implied by many common uses of the terms. In a fashion you seem to be saying "bricklaying interferes with road safety, and by bricklaying I mean building brick walls in the middle of busy intersections." Granted, my analogy is highly exaggerated. It remains though, that much of the common use of the term powergaming (though certainly not all) refers to the pursuit of a powerful character independent of character integrity. You are absolutely correct that pursuit of a powerful character negatively impacts roleplaying when that pursuit leads to a mechanical decision without reconciliation. However, many people use the term powergaming to denote only the pursuit of a powerful character, which can be done with or without reconciliation. Your definition certainly fits within the scope of the term "powergaming," but I believe that the definition is restrictive enough that it should only be applied to a subset of activities within the term powergaming, and not to the term as a whole. That said, I'm admittedly not a terminology expert, and all of the above is based on my personal experiences with the usage of the term. Take it as you will. :D
calronmoonflower 11-04-07, 02:41 PM	"Powergaming occurs when a player makes a conscious choice to optimize his character mechanically because of the mechanical benefit of such a choice, and either does not reconcile the optimization with his statement [see definition of roleplaying] and with his character's experiences since its generation, or modifies said statement or experiences in order that the optimization will be reconciled after its selection." Including the conclusion of an argument in the premise of that arguement is begging the question (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Begging_the_question). Lets look at two definitions from other sources. From Dictionary of Terminology Power Gamer (noun), 1: A player whose primary focus in a RPG is the increase of his character’s power, usually defined in combat terms. 2: A Min/Maxer. From Dictionary of Terminology (Part II) Powergamer (noun), 1: A player whose primary focus in a RPG is the increase of his character’s power, usually defined in combat terms. 2: A munchkin, Monty Hauler, hack’n slasher, metagamer, rules lawyer and/or twink. These two definitions are as official as it will get. As it is neither are defined in such a way that powergaming must be inhernetly opposed to roleplaying.
EvilVegan 11-04-07, 03:49 PM	I think the terms are getting confused. Roleplayer = Someone who plays a role, possibly but not necessarily in character. Varying levels of involvement range from meta-descriptive: "I'm playing Todd the chaotic good fighter, so he's not going to stab this baby and he may in fact give it a lolli", to immersively detailed: "I am Todd Pendrali, son of Ferin the Great, heir to the legacy of Kapiita. When I was 5. . . my sign is. . . when I was 15. . . one time in band camp. . . now that I figured out how to open this. . . I don't like most cheeses". Optimizer = Someone who chooses the mechanical features of a character based on enhancing strengths and alleviating weaknesses. Varying levels from situational "This campaign is going to be undead heavy? I won't focus on aberration hunting then, oh and I'll carry a back up bludgeoning weapon" to highly involved "Undead heavy campaign? Well I'm playing a cleric 3/Church inquisitor 3/RSoP10/Contempl 4/Heirophant 5/etc etc. By the time I hit 38th level I'll have found/purchased/made items X, Y, Z, . . . and taken feats a, b, c, . . . Here are my spells per day lists depending on which type of day I expect from levels 1-50. . ." But then there are claims like this: "Why would your character learn to deflect arrows if he hasn't been shot at?" This has nothing to do with roleplaying or optimization. This has to do with continuity. Every argument I've seen along the lines of "optimization hinders roleplaying" has actually been closer to "optimization strains continuity" which isn't precisely the same thing. I just wanted to point that out. Please define your terms better or at least realize what both sides are arguing. This is why the 'Pun Pun as Actor' argument isn't technically refuting the other side, because it isn't the right argument to be refuting. Then there are arguments like this: "Why would Chuck the Pointless be travelling with Gary the Ubercharger?" Again, nothing to do with roleplaying or specifically with optimization, but rather varying playstyles not meshing well. This has nothing to do with the inherent benefits or enjoyment of optimization and/or roleplaying, but rather just shows that there are in fact 'different strokes for different folks'. And Gary and Chuck could very well just be friends or on a quest that they all have to travel with, but that goes back to continuity. Watch a few episodes of Inuyasha and tell me why Shippo is there. It's totally just a session where a powergamer (Inuyasha), 3 casual, "pretzel & beer"-style gamers (Kagome, Miroku, Sango), and one 'roleplayer' who likes beguilers and hates powergaming (Shippo). Most of the episodes consist of Inuyasha killing everything while the three casual people stand off to the side chatting about stuff (occasionally helping/paying attention) and the roleplayer tries to ineffectively attack things that are well above his CR (because the DM had to compensate for the powergamer). He can, yes. But humor aside, there is a certain futility to roleplaying a cleric of St. Cuthbert who is clearly a rogue according to his character sheet. All other things aside, this is slightly obtuse. (No offense). I can very easily play a very well roleplayed priest of any religion using rogue as a base class, and not for the sake of humor at all. Cleric and rogue are metagame terms, and as such belong out of in-character roleplaying for the most part. A priest, however, is simply a member of the clergy. That is to say, someone who is familiar with the day-to-day rituals, requiring maybe 2 ranks in knowledge (religion) and probably some sort of familiarity with dealing with hierarchy (bluff, diplomacy, intimidate, gather info). In some ways a rogue can make a better priest of many religions than a cleric. And don't get me started on the relative similarities between a thieves guild and a church. I am currently roleplaying a ninja/priest of a god of knowledge and secrets in a homebrew who is very obviously (metagame-mechanically anyway) an artificer. Whenever we run into a monster he uses his vast knowledge (maxed out knowledges, w/ feat to add all knowledges) to determine creature type, then uses his knowledge and divine power to strike their vital areas (casts the infusion to grant bane quality to his bow). He's very sneaky (enchanted clothing grants competence bonus to hide/move silently). It's one of the more optimal character's I've made and it isn't hindered in the roleplay department. Prefer to think of it as you like; the fact remains that if I kill your character (nefarious means aside), you will be upset for two reasons. One, the length of time you spent working on it. Two, your fondness for the character himself. If we assume (erroneously, I'm sure) that all roleplayers are equally fond of their characters, then it stands to reason that optimizers, who spend more time on their characters than non-optimizers, will be more upset than your average gamer upon the death of one of their characters. I call that an enhanced sense of entitlement, for better or for worse. I disagree 130 billion % (as my wife would say). I am not personally a powergamer, but I am an avid character builder. I plan all of my characters out for 20 levels including skill points, feats, spells known, class dips . . . pretty much every element except equipment. I do this to save time during the game when I need to level and consider it on par with saying "I'm going to play a sorcerer", except replace 'sorcerer' with my character's concept. I basically use the rules to desgin a 20 level progression that fits my concept. I often spend an equal amount of time developing backstory, family trees, and character quirks. And then there is the time spent drawing my character in various poses to get a feel for how he/she stands and moves. Also I have a lot of time on my hands, due to working in a call center, which helps. It often isn't even optimal, and occasionally anti-optimal such as my rogue where I gave up sneak attack to gain bonus skill focus or +2/+2 skill feats and took no combat feats whatsoever but still tried fighting with two-weapon fighting. I roleplayed that character to the hilt and the amount of character planning was just as high as if I had designed a hulking hurler (I had all 18 of his feats, special abilities, and skill point allocation pre-planned). When he died, I giggled and started making a new character. I wasn't happy he died, but he died in a really silly fashion that actually put a very good end on the character's story. I love planning things out and my character dying allows me to do so again. It isn't that I like building characters more than playing, quite the contrary, it is just that creating character builds around role-play concepts allows me to be creative with a complex system, like painting a picture. Character creation is an art and it is enjoyable for some people. My wife on the other hand hates rolling up new characters and likes roleplaying somewhat (really she just loves the killing of things), but I wouldn't say she's a heavy roleplayer, nor an optimizer. If I killed one of her characters she would beat the crap out of me and probably be extremely sad for a very long while after (probably quitting the campaign until the next one started). But she's still pretty new to the game and not as callous as I am. So, just some anecdotal evidence that your claim isn't true. We may be the exception but I highly doubt it. Personally, I think people who optimize, or more importantly plan, are planners and enjoy planning. As such, the loss of a character won't be as much of a blow as it would to someone who doesn't like planning, but does get very much 'into' their characters. But really I think it just has more to do with how attached the person is to their characters, unrelated to how much effort goes into the design/advancement of it. I don't get attached to many things, my wife does. Which is nothing related to optimizing or roleplaying. Also, preplanning can be beneficial to roleplaying continuity. If I state from the beginning that my background is X and my plans/goals are Y, it is much easier for the DM to create a story. For instance, I want to be a member of the Order of the Bow. The DM (if he accepts the idea) creates at least one avenue in which such an event occurs. When planning out my character I 'okay' all PrC and feats I take with the DM well before the campaign starts, this lets us hammer out when certain events would need to happen and makes story-telling and character development more fluid and gives it some structure. It is an outline to create a story, the campaign itself is a full-blown story. I'm a very creative soul, but I'm not going to sit down to write a novel without first making out some points of interest with an outline. Free-form writing is good for certain things, but continuity and development aren't necessarily one of them. If I plan going into Church Inquisitor by 4th level I make sure the DM is going to have an encounter where I discover some sort of corruption within the church by 3rd level. For dramatic purposes it would make the campaign more rivetting if this occured as the encounter that caused me to level, and from a story-telling point of view there is no reason not to plan this out. At 3rd level, the encounter that gives me enough XP to get to 4th level is the one that reveals the corruption. Character, story, roleplaying, and optimization are all tools to make the game run smoother and be more enjoyable to people who enjoy each aspect, to the degree that they enjoy each and focus on it. Also, most of my campaigns feature completely custom built PrCs, feats, and core classes. And races and monsters and worlds and cosmologies. Out of all of these I look into the various splats to determine which powers and abilities belong at which levels and with which character archtypes. If a concept works within the premade options, I use those and reflavor. If the concept doesn't work I design a brand new class and work with the players to get their characters optimal, balanced, and roleplayed/developed to the degree that they want to roleplay/develop their character/story. The horrifying truth is that I actually think that idea sounds awesome, but then I love really complex board games. ...has anyone actually made a game like that?Many. Runescape is one, though the monters are randomly generated using cards, not dice. You basically pick what level of encounter you want to fight, and the fight is determined randomly, after which you level and choose to improve whatever ability you like. The same company makes a World of Warcraft game that features randomly generated quests that spawn monsters of various challenge ratings, again card & board based. Both feature dice for determining combat. They are both quite fun, but competative in nature (only one person can win) and the game can be decided early on by a few bad rolls that can delay levelling so that if you're marginally luckier that the other person to begin with there is very little chance of winning the end game (in my experience). That and they suffer some mechanical problems such as relying on multiple d8s (similar to white wolf), and rolling low having dire consequences (I killed myself with low rolls against 2 of the very first monsters I fought). There are ways around it, but that's been my experience. It may just be that the guy I play with is a really lucky bastard. I often would roll handfulls of d8s with 30-50% of them being 1s and the rest not above 5s, vs his 60%+ 7+ rolls. Quite fun and they take about 3-5 hours to play to completion. Both games require forethought into character development in order to suceed, from equipment selection, to character selection (randomly done in runescape!), to how you choose to level. Unlike D&D, however, these games can be won. Meaning that there is an immediate and necessary reason to optimize. D&D does not have this requirement. There is no reason to optimize in D&D beyond personal choice to do so. The game is not built around optimal characters, nor is it built around anti-optimal characters. As long as you don't take Weapon Focus: Spiked gauntlet and memorize nothing but Tenser's Floating Disk for your wizard, you should be fine. It's a game so have fun, but you can't "win". You can do "better" against "challenges" and "live longer" but none of these are required to enjoy yourself. Playing a character who sucks at everything can be just as fun as playing one who kills everything with a glance if you know what you're doing. And it seems you do.
pres_man 11-05-07, 10:18 AM	Achieving concept without sacrificing power is not the problem. The problem is failing to achieve concept because it is easier to use the material the books have given us, no matter how it has been palette-swapped. The glut of options does not cause a conflict between power and concept, it causes a conflict between concept and concept. Wizards' versus the players'. Ok, so someone else defined the parameters, and that is bad. Or is it that never deviating from those parameters is bad? The second I can agree with, there always needs a bit of the "human factor" involved to make the game fun. But the first, I can't understand, why does it matter if someone else thought up an idea, if it is a good idea. There is no reason to recreate the wheel, as the saying goes. Actually, I agree with you entirely. I never made a distinction regarding the size of the codex of options. Good to hear it, it was starting to sound as if having more published options was somehow decreasing the number of total options. I disagree here only because I feel a larger pool of options encourages players to not come up with their own, ... According to what I and hundreds of others were told at GenCon 2000, the designers of D&D3.0 intended for DMs to create their own PrCs with their players' input, not use them straight out of the book. The PrCs in the DMG3.0 are examples, not core classes. This comes back to my biggest problem with today's D&D -- what is considered "legal." ... Not because they don't try! ... While testing wholesale every single possibility is not usually possible, if some fundamental ideas on how things are built is determined then it is usually not necessary either. As for using things straight from the books and more published options discouraging players/DMs from building their own, well I will address that below on creativity. Playtesting D&D3 is impossible, and game balance should be the DM's job anyway. He is the ultimate gatekeeper where game content in his campaign is concerned. If he approves something, he alone is responsible for the consequences of his approval. I would like to see fewer DMs fleeing from this responsibility and more of them standing up and embracing it -- shaking off the fear that prevents them from designing their own content instead of just allowing players to regurgitate what they read in Wizards' splatbooks. This is all pretty much just gaming preference here. Group A only uses core material and no homebrewed classes/feats/items/etc. Group B only uses homebrewed classes/feats/items/etc. Group C uses any WotC officially sanctioned material (dragon or dungeon articles, complete series books, etc) but again no homebrew stuff. Group D uses any Wotc official material but also homebrew. Group E uses only core and homebrew stuff. Group F ... Where the line is drawn is ultimately only group preference. And some groups might restrict certain things for one game and different things for another. You say that creativity is creating your character concept from the options that are available to you. I say that creativity is creating options so that you can make your character concept available to you. I've been playing that way since red box D&D, when all elves were gishes and couldn't be anything else, according to the book. The game has come along way since then, but seriously -- use it, don't be used by it. This is a difference in ideas of creativity and ultimately personality types. For some folk, creativity is only defined as coming up with something totally new, whole clothe. For others creativity could also include coming up with unique ways to use the tools and ideas already at hand. Some people do not have the type of personality that works for coming up with whole new ideas, but they can tweak ideas, then can take alot of seemingly unreality established ideas and connect them into a meaningful pattern. That is creativity too, it is not the flashy paradigm changing kind of creativity, it is the quiet detail focus kind of creativity. I tend to be the second, so it actually helps me to have examples, and the more the better, to work off. From my personal experience the most unbalanced feats/classes/items/etc have been homebrewed. "My old DM made this class for me, that was really cool, it did ..." followed by a list of totally unbalanced abilities. Was it surprising that the old DM was their boyfriend and a crappy DM based on the one shot I played under him. But I didn't say no, instead I said, "Send me the details and we can look it over, maybe there are already established things that can do what you want, and if not we can see if these ideas are balanced." That idea was dropped by the player in order to use more established (published) options. When the homebrewed class was challenged by established examples and issues of balance instead of just "cool" factors, it was quickly abandoned by the player, not me, I was actually curious to see the exact details. I enjoy seeing how others come up with ideas, but that goes to the fact that I work best by seeing ideas and spring boarding off of them. EDIT: Also, irregardless of the "purpose" that the designers had for people to make up their own material based on their "examples", there will always be some players and groups that will refuse to use items that are not "official". If there were no "splat" books (or mags) then these groups would be limited to only those items in the core materials. You may poo-poo on how these groups are non-creative but that doesn't change the fact that for these groups having these other sources actually increases the options they are going to use, not decreases them. For those people that do not ever feel limited by any source, I fail to see how having other sources would limit them also. But there are some, I will admit, that fall into the middle area, they use some homebrew but also rely heavily on official sources, that might disregard their own homebrew idea for a published one, even if the published one was "worse" (however we want to define that in the particular case).
Nemo_the_Lost 11-05-07, 10:22 AM	I disagree. I've made many of my own concepts. In the end material that player make on their own must be approved by the dungeon master and are an application of rule 0. Rule 0 isn't a bad thing, but many of a dungeon master are afraid of home brew material. You are not disagreeing with my point. If you have overcome the urge to use what is published rather than what is unique to you and your game, then I applaud you. But that does not mean or even imply that there is not a predilection for the former among D&D players. Anyway what about dungeon masters that are pathologically afraid of rule 0. I've heard of many of them on the boards. Admittedly, I do not use anything in my campaigns that I read on the Internet. But I homebrew a large amount of material for my own use. This is irrelevant to the discussion at hand, and I acknowledge that there may be mitigating circumstances, but I question whether a DM afraid of Rule 0 has any place behind the screen to begin with. Told by who? I am bad with names, but it was a panel of designers from the D&D3.0 team. :ahem: It my not have been you intent to link these, but at this point I would like to point out that you don't have to be a rules lawyer to min/max or to be a cheater to be a munchkin. Your definitions of these terms are your own. I use my own definitions because no one has bothered to codify these words to everyone's satisfaction. If my meaning is not clear, I will restate using more detailed language, but I do not think that is the problem here. I think you are trying to impose your understanding of the meaning of these words onto my point, which is an ultimately futile exercise. But as I said, if you truly don't understand what I'm trying to say, I will restate. It is the duty of the dungeon master to draw limits that prevent abuse. They have say even over the Rules As Written on every issue. Problems with munchkins and rules lawyers are the result of a weak dungeon master. That's interesting. The argument I usually get from your camp is that the Dungeon Master has no right to limit the creativity of his players, and should deal with abuse by manipulating his campaign rather than the characters. Personally, I think the right path lies somewhere in the middle. Home brew material is an option. Therefor I cannot see the point of this argument. Again, if you see homebrew material as an option, then no, I have no quarrel with you. Also it need not be either/or (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_dilemma). Unless you throw out the Player's Handbook, Dungeon Master's Guide, Monster Manuel, ect... you are using options available to you. And if you do throw them out can it really be said that you are playing Dungeons and Dragons? Good question. That's one for the D&D4 design team, I think. :) In my experience, role-playing and power-gaming *don't* have to interfere with each other. Thing is, unless your group is extremely communicative and creative and has an unusual amount of time and money on its hands (And if yours is like this, congratulations!), they almost always do anyway. That about sums up my stance. Good on yer. One of the best characters I've ever seen played completely changed the direction of her build and her role-playing purely on instinct and the spur of the moment no less than three times over 12 levels. What a great story. Bless that player, sir. My personal policy to combat this effect is not to allow any use of splatbooks at my table. All non-core material any player wishes to use must receive my okay. All of the relevant material must then be copied onto paper as an addendum to that person's character sheet. Each character is permitted up to 2 pages of feats, spells, and such, and one non-Core class. Draconian? Maybe, but no worse than a Kapak. I write a lot of homebrew content anyway, so I just work with anyone who exceeds the limit to create a PrC based on his concept. It's what I'm there for, and honestly, it's a better use of everyone's time than memorizing three dozen splatbooks looking for possible exploits. I'm trying to work on a codified system like this myself, and I really appreciate your input. It is very helpful! I think that we're actually not very far off from agreement here. It would not surprise me. My experience in this discussion is that my opponents tend to make my arguments better than I do. I understand that you may not trust WotC for playtesting, but the material they put out is playtested to some degree, and custom content is not. Given the number of things that made it into D&D3.5 canon that should never have "passed the sniff test," I wonder if that assertion is really valid. It is certainly true, but is it worth anything? Now, I say (and I believe you would agree) that willingness and confidence to playtest and balance custom content on-the-fly is a good quality in a DM, but it's a quality that they don't all have. It's a quality I don't have. But that doesn't stop me. It clearly didn't stop Wizards, and it shouldn't stop anyone else. :) You just do the best you can with what you've got. I note that by your definition, a powergamer is required specifically to perform mechanical optimization that does not mesh with the character's "statement or experiences." If a player makes a mechanical optimization and flavors it to match the statement or experiences, or digs something preexisting out of them to apply to the optimization, that would not be powergaming by your definition. As I've said, I have reservations about the reflavoring of game features, but essentially, yes, that is my stance. In a fashion you seem to be saying "bricklaying interferes with road safety, and by bricklaying I mean building brick walls in the middle of busy intersections." That's a good one. :) I think my actual point, however, is not that all bricklaying interferes with road safety, but rather that building brick walls in safe places is so much fun that bricklayers are likely to seek out unsafe places -- such as busy intersections -- when all of the safe places are filled with brick walls. However, many people use the term powergaming to denote only the pursuit of a powerful character, which can be done with or without reconciliation. I'm not really interested in anyone else's definition of the term. As I said to Moonflower earlier in this post, I will restate my position using more cumbersome language if my reliance on my own defined terminology is interfering with my argument, but I do not think that is what is happening here. My point is that optimization is dangerous because it can lead to powergaming, which I have defined previously. I consider powergaming to be negative in all cases. I do not consider optimization to be negative in all cases (although I do not personally think highly of it). Including the conclusion of an argument in the premise of that arguement is begging the question (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Begging_the_question). I am not really sure what you're saying, here. In short, the conclusion of my argument is that optimization leads to powergaming. The premise of my argument is that optimization has addictive properties. These two definitions are as official as it will get. As it is neither are defined in such a way that powergaming must be inhernetly opposed to roleplaying. So my argument is invalid because I define my terms differently? Powergaming is not detrimental because some other people have decided it is not (which, I might add, I am not convinced they did)? That's absurd on the face of things. If my usage of the term powergaming offends you, then rewrite my definition above to refer to preskydoolism. Then my argument is that optimization leads to preskydoolism, and preskydoolism is bad. Changing the words does not change my position.
RadicalTaoist 11-05-07, 09:48 PM	Last Friday my computer's logic board went kapoof while my hard drive had the drafts and research for several major assignments due this week. They're currently doing data recovery down at the shop and I should be back in the game with all my data and a new computer by the end of the week. I appreciate everyone's patience and understanding regarding my absence from this thread.
calronmoonflower 11-06-07, 03:09 AM	So my argument is invalid because I define my terms differently? No. It's an invalid argument because you said defined powergaming in such a way that you couldn't both powergame and roleplay and then tried to use that to prove that you couldn't powergame and roleplay. Powergaming is not detrimental because some other people have decided it is not (which, I might add, I am not convinced they did)? This statement is correct, however, it is follows in the other direction. Because some have decided that powergaming is detrimental doesn't mean that it is. I'm also not convinced of that argument. That's absurd on the face of things. No it isn't. I pointed out that not all share your definition. If you argue against someones position you should be careful not to change from their definitions to yours. If you try to prove that powergaming leads to poor roleplaying, then you must use a definition of powergaming that doesn't define it in such a way. If you do then the argument is begging the question (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Begging_the_question). As such it isn't proper logic. Doing so doesn't make you wrong, it just means that you have not meet the standard of proof nor provided a proper rebuttal. If my usage of the term powergaming offends you, then rewrite my definition above to refer to preskydoolism. First I wasn't offended. Second my problem with your argument was you used a definition in which powergaming must inherently conflict with roleplaying. By the definition that you use if it didn't conflict then you really where not powergaming. That is a logical fallacy. If you want to try to prove your argument you must do so in a different way. Then my argument is that optimization leads to preskydoolism, and preskydoolism is bad. Changing the words does not change my position. Ok. IF you do A you must also do B. B is bad so A is bad. I'll put out my own position on the subject. 1. Roleplaying requires one skill. 2. Powergaming requires another skill. 3. Combining the two in a way that is both believable requires a third skill. The better that you can combine the two without conflict the more you can powergame without hindering your roleplaying and vice versa. Characters have an inherently dangerous profession. The stronger they are the more likely they are to survive it. That means that nerfing you character without cause (I don't mean not powergaming here) is bad roleplaying and at least some roleplaying reason to powergaming exists. Explaining a preplanned build in roleplaying terms can be done. The character can have a goal in mind such as mastering a combat style, defeating an extremely power foe, or reinventing a lost style of fighting. Saying that a preplanned build must be only metagaming is like saying that that preparing for a careerer in high school by taking classes that prepare you for collage classes that are necessary for that careerer is metagaming. A good roleplayer can explain a preplanned a build and each step of power that you gain on the course to your ultimate goal.
High Octane 11-06-07, 04:40 AM	Joshua (in-character PC name) inherited a masterful parry from his master David; he refers to the movement as David's Parry. In one incarnation, Joshua is a core-only Fighters and David's Parry is the Dodge feat. He wears light armor because that's Joshua's concept, and suffers for it, being hit by enemies more often. Not exactly the heroic swashbuckler. In another incarnation, Joshua is a Swashbuckler and David's Parry is the Dodge bonus class feature Swashbucklers get. This is more optimal as Joshua is rewarded for staying in light armor, but he's still getting hit a lot. Moreover, there seems to be no difference between his getting hit and his not getting hit as made by the Swashbuckler's Dodge, even though in his backstory David taught Joshua the parry with the warning "Don't expect it to catch the next attack right after". But in an optimal incarnation, Joshua is a Warblade and David's Parry is the Wall of Blades maneuver. This provides Joshua with the excellent, reliable defense against attacks his player always saw the parry to be, and the counter maneuver rules fit the parry as well as Joshua can't use it over and over again. In addition, a lot of David's teachings and abilities sync with other maneuvers in the Iron Heart discipline (the school from which Wall of Blades hails) and Joshua's player finds that making Joshua an Iron Heart-focused Warblade really fleshes him out as David's student quite well. I think this is an example of what I just now decided to refer to as The Sparrow Principle. One of the favored characters for building has been the infamous Captain Jack Sparrow of Pirate fame. There have been many different builds to try to mechanically explain this character. Many have shown him as a straight up rogue. Others mix in swashbuckler levels. There have been different descriptions showing him from levels 5 to 15. I personally see him as having rogue/swashbuckler levels and then having levels in Fortune's Friend from Complete Scoundrel. This mix of builds are interesting and fun, however should one of these be picked up and used by a player to play the character, the character will always come first when deciding how to roleplay. The Sparrow Principle states, no matter how you build him, he will always be Captain Jack Sparrow. Once you stop building and actually play, character will take precedence over build.
Nemo_the_Lost 11-06-07, 10:00 AM	No. It's an invalid argument because you said defined powergaming in such a way that you couldn't both powergame and roleplay and then tried to use that to prove that you couldn't powergame and roleplay. No. If you go back and read through this thread and the thread that originated it, you will find that my argument is that optimization leads to poor roleplay. You will also note that I do not consider optimization and powergaming to be synonymous. My definition of powergaming is absolute and negative because I believe it to be an effect, not a cause. Poorly managed optimization can become powergaming, but they are not the same thing.
Leo 11-06-07, 06:11 PM	No. It's an invalid argument because you said defined powergaming in such a way that you couldn't both powergame and roleplay and then tried to use that to prove that you couldn't powergame and roleplay. This statement is correct, however, it is follows in the other direction. Because some have decided that powergaming is detrimental doesn't mean that it is. I'm also not convinced of that argument. No it isn't. I pointed out that not all share your definition. If you argue against someones position you should be careful not to change from their definitions to yours. If you try to prove that powergaming leads to poor roleplaying, then you must use a definition of powergaming that doesn't define it in such a way. If you do then the argument is begging the question (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Begging_the_question). As such it isn't proper logic. Doing so doesn't make you wrong, it just means that you have not meet the standard of proof nor provided a proper rebuttal. First I wasn't offended. Second my problem with your argument was you used a definition in which powergaming must inherently conflict with roleplaying. By the definition that you use if it didn't conflict then you really where not powergaming. That is a logical fallacy. If you want to try to prove your argument you must do so in a different way. Ok. IF you do A you must also do B. B is bad so A is bad. I'll put out my own position on the subject. 1. Roleplaying requires one skill. 2. Powergaming requires another skill. 3. Combining the two in a way that is both believable requires a third skill. The better that you can combine the two without conflict the more you can powergame without hindering your roleplaying and vice versa. Characters have an inherently dangerous profession. The stronger they are the more likely they are to survive it. That means that nerfing you character without cause (I don't mean not powergaming here) is bad roleplaying and at least some roleplaying reason to powergaming exists. Explaining a preplanned build in roleplaying terms can be done. The character can have a goal in mind such as mastering a combat style, defeating an extremely power foe, or reinventing a lost style of fighting. Saying that a preplanned build must be only metagaming is like saying that that preparing for a careerer in high school by taking classes that prepare you for collage classes that are necessary for that careerer is metagaming. A good roleplayer can explain a preplanned a build and each step of power that you gain on the course to your ultimate goal. Also, altough you can justify almost anything with good talk, sometimes the justification will just be fishy. For example, optimized druids, clerics and wizards somehow know EVERYTHING there is to know about monsters. So they can abuse planar ally, shapechange, planar biding, alter self, polymorph self etc, etc. The druid somehow knows balor for their first name, the wizard is well aknowledged with the mightiest celestials and the cleric used to hang up with efreetis for what it seems. Before they even started the adventure Yes, you can create cool stories to explain how this hapened before the adventure starting. No, none of them is minimally realistic, even for a D&D game. You can claim that you found some book with all the information or that your old master indtroduced you to them, but by this logic, I could also make my 1st level character start with a +5 vorpal sword who just hapened to be buried under my house, for pure roleplaying reasons. And you also claim that real life people nowadays prepare their "builds" beforehand. Tell me, how many people out there actually managed to follow their life plans step by step? They all manage to get in the exact university they want? They all manage to get the exact job they want? No. Most people, if not all, have to change or at least adapt their life plans as time goes by, because things change.
pres_man 11-06-07, 06:57 PM	Also, altough you can justify almost anything with good talk, sometimes the justification will just be fishy. For example, optimized druids, clerics and wizards somehow know EVERYTHING there is to know about monsters. So they can abuse planar ally, shapechange, planar biding, alter self, polymorph self etc, etc. The druid somehow knows balor for their first name, the wizard is well aknowledged with the mightiest celestials and the cleric used to hang up with efreetis for what it seems. Before they even started the adventure Sounds like some people that don't know how to use the Knowledge skills. And you also claim that real life people nowadays prepare their "builds" beforehand. Tell me, how many people out there actually managed to follow their life plans step by step? They all manage to get in the exact university they want? They all manage to get the exact job they want? No. Most people, if not all, have to change or at least adapt their life plans as time goes by, because things change. Yeah, most people in D&D are commoners, adepts, warrors, aristocrats, or adepts. Yeah, NPCs. PCs are special, above and beyond most people, they are the Bill Gateses of the game world.
Shadowhowler 11-07-07, 01:15 AM	As I commonly say, the only reason why roleplaying and powergaming conflict is because groups contain a mix of players who favor one or the other. There's never a problem in a group that consists of only roleplayers, or only powergamers. When there is a situation where, say, one player is a powergamer and the other three are not, the problem arises. What I've found more intriguing, though, is that the non-powergamers are nearly always the ones who start the problem, and often refuse to accept advice from the powergamer, often dismissing his/her views as being ridiculous and/or "playing D&D wrong". In this way, the powergamer is painted to be a selfish jerk who doesn't care about roleplaying, and who tries to force his/her playstyle on the other players, instead of someone who knows the rules a bit better than the others and is willing to help out. In almost every debate of this nature, it's ALWAYS the anti-powergaming crowd who are unwilling to compromise and accept the alternative playstyle, despite the fact they might learn a thing or two in the process. I have had the oposet experince... In the games I have tried to play recently, I was the only roleplayer in a group of powergamers and optimizers. My character, and myself, were often looked down on by the other players... each and every one of whom have less roleplaying expeprince then myself. (As in I'm 31, the oldest in the group was 24. I have gamed fr over 15 years and run games from small table games size to LARP's with over 100 players) they treated me as if *I* was playing D&D wrong, and I was a selfish jerk trying to force my playstyle on others. (by daring to try and speak to them in character, and refusing to let my character know things he should not know) So... it goes both ways. You only identify with the group you belong to. I think in case where one style of gamer is outnumbered by another style.... the minority player will feel the brunt of being 'the outcast', weither he be a optimizr or a roleplayer. Some players can balance both traits... and can thus play with either style of player and still have fun. However, like political extremests on the far right or far left... some roleplayers and optimizers are so intrenched in their prefered method of playstyle that they can not abide those on the other side. :(
calronmoonflower 11-07-07, 02:39 AM	One point I failed to make about the mixing both powergaming and roleplaying being a separate skill from both roleplaying and powergaming is the effect it will have if you are good a both powergaming and roleplaying, but not mixing them. When you roleplay well you will not powergame well. When you powergame well you will not roleplay well. This will cause it to appear that powergaming will cause poor roleplaying. However it is the inability to mix them well that is causing the problem. No. If you go back and read through this thread and the thread that originated it, you will find that my argument is that optimization leads to poor roleplay. You will also note that I do not consider optimization and powergaming to be synonymous. My definition of powergaming is absolute and negative because I believe it to be an effect, not a cause. Poorly managed optimization can become powergaming, but they are not the same thing. Actually you both defined in in such a way that it causes poor roleplaying and said that that it leads to poor roleplaying. As you can see from the definition below that you used it is both a premise of your argument and the conclusion. That is begging the question (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Begging_the_question). "Powergaming occurs when a player makes a conscious choice to optimize his character mechanically because of the mechanical benefit of such a choice, and either does not reconcile the optimization with his statement [see definition of roleplaying] and with his character's experiences since its generation, or modifies said statement or experiences in order that the optimization will be reconciled after its selection."
Nemo_the_Lost 11-07-07, 01:10 PM	When you roleplay well you will not powergame well. When you powergame well you will not roleplay well. This will cause it to appear that powergaming will cause poor roleplaying. However it is the inability to mix them well that is causing the problem. Exactly. In which case, players should be encouraged to err on the side of roleplaying. There would be no conflict if there were no optimization, but D&D without roleplaying is difficult to envision. Actually you both defined in in such a way that it causes poor roleplaying and said that that it leads to poor roleplaying. As you can see from the definition below that you used it is both a premise of your argument and the conclusion. That is begging the question (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Begging_the_question). You are still wrong.
RadicalTaoist 11-07-07, 11:23 PM	Update: I now have a new computer and all my salvaged data. Unfortunately I have two major assignments to finish that I'm four days behind on. A major response will have to wait until then. Exactly. In which case, players should be encouraged to err on the side of roleplaying. No, they should be encouraged to err on what is the most fun for them and their group. There would be no conflict if there were no optimization Unless we want to optimize. but D&D without roleplaying is difficult to envision. For you. You are still wrong. No, he is still in the position of logical validity. Even if you are right and he is wrong, if he's arguing within the realm of logic and you're not, we have no reason to take your argument over his until you follow the rules of argumentation. And that means no begging the question. Your definition of powergaming is not very useful; arguing that it interferes with roleplaying by your definitions is a truism. There's no point. Your offered points are a) that optimization is addictive, and b) that optimization activities should be "managed" in new players so that roleplaying is not threatened. That's what you should stick to. You must keep in mind here that designating optimization as the unnecessary, tangential approach to enjoying D&D and giving it a subjective priority below roleplaying just isn't going to fly here. We have no reason to adopt your system of play priority over ours, and it is not fair minded of Wizards (or any other game company for that matter) to assume your approach deserves the highest consideration when designing material.
calronmoonflower 11-08-07, 03:24 AM	You are still wrong.No, he is still in the position of logical validity. Even if you are right and he is wrong, if he's arguing within the realm of logic and you're not, we have no reason to take your argument over his until you follow the rulse of argumentation. And that means no begging the question. Thanks for the backup. It is possible to use a logical fallacy and still arrive at the right answer. However, it means that you have not properly proved the argument. However other argument have been put forth on the other thread. I have though them over (at least to page 23) and will attempt to rephrase them here (let me know if I do it wrong) and address them. Nemo_the_Lost: Powergaming encourages metagaming. Metagaming leads to poor roleplaying. First I would really like to know the definition of metagaming that you are using. it really doesn't seem to mesh with how it was used in the Dungeon Master's Guide pages 11-12. In this form it is a slippery slope argument and thus a valid argument. Assuming no more definitional fallacies. Anyway, all characters in the game world are subject to the same rules. As such villains that the player character go up against will level in the same manner. Over the course of their career they should logically try to minimize their weakness and maximize their strengths (min/maxing) as it leads to a higher chance of survival. Those that don't are Xp for the nonplayer characters in the campaign. If that maximize their strengths means they are increasing combat potential, then they are meeting the generally recognized definition of powergaming. Not powergaming foes that earn their living on their combat potential is metagaming and not mini/maxing others that put themselves at risk is falls into the same category. So either metagaming doesn't lead to poor roleplaying or you should powergame or mini/max many characters that the player characters will run into. That would lead player characters to do the same. Nemo_the_Lost: If the dungeon master cuts of the powergaming rogues arm and doesn't allow a fix and they choose to make a new character instead of roleplaying the old one. That shows that powergaming leads to poor roleplaying. First off lets address how and why the arm loss happened. If it is a house rule that such things can happen then fine. Just tell the players before the game starts so the can act with knowledge that it can happen. :twitch: That would be Ok I guess. However after the rule is in effect it should be retroactively inserted into the campaign. Not that you should have arms disappear, but is really should have happened to others in the campaign as well. I sure hope the dungeon master didn't do this. I mainly put this in for completeness. It wasn't really said that the rogues powergaming was causing ingame problems. If it was this is the wrong hammer to hit them over the head with. If they where causing problem first talk to them out of game and deal with it there. If necessary make them redo their build so it is not problematic. However if it was done because of how they where playing then the dungeon master was singling out a character for special treatment because you don not like how they are playing. That is childish and immature. In short it is munchkin behavior. The main part that I have a problem with in the underlined part. Asking for a Regeneration spell is asking too much unless you are at a high enough level to warrant such. However, if it is a general rule that characters can lose limbs then someone somewhere will come up with an artificial replacement. After all adventures are the rich and as it seems lose limbs. Even as an niche market it should be enough to make money. Page 26 of the Defenders of the Faith has a replacement arm called the Arm of Nyr. It is a bit pricey, but by the pricing rule in the Dungeon Master's Guild is you remove the the ability enhancements, the deflection bonus, and the alignment restriction it should only cost only about 1,000 gp or so. I believe the other arguments that where raised in that thread have been answered. If I have missed any or you feel they deserve more consideration feel free to post them here.
pres_man 11-08-07, 06:30 AM	Nemo_the_Lost: If the dungeon master cuts of the powergaming rogues arm and doesn't allow a fix and they choose to make a new character instead of roleplaying the old one. That shows that powergaming leads to poor roleplaying. Depends on why it was cut off. If it was done to using an established mechanic that the PCs had access to, for example maybe when you crit you roll on a chart to see how the crit takes form, then maybe. But if it was cut off using some hand-waving by the DM as a form of punishment for the rogue playing in a way the DM did not like then no it doesn't show that. Yet in either case it could be said that the character after losing an arm is fundamentally different from the character the player had intended to play. It is not unreasonable for the player to not wish to play a character that they hadn't intented to play in the first place. How about we replace losing a limb with losing your sight and not being able to get it back. There are entire threads about how to build blind characters, it can be done and done in a way that is not a total hinderance to the party. On the other hand playing a blind character isn't something everyone will want to do. It is not "munchkiny" or "powergaming" to not want to play a crippled character. Heck in Star Wars, there is an ability that can sever someone else from the force. What if someone had designed a Jedi, only to have that done to them. Effectively that character is no longer a Jedi, would it be bad roleplaying not to want to play that character anymore? I wouldn't think so. An additional analogy would be reincarnation. Some people's character concept is intimitely tied to their character's race. By using reincarnation, they could come back as something that they don't feel matches their character concept, and thus not wish to continue playing it. Again, I would not consider it bad roleplaying.
Vva70 11-08-07, 06:07 PM	My definition of powergaming is absolute and negative because I believe it to be an effect, not a cause. You may of course use any definition of powergaming that you wish to. And if the focus of your argument is optimizing leads to powergaming, which is by your definition negative, then that argument is not inherently flawed. However, such a restrictive definition of powergaming (one which is inherently contradictory to roleplaying) is likely to cause no end of miscommunication, simply because much of the common use of the term powergaming implies only a desire for a powerful character. It's like using the term "musician" only to describe pianists. Maybe someone believes that only piano music is true music, and has a personal definition that excludes banjo players. That doesn't change the fact that if said individual uses the term "musician" in a public setting, others will assume the broader, more common use of the term. By using the term "powergaming" to define only practices which hinder roleplay, you are going to create many misunderstandings with people who use it in a broader context. Now granted, the term "musician" is a lot less controversial than the term "powergaming." And I'm sure there are plenty of others who share your definition, unlike the hypothetical piano lover. I'm just warning of a probable source of misunderstanding.
Lokiyn 11-08-07, 08:43 PM	See, i've found that "getting into character" leads to "Drama Queening" which hinders roleplay Rather, many times people use the term roleplay to describe the act of using funny voices, telling npc's your backstory, and acting out as a player the character's actions. i can't begin to count the derailed destroyed sessions where the majority of the game was demolished by low grade cut rate theatrics. So when a player roleplays a character (by making certain choices) thats one thing, on the other hand you can cross over quickly into drama queening where a game between 5 people twists into a mutant torture session where one character has spent the last hour arguing with an npc about a horseshoe because "thats character depth" Dnd is a game, its a game designed for fun. Any activity Roleplaying, Acting, Metagaming, Powergaming, Min/Maxing, Dicerolling, Bookshuffling, snacking, chatting, drinking, etc all can lessen the fun in a game or even destroy it. Look at it this way (Amount of Roleplaying)+(Amount of Powergaming)+(Idle Chatter)+(Rules Debate)+(Snacks [Amount and Type])+(Amount and type of Players)+(unlisted factors)= Fun Time Now like say, an alcoholic drink, everyone has a different mix they enjoy. For example in my games, you're not allowed to have a backstory. Why? Because it keeps the drama queens in the group under control, everyone has the same basic backstory, roleplaying skills is determined how you play your character not how you can pull together some trite cliched backstory involving tragic past "x". Furthermore everyone must beat 2 of 3 monsters of an equivalent CR (there is a simple method to determine the appropriate CR, but thats for another thread) One on one. If your character cannot meet the games standard strength level then you can make a new character, use the same concept, but get your mechanics up to snuff, don't bring a water-balloon to a knife fight. Is it fair to force people to meet a set of minimum standards so as not to be a burden to the party, in character or out? I think it is. Would it be fair to apply what our group finds enjoyable to all other groups? no, no it would not be. To say that "Powergaming" is bad because it detracts or leads to poor roleplaying is foolish. Rather, if you say that, in my group "x" detracts from our "Fun" your statements become more valid. Anyone who focuses on a single aspect of a game without accepting the consequences shouldn't be surprised when the part of the game they neglect comes back and kicks them. Oh and for the arm thing, yes its perfectly valid from a roleplaying standpoint to quit adventuring, i lost an arm that not something you just shrug off. I would say that its poor roleplaying to expect a formerly hale man to leap back into a deadly harsh profession lacking an arm. I would expect him to quit and use his wealth to pick up a job that doesn't need two hands, thats roleplaying, not drama crap.
RadicalTaoist 11-13-07, 12:27 AM	That's not true. Assuming that one optimizes to create character omnipotential, it still has no effect on player potential. It is not the character that roleplays, but the player! Ah, good catch. Yes, use of the Pun-Pun as super-actor argument doesn't change the player's ability to roleplay. However, it remains that only playing Pun-Pun in this regard grants a player 'unfettered' roleplaying, unless you're sensible and choose the other side of the fork. This Fork has nothing to do with roleplaying. Just there for the sake of completeness. This is inherently untrue. One's attitude is a major component of one's playstyle. But *how* it affects your playstyle and vice versa is never a fixed thing. I didn't say separate, I said independent. You can eat and walk the dog at the same time, but you must dedicate less attention to each task when you do so. Still, it is a poor analogy for optimization versus roleplaying, because by your own statements optimization is something that occurs asynchronously to roleplay. There's in-game tactical optimization, but that's a different kettle of fish and more subjective to how you choose to roleplay your character's Int. I will stick to character building and knowing your character's abilities and their optimal application, for now. A better analogy would be the goal to get a good night's sleep and the goal to work a nine-to-five workday. These tasks are asynchronous and they do not specifically conflict, but performing both on a regular basis requires thoughtfulness and discipline. The two tasks encourage and even support one another when in balance, but it is easy to scrimp on one to pad the other. Not sure asynchonicity is an essential feature but that is a sufficiently good analogy. Any Joe could make your argument as well. That doesn't invalidate it. Well, good for Joe to back his argument up then. I'm just saying that "the terms are nebulous!" goes both ways. If it's too nebulous for me to defend a playstyle, it's too nebulous for someone to attack it. Since you have provided definitions, we can move beyond this anyways. All you are succeeding in doing is proving the counterargument to the Stormwind Fallacy, which is effectively meaningless, and drawing analogies that neither refute my position nor support your own. You might be better off dealing with the terms as they are, since that is the crux of the discussion. It just annoys me when no one says "your argument is meaningless because the terms are too fluid" in response to an anti-optimizer complaint. Having to provide the terms in response to the sort of knee-jerk responses and stereotyping we face just isn't fair. "Roleplaying is an attempt, whether successful or not, at improvisational acting wherein the challenge arises from portraying a character defined by a previously made clear statement regarding its personality, history, and appearance." I would include that this is should be medium-independent acting (you can roleplay over OpenRPG or a play-by-post game) but otherwise, this is a satisfactory definition so far. "Powergaming occurs when a player makes a conscious choice to optimize his character mechanically because of the mechanical benefit of such a choice, and either does not reconcile the optimization with his statement [see definition of roleplaying] and with his character's experiences since its generation, or modifies said statement or experiences in order that the optimization will be reconciled after its selection." As others have said, to say this is in conflict with roleplaying is obvious and an argument upon it circular. I'm more interested in your definitions of optimization (before a choice to reconcile or not has been made) and metagaming. I have reservations about the idea that the "fluff" of any feature of the game can be altered so that it fits any character concept. Many features do not have that much fluff to speak of, and are fairly rooted in their mechanics. I've left this out of the definition of powergaming intentionally, because I don't think I've yet seen enough examples to justify its inclusion. I would redirect you to the threads I linked at the start of all this. Did you read them? If you want stuff from my OpenRPG session logs, PM and we can get something started over MSN or email. Maybe it is; maybe it is not. Defining your character's flavor aside, if you are not trying to define your character mechanically, then you are not optimizing. Fair enough, as long as we recognize that you can still be optimizing even if you don't define your character *solely* by mechanics. The optimization of a character is by necessity a mechanical definition of that character. Mechanical definition is the very core of the problem. It is difficult to imagine a circumstance where anyone would bother, but one could mechanically define a character to be ineffective, or even of average effectiveness. If these mechanical definitions were not reconciled with the character's statement [see definition of roleplaying], they would be just as bad as a character designed by a powergamer. Oh, absolutely. No disagreement. The problem here is not "power is antithetical to roleplay." It is not even "the rules are antithetical to roleplay." The problem is "not roleplaying is antithetical to roleplaying," and the rules provide the most available route to not roleplaying. Do they prevent roleplaying? No. Do you have to be thoughtful and disciplined in order to keep them from doing all the work? Yes. I agree up to the point of 'the rules' being the biggest threat to roleplaying. Interpersonal issues (more often than not immaturity and stupid OOC :censored: between a DM and player I wish they'd leave away from the table) has been a bigger threat to good roleplaying in my experience than anything rules-based. Otherwise everything else you say is spot-on. Sure. Well, first we want to keep in mind what kind of concepts require bits from all over; they are usually either obscure synergies or versatile more-options builds. An example of an obscure synergy would be any concept where the best material for it just isn't in one book - the Halfling boomerang thrower. This is a *very* common trope in Eberron and not a difficult one to imagine elsewhere. Halflings dig thrown weapons; it makes sense their warriors would dig boomerangs. To op this, we can already kick it up to two books beyond core: Complete Warrior for the Master Thrower, and Tome of Battle for the Warblade class and Bloodstorm Blade. Both PrCs mentioned are aimed at warriors specializing in thrown weapons, so they make sense thematically and mechanically. The Warblade is a very versatile warrior class for any warrior interested in strong technique, and traditions of such techniques for throwers in halfling culture is nearly a given. Now let's spice him up. What we have so far is a halfling who excels at bludgeoning his foes to death at a distance with his ancestral favored style of combat. Good for a showoff character; thrown weapon specialists mix nicely with this. Let's include Races of Eberron for two halfling-specific boomerang-related feats. Now, to make our halfling stand out from all the other boomerang throwers, give him a hidden power that has not manifested, but he has felt since adolescence. Reading ancient texts give him eventual insight into his power and how to harness it towards improving his combat skills. Mechanically, this is him taking the Wild Talent feat and entering the War Mind prestige class from the Expanded Psionics Handbook when he qualifies. There are a few good feats for War Minds in the Complete Psionics expansion that fit with him exploring his power (namely Practiced Manifester). So put them in. Now we have a halfling boomerang thrower with psionic powers - a paragon warrior of his race who has also uncovered a special gift. A showoff who treads carefully with his new talents; he's not so sure how much he wants to see his identity drift from his roots. I can see bits of Jack Sparrow, Kyle Katarn, and Calis in this guy already. We're also at five non-core books (CW, ToB, XPH, RoE, and CP). Want another example? This guy, just to note, has access to the devastating Thunderous Throw+Weak Spot+Palm Shot+Boomerang Ricochet+Sweeping Strike+Power Attack synergy line. To spare you the details, he can power attack with thrown weapons launched with *melee* touch attacks while throwing two boomerangs per throw, dazing targets with Fort DCs in the 40s, and multiplying his damage output by as much as a factor of 8 if he can get opponents adjacent to eachother. I would like to see this done. (Not a challenge, just interest.) For gamebreakingly powerful, a straight Druid with Natural Spell is the simplest (That is literally the only feat you will need to win everything). For people willing to ply the PHB for spells, the DMG for items, and the MM for summons/polymorph forms, the Cleric and Wizard go from under-par at low levels to utter gods at the high levels with intelligent spell selection. For a more balanced yet challenging level of optimization, the archery-based Bard and Power Attack-based Barbarian are solid baselines. If you'd like more, I'll show you to the CO boards. What I feel is the "point of the game" is likewise irrelevant. The argument at hand is "does optimization interfere with roleplaying," and we clearly both have stake in that or we would not be here. Whether or not one or the other of us considers either optimization or roleplaying to be irrelevant or relevant to playing D&D is immaterial. Agreed. (Just wish this to be kept in mind in response to later comments such as "there would be no conflict if there were no optimization"). We are on the same page in this. Our difference lies in that I feel that optimization in its native state (i.e., without practice and experience and thoughtful consideration) is a threat to roleplay, while you feel that is not necessarily the case. Aye. To clarify further: 1) I think the 'native state', i.e. the culture in which we play, can be changed significantly to decrease any threat to roleplay from optimization. 2) I think the significant factor is as much sensitivity to fellow players as much as practice and experience and thoughtful consideration given to your own playing skills. This is as much the case for keeping your roleplaying from threatening your optimizing too. Have a cookie, sad smileys depress me. :cookie: Cookie! I'm sorry, I was not clear. I meant that my point should be taken with the assumption that the character in question was not killed through nefarious means, not that it did not matter if the means were nefarious. Clarification appreciated. As I've said before, I don't feel like the attitude and the playstyle can be completely divorced. Divorced≠independent. By 'independent' I mean 'the relation between the two is not a fixed function'. It varies between players and can even vary within a player over time and relative to the situation. That's very kind of you, but in all honesty, I do. It's more than just simply not being able to optimize with any ability -- I also cannot roll dice. I can use a random number generator on a computer and still routinely roll lower than 5 out of 20. I also have this affectation that causes me to invariably hurl my dice across the room when all I mean to do is toss them gently onto the tabletop. It is embarrassing; only more so because I have been tabletop gaming for more than 20 years, and my fellows have come to expect it. I was designed to sit behind a sturdy cardboard screen and tell stories. I enjoy playing, but I am not good at it. :) .....Okay, that makes you a statistical anomaly. i'm still not so convinced you're a bad D&Der. I definitely need to see more of this "feature fluff rewriting." Because I fear that I am not understanding it on a fundamental level. A feat does what a feat does, no matter how you flavor it. I'm afraid you don't. A feat does not do anything in-game, as far as the character is concerned. What the character learns how to do is what you describe him to learn. This is the fundamental divide between the feat's mechanical aspect and what it does in the game. For the best examples on these boards? Check out these threads. Like I said. But every possible cool way of growing should not be open to every character. That is why we bother defining our characters as individuals, isn't it? Aye. Every possible cool way of growing is not necessary; you're naturally going to choose one of the options available to you. But if there are an abundance of options, you're in the clear. Agreed. And if the skill is not imparted? What then? Well then we have a problem, don't we. No, you're not. And getting back to the origin of this entire argument, that is part of the problem with D&D3. There are too many options, and most of them exist because players are not willing to sacrifice power for concept. Why does the game really need a crusader class? Were the paladin and cleric not enough? For that matter, why is there a paladin? The cleric is by definition a militant priest. In D&D3, the class pool has exploded, so that there is no need for player-driven character development anymore. The rules do all the work. But I'm not sure this is germane anymore. To be perfectly fair: there are other reasons for the class explosion. Much can be design improvement over the original classes. The Crusader is simply a better-designed and more balanced class than either the Paladin or the Cleric. This threatens to go off-topic, so I'll say that not all option explosion or even the majority of option explosion stems from developers aiming to give power seekers a way out. That is our fundamental disagreement. Really? What part of "Let a new player decide what it is about D&D he should enjoy and seek out in his play experience" could you disagree with? I am less concerned about my games than I am about games in general. You are not present to teach every new player the Techniques, but the risk is there to threaten every new player. I'm trying to do as much outreach as I can here. A change away from the baseline assumption of "If optimization, then threat to roleplay" would help me a lot. The one I remember clearly was a Hackmaster game that never even happened because of the situation. My friend rolled up a character (successfully, which is not easy in Hackmaster). The character was strong, well-equipped, of noble blood, and generally had everything going for him. My friend was very excited to play him. Then, on the last roll of a character generation process that requires many, many rolls, we generated his mount. It was a pack ape. I never heard my friend mention the character or the game ever again, and when I brought it up, he would always wave it off and say that he wasn't in the mood, or some such thing. Pretty unacceptable. ...You call that optimization? :bored: http://icanhascheezburger.files.wordpress.com/2007/10/funny-picture-cat-fail.jpg ...no, that's not just fail. http://icanhascheezburger.files.wordpress.com/2007/11/funny-pictures-bird-cat-cage.jpg This is evidence to support Daidoji's theory that lukewarm optimizers pass themselves off as 'leet' and give us a bad name. That's terrible optimization - in the general definition of choosing the most optimal choices available to you. Let's break it down. As far as you've described it, there seems to be no choice in actual character feature selection. I'm not familiar with Hackmaster and don't know if it's all random die rolling. Assuming it is, there is only one choice to make at any stage of character design - to keep going with what you have, or call it quits. What did your friend do? He kept going with some exceptional rolls, and then when the very last roll - one out of many good results - turned bad, he chose to give up. Why *not* a pack ape? If he chooses a pack ape, he enters with a strong character and a mount he can use for something else. If he turns away, he has nothing, and runs a much bigger risk of rolling up a much worse character later. Optimal choice: keep the monkey. Hell, you can use a pack ape. Teach it to climb and steal and pick locks and stuff. It'd be cool. Like the ferrets from Beastmaster. Seriously, I can't believe that an ape is such a great damn liability to an effective character as to justify his dropping out. For it to be an optimal choice, that selection of mount would have to be more significant on his character's potential than all that other character development combined. If that's the case, they should call it Mountmaster, and I'm sure you would agree it would be terrible game design to base so much of your character's potential in the range of a single roll. In short: I see no optimizer. Just a sore loser who likely hasn't studied probabilities in stats class and turned tail as soon as the dice went against him once. I realize this is probably very unfair to your friend, but its the only glimpse of him you've given me. As soon as I finish the next batch of assignments, I'll clean up the silverware drawer arguments.
Vva70 11-14-07, 06:25 PM	I definitely need to see more of this "feature fluff rewriting." Because I fear that I am not understanding it on a fundamental level. A feat does what a feat does, no matter how you flavor it. Let me try for a concrete example. Now bear with me, because I'm not always the best at this. Let's say that Bob the Keen is a tactical combatant who, though he is strong, and though he wields a greatsword as his chosen weapon, prefers to use his wits over his muscles. Now let's also say that Evan the Stereotype is Bob's player, and Evan knows that he can get the most mileage out of Bob's THF abilities by taking power attack. Bob would certainly never be one to recklessly abandon accuracy for brute force. So Evan takes the mechanics of power attack, and redefines it as "vital attack." Now power attack (for Bob anyway) represents a sort of less-sneaky-sneak-attack. Bob is tactically making attacks that are easier to defend against, but have a greater effect on his target when they hit. Finally, Evan wants to give Bob cleave. But with the reflavored power attack, cleaving straight through an enemy doesn't make quite as much sense. So Evan redefines cleave as "deadly combo." Now when Bob senses that his opponents are close to death, he is careful to have his final cuts position him in a manner that lends towards quick redirections onto opponents that, after all, didn't expect to be switched to so soon.
calronmoonflower 11-22-07, 12:16 AM	This thread died? BEHOLD MY THREAD NECROMANCY!!! :evillaugh The definitions for certain terms was asked buy several poster including me. I thought it over (and now have extra time on my hands) so I decided to post my own. METAGAMING 1. Using out of game logic in character. 2. Using out of game knowledge in character. 3. Failure of the willful suspension of disbelief. This is based on the metagaming thinking section of the Dungeon master's Guide. ROLEPLAYING 1. Playing a role. 2. Attempting to emulate a characters thoughts and actions. The first definition seemed too simplistic and redundant so the second is a longer version of 1. From Dictionary of Terminology Power Gamer (noun), 1: A player whose primary focus in a RPG is the increase of his character’s power, usually defined in combat terms. 2: A Min/Maxer. The above is in line on how I view it.
Shadowhowler 11-22-07, 02:01 PM	The above is in line on how I view it. I agree with those definitions as well.
Lokiyn 11-22-07, 04:38 PM	Although to be honest, The Definition for roleplaying needs to be expanded slightly to include the concept that Acting is not necessarily roleplaying. Which is mainly to say that having your barbaian character refuse to sit in a chair because in his tribe only the chief gets a chair is roleplaying, however if you as a player refuse to sit in a chair because your character won't then you are acting out in real life the in game situation, Which is highly disruptive and not conducive to game flow. Similarly the Definition of Powergaming should include the phrase, "At the expense of the party balance" while Optimizing would include "For the enhancement of the Party Balance" Powergaming is normally focused entirely on the single player's character, While usually optimization takes the rest of the party into account and works to shore up weak sections of the party whole. Also the term Drama Queen, refering to someone who Acts to the exclusion of roleplaying might belong as well
calronmoonflower 11-22-07, 06:42 PM	Although to be honest, The Definition for roleplaying needs to be expanded slightly to include the concept that Acting is not necessarily roleplaying. Well acting (http://www.webster.com/dictionary/acting) does have more than one definition. Though not included in that link voice acting or radio style action is more representative of typical Dungeons & Dragons, unless you are L.A.R.P.ing. So as presented the definition I gave can cover both. Similarly the Definition of Powergaming should include the phrase, "At the expense of the party balance" while Optimizing would include "For the enhancement of the Party Balance" That would make the definitions subjective. Powergaming in one game would be optimizing in another. On the boards one person's optimizing would be another's powergaming and vise versa. That is called ambiguity (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ambiguity) and adds huge complications to any argument. Powergaming is normally focused entirely on the single player's character, While usually optimization takes the rest of the party into account and works to shore up weak sections of the party whole. I highlighted the problems with that definitions. Also if you think about it these two can overlap enough to make the definition that you propose unusable in a logical discussion. Also the term Drama Queen, refering to someone who Acts to the exclusion of roleplaying might belong as well ??? I would say that a drama queen roleplays to the extent that it cause in-game problems.
Shadowhowler 11-23-07, 10:43 AM	??? I would say that a drama queen roleplays to the extent that it cause in-game problems. I would say a Drama Queen is someone who purpassly OVERacts with the intention of being annoying or disruptive to the game.
calronmoonflower 11-23-07, 07:55 PM	I would say a Drama Queen is someone who purpassly OVERacts with the intention of being annoying or disruptive to the game. :thinks: That could be, but not all may realize this.
Shadowhowler 11-24-07, 12:23 PM	:thinks: That could be, but not all may realize this. Well, we all have, when it comes down to it, our own experinces to draw from. In *MY* experince... the sort of players *I* would call 'Drama Queens' are attention-starved wh*res who have not other way to turn the spotlight they so desperatly crave onto themselves except to 'ham it up' as it were. However... it all comes down to perspective. I'm a HEAVY rollplaying/immersive story style gamer. Some of the self-styled 'optimizers' I know would call me a drama queen... becuase I like to create a 'voice' for my characters and try to speak in character. I prefer 'Arrgh... the Troll tore me up pretty good Ashwyn... I sure could use some of Pelor's favor right quick, I think I'm getting dizzy...' to 'Hey Bob, I'm down to 3 HP, toss a cure Light Wounds over here pronto!' I find that my style of gaming is lossing favor these days... and tho all the players I used to play with were on the same page with me... I have a hard time finding players who want to go beyond the 'hack and slash' nowdays in my new home. However, I don't see myself as a Drama Queen. I see myself as a roleplayer rather then a wargamer. Perspective.
Shadojack 11-24-07, 04:04 PM	In my experience I have noticed the following. Role-players- are those people who take what the game (D.M.) give them and do the best with it that they can. Allowing their experience in the game to shape their characters concept. They do not plan their avatar for a certain mold in a certain mind set, allowing fate to act, as it will. Such characters would be happy getting a sword +2 if it is what was needed to complete a certain task, quest, or campaign line. These characters tend to develop skills needed to survive within the game setting and are more three-dimensional. They have abilities, which may not actually increase their combat proficiency, but allow them to better interact with the world they live in. Constant hack and slash does not suit this group well as they are more well rounded and may not posses the needed skills for an all out gore fest. Min/Maxers- these players plan every concept of their character from start to finish. What skill to take when for maximum effect reqardless of whether or not it may fit into the campaigns setting. Every feat, ability, and aspect is plotted and planned for the characters best potential for a given area or two. These players seem resentful at aspects of the game, which require something out of their field of expertise. If the campaign does not allow their character to achieve the desired skills they want, they grow restless, or try to find ways to acquire what they want, regardless of the campaigns direction. Munchkins- Players is this category want it all. The best stats, equipment, spells, etc. A sword +2 is not enough. They want a basket full of vorpal blades. Nothing is to good for them and they will bully, coheres, bribe, the D.M. and other players to get what they want. Their character concept is based off of their equipment and what it/they can do. Extremely one dimensional, these players concentrate more on how easy they can make the game for themselves instead of actually trying to play within the confines of the established and accepted limits. All though their are exceptions to these rules, some Min/Maxers I've known are pretty good role-players and can of course construct their desired character to be quite efficient in the campaign setting. They tend to stay relatively true to form. __________________
Dog_O_War 12-14-07, 05:09 PM	Well, I got this link from RadicalToaist on another thread. I agree with both threories, but I will side with Stormwind's. Why? Some of you forget that D&D is more than just roleplaying. To powergame while roleplaying is wrong, just as min/maxing and munchkinism are. BUT they have their place within the other aspect to D&D. Role-Playing Game. That last word left out is the keystone to everyone's arguement; this is a game, and in games people want to win; people want to succeed. Making a choice and erring on the side of RP that gets you killed is metagaming 1. Making a choice on the side of mechanics that allows you to survive is more natural than the previous2. While not everything you choose mechanically should be justified, to say one person's form of roleplaying is inherently better than another is false 3. The game is a collaboration between DM and players; some people focus more on the game aspect, making character decisions based on what will keep them alive the best; this is not metagaming as it is a natural choice, staying alive. Metagaming in this instance would be knowing that the next level should be cleric because lots of undead will be fought. The ones that focus more on the RP aspect will not need the mechanics to represent their personas, and resent the insinuation that said persona should be quantified. People whom RP more than game need to turn their noses down a few degrees though; not everyone plays RPG's, and that there are more than the two styles of play. 1: Making choices that contradict instinct is metagaming; survival in a game (emphasis on game) is as natural as eating and breathing. As it is a team-sport, getting killed for the good of the team is deemed acceptable as a non-metagame choice. 2: As we (you posters and myself) are not actual actors, then RP will always be followed by G, and OOC choices are inherent and natural to the progress of D&D. Unless you just sit there and tell stories, then there will always be the mechanical aspect involved; as long as mechanics are involved then certain choices within a setting/campaign will be natural and instinctive. To be given a curse and then seeking to have it removed through the most convienient means neccessary is no-more metagaming than taking the feats and skill to qualify for a prestige class you've been striving for. however, 3: Choosing a path that is in direct contradiction to the events of a story, just to complete a build is metagaming. It is okay to have a goal in the long-term, but to blantantly deny circumstances of the "world around you" is surreal, and defies logic. This is role-playing, but it is B-movie role-playing. So this is what I think of the two fallacies. Alot of you will disagree, and that is your perogative. For me; I choose the middle path, with an attempt to blend the RP with the G; to fit the mechanics to the flavor, and have the flavor fit the mechanics. I want some people to realize that, like in my sig, classes are more than just mechanical choices a person makes; that fighter, wizard, rogue, and cleric are more than just the names of the mechanics.
Alpha_Moose 12-14-07, 05:56 PM	So this is what I think of the two fallacies. Alot of you will disagree, and that is your perogative. For me; I choose the middle path, with an attempt to blend the RP with the G; to fit the mechanics to the flavor, and have the flavor fit the mechanics. I completely agree with this. I want some people to realize that, like in my sig, classes are more than just mechanical choices a person makes; that fighter, wizard, rogue, and cleric are more than just the names of the mechanics. But disagree with this. The word "Cleric" is just the name of a mechanic. The important thing isn't finding what classes name/flavor fits your character, but what one fits your character's abilities. Just because your character is a 'wizard' doesn't mean that the Wizard class will fit your idea at all (most likely it won't unless you read Jack Vance). You may have to disregard (http://forums.gleemax.com/showthread.php?t=849692) the flavor (http://forums.gleemax.com/showthread.php?t=470229) text (http://forums.gleemax.com/showthread.php?t=589061) completely and just look at a class for what it does.
Nemo_the_Lost 01-08-08, 01:05 PM	Really? What part of "Let a new player decide what it is about D&D he should enjoy and seek out in his play experience" could you disagree with? Heh. The "Let a... player decide" part. :) I am a DM's DM. Sorry for dropping out of this discussion. I must've needed a break, because I suddenly looked up a month later and realized I hadn't logged into the forums in all that time. I'm inclined to let sleeping dogs lie at this point, but thanks for all the thinking, RT and company. I enjoyed myself and learned a great deal.
Greg_K 01-08-08, 03:25 PM	I think there are two issues at play here 1) differing definitions of optimization, min/max, powergaming and munchkin 2) leanings toward gamist vs simulationist playstyles With regards to 1) above, my own definitions are: Optimization: making choices towards a concept. Some people consider this the same as powergaming. However, you can optimize without powergaming. If you assign ability scores or skill ranks to your first level character in order to meet a character background (e.g., fighter that served as a thieves guild enforcer or expert basket weaver) or other concept (e.g., big tough fighting specialist or scrawny intelligent wizard), you are optimizing. Min/max: a subset of optimization designed to maximize strengths and minimize weaknesses of a character or concept. Powergaming: a desire or objective to play powerful characters and/or for the acquring of power during play. Therefore, one can be a powergamer without actually being good at optimizing as desire and or objective is seperate from abiity. Furthermore, power does not need be damage output or combat related. Depending on the setting and playstyle, there are other types of power (e.g, social). This leads me to... Butt Kicking: the playing for the purpose of killing things and taking their stuff. People often throw this in with powergaming, but I don't believe that it should be, because you can powergame in areas other than combat. Note: The above are on sliding scales and differing axis. You can be more than one and to varying degrees. Munchkin: someone who cheats or deliberately violates the spirit of the rules -usually for character power. While munchkins might cheat or deliberately violate the spirit of the rules to differing degrees, they do it. The other aspects is Gamist, Narrative, Simulationist playstyles. This is how one approaches the rules/game Gamist: Making decisions based in terms of a game. Simulationist: Making decisions with regards to what is most realistic or plausible in the game world (based on setting elements, character actions/decisions, etc.). narrativist/themist: The degree to which you make decisions in terms of what makes the of telling a good story based on thingls like theme and genre conventions. Again, I don't think the above three styles are mutually exclusive. However, I do believe people have preferences. With regard to "builds", I believe the preference for gamist vs simulationist does play a role in how they are viewed. I think "builders" (i.e, those that pre-plan character development from a non-theoretical perspective and stick to the build) approach DND from a more gamist perspecitve. They have have an end goal in mind and use the game rules to ensure that they meet that goal even at the expense of world/setting logic or plausibility (e.g., lack of practical training time, lack of a trainer). This "build" mentality of someone with a more gamist approach is opposite to that of someone with a simulationist preference. The simulationist approach would argue that you can't pre-plan a reliable build in terms of the setting, because you are making assumptions about future in-game events that have not and may not come to pass. Therefore, you cannot guarantee the following: a) that your character will heard of the person necessary to train you let alone met them. You might be from the wrong culture or the person or organization might be secret. b) that even if your character found a trainer, they will be willing to train the character- Maybe, your character haven't proved him or her self or the quality of their character. c) that even if they do find someone to train them, your character will have the availability. Depending on the campaign, they may either lack of time or access to the trainer at the period you have designated in your build. Time constraints could be due to a mission. Depending on the the new class, your might lack the time to train since it should take months or more to learn proficiency in a variety of armor and weapons let along months or years to develop ki or learn how to cast/control arcane magic if the setting rules say monks and wizards spend years in study. Lack of access to the trainer might be the result of the characters being off adventuring in the wrong part of the continent or even the wrong plane. Furthermore, from a simulationist few, your character should not be improving skills unless they have had the opportunity to utilize them. Nor, should they be picking up entirely new skills unless they have a trainer, access to books for knowledge, or some other method of learning the skill (e.g., spending time in bars or otherwise interacting with NPCs to develop Gather Information).
RadicalTaoist 01-09-08, 12:03 AM	Heh. The "Let a... player decide" part. :) I am a DM's DM. :confused: I don't see that following. Do you really feel that it's the DM's job to decide for the player what the player should find enjoyable? The most hardcore DMs I know don't do that; they simply say players who don't enjoy their games can play elsewhere. And I'm sure you wouldn't approve of me trying to condition players into not enjoying however you play just so that less people play like you. This is a game. We play it to have fun, fercrissakes. You can be a DM's DM without being the arbiter of your players' fun. Sorry for dropping out of this discussion. I must've needed a break, because I suddenly looked up a month later and realized I hadn't logged into the forums in all that time. I'm inclined to let sleeping dogs lie at this point, but thanks for all the thinking, RT and company. I enjoyed myself and learned a great deal. No worries. I feel I represented my position well enough. (I still have some more arguments to flesh out when I have the time.)
RadicalTaoist 01-27-08, 04:50 PM	I'd like to make a few apologies, one for an error way back and one made preemptively. First of all, to Dog_O_War, there was that thread where we discussed reflavoring and I disappeared. Finals. My bad. We did reach a point where I realized a more comprehensive defense of reflavoring - and clearing out what it does *not* give up - would become necessary. Note this would be a defense of my playstyle, not a criticism of yours. Given the centrality of reflavoring to my position, I might as well put it here. Ancalimohtar - here for you to check if you've decided to move the debate to this thread. I apologize pre-emptively because this thread is full of the kind of post you hate - the constant re-parsing. The OP has the most curent developments and formulations of argument spelled out pretty clearly. I don't know if your position is the same as Nemo's though. EDIT: Oh yes, and I've owed this thread a fully laid out "why detailed definitions of optimization and roleplaying don't really matter" argument for a while now. Also forthcoming, eventually.
Jaxgaret 01-27-08, 08:06 PM	I think there are two issues at play here 1) differing definitions of optimization, min/max, powergaming and munchkin 2) leanings toward gamist vs simulationist playstyles With regards to 1) above, my own definitions are: Optimization: making choices towards a concept. Some people consider this the same as powergaming. However, you can optimize without powergaming. If you assign ability scores or skill ranks to your first level character in order to meet a character background (e.g., fighter that served as a thieves guild enforcer or expert basket weaver) or other concept (e.g., big tough fighting specialist or scrawny intelligent wizard), you are optimizing. Min/max: a subset of optimization designed to maximize strengths and minimize weaknesses of a character or concept. Powergaming: a desire or objective to play powerful characters and/or for the acquring of power during play. Therefore, one can be a powergamer without actually being good at optimizing as desire and or objective is seperate from abiity. Furthermore, power does not need be damage output or combat related. Depending on the setting and playstyle, there are other types of power (e.g, social). This leads me to... Butt Kicking: the playing for the purpose of killing things and taking their stuff. People often throw this in with powergaming, but I don't believe that it should be, because you can powergame in areas other than combat. Note: The above are on sliding scales and differing axis. You can be more than one and to varying degrees. Munchkin: someone who cheats or deliberately violates the spirit of the rules -usually for character power. While munchkins might cheat or deliberately violate the spirit of the rules to differing degrees, they do it. The other aspects is Gamist, Narrative, Simulationist playstyles. This is how one approaches the rules/game Gamist: Making decisions based in terms of a game. Simulationist: Making decisions with regards to what is most realistic or plausible in the game world (based on setting elements, character actions/decisions, etc.). narrativist/themist: The degree to which you make decisions in terms of what makes the of telling a good story based on thingls like theme and genre conventions. Again, I don't think the above three styles are mutually exclusive. However, I do believe people have preferences. With regard to "builds", I believe the preference for gamist vs simulationist does play a role in how they are viewed. I think "builders" (i.e, those that pre-plan character development from a non-theoretical perspective and stick to the build) approach DND from a more gamist perspecitve. They have have an end goal in mind and use the game rules to ensure that they meet that goal even at the expense of world/setting logic or plausibility (e.g., lack of practical training time, lack of a trainer). This "build" mentality of someone with a more gamist approach is opposite to that of someone with a simulationist preference. The simulationist approach would argue that you can't pre-plan a reliable build in terms of the setting, because you are making assumptions about future in-game events that have not and may not come to pass. Therefore, you cannot guarantee the following: a) that your character will heard of the person necessary to train you let alone met them. You might be from the wrong culture or the person or organization might be secret. b) that even if your character found a trainer, they will be willing to train the character- Maybe, your character haven't proved him or her self or the quality of their character. c) that even if they do find someone to train them, your character will have the availability. Depending on the campaign, they may either lack of time or access to the trainer at the period you have designated in your build. Time constraints could be due to a mission. Depending on the the new class, your might lack the time to train since it should take months or more to learn proficiency in a variety of armor and weapons let along months or years to develop ki or learn how to cast/control arcane magic if the setting rules say monks and wizards spend years in study. Lack of access to the trainer might be the result of the characters being off adventuring in the wrong part of the continent or even the wrong plane. Furthermore, from a simulationist few, your character should not be improving skills unless they have had the opportunity to utilize them. Nor, should they be picking up entirely new skills unless they have a trainer, access to books for knowledge, or some other method of learning the skill (e.g., spending time in bars or otherwise interacting with NPCs to develop Gather Information). I agree with most of what Greg_K just said, and I'll add my two cents. Greg laid out a framework of there being optimization, powergaming, min/maxing, butt kicking, munchkin-ing, playing from a gamist vs. simulationist perspective, and narrativism. I'll add in level of immersionism/metagaming. Now it is my conceit that each of those concepts is present in every player, to one degree or another. Say that each is a sliding scale from 1-100. You could have a player that is: 50 Optimization 30 Powergaming 10 Min/Maxing 60 Butt Kicking 00 Munchkin-ing 70 gamist 80 narrativist 30 immersionist And on and on with various facets of their personality. This is just an example. My point is that there isn't a "Butt-Kicker" or a "Drama Queen", there is a player with a wide range of abilities and desires, which affects what they bring to the table during character creation and during game sessions. On to my actual point: Do what you want. Take the Jell_Moo principle to heart, and for the love of pete, stop with the petty bickering, you nattering nabobs of negativity - unless you really enjoy the petty bickering. If so, do please go on with it :) Everybody is different, and likes different things. There is no best way to play the game.
RadicalTaoist 01-27-08, 08:53 PM	Responding to this post. Sure thing. Remember though, the primary argument against the Stormwind Fallacy (SWF) is that the entire basis of proof rests on a concept so irrecoverably subjective (what is "good" Roleplaying or roleplaying "well".) This alone is basis enough to throw the SWF into the garbage heap as simply an exercise in overwrought rationalization. I'll go ahead and continue on though. If you argue that the terms are too subjective to support the SWF, then you have to concede that the terms are too subjective to support the assertion that optimization interferes with roleplaying and thus any complaints about optimization interfering with roleplaying should have gone to the garbage heap first. We have to address this problem objectively. We simply cannot move forward discussing what "good" roleplaying is. So, in order to avoid the problem of the horribly subjective pitfall of what is roleplaying "well", we must frame the discussion in the proper objective context: For a truly successful CharOpimization / Min-Maxing build to occur, zero unnecessary points, skills, or attributes are to be spent on non-combat related traits or abilities. Combat is, after all, what min/maxing & CharOp is all about. Therefore, every decision about a character build can then be determined to be either a proper min-max optimized choice, or not. If any single choice is made to further a non-combat optimized or roleplaying build, then the entire build is not fully "optimized" to it's full min-maxing, combat related potential. Incorrect. You not only just ran head on into the point I made to ancalimohtar before (optimization is not limited to combat), but also straight into the Pun-Pun as Super Actor argument. Most of the post is unimportant; just look at the sblock on the silverware drawer arguments and go to the second fork. Pun-Pun (click link for introduction) is omnipotent, therefore playing a Pun-Pun allows you to roleplay anything perfectly as you can shift your stats and the effect of the outside world as much as you like, all outside of the normal round-to-round time system on top. You will never fail at the dramatic moment or survive your perfect dramatic death scene. Therefore, either we accept that you can still optimize while deviating from the path of combat omnipotence, or the SWF holds because optimization to the point of omnipotence not only doesn't conflict with roleplaying, it's necessary to play the character best able to roleplay your ideas perfectly. When I said the exact nature of the definitions is irrelevant, I meant it. The example from the 3.5 PHB that I mentioned before is regarding Level 1 Barbarians. They're the only class which starts out with no ability to read and write. Therefore, if a player wanted his barbarian to be able to read and write, he'd have to spend skill points in acquiring this roleplaying related ability - which would draw those points away from skills which would further a fully combat optimized build. All other classes in the 3.5 PHB do not have to do this. If one did purchase that skill, it is clearly for purely roleplaying related purposes. Therefore, the build is not fully min-maxed or combat optimized. In order to be able to roleplay a barbarian as an equal to all other classes, he must sacrifice combat optimization. Uh, no. Literacy can be valuable to optimization in other areas besides combat. The Stormwind Fallacy is the recognition of a fallacious argument that does not stand. This example does not prove that the sacrifice is essential; all the well roleplayed optimized builds prove otherwise. The existence of a single well roleplayed optimized build would do so. Given the other factors (single multiclassing dip grants literacy, you can roleplay an illiterate character just fine and even work asking the others to read for you into the party dynamics, etc.) This line of reasoning (where we have two options) does not fall victim to the False Dilemma fallacy: 1. The character is fully combat optimized or the character had points spent in non-combat, roleplaying related traits. 2. The character is not fully combat optimized. 3. Therefore, the character had points spent in non-combat, roleplaying related traits. Thus, in this example, the false dilemma fallacy, and the Stormwind Fallacy do not hold. So? One example is a) not a good sample size, and b) doesn't disprove the logical proof. 2 runs into the Pun-Pun as super actor argument anyways.
calronmoonflower 01-27-08, 10:47 PM	Crossing over an argument from another thread. It deceives. It's a piece of deception. It also happens to be a memetic slogan started by one guy fed up with people attacking Psionics. It also can be described as a manifesto, I suppose. No, it is a false dilemma (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_dilemma) that was given the name so others could understand it better. I've seem the thread that it first appeared on and it was in response to the accusation that characters where not roleplayed because solely because they where powerful, instead of basing the argument on the roleplaying of the characters in question. As I see it, (and I knew I was going to get dragged into this, sigh) the "SWF" as Radical puts it, can be viewed on multiple different levels. At the most analytical level, you must break down the definitions of "optimization" (doable) and "roleplaying" (nearly impossible) in order to valuate the Fallacy. Meh. Nope, let me put into terms without the definition so you can see how a false dilemma (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_dilemma) works. A or B. A therefor not B. or B therefor not A For this to work A and B must be by-conditional. On another, it's true, yes, but almost trivially and meaninglessly so. A good roleplayer can roleplay well given just about any character, including a numerically-optimized character. So yes, optimization does not prevent roleplaying. I would put that tired, coffeepot emoticon here but I can't find it. :whatsthis As you have stated that roleplaying and powergaming are not by-conditional you have just affirmed the Stormwind Fallacy. But really, these are artifices. Talking about it in this way is a douchey thing to do, because it's disingenuous. If you REALLY look at it, here's what I see: Assume there are X number of things characters in D&D can possibly do. Now, we can agree that any single character cannot do all of them--class choices, race choices, skill choices, spell choices all prevent this. The most any single character can do is Y, which is a subset of X. But what chooses exactly what fits into each character's Y? The aforementioned class/race/skill/spell/crunchy choices, of course. And if these choices are made with COMBAT in mind, which they are for the vast majority of optimizers, they're going to restrict the character from being able to do other things that, had he picked his Y independently, and THEN constructed a set of crunchies that fit it best, he wouldn't be restricted from doing. First pun-pun can do them all. Also because characters spend a good deal of time in combat, those that do it better will live longer and therefor each should logically do their best as combat in order to survive. And finally, on the most real and ultimately relevant level of interpretation, regardless of whether it is even a correct statement, the SWF is deceptive because it is used deceptively. It pretends to conclude that optimization is not a problem; that's the implication. It's thrown in whenever someone wants to defend optimization. But really, it concludes that optimization does not necessarily restrict roleplaying. The relevant topic is whether or not optimization generally restricts roleplaying. Generally, it does. Generally, when someone picks the spiked chain, it's not for flavor. Generally, when someone wants to be a thri-kreen, it's not because he likes the nomadic hunter-culture insectoids from the Shaar. Generally, when someone (well, back before Complete Champion) picked Snow Tiger Berserker, he didn't do it because he wanted to be part of the lodge. Generally, when people picked human for every build, they didn't do it to roleplay the most generic race. So when a DM is fed up with optimization, it's not because he can prove, mathematically, that optimization necessarily impedes roleplaying (although I think I have, above). It's because optimization is a problem for him, in his game. So your problem is they are not playing they way that you want them to. I believe this is when the Jell_Moo Principle comes into play. if you see the Stormwind fallacy then use this: The Cube Fallacy. If you went to a writer for a fantasy TV show, say Hercules or Xena or whatever fantasy is on nowadays, and told him that he had to make characters that fit into a rules system first before writing his character (i.e., roleplaying his character), and then everything that character did had to be legal within the rules system--would you say he still has the same amount of freedom in roleplaying (writing)? Now obviously it's worse in a system like D&D, which is (as I said in the OP) combat-centric and rules-heavy, and less so in games with cleaner, more abstract rules. But even DMing a Serenity game, I've found that players obsessed with combat prowess make retarded characters. One of my players chose a complication (basically a negative feat that gives you points you can spend elsewhere) called "Dull sense: smell" so she could use the points to make her super ninja-soldier a little beastlier. When I talked to her about it, she admitted she'd just wanted the points, and looked for the most harmless complication she could find. First not all powergaming will be that focused. You cannot logically pass off a part of the whole as the whole. Powergaming can interfere with roleplaying. When you see it base the argument off the lack of roleplaying rather than the power of the characters. As stated before by me in this thread. Combining roleplaying and optimization well is a skill that is separate from both powergaming and roleplaying. RadicalTaoist also listed four techniques that can be used effectively to combine them together.
Mock26 01-27-08, 11:14 PM	One thing that the Stormwind Fallacy doesn't seem to take into consideration is that there clearly are cases where optimization and roleplaying are mutually exclusive of each other. In theory saying that they are not mutually exclusive is all fine and dandy, but that theory often doesn't hold water when compared to the reality that is D&D. Some players are clearly incapable of doing both of those at the same time, and in those cases people quoting the Stormwind Fallacy are in the wrong. Yes, theoretically, those people could be capable of both optimization and roleplaying, but for whatever reason, they aren't. So, I now introduce the Mockwind Fallacy. In cases where roleplaying and optimization are clearly mutually exclusive of each other and someone quips in with the Stormwind Fallacy, people can counter-quip with the Mockwind Fallacy. The Mockwind Fallacy is the belief that there are times when, in fact, and for select individuals, roleplaying and optimization are mutually exclusive of each other. Also, I have created Ongorth's Law, which is the Stormwind Fallacy equivalent of Godwin's Law. Ongorth's Law states that as an online discussion grows longer, the probability of someone mentioning the Stormwind Fallacy approaches one.
Tempest Stormwind 01-27-08, 11:17 PM	One thing that the Stormwind Fallacy doesn't seem to take into consideration is that there clearly are cases where optimization and roleplaying are mutually exclusive of each other. In theory saying that they are not mutually exclusive is all fine and dandy, but that theory often doesn't hold water when compared to the reality that is D&D. Some players are clearly incapable of doing both of those at the same time, and in those cases people quoting the Stormwind Fallacy are in the wrong. Yes, theoretically, those people could be capable of both optimization and roleplaying, but for whatever reason, they aren't. Two words. Teach them. There's not some Great Wall between the two concepts that prevents some people from ever trying both, any more than there's a giant wall preventing people from playing characters of a particular gender. Just as you may have a preference for one gender, some people have a preference for a particular playstyle -- but nothing stops you from trying the other out. (This isn't a perfect example, because barring odd races like dromite and warforged, you cannot be more than one gender. But the point holds -- strength in either side, or in both sides together, can be taught.)
Mock26 01-27-08, 11:24 PM	Teach them. 1. Not everyone can teach someone else. 2. Not everyone can be taught by someone else. 3. Not everyone wants to be taught by someone else. There's not some Great Wall between the two concepts that prevents some people from ever trying both, any more than there's a giant wall preventing people from playing characters of a particular gender. Actually, for some people, there is a Great Wall between the two concepts, and the same can be said about cross-gender roleplaying. Sometimes there is a Great Wall.
Toran_A_Sunder 01-27-08, 11:26 PM	One thing that the Stormwind Fallacy doesn't seem to take into consideration is that there clearly are cases where optimization and roleplaying are mutually exclusive of each other. In theory saying that they are not mutually exclusive is all fine and dandy, but that theory often doesn't hold water when compared to the reality that is D&D. Some players are clearly incapable of doing both of those at the same time, and in those cases people quoting the Stormwind Fallacy are in the wrong. Yes, theoretically, those people could be capable of both optimization and roleplaying, but for whatever reason, they aren't. The stormwind fallacy, to my knowledge, does not state that it is in and of itself a constant truth. Here are the facts. The stormwind fallacy states that role playing and roll playing are not mutually exclusive. One can optimize and be a good role player. Also, just because one doesn't optimize, it does not mean he is automatically a good role player. I know a player who is a phenomenal optimizer, and his characters have well thought out backgrounds and personalities, and he role playes them well. I know another player who is a phenomenal optimizer, and fancies himself a great role player, but in actuallity everyone of his characters is a cardboard cut out of the previous. I know another player who can't optomize to save his life, and he is also, in fact, a terrible role player. I suppose the reason that people still argue about the validity of the Stormwind Fallacy is that, again to my knowledge, it does not specifically state that any and all combinations of role/roll players, good and bad, can and in fact do exist.
Mock26 01-27-08, 11:35 PM	The stormwind fallacy, to my knowledge, does not state that it is in and of itself a constant truth. While that may in fact be true, a lot of the people who quote the Stormwind Fallacy think that it is in fact a constant truth.
Toran_A_Sunder 01-27-08, 11:38 PM	While that may in fact be true, a lot of the people who quote the Stormwind Fallacy think that it is in fact a constant truth. Absolutely true. But that is not any fault of the Stormwind Fallacy, or the author of it. That is the fault of the people stating it. Anyone dealing in absolutes is just silly, IMO. There are only a handful of certainties and absolutes in the universe; that a theorem cooked up by a guy who plays a game pretending to be elves and wizards applies to everyone absolutely and without exception aint one of them ;)
Endarrion 01-27-08, 11:40 PM	I feel the need to say this though it seems obvious to me: just because someone didn't put ranks in Appraise, Bluff, Diplomacy, or Knowledge (nobility and royalty), doesn't mean they are bad roleplayers. You can still roleplay without overwhelming "social" stats, it just means you have to be clever. Conversely, someone with 20 ranks in Diplomacy isn't necessarily a good roleplayer. Numerically, sure. Otherwise, no. I consider myself a "good" roleplayer: I enjoy getting into character when I play PCs, and when I DM, my weakest point is most certainly NOT in the depth of my NPCs. Having said that, my current character is optimized out the wazoo, and I find my total focus on combat to be taking something away from my roleplaying. The other player and the DM haven't said anything to me about this, but I'm bothered by it because I feel like I should be trying a little harder, especially because there's only one other player in the campaign. So this is a self-correcting problem that will be taken care of in the next session where Maligore the bugbear warrior will slake the thirst of his bloodlust and bring the hell in his fists crashing down on the heads of his enemies. But I digress. My point is that stats have no effect on roleplaying. To use the "rollplaying / roleplaying" cliche, stats only effect die rolls, not what comes out of a player's mouth when he speaks in character.
Jaxgaret 01-27-08, 11:48 PM	1. Not everyone can teach someone else. 2. Not everyone can be taught by someone else. Do the two persons in question have functioning brains and communication mechanisms? Then they can teach/be taught. 3. Not everyone wants to be taught by someone else. That is certainly possible, but has nothing to do with the other two. Actually, for some people, there is a Great Wall between the two concepts, and the same can be said about cross-gender roleplaying. Sometimes there is a Great Wall. No, there is not, there is only a refusal to accept that there is no Wall. You may have meant that the time and effort such endeavors would take would be prohibitively costly, not that they were absolutely impossible.
Mock26 01-28-08, 12:11 AM	Then they can teach/be taught. Theoretically, correct. But, the reality is that your statement is not always true. No, there is not, there is only a refusal to accept that there is no Wall. You say to-mā-to I say to-mah-to. It is merely a matter of perception. I see people with walls. You see people who refuse to accept that there is no wall. For all intents and purposes the net result is the same thing.
I_Use_Ref_Discretion 01-28-08, 12:17 AM	If you argue that the terms are too subjective to support the SWF, then you have to concede that the terms are too subjective to support the assertion that optimization interferes with roleplaying and thus any complaints about optimization interfering with roleplaying should have gone to the garbage heap first. This was a predictable response, which was why I moved beyond this point of argument and straight to the discussion with a more objective basis. You not only just ran head on into the point I made to ancalimohtar before (optimization is not limited to combat), but also straight into the Pun-Pun as Super Actor argument. Here we'd have to go back to definitions. I define Min/Maxing and Optimization as pertaining to combat optimization. You may disagree and we'll probably never agree to a definition on this (just as two people wouldn't be able to agree on what "good" roleplaying is). Calls issued forth now claiming that Min/Maxing has been, and always was about making "fluffy, well rounded characters rife with roleplaying potential" will simply get the "yeah, sure it does" response from most people in the know, I'd argue. In any case, I stated I could find an example in the 3.5 PHB which invalidates the SWF - you asked me to show and I did... Now, you're referencing Pun-Pun which (ab)uses material from 7 different books. Quite a lot of cookery is needed to make him. Uh, no. Literacy can be valuable to optimization in other areas besides combat. Combat optimization? For a 1st level Barbarian? ...all the well roleplayed optimized builds prove otherwise. The existence of a single well roleplayed optimized build would do so. You're dipping back into the realm of the subjective definition of roleplaying. We simply cannot go there. Given the other factors (single multiclassing dip grants literacy, you can roleplay an illiterate character just fine and even work asking the others to read for you into the party dynamics, etc.) Single multiclassing dip granting literacy isn't applicable to the 1st level barbarian. I was well aware of that hitch in the rules, which is why I phrased it specifically to this example. In game roleplaying, again, touches on the subjectivity of playing out that character "well" in game. So? One example is a) not a good sample size, and b) doesn't disprove the logical proof. 2 runs into the Pun-Pun as super actor argument anyways. Tempest Stormwind asked for QUOTE "ONE counterexample is all that's needed". It has been provided. PunPun isn't a 1st level barbarian found in the 3.5 PHB. :)
calronmoonflower 01-28-08, 03:19 AM	One thing that the Stormwind Fallacy doesn't seem to take into consideration is that there clearly are cases where optimization and roleplaying are mutually exclusive of each other. In theory saying that they are not mutually exclusive is all fine and dandy, but that theory often doesn't hold water when compared to the reality that is D&D. Some players are clearly incapable of doing both of those at the same time, and in those cases people quoting the Stormwind Fallacy are in the wrong. Yes, theoretically, those people could be capable of both optimization and roleplaying, but for whatever reason, they aren't. I believe that you are misunderstanding what exactly a fallacy is. A fallacy is flawed logic. You can use flawed logic and arrive at the right conclusion. However, the use of a fallacy means that you statement hasn't been properly proved. As it is the Stormwind Fallacy should be classified as a formal fallacy (a pattern of reasoning which is always wrong) instead of a informal fallacy (an argument pattern that is wrong due to a mistake in its reasoning) as you say it is. So, I now introduce the Mockwind Fallacy. In cases where roleplaying and optimization are clearly mutually exclusive of each other and someone quips in with the Stormwind Fallacy, people can counter-quip with the Mockwind Fallacy. The Mockwind Fallacy is the belief that there are times when, in fact, and for select individuals, roleplaying and optimization are mutually exclusive of each other. You have laid out an unproved (but most likely provable) argument here and called named it. However this actually doesn't counter the Stormwind Fallacy at all as it falls under the Misuse of Principle (sorry no link for this one). A Misuse of Principle a fallacy that states that something must have no exceptions to be true. Also, I have created Ongorth's Law, which is the Stormwind Fallacy equivalent of Godwin's Law. Ongorth's Law states that as an online discussion grows longer, the probability of someone mentioning the Stormwind Fallacy approaches one. This in itself will fall flat as the vast majority of those that participate in online discussions will never of heard of the Stormwind Fallacy. Also in the cases where those that are discussing things online have heard of it no reason (even a fallacious one) is present to bring it up.
DaidojiTaidoru 01-28-08, 04:32 AM	(I moved to this thread from here (http://forums.gleemax.com/showpost.php?p=14941055&postcount=49) as many others have for relavence.) I disagree... but, like the definition of "good" roleplaying, we'll probably not be able to agree on a definition. I believe it pertains to maximum combat potential. No, 1) because most DM's are wise to the abuses found with unfettered CharOp, and 2) because not all DM's and campaigns allow the 7 books needed to create Pun-Pun. Each person posting to the CharOp forum with their "hey, how can I do this?" probably has limitations set upon them by their DM or their campaign which couldn't allow a single, fully CharOp'd character to be played in all instances. If you insist on that definition of Optimization then yes you are correct. The Stormwind fallacy is false. Of course the fact that no one in Char Op uses that definiion, and several char op builds distinctly don't follow that principle means that your definition is less then useful. You can say the Stormwind fallacy is false if you define Optimization as an Anti-Roleplaying Particle as well. But I think you'll find that no one else shares that particular view. If the intent was to turn said non-combat advantages into combat optimized advantages, then weren't they exactly that? Then I can prove nothing in D&D is a non combat advantage. Any skill, ability or feature in the game can be manipulated into giving you a mechnical bonus in combat. Sometimes it's roundabout but it can be done. Example: Craft(Underwater Basketweaving) -> Baskets -> Sell baskets for $ -> buy scroll of magic missle. I limited my example to the 1st level barbarian to avoid these extrapolation pitfalls. Ok. Barbarian level 1 only. Will never see another class level, and has no goals or future. And only optimize for combat potential. These are all non-combat related benefits/drawbacks. Exploding runes was one of my examples. You can't claim THAT is a non combat benifit. Of course since he's 1st level (and will never progress past that) exploding runes will never be seen. So illeteracy is mostly a drawback and should be sacked as fast as possible in order to max out UMD and start firing off scrolls. This isn't hard to do... 2 points could mean a lot for a 1st level barbarian build. Let's see climb, jump and UMD. That's 4. Unless you were foolish and took an Int penalty you're covered with 2 points to spend. The rest of the skills either will never be high enough for a 1st level character to safely use or "have no combat use." Hehe, I'm using a character with no backstory, goal, or concept to discuss CharOp & Min/Maxing, which is precisely what happens day in and day out. :) Except you're trying to disprove the Stormwind Fallacy which covers both Optmization AND Roleplaying. And that Barbarian has no Roleplaying for the stats to contradict.
RadicalTaoist 01-28-08, 06:04 PM	This was a predictable response, which was why I moved beyond this point of argument and straight to the discussion with a more objective basis. People seem to forget that. But thank you for moving on. Here we'd have to go back to definitions. I define Min/Maxing and Optimization as pertaining to combat optimization. You may disagree and we'll probably never agree to a definition on this (just as two people wouldn't be able to agree on what "good" roleplaying is). Calls issued forth now claiming that Min/Maxing has been, and always was about making "fluffy, well rounded characters rife with roleplaying potential" will simply get the "yeah, sure it does" response from most people in the know, I'd argue. In any case, I stated I could find an example in the 3.5 PHB which invalidates the SWF - you asked me to show and I did... Now, you're referencing Pun-Pun which (ab)uses material from 7 different books. Quite a lot of cookery is needed to make him. You didn't invalidate the SWF. To invalidate the SWF, you must prove that optimization *must* conflict with roleplaying. I contend you can't do this without defining optimization and roleplaying in ways that make your argument circular and thus invalid. Combat optimization? For a 1st level Barbarian? I'll let your definition of optimization stand. I still state the lack of literacy doesn't handicap a player from roleplaying that character fine...but, I'll let you offer a definition of roleplaying too. You're dipping back into the realm of the subjective definition of roleplaying. We simply cannot go there. It doesn't make a difference. Unless the definitions are designed for a circular argument, the Fallacy stands. Single multiclassing dip granting literacy isn't applicable to the 1st level barbarian. I was well aware of that hitch in the rules, which is why I phrased it specifically to this example. In game roleplaying, again, touches on the subjectivity of playing out that character "well" in game. All right, give me a definition of roleplaying. Give me any definition of good roleplaying. Multiple definitions. If that definition doesn't include 'avoiding optimization', I can roleplay the illiterate level 1 barbarian well. Subjective definitions fall in *favor* of the fallacy. Tempest Stormwind asked for QUOTE "ONE counterexample is all that's needed". It has been provided. PunPun isn't a 1st level barbarian found in the 3.5 PHB. :) No, one counterexample is all that needed to debunk the fallacious argument. To debunk the formulation of the fallacy, you have to undo the reasoning. Tempest only needed one counterexample. You need prove why your example makes his reasoning wrong.
Mock26 01-28-08, 07:06 PM	Also in the cases where those that are discussing things online have heard of it no reason (even a fallacious one) is present to bring it up. Just like there is no reason for people to cite Godwin's law when someone brings up Hitler. Yet, people still do it.
Jaxgaret 01-28-08, 07:32 PM	Just like there is no reason for people to cite Godwin's law when someone brings up Hitler. Yet, people still do it. Godwin's Law (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwin%27s_law) is a caution against referencing Nazism/Hitler too often, so that when such a reference is actually warranted, its full impact is felt. Thus, there is a reason for the citation.
Ongorth 01-28-08, 07:51 PM	No, one counterexample is all that needed to debunk the fallacious argument. To debunk the formulation of the fallacy, you have to undo the reasoning. Tempest only needed one counterexample. You need prove why your example makes his reasoning wrong. You can certainly roleplay to some degree while optimizing to some degree. However, the Stormwind Opinion claims that optimizing and roleplaying don't interfere with each other, which implies much more then that (and if it doesn't, the fallacy is applicationally useless anyway). It implies that the quantity of one doesn't interfere with the other, which is basically impossible to prove. I'd venture that you can't come up with a counterexample that can't be explained away with a third factor variable like total time spent, talent or experience.
Toran_A_Sunder 01-28-08, 07:59 PM	OK I'm going to throw in my two cents because, frankly, as often as I keep coming back to this thread and others like it, I cant wrap my head around why anyone would argue this concept? As i stated a page or two ago, there can be any combination of gamer. Gamer A optomizes but cant role play Gamer B role plays but cant optomize Gamer C can do both equally well, and it isn't a problem Gamer D cant role play or optomize worth crap. The fact that gamer C exists (and I've known many of the type) proves that optomization and role playing can coexist and not interfere with eachother. What the hell is the arguing about?
calronmoonflower 01-28-08, 08:07 PM	I've seen enough versions of the argument below that I thought I would address it again. I used Nemo_the_Lost's as he summed it up in short order. Leo's basically right about this, though. This was my original point, way back. The Stormwind Fallacy is meaningless, because all it proves is that some powergamers are also roleplayers by their own definition. It doesn't actually defend anybody from any reasonable opposition. The fact that it was needed because at the time it was coined the opposition was being unreasonable doesn't make it relevant to a current, reasoned discussion. The Stormwind Fallacy should never even be used to counter a reasonable argument. That is because it is used to counter an unreasonable (A.K.A. fallacious) argument. If in a specific circumstance you do lay out that in that case powergaming is actually interfering with roleplaying and back up your argument with valid premises then the Stormwind fallacy cannot touch it. If in such a case (I've never actually seen one) that this happens counter this with the The Cube Fallacy. The misuse of the Stormwind Fallacy in and of itself is actually a fallacy. Just like there is no reason for people to cite Godwin's law when someone brings up Hitler. Yet, people still do it. Yes, there is. Most often the reference is used as an ad hominem (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominen), and thus is fallacious. Also there is this, from Godwin's Law (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwin%27s_law). Godwin's law is often cited in online discussions as a caution against the use of inflammatory rhetoric or exaggerated comparisons, and is often conflated with fallacious arguments of the reductio ad Hitlerum form. The rule does not make any statement whether any particular reference or comparison to Hitler or the Nazis might be appropriate, but only asserts that one arising is increasingly probable. It is precisely because such a comparison or reference may sometimes be appropriate, Godwin has argued[4] that overuse of Nazi and Hitler comparisons should be avoided, because it robs the valid comparisons of their impact. Although in one of its early forms Godwin's law referred specifically to Usenet newsgroup discussions,[5] the law is now applied to any threaded online discussion: electronic mailing lists, message boards, chat rooms, and more recently blog comment threads and wiki talk pages.
Mock26 01-28-08, 08:21 PM	And to some people the overuse of the Stormwind Fallacy should be avoided because those who use it often use it incorrectly and often use it excessively. Hence Ongorth's Law.
Tempest Stormwind 01-28-08, 08:33 PM	And to some people the overuse of the Stormwind Fallacy should be avoided because those who use it often use it incorrectly and often use it excessively. Hence Ongorth's Law. So I've heard, but I've never actually seen it used except to counter the same arguments I wrote it for. Do you have a link to demonstrate someone misusing it? (Yes, I agree it can be misused. I actually revised the definition a while back so that anyone linking it should see that it doesn't mean "I min/max, therefore I'm a good roleplayer" or similar garbage. (More accurately, it should say "I roleplay, therefore you can conclude nothing about my min/max potential. I'm not min/maxing, therefore you can conclude nothing about my roleplaying." or similar.) I mean, that's obvious from the basic original definition, but I called it out explicitly due to responses from people like you in spite of never seeing it used that way myself.)
calronmoonflower 01-28-08, 08:36 PM	And to some people the overuse of the Stormwind Fallacy should be avoided because those who use it often use it incorrectly and often use it excessively. Hence Ongorth's Law. Even more people misuse logic far more often. Does that mean that the use of logic should be avoided? No, It should be counter when used incorrectly. I've been on the forums quite a awhile and the invalid logic is used far more often that the fallacy itself is misused. In fact I've never actually seen it misused! You can certainly roleplay to some degree while optimizing to some degree. However, the Stormwind Opinion claims that optimizing and roleplaying don't interfere with each other, which implies much more then that (and if it doesn't, the fallacy is applicationally useless anyway). It implies that the quantity of one doesn't interfere with the other, which is basically impossible to prove. I'd venture that you can't come up with a counterexample that can't be explained away with a third factor variable like total time spent, talent or experience. have you actually read it. It doesn't actually say all that. If someone says something to the extent of any of the following: I am a roleplayer; thus I do not min-max. I purposely make all my characters weak in at least some ways; that makes them better roleplayed. You're dishing out thousands of damage per hit! You're not roleplaying, you're min/maxing! ...And so on and so forth. If those things come up, then they are committing the Stormwind Fallacy: Just because one optimizes his characters mechanically does not mean he cannot also roleplay well. Just because a character plays his character well does not mean he cannot be optimized. As a corrollary, characters who are min/maxed are not automatically played worse than those who are not, and characters who are deliberately handicapped are not automatically played better than those who are not. It's easy to imagine players who are good at either one of those things, or bad at both, or good at both. Essentially, roleplaying and min/maxing can easily coexist since they are independent of each other. For instance, in one of my current games, we've got three of the CO board regulars playing along with two others, with a cast of a pair of high-power swordsages, a CHAMELEON (widely held as one of the strongest PrCs ever published), and my Shadowcraft Mage (you know, as in "I can cast any spell from two different schools spontaneously, even if I don't know them"?)... and yet each character is deep enough to cause moral problems, interconnected enough to work as a team, and compelling enough to be an interesting character in their own right. The existence of a single case like this game is more than enough to debunk "Optimizers cannot roleplay" under any scientific or logical reasoning base. Now, it isn't enough to say that it's rare or common, but it is enough to demonstrate existence. For those of you following logically, you may recognize this: It's the False Dilemma fallacy, actually, just expressed in terms of D&D. False Dilemma is a fallacy that in which one sets up a dichotomy when in truth there is a continuum or independent axes. An common example of a False Dilemma is "You're either for us or against us." It's possible to support neither cause whatsoever and abstain from helping either side, but the statement is set up in such a way to suggest that this is not a choice -- thus it presents you with a false dilemma. Here's a few more "false dilemma" examples, and a proof. (http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/false-dilemma.html) The Stormwind Fallacy is a special case of this applied to roleplaying; a faulty argument in the following fashion: 1. Either you roleplay your character well or you have min/maxed that character. 2. This character is not min/maxed. 3. Therefore he must be roleplayed well. Conclusion: All good roleplayed characters are not min/maxed, and all min/maxed characters are poorly roleplayed. The faulty assumption comes at 1 -- I provided an example of one of my games above which demonstrates that you can optimize your characters and roleplay them at the same time. ONE counterexample is all that's needed -- and I KNOW I'm not the only one (I should show you the Real Adventures games the CO boards hold -- several stellar roleplayers there and they're all CO board regulars, in other words min/maxers). Unless you can either: 1) Demonstrate that this is not a mapping to the False Dilemma Fallacy OR 2) Demonstrate that the False Dilemma Fallacy does not hold, then the Stormwind Fallacy holds. For the record, it's named what it is because of an old debate on the DM boards. I (and others) thought that this idea was mind-numbingly obvious, while others thought that it was a logical impossibility. I snapped at one point and decided to formalize it under a handy shorthand name so people could spread it and learn about it a bit more. I was arrogant (still am), and chose my own name. To this day I still don't think we need it, but since it's commonly cited (and misused), it stays. I do regret naming it after myself, though.
Toran_A_Sunder 01-28-08, 08:37 PM	So I've heard, but I've never actually seen it used except to counter the same arguments I wrote it for. Do you have a link to demonstrate someone misusing it? (Yes, I agree it can be misused. I actually revised the definition a while back so that anyone linking it should see that it doesn't mean "I min/max, therefore I'm a good roleplayer" or similar garbage. (More accurately, it should say "I roleplay, therefore you can conclude nothing about my min/max potential. I'm not min/maxing, therefore you can conclude nothing about my roleplaying." or similar.) I mean, that's obvious from the basic original definition, but I called it out explicitly due to responses from people like you in spite of never seeing it used that way myself.) Frankly, I don't see what's so blessed hard about understanding exactly what you just said. I think it comes down to people on one side or the other being upset because they can do one but not the other, so they argue that its because one cant exist alongside the other, which is absolutely bogus.
Jaxgaret 01-28-08, 08:43 PM	I cant wrap my head around why anyone would argue this concept? What the hell is the arguing about? I made the same point a page back. My surmise is that some people just like to argue. More power to them. Whatever floats your boat. :)
Toran_A_Sunder 01-28-08, 09:16 PM	I made the same point a page back. My surmise is that some people just like to argue. More power to them. Whatever floats your boat. :) Well...high five then :D
Ongorth 01-29-08, 12:00 AM	have you actually read it. It doesn't actually say all that. Then note my note. If that's what it says then it isn't really saying anything substantive that could possibly add anything to any possible conversation. I mean, honestly, what does it mean? Two tangentially related factors aren't mutually exclusive? No two tangentially related factors are mutually exclusive! I was giving the fallacy the benefit of the doubt with my interpretation. If the Stormwind Opinion is going to say anything, it has to comment on degree or quality or else all it is refuting is dramatic statements of hyperbole. Do see need a logical fallacy to tell people that they are not, in fact, hungry enough to eat a horse?
Ongorth 01-29-08, 12:05 AM	The fact that gamer C exists (and I've known many of the type) proves that optomization and role playing can coexist and not interfere with eachother. How do we know that they aren't interfering with each other? If Player C has a hypothetical pool of 60 minutes of prep time and decided to split it 45 minutes of mechanical research optimization and 15 minutes of character development and nuance, wouldn't it stand to reason that his character would be better made mechanically and less fully realized then if he spent the time in the opposite manner? Being mutually exclusive is an extreme that is practically non-existent in reality. I don't think anyone is having that conversation.
Ongorth 01-29-08, 12:15 AM	Because it was asked for: http://forums.gleemax.com/showthread.php?t=977725 An example of a misused Stormwind Fallacy. You'll note that Arctan is attempting to use it to say that the use of an approach does not impact the quality of roleplaying. As far as I can tell, the Stormwind Opinion doesn't discuss the effectiveness of different approaches and how each aids or hinders the quality of roleplaying.
Toran_A_Sunder 01-29-08, 12:28 AM	How do we know that they aren't interfering with each other? If Player C has a hypothetical pool of 60 minutes of prep time and decided to split it 45 minutes of mechanical research optimization and 15 minutes of character development and nuance, wouldn't it stand to reason that his character would be better made mechanically and less fully realized then if he spent the time in the opposite manner? Being mutually exclusive is an extreme that is practically non-existent in reality. I don't think anyone is having that conversation. No, it wouldn't stand to reason, because a character can still be role played without a more in depth background than "he used to be the city guard, now he's an adventurer." Sure it adds to it, but it can be just as good role playing without it. The fact that the player spent more time optimizing doesn't mean he cant role play the character. Perhaps the character's personality will develop as he is played. Perhaps it wont. That is the person's fault for not paying attention to it. But someone who doesn't optimize can make that same mistake just as easily as an optimizer. The presense of optimization doesn't always take away from role playing. Can it? Sure. There are plenty of people who care only about min/maxing and could give a rats ass about character development. The same can be said of someone who spends hours coming up with his background and only haphazardly picks his feats and spells and skills and whatever. It can happen. It doesn't always happen, which is the point I think most detractors of the SF fail to recognize. Just because the potential is there, it doesn't mean it will always happen in every instance imaginable. There are over 6 billion people living on this planet. There are hundreds of thousands if not millions of people worldwide who play this game. Do you really mean to tell me that out of all those people, not one of them can be as good an optimizer as he is a role player, and vice versa? Can one interfere with the other? Yes. Certainly. My post earlier illustrated that. But do they always and without exception interfere? No. Of course not. What you need to understand is that the potential for any number of types of gamer exists. Don't deal in the absolute. That, I think, is the heart of the SF, that is the point its detractors miss, and if I'm wrong I'm sure Tempest will correct me.
Ongorth 01-29-08, 12:37 AM	It can happen. It doesn't always happen, which is the point I think most detractors of the SF fail to recognize. Just because the potential is there, it doesn't mean it will always happen in every instance imaginable. There are over 6 billion people living on this planet. There are hundreds of thousands if not millions of people worldwide who play this game. Do you really mean to tell me that out of all those people, not one of them can be as good an optimizer as he is a role player, and vice versa? If the Fallacy is supported because only one person in the entire world can live up to its standards, what is its purpose when applied to any situation not involving that person? I mean, if it only applies to some people and you can't really tell who, how can you in good faith actually invoke it to support your case in a non-theoretical situation? Besides, that's not the claim it all. Its a claim of interference. Could that great optimizer/roleplayer be a better optimizer is he worried less about nuance, or a better roleplayer if he took his nose out of the splatbook? While if the level of quality was high enough, I'm sure the diminishing returns would seem hardly worthwhile, but I am positive that you CAN always go further. I have a hard time accepting the claim that the effort put into and priority assigned to the parts of a process doesn't effect the outcome of the end product. If you are going to ignore graduations of quality, then all you are making a claim about is mutual exclusivity which is both meaningless and pointless. If what you are saying is that the Stormwind Opinion is a meaningless and pointless claim that can't actually be used in any intelligent situation in any conversation, then yes, I agree with it completely.
Toran_A_Sunder 01-29-08, 12:47 AM	I never once mentioned mutual exclusivity. I'm not dealing in absolutes. Thats my point. Those who support and those who argue against the Stormwind Fallacy deal in absolutes. One camp says it's always one way, the other camp says its always the othe way. I say it can be all of the above, or none of the above. It is a case by case scenario. Optimization can interfere with role playing, and vice versa. But optimization doesn't always and without exception interfere with role playing, or vice versa. That's my point.
Ongorth 01-29-08, 12:56 AM	And my point is they always interfere, which is actually less of an absolute then your theory that there is no relationship. In terms of correlations, mine states -[x] (a variable), while your states 0 (a constant). My hidden, secret point is that this interference is a good thing. This interference is generally created by priorities and its one of the ways a player can personalize their gameplay experience to maximize enjoyment. I mean, if our priorities didn't effect our gameplay experience, it'd be a really lame game.
Tempest Stormwind 01-29-08, 01:00 AM	How do we know that they aren't interfering with each other? If Player C has a hypothetical pool of 60 minutes of prep time and decided to split it 45 minutes of mechanical research optimization and 15 minutes of character development and nuance, wouldn't it stand to reason that his character would be better made mechanically and less fully realized then if he spent the time in the opposite manner? Being mutually exclusive is an extreme that is practically non-existent in reality. I don't think anyone is having that conversation. Setting aside that mechanical optimization happens outside of play time and that roleplaying happens within play time (by definition) for a moment, let's examine this claim, assuming that 100% of both optimization and RP take place during prep, and therefore compete for time. Let M = amount of time spent mechanically building the character, and R = amount of time spent fleshing out RP. Let's assume Player C is a new player, and he decides to split his time as you've shown (45M 15R). He's not going to be the greatest roleplayer, as you've noticed. Now, the human brain is a wonderful thing: It learns and remembers. If I discover a particularly good feat synergy or expand my character in a novel way (my preferred method is through character journals), I don't need to do so again. I can just reference what has already happened. (This is especially true for mechanics, since they're inheritable across characters. If I figure out an easy mechanical boost -- for instance, crusader + Stone Power -- I can use it again should I ever play a similar character.) This means that for the next session, Player C has another 60 minutes of prep to spread out. His character designs are nearly finished, so he doesn't need to spend as long building him mechanically (say, 15 minutes). This leaves him 45 to flesh out the character a bit, now that he's had a bit of experience playing him to build upon. (We're up to 60M, 60R.) Is the character going to act better now? Of course! Now, let's say Player C's character dies and he rolls up a new character. This new character takes some time to optimize, but because he's used to the procedure now, he's finding it easier to spot synergies and design personalities. He doesn't need to spend as long as before to feel confident about his character mechanically, meaning he spends just 30 minutes instead of 45 to produce his character. This leaves him another 30 minutes to prepare for the roleplay. Will this new character start out acting better than his previous one did? Quite likely (I'm breezing over a bit here, maybe he tried something ambitious this time that needs more time to round out -- on either side of the spectrum). See, the player gets better over time because he can learn. All of this is, in fact, very characteristic of many new players I've met. The more they play, the better they get at it, and the less time it takes them to build characters (mechanically and dramatically). Furthermore, the *quality* of those characters -- both mechanically and dramatically -- improves, because they've had practice from before. Now factor in the assumption that I factored out above and you'll see why your complaint really doesn't hold much water.
calronmoonflower 01-29-08, 01:02 AM	Then note my note. If that's what it says then it isn't really saying anything substantive that could possibly add anything to any possible conversation. Huh, what? The Stormwind fallacy is a rebuttal to something that adds nothing to an argument. It gets it out of the way so the conversation can move forward. Because it was asked for: http://forums.gleemax.com/showthread.php?t=977725 An example of a misused Stormwind Fallacy. You'll note that Arctan is attempting to use it to say that the use of an approach does not impact the quality of roleplaying. As far as I can tell, the Stormwind Opinion doesn't discuss the effectiveness of different approaches and how each aids or hinders the quality of roleplaying. Stormwind Fallacy. Initially choosing a character concept because of the mechanical bonuses does not *in any way* hinder me from roleplaying it with all due seriousness, respect and emotion. 1. He did say what you are saying that he said. He was talking about himself. 2. It does indeed appear to be a Stormwind fallacy as it points to the increase of power as the proof that roleplaying is hindered rather than the quality of the roleplaying. 3. If you look at the title of the thread "Does it go against the spirit of roleplaying to choose a race just for its stat bonus" it would appear that the question being asked it the impact of making a choice for power impacting roleplaying. If you go further and read the first post it is asked if preventing chooses for power will increase roleplaying. So it is asked if weakening characters will increase roleplaying. The answer is that is a Stormwind Fallacy.
Jaxgaret 01-29-08, 01:08 AM	If the Fallacy is supported because only one person in the entire world can live up to its standards, what is its purpose when applied to any situation not involving that person? I mean, if it only applies to some people and you can't really tell who, how can you in good faith actually invoke it to support your case in a non-theoretical situation? Because real life isn't a science lab. It can't be applied because we are not professional psychologists running a trial to see who are good optimizers/roleplayers. There's going to be some uncertainty regardless. Besides, that's not the claim it all. Its a claim of interference. Could that great optimizer/roleplayer be a better optimizer is he worried less about nuance, or a better roleplayer if he took his nose out of the splatbook? While if the level of quality was high enough, I'm sure the diminishing returns would seem hardly worthwhile, but I am positive that you CAN always go further. I have a hard time accepting the claim that the effort put into and priority assigned to the parts of a process doesn't effect the outcome of the end product. Optimization occurs primarily during character creation; roleplaying occurs primarily during game sessions. Thus there is little need to make a dichotomy of X minutes spent optimizing and Y minutes spent roleplaying, becuase there is no Z that the two must sum up to; it is a non-zero sum situation. Also, your claim seems to assume that roleplaying is made 'better' with additional prep time (better roleplaying being a subjective quality anyway, which makes it difficult to measure), which is not necessarily true. Some players will have better roleplaying performances by prepping less, with more improv.
Toran_A_Sunder 01-29-08, 01:13 AM	And my point is they always interfere, which is actually less of an absolute then your theory that there is no relationship. In terms of correlations, mine states -[x] (a variable), while your states 0 (a constant). My hidden, secret point is that this interference is a good thing. This interference is generally created by priorities and its one of the ways a player can personalize their gameplay experience to maximize enjoyment. I mean, if our priorities didn't effect our gameplay experience, it'd be a really lame game. Actually, yours is the absolute while mine is just the possibility. You state your point is always in effect, while I state that there is room for exception. You have the absolute, not I. I do agree that the interference can be a good thing. In the end, what matters most (and here I believe we agree) is that those involved are enjoying their gaming experience, whether optimizing, role playing, or a combination of both. However, I stand by what I said. While they can interfere, it is not always the case. There is room for exception. I know this because I have seen this. I can only assume that you have not been fortunate eough to see this, or you would not believe what you believe.
calronmoonflower 01-29-08, 01:13 AM	From the thread that Ongorth pointed out. Its my moral duty to derail any thread where someone says "Stormwind Fallacy." Mostly because citing the Stormwind Fallacy is generally used to derail any sort of possibility of discussion in the first place. Unfortunately, I've been lazy lately and haven't been Johnny-on-the-Spot with those quippy comments. It think this calls you objectivity on the issue into question.
Ongorth 01-29-08, 01:14 AM	Now factor in the assumption that I factored out above and you'll see why your complaint really doesn't hold much water. Sure it does. It holds exactly as much water as it needs to. In fact it has to, because if it doesn't, that is to say a person's priorities are a non-factor in their gameplay experience. And besides, you can always go further in either direction. If you want to prioritize roleplaying (and I'm talking about the out of game part of it which certainly exists), there are lots of time consuming things you can do. If your character wears full plate armor, you can go out and try on full plate armor and see how it feels. If your character is a great orator, you can listen to speeches from great orators. You can take acting lessons. You could study your facial expressions in the mirror for hours. If your character grew up on a farm, you could go visit a farm. Or live on a farm for a year. In short, there is really no upper limit to what you can do. If you have a trust fund and prioritize the roleplaying aspect to the greatest degree, you could easily not have any time for optimization. There is always more you could do. The same goes in the other direction. Read every book. Participate in the optimization community. Become a professional writer and get your mechanics published so you can use them in your games. You could easily optimize so much you wouldn't have time to develop your character outside of there mechanical capabilities. The point is, I don't think anyone has ever seriously claimed that "You can optimize to some degree and roleplay to some degree at the same time." They've claimed that there is some interference, which I think is true. People have different amounts of time and talents. People don't all learn as quickly as each other and they don't learn all things equally fast. The mere fact the people prioritize these factors (and, I'd say, have to prioritize them), shows an interference. But its a good thing, because its how a player controls his experience.
Ongorth 01-29-08, 01:18 AM	It think this calls you objectivity on the issue into question. When wasn't my objectivity in question? I mean, Mock26 called his observation "Ongorth's Law" for a reason. Not just because he thinks I'm sexy.
Jaxgaret 01-29-08, 01:20 AM	Sure it does. It holds exactly as much water as it needs to. In fact it has to, because if it doesn't, that is to say a person's priorities are a non-factor in their gameplay experience. And besides, you can always go further in either direction. If you want to prioritize roleplaying (and I'm talking about the out of game part of it which certainly exists), there are lots of time consuming things you can do. If your character wears full plate armor, you can go out and try on full plate armor and see how it feels. If your character is a great orator, you can listen to speeches from great orators. You can take acting lessons. You could study your facial expressions in the mirror for hours. If your character grew up on a farm, you could go visit a farm. Or live on a farm for a year. In short, there is really no upper limit to what you can do. If you have a trust fund and prioritize the roleplaying aspect to the greatest degree, you could easily not have any time for optimization. There is always more you could do. The same goes in the other direction. Read every book. Participate in the optimization community. Become a professional writer and get your mechanics published so you can use them in your games. You could easily optimize so much you wouldn't have time to develop your character outside of there mechanical capabilities. The point is, I don't think anyone has ever seriously claimed that "You can optimize to some degree and roleplay to some degree at the same time." They've claimed that there is some interference, which I think is true. People have different amounts of time and talents. People don't all learn as quickly as each other and they don't learn all things equally fast. The mere fact the people prioritize these factors (and, I'd say, have to prioritize them), shows an interference. But its a good thing, because its how a player controls his experience. You're assuming that going through all that method acting training will improve the roleplaying performance, which it may or may not. Roleplaying is limited to the time from when the DM says go until you stop playing. Anything outside of that frame doesn't directly contribute to roleplaying, though it may or may not aid it. Remember that 'roleplaying well' really means 'contributing in-game to the group experience of having fun', not 'making sure that everything is historically and kinesthetically accurate', so 'how well you roleplay' is a completely subjective measure. Beauty is in the eye of the beholder, as it were.
Ongorth 01-29-08, 01:24 AM	However, I stand by what I said. While they can interfere, it is not always the case. There is room for exception. I know this because I have seen this. I can only assume that you have been fortunate eough to see this, or you would not believe what you believe. All I know is (and this happens all the time) I have to make hard choices during my prep time. Like, when I make a monster, I have to decide how much effort I want to put into making the monster thematically interesting and how much I want to put into making him mechanically interesting. Its requires making priorities and depends heavily on third factor variables (usually time). Sure, once in a while I might have a stroke of genius, but generally I've got to think hard and decide where the monster benefit best because there is no way I can make it a paragon of both. I can make it good in both ways usually (I hope), but I know that if I had neglected one end, I could certainly have done the other better.
Ongorth 01-29-08, 01:26 AM	Remember that 'roleplaying well' really means 'contributing in-game to the group experience of having fun', not 'making sure that everything is historically and kinesthetically accurate', so 'how well you roleplay' is a completely subjective measure. If 'how well you roleplay' is completely subjective, then how is the Stormwind Opinion actually commenting on a relationship with it? The Stormwind Opinion specifically uses the word "worse," so where is this going? In other words, how doesn't this support my claim that it is meaningless, useless and unable to be used in actual conversation?
Toran_A_Sunder 01-29-08, 01:31 AM	I can make it good in both ways usually (I hope), but I know that if I had neglected one end, I could certainly have done the other better. Exactly my point. See, we've been in agreement this whole time, you just didn't know it ;) You can optimize your monster and make it thematically interesting. That's all I've been trying to say. One doesn't cancel the other out. Optimization and role playing cant coexist or exist independantly of one another, on a case by case basis.
Jaxgaret 01-29-08, 01:36 AM	If 'how well you roleplay' is completely subjective, then how is the Stormwind Opinion actually commenting on a relationship with it? The Stormwind Opinion specifically uses the word "worse," so where is this going? In other words, how doesn't this support my claim that it is meaningless, useless and unable to be used in actual conversation? My point was that the gaming group judges how well you roleplay, not that there is no judgment. Thus you can spend all the world outside the actual gaming session attempting to make your in-game roleplaying 'better', but it may not help. It may actually detract from your roleplaying performance, so increased roleplaying preparation does not necessarily equal improved roleplaying. You don't judge your own roleplaying, in other words. You can't, because it's subjective, not objective.
Ongorth 01-29-08, 01:36 AM	1. He did say what you are saying that he said. He was talking about himself. 2. It does indeed appear to be a Stormwind fallacy as it points to the increase of power as the proof that roleplaying is hindered rather than the quality of the roleplaying. 3. If you look at the title of the thread "Does it go against the spirit of roleplaying to choose a race just for its stat bonus" it would appear that the question being asked it the impact of making a choice for power impacting roleplaying. If you go further and read the first post it is asked if preventing chooses for power will increase roleplaying. So it is asked if weakening characters will increase roleplaying. The answer is that is a Stormwind Fallacy. Except, as you showed me, the Stormwind Fallacy ONLY addresses mutual exclusivity. In fact, you implied I never read it AND bolded my sentence to make this point. The issue in this thread is one of granularity. "Increase Roleplaying" and "Spirit of Roleplaying", whatever that means, are the topics at hand. In the case of this player's group, it may very well be the case that lowering power will increase roleplaying for some reason, even if it involves a third factor variable that links between the known issues. Saying Stormwind Fallacy doesn't do anything for the conversation.
Tempest Stormwind 01-29-08, 01:37 AM	All valid, Ongorth, but I don't see how they support your point instead of mine. See, once I've tried on plate armor to learn how it feels, I don't need to do so again every time I make a fighter-type in plate armor. Read every book. Participate in the optimization community. Become a professional writer and get your mechanics published so you can use them in your games. You could easily optimize so much you wouldn't have time to develop your character outside of there mechanical capabilities. Seeing as I've done all of these (the only 3.5 books I haven't read are some of the lore-only ones relating to FR, I'm a CO regular to the point of having been asked to join the CO Focus Group (http://forums.gleemax.com/showthread.php?p=13429663#post13429663) and nominated as CO forum lead (http://forums.gleemax.com/showthread.php?p=14561117#post14561117), and I have not only co-authored (http://forums.gleemax.com/showthread.php?t=645966) a 220-page (and popular) sourcebook (http://www.rpgnow.com/product_info.php?manufacturers_id=744&products_id=24061&it=1&filters=0_0_0&manufacturers_id=744), but also co-founded an Open Game development/publishing company (http://www.rpgnow.com/index.php?filters=0_0_0&manufacturers_id=744) to publish it), and still manage to pull off well-RPed characters at the game table (in the judgement of others, mind you), I think I might stand as a counterexample to your complaint myself. Furthermore, how does the DM fit into your complaint? He invariably has a bigger workload than the characters do, mechanically (statting the NPCs), dramatically (acting out the entire world), and adventurously (the best adverb I could think of to describe planning adventures, which fall in between the two). By your reasoning, anyone who's good at one has to do it at the expense of the others, which means DMs are invariably going to be bad at one of the above if they even want to approach a player's level of skill. More than one grognard I know of would take offense to that claim. By my reasoning, a DM can learn and grow, improving on a weak area while retaining areas of former proficiency. A GM good at statting NPCs and acting them out, but poor at adventure design, can spend lots of time designing adventures without having a serious impact on his NPCs' stats or actions -- and in fact, his proficiency with either allows him to generate those NPCs on the fly. Your typical greybeard DM from First Edition is capable of generating all the adventure hooks and NPC acting on the fly with no prep whatsoever because he's been doing it for years, but because he's playing 3.5 he's unfamiliar with the rules and allocates more of his time to statting things out (well, in theory; most greybeards are more likely to invent stats instead of working strictly by the rules, but the point is he's still generating stats). How, exactly, does this phenomenon fit with your zero-sum complaint?
calronmoonflower 01-29-08, 01:40 AM	When wasn't my objectivity in question? Well generally I wouldn't start from the assumption that you are just trying to derail the thread instead of arguing logically. However, you say that is exactly what you try to do when the Stormwind fallacy is mentioned. As you credibility is in doubt all your arguments should be given greater scrutiny. Beyond that issue: I would flat out say that optimization can interfere with roleplaying. However I agree with the Stormwind Fallacy as the basic logic behind the arguments that it refutes is utterly flawed. If the Stormwind Fallacy was false a commoner with all 3's should always be a well roleplayed character. In reality I don't think many could actually roleplay this. So the lack of power can in and of itself interfere with roleplaying. As it is many can both build and roleplay very powerful characters. Not all will be able to do so, but the power of the character is not the proper measure of your roleplaying. Instead your roleplaying is the proper measure of your roleplaying.
Ongorth 01-29-08, 01:46 AM	My point was that the gaming group judges how well you roleplay, not that there is no judgment. I'm well aware. I just find it hard to believe that priorities and preparation are somehow irrelevant to the quality of the end product. I mean, I suppose they could be irrelevant. I am the person who said that tangentially related factors can't be mutually exclusive and I'll also say that they can't be mutually inclusive, though I thought what went without saying. So, where are you leading us now? Since there is no guarantee that a player's preparation will have an absolute effect on the gameplay experience, does the gameplay experience happen randomly and independently of the work put into it? I certainly don't think so. The gameplay experience is shaped by the actions and experiences of the players. It might not perfectly mirror of their intentions, but it is reflective of them. Much like quality of optimization and roleplaying are reflective of the actions and experiences of the individual, even if the product is not a perfect mirror of the goals they set.
Ongorth 01-29-08, 01:55 AM	Seeing as I've done all of these (the only 3.5 books I haven't read are some of the lore-only ones relating to FR, I'm a CO regular to the point of having been asked to join the CO Focus Group (http://forums.gleemax.com/showthread.php?p=13429663#post13429663) and nominated as CO forum lead (http://forums.gleemax.com/showthread.php?p=14561117#post14561117), and I have not only co-authored (http://forums.gleemax.com/showthread.php?t=645966) a 220-page (and popular) sourcebook (http://www.rpgnow.com/product_info.php?manufacturers_id=744&products_id=24061&it=1&filters=0_0_0&manufacturers_id=744), but also co-founded an Open Game development/publishing company (http://www.rpgnow.com/index.php?filters=0_0_0&manufacturers_id=744) to publish it), and still manage to pull off well-RPed characters at the game table (in the judgement of others, mind you), I think I might stand as a counterexample to your complaint myself. So you honestly think there is nothing more you could do? At the very least, there is more networking to be done and more books to write. And also don't you think that perhaps the reason you are so good at everything is because you have a higher threshold of resources? I mean, we know you have plenty time to think about D&D (just look at your body of work), you have a talent for numbers and logic, an extensive network of minds to work with, are very intellegent (I mean, you said so yourself, it must be true!), and perhaps other things the average forumgoer doesn't know about. Might those third factor variables be a little bit important? I'm not saying you can't be good or great at both, but I'm saying you could always do a little more. Those greybeard DMs could add to their pool of improv acting by studying more characters. They could improve their encounter design skills by studying more modules. Or just plain practicing more. There is always more you can do and you can't do it more. I'm certainly not saying there isn't diminishing returns. At some point, the advances in either field become barely relevant. But there is never complete mastery and more importantly most people never have the luxury of reaching that point anyway because they don't prioritize the time to ever even get close anyway. For those people, the choices they make on how they develop their gameplay experience are very valid and simply saying: "Oh can do everything well" doesn't speak to that reality. Personally, I'm not modest. As a DM I would knock your socks off. And the reason I will is because I learn, like you say, but more importantly because I know I can't do everything and carefully decide what to work on and what to sluff.
I_Use_Ref_Discretion 01-29-08, 01:58 AM	I'll let your definition of optimization stand. I still state the lack of literacy doesn't handicap a player from roleplaying that character fine... Since min/maxing and CharOptimization is strictly about maximum combat potential, then, like I said before, all other build choices are not min/maxing or CharOptimization if they do not further maximum combat potential (decisions on a character build for roleplaying, like literacy, would then fall into this category). You could be right if we fall back to the issue of what "good" roleplaying is, but nobody could ever define it adequately for all persons to agree; so this is a dead end. You're wrong if a person wished his 1st level barbarian to be equal to all other player classes in the basic game: that the "wasting" of skills points on literacy (for a roleplaying benefit) would then draw away from it's total combat potential.
calronmoonflower 01-29-08, 01:59 AM	Except, as you showed me, the Stormwind Fallacy ONLY addresses mutual exclusivity. In fact, you implied I never read it AND bolded my sentence to make this point. The issue in this thread is one of granularity. "Increase Roleplaying" and "Spirit of Roleplaying", whatever that means, are the topics at hand. In the case of this player's group, it may very well be the case that lowering power will increase roleplaying for some reason, even if it involves a third factor variable that links between the known issues. Saying Stormwind Fallacy doesn't do anything for the conversation. 1. No, it doesn't to the part that I have bolded. It says that they are independent not that that they are mutually exclusive. At this point I beginning to think that you are using a straw man (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strawman) rather that actually countering the fallacy. 2. As I have pointed out several times. The Stormwind fallacy points out faulty logic. Faulty logic by its nature interferes with and argument. once you get it out of the way you can then move forward. It may be that that particular group does better within limits. However, nothing was put forth to justify that position. So then you start working form a unproved assumption and thus the likely hood of reaching a wrong conclusion increases. The point of an argument is to find the truth. The more assumptions and bad logic that you use the more likely that the truth will never be found. Thus the entire point is negated, making the whole process a waste of time. So, pointing out a true Stormwind Fallacy when it arises in fact helps the discussion more forward. It seems it is the argument against it that doesn't add anything to the conversation. If in a specific circumstance you lay out a logical argument in which power gaming interferes with roleplaying or vice versa that is fine. However you cannot just say that they do, as it has been shown in a logical manner that this need not be the case.
Ongorth 01-29-08, 02:04 AM	Exactly my point. See, we've been in agreement this whole time, you just didn't know it ;) I had a feeling we were, we just come to our consensus from drastically different places.
CryoSilver 01-29-08, 02:04 AM	Since min/maxing and CharOptimization is strictly about maximum combat potential, then, like I said before, all other build choices are not min/maxing or CharOptimization if they do not further maximum combat potential (decisions on a character build for roleplaying, like literacy, would then fall into this category). I disagree. Min/maxing is all about maximizing "something," which could be combat, or could be something else. Unless you think those insane Diplomacy builds floating around aren't min/maxing?
I_Use_Ref_Discretion 01-29-08, 02:08 AM	If you insist on that definition of Optimization then yes you are correct. The Stormwind fallacy is false. Of course the fact that no one in Char Op uses that definiion, and several char op builds distinctly don't follow that principle means that your definition is less then useful. Frankly, I don't believe they're being honest when they contend that min/maxing and CharOp isn't about maximum combat potential - and, instead, it's about "roleplaying". We are discussing min/maxing and CharOp, which occurs when building a character even before it's played. Even the SWF itself argues that purposefully making a character weak doesn't preclude it from being "roleplayed well" - therefore, arguing that a fully combat optimized and min/maxed character (with no weaknesses added) is true "CharOp" min/maxing is perfectly acceptable to use as a point of argument and basis of definition. If the SWF is as ironclad as it's proponents claim, it should welcome that challenge.
Tempest Stormwind 01-29-08, 02:08 AM	So you honestly think there is nothing more you could do? At the very least, there is more networking to be done and more books to write. I'm not saying you can't be good or great at both, but I'm saying you could always do a little more. Those greybeard DMs could add to their pool of improv acting by studying more characters. They could improve their encounter design skills by studying more modules. Or just plain practicing more. There is always more you can do and you can't do it more. I'm certainly not saying there isn't diminishing returns. At some point, the advances in either field become barely relevant. But there is never complete mastery and more importantly most people never have the luxury of reaching that point anyway because they don't prioritize the time to ever even get close anyway. For those people, the choices they make on how they develop their gameplay experience are very valid and simply saying: "Oh can do everything well" doesn't speak to that reality. You've changed your argument. It originally was that time prepping RP and time prepping optimization cut into each other. Here, you say that advances in either field can become barely relevant -- which is a side effect of my point, that people can learn -- followed by the self-evident statement that there's never complete mastery (meaning people always have more to learn and can always keep on improving; the alternative is that you or I might be, right now, as good as we will ever be, never improving -- an oppressive thought, to say the least). A corollary of your new statements, quoted above, is that people can improve in one area to the point where they, practically, don't need to anymore. This applies to both mechanics and RP -- and, interestingly enough, it relies on practicality, an issue you consistently raise with the SWF (i.e. "it's just theoretical, in practice things are different"). There are people that don't fit this bill -- people with no interest in learning to play the game better (for *any* definition of "Better". **) But these people aren't likely to play the game for very long either -- they're usually people like the disinterested girlfriend/boyfriend, the pick-up player, the 13-year-old-at-the-game-store (a literal 'munchkin' by one definition), and so on. The more time people invest in a hobby, the more likely they are to care about it, and the more they care about the hobby the more likely they are to strive to improve themselves. I've been studying climate a lot lately; this has all the characteristics of a feedback cycle in it. Or, if economics are your thing, it's more like compound interest. Make the original investment needed to kickstart this -- teach your poor players (either those with poor RP skills, poor mastery of mechanics, or both), and see where that takes you. Don't automatically assume a confrontational stance, thinking "oh, that munchkin'll never make a believable character" or "that drama queen contributes less than the commoner henchman lugging our gear". Encourage, don't oppress, and see where it takes you. In my experience, it tends to pay off far more in the long run, particularly if people you teach the game to go on to other game tables and help others. ...Okay, that was sappy. But the point holds. This game is already enough of a niche -- it doesn't need internal schisms on top of its social stigma. (And I have no doubt that you're a better DM than I am. I'm quite inexperienced, particularly on adventure design. However, my background in optimization and RP allows me to develop those parts of a game in significantly less time, meaning I can spend more time on practicing adventure design, even under your zero-sum assumption. I hope to one day be as good as you claim you are (I have no reason to doubt you, but since I haven't played under you I can't be certain); since I'm learning, I may hit that point some day. We'll see what my players think after I'm finished our current campaign.) ** A valid complaint you raised earlier was that the SWF says "better" in the context of roleplaying, an inherently subjective experience. I'd just like to say that the terminology I used was originally chosen because my opponents were using phrases like "your roleplay will be the better for it." However, in the modern context, it still applies -- I posit that it holds regardless of your subjective definition of "better". Just like a person can correctly say that "people tend to eat things that taste better" (despite the fact that quality of taste is pretty much definitively subjective; I'm not a spice fan while my brother lives and breathes curry, for instance), I'm issuing a similar generalized statement that holds regardless of subjectivity. But this point is one best left argued for later, since I'm very tired and have early work tomorrow.
Toran_A_Sunder 01-29-08, 02:10 AM	I had a feeling we were, we just come to our consensus from drastically different places. It happens. I tend to look at things from a vastly dffierent position than most people. And while on some things I think we may still disagree, this is, to me, what's most important about this whole mushuga argument. We both, I think, agree that the two can coexist. But... ...well crap now I've gone and forgotten what we disagreed on. :P
Ongorth 01-29-08, 02:11 AM	1. No, it doesn't to the part that I have bolded. It says that they are independent not that that they are mutually exclusive. Which, as I said before, says nothing because all tangential factors have some degree of independence. If they didn't, they wouldn't be tangential! They'd be the same thing and we wouldn't call them two different things. The problem by assuming that they are independent, that this means they can't be directly compared and to do so is a problem. If this were true, you couldn't compare any two tangentially related factors, because the Stormwind Fallacy applies equally to all of them! That would really limit what we can talk about.
Lokiyn 01-29-08, 02:12 AM	Just out of curiosity, am i the only one who seems to think that there is an entire side of the arguments being ignored? That is, In the argument that Optimization detracts from roleplay, and Roleplay detracts from optimization, what happened to all the optimization that enhances Roleplay. Just as a simple example, if i want to play a sneak thief, i would "optimize" for the mechanics "hide/move silently/thieving skills" which allows me to better "Roleplay" the concept "Sneak-Thief" If optimization can (and does) enhance ones ability to roleplay a concept in the context of the game, then how can one, legitimately, claim the opposite Oh and as a short aside to a previous post on the last page about "builds" being gamist rather than simulationist, The Organic character is a complete and total myth, or rather. Its more gamist to treat the 30 min to an hour of a character's life represented in a single 4-8 hour session as the totality of a characters experience and make character decisions based off of that. A build is generally based off of the idea that out of the 24 hour day - 8 hours for sleep - 4 hours for personal time and roughly an hour under direct control of the players each character has roughly 11 hours a day to work on all those skills and abilities they are going to acquire in the next level (which in all honest is better roleplaying that "i jumped about for about 18 seconds in the last combat (used jump skill) so i'll put some ranks in jump"
calronmoonflower 01-29-08, 02:18 AM	Ongorth, One can impact the other, but you must show the connection when you make the argument. The Stormwind Fallacy points out one way that doesn't work for this. So if you back it up with another means that just saying X is powerful so it will not be roleplayed well, then you will have to state your premises and then those premises can then be refuted/affirmed.
Ongorth 01-29-08, 02:21 AM	A corollary of your new statements, quoted above, is that people can improve in one area to the point where they, practically, don't need to anymore. This applies to both mechanics and RP -- and, interestingly enough, it relies on practicality, an issue you consistently raise with the SWF (i.e. "it's just theoretical, in practice things are different"). That's actually Mock26. I think the "point" of the Stormwind Opinion is true. However, the actual formulation is bad, mostly because interference creates priorities which creates control over the gameplay experience, which is good. Having the choice is good. If there was no interference there'd be no need to chose. I mean, you could, but why when you can just have both? The choice is part of how I can personalize the game to my taste, which is a good thing. I mean, I'd venture to say people who prioritize roleplaying directly at the expense of optimization have a distinctly different roleplaying experience then those who prioritize roleplaying while still encouraging optimization. (And I have no doubt that you're a better DM than I am. I'm quite inexperienced, particularly on adventure design. However, my background in optimization and RP allows me to develop those parts of a game in significantly less time, meaning I can spend more time on practicing adventure design, even under your zero-sum assumption. I hope to one day be as good as you claim you are (I have no reason to doubt you, but since I haven't played under you I can't be certain); since I'm learning, I may hit that point some day. We'll see what my players think after I'm finished our current campaign.) Since you were asking about how this all relates to DM, I'd say it really relates most to DMing because there is more to do DMing (even though I already said the things you can do to improve as a player are infinite). The idea is to develop the elements that are most important to making an enjoyable game experience. In all my experience, this only happens by carefully prioritizing because you have two important limited resources: time the prepare (which varies a lot) and time to present (which is extremely strict, as it is governed by 1,000 factors).
Ongorth 01-29-08, 02:25 AM	Ongorth, One can impact the other, but you must show the connection when you make the argument. The Stormwind Fallacy points out one way that doesn't work for this. So if you back it up with another means that just saying X is powerful so it will not be roleplayed well, then you will have to state your premises and then those premises can then be refuted/affirmed. But, in our thread in question, the poster did not have any premises. Indeed, he was asking the crowd what they thought. Someone could have certainly come along and had the "answer he was looking for". Ending the thread before that happens by saying "Your question isn't valid" kills the chance of that happening. It doesn't add to the conversation in any way because all it is saying is that those two factors aren't necessarily related. Well yeah. If he knew they were related for sure, why would he ask the question? He'd know!
calronmoonflower 01-29-08, 02:26 AM	That's actually Mock26. I think the "point" of the Stormwind Opinion is true. However, the actual formulation is bad, mostly because interference creates priorities which creates control over the gameplay experience, which is good. Having the choice is good. If there was no interference there'd be no need to chose. I mean, you could, but why when you can just have both? No, it points out a fallacious way to make the argument. One point is that powergaming can enhance roleplaying. After all if you play a master swordsman you should be good as swords play. If you suck at it you cannot roleplay the consept well.
Ongorth 01-29-08, 02:30 AM	No, it points out a fallacious way to make the argument. One point is that powergaming can enhance roleplaying. After all if you play a master swordsman you should be good as swords play. If you suck at it you cannot roleplay the consept well. If you're actually making this point, you've missed the point. I'm going to give you the benefit of the doubt and assume this is a joke and that I don't get it because you're way smarter then me. Actually, that was unclear. You're talking about such a low level of competence in both optimization and roleplaying, that the threshold of resources to accomplish this is attainable by almost anyone. The interference is determined by the threshold of resources. The more resources (time, experience, talent, etc.) you have, the more you can do. The interference comes when you try to do more or more difficult things.
Toran_A_Sunder 01-29-08, 02:33 AM	No matter how well written an idea is, if someone comes along and disagrees with it, they will argue against it till they are blue in the face, simply because they dont believe it. The SWF, I think, does make a valid point. However, I think that in his effort to write it like a scientific theorem/mathematical equation, Tempest made the reading of it somewhat confusing for some people, hense a lot of the arguing. Also, some people just genuinely believe that if you're an optimizer you cant role play, and if you are a role player, you couldnt optimize your way out of a scurvy infested goblin camp. In the end, we're playing a game, not attempting to win Nobel Prizes. As i've stated in many threads many times before, its not how you play the game that matters, but that you and those you are gaming with are all enjoying yourselves. Whether that be optimizing, role playing, combining the both, or throwing them out the window.
Ongorth 01-29-08, 02:45 AM	In the end, we're playing a game, not attempting to win Nobel Prizes. I actually am. After every game session I think, "Was that the best game session ever?" If it isn't, I make sure the next one is.
calronmoonflower 01-29-08, 02:48 AM	But, in our thread in question, the poster did not have any premises. he also didn't give an data to draw any conclusions from. Indeed, he was asking the crowd what they thought. Someone could have certainly come along and had the "answer he was looking for". But would it be the right answer. Ending the thread before that happens by saying "Your question isn't valid" kills the chance of that happening. No, it gives him a chance to put forth examples so a proper conclusion could be reached. It is perfectly valid to change an argument to get rid of fallacies or add data so a question could be answered properly. If you don't point this out then it "kills the chance of that happening." It doesn't add to the conversation in any way because all it is saying is that those two factors aren't necessarily related. I have countered this argument several times, and you have ignored it. It is reaching the point of proof by assertion (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proof_by_assertion). Fallacies imped the chance of the truth being found and thus negates the very point of the discussion and prevent the thread from moving forward properly.
Mock26 01-29-08, 02:51 AM	I mean, Mock26 called his observation "Ongorth's Law" for a reason. Not just because he thinks I'm sexy. True. But, don't sell yourself short, Ongorth! You're no slouch! :D
Mock26 01-29-08, 02:53 AM	Godwin's Law (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwin%27s_law) is a caution against referencing Nazism/Hitler too often, so that when such a reference is actually warranted, its full impact is felt. Thus, there is a reason for the citation. And Ongorth's Law is a caution against referencing the Stormwind Fallcy too often, so that when such a reference is actually warranted, its full impact is felt. Thus, there is a reason for the citation.
Mock26 01-29-08, 02:58 AM	So I've heard, but I've never actually seen it used except to counter the same arguments I wrote it for. Do you have a link to demonstrate someone misusing it? (Yes, I agree it can be misused. I actually revised the definition a while back so that anyone linking it should see that it doesn't mean "I min/max, therefore I'm a good roleplayer" or similar garbage. (More accurately, it should say "I roleplay, therefore you can conclude nothing about my min/max potential. I'm not min/maxing, therefore you can conclude nothing about my roleplaying." or similar.) I mean, that's obvious from the basic original definition, but I called it out explicitly due to responses from people like you in spite of never seeing it used that way myself.) Unfortunately, I don't have any links. While I subscribe to a ton of threads I rarely keep any of them in my mind if they are more than 2 or 3 pages out of date. But, I do recall one thread (though I do not have a link) where I said something along the line that "sometimes it does come down to a difference of roleplaying and rollplaying." And, people jumped in with the Stormwind Fallacy. I my mind there was no need to quip in with that bit of information. It wasn't needed. I saw it as nothing more than an attempt to shout down someone's opinion that someone didn't agree with.
calronmoonflower 01-29-08, 03:01 AM	If you're actually making this point, you've missed the point. Or you missed the point. I'm going to give you the benefit of the doubt and assume this is a joke and that I don't get it because you're way smarter then me. No joke. Powergaming can enhance roleplaying. Doing so involves skills that go beyond either roleplaying and power gaming. You're talking about such a low level of competence in both optimization and roleplaying, that the threshold of resources to accomplish this is attainable by almost anyone. The interference is determined by the threshold of resources. The more resources (time, experience, talent, etc.) you have, the more you can do. The interference comes when you try to do more or more difficult things. You have yet to show that resources are actually limited enough to actually cause this. In some cases it may very well happen. But you cannot say that this will always (or even usually) be the case. Your argument has just been summed up as "they can interfere, so they will interfere." This is a slippery slop fallacy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slippery_slope#The_slippery_slope_as_fal lacy) as can ≠ will. In ignoring the other possibilities along the spectrum you end up with a false dilemma (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_dilemma). It utterly fails to take into consideration that a person might hold back on to the point that it will not interfere with the other, or that they may not be able to do one to the point that it must interfere with the other.
Jaxgaret 01-29-08, 03:41 AM	I'm well aware. I just find it hard to believe that priorities and preparation are somehow irrelevant to the quality of the end product. They're not irrelevant. I was saying that your equating of specific priorities and preparation methods to quality of roleplay does not always hold true. Thus, your statement was incorrect. I mean, I suppose they could be irrelevant. I am the person who said that tangentially related factors can't be mutually exclusive and I'll also say that they can't be mutually inclusive, though I thought what went without saying. So, where are you leading us now? Since there is no guarantee that a player's preparation will have an absolute effect on the gameplay experience, does the gameplay experience happen randomly and independently of the work put into it? It depends on the player and the environment. Much like most outcomes. The gameplay experience is shaped by the actions and experiences of the players. It might not perfectly mirror of their intentions, but it is reflective of them. Much like quality of optimization and roleplaying are reflective of the actions and experiences of the individual, even if the product is not a perfect mirror of the goals they set. Right. I think you may have missed my point entirely, since you are still attempting to disagree with some portion of what I wrote. Simply put, it was that increased roleplay preparation does not always lead to increased roleplay quality. And Ongorth's Law is a caution against referencing the Stormwind Fallcy too often, so that when such a reference is actually warranted, its full impact is felt. Thus, there is a reason for the citation. I never said anything about Ongorth's Law whatsoever.
Shadowhowler 01-29-08, 03:53 AM	This thread makes my brain cry. :weep: I honestly don't see how any gamer of experince could argure with the Stormwind Fallacy's basic meaning. I *DO* think it gets tossed around often to defend optimization... however, in fairness, those who do so probably feel that their style of play is often attacked. I make no atempts to hide the fact that I prefer an immersive psudo-realistic aproch to my gaming... and that I dislike the idea of optimization more then a little bit, and have disliked most players I have played with who call themselves optimizers. However, even making that statment... it does not change the basic fact that one *CAN* both roleplay and optimize, and even do so well. I have done so, I know and have played with others that have done so. While these experinces are FAR in the minority over experinces I have had with optimizers who could not roleplay their way out of a wet paper bag, the mere fact that it has happened ONCE, let alone many times, proves the Stormwind Fallacy is true. However, I'd like to pose a side question somewhat relavent to the current line of thought. Tempest suggested earlier in this thread that players could be taught to do both optimization and roleplaying in game. This got me thinking. It's been my experince with RPG players that a better rules understanding can be taught... or just learned with time and experince... but that roleplaying skills are less of a 'taught' skill and more of an inate trait. A 'you either have it or you don't' sort of thing... like rhythm. Most new players I have gamed with over the years... if they are good roleplayers... they came 'out of the box' roleplaying fairly well and got better. If not, they started out bad and either didn't improve or only improved a small amount. However... a lot of players I know who started new over time developed a keen understanding of the rules and how to exploit them. Has anyone eles found this to be the case?
Leo 01-29-08, 08:56 AM	You have yet to show that resources are actually limited enough to actually cause this. In some cases it may very well happen. But you cannot say that this will always (or even usually) be the case. If all a person did was playing D&D, no, the resources won't be limited... In real world where you have studies, jobs, sports and a dozen other things to worry about yes, the resources will be limited. I readed several D&D books and I know more rules than the remaining of my group put togheter, plus surfing the CO boards for some years. The other players would like to know all of this. But they play Wow or have some sport acticity or are really dedicated to their studies or just like more other game and only end up reading a tiny fraction of the books we have. Don't pretend D&D is a simple game. It's probably the most complicated hobby game ever created. Being an effecient optimizer demands a great deal of work, train and rules reading. It takes time. LOTS of it. Time most people don't have to spare. Roleplaying is a more instictive thing, but it also takes time. Geting a backstory, thinking about how your character should act and think, your aspect, your objectives, etc, etc So yes, if a person claims it's a good optimizer, chances are that he didn't have much time to develop his roleplaying side. As for the slippery slope, isn't suported by civil law. For example: When you drive drunk you have a greater chance of having an acident. But it's not 100% certain they will have an acident, so people should be allowed to drive drunken. Hmm, I think the cops will disagree with you if they catch you driving drunk. Fallaccies are always nice on paper. When applied to the real world they normally fail.
Lokiyn 01-29-08, 10:22 AM	So yes, if a person claims it's a good optimizer, chances are that he didn't have much time to develop his roleplaying side. Which would be true if and only if optimization is mutually exclusive to roleplaying. At their heart the two really have almost identical skills. One winnows out mechanics from a broad set in terms of a concept, while the other winnows out responses to an event from all possible actions in terms of a concept. Both are, at their heart, a method of filtering out a multitude of options into a single choice. Acting, on the other hand, is not roleplaying. Using a funny voice and goofy costumes and a stack of backstory means nothing to roleplaying. (By which i mean making decisions and choices based on a particular character's perspective rather than the player's perspective)
Tempest Stormwind 01-29-08, 11:05 AM	I honestly don't see how any gamer of experince could argure with the Stormwind Fallacy's basic meaning. I *DO* think it gets tossed around often to defend optimization... however, in fairness, those who do so probably feel that their style of play is often attacked. That's also why I phrased it the way I did instead of the equivalent "Well-roleplayed characters are not necessarily poorly-optimized"-type statements -- because arguments using the logic the SWF opposes are, almost invariably, from the "I'm a ROLE-player and I don't min-max" crowd. I have heard, secondhand, only one report of it coming from the other side. So yes, it defends optimization -- but it equally so defends RP. The difference is that only one of those is attacked and maligned on a regular basis. Why people do that so one-dimensionally baffles me. Tempest suggested earlier in this thread that players could be taught to do both optimization and roleplaying in game. This got me thinking. It's been my experince with RPG players that a better rules understanding can be taught... or just learned with time and experince... but that roleplaying skills are less of a 'taught' skill and more of an inate trait. A 'you either have it or you don't' sort of thing... like rhythm. Most new players I have gamed with over the years... if they are good roleplayers... they came 'out of the box' roleplaying fairly well and got better. If not, they started out bad and either didn't improve or only improved a small amount. However... a lot of players I know who started new over time developed a keen understanding of the rules and how to exploit them. Has anyone eles found this to be the case? No more than you can't teach someone drama and theatre (my brother, a drama minor, might take issue with that). RP can be taught as well, either through self-discovery or external coaching. (I had both; For example, I had the ins and outs of certain racial psychologies explained to me by a few DMs and books, while I learned to play female characters by trying (and failing) to do so several times before I finally got it down.) RP does appear to be easier to pick up and transfer for people naturally skilled in it -- because really, it's a transferrable skill that they could have picked up elsewhere. Meanwhile, even a brilliant mathematician needs time to get used to the mechanics if he's never played a d20 game before, so there's a brief lag there.
RadicalTaoist 01-29-08, 11:55 AM	You can certainly roleplay to some degree while optimizing to some degree. However, the Stormwind Opinion claims that optimizing and roleplaying don't interfere with each other, which implies much more then that (and if it doesn't, the fallacy is applicationally useless anyway). What the hell is this Stormwind Opinion? I don't think even Stormwind supports the Stormwind Opinion. I'll stick to the logical fallacy, or the Cycle Hypothesis as formulated in the OP. It implies that the quantity of one doesn't interfere with the other, which is basically impossible to prove. I'll put this simply. If you accept that roleplaying a concept can be compromised by an optimization choice ("Joe, that feat you took doesn't make your swashbuckler fight like a swashbuckler...at all...") you have to accept that roleplaying a concept can be assisted by an optimization choice ("Joe, your character's acting just like you described him! What feat did you take?"). It logically follows; you can't reject this without giving up any ground from which to criticize the fallacy. Now, how does an optimizer make sure his op-choices don't compromise his RP-choices? By getting good at the third skill of coordinating the two. This is the theory I outline in the first post of this thread, and the argumentation is very solid. I'd venture that you can't come up with a counterexample that can't be explained away with a third factor variable like total time spent, talent or experience. My theory takes time spent using the skills, time spent developing the skills, and experience into account. Read the OP please. Since min/maxing and CharOptimization is strictly about maximum combat potential, then, like I said before, all other build choices are not min/maxing or CharOptimization if they do not further maximum combat potential (decisions on a character build for roleplaying, like literacy, would then fall into this category). Are you arguing from the definition of "optimization" is "combat stuff" and "roleplaying" is "non-combat stuff"? Just to clarify. If you are, then your argument that the two is circular. Circular and weak, actually, since you can use combat abilities to some degree outside of combat and vice versa. You could be right if we fall back to the issue of what "good" roleplaying is, but nobody could ever define it adequately for all persons to agree; so this is a dead end. You're wrong if a person wished his 1st level barbarian to be equal to all other player classes in the basic game: that the "wasting" of skills points on literacy (for a roleplaying benefit) would then draw away from it's total combat potential.Literacy isn't necessarily a roleplaying benefit. And as the earlier UMD example Daidoji used (think it was him), it could be a combat benefit if used to get into that skill. Again, it does not matter what definition of roleplaying is used. My contention is this: Any definition of roleplaying will either be designed to be mutually exclusive with optimization; therefore an argument employing it against the SWF will be circular. be nonsensical (in the same vein of the definition of optimization countered by the Pun-Pun as Super Actor argument). Not contradict the Stormwind Fallacy. This is not the Fallacy's weak point. So yes, if a person claims it's a good optimizer, chances are that he didn't have much time to develop his roleplaying side.*ahem* My theory in the OP explains why this might be the case and how to prevent it being the case, so that both roleplaying and optimization can be given a good amount of time so neither is neglected. Read the OP people. And poor Lokiyn's posts. He got so ignored.
Toran_A_Sunder 01-29-08, 12:43 PM	This thread is making my brain hurt.
Toran_A_Sunder 01-29-08, 12:49 PM	I still stand by what I said before: I think that most of the people who think the SWF is false, who think that if you are an optimizer you cant role play and if yu are a role player you cant optimize, are in fact one or the other of those types of gamers. And because thats what they are, they "logically" conclude that it must be the case with every other gamer.
Mock26 01-29-08, 01:23 PM	I never said anything about Ongorth's Law whatsoever. No, you didn't. But, I mentioned that there was no need to use Godwin's Law in response to something someone else said, and you responded to that. So, I just responded in kind.
Ongorth 01-29-08, 02:06 PM	You have yet to show that resources are actually limited enough to actually cause this. In some cases it may very well happen. But you cannot say that this will always (or even usually) be the case. Talent, experience and time are all limited and all effect quality of optimization and roleplaying. Is this honestly in dispute? It is certainly possible to have a situation where the resources superceed the threshold required for full competence. But what does that have to do with the actual situations where the Stormwind Opinion is applied? If these people had limitless time, experience and talent, why would they be asking for help? Their games would be perfect! All you are doing is saying something that we all implictly understand (that tangential factors are not mutually exclusive). I mean, come on. Even the most hyperbole spouting drama queen understands that picking the "act like a wuss feat is optimal to portraying his wussy character, even if he would rather cut himself then call it optimizing. This is a total non-issue. People may be poorly articulating it, but there is real room for explaination and exploration. And honestly, isn't saying "Stormwind Fallacy" a pretty poorly articulated way of saying, "Can you tell me the observtions by which you have come to this hypothesis?" or some such.
Mock26 01-29-08, 02:13 PM	And honestly, isn't saying "Stormwind Fallacy" a pretty poorly articulated way of saying, "Can you tell me the observtions by which you have come to this hypothesis?" or some such. But saying "Stormwind Fallacy" makes them sound so much smarter than everyone else in the thread. :D
DaidojiTaidoru 01-29-08, 02:25 PM	Frankly, I don't believe they're being honest when they contend that min/maxing and CharOp isn't about maximum combat potential - and, instead, it's about "roleplaying". We are discussing min/maxing and CharOp, which occurs when building a character even before it's played. Even the SWF itself argues that purposefully making a character weak doesn't preclude it from being "roleplayed well" - therefore, arguing that a fully combat optimized and min/maxed character (with no weaknesses added) is true "CharOp" min/maxing is perfectly acceptable to use as a point of argument and basis of definition. If the SWF is as ironclad as it's proponents claim, it should welcome that challenge. Fine then we go back to Radical Taoist's "Pun-Pun as an actor tretise." Because of perfect optimization, optimization no longer exists. The player simply roleplays whatever they wish in their new rule free enviroment. Of course while that is perfect for roleplaying, it's horrible for a game, but thats not related to the arguement. So do you have any refutations for the rest of my post? And as the earlier UMD example Daidoji used (think it was him), it could be a combat benefit if used to get into that skill. Eldritch Lord pointed it out first, but yeah I figure since UMDs the best skill in the game and scrolls the most common magic item being illiterate is a huge hit to potential power.
Jaxgaret 01-29-08, 07:38 PM	Fine then we go back to Radical Taoist's "Pun-Pun as an actor tretise." Because of perfect optimization, optimization no longer exists. The player simply roleplays whatever they wish in their new rule free enviroment. Let's get this settled once and for all: is Pun-Pun an example of extreme optimization, extreme min/maxing, extreme powergaming, or a combination of the three? I think that Pun-Pun is certainly an example of extreme powergaming, and also of extreme min/maxing, but not of extreme optimization. Am I wrong? Eldritch Lord pointed it out first, but yeah I figure since UMDs the best skill in the game and scrolls the most common magic item being illiterate is a huge hit to potential power. Not to mention the fact that you can't read. :)
DaidojiTaidoru 01-29-08, 09:21 PM	Let's get this settled once and for all: is Pun-Pun an example of extreme optimization, extreme min/maxing, extreme powergaming, or a combination of the three? I think that Pun-Pun is certainly an example of extreme powergaming, and also of extreme min/maxing, but not of extreme optimization. Am I wrong? Pun-pun is the epitomy of theoretical optimization, but optimization as a whole is reaching the maximum power of a character within player defined limits. In Pun-puns case it's the most powerful character, period. In other cases it might be to make the best 2 weapon fighter using only Core that still has max ranks in Profession: Sailor (or any other way of getting a boat from point A to point B). One is obviously going to be more powerful then the other, but they are both optimized. If optimization had no limits (like some are suggesting) then Pun-pun would make optimization meaningless as the build basically makes all players equal, in that the rules of D&D no longer apply to them. Not to mention the fact that you can't read. :) Well yeah, but I needed irrefutable proof that reading had direct combat implications. :)
Ongorth 01-30-08, 02:06 AM	I'll put this simply. If you accept that roleplaying a concept can be compromised by an optimization choice ("Joe, that feat you took doesn't make your swashbuckler fight like a swashbuckler...at all...") you have to accept that roleplaying a concept can be assisted by an optimization choice ("Joe, your character's acting just like you described him! What feat did you take?"). It logically follows; you can't reject this without giving up any ground from which to criticize the fallacy. Now, how does an optimizer make sure his op-choices don't compromise his RP-choices? By getting good at the third skill of coordinating the two. This is the theory I outline in the first post of this thread, and the argumentation is very solid. Not in the least. Consider these two variables: hot dogs consumed (you can insert any food you personally find delicious) and happiness. Eating that first hot dog is pretty sweet. Eating the second dog is probably pretty good too. But what about the third? Or the tenth? Or the 54th? Will you still be smiling? It is perfectly acceptable for two factors to be synergetic in moderation and yet antagonistic at another, usually due to them reaching a point where they start competing over resources. I'm sure Mr. Chesnut can enjoy quite a few more hotdogs then I can, but I'm I'll sure there is a point where even his mood would be spoiled by going further. My theory takes time spent using the skills, time spent developing the skills, and experience into account. Read the OP please. The OP which doesn't address the point I was discussing? That the Stormwind Opinion is meaningless and useless and can't actually be used in a real conversation correctly? I actually take that back. There is one situation where it can be used and that is if someone asks, "Are optimization and roleplaying mutually exclusive in every possible situation?" Which no one has ever asked. They might have articulated what they actually mean poorly, but that's a different issue which the Stormwind Opinion only distracts from.
calronmoonflower 01-30-08, 02:47 AM	As for the slippery slope, isn't suported by civil law. For example: When you drive drunk you have a greater chance of having an acident. But it's not 100% certain they will have an acident, so people should be allowed to drive drunken. Hmm, I think the cops will disagree with you if they catch you driving drunk. Fallaccies are always nice on paper. When applied to the real world they normally fail. There is a difference between a slippery slop argument and a slippery slope fallacy. If you never drink, you will never drive drunk. Driving drunk is bad therefor drinking is bad. That is a statement in the form of the slippery slop fallacy. Talent, experience and time are all limited and all effect quality of optimization and roleplaying. Is this honestly in dispute? It is certainly possible to have a situation where the resources superceed the threshold required for full competence. No, it isn't. The dispute is whether this will happen or if it is just a possibility. By the logic that you are using the best way to roleplay will be a completely randomly generated character with class, race, stats, feats, and ability scores chosen at random. Try doing this and see if it help or hinders roleplaying. And honestly, isn't saying "Stormwind Fallacy" a pretty poorly articulated way of saying, "Can you tell me the observtions by which you have come to this hypothesis?" or some such. Generally yes. You should point out why the logic is flawed instead of just naming the fallacy.
RobbyPants 01-30-08, 08:02 AM	As for the slippery slope, isn't suported by civil law. For example: When you drive drunk you have a greater chance of having an acident. But it's not 100% certain they will have an acident, so people should be allowed to drive drunken. Hmm, I think the cops will disagree with you if they catch you driving drunk. Fallaccies are always nice on paper. When applied to the real world they normally fail. Well, the difference here is that it can be proven that alcohol affects your judgement and coordination, thus negatively impacting your ability to safely drive. However, beyond anecdotal evidence, nothing proves that optimization is likely to cause poor roleplaying.
Ongorth 01-30-08, 11:02 AM	No, it isn't. The dispute is whether this will happen or if it is just a possibility. By the logic that you are using the best way to roleplay will be a completely randomly generated character with class, race, stats, feats, and ability scores chosen at random. Try doing this and see if it help or hinders roleplaying. No, the best way to roleplay would be a design a character that you can roleplay best. Generally yes. You should point out why the logic is flawed instead of just naming the fallacy. Which was my point. Saying it doesn't do anything and probably misses the point of the person's statement. It is very likely that the person might be asking a deductive question to which Stormwind's Fallacy doesn't speak to.
Ongorth 01-30-08, 11:11 AM	Well, the difference here is that it can be proven that alcohol affects your judgement and coordination, thus negatively impacting your ability to safely drive. However, beyond anecdotal evidence, nothing proves that optimization is likely to cause poor roleplaying. Well, to be a fair, the only thing that "proves" that alcohol affects judgement and coordination is massive amounts of anecdotal evidence collected under the rigors of the scientific method. Expecting someone to conduct repeatable experiments with significant sample sizes just to be able to talk about a subject is pretty unrealistic. Honestly, you never draw discuss relationship between variables without the evidence of repeatable experiments behind you? Aren't these unknown areas what discussion is for?
RadicalTaoist 01-30-08, 04:56 PM	Not in the least. Consider these two variables: hot dogs consumed (you can insert any food you personally find delicious) and happiness. Eating that first hot dog is pretty sweet. Eating the second dog is probably pretty good too. But what about the third? Or the tenth? Or the 54th? Will you still be smiling? It is perfectly acceptable for two factors to be synergetic in moderation and yet antagonistic at another, usually due to them reaching a point where they start competing over resources. I'm sure Mr. Chesnut can enjoy quite a few more hotdogs then I can, but I'm I'll sure there is a point where even his mood would be spoiled by going further. Your argument doesn't follow. We can explain the physical relation between hot dog consumption and physical comfort by an understanding of anatomical processes. Those are not the processes that govern the relationship between roleplay and optimization. When people say they "roleplay from the gut" that's not what they mean. You have to manage any two differing independent goals. Sometimes you have to do distasteful stuff to get the money to buy hot dogs. Sometimes you have to engage in an enjoyable activity that doesn't give you a chance to eat hot dogs for a while. So? If you keep running into those situations and can't coordinate achieving your two goals, it's not the fault of either goal, it's your fault for lacking the ability to coordinate them. This is the normative standard for which we judge the coordination of two activities. If you don't accept that, then I can say stupid stuff like drinking water is bad for roleplaying. Getting water and urinating (the inevitable result) distract you from stuff at the table. Of course, if I say that you'll say I'm on crack because dying from dehydration doesn't help my roleplaying either; but does dying help me roleplay my heroic character? The only cases in which we argue that failure to coordinate is a fault of the activity and not the individual is when one of the activities modifies the behaviour of the individual (such as addictive drug use). You can argue that optimization is addictive, if you want. Nemo tried arguing it for a number of posts; you might want to go over them so as to not repeat any points I already countered. As it is, it's just as senseless to say "roleplaying interferes with optimization" as it is to say "chewing gum interferes with walking my dog". It becomes a matter of arguing where we can draw the line, and at my level of coordination I can draw it pretty high on both the optimization and roleplay sides. The OP which doesn't address the point I was discussing? That the Stormwind Opinion is meaningless and useless and can't actually be used in a real conversation correctly? I have nothing to say about this Stormwind Opinion you refer to. I am arguing about the logical fallacy or the hypothesis I raised in the OP. I actually take that back. There is one situation where it can be used and that is if someone asks, "Are optimization and roleplaying mutually exclusive in every possible situation?" Which no one has ever asked. They might have articulated what they actually mean poorly, but that's a different issue which the Stormwind Opinion only distracts from. Actually, they don't ask that question, they usually assume the answer is yes and argue from there. Seriously. Observe the climate in which the fallacy was first formalized. Between that, and the threads that pop up every now and then on the CO Boards by ranters telling us we're bad people who are killing roleplay and the spirit of D&D, I'm afraid the SWF needs to be cited more often than I wish it was. If you want to see it cited less, the best way would be to combat the divisive attitude between playstyles that fosters the fallacious argument. I'd love an ideal gaming community where no one would ever have reason to cry SWF. It would be wonderful.
Jaxgaret 01-30-08, 07:06 PM	No, the best way to roleplay would be a design a character that you can roleplay best. I don't think that you wrote this the way that you meant it, as the 'character that you can roleplay best' would be one with the same personality as you, and I'm sure everyone agrees that that is not the best way to roleplay. Also, I disagree with the sentiment behind the statement. I think that it leads to playing the same kinds of characters over and over, because that's what you're "best at". Variety is the spice of life. IMO, anyway. Your argument doesn't follow. We can explain the physical relation between hot dog consumption and physical comfort by an understanding of anatomical processes. Those are not the processes that govern the relationship between roleplay and optimization. When people say they "roleplay from the gut" that's not what they mean. You have to manage any two differing independent goals. Sometimes you have to do distasteful stuff to get the money to buy hot dogs. Sometimes you have to engage in an enjoyable activity that doesn't give you a chance to eat hot dogs for a while. So? If you keep running into those situations and can't coordinate achieving your two goals, it's not the fault of either goal, it's your fault for lacking the ability to coordinate them. This is the normative standard for which we judge the coordination of two activities. If you don't accept that, then I can say stupid stuff like drinking water is bad for roleplaying. Getting water and urinating (the inevitable result) distract you from stuff at the table. Of course, if I say that you'll say I'm on crack because dying from dehydration doesn't help my roleplaying either; but does dying help me roleplay my heroic character? The only cases in which we argue that failure to coordinate is a fault of the activity and not the individual is when one of the activities modifies the behaviour of the individual (such as addictive drug use). You can argue that optimization is addictive, if you want. Nemo tried arguing it for a number of posts; you might want to go over them so as to not repeat any points I already countered. As it is, it's just as senseless to say "roleplaying interferes with optimization" as it is to say "chewing gum interferes with walking my dog". It becomes a matter of arguing where we can draw the line, and at my level of coordination I can draw it pretty high on both the optimization and roleplay sides. I have nothing to say about this Stormwind Opinion you refer to. I am arguing about the logical fallacy or the hypothesis I raised in the OP. Actually, they don't ask that question, they usually assume the answer is yes and argue from there. Seriously. Observe the climate in which the fallacy was first formalized. Between that, and the threads that pop up every now and then on the CO Boards by ranters telling us we're bad people who are killing roleplay and the spirit of D&D, I'm afraid the SWF needs to be cited more often than I wish it was. If you want to see it cited less, the best way would be to combat the divisive attitude between playstyles that fosters the fallacious argument. I'd love an ideal gaming community where no one would ever have reason to cry SWF. It would be wonderful. I couldn't agree with you more. Great post, RT.
Ongorth 01-30-08, 10:17 PM	Your argument doesn't follow. We can explain the physical relation between hot dog consumption and physical comfort by an understanding of anatomical processes. Those are not the processes that govern the relationship between roleplay and optimization. When people say they "roleplay from the gut" that's not what they mean. So, if I didn't understand the anatomical process involved (and I don't), it would be wrong for me to warn somebody "Don't eat too many hot dogs. You'll get sick!" Is it wrong for me to assume my microwave will work when I have no idea how it works? You don't need to understand the process to suggest correlation or causality. And I don't see why you need to have rigorous proof just to bring it up in the conversation. Actually, they don't ask that question, they usually assume the answer is yes and argue from there. Seriously. Observe the climate in which the fallacy was first formalized. Between that, and the threads that pop up every now and then on the CO Boards by ranters telling us we're bad people who are killing roleplay and the spirit of D&D, I'm afraid the SWF needs to be cited more often than I wish it was. If you want to see it cited less, the best way would be to combat the divisive attitude between playstyles that fosters the fallacious argument. I guess we're reading a completely different thread then, because I don't see that as all. The only way someone could suggest this would be to propose a situation where the mechanical aspects were chosen entirely in a contradictory manner to the abilities the player wished the character to have. Show me one place where someone suggests that all levels of the practice of optimization interfere with roleplaying. Inarticulate statements that obviously are talking about going over a power level (no matter how low) don't count, because that is a seperate issue entirely.
Ongorth 01-30-08, 10:22 PM	I don't think that you wrote this the way that you meant it, as the 'character that you can roleplay best' would be one with the same personality as you, and I'm sure everyone agrees that that is not the best way to roleplay. Also, I disagree with the sentiment behind the statement. I think that it leads to playing the same kinds of characters over and over, because that's what you're "best at". Variety is the spice of life. IMO, anyway. Do you always play the most optimal character possible? Probably not. Do you take the character concept you want to play and optimize is well you can? That's more likely. Likewise, you probably don't play the most roleplayable character every time either. But you certainly might work to roleplay the character concept you want to play as well you can. I mean, I disagree that yourself is the most roleplayable character (people are notoriously ignorant about themselves), but really, it doesn't matter. There is no one forcing you to play at the very peek of your potential ability every time. Stretching that peek is useful, though, because it broadens the range of what you can play effectively. Didn't you read what Tempest said on the subject?
RobbyPants 01-31-08, 02:22 PM	So, if I didn't understand the anatomical process involved (and I don't), it would be wrong for me to warn somebody "Don't eat too many hot dogs. You'll get sick!" Is it wrong for me to assume my microwave will work when I have no idea how it works? You don't need to understand the process to suggest correlation or causality. And I don't see why you need to have rigorous proof just to bring it up in the conversation. The difference from what RT posted and this is that we can prove that a microwave works without actually understanding it. It's not like anyone is arguing that they don't work, and you can simply prove them wrong by heating something up in it. Any relationship between RP and optimiaztion varies vastly from player to player. Trying to assert that one has an affect on the other is anecdotal at best. Do you always play the most optimal character possible? Probably not. Do you take the character concept you want to play and optimize is well you can? That's more likely. To me this makes sense... Likewise, you probably don't play the most roleplayable character every time either. But you certainly might work to roleplay the character concept you want to play as well you can. ...but something like this is very subjective. How do you know that any character you make can't be roleplayed well? I think the fault typically lies with the player and their interest in or ability to RP.
Dog_O_War 01-31-08, 02:54 PM	The difference from what RT posted and this is that we can prove that a microwave works without actually understanding it. It's not like anyone is arguing that they don't work, and you can simply prove them wrong by heating something up in it. Any relationship between RP and optimiaztion varies vastly from player to player. Trying to assert that one has an affect on the other is anecdotal at best. To me this makes sense... ...but something like this is very subjective. How do you know that any character you make can't be roleplayed well? I think the fault typically lies with the player and their interest in or ability to RP. You can't RP a weakness such as being dumb if you have an int of 18. He's saying that a person cannot play a weakness when they have none. Min/maxing limits possible options for RP, same way a build does/can.
Toran_A_Sunder 01-31-08, 03:46 PM	Every character has a weakness, somewhere. An ingenuitive DM will find it, if the character is min/maxed and over shadowing the other PCs. And the presense or lack of a weakness, and the role playing there-of, doesn't necessarily dictate how well the character is being role played. In some cases, sure. But not all. The limit to a players ability to effectively role play his character isn't in his numbers. Its a combination of his ability to role play, and in his willingness to learn how to role play better if its not a strong suit for him.
Ongorth 01-31-08, 03:54 PM	The difference from what RT posted and this is that we can prove that a microwave works without actually understanding it. It's not like anyone is arguing that they don't work, and you can simply prove them wrong by heating something up in it. Any relationship between RP and optimiaztion varies vastly from player to player. Trying to assert that one has an affect on the other is anecdotal at best. Or I could prove that a microwave doesn't heat things up by putting a dry rock in it. And we'd both be missing the point. Proof is in repeated results under controlled conditions. How do we know that there isn't a relationship between optimization and roleplaying? No one has performed the experiment yet! But that doesn't preclude them from hypothesizing! To me this makes sense......but something like this is very subjective. How do you know that any character you make can't be roleplayed well? I think the fault typically lies with the player and their interest in or ability to RP. Because you have excellent knowledge of your own abilities? And because these things happen in degrees. Just because you can roleplay something to some degree doesn't mean that you can't roleplay something to a greater degree on the same subjective scale.
Ongorth 01-31-08, 03:56 PM	You can't RP a weakness such as being dumb if you have an int of 18. He's saying that a person cannot play a weakness when they have none. Min/maxing limits possible options for RP, same way a build does/can. That's not what I'm saying at all.
Dog_O_War 01-31-08, 04:08 PM	That's not what I'm saying at all. Sure sounded like it. My mistake though.
Lokiyn 01-31-08, 04:09 PM	You can't RP a weakness such as being dumb if you have an int of 18. He's saying that a person cannot play a weakness when they have none. Min/maxing limits possible options for RP, same way a build does/can. I can, its really quite easy. I am great at memorization, i have libraries worth of knowledge and wisdom at my disposal, however i'm terrible at drawing independent conclusions or combining that information in new ways. I could tell you how to build a castle and even draw up plans from memories of famous castles, however i'm terrible at actually applying that knowledge in a new or novel way. Mechanically i have more skill points and make better results on checks involving int. however, flavor wise, i describe my skills and talents not as innate ability but as the rote repetition and memorization of information rather than a true understanding. Which is something that happens all the time in real life, i've spoken to people that are quite skilled, but also incredibly dumb at the same time, not understanding the "why" of what they do, but skilled at the "what" they do. Builds/(Min/Max) are only as limiting to roleplay, as say, Concept is. Roleplaying is a major limiting to roleplaying. which again as i've said before. Builds enhance roleplay, not limit them. They provide a player and the dm the ability to seemlessly integrate thier charaters growth over time, without it characters historys are a collection of isolated jumps and twists. As i've said, organicism is a myth, in face from collecting data from the local players your character winds up with this. http://lokiyn.pbwiki.com/f/Character%20Life.bmp Only 2-5% of your characters life is represented in a session. In fact i would posit that it is less organic and poorer roleplaying to not have a plan for the 60% or so of your characters waking life that is unaccounted for.
Dog_O_War 01-31-08, 04:56 PM	I can, its really quite easy. I am great at memorization, i have libraries worth of knowledge and wisdom at my disposal, however i'm terrible at drawing independent conclusions or combining that information in new ways. I could tell you how to build a castle and even draw up plans from memories of famous castles, however i'm terrible at actually applying that knowledge in a new or novel way. Mechanically i have more skill points and make better results on checks involving int. however, flavor wise, i describe my skills and talents not as innate ability but as the rote repetition and memorization of information rather than a true understanding. Which is something that happens all the time in real life, i've spoken to people that are quite skilled, but also incredibly dumb at the same time, not understanding the "why" of what they do, but skilled at the "what" they do. Builds/(Min/Max) are only as limiting to roleplay, as say, Concept is. Roleplaying is a major limiting to roleplaying. which again as i've said before. Builds enhance roleplay, not limit them. They provide a player and the dm the ability to seemlessly integrate thier charaters growth over time, without it characters historys are a collection of isolated jumps and twists. As i've said, organicism is a myth, in face from collecting data from the local players your character winds up with this. http://lokiyn.pbwiki.com/f/Character%20Life.bmp Only 2-5% of your characters life is represented in a session. In fact i would posit that it is less organic and poorer roleplaying to not have a plan for the 60% or so of your characters waking life that is unaccounted for. All that you've said indicates a low(er) wisdom, and not intelligence. A very good example is an idiot savant (think Dustan Hoffman's character in Rain Man); while "brilliant" in one area, he lacks any praticality. The fact is that you are not dumb, but lack a certain initiative or praticality. This is not intelligence's fault, but wisdom's doing (damn that wis!). I've known a person that was very book-smart, but could not think for himself. I'd call him the stupidest smart person I knew (behind his back), because he was unaware of the world around him. As for builds "enhancing" RP, tell me does it "enhance" RP when you want to multiclass into wizard at a specific level, know well before-hand that the game involves getting a trainer, but due to circumstances (like being stuck in the middle of a desert) you cannot get that level of wizard when needed? Does that character stop leveling, or fade from existence because they built themselves into a corner? For most of the builders I know, situations like this completely "ruin" their characters because they didn't get the story needed to justify their Fighter1/Rogue3/Sorcerer4/Arcane Trickster3/Wizard1/L33tz0r 5. Building removes a players' willingness to adapt to situations around him when the game takes an unexpected turn (like being shang-hai-ed(sp?) aboard a ship sailing to an exotic island where the organisation required doesn't exist for him to become a Mage of the Arcane Order, or an Assassin, or whatever).
pres_man 01-31-08, 06:19 PM	You can't RP a weakness such as being dumb if you have an int of 18. He's saying that a person cannot play a weakness when they have none. Min/maxing limits possible options for RP, same way a build does/can. That is not because of min/maxing or using builds, it has to do with the fact that you have to set values for certain characteristics. Also, just because there are alot of different mechanical ways to represent a concept doesn't mean every possible mechanical set up is equally effective at representing any concept.
pres_man 01-31-08, 06:22 PM	As for builds "enhancing" RP, tell me does it "enhance" RP when you want to multiclass into wizard at a specific level, know well before-hand that the game involves getting a trainer, but due to circumstances (like being stuck in the middle of a desert) you cannot get that level of wizard when needed? Does that character stop leveling, or fade from existence because they built themselves into a corner? For most of the builders I know, situations like this completely "ruin" their characters because they didn't get the story needed to justify their Fighter1/Rogue3/Sorcerer4/Arcane Trickster3/Wizard1/L33tz0r 5. Building removes a players' willingness to adapt to situations around him when the game takes an unexpected turn (like being shang-hai-ed(sp?) aboard a ship sailing to an exotic island where the organisation required doesn't exist for him to become a Mage of the Arcane Order, or an Assassin, or whatever). So builds don't work when the DM is either intentionally or unintentionally blocking the player's efforts to follow the build. Well, durrrr. If the DM and the player are not cooperating to make the build occur, it ain't going to work. That doesn't prove builds are bad, that just means the DM and the player aren't working together. EDIT: Another problem that I thought of with this example. If training is required, then someone who wants to multiclass is in just as much trouble as someone that wants to single class. Both should be forced to find training. I mean, how does a ranger upon reaching 2nd level suddenly have the ability to use two weapons more effectively or to be able to fire two arrows rapidly? This is really one of the biggest problems with requiring training, what happens when a person levels more than once before getting a chance to train? Now if the training is only for multiclassing, well first I would say that is not very "organic" (see my comment about a ranger reaching 2nd level), but that is fine. You need only do as RadicalTaoist suggests below (assuming the DM and the player are working together), and have preempt training occur before the level is actually taken. But frankly I think that the whole training idea is a bad one in practice. It leads to silly things like retentive-DMs trying to say that a person can't take a level of druid while in a city, despite their being several official text examples of urban druids.
RadicalTaoist 01-31-08, 08:35 PM	So, if I didn't understand the anatomical process involved (and I don't), it would be wrong for me to warn somebody "Don't eat too many hot dogs. You'll get sick!" Is it wrong for me to assume my microwave will work when I have no idea how it works? You don't need to understand the process to suggest correlation or causality. And I don't see why you need to have rigorous proof just to bring it up in the conversation. There's a spectrum here. By making that warning you have an implicit understanding that eating too much will make you sick and can apply that to hot dogs. It's not a full understanding, but it's an understanding, and in this example it is validly applied. It's certainly a sounder understanding than the silly assumption I'm arguing against which, strongly taken, must argue that players like Stormwind or myself simply don't exist. I guess we're reading a completely different thread then, because I don't see that as all. ...wait, seriously? People explicitly divide the D&D community into these two groups in that thread. The only way someone could suggest this would be to propose a situation where the mechanical aspects were chosen entirely in a contradictory manner to the abilities the player wished the character to have. Show me one place where someone suggests that all levels of the practice of optimization interfere with roleplaying. Inarticulate statements that obviously are talking about going over a power level (no matter how low) don't count, because that is a seperate issue entirely. People don't suggest that explicitly, in my experience; it's just assumed that the practice of optimization compromises roleplay. It's a perceptual problem. That said, look at Nemo's Addiction Hypothesis and his arguments in this thread. Proof is in repeated results under controlled conditions. How do we know that there isn't a relationship between optimization and roleplaying? No one has performed the experiment yet! But that doesn't preclude them from hypothesizing! For the record, if you look at the OP and the theory I propose, I'm basically arguing that the conditions under which results are examined - the anecdotal experiences used to explain why people feel that optimization threatens roleplay - are not controlling for an important factor. Indeed, they're ignoring that factor entirely. Dog: Welcome back. Sorry again for disappearing from that other thread; I can return to your specific concerns there if you want. As for builds "enhancing" RP, tell me does it "enhance" RP when you want to multiclass into wizard at a specific level, know well before-hand that the game involves getting a trainer, but due to circumstances (like being stuck in the middle of a desert) you cannot get that level of wizard when needed? Emphasis mine. This one's easy. The character has, in his background or the gameplay up to that point, trained under a trainer in wizard. He's just never been good enough at it to actually do any wizard stuff, until he takes this level. This level in wizard is when he "gets it" - textbook example of the first technique. The player has to make the effort to roleplay his meeting his trainer earlier or working that into his background, and how he spends nights over his spellbook in frustration, not getting the spell until after he takes that level. If he does not, he's failing to coordinate his RP and CO - the third skill I describe. The DM can make things more complicated and add more hoops to jump through, but then I don't think the player can be blamed for sacrificing RP. Does that character stop leveling, or fade from existence because they built themselves into a corner? For most of the builders I know, situations like this completely "ruin" their characters because they didn't get the story needed to justify their Fighter1/Rogue3/Sorcerer4/Arcane Trickster3/Wizard1/L33tz0r 5. Your builders, frankly, aren't that good at the third skill I posit in my theory. Building removes a players' willingness to adapt to situations around him when the game takes an unexpected turn (like being shang-hai-ed(sp?) aboard a ship sailing to an exotic island where the organisation required doesn't exist for him to become a Mage of the Arcane Order, or an Assassin, or whatever).Two separate points: For others: Note you don't exclusively require builds to optimize, actually; the practice of optimization is much broader. For Dog: No, building challenges a player's ability to describe what his character can do so that it fits to what happens in situations around him, and predict possible changes. If the DM's going to send them away to someplace they can't access the organization for a PrC, and mechanically restricts the PrC so you must join the organization in-game (not in-background), what's the difference between this and just banning the PrC? And why is it the fault of the player and his build for trying to do something the DM didn't tell him he wouldn't be allowed to do right off the bat?
deadseashoals 01-31-08, 11:23 PM	It seems that it is impossible to reconcile the two camps here. One camp believes that their PC's character sheet is it is merely a means by which to express their character's persona, while the other side insists that actually an expressive end product. With a fork at such a fundamental assumption here, it's no wonder you guys have managed to spit out so much freaking text about this. If the optimization=bad side really does want to express themselves through their character sheets, and the mechanical choices made therein, I have to wonder why they play a game that so thoroughly resists this choice. D&D is a tactical war game at heart, and 3.5 in particular is wholly inappropriate for developing a character organically by means of mechanical choices. Refusal to acknowledge this causes at least as many group problems as any powergaming ever has (e.g. the example of a DM refusing to waive the RP requirements of a prestige class while simultaneously preventing a player from obtaining said RP requirements).
Ongorth 02-01-08, 12:51 AM	For the record, if you look at the OP and the theory I propose, I'm basically arguing that the conditions under which results are examined - the anecdotal experiences used to explain why people feel that optimization threatens roleplay - are not controlling for an important factor. Indeed, they're ignoring that factor entirely. Well, remember, I'm all about third factor variables. This "third skill" variable you propose probably falls under the "experience" resource I was tossing around. So, in that way I agree, but still think the statement has no applicability. Maybe its my kind nature, but I really don't think those people were talking about mutual exclusivity of roleplaying and optimizing, even if they were wording there case poorly, so I still don't think there is any use for that statement. The third skill idea is a very practical one. See, that's a useful statement that adds something to the conversation. It gives a new idea on how to actually approach the relationship between optimization and roleplaying. Unlike that other thing that adds nothing to the conversation. Obviously not everyone is going to agree with it because "minimize optimization so that it doesn't interfere with roleplaying" is also a solution that works for many people who may lack the resources (time, experience and talent) or desire (they just don't like optimization) to take your route. Indeed, they probably find the idea of optimization distasteful so they see your option as inherently inferior or even impossible from their experiences, which is doubtlessly annoying to you, but its also pretty solid. Personally, I subscribe to a completely philosophy on the subject which is no doubt why I enjoy these threads so much: no one is ever attacking my tastes so its a carefree ride.
Lokiyn 02-01-08, 01:50 AM	But that the thing, Optimization is roleplaying in most cases. It just gets spoken of in different terms. Optimization is, at least for the grand majority of people, mechanically designing a character intelligently to match your desired concept. For a rogue for thieving that might be taking feats/classes/skills/races that allow you to capitalize on your concept (Hide/Move Silently/Pick Pocket), from mechanical standpoint the concept from an optimization standpoint isWithin the given limitations of the rules, and as a subset within the further limitations of the campaign's houseruleings, a character with the largest viable combination of the following traits. Now from a roleplaying standpoint, which as an aside is not comparable to optimization for the most part, as roleplaying is the interaction between characters where the player makes choices as the character would, you do the exact same thing however its crouched in different terms.Tch, i steal things for a liv'n why should i go join you two in learn'n ta beat each other with sticks, i'll be off over here trying to get hrough this obstacle course i put together past these squeaky boards, wobbly beams and belled manikins. Roleplaying is, largely, describing the how's and whys of your characters choices, within the framework of your past and concept. while optimization is the actual meat and bones of your character, determining what the character can and can't do. Again, Both Roleplaying and Optimization are two subsets of a greater skill set , namely the ability to filter options down to a single choice. As for builds, the very purpose of a build is to prevent situations such as forced training to occur. Lets take a real life example, if i had to turn in a thesis or some other document and it was due say in four days, but i'm currently say in las vegas because inexplicably our car trip was derailed and we are delayed a few days getting home. Now according to the "organicists" i should give up and forget it, since neither the past nor the future exist. Now from a builders standpoint, you know that certain things need to happen in the future, so you plan and prepare, often with the dm to make sure those things happen. Don't have a trainer in the woods? well good thing last time we where in town i picked up some training manuals that i've been studying in conjunction with pick up basic courses any chance i get for the last year or so. One of the things that frustrates me to no end is the hypocrisy of organicism. Organicism posits that all new skills must be evidenced in session prior to acquisition, or must be available from an outside source. However, as pres_man mentions in his edit, this must also apply to single class characters as well. Take the Wizard, now tell me where in a session is the wizard explicitly devoting himself to spell research? to learning items creation feats? to learning metamagic feats? memorizing the rituals to summon a familiar? Nowhere, in session none of the above is covered, even in the most extreme of Organicist posts i have never seen anyone try to force single class characters in this way. Even Organicists agree that the afformentioned skills and abilities are practiced during the "down time" during the 6-11 hours of time during the day not covered by active player<->character interaction Why is this such a big deal? Because Optimization can, and does, enhance a persons ability to roleplay
RadicalTaoist 02-01-08, 10:46 AM	Well, remember, I'm all about third factor variables. This "third skill" variable you propose probably falls under the "experience" resource I was tossing around. So, in that way I agree, but still think the statement has no applicability. Maybe its my kind nature, but I really don't think those people were talking about mutual exclusivity of roleplaying and optimizing, even if they were wording there case poorly, so I still don't think there is any use for that statement. The third skill idea is a very practical one. See, that's a useful statement that adds something to the conversation. It gives a new idea on how to actually approach the relationship between optimization and roleplaying. Unlike that other thing that adds nothing to the conversation. Heh, so it's really just a question of applicability for you? We may be differing because of experiences online; I would frequently run into that premise being assumed without question. YMMV. On top, I've never seen anyone misuse the SWF myself (I don't use it to claim that they never conflict, only that they don't automatically conflict) so I miss on where your coming from. In Stormwind's defense, the latest formalization of the Fallacy takes into account misuse of the fallacy and clarifies how it shouldn't be used. Obviously not everyone is going to agree with it because "minimize optimization so that it doesn't interfere with roleplaying" is also a solution that works for many people who may lack the resources (time, experience and talent) or desire (they just don't like optimization) to take your route. Indeed, they probably find the idea of optimization distasteful so they see your option as inherently inferior or even impossible from their experiences, which is doubtlessly annoying to you, but its also pretty solid. See, what irritates me is the massive perception problem the CO community on these boards has been saddled with. In many circles we bear the stigma of being the awful terrible monsters who released the like of Pun-Pun on the world. It has become much better over the past few years, but it still persists, and I fight it where I can. It's not fair that my playstyle still has this blackmark on it. If you don't like op, fine. You don't have to. It's the 21st century and it's easy to find a game online. We have OpenRPG now. But don't take a dump on my playstyle please, and don't say that it gives up opportunities for roleplay which it does not. (Not targeted at you, this is to the RP community in general.) Personally, I subscribe to a completely philosophy on the subject which is no doubt why I enjoy these threads so much: no one is ever attacking my tastes so its a carefree ride. Lucky you.:weep:
Jaxgaret 02-01-08, 10:56 AM	It seems that it is impossible to reconcile the two camps here. One camp believes that their PC's character sheet is it is merely a means by which to express their character's persona, while the other side insists that actually an expressive end product. With a fork at such a fundamental assumption here, it's no wonder you guys have managed to spit out so much freaking text about this. If the optimization=bad side really does want to express themselves through their character sheets, and the mechanical choices made therein, I have to wonder why they play a game that so thoroughly resists this choice. D&D is a tactical war game at heart, and 3.5 in particular is wholly inappropriate for developing a character organically by means of mechanical choices. Refusal to acknowledge this causes at least as many group problems as any powergaming ever has (e.g. the example of a DM refusing to waive the RP requirements of a prestige class while simultaneously preventing a player from obtaining said RP requirements). This is a point that I've made before in other threads, and it's a good one. Character sheets are simple approximations that reduce the complexity and more importantly bookkeeping of a character's entire gestalt so that one can play that character in a gaming 'verse. The character (IG) is not the same as the character sheet (OOG). Though they are similar.
Ongorth 02-01-08, 01:25 PM	Lucky you.:weep: Pssh. Its not luck. Its experience. I've brought up my own ideas on how to roleplay and it (and I) have been called some pretty choice things. At some point, I stopped caring if other people had any feedback to help me improve my ideas because the feedback was things like "that's gay". As much as we might want discussion to be about the exchange of ideas, its more often about finding more likeminded people who agree with you then the other guy can.
Dog_O_War 02-01-08, 05:12 PM	Dog: Welcome back. Sorry again for disappearing from that other thread; I can return to your specific concerns there if you want. Thanks for the welcome, and don't bother with the other thread; my worries and concerns are often fleeting and in the moment. I never worry about what cannot be changed, and other's view points are one of those things. Emphasis mine. This one's easy. The character has, in his background or the gameplay up to that point, trained under a trainer in wizard. He's just never been good enough at it to actually do any wizard stuff, until he takes this level. This level in wizard is when he "gets it" - textbook example of the first technique. That does work, but only with such foresight. See further... The player has to make the effort to roleplay his meeting his trainer earlier or working that into his background, and how he spends nights over his spellbook in frustration, not getting the spell until after he takes that level. If he does not, he's failing to coordinate his RP and CO - the third skill I describe. The DM can make things more complicated and add more hoops to jump through, but then I don't think the player can be blamed for sacrificing RP. What I was saying though is that builds (and builders) tend not to adapt to circumstance. If one thing goes wrong, too often everything is then seen as "ruined". While this may be an unwarranted generalization, it stands as more right than wrong because experience would tell me so. Your builders, frankly, aren't that good at the third skill I posit in my theory. Two separate points: For others: Note you don't exclusively require builds to optimize, actually; the practice of optimization is much broader. For Dog: No, building challenges a player's ability to describe what his character can do so that it fits to what happens in situations around him, and predict possible changes. If the DM's going to send them away to someplace they can't access the organization for a PrC, and mechanically restricts the PrC so you must join the organization in-game (not in-background), what's the difference between this and just banning the PrC? And why is it the fault of the player and his build for trying to do something the DM didn't tell him he wouldn't be allowed to do right off the bat? Ah, but see this example; Player A is a builder and an RPer. He wrote down a background and a 1-20 build. He wants to become a Knight of X, and RP's this from the begining to better asure his success. At level X when he would take said level, he gets in. Player is happy. Player B is an RPer exclusively. He wrote down a backstory and has the same desire as player A (to be a Knight of X). He RP's from the begining as well, but instead takes things as they are convenient per the level. He qualifies for the class (eventually), and gets in. Player is happy. Player T (for "Teh H4x0R") is a builder only. He desires to be a Knight of X, same as players A and B, but works only on the mechanical requirements. When the time comes for the level, he has put no work into the RP, and the Knights of X say, "why would we accept such an uncouth and unknown individual as you?" He does not get in when he indicated on his build list. Player T is unhappy. While this is a game, people forget that it is an RP game, and that the mechanics are easy to glean rewards from; we should not reward those that can already get all sorts of benefits by abuse or metagaming. The class need not have been banned; as a person with no build might learn of the Knights of X in game and work towards being one from a non-specific point. When a player presents a build, my first reaction is to foil them; this is because I resent those who issue a bill of entitlement. I'd rather they kept their build in secret, and worked towards that goal in-game; this is showing me that they want something beyond "Teh Pwnz0r" as a character (excuse the L33T), and are willing to work for it. Maybe I'm a snob, but I see builders as trust-fund babies who demand life bend to their will. Life on the other hand, is the bender, not the bend-e. That's my thoughts on the subject.
Lokiyn 02-01-08, 08:35 PM	But thats not how dungeons and dragons is designed or presented within the given literature. Dungeons and Dragons is designed so that the requirements for any given class, feat, skill, spell, power, invocation, incantation, vestige, soulmeld, Recitation, item, affiliation, guild, team benefit, rank, or even floppy hat club, are met by the character the Player is entitled to take the aforementioned device. That how the game is designed. I take great offense however when it is decided to add new mechanics to a class, without previously informing a player of such, that the player is expected to meet without knowing of them, and then claiming its the player's fault. If i where to apply for, say, entrance into a book club. And after reading over the information on the club i see that it's written out in their guidelines and rules that to enter the club you must a.)Read and submit a summary of a book from a pre-selected list and b.)Pay a small due say 10$ a year. Now if i fulfill those requirements i am entitled to enter that club, regardless of what another member may feel, i may enter the club and by the given "rules" must be allowed entrance to the club. The thing that drives me absolutely insane (metaphorically) is this, When a player presents a build, my first reaction is to foil them; this is because I resent those who issue a bill of entitlement. Do you similarly penalize people who want to be a level 20 wizards? a level 20 bard? a Level 20 Barbarian? a Level 20 Druid? No it's pure Hypocritical double standards to apply artificial limitations not given in the rules to a "build" (Wiz 05 / Loremaster 10 / Archmage 05) and not to another build (Wiz 20) Either it applies to everything or it must be acknowledged as an artificial limitation imposed by purely subjective rational with no foundation in the actual rules of engagement. However when applied across the board in an equitable and just manner it throws the inherent flaws of such a belief into sharp relief, classically illustrated, as pres_man pointed out with the "your druid isn't in the woods so he can't advance as a druid. On of the fundamental flaws in the organicist's view point is that it completely ignores the past and the future to focus strictly on the present, and further more not even the whole present, but on the 1-2 hours of a character's day that the player interacts with. While a builder attempts to account for the 22-23 hours that you don't see. If a player presents his characters goals, and ensures that he or she meets all the requirements for those goals they are no more forcing entitlement than your standard wizard expecting his two free spells every level.
KIDS 02-01-08, 09:19 PM	See, what irritates me is the massive perception problem the CO community on these boards has been saddled with. In many circles we bear the stigma of being the awful terrible monsters who released the like of Pun-Pun on the world. It has become much better over the past few years, but it still persists, and I fight it where I can. It's not fair that my playstyle still has this blackmark on it. If you don't like op, fine. You don't have to. It's the 21st century and it's easy to find a game online. We have OpenRPG now. But don't take a dump on my playstyle please, and don't say that it gives up opportunities for roleplay which it does not. (Not targeted at you, this is to the RP community in general.) So it is. Let this be clear: I am not particularly into optimizing or unoptimizing, though I know many specifics. I play things how I like them, in builds or without them, mostly unbiased, and appreciate knowedge of knowing where different paths in this game lead. And really, when I see people massively, massively, like a global trend, trying to prove that the above somehow makes you an inferior storyteller or that your roleplaying is somehow limited by it, it makes me mad. I don't go around telling people who roll randomly for feats or play "organic" (whatever that means) characters that their characterization or personality bad - because they simply aren't. Because of billions of different concerns that can happen to me, that will be the last connection I'll ever make, and arguing over something so irrelevant really is a waste. As said, if builds for you (generally) mean abuse or poor roleplaying, sure, that's your right to feel like it. For me that's seeing shadows at every step but I might be too optimistic. Regardless, you might find players who are fine with that. But those players don't require you to defend them, or be their chosen crusader in the cruel world of character optimization.
Shadowhowler 02-01-08, 11:35 PM	Another problem that I thought of with this example. If training is required, then someone who wants to multiclass is in just as much trouble as someone that wants to single class. Both should be forced to find training. I mean, how does a ranger upon reaching 2nd level suddenly have the ability to use two weapons more effectively or to be able to fire two arrows rapidly? This is really one of the biggest problems with requiring training, what happens when a person levels more than once before getting a chance to train? I dunno how everyone eles handles it... but I handle it as follows. Advancing your current class does not normaly require special training, becuase the class abilities gained as you level normaly relate to skills you already have. It is assumed (Tho I often like it to be reflected in game or in downtime discriptions anyway) that characters are working on their skills... practicing them, refining them, improving them. Thus... a Ranger levels up, and improves skills he already has, or gains skills that directly relate to skills that he has. This is VERY differant then that same Ranger gaining a level, and suddonly becoming a wizard, dispite never having studied spells, magic, or anything related to wizardry. If the player wants to become a wizard, I would require him to find someone to teach him.
Shadowhowler 02-01-08, 11:54 PM	Do you similarly penalize people who want to be a level 20 wizards? a level 20 bard? a Level 20 Barbarian? a Level 20 Druid? While it's true that most builds require a sometimes silly amount/combination of classes and PrC's... not all do. There are plenty of builds out that that are 1-20 in one class... but require specific feats, skills, gear, spells, whatever. To have a build you don't need a whole bunch of classes, you just hav to have planed your character out in exacting detail from level 1-20. I dislike the practice myself. When I make a character... I normaly come up with a few different paths the character may take, depending on the circmstances of them game, and flesh them out only roughly... like an outline rather then a story... and see which direction the game takes my character. Sometimes, it takes the character in a direction I didn't even plan for. Those are some of my favorite games. ;)
Dog_O_War 02-02-08, 12:14 AM	But thats not how dungeons and dragons is designed or presented within the given literature. Dungeons and Dragons is designed so that the requirements for any given class, feat, skill, spell, power, invocation, incantation, vestige, soulmeld, Recitation, item, affiliation, guild, team benefit, rank, or even floppy hat club, are met by the character the Player is entitled to take the aforementioned device. That how the game is designed. I take great offense however when it is decided to add new mechanics to a class, without previously informing a player of such, that the player is expected to meet without knowing of them, and then claiming its the player's fault. If i where to apply for, say, entrance into a book club. And after reading over the information on the club i see that it's written out in their guidelines and rules that to enter the club you must a.)Read and submit a summary of a book from a pre-selected list and b.)Pay a small due say 10$ a year. Now if i fulfill those requirements i am entitled to enter that club, regardless of what another member may feel, i may enter the club and by the given "rules" must be allowed entrance to the club. The thing that drives me absolutely insane (metaphorically) is this, Do you similarly penalize people who want to be a level 20 wizards? a level 20 bard? a Level 20 Barbarian? a Level 20 Druid? No it's pure Hypocritical double standards to apply artificial limitations not given in the rules to a "build" (Wiz 05 / Loremaster 10 / Archmage 05) and not to another build (Wiz 20) Either it applies to everything or it must be acknowledged as an artificial limitation imposed by purely subjective rational with no foundation in the actual rules of engagement. However when applied across the board in an equitable and just manner it throws the inherent flaws of such a belief into sharp relief, classically illustrated, as pres_man pointed out with the "your druid isn't in the woods so he can't advance as a druid. On of the fundamental flaws in the organicist's view point is that it completely ignores the past and the future to focus strictly on the present, and further more not even the whole present, but on the 1-2 hours of a character's day that the player interacts with. While a builder attempts to account for the 22-23 hours that you don't see. If a player presents his characters goals, and ensures that he or she meets all the requirements for those goals they are no more forcing entitlement than your standard wizard expecting his two free spells every level. You miss-read me Lokiyn. Builders offer me only demands; I know you aren't saying this. If you looked at my example again, please note player A; he is a builder, but one with the desire to add to the game. Player T on the other hand only wants to take from the game; both are builders, but they differ in that one is willing to work himself into the game. I tell these guys that I don't want to see their builds, but I will listen to what class(es) they hope to join. I try to give them what they want because they are willing to give me an enriched game in return. But a builder(T) gives me his bill of entitlement and I see it as the quickest way to character death. I can tolerate hack-n-slashers, but when they attempt to submit something that will make the party feel like they suck because they didn't troll the wizard website CO boards for 10 hours; no thanks.
Shadowhowler 02-02-08, 12:26 AM	You miss-read me Lokiyn. Builders offer me only demands; I know you aren't saying this. If you looked at my example again, please note player A; he is a builder, but one with the desire to add to the game. Player T on the other hand only wants to take from the game; both are builders, but they differ in that one is willing to work himself into the game. I tell these guys that I don't want to see their builds, but I will listen to what class(es) they hope to join. I try to give them what they want because they are willing to give me an enriched game in return. But a builder(T) gives me his bill of entitlement and I see it as the quickest way to character death. I can tolerate hack-n-slashers, but when they attempt to submit something that will make the party feel like they suck because they didn't troll the wizard website CO boards for 10 hours; no thanks. Amen. :cookie:
pres_man 02-02-08, 12:55 AM	I dunno how everyone eles handles it... but I handle it as follows. Advancing your current class does not normaly require special training, becuase the class abilities gained as you level normaly relate to skills you already have. It is assumed (Tho I often like it to be reflected in game or in downtime discriptions anyway) that characters are working on their skills... practicing them, refining them, improving them. Thus... a Ranger levels up, and improves skills he already has, or gains skills that directly relate to skills that he has. This is VERY differant then that same Ranger gaining a level, and suddonly becoming a wizard, dispite never having studied spells, magic, or anything related to wizardry. If the player wants to become a wizard, I would require him to find someone to teach him. And I would claim that is a very metagame way of looking at that. To the characters, there are no classes. There may be professions, one can be a "ranger" without having a single level in the PC class Ranger for example, but to the characters they don't see the lines. So who is to say the Ranger hasn't studied magic in their down time? Is every single moment of the character's life played out? The difference between being a Ranger 2 and a Ranger 1/Wizard 1, is the person playing the Ranger 2 decided to use the default build the designers made. The player running the Ranger 1/Wizard 1 is making their own "class" from taking levels of various PC classes. Would it be more acceptable to "create" a new class and pick and choose the abilities from the various classes you would have taken anyway?
Jaxgaret 02-02-08, 01:23 AM	You miss-read me Lokiyn. Builders offer me only demands; I know you aren't saying this. If you looked at my example again, please note player A; he is a builder, but one with the desire to add to the game. Player T on the other hand only wants to take from the game; both are builders, but they differ in that one is willing to work himself into the game. I tell these guys that I don't want to see their builds, but I will listen to what class(es) they hope to join. I try to give them what they want because they are willing to give me an enriched game in return. But a builder(T) gives me his bill of entitlement and I see it as the quickest way to character death. I can tolerate hack-n-slashers, but when they attempt to submit something that will make the party feel like they suck because they didn't troll the wizard website CO boards for 10 hours; no thanks. That has nothing to do with either of them being builders. One person is an asshat, and one isn't. That's all. It doesn't matter if they're "builders" or "organicists" or what have you. An asshat is an asshat is an asshat, no matter what form it takes. The fact that the asshat was a builder was incidental.
Lokiyn 02-02-08, 10:02 AM	As a quick counterpoint to the builds promote a Bill of Entitlement, it's not the technique that doing that its the player. I have seen dozens of players do the exact same thing with their builds from a role play standpoint, everything from "i should have this because by dad was a blacksmith" to "Of course we can get in to see the king, see my mother was the kings sisters niece and its already written in my backstory" Its just optimization has been vilified to the point where when the same thing happens from a role playing standpoint its "oh they just need some time to learn to roleplay better" while people presenting a mechanically sound build are considered, well, asshats. This is what gets me but when they attempt to submit something that will make the party feel like they suck because they didn't troll the wizard website CO boards for 10 hours; no thanks. I've noticed that the issue isn't, for the most part, for most people, whether or not the character is soundly made, or made without cheating, or roleplayed properly. It's that someone with skill can who learns the rules of engagement can and will make a character better, often mechanically / sometimes mechanically and roleplaying wise, than someone who doesn't choose to learn the rules of engagement. And often times these individuals who skate by useing the ability to generate funny voices and mannerisms feel entitled to be just as good as those who desired a firm foundation within the actual structure of the game. BuilderOne who designs their characters from the ground up charting their characters growth often through 1-20 levels in order to match a desired concept. OrganicistOne who believes that character growth is the end result of subjective session time, regardless of how little or how much objective time that is. RoGThe Rules as presented by the literature (rulebooks), the only commonality available for discussions about the game by people from multiple separate iterations of the game. RoEThe Rules of the game as modified by unique individual games, varies from dm to dm and player to player, not appropriate baseline for discussions about the game as a whole. Similar to the above arguments The misuse of a technique or tool, does not reflect on the validity of the tool or technique itself, but rather on the individuals misusing said technique or tool
Dog_O_War 02-02-08, 10:51 AM	That has nothing to do with either of them being builders. One person is an asshat, and one isn't. That's all. It doesn't matter if they're "builders" or "organicists" or what have you. An asshat is an asshat is an asshat, no matter what form it takes. The fact that the asshat was a builder was incidental. Actually, player A (the builder/RPer) gets the same warning as player B and T do; the game might not go where they want it to. This could be my doing or their own, either way though I ask them to remain flexible. Player A (the builder/RPer) can usually handle this; that RP half gives him the sense to realize that (as the song) "you can't always get what you want". Player T on the other hand, most often cannot. I know because when I first started playing 3rd ED, I was player T. I was not just hack-n-slash, but the guy that took the super-multiclass approach just to be able to do everything, and usually do it better than everyone else. My builds were Bard 1(oratory), ranger1, fighter4, rogue4, barbarian2, maybe I'd take levels in monk (usually about 4-6) before barbarian, just to maintain the class abilities and the rage. It isn't that these players are rude (or that I was), it was that I had one vision for my character, and I wanted a rail-roaded plot to get it. That just isn't fair to everyone else at the table, no matter what side of the screen you're on.
Dog_O_War 02-02-08, 10:55 AM	As a quick counterpoint to the builds promote a Bill of Entitlement, it's not the technique that doing that its the player. I have seen dozens of players do the exact same thing with their builds from a role play standpoint, everything from "i should have this because by dad was a blacksmith" to "Of course we can get in to see the king, see my mother was the kings sisters niece and its already written in my backstory" Its just optimization has been vilified to the point where when the same thing happens from a role playing standpoint its "oh they just need some time to learn to roleplay better" while people presenting a mechanically sound build are considered, well, asshats. This is what gets me I've noticed that the issue isn't, for the most part, for most people, whether or not the character is soundly made, or made without cheating, or roleplayed properly. It's that someone with skill can who learns the rules of engagement can and will make a character better, often mechanically / sometimes mechanically and roleplaying wise, than someone who doesn't choose to learn the rules of engagement. And often times these individuals who skate by useing the ability to generate funny voices and mannerisms feel entitled to be just as good as those who desired a firm foundation within the actual structure of the game. I don't understand a word of this. I want to though, so could you rephase?
Ongorth 02-02-08, 01:33 PM	And I would claim that is a very metagame way of looking at that. To the characters, there are no classes. Pssh. My characters have their class written on their business cards. Would it be more acceptable to "create" a new class and pick and choose the abilities from the various classes you would have taken anyway? Absolutely yes. Because the class you created would far superior without the multiclassing baggage. You'd be able to make the character you actually want. You could directly balance to class against other classes instead of trying not only balance the classes as is, but also simultaneous balance every potenial multiclass combination that can be created with any combination of every class. You could avoid all the potential baggage of multiclass characters, like XP penalties, inflated saves and PrC prerequisites. You can ensure you get the class features you want without having to explain away the presence of class features you didn't want. You wouldn't have to deal with raising skills from two separate lists of class skills. Plus, one class name looks much nicer on your character's business card.
Dog_O_War 02-02-08, 01:51 PM	And I would claim that is a very metagame way of looking at that. To the characters, there are no classes. Wait; to the characters in YOUR game, there are no classes. But the game I play and run, andthe games I've played in, as well as quite a few games I've heard about, characters are well aware of their "class". There may be professions, one can be a "ranger" without having a single level in the PC class Ranger for example, but to the characters they don't see the lines. So who is to say the Ranger hasn't studied magic in their down time? Is every single moment of the character's life played out? Maybe in your game a ranger can be a ranger without taking levels in said class, but I am of a completely different opinion. And I have proven that it is not metagame to think that way either. The difference between being a Ranger 2 and a Ranger 1/Wizard 1, is the person playing the Ranger 2 decided to use the default build the designers made. The player running the Ranger 1/Wizard 1 is making their own "class" from taking levels of various PC classes. Would it be more acceptable to "create" a new class and pick and choose the abilities from the various classes you would have taken anyway? Again, this "own class" thing is completely your opinion. When I take levels in wizard and ranger, I am a wizard/ranger, or <insert character name here>. Also, if there is an official ranger class, what gives the player that is a wizard/scout/ranger/whatever the right to steal that title? Please don't tell people that class is metagame; it is not. Also, if a player wants to identify by class as an ingame title, this is not metagame either. It may be your opinion that it is, but yours is not more right or wrong than mine in this case.
pres_man 02-02-08, 02:46 PM	Maybe in your game a ranger can be a ranger without taking levels in said class, but I am of a completely different opinion. And I have proven that it is not metagame to think that way either. And we enter Elan range. You don't happen to also worship a puppet do you? http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0209.html
calronmoonflower 02-02-08, 04:43 PM	I've been thinking on the four techniques and came up with a visual aid for each. I also came up with a fifth technique that can be used. Generally it might overlap with the other four, but has instances where it stands on its own. For as long as they'd known him, Severas practiced the forms every dawn. With every time a question asked, he'd say he'd kept up a little bit, but always there was technique that would elude him. And more often than not, it was his old teacher's riposte that was cited as his latest frustration. Even as his step became sure and his bladework more refined, still that one quick turn and shift felt to him awkward and poorly placed. So he felt until in the middle of combat he turned to ask his allies to run while he handled the mongrelfolk mercenary set upon them only to realize he'd already killed the foe. The surprised mongrelfolk slid slowly from the blade to the ground; having been impaled up to the hilt, he'd died instantly from the shock of the powerful thrust. Despite the rush of battle, Severas had to grin. He'd finally got it. PCs have goals and development plans too. Wizards work on spells, thieves practice little tricks, and so on. This can make a preplanned ability choice just as organic as any other. The level at which the equivalent abilities appear in the character sheet are just the point at which the character "gets it". This can be assisted by other characters in the party (in fact, a character I'm playing now is going to take a level or two of monk soon, and I've been RPing training under the party monks to represent this). http://www.badongo.com/t/640/2845083.jpg (http://www.badongo.com/pic/2845083) Taisan blinked in surprise. His companions stared gaping at the smouldering pit of ash where the troll had been. The sorceror thought he'd made a few surprising developments over the past months, but this new blast of energy took the cake. He hadn't known such magic was possible, much less that he would be able to call upon a spell of such power. "Since when could you do that?" stammered Yinrak. "...Since twelve seconds ago, it seems." Taisan responded absentmindedly. Who says the PC has to know he's got a new ability until you decide it appears? Anachronistic surprise powers are a staple of fantasy literature and a solid roleplay concept. This trick works best with characters mastering an inborn power, but it can be adapted to many other types as well (in one of my games, the melee lead is a former Valenar blademaster who suffered amnesia due to the Mourning. He's actually relearning combat skills he'd lost in the disaster, and every now and then he'll remember something in the heat of combat that makes the rest of the party's jaws drop. This ties really well into a direction the DM has been playing on - that Elerosse was no normal Valenar soldier but an elite legend tasked with missions of importance to the High King himself). http://www.badongo.com/t/640/2845094.jpg (http://www.badongo.com/pic/2845094) The Red Veil assassin's taunts died off with a sudden gurgle as Vrodek's arrow buried itself in his throat. The archer chuckled as the crimson cloaked form dropped to the floor. "Now just a damned second," cried a still-jittery Shoutha. "How the hell did you do that?" "Remember our last fight with these bastards? We were trying to track them by watching for their footsteps in the water. Reminded me of that game with the ball and blindfold we saw those street kids play, where some track their playmates by noise and the clouds of dust their feet kick up. That's why I spent the last few days hanging out with those kids and doing those funny archery exercises blindfolded in the barn. Thought I'd gotten the hang of it," chuckled Vrodek, giving the corpse in scarlet an insolent kick. "And sure enough, they're not as good at hiding as they think they are." Whether they're talented geniuses who learn fast or just lucky enough to be in the right place at the right time looking at the right details, heroes can pick up the abilities they need to survive in response to events that happen around them. Now, you're probably astute enough to notice that this is the "organic development" you mentioned earlier. What's the difference, you ask? If you're familiar with the mechanics of your planned build, it really doesn't get in the way of organic development. In fact, it can assist this kind of organic development as you know what abilities you're going to pick up a little down the line and can be constantly on the lookout for events happening in the story that could serve as possible inspiration to your PC. You could have your PC develop an ability in response to an encounter that happened like 6 levels back because you thought "Hey, this is similar to/countered by that trick I'm going to pick up in 6 levels" and decided your PC would be significantly affected by the encounter to keep it in memory and train in response to the event. http://www.badongo.com/t/640/2845104.jpg (http://www.badongo.com/pic/2845104) Kugruk shoved the last of the white armored invaders over the castle wall. Hundreds of pounds of ogre and steel were shoved violently back over the ramparts without any more noticeable resistance than a suddenly interrupted grunt of surprise. Sandar chuckled at the half-orc and sheathed his blade. The brutal pushes and headlong charges that marked Kugruk's approach to combat had become the subject of jokes between the two ever since Kugruk demonstrated his usefulness to their lord as a bodyguard by shoving a would-be assassin (and an unfortunate courtier along for the ride) out a 5th story window. "Say Kug," Sandar yelled. "That's a Black Dawn Knight you just sent flying. Didn't you say a long time ago you'd never be crazy enough to take one of them on?" Kugruk looked over the battlements and shrugged at the motionless form in a pool of black ichor below. "So maybe I did." There's also the point that a new ability sometimes really isn't. The words on you character sheet are a metagame concept and so any new advancement may actually not be perceived by your PC as such, but just a natural growth of existing abilities. This of course works best for such abilities that are that kind of growth (for example, Improved Combat Expertise is just Combat Expertise with a higher allowable bonus). http://www.badongo.com/t/640/2993628.jpg (http://www.badongo.com/pic/2993628) http://www.badongo.com/t/640/2845116.jpg (http://www.badongo.com/pic/2845116) A scream pierced the night. Sojourn awoke with a jerk. The pitch of night gave way before his eyes. Another scream came forth. Quickly he sprang to his feet and called up the power within. Sojourn launched into the dark night at a speed that would put most horses to shame. In the distance he could see the light of a camp fire and hear the sounds of battle. He pushed further increasing his speed yet again. As he approach the battle be could see a enormous wolf attacking merchant caravan. The streaked across the battle fiend and took position in front of the dire wolf. The fierce beast turned and snapped barley missing Sojourn's arm. In that second he positioned himself, lightning already crackling at his finger tips. With a blow that could crush stone Sojourn's fist sank into the beast's ribcage, as the smell of burning fur filled the air. Turning to a a fallen guard, Sojourn placed his and on a viscous wound and it began to close. The guard looked into the eyes of the the stranger that saved his life. They glowed like liquid gold in the light of the campfire. "What are you? How can you do such things?" the guard stammered. Sojourn smiled, with fang-like teeth gleaming in the darkness. "I have a bit of dragon blood in me." Player characters should have a background of some sort. This background could be the source of some rather strange abilities. It could be the secret technique that was passed down in the family, happenstance of their birth, or the result of something that happened in their past. These abilities need not manifest right away, but could leave the path open to develop abilities beyond the norm.
KIDS 02-02-08, 04:43 PM	No ranger without levels in ranger class? What about Scouts, Druids, Ninjas, Fighters or whatever who take Knowledge (Nature), Survival, Track or something...? That's just on first glance, without delving into tons of possible combinations that involve ranger/rogues, ranger/wizards or just differently build ranger-only builds? p.s. calronmoonflower, great visualizations! Thanks for posting them! Mind if I (with credits) swipe them off for the fun factor somewhere else...?
calronmoonflower 02-02-08, 04:52 PM	Maybe in your game a ranger can be a ranger without taking levels in said class, but I am of a completely different opinion. And I have proving that it is not metagame to think that way either. I remember that thread and no you didn't. You changed the debate in mid stream (red herring (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_herring_fallacy)) to what class means to you alone and then tried to prove what you where saying with itself (begging the question (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Begging_the_question)). You even went as far as to say you where trying to win the argument. Which seems to contradict the point of debating which is to find the truth.
Dog_O_War 02-03-08, 01:26 AM	I remember that thread and no you didn't. You changed the debate in mid stream (red herring (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_herring_fallacy)) to what class means to you alone and then tried to prove what you where saying with itself (begging the question (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Begging_the_question)). You even went as far as to say you where trying to win the argument. Which seems to contradict the point of debating which is to find the truth. Actually, I stayed away from posting blue links stating a poster's faults without actually disproving them. I also restated my position and thoughts on the subject more clearly in a different thread (instead of high-jacking this one). In that very thread I was given multiple counterpoints by other posters on how I was "wrong", only to show that the examples listed more often than not worked greatly in my favor, instead of opposed to it. Also, by virtue of class and title capable of being the same, I cannot be wrong.
RadicalTaoist 02-03-08, 01:51 AM	Also, by virtue of class and title capable of being the same, I cannot be wrong.Only if we were arguing in absolutes. Jaxgaret pegged it. This isn't about builds or metagaming. You've got a player who reads like a textbook example of how to employ the third skill, for crying out loud. The problem player isn't a problem player because of builds, but because he's not bothering with the RP. Recognize the real problem.
Shadowhowler 02-03-08, 03:01 AM	And I would claim that is a very metagame way of looking at that. To the characters, there are no classes. There may be professions, one can be a "ranger" without having a single level in the PC class Ranger for example, but to the characters they don't see the lines. So who is to say the Ranger hasn't studied magic in their down time? Is every single moment of the character's life played out? The difference between being a Ranger 2 and a Ranger 1/Wizard 1, is the person playing the Ranger 2 decided to use the default build the designers made. The player running the Ranger 1/Wizard 1 is making their own "class" from taking levels of various PC classes. Would it be more acceptable to "create" a new class and pick and choose the abilities from the various classes you would have taken anyway? No... the differance, to me, is the abilities gained with a 2nd level of Ranger all relate to abilties the character already has. The Abilites gained when you make 2nd level and take a level of Wizard are COMPLETLY differant then the abilities you already had... thus there has to be some explination of where these abilites came from.
calronmoonflower 02-03-08, 03:01 AM	p.s. calronmoonflower, great visualizations! Thanks for posting them! Mind if I (with credits) swipe them off for the fun factor somewhere else...? I don't mind. [edit]Also thanks for the complement. I would say that they are free for anyone to use. I really wouldn't mind much if they left my name out, as long of course as they don't take credit themselves. This is because I made them for inspiration.
calronmoonflower 02-03-08, 03:15 AM	No... the differance, to me, is the abilities gained with a 2nd level of Ranger all relate to abilties the character already has. The Abilites gained when you make 2nd level and take a level of Wizard are COMPLETLY differant then the abilities you already had... thus there has to be some explination of where these abilites came from. From the SRD, Combat Style (Ex): At 2nd level, a ranger must select one of two combat styles to pursue: archery or two-weapon combat. This choice affects the character’s class features but does not restrict his selection of feats or special abilities in any way. If the ranger selects archery, he is treated as having the Rapid Shot feat, even if he does not have the normal prerequisites for that feat. If the ranger selects two-weapon combat, he is treated as having the Two-Weapon Fighting feat, even if he does not have the normal prerequisites for that feat. The benefits of the ranger’s chosen style apply only when he wears light or no armor. He loses all benefits of his combat style when wearing medium or heavy armor. The two-weapon combat is not tied to any other abilities that a ranger has. An argument for the archery combat style could be made, but it depends on how you played up to that point. Also note at 4th level they can cast spells. Where is this spellcasting earlier in the class and how is it different from picking it up at 2nd? Well, other than a different style of spellcasting.
Leo 02-03-08, 05:09 PM	And we enter Elan range. You don't happen to also worship a puppet do you? http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0209.html So if Dog_O_War is Elan, that would make the guys who defend that character is completely independant from class... Miko range. Miko the powergamer who bended the rules of her code to beat up everyone. Miko the fallen paladin who never admited she broke the paladin's code. Miko the most hated "good" character of the whole story, loved even less than Belkar, the psychotic murderous halfling. You don't happen to also worship some twisted version of reality do you?
pres_man 02-03-08, 05:51 PM	So if Dog_O_War is Elan, that would make the guys who defend that character is completely independant from class... Miko range. Miko the powergamer who bended the rules of her code to beat up everyone. Miko the fallen paladin who never admited she broke the paladin's code. Miko the most hated "good" character of the whole story, loved even less than Belkar, the psychotic murderous halfling. You don't happen to also worship some twisted version of reality do you? Nice try, but actually most would be falling into Roy range. Roy had no problem understanding what Miko was getting at, that class levels and character "titles" were not identical. It was the naive minded Elan that couldn't understand it.
Jaxgaret 02-03-08, 11:26 PM	Nice try, but actually most would be falling into Roy range. Roy had no problem understanding what Miko was getting at, that class levels and character "titles" were not identical. It was the naive minded Elan that couldn't understand it. Right. He was reminded of that later with Shojo's reveal of not being a Paladin, but rather an Aristocrat.
Leo 02-04-08, 03:04 PM	Right. He was reminded of that later with Shojo's reveal of not being a Paladin, but rather an Aristocrat. Coincidence of coincidence, he was playing a character that pretended being a paladin when he was only an aristrocat. He never intended to be a paladin, he lied left and right and he never fighted. He was an aristrocat, both in class and character. To what that leaded? Ah, yes, Miko going berseker, the best Azure city members out of action(Miko, best warrior, the wizard that never got ressurected and Shojo, that would have probably persuaded the noble armies to stay and fight) and the consequent fall of the city. And Roy dead. For more than 3 months and counting now. Because he doesn't even knows the gear he carries. For someone who has enough wisdom and cha to be a good cleric, Roy is pretty clueless.
pres_man 02-04-08, 03:24 PM	And Roy dead. For more than 3 months and counting now. Because he doesn't even knows the gear he carries. For someone who has enough wisdom and cha to be a good cleric, Roy is pretty clueless. Not that I am really interested in defending some fictional character, but just to be accurate, Roy was not aware of the passing of time while up on the mountain, thus his being out of action during that time had nothing to do with how smart he was. And before something is said about how it was a failing of his to realize that, it was stated that most new arrivals had the same problem. As for contacting the material plane, he was not sure how to do it, probably lacking the approrpiate skills (and didn't metagame, unlike so many "roleplayers"). He needed a "nudge" from his dead father to aid him in learning how. Miko the most hated "good" character of the whole story, loved even less than Belkar, the psychotic murderous halfling. From my experience Belkar is one of the most loved characters in the story.
Dog_O_War 02-04-08, 03:55 PM	Only if we were arguing in absolutes. Jaxgaret pegged it. This isn't about builds or metagaming. You've got a player who reads like a textbook example of how to employ the third skill, for crying out loud. The problem player isn't a problem player because of builds, but because he's not bothering with the RP. Recognize the real problem. I'm really glad you posted it that way. While a builder's building skill has nothing to do with his RP skill, why is it that he is the one that is unhappy? Because he cut out half the game due to lack of development in one area of play. A builder does not "optimize" for RP, but RP is what the very game is about. The builder/RP hybrid needs a different name so as not to be confused with the straight builder. Also, the comic (while funny) has been wrong on more than one account. Class is something people already put themselves into (or are put into), and character class is just another form of said system. D&D is not a free-form system, otherwise it would be class-less. You can certainly play it that way, but the truth is you're only fooling yourself. Also, just because a person's class isn't highlighted above his head does not mean he is unaware, or that others are unaware. I have stated in the "What class means to me" thread that a person can be pegged down as to what their class(es) is(are); it is simply harder when they choose several classes with similar abilities (fighter, warrior, etc...). Elan is right (though he came about the conclusion a rather illogical way), just as I am right. Though this is one of the very few instances in life where both of our sides can (and are) right in our conclusions.
Dog_O_War 02-04-08, 03:56 PM	From my experience Belkar is one of the most loved characters in the story. He means by the other characters in the story itself, not the fanship.
Jaxgaret 02-04-08, 03:58 PM	Not that I am really interested in defending some fictional character, but just to be accurate, Roy was not aware of the passing of time while up on the mountain, thus his being out of action during that time had nothing to do with how smart he was. And before something is said about how it was a failing of his to realize that, it was stated that most new arrivals had the same problem. As for contacting the material plane, he was not sure how to do it, probably lacking the approrpiate skills (and didn't metagame, unlike so many "roleplayers"). He needed a "nudge" from his dead father to aid him in learning how. I think the "gear" comment was referring to the Booty Talisman, and Roy's failure to activate it. From my experience Belkar is one of the most loved characters in the story. I <3 Belkar.
Lokiyn 02-04-08, 06:23 PM	While a builder's building skill has nothing to do with his RP skill, why is it that he is the one that is unhappy? It could be that there is a bill of entitlement that is falsely applying to the player in which people feel that they are entitled to be as effective hamstrung as they would if they say, chose to exhibits any sort of self preservation instincts. Because he cut out half the game due to lack of development in one area of play.False conclusion, invalid argument A builder does not "optimize" for RP, but RP is what the very game is about.False conclusion, invalid argument on both counts, be truthful You believe that builders do not optimize for roleplaying, You believe that the design of dnd is to roleplay. Given that we can find multiple builders who do work towards roleplaying goals the first is false, given that the grand majority of dnd's rules are rules for combat its clear that what the very game is about is likely not roleplay, but a multi-purpose synthesis of mechanical constructs designed to simulate a fantasy environment allowing multiple games, styles, and goals to be accomplished. The builder/RP hybrid needs a different name so as not to be confused with the straight builder.False conclusion, invalid argument, see above Also, just because a person's class isn't highlighted above his head does not mean he is unaware, or that others are unaware.Yes it does The Rules of dnd Explicitly call out Class as an Intangible factor, and are explicitly stated as non observable factors. I can cite at least 6 examples You can also set special triggering limitations of your own. These can be as simple or elaborate as you desire. Special conditions for triggering a symbol of death can be based on a creature’s name, identity, or alignment, but otherwise must be based on observable actions or qualities. Intangibles such as level, class, Hit Dice, and hit points don’t qualify. Glyphs can also be set with respect to good, evil, law, or chaos, or to pass those of your religion. They cannot be set according to class, Hit Dice, or level. When the spell is cast, the hand appears in front of you. You then specify a person (or any creature) by physical description, which can include race, gender, and appearance but not ambiguous factors such as level, alignment, or class. When the description is complete, the hand streaks off in search of a subject that fits the description. The amount of time it takes to find the subject depends on how far away she is. Regardless of the version of binding you cast, you can specify triggering conditions that end the spell and release the creature whenever they occur. These triggers can be as simple or elaborate as you desire, but the condition must be reasonable and have a likelihood of coming to pass. The conditions can be based on a creature’s name, identity, or alignment but otherwise must be based on observable actions or qualities. Intangibles such as level, class, Hit Dice, or hit points don’t qualify. Once the spell is cast, its triggering conditions cannot be changed. Setting a release condition increases the save DC (assuming a saving throw is allowed) by 2. Commands can be as general or as detailed as desired, although only visual and audible triggers can be used. Triggers react to what appears to be the case. Disguises and illusions can fool them. Normal darkness does not defeat a visual trigger, but magical darkness or invisibility does. Silent movement or magical silence defeats audible triggers. Audible triggers can be keyed to general types of noises or to a specific noise or spoken word. Actions can serve as triggers if they are visible or audible. A magic mouth cannot distinguish alignment, level, Hit Dice, or class except by external garb. . They can be based on a creature’s name, identity, or alignment, but otherwise must be based on observable actions or qualities. Intangibles such as level, class, Hit Dice, and hit points don’t qualify. Searching through the core literature i can find only two examples where class is called out, both instances in a metagame discussion Even more restrictive than requiring a skill, this limitation cuts the cost by 30%. Character must add a specific class at the next opportunity if not of that class already. Both references are metagame instructions to the DM, presented as such in the DMG. Remember we are not discussing your game we are discussing the commonality of dungeons and dragons, thus the game as presented by the rules anything other than that is irrelevant to Dnd outside of its specific application to the instance it occurred in. For example, i can say, "In my game, all humans get Familiars based on their hit dice" and with respect to "my game" i am right. However if i attempt to apply that to dnd as a whole, without also acknowledging that it is a houserule and not part of the actual rules. Then i have made a grievous error in debating the nature of dnd. an instead have changed the argument in midstream from "in dungeons and dragons" to "in my game"
RadicalTaoist 02-04-08, 09:50 PM	While a builder's building skill has nothing to do with his RP skill, why is it that he is the one that is unhappy? Because he cut out half the game due to lack of development in one area of play. A builder does not "optimize" for RP, but RP is what the very game is about. The builder/RP hybrid needs a different name so as not to be confused with the straight builder. Wrong. He's unhappy because he hasn't developed the third skill and is in a game under a DM who thinks the RP half of the game gets priority. I imagine that an RP-first player who hadn't developed the third skill but was stuck in an op-heavy mechanics-first game wouldn't be jumping with joy either. Jell-Moo Principle: Do not tell other people how to play the game. D&D is too far gone for any one playstyle to declare itself the true way to play. Class is something people already put themselves into (or are put into), and character class is just another form of said system. D&D is not a free-form system, otherwise it would be class-less. There's a big medium between 'classes set in stone' and 'classless freeform makes-GURPS-look-libertine'. Lot of space to fit a game. You can certainly play it that way, but the truth is you're only fooling yourself. Utterly false, and strongly demonstrative that you don't understand reflavoring. Also, just because a person's class isn't highlighted above his head does not mean he is unaware, or that others are unaware. I have stated in the "What class means to me" thread that a person can be pegged down as to what their class(es) is(are); it is simply harder when they choose several classes with similar abilities (fighter, warrior, etc...). Valid. However, because a person's class isn't highlighted above their head does mean that the game does not essentially demand in-character knowledge of class beyond an abstract understanding of an individual's abilities. In short: yes, we can't argue that your approach is invalid, but you can't argue ours is invalid either. Elan is right (though he came about the conclusion a rather illogical way), just as I am right. Though this is one of the very few instances in life where both of our sides can (and are) right in our conclusions. Again: JMP. You can't tell anyone what's the right way to play, and neither can Elan. On top, the OotS tangent is overplayed and should be put down. A character who doesn't have the sense to tell a sock puppet from a deity really shouldn't be cited in arguments on class identity.
KIDS 02-05-08, 09:30 AM	I'm really glad you posted it that way. While a builder's building skill has nothing to do with his RP skill, why is it that he is the one that is unhappy? Because he cut out half the game due to lack of development in one area of play. A builder does not "optimize" for RP, but RP is what the very game is about. The builder/RP hybrid needs a different name so as not to be confused with the straight builder. I think you're missing the point here. We aren't arguing that your "builder" sucks at roleplaying and since he doesn't put effort into blending mechanics with ideas of course it's a pain to play with him or DM him. And in fact, we might have entirely definitions of roleplay. To me, it is crafting a believable personality, determining motivations, vivid descriptions, realistic reactions, explained motivation or lack of motivation for adventuring, quirks, affinities... etc. Not quite the next Dostoevsky character, but these details are core of "roleplay". This is the major part. See below for minor part. Now linguistically, strictly linguistically, it is possible to say that "roleplay" is picking a "role" out of provided 11 roles and playing that role as preset, with some minor customization. I personally heavily dislike a sytem like this because (dreaded argument) it's very much video-gamish, WoW-like or however you put it. It has many similarities with picking a class out of 9 and playing a preset path with some little customizations such as talent points and professions. Of course one can run a game with this system and sure it's gonna work and people might be happy, why not? My only gripe with it is that it kills millions of other concepts and characters that do not start with a wooden mildly customizable iconic, but it sometimes kills them for valid reasons which are more complex than "do not want". The problem of this thread, and of why the entire (I believe) Stormwind Fallacy exists, and why people are offended by reading your (not you in specific Dog, nor anyone in specific, generally) too-certain comments, is representativeness. In said builder example, it is roughly zero. Null. 0. There is no representativeness at all. You have described a rare case (I might argue that it doesn't exist at all but everything is possible so ok) of someone who has a focus only on mechanics and not at all on roleplay (see above). This rare case has nothing to do with someone who both optimizes/builds and roleplays at the same time, or someone who does neither, nor is there any bias between the two, nor are they correlated in any way. The problem appears when you try to judge many many people, dozens on these boards and thousands outside them, by this same one rotten example which doesn't apply to them at all, and tell them that because they pick Improved Toughness over Toughness, or plot their build so to include Cleric rather than Healer or Dervish over Tempest or whatever (which is builds and optimization) that their personality, motivations and imagination suck. And slandering so many people over one single gripe ends up quite rude. Undeservedly rude, unnecessarily rude, and fighting with shadows. Really. When there are so many many many possible complaints in any game, like: a) "Hey I wish you describe your character a bit more, I don't know how he looks" b) "I know you want to play a Shapeshift Druid from Aundair, but in my campaign this substitution level is more like a prestige class, not available outside Eldeen" c) "Could you tell us how much does Bob the Wizard value money? Enough to sway his opinions should it come up?" d) "I know you want to be heroic and all, but can you please deoptimize your character a bit? My core fighter feels useless compared to your core Druid." e) "Can you study the geography of campaign setting a bit more, please? We will understand each other better if we know the same maps." f) "Maybe you could be a bit more active and aid us in decision-making." g) "I know you want Extended Doom for the 'curse' feel, but could you please cast Cone of Despair instead? It has the same flavor with stronger effect, and it might be our key to surviving the battle." The point? Out of all of those possible concerns, discussing some unfounded negative connection between roleplaying quality and builds (or optimization) is the worst possible thing to focus on! I understand that is was a a charming topic for many people since 1E was around and still is for increasing ego, but seriously! Short of choking someone, it's the absolutely worst way to wreck a game and insult someone and yet so many people embrace it readily. I myself can chuckle at one munchkin joke, or two as well, but it should not be the "hot issue" to be discussed, and more than that is a fast road to insults.
RadicalTaoist 02-05-08, 10:57 AM	KIDS: http://pics.livejournal.com/twoflower/pic/000740kr
Malchius 02-05-08, 11:17 AM	I tend to think that optimization(sp?) does get in the way of roleplaying(I'm not saying this is the standard thing). This tends to be in cases where someone is optimizing during the game(levelling up and taking optimal options), they tend to go against their concept. I've also seen other times when people pretend to roleplay(maybe that was the best way of phrasing it). But I mean the person who will take all the optimal choices and then try defending it, claiming it's part of their concept, I think the worst excuse I've heard is "My Character wants to be as powerful as possible so he would choose all these.":nonono: I also dislike it when players claim take certain prestige classes(Frenzy Berserker and Planar Shepherd) because it suites their concept. Frenzy Berserker's the most frequent as players have said I want to be a warrior who just loses it and destroys his enemies, so I'm taking Frenzy Berserker when clearly a regular Barbarian fits that role perfectly. I also dislike the Frenzy's killing of party members too, especially as it serves as a way Munchkins(or just bad players) can get away with killing another powerful character so they become Alpha Male. I do think that the Stormwind Fallacy is thrown around too much aswell, it is correct in most circumstances. It tends to be an excuse to increase post count especially with answers just as "Stormwind Fallacy". I also dislike how people don't explain it when it could be a newb(or a n00b) that is asking.
Lokiyn 02-05-08, 12:02 PM	So your argument isn't "Optimization makes people roleplay worse" its "Bad Roleplaying causes inappropriate optimization"?
Malchius 02-05-08, 12:30 PM	Yes, my thoughts were all over the place but that's exactly what I was trying to point out, also the vice versa "Inappropriate Optimization causes Bad Roleplaying". As in someone picks all the optimal choices but then can't think of any real reason why their character would pick them so they try to make excuses. Additionally there's no point in being game shattering(eg. Pun Pun) if you can just be Uber(but able to be coped with). Sorry if that caused any confusion though.
Jaxgaret 02-05-08, 12:41 PM	Yes, my thoughts were all over the place but that's exactly what I was trying to point out, also the vice versa "Inappropriate Optimization causes Bad Roleplaying". As in someone picks all the optimal choices but then can't think of any real reason why their character would pick them so they try to make excuses. Additionally there's no point in being game shattering(eg. Pun Pun) if you can just be Uber(but able to be coped with). Sorry if that caused any confusion though. Except that Inappropriate Optimization does not cause Bad Roleplaying. It can lead to it, sure, but it doesn't directly cause it. If that player didn't inapproprately optimize their character, would they all of a sudden start roleplaying better? No, because they are a bad roleplayer. Being a bad roleplayer causes bad roleplaying. Period.
Malchius 02-05-08, 12:48 PM	Except that Inappropriate Optimization does not cause Bad Roleplaying. It can lead to it, sure, but it doesn't directly cause it. If that player didn't inapproprately optimize their character, would they all of a sudden start roleplaying better? No, because they are a bad roleplayer. Bad roleplaying causes bad roleplaying. Period. hmm, You're right that it isn't fair to say it directly causes it. However what if a person Roleplays exactly for their average character's,as in a character they just liked the idea of and didn't spend hours finding the best possible combination of abilities and such(I think I'm generalising a bit here). One day, they decide "I want to play the most powerful character I can make", so then they search the books and find an uber combination but they have no concept at all. That doesn't make them a bad roleplayer(however I agree that's Bad Roleplaying on their part).
pres_man 02-05-08, 01:02 PM	hmm, You're right that it isn't fair to say it directly causes it. However what if a person Roleplays exactly for their average character's,as in a character they just liked the idea of and didn't spend hours finding the best possible combination of abilities and such(I think I'm generalising a bit here). One day, they decide "I want to play the most powerful character I can make", so then they search the books and find an uber combination but they have no concept at all. That doesn't make them a bad roleplayer(however I agree that's Bad Roleplaying on their part). Actually I would say that does mean they are not a good roleplayer. A good roleplayer in my mind can take any set of stats (good, bad, average, strange) and as long as they know the mechanics can develop a personality and interesting character from that. For example, if I gave a good roleplayer a character that was a gnome barbarian 3/sorcerer 3/bard 6 and asked them to develop a personality and theme for that character, I bet they could do it. A poor roleplayer couldn't, they couldn't look past the different stats.
Dog_O_War 02-05-08, 01:08 PM	It could be that there is a bill of entitlement that is falsely applying to the player in which people feel that they are entitled to be as effective hamstrung as they would if they say, chose to exhibits any sort of self preservation instincts. There's a difference though between taking levels in druid, and taking 19 levels in druid (with the shapeshifter variant from the PHBII), 1 in barbarian, Orc as a race, and using points buy to ensure an 18 strength, as well as a 14 wis (minimum after racial adjustments), bypassing that pesky "orcs are evil in most places" thing by remaining shifted where convenient. Infact, what ever did people do before multiclassing in 3rd ED., as well as prestige classes, web-fixes, splatbooks, etc...? I can't speak for eveyone who ever called a person a builder/munchkin/powergamer/etc... but I have been called those things, and know how to identify those player-types. Builders are most easily identified by how they speak about their characters; RPers tend to give name, race, and concept, as well as all the interesting things they've done first. Builders (so far unfailingly so when they speak to me) rattle off race/template, class(es), big stat, and then uber combo/max damage on a "crit". Somewhere in their they might mention a name. False conclusion, invalid argument False conclusion, invalid argument on both counts, be truthful You believe that builders do not optimize for roleplaying, You believe that the design of dnd is to roleplay. Given that we can find multiple builders who do work towards roleplaying goals the first is false, given that the grand majority of dnd's rules are rules for combat its clear that what the very game is about is likely not roleplay, but a multi-purpose synthesis of mechanical constructs designed to simulate a fantasy environment allowing multiple games, styles, and goals to be accomplished. False conclusion, invalid argument, see above Actually like everything, it (they) become valid with definition. If there is a clear distinction between RPer, Builder, and Hybrid, then every one of those "arguements" I've laid out is very valid. Since I went to the trouble and effort to realize that there is infact a wrong way to RP (ex: every actor you ever thought was the "worst"), just as there is a wrong way to build an effective character (following the actor example: choosing a good or well-written script), and that there is a distinction between the two, it remains valid due to the two sides remaining seperate (and thus allowing different skill levels) that there are the three categories. Also, I do not believe D&D is designed for roleplay - I know it is. This is because it is called an RPG, or role-playing game (how did you miss that?!). Also, show me one book that has a huge, or even a majority section on how to roleplay. Any book, for any game. Any system, no matter how obscure; then maybe saying D&D is not about RP (actually, you don't need to, as looking back to the history of the game, it did start off as a historical combat simulator which is believed to be the origin of today's role-playing games.) Yes it does The Rules of dnd Explicitly call out Class as an Intangible factor, and are explicitly stated as non observable factors.[/list] I can cite at least 6 examples <Snip> Searching through the core literature i can find only two examples where class is called out, both instances in a metagame discussion Both references are metagame instructions to the DM, presented as such in the DMG. Your list is great and all, but it refers to the metagame factors of those things. But here's the exception; a person can identify themselves by class, and if they do they qualify for the identity factor of those spells. Since there is nothing saying a character is barred from identifying himself by class, a gylph can and will cover people who title themselves as such. Also, your "metagame" examples create quite the conundrum for a player; if he is to seek out a level in a given class, how will he know he's taken that level without knowing what class is? Remember we are not discussing your game we are discussing the commonality of dungeons and dragons, thus the game as presented by the rules anything other than that is irrelevant to Dnd outside of its specific application to the instance it occurred in. For example, i can say, "In my game, all humans get Familiars based on their hit dice" and with respect to "my game" i am right. Show me where it says then that a character is expressly not able to identify by class. If I were to play in your game, would I unravel the very fabric of reality by doing so? However if i attempt to apply that to dnd as a whole, without also acknowledging that it is a houserule and not part of the actual rules. Then i have made a grievous error in debating the nature of dnd. an instead have changed the argument in midstream from "in dungeons and dragons" to "in my game" No houserule was needed. People already title themselves by class (ex: paladin), and are easily identifyable class-wise by ability choices; this can be done in-game without even an ounce of metagaming taking place. Infact, it can lead to some very great RP options for players looking for an edge without having to develope spontaineous classism. An example of this is dueling fighters; one has an alternate class feature, and bests the other fighter. That fighter then asks where he learned such a grand technique, and now an adventure is born.
Ongorth 02-05-08, 01:30 PM	Being a bad roleplayer causes bad roleplaying. Period. I don't agree. Bad roleplaying is an effect. It doesn't cause itself to happen. It isn't generated spontaneously. The fact that you CAN roleplay better by changing resources and conditions shows this. I mean, try roleplaying any given on the side of a major highway during major construction with a terrible hangover and nothing to drink. Is your bad roleplaying due to bad roleplaying or because you are by the side of a major highway during major construction with a terrible handover and nothing to drink? If that player didn't inapproprately optimize their character, would they all of a sudden start roleplaying better? Why not? A change in perspective can do a lot of good. If you get to refocus the player's attention away from designing the ideal set of mechanics and get them thinking about designing a character they can actually portray, they likely WILL roleplay better. It really depends on the details of the problem. I mean, unless bad roleplaying is a self-perpetuated, inescapable cycle of doom. Then it doesn't matter anyway.
RadicalTaoist 02-05-08, 01:51 PM	There's a difference though between taking levels in druid, and taking 19 levels in druid (with the shapeshifter variant from the PHBII), 1 in barbarian, Orc as a race, and using points buy to ensure an 18 strength, as well as a 14 wis (minimum after racial adjustments), bypassing that pesky "orcs are evil in most places" thing by remaining shifted where convenient. ...what's wrong with that? It's not even really optimized, and 'Orc druid who tries to help society but must hide with shapeshifting to not be a target of prejudice' is a great roleplay concept. I can't speak for eveyone who ever called a person a builder/munchkin/powergamer/etc... but I have been called those things, and know how to identify those player-types. I would think that first phrase counters the second. Builders are most easily identified by how they speak about their characters; RPers tend to give name, race, and concept, as well as all the interesting things they've done first. Builders (so far unfailingly so when they speak to me) rattle off race/template, class(es), big stat, and then uber combo/max damage on a "crit". Somewhere in their they might mention a name. You have to respond to KIDS' criticism about representativeness (or lack thereof). Actually like everything, it (they) become valid with definition. If there is a clear distinction between RPer, Builder, and Hybrid, then every one of those "arguements" I've laid out is very valid. Since I went to the trouble and effort to realize that there is infact a wrong way to RP (ex: every actor you ever thought was the "worst"), just as there is a wrong way to build an effective character (following the actor example: choosing a good or well-written script), and that there is a distinction between the two, it remains valid due to the two sides remaining seperate (and thus allowing different skill levels) that there are the three categories. That doesn't change the fact that your arguments are logically invalid by Lokiyn's critique. Your assertions do not follow from their premises. It does not stand that someone who does not roleplay cannot enjoy D&D or that builders cannot build to match a character concept. Also, I do not believe D&D is designed for roleplay - I know it is. This is because it is called an RPG, or role-playing game (how did you miss that?!). Also, show me one book that has a huge, or even a majority section on how to roleplay. Any book, for any game. Any system, no matter how obscure; then maybe saying D&D is not about RP (actually, you don't need to, as looking back to the history of the game, it did start off as a historical combat simulator which is believed to be the origin of today's role-playing games.) No. You don't need to play D&D in any manner besides the manner that is fun for you. You can play D&D without roleplaying, just as you can play it without optimization. If you reject the Jell-Moo Principle, there is no point to our even trying a discussion at all as we can simply sit back and say 'your playstyle is wrong'. I'm very adamant on this point. Your list is great and all, but it refers to the metagame factors of those things. But here's the exception; a person can identify themselves by class, and if they do they qualify for the identity factor of those spells. Since there is nothing saying a character is barred from identifying himself by class, a gylph can and will cover people who title themselves as such. So what? Just because a person 'can' identify themselves by class in some games in no way means they 'must' be able to in any game. Also, your "metagame" examples create quite the conundrum for a player; if he is to seek out a level in a given class, how will he know he's taken that level without knowing what class is? Easy. Player isn't the character and vice versa. Character doesn't know what the class is, player does. Too easy. Show me where it says then that a character is expressly not able to identify by class. If I were to play in your game, would I unravel the very fabric of reality by doing so? No, you'd just be roleplaying badly. No houserule was needed. People already title themselves by class (ex: paladin), and are easily identifyable class-wise by ability choices; this can be done in-game without even an ounce of metagaming taking place. In your games, perhaps. Infact, it can lead to some very great RP options for players looking for an edge without having to develope spontaineous classism. An example of this is dueling fighters; one has an alternate class feature, and bests the other fighter. That fighter then asks where he learned such a grand technique, and now an adventure is born. You can do this without any in-game concept of class. Accordingly, the plot would then work independent of the mechanical composition of the characters in question as long as they are both combatants who fight in similar but significantly different manners.
Dog_O_War 02-05-08, 01:51 PM	Wrong. He's unhappy because he hasn't developed the third skill and is in a game under a DM who thinks the RP half of the game gets priority. I imagine that an RP-first player who hadn't developed the third skill but was stuck in an op-heavy mechanics-first game wouldn't be jumping with joy either. Would you enjoy a build-heavy game? Would you enjoy an RP-exclusive game? I'm betting you'd find both playable, but I can peg you into the Hybrid category; game is best played with a mix of the two (as the majority will agree). The thing is when a builder encounters RP, the reaction is most assuredly negative because the book does not have rules that cover it, where-as the RPer in such a game has the advantage of knowing what's needed, simply because we have manuals to tell us. Jell-Moo Principle: Do not tell other people how to play the game. D&D is too far gone for any one playstyle to declare itself the true way to play. I never told anyone how to play, I rewarded the player(s) who were contributing to the game. I doubt you will find fault in this. There's a big medium between 'classes set in stone' and 'classless freeform makes-GURPS-look-libertine'. Lot of space to fit a game. I agree, and as I had to explain to Lokiyn, class can and will be an identifyable factor in a game; any game. If they are more readily defined, then it will be more common to indentify that way than it will be not to. Utterly false, and strongly demonstrative that you don't understand reflavoring. Even with the reflavoring you've posted in the past, a character still has to take a level in that class in order to be that class. To not gain levels, or classes (how ever intangible they may be to a game) when you advance only goes to show that you are not playing this class-based game. When you take a class, you are that class (however you so choose to define it); if you are classless, then you are either a creature with racial hit dice or are not playing D&D. Also, I'd like you to post the dictionary reference for "reflavoring" before saying that I don't understand something. Valid. However, because a person's class isn't highlighted above their head does mean that the game does not essentially demand in-character knowledge of class beyond an abstract understanding of an individual's abilities. In short: yes, we can't argue that your approach is invalid, but you can't argue ours is invalid either. I never tried to argue that "your" approach was invalid. Infact you quoted me as saying the exact opposite. Again: JMP. You can't tell anyone what's the right way to play, and neither can Elan. On top, the OotS tangent is overplayed and should be put down. A character who doesn't have the sense to tell a sock puppet from a deity really shouldn't be cited in arguments on class identity. (This response is where you quoted me as saying both of our styles are valid). Where did I tell anyone here how they should play here? I did the exact opposite infact, by stating that how Elan's (and by default, myself) way was just as valid as any other approach.
RadicalTaoist 02-05-08, 02:04 PM	Would you enjoy a build-heavy game? Would you enjoy an RP-exclusive game? I'm betting you'd find both playable, but I can peg you into the Hybrid category; game is best played with a mix of the two (as the majority will agree). No. It doesn't matter if you and I are in the majority or not; we don't have any right to dictate to anyone how 'the game is best played'. If someone wants to play an RP exclusive game or an op exclusive game, and they have fun, more power to them. The thing is when a builder encounters RP, the reaction is most assuredly negative because the book does not have rules that cover it, where-as the RPer in such a game has the advantage of knowing what's needed, simply because we have manuals to tell us. So? The thing is when a dramatist encounters CO, the reaction is most assuredly negative because he cannot simply imagine up the right character formulation, where-as the builder in such a game has the advantage of knowing what's needed, simply because he knows where to look. It's relative to playgroup. I never told anyone how to play, I rewarded the player(s) who were contributing to the game. I doubt you will find fault in this. Contributing to your game in the manner you deemed appropriate. Which is cool; you're the DM. But it's not at all applicable to anyone else's playstyle. I agree, and as I had to explain to Lokiyn, class can and will be an identifyable factor in a game; any game. Incorrect. You again seem incapable of grasping our approach to the game. If they are more readily defined, then it will be more common to indentify that way than it will be not to. Not necessarily. Even with the reflavoring you've posted in the past, a character still has to take a level in that class in order to be that class. Correction: to acquire an ability. My characters don't know when they 'level up' either. To not gain levels, or classes (how ever intangible they may be to a game) when you advance only goes to show that you are not playing this class-based game. You're confounding what the player does to the character sheet with what the character does. We don't. When you take a class, you are that class (however you so choose to define it); if you are classless, then you are either a creature with racial hit dice or are not playing D&D. Emphasis mine. Also, I'd like you to post the dictionary reference for "reflavoring" before saying that I don't understand something. Reflavoring: to rewrite the in-game description of any mechanical element to whatever the players involved desire. The Playstyle I defend in question: any D&D game where there is no in-game concept of class identity. Examples include where settings where adepts, archivists, psions, sorcerors, and wizards all refer to themselves as 'mages' and the lines between abilities are drawn by in-game area of use (so both the psionic power Precognition, Defensive and the feat Combat Expertise are viewed as combat techniques; neither's out-of-game name makes sense in the game world). I never tried to argue that "your" approach was invalid. Infact you quoted me as saying the exact opposite. (This response is where you quoted me as saying both of our styles are valid). Where did I tell anyone here how they should play here? I did the exact opposite infact, by stating that how Elan's (and by default, myself) way was just as valid as any other approach. My error. You have been attributing to the no-in-game-class-identity properties of play that do not follow, however.
Dog_O_War 02-05-08, 02:31 PM	...what's wrong with that? It's not even really optimized, and 'Orc druid who tries to help society but must hide with shapeshifting to not be a target of prejudice' is a great roleplay concept. ...So a 30 strength at level 2(with no LA) is not optimized? I'd hate to see what is optimization in your games. Besides this, the point of it here was that a character does not need to optimize to be effective. Lokiyn was lumping optimize and effective into the same pile, indicating that if you do not optimize, you will not be effective. You don't need the above build to exhibit self-presevation instincts. I would think that first phrase counters the second. There is a saying; "we can smell our own". That is what I was saying. You have to respond to KIDS' criticism about representativeness (or lack thereof). Have you ever seen 10,000,000 dollars? I haven't, so therefore it must not exist. KIDS's criticism is akin to this statement. The simple fact is I play with all three of the examples I laid out. One is enough to give forth truth to my categories. That doesn't change the fact that your arguments are logically invalid by Lokiyn's critique. Your assertions do not follow from their premises. It does not stand that someone who does not roleplay cannot enjoy D&D or that builders cannot build to match a character concept. Invalid? My examples all exist, so logically his critique is misinformed and misrepresented by his own personal experiences. Because I have 3 categories of definition instead of two, builder being extreme right and RPer being extreme left, a builder cannot be a good RPer just as an RPer cannot be a good builder. The truth though is most fall into a balance between the two extremes (my third category). This only becomes unrepresentative when you lump people who qualify more for one category than the other with their extreme. These are the people who are most often cheesed off, and it is due to the extremeist exemplars (I play with a guy that 90% builder BTW; an extremeist). On top of all this, there are ranks of skill amoungst the three categories. No. You don't need to play D&D in any manner besides the manner that is fun for you. You can play D&D without roleplaying, just as you can play it without optimization. If you reject the Jell-Moo Principle, there is no point to our even trying a discussion at all as we can simply sit back and say 'your playstyle is wrong'. I'm very adamant on this point. You didn't read my post to you when you wrote this, so I'll let this slide (it is very attack-like BTW). So what? Just because a person 'can' identify themselves by class in some games in no way means they 'must' be able to in any game. I know this. But Lokiyn is saying that because they don't, they can't. Who is wrong in this statement? Easy. Player isn't the character and vice versa. Character doesn't know what the class is, player does. Too easy. Remember when "elf" was class? You had to be one in order to be an elf. Class = title(race). Even in 3.5 there are classes that require title = the class. The paragon classes in UA are perfect examples of this. No, you'd just be roleplaying badly. So there are no classes entitled "Paladin" in your game? No people who call themselves "paladins"? No people who are "Paladin" in class and title? Are these people RPing badly because they do this? I think you should retract this statement. In your games, perhaps. So in your games if I were a fighter (straight outta the PHB), and came across another person who titled his class differently, never referred to it in-game, etc... But mechanically was identical to my character, that I couldn't identify the tell-tale signs of the fighter class? You can do this without any in-game concept of class. Accordingly, the plot would then work independent of the mechanical composition of the characters in question as long as they are both combatants who fight in similar but significantly different manners. See though, this very statement then is anti-build. I might be a fighter, and my opponent might've been a warblade using a class feature that I liked. But learn his technique, in-game I would never be able to advancing as a similar titled concept (but keeping to the fighter class). I would have to have an in-game identifier to be able to seek out the proper training; otherwise to know what is needed is to metagame.
pres_man 02-05-08, 02:39 PM	I can't speak for eveyone who ever called a person a builder/munchkin/powergamer/etc... but I have been called those things, and know how to identify those player-types. Builders are most easily identified by how they speak about their characters; RPers tend to give name, race, and concept, as well as all the interesting things they've done first. Builders (so far unfailingly so when they speak to me) rattle off race/template, class(es), big stat, and then uber combo/max damage on a "crit". Somewhere in their they might mention a name. Your list is great and all, but it refers to the metagame factors of those things. But here's the exception; a person can identify themselves by class, and if they do they qualify for the identity factor of those spells. Since there is nothing saying a character is barred from identifying himself by class, a gylph can and will cover people who title themselves as such. I find these (and other) comments interesting. On the one hand you seem to be saying that using metagame concepts such as class are poor roleplaying, and then you turn around and seem to say that it is good roleplaying to assume that characters are aware of their class. It seems as if a player says, "My character is a ranger." You would simultaneous reward and punish them for doing that. Also, I do not believe D&D is designed for roleplay - I know it is. This is because it is called an RPG, or role-playing game (how did you miss that?!). Also, show me one book that has a huge, or even a majority section on how to roleplay. Any book, for any game. Any system, no matter how obscure; then maybe saying D&D is not about RP (actually, you don't need to, as looking back to the history of the game, it did start off as a historical combat simulator which is believed to be the origin of today's role-playing games.) It is also a GAME, which means the mechanics are important as well. If you want to play a game where the mechanics aren't used at all, i.e. only roleplay, then you are playing make-believe and not playing the GAME of D&D. Also, your "metagame" examples create quite the conundrum for a player; if he is to seek out a level in a given class, how will he know he's taken that level without knowing what class is? The character isn't seeking to take a level (what are levels to characters), the player is. The character is either seeking training (either self or through another) or seeking to unlock some "hidden" ability. No houserule was needed. People already title themselves by class (ex: paladin), and are easily identifyable class-wise by ability choices; this can be done in-game without even an ounce of metagaming taking place. Infact, it can lead to some very great RP options for players looking for an edge without having to develope spontaineous classism. An example of this is dueling fighters; one has an alternate class feature, and bests the other fighter. That fighter then asks where he learned such a grand technique, and now an adventure is born. A king puts out a call for all of the mightest warriors in the land to save them from an assualt of monsters. Justin the Just (a PC with levels of paladin) does not answer the call, why? Because he is a paladin and not a warrior (NPC class). :looloo:
KIDS 02-05-08, 03:07 PM	I rest my case.
Lokiyn 02-05-08, 03:08 PM	Lokiyn was lumping optimize and effective into the same pile, indicating that if you do not optimize, you will not be effective.No, i'm saying that to be effective you must optimize, the reverse is not true anymore than all squares are rectangles thus all rectangles are squares I know this. But Lokiyn is saying that because they don't, they can't. Who is wrong in this statement? No, i'm stating that because the rules decree that, to the character, class is an intangible and unidentifiable, that the rules state such. If a character claims to be a fighter, and the character sheet says fighter that is simply a happy coincidence, it could as easily say aristocrat or swordsage or paladin So there are no classes entitled "Paladin" in your game? No people who call themselves "paladins"? No people who are "Paladin" in class and title? Are these people RPing badly because they do this? I think you should retract this statement. Why? its a perfectly valid statement no once said that the class Paladin can't also be the concept paladin, however again not all concepts paladin must be Paladin. So in your games if I were a fighter (straight outta the PHB), and came across another person who titled his class differently, never referred to it in-game, etc... But mechanically was identical to my character, that I couldn't identify the tell-tale signs of the fighter class?You mean would we function in character as the rules decree? Yes character can only make decisions on observable factors, class is explicity decreed not to be one of those. See though, this very statement then is anti-build. I might be a fighter, and my opponent might've been a warblade using a class feature that I liked. But learn his technique, in-game I would never be able to advancing as a similar titled concept (but keeping to the fighter class). I would have to have an in-game identifier to be able to seek out the proper training; otherwise to know what is needed is to metagame. Lets see, lets see, in game identifier, in game identifier, oh yeah i can't shoot fire out of my sword and he can lets find someone who can teach me to shoot fire from my sword or develop the techniques on my own (martial study). I'd say he can shoot fire and i can't a pretty clear identifier. Characters can see abilities and skills, players can see class. Its a very very simple concept. The player is not the character I don't understand how you can justify Affirming the Consequent (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Affirming_the_consequent) Actually Affirming the consequent might not be the exact fallacy, but i'm fairly certain that the argument boils down into If-then-thus If I am a Fighter(class), then i am a fighter(concept) I am a fighter (concept) Thus i must be a Fighter(class)
russdm 02-05-08, 03:47 PM	Reading through all of this...stuff...I got the strong inclination to smack everybody with a massive gold brick wrapped around a lemon. I have read the "Fallacy" before and get whats it addressing. Let me explain: Statements are made as follows: 1) Joe is very good at Optimizing, so he is bad at Roleplay. 2)Jack is Bad at Optimizing, so he is good at Roleplay. 3) Conclusion drawn from these two statements, 'If you are good at Optimizing, you are bad at Roleplay. If you are bad at Optimizing, you are good at Roleplaying." Therefore how well you can Roleplay is a direct result at your skills of Optimization. The Stormwind Fallacy: 1)False, good at Optimizing doesn't mean you are bad at Roleplay. 2)False, Bad at Optimizing doesn't mean you are good at Roleplay. 3)Conclusion is that how well you are good at Optimization or not does not determine how well you can Roleplay. Why this is false is that Roleplaying isn't something that you can pull out of the Core Rulebooks! Your skills at Roleplay isn't defined by your skills at using the rules. Roleplay skills are defined on how good you the player is. The Fallacy's main theme is that skill in Optimization does not determine Roleplay skill. That is all it says. It does not get into specifics in any way. Its general by design. Roleplaying skills are innate, they don't come from a book. No Rulebook of any kind can teach you to be a better Roleplayer. That is something that must be self-learned. Optimization appears to be strongly confused with Powergaming/Munckinising. Optimization is using mechanics to become better at something. Powergaming is using mechanics to turn into UBER-CTHULHU, The Lord of all Smiting. Powergaming has always represented to me an idea/viewpoint of being solely interested in using the Rules to make you as powerful as possible without any regard to any of the other players. In fact you screw them over without concern. I believe that Optimization is improving your character in some fashion. Even die-hard Roleplayers do this: A bard who talk a very CE Red Dragon into becoming a paladin of Bahamut anyone? A roleplayer would Optimize for this if thats how they wanted to Roleplay. Roleplaying is actually Optimizing your Character at some level. I have known people who could do both of these things very well. I have known a Powergamer and there wasn't a moment I didn't wish he could have been dropped from the game. As my Pysch teacher says, "Its not the thing, its the meaning of the thing." I have optimized my chars before and have recognized no interest of any sort to make rhe other players unneeded. Powergaming involves being good at everything not just one thing. Powergamer Characters are built to be practically walking Gods and usually reduces the other players and their chars to just spectators. Only very bad Optmiziers make the same happen. Only very bad Roleplayers achieve the same effect. D&D is a roleplaying game. There are no rules that state how exactly the game needs to be played. What will work for one, won't always work for some one else. Thank you for reading my rant.
RadicalTaoist 02-05-08, 05:25 PM	...So a 30 strength at level 2(with no LA) is not optimized? I'd hate to see what is optimization in your games. Pfft. It's only a +10 to hit and +15 to damage. In exchange he's giving up long-term effectiveness as a straight druid. Max Con and Wis. Have you ever seen 10,000,000 dollars? I haven't, so therefore it must not exist. KIDS's criticism is akin to this statement. The simple fact is I play with all three of the examples I laid out. One is enough to give forth truth to my categories. It's not proof for anything beyond your playgroup experiences is what I'm saying. Invalid? My examples all exist, so logically his critique is misinformed and misrepresented by his own personal experiences. What is invalid is any assertion from your example to the play experience of anything else. Your examples exist. So? It does not stand that someone who does not roleplay cannot enjoy D&D or that builders cannot build to match a character concept. Remember when "elf" was class? You had to be one in order to be an elf. Class = title(race). Even in 3.5 there are classes that require title = the class. The paragon classes in UA are perfect examples of this. So? So there are no classes entitled "Paladin" in your game? No people who call themselves "paladins"? No people who are "Paladin" in class and title? Are these people RPing badly because they do this? I think you should retract this statement.You misunderstand. To answer your questions in respective order, there are, there are, there are, and no they're not. The problem is that those playing classes entitled "Paladin" don't have to play characters who call themselves "paladins", and players who insisted on matching class to title are taking an out-of-game concept - we have decided to leave class out of game - and basing their RP on it. It would be like playing a Rogue who liked Pepsi. So in your games if I were a fighter (straight outta the PHB), and came across another person who titled his class differently, never referred to it in-game, etc... But mechanically was identical to my character, that I couldn't identify the tell-tale signs of the fighter class? You, the player, could. Your character would recognize the abilities of accuracy in combat, ability to wear heavy armor, etc. etc. See though, this very statement then is anti-build. I might be a fighter, and my opponent might've been a warblade using a class feature that I liked. But learn his technique, in-game I would never be able to advancing as a similar titled concept (but keeping to the fighter class). I would have to have an in-game identifier to be able to seek out the proper training; otherwise to know what is needed is to metagame. No, because in this game, multiclassing into warblade, or taking Whirlwind Attack to match the warblade's Mithral Tornado isn't contrary to character expectations. Keeping to the fighter class isn't necessary to advancing to the character concept, and he doesn't need any in-game identifier more fancy than "how Bron knows how to cut up all those guys surrounding him all at once".
Ongorth 02-05-08, 07:30 PM	Roleplaying skills are innate, they don't come from a book. No Rulebook of any kind can teach you to be a better Roleplayer. That is something that must be self-learned. Roleplaying skills are far, far from innate. They can be taught and they can be advised by a rulebook. However, since they are a skill rather then a knowledge, they do need to be directly applied to be demonstratively improved. It doesn't help if you what to do if you can't actually do it. In fact, its a lot like playing a guitar. You can only get better through practice, but that doesn't mean you won't learn better if you're taught key concepts and techniques.
Jaxgaret 02-05-08, 11:33 PM	I don't agree. Bad roleplaying is an effect. It doesn't cause itself to happen. It isn't generated spontaneously. The fact that you CAN roleplay better by changing resources and conditions shows this. I mean, try roleplaying any given on the side of a major highway during major construction with a terrible hangover and nothing to drink. Is your bad roleplaying due to bad roleplaying or because you are by the side of a major highway during major construction with a terrible handover and nothing to drink? A good roleplayer will on average roleplay better than a bad roleplayer, no matter what the conditions. Give a good roleplayer and a bad roleplayer those same conditions, and the good roleplayer will probably roleplay better. Why not? A change in perspective can do a lot of good. If you get to refocus the player's attention away from designing the ideal set of mechanics and get them thinking about designing a character they can actually portray, they likely WILL roleplay better. It really depends on the details of the problem. One can spend all the time in the world on optimization and create a character inappropriately optimized, and by the same token, a player can spend very little time on optimization and create a character with perfect optimization. The same is true for roleplaying. Like you and I have argued before, time spent on optimization and roleplaying are not mutually exclusive; it's not a zero-sum situation where every bit of X focus spent on roleplaying or optimization necessarily equates to a reduction in the other by Y, where X + Y must equal some arbitrary Z. A player can both optimize and roleplay effectively. I mean, unless bad roleplaying is a self-perpetuated, inescapable cycle of doom. Then it doesn't matter anyway. If one does not recognize that one is a bad roleplayer, then it certainly is a self-perpetuated, inescapable cycle. Do you think there are people out there who try to be bad roleplayers? No, they are bad roleplayers either because a) they don't know they are bad roleplayers, or b) they don't care to become better roleplayers.
Ongorth 02-06-08, 12:21 AM	A good roleplayer will on average roleplay better than a bad roleplayer, no matter what the conditions. Give a good roleplayer and a bad roleplayer those same conditions, and the good roleplayer will probably roleplay better. Personally, I don't see how the average worth of someone's roleplaying means anything. Its how well they perform in any given situation is all that's worth anything to anyone. Anyway, that relies doesn't jive with your point. "Bad roleplaying causes bad roleplaying" is quite different then "on average, bad roleplayers roleplay badly." And, I also don't think your statement is very useful either. Its self-fulling. Obviously the "good roleplayer" will play better then the "bad roleplayer." If we wouldn't, we would have chosen different labels. Further, I think your intent is also off base. People roleplay well or poorly due to the context of the situation much more so then whatever quality you are indirectly attributing to good roleplaying (talent? experience? desire? some combination?). I'm sure for even some of the most terrible roleplayers, we could find them a situation where they kick ass. Because picking the correct situation will enable on that player's unique talents, draw on that player's unique experiences and bring out their desire. And in that situation the bad roleplayer will play better then the good roleplayer 100% of the time. Which is much higher then the expected less then 50% of the time. Do you think there are people out there who try to be bad roleplayers? No, they are bad roleplayers either because a) they don't know they are bad roleplayers, or b) they don't care to become better roleplayers. Or they're stuck with people labeling them as bad roleplayers because they've been thrust in a situation that doesn't speak to them in the least and are expected to perform wonderfully anyway. I mean, you mise well put Michael Phelps in the Knicks starting line up and comment that "He's really not that good an athlete."
calronmoonflower 02-06-08, 03:08 AM	Show me where it says then that a character is expressly not able to identify by class. If I were to play in your game, would I unravel the very fabric of reality by doing so? It isn't that they cannot. It is that it would be metagaming to limit their identification to their class. So there are no classes entitled "Paladin" in your game? No people who call themselves "paladins"? No people who are "Paladin" in class and title? Are these people RPing badly because they do this? I think you should retract this statement. The title paladin could easily go to characters other than those with the paladin class. As such the link between class and character identity is often nebulous. Only through the use Rule 0 (ironically the rule that suporrts reflavoring the most) or extreme metagaming can the link be made solid. The extreme metagaming run contrary to roleplaying and Rule 0 supports all arguments equally.
Dog_O_War 02-06-08, 12:49 PM	Pfft. It's only a +10 to hit and +15 to damage. In exchange he's giving up long-term effectiveness as a straight druid. Max Con and Wis. Gives up long-term effectiveness? It's one level of barbarian, and that strength could hit 50 by level 16 (unlikely until 20th though; 45 if he wants to remain a full caster with a 25 pts. buy). He's also able to cast spells without taking the natural spell feat (thanks to shifting being a swift action). If he takes his first level in barbarian, then he can take extra rages right at 1st. (that fact that he can take a barbarian variant to gain pounce is also a whole 'nother issue). As for long-term effectiveness, only the hit to wisdom would hurt, so he allocates 8 points there, and the remainder (1 pt. with 25 pts. buy) to CON. That gives him an artificial CON of 17 by third. Wow, that entire rant I went off-track with was entirely irrelivant.... still, possible 50 STR by level 16 (that's stronger than most ancient wyrm dragons!) It's not proof for anything beyond your playgroup experiences is what I'm saying. You would discount it because it does not exist for you (or the other 5-7 consistent posters in this thread). Hardly fair. What is invalid is any assertion from your example to the play experience of anything else. Your examples exist. So? It does not stand that someone who does not roleplay cannot enjoy D&D or that builders cannot build to match a character concept. I never said they couldn't; you misread me. The example I gave showed that more often than not, builders (my definition) will not enjoy an RP-slanted game as often as an RPer (my definition) will enjoy a mechanics-slanted game. I think if you search the boards you'll find more RPers stating how they enjoyed a good bout of hack-n-slash every now and again, as apposed to all the mechanics showing their appreciation for their love of the opera session the DM ran. While this might not be completely and utterly acurate in the whole "who would enjoy what more", I think it shows the best representation we will get here. Also, you comments are a bit confusing; see, my examples show exactly that people who do not RP can enjoy D&D still, and that builders can build to match concepts (those would be the Hybrids I was talking about). So? You misunderstand. To answer your questions in respective order, there are, there are, there are, and no they're not. The problem is that those playing classes entitled "Paladin" don't have to play characters who call themselves "paladins", and players who insisted on matching class to title are taking an out-of-game concept - we have decided to leave class out of game - and basing their RP on it. It would be like playing a Rogue who liked Pepsi. You, the player, could. Your character would recognize the abilities of accuracy in combat, ability to wear heavy armor, etc. etc. This brings us about to the full circle of the arguement here. Remember WAY back when, I was told by Lokiyn that a player could name a class whatever he wanted (the reflavoring issue), and that I said that's fine and all, but when you label yourself, fluff becomes adamant? If players are labelling themselves (and their OOG classes) the same thing all the time (according to you and Lokiyn), then that would stand that they've narrowed their specifics down to the point of where class met concept/title. Remember where I said that fluff should be the unchangeable factor of the game (as fluff = continuity), while the mechanics remained mutable? What you're saying here is that mechanics (the metagame concept) should be the changing factor within the game, and that fluff (the in-game consistency or versimilitude) should change out of game to better suit the players. This is a contradiction, as you want to change in-game stuff OOG, and change OOG stuff in-game. This leads to a world I could never believe in. Also, you guys are doing exactly what I did (or atleast Lokiyn does), except you (and he, well mainly he...or she? I can't do to internet anonymity so sorry if I keep calling you male (if you're not)) keeps telling me that these concepts, no matter how well defined (I've brought them all the way down to the job/profession level) are still metagame. Some of these concepts are not as defined as others due to commonality (like in today's society you'll never confuse the job of ranger with the vehicle "ranger"), but still the title can equal the class, and it is not metagame to think so when they are so narrowly defined. Paladin means one thing in my game; a class of holy warriors all given the same training amoungst their respective orders. Since in your games you've left the concept and class completely open for player definition, I can define it this way and not step on another's toes, all the while remaining metagame free. Basically, in your game my ideas apply with full impunity from metagaming thanks to the lack of definition offered by the DM. No, because in this game, multiclassing into warblade, or taking Whirlwind Attack to match the warblade's Mithral Tornado isn't contrary to character expectations. Keeping to the fighter class isn't necessary to advancing to the character concept, and he doesn't need any in-game identifier more fancy than "how Bron knows how to cut up all those guys surrounding him all at once". I would like to thank you for using an example that did not require a supernatural ability that warblades do not infact get (unlike Lokiyn). Whirlwind/mithril tornado is an excellent example because we can include adamantine hurricane. The fighter cannot duplicate this (adamantine hurricane) before epic level if he is to remain pure-class, or even by 20th if he has 11 or more levels in fighter (and multiclasses). Due to lack of definition this can severely frustrate a player (since he had to work for 10+ levels without accomplishing the task), and (if you like to keep metagaming to a minimum) does not help the in-game flow smoothly. I never tell my players what class an opponent is (exactly), but I will leave hints that they can use to draw their own conclusions (like rogues dressed in leather, barbarians in hide or fur-adorned armours, etc...). This helps them in-game with in-game solutions. That is how I like to run my games; in-game to in-game, and OOG to OOG for problems that need solving. Originally posted by calronmoonflower It isn't that they cannot. It is that it would be metagaming to limit their identification to their class. I agree, yet everyone here thinks this is what I've limited my players to. I have given them a default identifier, one that they can use themselves or be recognized by, but I haven't told them that they must call themselves "Fighter" or "Warlock" etc... The only thing I've told them is that Fighter class is defined as such, and to be a fighter is to be one of the class. This means that if they chose to call themselves Rangers and Wizards instead that there will be confusion and misunderstandings if they cannot fake being those classes well. The title paladin could easily go to characters other than those with the paladin class. You are correct, as long as the title paladin is not so narrowly defined as to only include the paladin class.... As such the link between class and character identity is often nebulous. Only through the use Rule 0 (ironically the rule that suporrts reflavoring the most) or extreme metagaming can the link be made solid. The extreme metagaming run contrary to roleplaying and Rule 0 supports all arguments equally. I agree, and that is what I've been saying here. While some of you rule 0 class into a completely open concept where fighters can call themselves paladins without paladins calling "BS", I've gone the other way, to a much more adamant view of class and concept.
russdm 02-06-08, 01:08 PM	I agree, and that is what I've been saying here. While some of you rule 0 class into a completely open concept where fighters can call themselves paladins without paladins calling "BS", I've gone the other way, to a much more adamant view of class and concept. For some reason I feel as if I have to defend some of these comments. Chars don't refer to themselves by class ingame. A fighter who acts completely like a paladin could call himself a paladin. A utterly vile and nasty Necromancer could not call himself ingame a paladin. Its not believable. Fighters ingame might refer to themselves as soldiers or mercenaries or warriors. They actually could call themselves fighters. These are titles in almost every case. A paladin could actually call himself a 'Holy Warrior' or 'Holy Champion'. Aside from that, I have noticed that this debate(More of an arguement) has rapidly descended into 'my playstyle is better than yours' arguements. Including examples to back it up too. It almost impossible to tell that the argument was originally about.
pres_man 02-06-08, 01:09 PM	One of things that comes to mind about having class = in game title, is it creates some weird situations. "So your a ranger? Well that guy over there is a ranger as well. Are part of the same outfit? No. You don't know anything about that guy? Yet your both rangers. Are you rangers for different, possible competing, organizations. No? You aren't part of any organization? So how do you know that you are really a "ranger"? You can wield two-weapons well. Oh, then that guy isn't a ranger, because he can shoot really well. Wait, he could still be a ranger? What about that guy over there, he can wield two-weapons well, is he ranger? No, he is a "fighter" with two-weapon specialization? How do you know he isn't a ranger? He doesn't have an animal "friend". Well that girl over there does, is she a ranger? No, she is a druid. How can you tell? She casts magic better. Ok, I guess that makes sense. What about that old guy over there, is he a druid, he has an animal friend and can cast magic better than you? No, he is a ranger, just an old ranger. How else can you tell if someone is a ranger? They can track. Ok, then Max the Tracker must be a ranger right? No. He is a barbarian? But he can track, and he can fight with two-weapons, well a double-axe, that counts right? Ok. And look he has his trusted tracking dog, Red. Oh, that is just a pet that he knows how to handle well. Wow, that is really confusing, it is a good thing that people can't mix what they "are", or it would be really confusing. Wait, some people can? Oh crud ..."
Dog_O_War 02-06-08, 02:01 PM	One of things that comes to mind about having class = in game title, is it creates some weird situations. "So your a ranger? Well that guy over there is a ranger as well. Are part of the same outfit? No. You don't know anything about that guy? Yet your both rangers. Are you rangers for different, possible competing, organizations. No? You aren't part of any organization? So how do you know that you are really a "ranger"? You can wield two-weapons well. Oh, then that guy isn't a ranger, because he can shoot really well. Wait, he could still be a ranger? What about that guy over there, he can wield two-weapons well, is he ranger? No, he is a "fighter" with two-weapon specialization? How do you know he isn't a ranger? He doesn't have an animal "friend". Well that girl over there does, is she a ranger? No, she is a druid. How can you tell? She casts magic better. Ok, I guess that makes sense. What about that old guy over there, is he a druid, he has an animal friend and can cast magic better than you? No, he is a ranger, just an old ranger. How else can you tell if someone is a ranger? They can track. Ok, then Max the Tracker must be a ranger right? No. He is a barbarian? But he can track, and he can fight with two-weapons, well a double-axe, that counts right? Ok. And look he has his trusted tracking dog, Red. Oh, that is just a pet that he knows how to handle well. Wow, that is really confusing, it is a good thing that people can't mix what they "are", or it would be really confusing. Wait, some people can? Oh crud ..." How is that any more confusing than class and title being allowed to be totally different or completely the same? "So you're a ranger right? You can cast wish?! Wow, I thought only wizards could do that! And that guy over there calls himself a ranger too? But he says he can't cast any spells, and he's a heck of a lot smarter than you. Come to think of it, he said he can't survive well outside of the city, and I swear I had a full coin pouch when I talked to him. That other guy, the ranger over there says that he can get so mad, he could lift a cart over his head! Man, I wanna be a ranger now, because they can do everything! But the problem is, who do I talk to to become one? Oh yeah, anybody, because everyone around these parts are rangers! ...wait a minute, if they are all rangers, but don't have anything linking them in similarity...how are they not wizards or barbarians, or rogues? I'll never know because there is absolutely nothing saying what is and is not a ranger..."
pres_man 02-06-08, 02:19 PM	How is that any more confusing than class and title being allowed to be totally different or completely the same? Because it would be a job title in that case not a title of some specific set of abilities. "So you're a ranger right? Yes, I have been assigned to the ranger corp by the king. You can cast wish?! Well I have heard some people describe the magic they do that is similiar to mine by that name. Wow, I thought only wizards could do that! Well, as I said, there are various types of magic that are similiar. My power is more innate. And that guy over there calls himself a ranger too? He is. He is in the ranger corp with me. But he says he can't cast any spells, and he's a heck of a lot smarter than you. Come to think of it, he said he can't survive well outside of the city, and I swear I had a full coin pouch when I talked to him. Well it would be silly to have everyone in the corp with the exact same abilities. Our different abilities compliment each other. That other guy, the ranger over there says that he can get so mad, he could lift a cart over his head! Yes, Thog is quite strong, and is able to channel his emotional state into making himself even more dangerous. Again, those abilities complement both mine and the other ranger's abilities. Man, I wanna be a ranger now, because they can do everything! Ha ha, you flatter us. No, we are not all powerful, each of us has our own abilities that we excel in. As for you entering the ranger corp, well you would need to demonstrate an ability that the king and his advisors would think would be useful for the group. But the problem is, who do I talk to to become one? Oh yeah, anybody, because everyone around these parts are rangers! Ha ha, well you are in the tavern that is called the "Ranger's House". No, you need to speak to the appropriate local authorities and apply to join the corp. You might need to take some training if you aren't effective enough, but if you truly have a will you have a good chance of getting in. ...wait a minute, if they are all rangers, but don't have anything linking them in similarity...how are they not wizards or barbarians, or rogues? I'll never know because there is absolutely nothing saying what is and is not a ranger..." Well, I would hestiate to call them rogues or barbarians, at least to their faces. Also as I said, I am the only mage out of the three of us present here. But being a ranger means being part of the king's ranger corp, it is really quite simple. Maybe you might not be right to try and get in, you don't seem to have quite the right ... material for being a part of it.
Dog_O_War 02-06-08, 02:32 PM	Because it would be a job title in that case not a title of some specific set of abilities. "So you're a ranger right? Yes, I have been assigned to the ranger corp by the king. You can cast wish?! Well I have heard some people describe the magic they do that is similiar to mine by that name. Wow, I thought only wizards could do that! Well, as I said, there are various types of magic that are similiar. My power is more innate. And that guy over there calls himself a ranger too? He is. He is in the ranger corp with me. But he says he can't cast any spells, and he's a heck of a lot smarter than you. Come to think of it, he said he can't survive well outside of the city, and I swear I had a full coin pouch when I talked to him. Well it would be silly to have everyone in the corp with the exact same abilities. Our different abilities compliment each other. That other guy, the ranger over there says that he can get so mad, he could lift a cart over his head! Yes, Thog is quite strong, and is able to channel his emotional state into making himself even more dangerous. Again, those abilities complement both mine and the other ranger's abilities. Man, I wanna be a ranger now, because they can do everything! Ha ha, you flatter us. No, we are not all powerful, each of us has our own abilities that we excel in. As for you entering the ranger corp, well you would need to demonstrate an ability that the king and his advisors would think would be useful for the group. But the problem is, who do I talk to to become one? Oh yeah, anybody, because everyone around these parts are rangers! Ha ha, well you are in the tavern that is called the "Ranger's House". No, you need to speak to the appropriate local authorities and apply to join the corp. You might need to take some training if you aren't effective enough, but if you truly have a will you have a good chance of getting in. ...wait a minute, if they are all rangers, but don't have anything linking them in similarity...how are they not wizards or barbarians, or rogues? I'll never know because there is absolutely nothing saying what is and is not a ranger..." Well, I would hestiate to call them rogues or barbarians, at least to their faces. Also as I said, I am the only mage out of the three of us present here. But being a ranger means being part of the king's ranger corp, it is really quite simple. Maybe you might not be right to try and get in, you don't seem to have quite the right ... material for being a part of it. So ranger = organization (like Harper Scout) now?
pres_man 02-06-08, 02:37 PM	So ranger = organization (like Harper Scout) now? In game? Sure it could, why couldn't it?
Dog_O_War 02-06-08, 02:50 PM	In game? Sure it could, why couldn't it? ...So to be a "ranger", I have to join an organization, which means my loner - taught by his father in the woods until and encounter with an owlbear took his life - ranger can't be a "ranger" unless he joins the official club? Sounds like I have all the options of background and story I have ever dreamed of for a ranger with your example.
pres_man 02-06-08, 03:08 PM	...So to be a "ranger", I have to join an organization, which means my loner - taught by his father in the woods until and encounter with an owlbear took his life - ranger can't be a "ranger" unless he joins the official club? Depends. Is he claiming he is the same type of ranger as the ones above (which are akin to Texas Rangers), or by ranger do you mean "one who ranges". He might also be called "a loner", "a woodsman", "a huntsman", or any of a multiplutide of other terms. It is not that he CAN'T be called a ranger, but just because someone is labeled a ranger doesn't mean that they are "loner - taught by his father in the woods". It is not an either/or situation, which seems to be how you are approaching it. EDIT: I guess what I would ask, why is the character here called a "ranger", in game? Why isn't he called a wanderer, a rover, a huntsman, tracker, hunter, or some other term. Why would he and those around him choose the word "ranger" to describe him? If the only reason that term is choosen over all others is because he has levels in the PC Class Ranger, then I would say that is metagame thinking. And let's be clear, metagaming isn't always "bad", making a character that fits the needs of the party before the character even meets them is metagaming, that doesn't mean it is "bad" to do that (doesn't mean it is good either).
RadicalTaoist 02-06-08, 03:41 PM	Gives up long-term effectiveness? It's one level of barbarian, and that strength could hit 50 by level 16 (unlikely until 20th though; 45 if he wants to remain a full caster with a 25 pts. buy). He's also able to cast spells without taking the natural spell feat (thanks to shifting being a swift action). If he takes his first level in barbarian, then he can take extra rages right at 1st. (that fact that he can take a barbarian variant to gain pounce is also a whole 'nother issue). As for long-term effectiveness, only the hit to wisdom would hurt, so he allocates 8 points there, and the remainder (1 pt. with 25 pts. buy) to CON. That gives him an artificial CON of 17 by third. Wow, that entire rant I went off-track with was entirely irrelivant.... still, possible 50 STR by level 16 (that's stronger than most ancient wyrm dragons!) This is off-topic and I'll let it go. If you would like to see how I would turn a druid into a monstrosity, PM me. Hint: you don't give up Wildshape and you don't compromise spellcasting. (The barb dip is fine, but the 14 wis for your whole career?) You would discount it because it does not exist for you (or the other 5-7 consistent posters in this thread). Hardly fair. I don't discount it. I just don't think it applies to any gaming group that doesn't choose to play like yours. I'm not saying your playstyle is wrong. I'm saying your attributing properties and drawbacks to mine that don't follow. I never said they couldn't; you misread me. The example I gave showed that more often than not, builders (my definition) will not enjoy an RP-slanted game as often as an RPer (my definition) will enjoy a mechanics-slanted game. I think if you search the boards you'll find more RPers stating how they enjoyed a good bout of hack-n-slash every now and again, as apposed to all the mechanics showing their appreciation for their love of the opera session the DM ran. While this might not be completely and utterly acurate in the whole "who would enjoy what more", I think it shows the best representation we will get here. Also, you comments are a bit confusing; see, my examples show exactly that people who do not RP can enjoy D&D still, and that builders can build to match concepts (those would be the Hybrids I was talking about). Ah, my mistake. You weren't arguing what I thought you were (although I think you're still misrepresenting the groups but that's probably just a perception problem) and I withdraw. This brings us about to the full circle of the arguement here. Remember WAY back when, I was told by Lokiyn that a player could name a class whatever he wanted (the reflavoring issue), and that I said that's fine and all, but when you label yourself, fluff becomes adamant? If players are labelling themselves (and their OOG classes) the same thing all the time (according to you and Lokiyn), then that would stand that they've narrowed their specifics down to the point of where class met concept/title. Pretty much, you forget that we allow variation within the same game and within the same concept. We've got only one more degree of freedom than your games, really, but it makes a big difference. Remember where I said that fluff should be the unchangeable factor of the game (as fluff = continuity), while the mechanics remained mutable? What you're saying here is that mechanics (the metagame concept) should be the changing factor within the game, and that fluff (the in-game consistency or versimilitude) should change out of game to better suit the players. This is a contradiction, as you want to change in-game stuff OOG, and change OOG stuff in-game. This leads to a world I could never believe in. Only because you choose not to. We hold that the match of mechanics to fluff should be consistent relative to each individual. The psion20 can't play his psion as a mentalist one day, a yogi the next, and a demonologist on the weekends. Play his psion as a mix of mentalist, yogi, and demonologist (what's the class name then? New Age practitioner?), okay. Play it as one of those while other psions don't, okay. The only standard by which fluff should remain constant is to what it matches on that individual character sheet and no one else's. Also, you guys are doing exactly what I did (or atleast Lokiyn does), except you (and he, well mainly he...or she? I can't do to internet anonymity so sorry if I keep calling you male (if you're not)) lol, I'm a guy. keeps telling me that these concepts, no matter how well defined (I've brought them all the way down to the job/profession level) are still metagame. What he's saying is they're default metagame. They don't have to be. You've turned them into an in-game concept, and there's nothing wrong with that. He's simply arguing that leaving class identity as a metagame concept is a valid reason for not wanting to match class to title. Some of these concepts are not as defined as others due to commonality (like in today's society you'll never confuse the job of ranger with the vehicle "ranger"), but still the title can equal the class, and it is not metagame to think so when they are so narrowly defined. Paladin means one thing in my game; a class of holy warriors all given the same training amoungst their respective orders. Since in your games you've left the concept and class completely open for player definition, I can define it this way and not step on another's toes, all the while remaining metagame free. Absolutely. Emphasis mine. What would be metagame of you would be to refer to the samurai character (who is a straight classed reflavored paladin) as a paladin, or identify any 'necessary' match of his abilities to yours ("For the last time, it's not called laying on of hands, it's reiki!"). It would also be metagame of you to deny, in-game, that the pious knight templar (straight classed fighter or crusader) wasn't a paladin. Basically, in your game my ideas apply with full impunity from metagaming thanks to the lack of definition offered by the DM. Your ideas, yes, but not your restrictions. Whirlwind/mithril tornado is an excellent example because we can include adamantine hurricane. The fighter cannot duplicate this (adamantine hurricane) before epic level if he is to remain pure-class, or even by 20th if he has 11 or more levels in fighter (and multiclasses). Due to lack of definition this can severely frustrate a player (since he had to work for 10+ levels without accomplishing the task), and (if you like to keep metagaming to a minimum) does not help the in-game flow smoothly. To the contrary. The fighter doesn't think of himself a a "Fighter" any more than he thinks of himself as a "Gladiator" or "Mercenary". Thus, levels in Warblade don't make him "something else" all of a sudden. Besides, he can use Whirlwind Attack round in and round out without a problem, which helps differentiate their abilities further. So he doesn't match Bron's fighting style to a T - he's got his own tricks. (If you're arguing a mechanical weakness of a fighter, that's a different tack altogether.) I never tell my players what class an opponent is (exactly), but I will leave hints that they can use to draw their own conclusions (like rogues dressed in leather, barbarians in hide or fur-adorned armours, etc...). Wait, in your game all members of a class dress similarly? Seems awful unrealistic. This helps them in-game with in-game solutions. That is how I like to run my games; in-game to in-game, and OOG to OOG for problems that need solving. The lines are drawn a little differently over here. I agree, yet everyone here thinks this is what I've limited my players to. I have given them a default identifier, one that they can use themselves or be recognized by, but I haven't told them that they must call themselves "Fighter" or "Warlock" etc... The only thing I've told them is that Fighter class is defined as such, and to be a fighter is to be one of the class. This means that if they chose to call themselves Rangers and Wizards instead that there will be confusion and misunderstandings if they cannot fake being those classes well. Valid enough. You know the only real difference between our playstyles? They tell me what they choose to define the Fighter class as on their charsheet, and then we work together to find what that means in the world of the game. That's it. You are correct, as long as the title paladin is not so narrowly defined as to only include the paladin class.... I agree, and that is what I've been saying here. While some of you rule 0 class into a completely open concept where fighters can call themselves paladins without paladins calling "BS", I've gone the other way, to a much more adamant view of class and concept. Emphasis mine, to point out the conditional. As treating class as an open in-game concept isn't changing anything in the mechanical rules, it doesn't really count as rule zeroing anything.
russdm 02-06-08, 03:46 PM	Thank you all very much. My mind has now imploded. I think I will go lie down...
RadicalTaoist 02-06-08, 04:01 PM	Thank you all very much. My mind has now imploded. I think I will go lie down... Yeah, sorry. It's very hard to keep these threads from turning out like this. It's getting very far off topic from what it was originally intended for, so I'm trying to think of a way to turn this back to the issue of defending reflavoring (an integral part of the Cycle Hypothesis and a foundation of the third skill) since the latest sally against the SWF was merely on the matter of its usage.
Dog_O_War 02-06-08, 04:56 PM	This is off-topic and I'll let it go. If you would like to see how I would turn a druid into a monstrosity, PM me. Hint: you don't give up Wildshape and you don't compromise spellcasting. (The barb dip is fine, but the 14 wis for your whole career?) 13 for the whole carreer if you wanted that 50 STR (adjust as desired). I don't like druids though; class abilities lack versitility. I don't discount it. I just don't think it applies to any gaming group that doesn't choose to play like yours. I'm not saying your playstyle is wrong. I'm saying your attributing properties and drawbacks to mine that don't follow. Actually, I was just giving that as an example; there is plenty of excitement for hack-n-slashers, or for anyone as long as they don't feel entitled to a spoon-fed concept (the three knights example I gave earlier is something that I do; I tend to let the builders slide though if I see a build that well, sucks). Pretty much, you forget that we allow variation within the same game and within the same concept. We've got only one more degree of freedom than your games, really, but it makes a big difference. That's cool. I prefer the illusion of choice under restriction though, as it lets me see things B&W, without the extra hassle of DMing on-the-fly (which I suck at). Only because you choose not to. We hold that the match of mechanics to fluff should be consistent relative to each individual. The psion20 can't play his psion as a mentalist one day, a yogi the next, and a demonologist on the weekends. Play his psion as a mix of mentalist, yogi, and demonologist (what's the class name then? New Age practitioner?), okay. Play it as one of those while other psions don't, okay. The only standard by which fluff should remain constant is to what it matches on that individual character sheet and no one else's. I just see that as potential DM burn-out. That and the whole socks and sandals thing is something I'd rather be called a nazi for disallowing, than a hero for allowing. What he's saying is they're default metagame. They don't have to be. You've turned them into an in-game concept, and there's nothing wrong with that. He's simply arguing that leaving class identity as a metagame concept is a valid reason for not wanting to match class to title. Maybe. I've see plenty of examples to the contrary though, and not just in my game. I think that the best examples of this are prestige classes (ephasis on prestige); it should mean something when you become one, embodying class and title as concept. Absolutely. Emphasis mine. What would be metagame of you would be to refer to the samurai character (who is a straight classed reflavored paladin) as a paladin, or identify any 'necessary' match of his abilities to yours ("For the last time, it's not called laying on of hands, it's reiki!"). It would also be metagame of you to deny, in-game, that the pious knight templar (straight classed fighter or crusader) wasn't a paladin. But he's a pious knight templar, not a paladin (I didn't label him that) unless pious knight templar and paladin are synonymous with eachother. There must be some difference though if they have different titles and all, right? To the contrary. The fighter doesn't think of himself as a "Fighter" any more than he thinks of himself as a "Gladiator" or "Mercenary". Thus, levels in Warblade don't make him "something else" all of a sudden. Besides, he can use Whirlwind Attack round in and round out without a problem, which helps differentiate their abilities further. So he doesn't match Bron's fighting style to a T - he's got his own tricks. I would agree, but taking levels in two spellcasting classes (like sorcerer and wizard) really illustrate why one side can't learn the same tricks as the other, or if one took levels of the other, it only highlights the weakness of not knowing in-game (as to avoid metagame) why this is a bad choice. (If you're arguing a mechanical strength of a fighter, that's a different tack altogether.) Fixed. Wait, in your game all members of a class dress similarly? Seems awful unrealistic. It's just an example.
KIDS 02-06-08, 04:59 PM	Also, you comments are a bit confusing; see, my examples show exactly that people who do not RP can enjoy D&D still, and that builders can build to match concepts (those would be the Hybrids I was talking about). I'd like to let the thread fall into oblivion, but a note here seems necessary. We all, pretty much communally, seem to agree that these builders who do not RP suck. Ok wait, that's undeservedly harsh. We value stories and would like to avoid them - fair. Even if it is as valid a way of playing D&D as any other and I don't have anything against those people, even if I doubt their existence. No one has contested this at all. Case closed, chest sealed, move on. And now that we have somewhat agreed that these "Hybrids" (I gotta mention I dislike classifications of any kind but oh well, for me this description is a vast majority of population) are ok-accepted-socially integrated-however you want to put it - perhaps we can drop the issue and stop trying to prove correlation between optimization and bad (or good) roleplay? Describing how building when done alone is "bad" has no place in this thread, and such breaches are one of the reasons why the Fallacy exists at all. So we can open a new thread about "builders who do not RP" and we will all together condemn them to what they deserve. :P
pres_man 02-06-08, 05:06 PM	But he's a pious knight templar, not a paladin (I didn't label him that) unless pious knight templar and paladin are synonymous with eachother. There must be some difference though if they have different titles and all, right? Interesting, looking at an online dictionaries definitions of paladin and (knight) templar, templar better fits the class description. Paladin was a "poor" choice of name for it. Reinforcing that poor choice in game seems like a bad idea.
Jaxgaret 02-06-08, 05:34 PM	Personally, I don't see how the average worth of someone's roleplaying means anything. Its how well they perform in any given situation is all that's worth anything to anyone. If you take how well someone performs in any given situation, and plot it over time, you get... an average. Amazing. Anyway, that relies doesn't jive with your point. "Bad roleplaying causes bad roleplaying" is quite different then "on average, bad roleplayers roleplay badly." Those two sentences mean the same thing. One is simply more accurate due to its inclusion of the vagaries of probability in its description. And, I also don't think your statement is very useful either. Its self-fulling. Obviously the "good roleplayer" will play better then the "bad roleplayer." If we wouldn't, we would have chosen different labels. You missed my point then. The only cause of bad roleplaying is being a bad roleplayer. How well you optimize has no causal relation. Further, I think your intent is also off base. People roleplay well or poorly due to the context of the situation much more so then whatever quality you are indirectly attributing to good roleplaying (talent? experience? desire? some combination?). I'm sure for even some of the most terrible roleplayers, we could find them a situation where they kick ass. Because picking the correct situation will enable on that player's unique talents, draw on that player's unique experiences and bring out their desire. And in that situation the bad roleplayer will play better then the good roleplayer 100% of the time. Which is much higher then the expected less then 50% of the time. Thus why I stated "on average", which you seemed to have some issue with, even though it directly addresses what you just said. Or they're stuck with people labeling them as bad roleplayers because they've been thrust in a situation that doesn't speak to them in the least and are expected to perform wonderfully anyway. A bad roleplayer is a bad roleplayer. If someone labels a good roleplayer as a bad roleplayer, that doesn't make them a bad roleplayer, now does it? I can call the sky yellow too. That doesn't make it so.
Ongorth 02-06-08, 08:06 PM	If you take how well someone performs in any given situation, and plot it over time, you get... an average. Amazing. === Thus why I stated "on average", which you seemed to have some issue with, even though it directly addresses what you just said. I have an issue with "on average" because trying to describe an average roleplaying performance is meaningless and pointless. Let's take Job. He's a guy I know. Job on roleplays well in one situation: lightning paced, over the top Action Movie style adventure. In every other circumstance, he roleplays badly. However, Job only plays in Action Movie style games. So, is Job a bad roleplayer because he theoretically roleplays bad on average across a variety of theoretical situations or a good roleplayer because he always roleplays well in the actual games he plays? Likewise, let's take Karl. He's another guy I know. Karl usually roleplays amazingly well at no matter what role he's given. Except lightning paced, over the top Action Movie style adventure. Unfortunately, our group always plays Action Movie style games. So, is Karl a good roleplayer because he roleplays above average across a variety of theoretical situations or a bad roleplay because he always roleplays poorly in the games he actually plays? Or another guy I know Kristoph. He's a pretty good roleplayer. Except when there are dinosaurs. If dinosaurs are involved he completely shuts down and refuses to roleplay. Is the judgement of whether or not Kristoph a good roleplay really based on how often dinosaurs appear in the average game? Or this girl I know Carrie. Carrie is a very good roleplayer. But Carrie only roleplays well when she is playing an attractive character. Fortunately, Carrie always choses to play an attractive character, so she always roleplays well. Is Carrie a good roleplayer because she always roleplays well or a bad roleplayer because she can't roleplay a theoretical subset of potential characters that is inarguably larger then the subset of characters she does play? So, basically, I do have a problem with "on average", partially because you didn't define it, partially because you can't define it in any way that is useful and partially because the entire premise of judging people on their "average" performance makes no sense when talking about RPGs, because all you need is one good performance in a campaign that lasts for years to wash away the dozen failed one shot characters completely.
Tempest Stormwind 02-06-08, 09:59 PM	I don't like druids though; class abilities lack versitility. I've been trying to avoid getting sucked back into this, but that statement just floored me. The druid is up there with the artificer and the wizard in terms of ability versatility, and may actually surpass them because its options grow "for free" every time you add a splatbook with an appropriate spell or monster in it. It's primarily because of its versatility (and not its power: it has that, but more focused classes can exceed it) that the CO boards routinely said "druid 20" in response to all those 'what's the best build' threads. Why do you think they aren't versatile? What class *would* be versatile, in your eyes?
Jaxgaret 02-07-08, 09:56 AM	I have an issue with "on average" because trying to describe an average roleplaying performance is meaningless and pointless. An average roleplaying performance is just that. Average, or mediocre. Let's take Job. He's a guy I know. Job on roleplays well in one situation: lightning paced, over the top Action Movie style adventure. In every other circumstance, he roleplays badly. However, Job only plays in Action Movie style games. So, is Job a bad roleplayer because he theoretically roleplays bad on average across a variety of theoretical situations or a good roleplayer because he always roleplays well in the actual games he plays? Likewise, let's take Karl. He's another guy I know. Karl usually roleplays amazingly well at no matter what role he's given. Except lightning paced, over the top Action Movie style adventure. Unfortunately, our group always plays Action Movie style games. So, is Karl a good roleplayer because he roleplays above average across a variety of theoretical situations or a bad roleplay because he always roleplays poorly in the games he actually plays? Or another guy I know Kristoph. He's a pretty good roleplayer. Except when there are dinosaurs. If dinosaurs are involved he completely shuts down and refuses to roleplay. Is the judgement of whether or not Kristoph a good roleplay really based on how often dinosaurs appear in the average game? Or this girl I know Carrie. Carrie is a very good roleplayer. But Carrie only roleplays well when she is playing an attractive character. Fortunately, Carrie always choses to play an attractive character, so she always roleplays well. Is Carrie a good roleplayer because she always roleplays well or a bad roleplayer because she can't roleplay a theoretical subset of potential characters that is inarguably larger then the subset of characters she does play? They would all be considered mediocre-to-good roleplayers, depending on how often they let game situations throw them. Assuming they seek out gaming groups who at least some of the time cater to their particular style (otherwise they're just masochists, and that skews the whole deal), they will play in their preferred style often enough for it to be apparent. So, basically, I do have a problem with "on average", partially because you didn't define it, partially because you can't define it in any way that is useful I have to define the word "average"? What am I, Bill Clinton? and partially because the entire premise of judging people on their "average" performance makes no sense when talking about RPGs, because all you need is one good performance in a campaign that lasts for years to wash away the dozen failed one shot characters completely. I would say that a person who has one good performance and years and years of bad performances isn't a good roleplayer. They may be mediocre or bad, but not good. Remember, any time you rate something as "good" or "bad", there is a sliding scale. One good roleplayer can be better than another good roleplayer, but they are still both considered "good". Also, I'm not going to get into how subjective roleplaying is. Since everyone here agrees that there are "good" and "bad" roleplayers, harping on the fact that it is subjective is a futile and time-wasting exercise.
Dog_O_War 02-07-08, 11:16 AM	I've been trying to avoid getting sucked back into this, but that statement just floored me. The druid is up there with the artificer and the wizard in terms of ability versatility, and may actually surpass them because its options grow "for free" every time you add a splatbook with an appropriate spell or monster in it. It's primarily because of its versatility (and not its power: it has that, but more focused classes can exceed it) that the CO boards routinely said "druid 20" in response to all those 'what's the best build' threads. Why do you think they aren't versatile? What class *would* be versatile, in your eyes? Really? Because all the non-variant druids out there all seem to have the same 20 levels worth of abilities, with no options or custimization whatsoever (especially if only core is allowed; not that I play only core). Most classes are like this; the only variances are usually skills (which nearly all druids will have one or two skills in common) and feats (which apparently isn't even all that varied, since it is a big taboo here to not take natural spell). I don't use versitility akin to what party role it can fill BTW, I mean what choices a player has with his class over the next 20 levels. The class quite litterally has no options (beyond spells, but they will share a major likeness with most druids' lists. Oh yeah, and animal companion, but when you can't get a fleshraker, you take a riding dog, since everyone is a druid macked out for "teh c0mB4tz"). Basically I see the druid as a factory production model. A 1960's russian factory production model, where race = paint. As for what class is versitile; Fighter. It may have the same class ability 11 times, but you get to choose from a list all 11 times. It doesn't need a high phsyical stat even; you could play an entirely mental fighter and still be pretty effective (well, as long as you used complete warrior (zen archery) or went for a bomberman or bluff build; note that it almost demands leadership for a mental fighter).
Ongorth 02-07-08, 11:31 AM	I have to define the word "average"? What am I, Bill Clinton? Well, I doubt your Bill Clinton, but you do need to put the word in context because I still have no idea what you mean you by it. I would say that a person who has one good performance and years and years of bad performances isn't a good roleplayer. They may be mediocre or bad, but not good. After they outperform you, day in and day out, over the course of a five year campaign, it'll start to sound pretty weak when you try to convince the other players that they actually aren't a good roleplayer. Remember, any time you rate something as "good" or "bad", there is a sliding scale. One good roleplayer can be better than another good roleplayer, but they are still both considered "good". Also, I'm not going to get into how subjective roleplaying is. Since everyone here agrees that there are "good" and "bad" roleplayers, harping on the fact that it is subjective is a futile and time-wasting exercise. Unforunately, your position has convinced me that there aren't good and bad roleplayers. I know, I know, its rare that someone can actually convince someone else of anything on the internet, but you've managed it. The important factor in roleplaying is the quality of the given performance, to which any sort of of average is entirely irrelevant. The limitless situations in which roleplaying occurs makes it impossible to even estimate the theoretical breath of roleplaying and the practical reality of where roleplaying occurs makes that breath irrelevant. Perhaps some people are good rolepickers could be described as good roleplayers, but since you rated Job and Karl basically equally good roleplayers, that obviously isn't what you meant.
pres_man 02-07-08, 12:59 PM	Bob roleplays well in all games, Bob is a "good" roleplayer. Chris roleplays well in some games but poorly in others, Chris is an "ok" roleplayer. David roleplays poorly in all games, David is a "bad" roleplayer. Doesn't seem that hard to understand.
NoldorForce 02-07-08, 01:15 PM	Really? Because all the non-variant druids out there all seem to have the same 20 levels worth of abilities, with no options or custimization whatsoever (especially if only core is allowed; not that I play only core). Most classes are like this; the only variances are usually skills (which nearly all druids will have one or two skills in common) and feats (which apparently isn't even all that varied, since it is a big taboo here to not take natural spell). I don't use versitility akin to what party role it can fill BTW, I mean what choices a player has with his class over the next 20 levels. The class quite litterally has no options (beyond spells, but they will share a major likeness with most druids' lists. Oh yeah, and animal companion, but when you can't get a fleshraker, you take a riding dog, since everyone is a druid macked out for "teh c0mB4tz"). Basically I see the druid as a factory production model. A 1960's russian factory production model, where race = paint. As for what class is versitile; Fighter. It may have the same class ability 11 times, but you get to choose from a list all 11 times. It doesn't need a high phsyical stat even; you could play an entirely mental fighter and still be pretty effective (well, as long as you used complete warrior (zen archery) or went for a bomberman or bluff build; note that it almost demands leadership for a mental fighter).That's a very misleading way of putting things. The fighter chooses his class abilities (his eleven bonus feats) for the duration of his career. The druid chooses his class abilities (his spells and his wildshape form) on a daily basis. The versatility within his class is NOT the ability to choose spellcasting over something else; it's the ability to select a pile of spells within that potent spellcasting system.
Dog_O_War 02-07-08, 01:37 PM	That's a very misleading way of putting things. The fighter chooses his class abilities (his eleven bonus feats) for the duration of his career. The druid chooses his class abilities (his spells and his wildshape form) on a daily basis. The versatility within his class is NOT the ability to choose spellcasting over something else; it's the ability to select a pile of spells within that potent spellcasting system. You need to read what you quoted then, because it is not misleading; I said what I was talking about in terms of versitility. For instance, the druid gets nature sense and wild empathy (he can choose not to have a companion) at 1st. He then gets woodland stride at 2nd, and trackless step at third. At 4th he gets resist nature's lure. at 5th he can wild shape (which is cool, allowing him to select what he wants; but every other druid can mimic his choice on a day-to-day basis). 9th gives him venom immunity. Everything here is something every other druid gets (without selecting a variant). Every druid can shift into a gopher, or a wolf, or a bird. Every druid is immune to venom at 9th. No changes, no options. Hell, atleast the monk can select some of his abilities. The fighter on the other hand gets 11 feats to select from a list of near 50 (core only), offering quite the selection. I favor this over the static blah that is the druid.
Lokiyn 02-07-08, 02:40 PM	Which is fascinating, because i've played in a group with three druids in the same game and not a one of them was the same. Our Dwarf Druid was primarily a "green" expansionist, his character's primary focus was on the proper use of natural resources without the destruction of the underlying natural life matrix. He rarely used wildshape and didn't bother with an animal companion for the most part stating "Removing a creature from its natural habitat is both immoral and wrong". On the rare occasion he did gain an animal companion he promptly released it once the group left the creatures local grounds. From his point of view cities where nothing more than nests and were part of the natural world however he said that it was his duty to make sure that the environment outside the nests remained sound. In combat he primarily used spells and occasionally would fight hand to hand if pressed Our Human Druid believed primarily in a "return to nature" movement and spent the majority of time in wildshaped form only rarely reverting to his natural form his primary companion was normally a pack animal of some kind whose form he matched in wildeshape, over time the druid would dismiss animal companions as he progressed "spiritually" (i.e. gain access to better animal shapes from hit dice increase) and replace them with the new types. His view of cities where of unnatural creations who would soon collapse under their own weight. This druid was a bruiser tag teaming enemies with his wildshaped strength and his animal companion on the left, dual charging flankers (pack tactics) put a hurt on many enemies Our other human Druid was all about eco integration, his desires where to spread druidism among the people and he played his character as a sort of natural prophet using his wildshape and spells to teach people about living with nature and how to build cities into a terrain rather than on top of terrain. This particular druid rarely got involved in combat but rather let his companion (divine emissary of the earth) do most of the fighting wile backing him up with ranged attacks. using spells to augment his abilities and heal wounds. Three very different druids, all using the same mechanics. Dog_of_War's position on druids not being versatile is easily understood once you understand the premises behind the posts. Flavor cannot be changed Flavor may be changed by the dm only Flavor changes may only occur on a setting level Player's characters are mechanically fixed into their preslected flavor and my not deviate from it, See 1A Any Change in flavor must be enforced by the creation of new mechanics to support it All posts/comments/view are from the standpoint of "my game" not "from the standard rules" Its terribly easy to understand, in a game where your class forces you into a cookie cutter stereotype and all your abilities descriptions are the same of course some classes would seem static. Thats not the classes fault, the rules of the game state that you should change flavor to fit your needs, thats because they have been houseruled into staticism. When you've turned flavor into mechanics of course things seem static. The Fact of the matter is, we can only discuss the game in its commonality, unless we all use the same material we can't discuss it. Unless all of our decisions and comments about the game itself are based on the game itself then we might as well complain about fighters suck because my shoes pinch. Anyone from any side can falsely make claims about the game as a whole based on individual experiences, i could claim that fighters are the strongest class ever written, but i'd be wrong. Now if i said "in my game where we have a global antimagic field fighters are the strongest class every written i would be right, at least in respect to my game, but i couldn't be justified applying it to dungeons and dragons as a whole. Either Talk about Dungeons and Dragons as Dungeons and Dragons or get out. this thread is not about personal playstyles, in my game, i knew a guy, or any other subjective premise, its about an objective view of D&D. Objectively Dungeons and Dragons is Not designed Solely for roleplaying. Objectively the Dungeons and dragons system is designed to represent a multitude of games, playstyles, and scenarios within a fantasy setting. If you choose to do nothing but roleplay more power to you, if you choose to do nothing but murder monsters, rock on, if you are in between those extremes, neat-o, but be aware that you are playing only the smallest personal sub set of dnd. The Stormwind fallacy is simply put a slap of common sense. Roleplaying and Optimization are not mutually antagonistic options, one does not limit the other and in fact the two can mutually enhance each other So again if you would like to argue about reflavoring, spontaneous ability gain from leveling, Technique A versus Technique B, do so from the standpoint of Dungeons and Dragons as presented by the published rules, not from your personal games. Arguing the interpretation of rules is one thing, making up rules whole cloth and applying them where there where none is another.
Dog_O_War 02-07-08, 03:05 PM	Which is fascinating, because i've played in a group with three druids in the same game and not a one of them was the same. Our Dwarf Druid was primarily a "green" expansionist, his character's primary focus was on the proper use of natural resources without the destruction of the underlying natural life matrix. He rarely used wildshape and didn't bother with an animal companion for the most part stating "Removing a creature from its natural habitat is both immoral and wrong". On the rare occasion he did gain an animal companion he promptly released it once the group left the creatures local grounds. From his point of view cities where nothing more than nests and were part of the natural world however he said that it was his duty to make sure that the environment outside the nests remained sound. In combat he primarily used spells and occasionally would fight hand to hand if pressed Our Human Druid believed primarily in a "return to nature" movement and spent the majority of time in wildshaped form only rarely reverting to his natural form his primary companion was normally a pack animal of some kind whose form he matched in wildeshape, over time the druid would dismiss animal companions as he progressed "spiritually" (i.e. gain access to better animal shapes from hit dice increase) and replace them with the new types. His view of cities where of unnatural creations who would soon collapse under their own weight. This druid was a bruiser tag teaming enemies with his wildshaped strength and his animal companion on the left, dual charging flankers (pack tactics) put a hurt on many enemies Our other human Druid was all about eco integration, his desires where to spread druidism among the people and he played his character as a sort of natural prophet using his wildshape and spells to teach people about living with nature and how to build cities into a terrain rather than on top of terrain. This particular druid rarely got involved in combat but rather let his companion (divine emissary of the earth) do most of the fighting wile backing him up with ranged attacks. using spells to augment his abilities and heal wounds. Three very different druids, all using the same mechanics. That's great, but they are still the same in exact respects as my comments were made. Dog_of_War's position on druids not being versatile is easily understood once you understand the premises behind the posts. Flavor cannot be changed Flavor may be changed by the dm only Flavor changes may only occur on a setting level Player's characters are mechanically fixed into their preslected flavor and my not deviate from it, See 1A Any Change in flavor must be enforced by the creation of new mechanics to support it All posts/comments/view are from the standpoint of "my game" not "from the standard rules" Wow, not only is this an attack against me, but serves as an eye-opener on how you've consistently responded to my posts on these boards. My view on class is different than yours, and I see things very B&W. It is how I am, and clearly it rubs you the wrong way. I'm sorry for being me. I'm sorry for stating what I think very vocally, and I'm sorry if I tend to go against the group on alot of issues. But this is a debate on theories, not a critique of posters. Its terribly easy to understand, in a game where your class forces you into a cookie cutter stereotype and all your abilities descriptions are the same of course some classes would seem static. Thats not the classes fault, the rules of the game state that you should change flavor to fit your needs, thats because they have been houseruled into staticism. I was speaking from a completely mechanical point of view; my game nor any other was considered when I wrote my thoughts on the druid class. Taking the class at default (this is applicable for all games, unless you houserule it otherwise) it stands as static as I put it in my post to Stormwind. When you've turned flavor into mechanics of course things seem static. This is an attack. The Fact of the matter is, we can only discuss the game in its commonality, unless we all use the same material we can't discuss it. Unless all of our decisions and comments about the game itself are based on the game itself then we might as well complain about fighters suck because my shoes pinch. Anyone from any side can falsely make claims about the game as a whole based on individual experiences, i could claim that fighters are the strongest class ever written, but i'd be wrong. Now if i said "in my game where we have a global antimagic field fighters are the strongest class every written i would be right, at least in respect to my game, but i couldn't be justified applying it to dungeons and dragons as a whole. You miss-read me, and are making assumptions here on what I said. Either Talk about Dungeons and Dragons as Dungeons and Dragons or get out. this thread is not about personal playstyles, in my game, i knew a guy, or any other subjective premise, its about an objective view of D&D. This is an attack (seeing a pattern here people?). Objectively Dungeons and Dragons is Not designed Solely for roleplaying. Objectively the Dungeons and dragons system is designed to represent a multitude of games, playstyles, and scenarios within a fantasy setting. If you choose to do nothing but roleplay more power to you, if you choose to do nothing but murder monsters, rock on, if you are in between those extremes, neat-o, but be aware that you are playing only the smallest personal sub set of dnd. I never said that it was designed for one or the other; I said that the design included RPing though, and to not include RP is to cut a portion from the game out. The Stormwind fallacy is simply put a slap of common sense. Is this directed soley at me? Roleplaying and Optimization are not mutually antagonistic options, one does not limit the other and in fact the two can mutually enhance each other I agree; infact I said that multiple times with my "three categories" post. So again if you would like to argue about reflavoring, spontaneous ability gain from leveling, Technique A versus Technique B, do so from the standpoint of Dungeons and Dragons as presented by the published rules, not from your personal games. Arguing the interpretation of rules is one thing, making up rules whole cloth and applying them where there where none is another. If this is directed at me (safe to assume, since it's with other comments directed at me; but let's not make assumptions here), then this too is an attack. So far you've spammed an attack add at me Lokiyn, when I was stating my feelings on the customizability of the defaulted druid. Nothing more, nothing less. Can I ask why you did this? If it is a bad day or something, just edit your post and put "BAD DAY" in place of it.
pres_man 02-07-08, 03:24 PM	Wow, not only is this an attack against me, but serves as an eye-opener on how you've consistently responded to my posts on these boards. My view on class is different than yours, and I see things very B&W. It is how I am, and clearly it rubs you the wrong way. I'm sorry for being me. I'm sorry for stating what I think very vocally, and I'm sorry if I tend to go against the group on alot of issues. It is not an attack if it is true. You don't seem to be here saying it is false, merely that it makes you look bad. Now if it is wrong, please feel free to clarify. “Euclid taught me that without assumptions there is no proof. Therefore, in any argument, examine the assumptions.” -Eric Temple Bell http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eric_temple_bell
Dog_O_War 02-07-08, 04:09 PM	It is not an attack if it is true. You don't seem to be here saying it is false, merely that it makes you look bad. Now if it is wrong, please feel free to clarify. Please note the tone in which I respond to posters who do not instantly critisize, and who are often in genuine need of proactive thoughts on subjects they find fuzzy. The only assumption you can make is that when you respond critical of me, I will respond in kind. Nothing more, nothing less. Also, public humiliation is an attack of character. That is what his post consisted of, and you are endorsing that by saying what you did in the quote above (bolded text).
Jaxgaret 02-07-08, 05:02 PM	Please note the tone in which I respond to posters who do not instantly critisize, and who are often in genuine need of proactive thoughts on subjects they find fuzzy. The only assumption you can make is that when you respond critical of me, I will respond in kind. Nothing more, nothing less. Also, public humiliation is an attack of character. That is what his post consisted of, and you are endorsing that by saying what you did in the quote above (bolded text). Dog, as much as I agree that everyone should be able to play the game their own way, that doesn't mean that everyone should come on the boards and use their own campaign style as a filter through which they see everything here. Can you accept that? You're limiting your responses to other people by assuming that your campaign style is the only way you will ever see things, and responding accordingly. Since this is a community, many of us have seen you post over and over with these seemingly nonsensical judgments of things, until we finally garnered enough evidence (which, thankfully, you informed us of) that you are playing a very specific campaign style, and refuse to accept that other people play other campaign styles, so that what you post makes sense to you and in your campaign world, but not to the community at large. These boards assume default settings for discussion, or as close to it as possible. Otherwise, discussions are impossible, as they all degrade into anecdotal battles.
KIDS 02-07-08, 05:25 PM	Tsssssssssk. You know, I'll be the first to say that the above was rather ill-said and over the top despite the situation, but look at it from the other side of the mirror Dog. People here in this thread are (not because of you personally, it's a much older problem) really on the defense, because of unfair, unrepresentative and unjustified not to mention plain rude comparisons being slapped on them daily. And no, I'm not saying you were unpolite or anything either. But you persist putting on arguments about the issue which would be better off in a thread like "let's laugh at people who don't roleplay". I will also always eagerly let you play your game and not complain about how unjust or whatever it might or might not be, because it's your game, but do realize that it's an expression of common courtesy, as it should be. This argument being endlessly slammed against some proverbial wall of Stormwind Fallacy is not common courtesy, no matter how politely anyone presents it. At its core, it involves demeaning other players and their imagination or whatever over a set of numbers and anecdotal 'evidence' applied large-scale. At its core, it's offending to read to really a lot of people who would otherwise have nothing against you. The genuine answer to this is of course: "If you're offended, don't read these forums and this topic". I'm jaded enough that I can read all of this and be only mildly disappointed instead of exploding; that's not a good thing, just a favorable situation. But really, it isn't about these forums. Nor is it about a lot of gamers facing this on any forum or wherever they go, it's simply a matter of principle and fact everyone feels better if he/she isn't having dung thrown at him or feeling a need to reflect the dung back. The entire debate about how optimization impairs roleplaying is not only the least important concern that should be discussed anywhere, it's also the most offending because it universally involves putting down someone's story or concept; everyone feels attached to his concepts. My conclusion ends up like this: I don't like anyone exploding at you or vice versa, but realize that this whole topic is much more charged and much more unnecessary than it appears at first glance; so when someone does explode, remember that it's a two-way road.
Jaxgaret 02-07-08, 06:10 PM	Tsssssssssk. You know, I'll be the first to say that the above was rather ill-said and over the top despite the situation Was what I said really that bad? I was trying to be helpful, to be honest. Let me know if what I said offended you, Dog. I didn't mean it any kind of offensive way, just as an explanation.
Optimator 02-07-08, 06:35 PM	You need to read what you quoted then, because it is not misleading; I said what I was talking about in terms of versitility. For instance, the druid gets nature sense and wild empathy (he can choose not to have a companion) at 1st. He then gets woodland stride at 2nd, and trackless step at third. At 4th he gets resist nature's lure. at 5th he can wild shape (which is cool, allowing him to select what he wants; but every other druid can mimic his choice on a day-to-day basis). 9th gives him venom immunity. Everything here is something every other druid gets (without selecting a variant). Every druid can shift into a gopher, or a wolf, or a bird. Every druid is immune to venom at 9th. No changes, no options. Hell, atleast the monk can select some of his abilities. The fighter on the other hand gets 11 feats to select from a list of near 50 (core only), offering quite the selection. I favor this over the static blah that is the druid. Wow, did you even read what he said? Selecting 11 feats once in a career is NOT more versatile than selecting dozens of spells daily and the plethora of Wildshape forms available.
Jaxgaret 02-07-08, 08:58 PM	Well, I doubt your Bill Clinton, but you do need to put the word in context because I still have no idea what you mean you by it. I mean the word average. You know, a + b + c / 3 = average of a, b, and c. After they outperform you, day in and day out, over the course of a five year campaign, it'll start to sound pretty weak when you try to convince the other players that they actually aren't a good roleplayer. The example you gave was of someone who had many poor roleplaying performances, and then a single good one. It's possible that at the end of that period, they became a good roleplayer. But for most of that time, they were not a good roleplayer. Unforunately, your position has convinced me that there aren't good and bad roleplayers. I know, I know, its rare that someone can actually convince someone else of anything on the internet, but you've managed it. The important factor in roleplaying is the quality of the given performance, to which any sort of of average is entirely irrelevant. The limitless situations in which roleplaying occurs makes it impossible to even estimate the theoretical breath of roleplaying and the practical reality of where roleplaying occurs makes that breath irrelevant. Perhaps some people are good rolepickers could be described as good roleplayers, but since you rated Job and Karl basically equally good roleplayers, that obviously isn't what you meant. The utter subjectivity of rating roleplaying does mean that there are no true "good" or "bad" roleplayers, only ones who are collectively deemed so. But that is basically just an avoidance of the whole issue, since the community at large for the most part generally agrees on what "good" and "bad" roleplayers are, and can tell if a person is one or the other, or neither. You yourself instinctively assumed such as well IIRC. You can say the same thing about anything really. All taste is subjective. But there are going to be collective agreements on things, which is all we really have to go by.
Ongorth 02-07-08, 11:21 PM	I mean the word average. You know, a + b + c / 3 = average of a, b, and c. But, my problem was in what it is you think you are averaging: the person's theoretical range of playing based on the inestimably large combination of roles and contexts or the person's actual demonstrated experiences roleplaying. I find both of those measures wholly inadequate. The example you gave was of someone who had many poor roleplaying performances, and then a single good one. It's possible that at the end of that period, they became a good roleplayer. But for most of that time, they were not a good roleplayer. So, the person was somehow turned from a bad roleplayer into a good roleplayer, not by virtue of changing anything they did (as their performance in this role was consistently awesome), but instead because they did the same thing well long enough to "bring up the average?" And if we take the reverse of the situation, does the years of good roleplaying suddenly become a bad roleplayer after a string of bad performances? The utter subjectivity of rating roleplaying does mean that there are no true "good" or "bad" roleplayers, only ones who are collectively deemed so. But that is basically just an avoidance of the whole issue, since the community at large for the most part generally agrees on what "good" and "bad" roleplayers are, and can tell if a person is one or the other, or neither. You yourself instinctively assumed such as well IIRC. You can say the same thing about anything really. All taste is subjective. But there are going to be collective agreements on things, which is all we really have to go by. I had assumed it until you convinced me otherwise. Now I think its just another piece of crap we throw at people who don't play the way we want them to. My issue isn't about the subjectivity of what good roleplaying is, its the impossibility to quantify what a good roleplayer is, because the entire title is irrelevant. I mean, to go ultra general, if their is someone who would really, really suck badly at playing Vampire: the Masquerade and be really, really good at playing Feng Shui, is the fact they, on average, an average roleplayer in any way relevant if the only games they play in are Feng Shui and Vampire: the Masquerade? When you label the problem as it being of a "bad roleplayer", you're missing the fact that the problem may not (and likely doesn't) have anything to do with the person, but rather the unfavorable roleplaying circumstances the person is in. Labeling someone a bad roleplayer just lacks credibility when they can and do roleplay well when in their element. Judging roleplaying ability by the measure of how often that element comes up is stupid. I mean, come on. A person's roleplaying skill is measured by how often dinosaurs come up in the game? This isn't even a fictional example selected to make the opposing argument seem silly! I know this guy!
Jaxgaret 02-08-08, 12:46 AM	But, my problem was in what it is you think you are averaging: the person's theoretical range of playing based on the inestimably large combination of roles and contexts or the person's actual demonstrated experiences roleplaying. I find both of those measures wholly inadequate. They may be inadequate, but they are all we have to go by. One does what one can with what one has at hand. So, the person was somehow turned from a bad roleplayer into a good roleplayer, not by virtue of changing anything they did (as their performance in this role was consistently awesome), but instead because they did the same thing well long enough to "bring up the average?" And if we take the reverse of the situation, does the years of good roleplaying suddenly become a bad roleplayer after a string of bad performances? The performance and the intrinsic quality of their roleplayership are separate. One can be a good roleplayer and roleplay badly for a time, and one can be a bad roleplayer and roleplay well for a time. But one cannot be a good roleplayer and always rolepley poorly, nor can one be a bad roleplayer and always roleplay well. In other words, the quality of a person's roleplaying is correlative, not parallel, to their actual roleplaying skill, due to the vagaries of probability and situation. I had assumed it until you convinced me otherwise. Now I think its just another piece of crap we throw at people who don't play the way we want them to. My issue isn't about the subjectivity of what good roleplaying is, its the impossibility to quantify what a good roleplayer is, because the entire title is irrelevant. I mean, to go ultra general, if their is someone who would really, really suck badly at playing Vampire: the Masquerade and be really, really good at playing Feng Shui, is the fact they, on average, an average roleplayer in any way relevant if the only games they play in are Feng Shui and Vampire: the Masquerade? Yes, I would say that the person you are describing is an average roleplayer. If they generally excelled at roleplaying, they would be a good roleplayer, but they do not. The issue is really: how does one tell a good roleplayer from someone who is not a good roleplayer, but who always plays in the right types of games that they happen to excel at roleplaying in? The answer is, you can't. It's not an exact science. When you label the problem as it being of a "bad roleplayer", you're missing the fact that the problem may not (and likely doesn't) have anything to do with the person, but rather the unfavorable roleplaying circumstances the person is in. Labeling someone a bad roleplayer just lacks credibility when they can and do roleplay well when in their element. Judging roleplaying ability by the measure of how often that element comes up is stupid. Agreed. I mean, come on. A person's roleplaying skill is measured by how often dinosaurs come up in the game? This isn't even a fictional example selected to make the opposing argument seem silly! I know this guy! Really? :rofl: Nice.
Dog_O_War 02-08-08, 02:12 PM	Wow, did you even read what he said? Selecting 11 feats once in a career is NOT more versatile than selecting dozens of spells daily and the plethora of Wildshape forms available. I did. And I would ask the same of you. Is your wild shape and spell choice unable to be duplicated by the other druids of your level? No? It can be? From day to day even? That is what I said of druids; I don't like that factor of the class. I don't like the fact that nearly every druid out there could mimic my druid on a day to day basis. With the fighter there is a likelyhood that another fighter will have all the same feats as you at a given level, but how likely? Exponentially less likely than another druid mimicing your entire class on a day to day basis. That's what I have to keep saying; that the class is not versitile in the choices I make with it; that it is too easily cloned, offering only race(sorta; a wolf is a wolf when you wild-shape), skills, and feats (which more often than not natural spell will be taken) to set it apart from other druids (mechanically speaking). It doesn't matter what you call the abilities, as the end result is the same. The fighter class offers 1000's of variants before the chance of a repeat will come about; I like it more because of this and because I get a choice every level I get a class ability. I don't need to weapon focus at first, but if I did want it later, I can take it. That is the difference between the two classes I like. Originally posted by KIDS Tsssssssssk. You know, I'll be the first to say that the above was rather ill-said and over the top despite the situation, but look at it from the other side of the mirror Dog. People here in this thread are (not because of you personally, it's a much older problem) really on the defense, because of unfair, unrepresentative and unjustified not to mention plain rude comparisons being slapped on them daily. And no, I'm not saying you were unpolite or anything either. But you persist putting on arguments about the issue which would be better off in a thread like "let's laugh at people who don't roleplay". Then you need to read what I said more thoroughly, as I posited that builders who find themselves in a game containing RP will not have as good a time than RPers who find themselves in a game containing building. While a builder can have fun, they have set a self limitor by not training themselves in the aspect of the game that has no rules to cover it. RPers atleast have rules to govern their deficiency. As for looking at the other side of the mirror; I've been there bud, and I know exactly what it's like. Here is where I'd like you to note that I do not use harsh words on builders, and am easy on them (in game terms). I said though that when they begin to demand things of me, when I know they will not work for them as hard as the others at the table is when I take a hard-nosed stance. I don't mind hack-n-slashers or builders (as I had said previous), but I do mind when I'm given the bill of entitlement. No player (RPers and Hybrids included) should hand their DM this without first proving they are worthy of it. For me it does involve having to RP, but includes being a good player as well. It may mean different things for different DM's, but I doubt you'd give a player a +5 sword by level X simply because he demands it, no matter what style of game you run. I will also always eagerly let you play your game and not complain about how unjust or whatever it might or might not be, because it's your game, but do realize that it's an expression of common courtesy, as it should be. This argument being endlessly slammed against some proverbial wall of Stormwind Fallacy is not common courtesy, no matter how politely anyone presents it. At its core, it involves demeaning other players and their imagination or whatever over a set of numbers and anecdotal 'evidence' applied large-scale. At its core, it's offending to read to really a lot of people who would otherwise have nothing against you. I have not once slammed anything against said fallacy; others are so wrapped up in their own anger though that they continually see me as doing so. I even clarified this multiple times on different posts, but still I get responses like this. I have stated that I agree with Stromwind's proposal; that how well you "build" has nothing to do with how well you "RP". But what I did do is classify people who do not RP as builders, and people who do not build as RPers. I then went on to say that most people fall into the third category; hybrids - those who both build and RP to a lesser or greater extent of both categories. Maybe I should include two more categories; those who do not do either, and those who do not play. These last two though I thought were pointless, because they are an equivalent to a dead body in the room. No one wanted to listen though. The genuine answer to this is of course: "If you're offended, don't read these forums and this topic". I'm jaded enough that I can read all of this and be only mildly disappointed instead of exploding; that's not a good thing, just a favorable situation. But really, it isn't about these forums. Nor is it about a lot of gamers facing this on any forum or wherever they go, it's simply a matter of principle and fact everyone feels better if he/she isn't having dung thrown at him or feeling a need to reflect the dung back. I agree, but I've been made into a dung-thowing monster here for unrelated reasons; that and the only actual dung that has been thrown so far has been at me. The entire debate about how optimization impairs roleplaying is not only the least important concern that should be discussed anywhere, it's also the most offending because it universally involves putting down someone's story or concept; everyone feels attached to his concepts. My conclusion ends up like this: I don't like anyone exploding at you or vice versa, but realize that this whole topic is much more charged and much more unnecessary than it appears at first glance; so when someone does explode, remember that it's a two-way road. See though, while optimization doesn't need to impair roleplaying, it can. You might not see it that way, but I do because I know it can be true. Same with the inverse; anti-optimizing can impair role-play as well, for the simple fact that no ugly bag-head will be the beautiful princesses' "prince charming", no 89Lb. girl with a 6 strength and dexerity could be the greatest warrior that ever lived, and no simpleton 3 wis orc will ever be the spiritual leader of the church of Pelor. I agree that it is not as important a topic as others, but it is a topic alot of players and DMs think about when they get stuff like my three knights example. Honestly; how do you make a game equally fun for three ends of the spectrum? Who do you cut out, since you cannot cater to everyone? Which player-type is the least desired by the majority? This is what it boils down to, and unfortunately those seen as more builder than RPer get the shaft. Originally posted by Jaxgaret Dog, as much as I agree that everyone should be able to play the game their own way, that doesn't mean that everyone should come on the boards and use their own campaign style as a filter through which they see everything here. Can you accept that? You're limiting your responses to other people by assuming that your campaign style is the only way you will ever see things, and responding accordingly. When responding to questions regarding builders and RPers (and Hybrids, as I call them), I have not used my campaign world as a base reference. When stating my opinions of the druid class, no other option was considered or referenced other than the defaulted druid in the PHB. I haven't limited my responses to my campaign even once, except here. When I posted my thoughts on class = concept, and that they should be something that a player seeks to be, I spoke of my campaign. It was off topic, and had nothing to do with the thread at hand, but a question at the time came up, and I stated that not all people see classes as an open - reflavor fest for the pillaging of players. Each and every time I recieved questionings and grillings on that topic though, I responded with my specific view point. It soon looked like it would take over the thread, so I moved it. But I have since been accused of narrow-minded and biased views on everything here, by nearly everyone except Radical Taoist. And as a side note, I put up that issuing a build to a DM might be counter-productive to the campaign at hand; that circumstances might change what is allowed for a build (and to tell the player this might ruin a suprise plot in the game). But I was told that the player should always get what they wanted, even if it stripped the prestige from another class the DM had developed just to placate the player issuing a bill of entitlement. I stated rather adamant that those players can go pound sand. I also made the connection that more often than not those players are builders. I didn't say I would work to foil builders at all costs, I had said that I would work to foil those issuing me demands of wealth and power without promise of services in exchange. I don't care if a player wants to "build" in my game; I don't want to see his build either, as it shows to me that he thinks that he's survived all the challenges I would/could present, and that there is no chance of a character death. This is not exclusive to my game, but I used it as a base for what I do when I run. No one heard that though, alls I got were responses of negativity and superiority; they (even you) responded as if I had said, "I don't like builders; they are the scum of the game. I kill them as often as possible, just to assert my authority and way of thinking when I run!" Also, what you said didn't offend me (actually, most of what you say does not offend me, or make me feel attacked), but it does make me feel the need to constantly clarify myself, as I am continually being mis-read, mis-interpreted, and mis-quoted.
NoldorForce 02-08-08, 11:04 PM	Note: I've shuffled some of the paragraphs around in your post, though strictly for the purpose of addressing each point as a whole. (The Bill of Entitlement discussion, for instance, comprises one paragraph near the middle and two more near the end.) Other points I haven't addressed simply because I don't know if I'd be able to make original contributions to such sub-discussions rather than repeating someone.I did. And I would ask the same of you. Is your wild shape and spell choice unable to be duplicated by the other druids of your level? No? It can be? From day to day even? That is what I said of druids; I don't like that factor of the class. I don't like the fact that nearly every druid out there could mimic my druid on a day to day basis. With the fighter there is a likelyhood that another fighter will have all the same feats as you at a given level, but how likely? Exponentially less likely than another druid mimicing your entire class on a day to day basis. That's what I have to keep saying; that the class is not versitile in the choices I make with it; that it is too easily cloned, offering only race(sorta; a wolf is a wolf when you wild-shape), skills, and feats (which more often than not natural spell will be taken) to set it apart from other druids (mechanically speaking). It doesn't matter what you call the abilities, as the end result is the same. The fighter class offers 1000's of variants before the chance of a repeat will come about; I like it more because of this and because I get a choice every level I get a class ability. I don't need to weapon focus at first, but if I did want it later, I can take it. That is the difference between the two classes I like.I suspect that you're using a different definition of 'versatility' than the rest of us. What you seem to be talking about is the capacity to be distinct from others within your class, and often that inhibits versatility. As above, the fighter chooses a new ability at 1st level and every even level. The druid chooses new abilities every day (spells) or every so many hours (wildshape). It'd seem like the ability to make such choices (big ones for both classes) at more frequent intervals would make someone more 'versatile', no? Suppose that the fighter (class) could change his bonus feats every day at sunrise; would he be more or less versatile? Your argument leads me to induce that you'd call him less versatile, because now the distinction between him and other fighters would be reduced if they could copy each other. (Note: Strictly speaking, induction involves guesswork, while deduction does not.) Definition of versatile from Merriam-Webster Online:1: changing or fluctuating readily : variable <a versatile disposition> 2: embracing a variety of subjects, fields, or skills; also : turning with ease from one thing to another 3 a (1): capable of turning forward or backward : reversible <a versatile toe of a bird> (2): capable of moving laterally and up and down <versatile antennae> b of an anther : having the filaments attached at or near the middle so as to swing freely 4: having many uses or applications <versatile building material>The third form of versatile is obviously a physical one, and can be ignored in our discussion of abstract concepts. First form: I'd peg the druid for this one; as above, he can change his shape (as with Wildshape) a certain number of times per day, and he can choose his spell list for each day (changing it as he wishes). The fighter doesn't get to change; when he chooses something, he's stuck with it. Second form: Part of the shtick of CoDzilla is the capability to fill in reasonably well for a number of different character roles with alterations in spell selection and the like. Yes, the fighter can fulfill some combat roles if he specializes in them. But he can only really specialize in a single combat role per character, while CoDzilla characters can do nearly as well by making appropriate daily or hourly choices. Wildshape alone grants souped-up statistics that are the equivalent of a number of feats in multiple combat roles (tripping, grappling, defensive control, etc.). And the cleric and druid are both full casters, while the fighter has no innate casting capacity. Fourth form: The argument here is essentially the same as for the second form. The effect is that the druid really is more 'versatile' than the fighter by the definition of that word.As for looking at the other side of the mirror; I've been there bud, and I know exactly what it's like. Here is where I'd like you to note that I do not use harsh words on builders, and am easy on them (in game terms). I said though that when they begin to demand things of me, when I know they will not work for them as hard as the others at the table is when I take a hard-nosed stance. I don't mind hack-n-slashers or builders (as I had said previous), but I do mind when I'm given the bill of entitlement. No player (RPers and Hybrids included) should hand their DM this without first proving they are worthy of it. For me it does involve having to RP, but includes being a good player as well. It may mean different things for different DM's, but I doubt you'd give a player a +5 sword by level X simply because he demands it, no matter what style of game you run. And as a side note, I put up that issuing a build to a DM might be counter-productive to the campaign at hand; that circumstances might change what is allowed for a build (and to tell the player this might ruin a suprise plot in the game). But I was told that the player should always get what they wanted, even if it stripped the prestige from another class the DM had developed just to placate the player issuing a bill of entitlement. I stated rather adamant that those players can go pound sand. I also made the connection that more often than not those players are builders. I didn't say I would work to foil builders at all costs, I had said that I would work to foil those issuing me demands of wealth and power without promise of services in exchange. I don't care if a player wants to "build" in my game; I don't want to see his build either, as it shows to me that he thinks that he's survived all the challenges I would/could present, and that there is no chance of a character death. This is not exclusive to my game, but I used it as a base for what I do when I run. No one heard that though, alls I got were responses of negativity and superiority; they (even you) responded as if I had said, "I don't like builders; they are the scum of the game. I kill them as often as possible, just to assert my authority and way of thinking when I run!"I didn't get this sense. I think we're all in agreement that if you simply demand the Bill of Entitlement, you're being rude to pretty much everyone else present. The point of the other side (as exemplified by the original post) is to work with the DM to make sure that you both follow your plans to a reasonable degree. Part of this is discussing things ahead of time, and part of it is working with evolving material to further your concepts on the fly (whether you're the DM or a player). It's the ideal middle ground of sorts between the Bill of Entitlement (players stomp on DM) and the Railroad Plotline (DM stomps on players). People can and will have differing opinions on where this ideal might lie, based on past experiences. But if we agree that the ideal exists, and how (in a general sort of way) to attain it, then we're not arguing about the overall picture.Also, what you said didn't offend me (actually, most of what you say does not offend me, or make me feel attacked), but it does make me feel the need to constantly clarify myself, as I am continually being mis-read, mis-interpreted, and mis-quoted.To a certain degree, that's how everyone feels. Sometimes it's a consequence of the heated nature of things (as large forum discussions are), and sometimes it's a consequence of mere text being unable to communicate nuance, emotion, and the like. In any case, it's best to communicate what the misinterpretation was and to present things more properly. I've at least tried to do that above with the versatility argument by explaining what I mean and what many of the CO Boards folks (TS, RT, Optimator, etc.) mean when using that word. You seem to be operating under a different definition. Perhaps you're not, in which case you can explain yourself more satisfactorily. (This assumes that the misinterpretation is accidental. Intentional misinterpretation instead falls under the Straw Man logical fallacy.)
pres_man 02-09-08, 09:40 AM	I didn't get this sense. I think we're all in agreement that if you simply demand the Bill of Entitlement, you're being rude to pretty much everyone else present. The point of the other side (as exemplified by the original post) is to work with the DM to make sure that you both follow your plans to a reasonable degree. Part of this is discussing things ahead of time, and part of it is working with evolving material to further your concepts on the fly (whether you're the DM or a player). It's the ideal middle ground of sorts between the Bill of Entitlement (players stomp on DM) and the Railroad Plotline (DM stomps on players). People can and will have differing opinions on where this ideal might lie, based on past experiences. But if we agree that the ideal exists, and how (in a general sort of way) to attain it, then we're not arguing about the overall picture. I would say that there should be a very fine line between a player demand "a bill of entitlement" and a player having control over their character. DMs need to step back and remember, "I have control over the entire setting. My players only have control over their characters. It is entirely reasonable for them to want to develop their characters how they wish, just as I want to develop my setting as I wish. If their ideas for their character would not directly conflict with the setting, I should do everything in my power to help them to develop their character." To me, DMs that think they should get to pick and choose which character builds and concepts are appropriate for PCs, merely on personal preference, are power hungry. All the players have to control the development of their characters. Yes this means sometimes you are going to have to help them. As an example I once had a player that wanted to go drunken master, in order to get in, he had to spend a night with other drunken master(s). Which meant, I as the DM had to include that into the game. Sure I could have said, "Hell no, you don't tell me what is in the setting!", but the fact was a group of drunken masters wouldn't have effected the setting in the least, and was actually quite workable during a session (the town was having a celebration, lots of dancing, singing, and ... drinking). Of course, some will take what I am saying to mean, "DMs should roll over and play dead then." No, that is not what I am saying, but I am saying is that playing D&D is a joint activity. A DM that is approaching it as if they are "all powerful", is missing that. Players' desire to develop the one part of the game they control, their PC, should not be dismissed out of hand.
Dog_O_War 02-09-08, 02:14 PM	Note: I've shuffled some of the paragraphs around in your post, though strictly for the purpose of addressing each point as a whole. (The Bill of Entitlement discussion, for instance, comprises one paragraph near the middle and two more near the end.) Other points I haven't addressed simply because I don't know if I'd be able to make original contributions to such sub-discussions rather than repeating someone.I suspect that you're using a different definition of 'versatility' than the rest of us. What you seem to be talking about is the capacity to be distinct from others within your class, and often that inhibits versatility. As above, the fighter chooses a new ability at 1st level and every even level. The druid chooses new abilities every day (spells) or every so many hours (wildshape). It'd seem like the ability to make such choices (big ones for both classes) at more frequent intervals would make someone more 'versatile', no? Suppose that the fighter (class) could change his bonus feats every day at sunrise; would he be more or less versatile? Your argument leads me to induce that you'd call him less versatile, because now the distinction between him and other fighters would be reduced if they could copy each other. (Note: Strictly speaking, induction involves guesswork, while deduction does not.) Definition of versatile from Merriam-Webster Online:The third form of versatile is obviously a physical one, and can be ignored in our discussion of abstract concepts. First form: I'd peg the druid for this one; as above, he can change his shape (as with Wildshape) a certain number of times per day, and he can choose his spell list for each day (changing it as he wishes). The fighter doesn't get to change; when he chooses something, he's stuck with it. Second form: Part of the shtick of CoDzilla is the capability to fill in reasonably well for a number of different character roles with alterations in spell selection and the like. Yes, the fighter can fulfill some combat roles if he specializes in them. But he can only really specialize in a single combat role per character, while CoDzilla characters can do nearly as well by making appropriate daily or hourly choices. Wildshape alone grants souped-up statistics that are the equivalent of a number of feats in multiple combat roles (tripping, grappling, defensive control, etc.). And the cleric and druid are both full casters, while the fighter has no innate casting capacity. Fourth form: The argument here is essentially the same as for the second form. The effect is that the druid really is more 'versatile' than the fighter by the definition of that word.I didn't get this sense. I think we're all in agreement that if you simply demand the Bill of Entitlement, you're being rude to pretty much everyone else present. The point of the other side (as exemplified by the original post) is to work with the DM to make sure that you both follow your plans to a reasonable degree. Part of this is discussing things ahead of time, and part of it is working with evolving material to further your concepts on the fly (whether you're the DM or a player). It's the ideal middle ground of sorts between the Bill of Entitlement (players stomp on DM) and the Railroad Plotline (DM stomps on players). People can and will have differing opinions on where this ideal might lie, based on past experiences. But if we agree that the ideal exists, and how (in a general sort of way) to attain it, then we're not arguing about the overall picture.To a certain degree, that's how everyone feels. Sometimes it's a consequence of the heated nature of things (as large forum discussions are), and sometimes it's a consequence of mere text being unable to communicate nuance, emotion, and the like. In any case, it's best to communicate what the misinterpretation was and to present things more properly. I've at least tried to do that above with the versatility argument by explaining what I mean and what many of the CO Boards folks (TS, RT, Optimator, etc.) mean when using that word. You seem to be operating under a different definition. Perhaps you're not, in which case you can explain yourself more satisfactorily. (This assumes that the misinterpretation is accidental. Intentional misinterpretation instead falls under the Straw Man logical fallacy.) This (druid - fighter) thing is my fault for miss-use of words. I appologize; I think customizability, or possibly unique-ness are better used in place of versitile. I did point out though that I was refering to versitility of feature selectability; I did this here; Really? Because all the non-variant druids out there all seem to have the same 20 levels worth of abilities, with no options or custimization whatsoever (especially if only core is allowed; not that I play only core). Most classes are like this; the only variances are usually skills (which nearly all druids will have one or two skills in common) and feats (which apparently isn't even all that varied, since it is a big taboo here to not take natural spell). I don't use versitility akin to what party role it can fill BTW, I mean what choices a player has with his class over the next 20 levels. The class quite litterally has no options (beyond spells, but they will share a major likeness with most druids' lists. Oh yeah, and animal companion, but when you can't get a fleshraker, you take a riding dog, since everyone is a druid macked out for "teh c0mB4tz"). and here; For instance, the druid gets nature sense and wild empathy (he can choose not to have a companion) at 1st. He then gets woodland stride at 2nd, and trackless step at third. At 4th he gets resist nature's lure. at 5th he can wild shape (which is cool, allowing him to select what he wants; but every other druid can mimic his choice on a day-to-day basis). 9th gives him venom immunity. Everything here is something every other druid gets (without selecting a variant). Every druid can shift into a gopher, or a wolf, or a bird. Every druid is immune to venom at 9th. No changes, no options. Hell, atleast the monk can select some of his abilities. The fighter on the other hand gets 11 feats to select from a list of near 50 (core only), offering quite the selection. I favor this over the static blah that is the druid. Maybe it was variability; I'm still not sure on the word, but it boils down to this; Druid A gets abilties A,B, and C, and can select from spell list AZ, as well as from wildshape choices AZ. Druid's B though Z get all of those things. They can choose their spells and wildshapes from day to day, and could have the exact same choices any given day of the week. If one didn't like spell or shape A, then he could choose B. But a choice one day makes no difference in his class, as any druid can choose exactly what any other druid did that same day. If one wanted special combo, like bird/call lightning to be his signature, he is easily copied from a day to day basis (if his fashion is in style, eveyone can simply choose to be exactly like him). With the fighter class, your choices are permanent, and many other fighters will have the same abilities as you, but you choose when you get them, and in what combination; since their are quite alot of choices to be made, unique fighter designs will number in the thousands before you get even a single repeat. For the short version, it boils down to this; a fighter could take power attack at first or twentieth; a druid must get venom immunity at 9th. I don't know the word for this, beyond choice.
Tempest Stormwind 02-09-08, 04:27 PM	This (druid - fighter) thing is my fault for miss-use of words. I appologize; I think customizability, or possibly unique-ness are better used in place of versitile. I did point out though that I was refering to versitility of feature selectability; I did this here; and here; Maybe it was variability; I'm still not sure on the word, but it boils down to this; Druid A gets abilties A,B, and C, and can select from spell list AZ, as well as from wildshape choices AZ. Druid's B though Z get all of those things. They can choose their spells and wildshapes from day to day, and could have the exact same choices any given day of the week. If one didn't like spell or shape A, then he could choose B. But a choice one day makes no difference in his class, as any druid can choose exactly what any other druid did that same day. If one wanted special combo, like bird/call lightning to be his signature, he is easily copied from a day to day basis (if his fashion is in style, eveyone can simply choose to be exactly like him). With the fighter class, your choices are permanent, and many other fighters will have the same abilities as you, but you choose when you get them, and in what combination; since their are quite alot of choices to be made, unique fighter designs will number in the thousands before you get even a single repeat. For the short version, it boils down to this; a fighter could take power attack at first or twentieth; a druid must get venom immunity at 9th. I don't know the word for this, beyond choice. Try this: If fighters get 11 feats over the course of their careers, and druids can choose more than 11 spells on any given day, the druid is making more choices than the fighter. He has more features to select from and a greater number of possible ending configurations. Although all 9th level druids have Venom Immunity, the chances that all 9th level druids have chosen the same spells, the same animal companions, the same wild shape forms, and the same character feats (besides Natural Spell) are economical* -- and they grow even more with every book with an Animal or a druid spell in it, since all druids already know all druid spells. I also find it funny how you imply that all druids will do things like grab the fleshraker, but don't apply the same standard to the fighter. The exact choice depends on their weapon role, in much the same way a druid's choices depend on him being frontline, scout, healer, or support. The difference is, while all two-handed fighters grab Power Attack, not all frontline druids pick the same wild shape forms. Not saying that fighters have no versatility, but if the significant choices the druid makes are equal in number, then the druid cannot by definition be less versatile (in your definition) than the fighter. *See here, searching for "economical." (http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Feynman)
NoldorForce 02-09-08, 05:42 PM	I'd already noted that Dog's definition of versatility seemed off, and thus we've had a clarification that 'customization' or 'distinction' might be better words. So we've gotten the discussion about overall versatility out of the way. That said, as Tempest noted above the druid still has a decent amount of variation within his class features. Each specialized role has a couple of different Really Good/Don't Ignore options in terms of wildshape/animal companions/spells, in the same sense that specialized fighter roles have a couple of Really Good/Don't Ignore options in terms of feats to choose from. The druid does get a selection of permanent, no-choice class abilities, but they're window dressing compared to the big three of Animal Companion, spellcasting, and wild shape. To be sure, permanent customization can be an acceptable class-building tool. Many classes (martial adepts, spontaneous casters, incarnates, soulborn, warlocks, and more) have some form of it. It works as long as you're generally capable of choosing from a number of good and viable options, which such classes usually have. (The problem posited with the fighter (and the shadowcaster too) is that it's relatively difficult to find and properly use those Really Good/Don't Ignore options.)
lurker88 02-10-08, 12:33 AM	Saying that the Fighter has more options than the Druid is like saying that someone with six pennies has more money than someone with five quarters.
Shadowhowler 02-10-08, 05:17 PM	No. You don't need to play D&D in any manner besides the manner that is fun for you. You can play D&D without roleplaying, just as you can play it without optimization. If you reject the Jell-Moo Principle, there is no point to our even trying a discussion at all as we can simply sit back and say 'your playstyle is wrong'. I'm very adamant on this point. While I do agree with the 'Jell-Moo Principle', and belive that anyone who wants to play is intitled to play however they want... D&D is an RPG. a Role Playing Game. I think you too quickly dismiss that fact...
Shadowhowler 02-10-08, 05:42 PM	I've been trying to avoid getting sucked back into this, but that statement just floored me. The druid is up there with the artificer and the wizard in terms of ability versatility, and may actually surpass them because its options grow "for free" every time you add a splatbook with an appropriate spell or monster in it. It's primarily because of its versatility (and not its power: it has that, but more focused classes can exceed it) that the CO boards routinely said "druid 20" in response to all those 'what's the best build' threads. I wasn't gonna say it... but I'm glad someone did. I too was confused by the statment.
Dog_O_War 02-11-08, 02:06 PM	Try this: If fighters get 11 feats over the course of their careers, and druids can choose more than 11 spells on any given day, the druid is making more choices than the fighter. He has more features to select from and a greater number of possible ending configurations. Although all 9th level druids have Venom Immunity, the chances that all 9th level druids have chosen the same spells, the same animal companions, the same wild shape forms, and the same character feats (besides Natural Spell) are economical* -- and they grow even more with every book with an Animal or a druid spell in it, since all druids already know all druid spells. A spell though is as personable as choosing what colour of shirt you're wearing today (from a closet of limited shirts). Spells do not = unique for anyone that can change to mimic your selection on a daily basis. This is my complaint against the class; While I may be unique one day, the next every druid out there could be exactly the same as my own - this very thought (how ever unlikely) just does not sit well with me. I also find it funny how you imply that all druids will do things like grab the fleshraker, but don't apply the same standard to the fighter. The exact choice depends on their weapon role, in much the same way a druid's choices depend on him being frontline, scout, healer, or support. The difference is, while all two-handed fighters grab Power Attack, not all frontline druids pick the same wild shape forms. Actually, the fleshraker comment was a cheap shot at the many druid builders out there; I don't even know what book it's from, let alone even know what it looks like. Obviously there are certain forms more advantageous to certain situations than others. But given the limited selection of forms, there will be a select few that people choose from; no one will choose the albatross as a front line role-filler for instance. Either way, if one druid takes the form of a bear, so can all the other druids of that level, and they don't need to know in advance (thanks to wild shape forms being spontaineous). Again, this is a point of discontention for me; too easily copied. Not saying that fighters have no versatility, but if the significant choices the druid makes are equal in number, then the druid cannot by definition be less versatile (in your definition) than the fighter. *See here, searching for "economical." (http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Feynman) You and I are putting different values on class abilities here though. I place the feat at the very top of choices, because the decision is permanent, so the choice is more important (by a magnitude atleast) than a choice that is easily changed on a round-by-round or day-by-day basis. Wild shape, spells, and animal companion all fall into this category. If this were a sorcerer we were talking about, then spell choice would be almost as valued as a feat; a familiar would have even more value (because there is a penalty for losing one). But this is about the druid. A very well-rounded class, but not unique enough from all the other druids by virtue of class abilities. With a fighter, every decision is critical; for the druid, it almost does not matter, as if you don't like what you picked, you wait a day and change it. Given that nearly every game has down-time, a druid could experience nearly all possible combinations of his class within a year or two of that down time, never sacrificing play-time effectiveness.
Jaxgaret 02-11-08, 02:11 PM	A spell though is as personable as choosing what colour of shirt you're wearing today (from a closet of limited shirts). Spells do not = unique for anyone that can change to mimic your selection on a daily basis. This is my complaint against the class; While I may be unique one day, the next every druid out there could be exactly the same as my own - this very thought (how ever unlikely) just does not sit well with me. It's more likely to have two Fighters that are built the same than it is to have two Druids select the same spells on the same day, so I don't really see what point you are trying to make here.
RadicalTaoist 02-11-08, 05:06 PM	13 for the whole carreer if you wanted that 50 STR (adjust as desired). I don't like druids though; class abilities lack versitility. I would much rather have Shapechange, the Entangle+Control Plants combo, Call Lightning sniping, or elemental wildshape than 100 STR. But this is off topic. Actually, I was just giving that as an example; there is plenty of excitement for hack-n-slashers, or for anyone as long as they don't feel entitled to a spoon-fed concept Emphasis mine. (the three knights example I gave earlier is something that I do; I tend to let the builders slide though if I see a build that well, sucks). Probably off topic but I don't quite get what you mean here. That's cool. I prefer the illusion of choice under restriction though, as it lets me see things B&W, without the extra hassle of DMing on-the-fly (which I suck at). Fair enough. (Note: heavy reflavoring doesn't necessarily demand DMing on-the-fly any more than whatever other style you care to bring up.) I just see that as potential DM burn-out. That and the whole socks and sandals thing is something I'd rather be called a nazi for disallowing, than a hero for allowing. It's really not as hard as you think. (Note: you appear to admit here a preference towards erring on the side of less player options. Is that intentional? I don't like pouncing on half-sentences.) Maybe. I've see plenty of examples to the contrary though, and not just in my game. I think that the best examples of this are prestige classes (ephasis on prestige); it should mean something when you become one, embodying class and title as concept. I don't see prestige in-game coming from a certain mechanical choice. If I take levels in the Ghostwalker, Spymaster, and Shadow Sun Ninja prestige classes then my character better damn well be someone whose name nobody knows. I don't lose anything for disassociating in-game perception from out-of-game mechanics. But he's a pious knight templar, not a paladin (I didn't label him that) unless pious knight templar and paladin are synonymous with eachother. There must be some difference though if they have different titles and all, right? Nope, sorry, I was using them synonymously in that context. :) As far as the in-game world is concerned, that straight-classed fighter (or crusader, or whatever fits close enough) is a paladin who has neglected the healing aspects of his calling in favor of the martial. I would agree, but taking levels in two spellcasting classes (like sorcerer and wizard) really illustrate why one side can't learn the same tricks as the other, or if one took levels of the other, it only highlights the weakness of not knowing in-game (as to avoid metagame) why this is a bad choice. No, it's only a bad choice in the case of that one example (a sorceror/wizard who for some reason isn't going for Ultimate Magus). That examples of bad flavor fits exist don't at all mean that they actually ever happen in a gaming group. Fixed. I'll fix my own points, thank you. I'm not going to argue the design or balance of the Fighter on this thread. It's just an example. I'll let it go, but it's an example that's unthinkable in my games. The presence of furs or light armor shouldn't give anything away (except, perhaps, that the NPC is proficient in light armor; that's 8 possible classes in the PHB alone). While I do agree with the 'Jell-Moo Principle', and belive that anyone who wants to play is intitled to play however they want... D&D is an RPG. a Role Playing Game. I think you too quickly dismiss that fact...That 'fact' means a different subjective thing to whoever you ask. Inquire to 10 gamers what an RPG is and I wouldn't be surprised if you got 12 replies. If you feel there exists some significant and essential aspect of an RPG that is relevant to the discussion, and I've overlooked it, please feel free to point it out.
Dog_O_War 02-12-08, 02:33 PM	Emphasis mine. I don't understand; you like players who demand you give them things without offering atleast something in return? Probably off topic but I don't quite get what you mean here. What I'm saying is that everyone reacts to the three knights example that I laid out. How I react to it is for my game alone, but the situation is not unique. While people out to just play super-powered characters are not what I'm looking for, if the player thinks his character is "the best", when I can see that he isn't, or has too many glaring weaknesses I let the builder slide; he's benign as far as the game and the other players are concerned, so I let him be. I figure that if a player has the intelligence to make a character powerful enough to put everyone else at the table to shame, then he should have the sense to realize that this type of thinking is more harmful than good for the game in question. Fair enough. (Note: heavy reflavoring doesn't necessarily demand DMing on-the-fly any more than whatever other style you care to bring up.) It does though. If there are a limited number of countries, classes, and combos, then I will not have to make up backgrounds for every single new piece of work my players bring in. I will also not have to review and rework the backgrounds they make for classes they reflavor. There will not be continuity errors for my players to find, and I don't need extra NPC trainers for those new classes. This is stuff I can avoid by offering choices from a limited selection rather than everything that I would need to read and review. It's really not as hard as you think. (Note: you appear to admit here a preference towards erring on the side of less player options. Is that intentional? I don't like pouncing on half-sentences.) It is true; but given infinity and the finite, the "limitations" I give are hardly as bad as they sound. Besides, my players seemingly like this way of doing things; we're busy people, so the less time they have to spend looking though books, the more time they spend developing a personality for their character. When you can use your class as an identifier (some classes are strong for this, others are a little more open), it is even easier to put yourself in the mindset of the people of the game. I don't see prestige in-game coming from a certain mechanical choice. If I take levels in the Ghostwalker, Spymaster, and Shadow Sun Ninja prestige classes then my character better damn well be someone whose name nobody knows. I don't lose anything for disassociating in-game perception from out-of-game mechanics. So going from "Palenthus the Redeemer" (paladin10), to "Palenthus the Destroyer" (paladin5, blackguard 6) would mean nothing to you, or to the people in the game around you? Hows about Barbarian 2/ Sorcerer 6, going into Dragon Disciple 10? No mechanical change to those classes? In one you go from beloved of the people to destroyer of the beloved (a dark prestige), and in the other you change physical form. Those sound prestigeous to me. Also, Normally by high levels a character's name should be very well known; those prestige classes you've chosen have allowed you remain anonymous; sounds like the benefits of prestige kicking in to me. Nope, sorry, I was using them synonymously in that context. :) As far as the in-game world is concerned, that straight-classed fighter (or crusader, or whatever fits close enough) is a paladin who has neglected the healing aspects of his calling in favor of the martial. Do you use the titles, "male" and "female" synonymously? Obviously not, but I have to ask; why all the arbitrary rules, when one thing could mean just one thing in a game? (Also, I didn't know you could "train up" supernatural abilities, and that they required skill to use when normally they are just granted by a higher power.) No, it's only a bad choice in the case of that one example (a sorceror/wizard who for some reason isn't going for Ultimate Magus). That examples of bad flavor fits exist don't at all mean that they actually ever happen in a gaming group. There are other examples; and besides, what did players do before Ultimate Magus? Point is, unless a character is also aware of some metaphysical concept of how abilities come about, and how to train for those abilities, then your approach is just as "meta-gamey" as mine is. The difference though is I give my players the option to cut out all metagame thought, allowing them a full immersion into the world. I'll fix my own points, thank you. I'm not going to argue the design or balance of the Fighter on this thread. That's fine; but try not to bash the class either. Some people take offense to that. I'll let it go, but it's an example that's unthinkable in my games. The presence of furs or light armor shouldn't give anything away (except, perhaps, that the NPC is proficient in light armor; that's 8 possible classes in the PHB alone). So there are absolutely no stereotypes in your games? Dwarves shave regularily, while elves grow beards? Do people tend not to use advantageous proficiencies at all, especially if their class offers it? While it was an example, you'll find that there are orders of magnitude in difference between the amount of fullplate wearing wizards, and the amount of fullplate wearing fighters. Sure, clerics and paladins get fullplate too, and it is not too bold to assume that atleast 1/3 of those classes will wear it. Really, if you think about it, it's safe to assume that a pure-classed rogue won't be in fullplate, but in an armour that works to his advantage than having no assumptions and just going in blind to the possible abilities a character might have. That 'fact' means a different subjective thing to whoever you ask. Inquire to 10 gamers what an RPG is and I wouldn't be surprised if you got 12 replies. If you feel there exists some significant and essential aspect of an RPG that is relevant to the discussion, and I've overlooked it, please feel free to point it out. Actually, the "fact" means exactly as Shadowhowler points out; D&D is an RPG; a game where you take on a role. Last I checked, builder wasn't a role in the game, but rather something any and all players were capable of doing outside of the RP aspect. Because these two things are being argued as 'seperate and independent of ability and skill within the game' here in this thread, if you cut out one, then you are not playing the full game. You might play a fulfilling game, but you only play half of it (or what ever percentage this RPG consists of). If I penalize a player for not playing the full game, does that make me the bad-guy? I don't mean to sound harsh, but the RP aspect of the game meant that you took on a role within the party; this consisted of two aspects (as the game itself consists of two aspects). You play the mechanical side, the role of one part of your group (rogue, wizard, cleric, fighter, or however you've decided mechanically), as well as the role of the spirit running that numbers pile (Bill, Jim, Ted, Ross, or what ever you name your character) and that together they form a role. Seperate, they are a personality (which any crazy person can have), and a pile of numbers. You can't play a pile of numbers, and most people feel uncomfortable around crazy people. It doesn't really matter what other people think this entails, as it still requires a combined aspect of the two listed here. Numbers+spirit, or mechanical and personality.
Dog_O_War 02-12-08, 03:09 PM	It's more likely to have two Fighters that are built the same than it is to have two Druids select the same spells on the same day, so I don't really see what point you are trying to make here. Only a very select few classes can get weapon specialization. While every fighter could get it, not every fighter will have it. Every druid can use goodberry. If they don't have it one day, they can simply memorise it the next. The "choice" is trivial, as it does not matter if you "didn't take it" because you get it and it is always available. This is the case with every druid. His spells are not unique because every druid has those same spells.
pres_man 02-12-08, 03:15 PM	Only a very select few classes can get weapon specialization. While every fighter could get it, not every fighter will have it. Every druid can use goodberry. If they don't have it one day, they can simply memorise it the next. The "choice" is trivial, as it does not matter if you "didn't take it" because you get it and it is always available. This is the case with every druid. His spells are not unique because every druid has those same spells. Every fighter with Great Cleave, will also have Power Attack and Cleave.
Dog_O_War 02-12-08, 03:18 PM	Every fighter with Great Cleave, will also have Power Attack and Cleave. BUt not every fighter with power attack will have cleave and great cleave. You cannot say the same for the druid.
Jaxgaret 02-12-08, 03:21 PM	Only a very select few classes can get weapon specialization. While every fighter could get it, not every fighter will have it. Every druid can use goodberry. If they don't have it one day, they can simply memorise it the next. The "choice" is trivial, as it does not matter if you "didn't take it" because you get it and it is always available. This is the case with every druid. His spells are not unique because every druid has those same spells. That goes for pretty much any class that is not the Fighter or Psychic Warrior. The Monk also gets a bit of variability in its bonus feats, and the Wizard gets bonus feats, and there are a couple of others. But almost every single other class, not just the Druid, is limited to the normal 7 feats gained through level progression.
Tempest Stormwind 02-12-08, 03:24 PM	It does though. If there are a limited number of countries, classes, and combos, then I will not have to make up backgrounds for every single new piece of work my players bring in. I will also not have to review and rework the backgrounds they make for classes they reflavor. There will not be continuity errors for my players to find, and I don't need extra NPC trainers for those new classes. This is stuff I can avoid by offering choices from a limited selection rather than everything that I would need to read and review. I don't have a lot of time, but I'll respond to this one. In our Eberron game (chosen here just because it's a world you're familiar with, not because it's the best example from my own games), there are a limited number of countries, and things like the Tome of Battle were written after everything else had been slotted in. (The same could be said for other noncore material or reflavored material.) In our other D&D game, the same thing can be said -- there are two major countries on the continent, plus contested ground and free lands, and not everything fits in directly, whether it's mechanically-new or reflavored-old. Of course, our DM doesn't have to make up backgrounds for every new piece of work we bring in, nor does he need to review and rework the backgrounds we reflavor. Why? Because the DM put that onus on the players, to become familiar enough with the world -- in one case, HIS world -- and told us to reflavor to fit the world. He doesn't even bother reviewing it, because he trusts us to do so intelligently -- and we accept that he has the final word on what goes and what doesn't go in his world. So what if Eberron doesn't have a specific Temple of Nine Swords that trains people in the arts of the Shadow Sun Ninja? It's got Valenar, in which martial prowess and glory are lauded as virtues, yet where stealth and cunning are valued on the battlefield. As Eberronian elves, they even have a historical connection to necromancy and the Undying Court's positive-energy-empowered deathless. Therefore, a Valenar special-ops agent alternating between stealth and valorous gusto, who has learned just enough of his ancestral ways to channel positive and negative energy, is a perfect fit in the setting -- despite the stock flavor and mechanics of a Shadow Sun Ninja being incompatible with Eberron. How did that character emerge? The player wanted to play a ninja. He asked fellow players (more familiar with the setting) where a logical place for a ninja-type character in Eberron would be, and chose the Valenar spec-ops as his goal. He renamed all of his abilities accordingly, and plays his character SPECTACULARLY -- all without the DM batting an eyelash or raising a finger, because he trusted his players to learn about the setting and use its stock RP accordingly. If that player ever broke from the DM's vision of Eberron, the DM would intercede, and the player would back down -- but that hasn't happened, because the player understands this. ** The player gets the mechanical character he wanted to play. He also got several *great* hooks that aren't inherent to the 'ninja' concept because he chose Valenar and infused so much of that nation's "feel" into his roleplaying. The DM got a player who contributes to the party and serves to reinforce an aspect of the game world that everyone enjoys. The result's a stellar game for everyone involved that everyone enjoys. All because the DM teaches his players to be informed on the setting, and trusts them to roleplay well. The players understand the need to fit well into the setting with their RP, and adjust their RP and mechanics to fit the DM's world vision in a way that's mutually beneficial. The players do NOT oppose the DM , and the DM doesn't crush the players. I fail to see how this is a problem -- and, more importantly, why it wouldn't work in your case. (All of this also happened in the other, non-Eberron game I'm in, too, but you wouldn't know the world so it's harder to explain. There was one key difference, though: the DM wasn't opposed to looking at what type of characters we wanted to play and adjusting his world accordingly. For instance, although the basic idea (magic/martial empires at war) and adventure design were set as he wrote the world, he noticed that the players came in two groups: a martial pair (characters were brothers) and a magical pair (characters were mentor/student). From this, he worked with the magical players to work out the inner details of the magical nation (for instance, that they hold an economic/educational monopoly on magical research), and worked with the martial players to develop details on the more martial nation (for instance, that its military was rife with corruption). Those minor changes led to many more adventure hooks for him to develop and for the players to expand on. However, such dynamic worldmaking isn't for everyone -- sometimes DMs want *complete* control over their worlds, their players' desires and talents be damned. That's what the rest of this reply is about.)
RadicalTaoist 02-14-08, 12:04 AM	I don't understand; you like players who demand you give them things without offering atleast something in return? Wow, you really didn't understand. No, that's not what I meant at all. By emphasis I was saying that's the important part of your sentence; anyone who does not come with a sense of entitlement can have fun. I agree with this. Player attitude should matter; player playstyle, not so much. What I'm saying is that everyone reacts to the three knights example that I laid out. How I react to it is for my game alone, but the situation is not unique. While people out to just play super-powered characters are not what I'm looking for, if the player thinks his character is "the best", when I can see that he isn't, or has too many glaring weaknesses I let the builder slide; he's benign as far as the game and the other players are concerned, so I let him be. I figure that if a player has the intelligence to make a character powerful enough to put everyone else at the table to shame, then he should have the sense to realize that this type of thinking is more harmful than good for the game in question. This is a concern about player attitude and I agree with it. I forget whose sig has this great line, and I probably misquote it here: "It doesn't matter if you're a nine-PrCed monstrosity that can destroy pantheons or a lame leprous human bard with a Cha of 6. If you disrupt the game you're a problem and you go. Being a jerk and a spoiler transcends playstyles." It does though. If there are a limited number of countries, classes, and combos, then I will not have to make up backgrounds for every single new piece of work my players bring in. I will also not have to review and rework the backgrounds they make for classes they reflavor. There will not be continuity errors for my players to find, and I don't need extra NPC trainers for those new classes. This is stuff I can avoid by offering choices from a limited selection rather than everything that I would need to read and review. Except no, you don't, if you trust the players to do that work for you. Tempest covered this. You maintain this assumption that the DM must work to make the class flavor fits and then work more to accept player deviation fits. Not so. He doesn't have to fit flavor to class in any ironclad fashion in the first place, and even if he does, he can still let the players to the work on all the flavoring. You know, since we're assuming players without a sense of entitlement who are willing to give at least something to make the game work. They want to play the character? They establish the character's place in the world while meeting your constraints. Sounds like a fair task and reward to me. It is true; but given infinity and the finite, the "limitations" I give are hardly as bad as they sound. Besides, my players seemingly like this way of doing things; we're busy people, so the less time they have to spend looking though books, the more time they spend developing a personality for their character. Assuming a conflict; looking through books can inspire character ideas. When you can use your class as an identifier (some classes are strong for this, others are a little more open), it is even easier to put yourself in the mindset of the people of the game. Not necessarily; I can put myself in the mindset of people in the game just fine without any class knowledge. I do so in the games Tempest described above. So going from "Palenthus the Redeemer" (paladin10), to "Palenthus the Destroyer" (paladin5, blackguard 6) would mean nothing to you, or to the people in the game around you? Oh, it means exactly the same as going from "Palenthus the Redeemer" (paladin10), to "Palenthus the Destroyer" (paladin10, blackguard 1) or "Palenthus the Redeemer" (LG crusader10), to "Palenthus the Destroyer" (CE crusader11). Hows about Barbarian 2/ Sorcerer 6, going into Dragon Disciple 10? That's trickier, but not impossible. If you've read the references for reflavoring, you'd have read the Psionic Naruto Builds thread. There we reflavor the Kalashtar (psionic symbiote humans with two souls, one they share with other Kalashtar) into the Aburame clan (humans who cultivate insect populations inside their bodies). If we see Barbarian/Sorceror/Dragon Disciple reflavored into Arcane Laboratory Mutant (must be chaotic because of mental instability, rages=adrenaline surges, spells are a weird side effect, oh and look he's growing wings and claws) then it makes sense, and his levelling up is just him becoming more of what he already was (which was a pretty freaky and unstable thing to begin with). If he grows more prestigious (or rather, infamous) in game, it's due to the exposure he gets. Those sound prestigeous to me. Also, Normally by high levels a character's name should be very well known; those prestige classes you've chosen have allowed you remain anonymous; sounds like the benefits of prestige kicking in to me. You seem to be confounding impressive abilities with prestigious ones. Secret agents are impressive, skilled con men are impressive, pickup artists are impressive, experienced stockbrokers are impressive. I can't think of any famous enough to be household names. But this whole little aside is irrelevant to the point, which is that how prestigious a character is in-game is dependent on a) how the player decides to portray his character, and b) how the game world views that portrayal. Not what kind of classes are on his character sheet. There's a general trend to higher level=more famous, which I can get behind. I just feel that the nine-PrC character shouldn't be more famous in-game than the straight-classed character unless he's acted to acquire a bigger reputation in-game. Do you use the titles, "male" and "female" synonymously? Obviously not, but I have to ask; Utterly irrelevant. I don't see any mechanical impact to difference in gender in the rules. why all the arbitrary rules, when one thing could mean just one thing in a game? What arbitrary rules? "Being called a Paladin guarantees you can lay on hands" is one arbitrary rule, among many, that we're dumping. (Also, I didn't know you could "train up" supernatural abilities, and that they required skill to use when normally they are just granted by a higher power.) Off topic, but think of it like being given a sword and learning how to become better at using it. The gods gave him a tool and he's practiced. There are other examples; and besides, what did players do before Ultimate Magus? Point is, unless a character is also aware of some metaphysical concept of how abilities come about, and how to train for those abilities, Ability acquisition does not require exact in-game knowledge of the results. It doesn't even require conscious training or goals. See the Four Techniques. then your approach is just as "meta-gamey" as mine is. The difference though is I give my players the option to cut out all metagame thought, allowing them a full immersion into the world. There are two ways to prevent a metagame problem. Your approach is to make the out-of-game knowledge in-game knowledge consistent with the gameworld. Our approach is to not let the out-of-game knowledge have any meaning in the gameworld at all in the first place. Barbarian: someone from a less civilized and developed region of the world. (Could be any class.) Bard: any travelling musician. (Could be any character with Perform ranks.) Cleric: any priest of any church. (Requirements vary from faith to faith: Olidammara's clergy may be rogues, for example. Note that spellcasting is not implied. There may be clerics blessed by their god with supernatural gifts, but in-game you don't call them pious psions even if that's how they are statted out.) Druid: member of that order of weirdoes who speak a secret language and stand in circles in the woods. Possessing magical powers and natural lore. (Could be clerics and adepts as well as druids. Note that the linguistic drawback is not mechanically violated if we consider druidic order membership and not druid class levels to be the important feature.) Fighter: anyone who fights. (Lot of characters and classes; no, straight classed Wizards won't make the cut, but they don't have to.) Ranger: anyone who lives in the wilderness and knows how to survive in and take care of his untamed home. Rogue: any scoundrel you wouldn't trust with your purse. (Lots of characters and classes.) And so on. These are how the PCs and NPCs are expected to use the words in-game. Seriously. I'm starting to wonder if we have different definitions of metagaming or something. So there are absolutely no stereotypes in your games? Yeah there are, about in game matters. Furs are stereotypical for people who live where they wear furs. That could be any class! Dwarves shave regularily, while elves grow beards? I don't see any mechanical rules related to having beards. Do people tend not to use advantageous proficiencies at all, especially if their class offers it? They do. So? That just tells you their abilities. It doesn't package them into these categories. "A human stands before the party, clad in furs and light armor. He draws a longsword and announces that he shall let none pass." Guess; what's his class? After eliminating the pure proficiencyless casters, you're not going to narrow it down more definitively than "Maybe...maybe not." While it was an example, you'll find that there are orders of magnitude in difference between the amount of fullplate wearing wizards, and the amount of fullplate wearing fighters. So? Armor isn't a stylistic detail like a beard. Sure, clerics and paladins get fullplate too, and it is not too bold to assume that atleast 1/3 of those classes will wear it. Really, if you think about it, it's safe to assume that a pure-classed rogue won't be in fullplate, but in an armour that works to his advantage than having no assumptions and just going in blind to the possible abilities a character might have. You can make assumptions about abilities. Assuming that someone threatening you with a bow knows how to use a bow isn't a stupid assumption. Assuming that someone who wears furs will lose his temper and charge at you screaming with rage and incredible strength is going to get you killed when he approaches you with a cautious, opportunistic fighting style and stabs you in the chest. Actually, the "fact" means exactly as Shadowhowler points out; D&D is an RPG; a game where you take on a role. So? Last I checked, builder wasn't a role in the game, but rather something any and all players were capable of doing outside of the RP aspect. Because these two things are being argued as 'seperate and independent of ability and skill within the game' here in this thread, if you cut out one, then you are not playing the full game. So? You might play a fulfilling game, but you only play half of it (or what ever percentage this RPG consists of). If I penalize a player for not playing the full game, does that make me the bad-guy? If everyone was having fun? Yes. The 'full game' doesn't matter. The 'fun game' does. I don't mean to sound harsh, but the RP aspect of the game meant that you took on a role within the party; this consisted of two aspects (as the game itself consists of two aspects). You play the mechanical side, the role of one part of your group (rogue, wizard, cleric, fighter, or however you've decided mechanically), as well as the role of the spirit running that numbers pile (Bill, Jim, Ted, Ross, or what ever you name your character) and that together they form a role. Seperate, they are a personality (which any crazy person can have), and a pile of numbers. You can't play a pile of numbers, and most people feel uncomfortable around crazy people. Well, you can play a pile of numbers; there are a lot of numbers games. And by that definition, all good method actors are crazy people. It doesn't really matter what other people think this entails, as it still requires a combined aspect of the two listed here. Numbers+spirit, or mechanical and personality. I still don't see the relevance this whole aside (or SH's original point) bears to the discussion.
Jaxgaret 02-14-08, 09:36 AM	This is a concern about player attitude and I agree with it. I forget whose sig has this great line, and I probably misquote it here: "It doesn't matter if you're a nine-PrCed monstrosity that can destroy pantheons or a lame leprous human bard with a Cha of 6. If you disrupt the game you're a problem and you go. Being a jerk and a spoiler transcends playstyles." I actually posted that earlier in this thread, and you did indeed misquote me: An asshat is an asshat is an asshat, no matter what form it takes. The fact that the asshat was X was incidental. :)
RadicalTaoist 02-14-08, 11:12 AM	Actually, there's a line with wording closer to what I quoted in someone's sig. Can't remember who. It's a common sentiment, though not common enough.
Dog_O_War 02-14-08, 02:38 PM	Wow, you really didn't understand. No, that's not what I meant at all. By emphasis I was saying that's the important part of your sentence; anyone who does not come with a sense of entitlement can have fun. I agree with this. Player attitude should matter; player playstyle, not so much. Ah, okay; I think I get it now. We've been agreeing all this time then; I was saying that I didn't mind anyone who was there to play, but that I am often vindictive towards those who came with demands. Requests I can handle (and enjoy endulging). This is a concern about player attitude and I agree with it. I forget whose sig has this great line, and I probably misquote it here: "It doesn't matter if you're a nine-PrCed monstrosity that can destroy pantheons or a lame leprous human bard with a Cha of 6. If you disrupt the game you're a problem and you go. Being a jerk and a spoiler transcends playstyles." I RP with friends, and unfortunately I don't have the luxury of a neutral location. This means I have to lay down the law ahead of time to prevent the attitude problems with characters. Basically I need a pre-game strategy before we even begin to play. This can get taxing. I agree though with your quote of a quote (how ever mis-quoted it is). Except no, you don't, if you trust the players to do that work for you. Tempest covered this. I had prepared a very long response a few days ago to Tempest's reply, but I ended up deleting it because it all boiled down to a couple of things; I don't have that luxury as my players want what's reliable, established, and mechanically sound. Also, I have asked them to do this and they simply would say, "Okay" and then develop nothing (opting to play a concept from the book, such as paladin or wizard), or they flat-out refused. I trust my players (well, half of them), but I also know my players. My world must look like it has a green sky and purple grass to you guys right now; completely alien in comparison to the games you've played in. You maintain this assumption that the DM must work to make the class flavor fits and then work more to accept player deviation fits. Not so. He doesn't have to fit flavor to class in any ironclad fashion in the first place, and even if he does, he can still let the players to the work on all the flavoring. You know, since we're assuming players without a sense of entitlement who are willing to give at least something to make the game work. They want to play the character? They establish the character's place in the world while meeting your constraints. Sounds like a fair task and reward to me. I see it differently though. As I had said in a previous post, class is like a job title; we don't go about making up new jobs all the time. Sure, we might spice up a title - from "garbage man" to "waste disposal engineer", but this rarely inspires more than a smirk; we know they are the same, but the second guy either thinks he's funny, or simply ashamed of his job. Often the concept a player desires already fits something established. I don't care what they call their abilities, but the one thing in the game that matters (because it has mechanics linked to it, beyond just the class) does. Would it really matter that people in-game referred to your "paladin"(crusader class) as a crusader? Especially so if the class is already established as something unique from the paladin? Assuming a conflict; looking through books can inspire character ideas. I agree that the books inspire ideas, but when that aspiration comes about, it rarely manifests as class title (atleast for myself). Not necessarily; I can put myself in the mindset of people in the game just fine without any class knowledge. I do so in the games Tempest described above. "Just fine" isn't the same as "easy to insert" though. Everyone has an easier time with predefined concepts than creating an entirely new one. Oh, it means exactly the same as going from "Palenthus the Redeemer" (paladin10), to "Palenthus the Destroyer" (paladin10, blackguard 1) or "Palenthus the Redeemer" (LG crusader10), to "Palenthus the Destroyer" (CE crusader11). This takes away from your class though if you had any manuever that required a good alignment. You'd need to then talk to your DM OOG just to regain the effectiveness you lost in game. You basically had to metagame your class because there was not other option. That's trickier, but not impossible. If you've read the references for reflavoring, you'd have read the Psionic Naruto Builds thread. There we reflavor the Kalashtar (psionic symbiote humans with two souls, one they share with other Kalashtar) into the Aburame clan (humans who cultivate insect populations inside their bodies). If we see Barbarian/Sorceror/Dragon Disciple reflavored into Arcane Laboratory Mutant (must be chaotic because of mental instability, rages=adrenaline surges, spells are a weird side effect, oh and look he's growing wings and claws) then it makes sense, and his levelling up is just him becoming more of what he already was (which was a pretty freaky and unstable thing to begin with). If he grows more prestigious (or rather, infamous) in game, it's due to the exposure he gets. The psionic naruto threads lacked....luster. They offered reflavoring, but nothing offered came close to anything that the actual show offered. It was like a "Naruto, Kids!" version, where everything was weak. That aside, your reflavoring still doesn't cover the prestige of the dragon disciple alone. You seem to be confounding impressive abilities with prestigious ones. Secret agents are impressive, skilled con men are impressive, pickup artists are impressive, experienced stockbrokers are impressive. I can't think of any famous enough to be household names. The mounted Knight, also known as the Cavalier. This was the most lofty goal of many countless noblemen. To them, Cavaliers were superheroes - offering a prestige the common man could never hope to attain. Master of the Nine is another; only multiclassing into a ToB class, or pure levels in swordsage, or warblade (with martial study taken a few times) can allow access. This class perports access to abilities that is not easy to obtain for most characters. Another is the Blood Magus; it's so special you have to die just to become one. Since life is generally pretty special, risking the one you have in a gamble to become one specific class seems pretty prestigeous to me. Hell, you literally have proof you died and came back to life. Our own RL history tells us "that's pretty special". I agree though that there are many "prestige classes" that are less than deserving of the name, but it should not detract from the fact that some actually are deserving of the title, and that it is prestigeous to become one. (I would like to add that I really hate how many players treat these classes. But that is more of a personal point of irritation for me; they make achieving something that was supposed to be grand into something trivial). But this whole little aside is irrelevant to the point, which is that how prestigious a character is in-game is dependent on a) how the player decides to portray his character, and b) how the game world views that portrayal. Not what kind of classes are on his character sheet. There's a general trend to higher level=more famous, which I can get behind. I just feel that the nine-PrC character shouldn't be more famous in-game than the straight-classed character unless he's acted to acquire a bigger reputation in-game. Actually, a player has little to no control on how prestigeous his character becomes. Take *sigh* Harry Potter, for instance. From birth he had more prestige than the average person will get in their entire life; he had no control over this. What classes are on your sheet are also relevant; No one becomes an Archmage without some kind of qualification, and when you compare that to a wizard it actually means something to become one. He may be just a wizard one moment, but when you utter the name, "Archmagus Ferrus" and it conjuers something a tad more grand than "Wizard Ferrus". Prestige equals more than just fame; it's like the difference between Marshal and Deputy. Utterly irrelevant. I don't see any mechanical impact to difference in gender in the rules. Besides "capable of growing a child, and not capable of growing a child"? Also, I was offering that titles meaning one thing (and one thing only) actually does impact the game. What arbitrary rules? "Being called a Paladin guarantees you can lay on hands" is one arbitrary rule, among many, that we're dumping. Actually, being a paladin offers a code of conduct that only impacts one class for having it. Being a crusader that calls himself a paladin has no impact if that crusader goes against the paladin's code of conduct. Off topic, but think of it like being given a sword and learning how to become better at using it. The gods gave him a tool and he's practiced. (it feels wierd responding in full-sized letters to this, so...)But you can't though, as the only "training" you can adjudicate this with is class level. With a sword, you can take other stuff to modify and actually get better with it if you so choose to. Skills are the same way, but lay on hands is one of those "devotion is required to advance" things. Since you can't quantify devotion with anything beyond levels, you can't "skill up" in things that are devotion based. Ability acquisition does not require exact in-game knowledge of the results. It doesn't even require conscious training or goals. See the Four Techniques. So Pun-Pun is a pure chance thing? (this sounds rude, but I don't know how else to word that; I assure you I don't mean it in an insulting manner). While this is just one extreme example, it still says differently than what you're quoted here as saying. Besides, ability acquisition goes beyond just class abilities; you can't get stuff like weapon supremacy without conscious training, and only one class can get it before epic levels. There are two ways to prevent a metagame problem. Your approach is to make the out-of-game knowledge in-game knowledge consistent with the gameworld. Our approach is to not let the out-of-game knowledge have any meaning in the gameworld at all in the first place. Your approach though (while extremely flexable) does not offer any way for certain concepts to exist (well, without ruining versimilitude). An example of this is if I went to train with an established character; a Fighter (Ranger class). I learn everything from him, including stuff like weapon supremacy, but it is later reveiled that he couldn't possibly have the feat. How then did he train me in it? This doesn't lend to my character not getting it, or to the fact that the Ranger isn't a Fighter, but to the concept of training via mentor itself. If you look at the feats leadership, or apprentice/mentor (from the DMGII) you can only advance or glean benefits if your actual class is the same. It is hard to find a mentor of the same actual class if there is absolutely no indicators of what class is in game. You quite literally have to metagame it with your approach. Barbarian: someone from a less civilized and developed region of the world. (Could be any class.) Bard: any travelling musician. (Could be any character with Perform ranks.) Cleric: any priest of any church. (Requirements vary from faith to faith: Olidammara's clergy may be rogues, for example. Note that spellcasting is not implied. There may be clerics blessed by their god with supernatural gifts, but in-game you don't call them pious psions even if that's how they are statted out.) Druid: member of that order of weirdoes who speak a secret language and stand in circles in the woods. Possessing magical powers and natural lore. (Could be clerics and adepts as well as druids. Note that the linguistic drawback is not mechanically violated if we consider druidic order membership and not druid class levels to be the important feature.) Fighter: anyone who fights. (Lot of characters and classes; no, straight classed Wizards won't make the cut, but they don't have to.) Ranger: anyone who lives in the wilderness and knows how to survive in and take care of his untamed home. Rogue: any scoundrel you wouldn't trust with your purse. (Lots of characters and classes.) And so on. These are how the PCs and NPCs are expected to use the words in-game. Here's another thought for you; not every bard is a travelling musician, just as every travelling musician is not a bard; this puts a severe dampener on the definition you listed. This is true for many things, so we have to seek out other definers for the classes. Also, you even noted that you have to down-play the mechanical significance of the druidic language just to allow other classes in (without having to multiclass). I agree though that not every fur-covered man will be a barbarian, but it would be a decent indicator of an outdoors type; couple that with massive arms and the inability to read and you've got a reasonable indication that this guy might be the kind who can flip out and lift you off the ground with a single arm. I also don't think it such a big deal of down-playing the druidic language; I like to include rangers and fey (who might not know the language) in druidic circles myself. I'll conceed that what I lay out as stereotypes is definately not for everyone, but hopefully you too can see how the process of elimination could narrow a character down to a specific class or classes. (also, my 20th level wizard with improved unarmed strike will fight your third level fighter in the tavern any day of the week. 1 - 2 punch!) Seriously. I'm starting to wonder if we have different definitions of metagaming or something. Maybe, but the measures I've taken have turned metagame knowledge into a double-edged poisoned sword. Better to just not use. Yeah there are, about in game matters. Furs are stereotypical for people who live where they wear furs. That could be any class! It could also be any location as well; I put fur-wearing onto a lifestyle. Since a lifestyle is more indicative of a class's origin than the fur alone, in no direct way have I given away a class, but instead offered a "most likely" scenario (A-> B-> C sorta deal). I don't see any mechanical rules related to having beards. I was speaking of assumed stereotypes; when a game lacks them, it's harder to feel immersed IMO. They do. So? That just tells you their abilities. It doesn't package them into these categories. "A human stands before the party, clad in furs and light armor. He draws a longsword and announces that he shall let none pass." Guess; what's his class? After eliminating the pure proficiencyless casters, you're not going to narrow it down more definitively than "Maybe...maybe not." A sense motive check would allow me to assess how challenging this foe is. After a couple rounds of combat, I could also determine his skill with a blade, and if he were combining magic with his swordsmanship, a wizard or cleric can easily assess what spells list he's pulling from. I never said pegging a character down to a class was easy, I said that it was possible though. I mean if this guy is using Holy Sword on me, it might not be an absolute, but it would be safe to say he is a paladin. So? Armor isn't a stylistic detail like a beard. Again, this is a stereotype that offers more accurate assurances than doubts. You might run into one wizard wearing fullplate (proficiently) in your entire career. At that point your assumption was inacurate; but what about the rest of the time? You can make assumptions about abilities. Assuming that someone threatening you with a bow knows how to use a bow isn't a stupid assumption. Assuming that someone who wears furs will lose his temper and charge at you screaming with rage and incredible strength is going to get you killed when he approaches you with a cautious, opportunistic fighting style and stabs you in the chest. You're inflating my example to encompass more than it did. I did say that it would be safe to assume the fur-clad person could be a barbarian (I used medium armour in my example), more so than a wizard, rogue, or bard, and I'm hardly wrong. But you're taking it to a level I never did. Besides, who says barbarians can't fight in a cautious, opportunistic fighting style? Anyways, I offer that some things here can be in-game knowledge instead of metagame; but in return I'm getting a "no, it's impossible!" feedback. I've shown you how it's not, but I'm unclear on your positions. I have agreed that my way isn't the only way, but I've shown that neither is yours. We both can see how building can negatively impact RPing; it doesn't have to, but it can. This is the point of contention between some players; they probably only get the most negative aspects of building, leading to the belief that builders cannot RP. I believe it holds some truth; for instance, building does not help you in a purely role-based game (DM gives you a filled-out sheet, and tells you that this character you will play has a pre-destined level plan, based on ingame actions). I offer an addition to the Stormwind Fallacy; building does not have to impact RP, but can. The reverse is true as well, given the amount of RP/building a particular game requires.
pres_man 02-14-08, 06:31 PM	I was saying that I didn't mind anyone who was there to play, but that I am often vindictive towards those who came with demands. Glad it works for your group. Personally I wouldn't feel comfortable with a DM with that kind of attitude. Someone being "vindictive", just comes across as immature in most cases. What one person thinks is a "demand", another might consider a reasonable request. "Can I play a ninja." "Hell no! I don't have an asian area in my world, and I hate ninjas!" "Well, I was more interested in the abilities than the flavor, we can call it something else." "Did I not just say NO! You might as well leave, because all of your characters are going to be targetted by all monsters and NPCs." I see it differently though. As I had said in a previous post, class is like a job title; we don't go about making up new jobs all the time. Sure, we might spice up a title - from "garbage man" to "waste disposal engineer", but this rarely inspires more than a smirk; we know they are the same, but the second guy either thinks he's funny, or simply ashamed of his job. Often the concept a player desires already fits something established. I don't care what they call their abilities, but the one thing in the game that matters (because it has mechanics linked to it, beyond just the class) does. Would it really matter that people in-game referred to your "paladin"(crusader class) as a crusader? Especially so if the class is already established as something unique from the paladin? If a garbage man and a waste disposal engineer are equivalent, why wouldn't a paladin and a LG fighter/cleric be as well? Again, I would point out, the names that the books use for the classes are at some level arbitrary. They could have called the paladin class, the templar class, and it could have been exactly the same. That aside, your reflavoring still doesn't cover the prestige of the dragon disciple alone. Just because they are called prestige classes doesn't mean they have to be prestigious. Again, call them prestige classes is on some level an arbitrary classification. They could have instead have called them "Advanced classes" and had them function exactly the same. Actually, a player has little to no control on how prestigeous his character becomes. Take *sigh* Harry Potter, for instance. From birth he had more prestige than the average person will get in their entire life; he had no control over this. What you mean is famous. It would have been quite simple for Harry to keep his nose down and not get involved in all the things he did. It was those decisions that lead to him becoming more than just the kid that survived. But you can't though, as the only "training" you can adjudicate this with is class level. With a sword, you can take other stuff to modify and actually get better with it if you so choose to. Skills are the same way, but lay on hands is one of those "devotion is required to advance" things. Since you can't quantify devotion with anything beyond levels, you can't "skill up" in things that are devotion based. Well since you can only advance in any fashion at all by leveling up, this doesn't quite sound very meaningful. So Pun-Pun is a pure chance thing? (this sounds rude, but I don't know how else to word that; I assure you I don't mean it in an insulting manner). Ability acquisition does not require exact in-game knowledge of the results. It doesn't even require conscious training or goals. See the Four Techniques. *Emphasis mine. Your approach though (while extremely flexable) does not offer any way for certain concepts to exist (well, without ruining versimilitude). An example of this is if I went to train with an established character; a Fighter (Ranger class). I learn everything from him, including stuff like weapon supremacy, but it is later reveiled that he couldn't possibly have the feat. How then did he train me in it? This doesn't lend to my character not getting it, or to the fact that the Ranger isn't a Fighter, but to the concept of training via mentor itself. So there are no coaches in your world. You know, the old adage "Those that can't, teach." If you look at the feats leadership, or apprentice/mentor (from the DMGII) you can only advance or glean benefits if your actual class is the same. It is hard to find a mentor of the same actual class if there is absolutely no indicators of what class is in game. You quite literally have to metagame it with your approach. That is why using training and mentor rules is often a pretty dumb thing to do, if you want the players to have fun. Getting **** about meaningless issues (a duskblade can only learn from a duskblade, no a fighter/wizard gish won't work!), is a total fun-kill. Also, you even noted that you have to down-play the mechanical significance of the druidic language just to allow other classes in (without having to multiclass). Tongues and comprehend language can get over that problem. Also in the book it doesn't say that you can't learn the druidic language, it says the typical speakers are druids only. There may be atypical speakers out there (someone with high ranks of decipher script and comprehend language and tongues should be able to create a translation for it from some written text). (also, my 20th level wizard with improved unarmed strike will fight your third level fighter in the tavern any day of the week. 1 - 2 punch!) Which seems to be blurring the lines between classes and roles. Maybe, but the measures I've taken have turned metagame knowledge into a double-edged poisoned sword. Better to just not use. Well, it must not be too hard to avoid since half of the metagame stuff is ingame material in your games apparently. A sense motive check would allow me to assess how challenging this foe is. What 'cha talking about Willis? (congrats to Gary on the marriage) Sense motive in the core rules does not do that. I mean if this guy is using Holy Sword on me, it might not be an absolute, but it would be safe to say he is a paladin. So every Tom in your world can identify a Holy Sword without detect magic or anything huh? Wow, identify must be pretty worthless in your games. Anyways, I offer that some things here can be in-game knowledge instead of metagame; but in return I'm getting a "no, it's impossible!" feedback. I think it was more of, "No, that is stupid!" feedback. I've shown you how it's not, Impossible? Sure. As for ...
Dog_O_War 02-14-08, 08:44 PM	Glad it works for your group. Personally I wouldn't feel comfortable with a DM with that kind of attitude. Someone being "vindictive", just comes across as immature in most cases. What one person thinks is a "demand", another might consider a reasonable request. "Can I play a ninja." "Hell no! I don't have an asian area in my world, and I hate ninjas!" "Well, I was more interested in the abilities than the flavor, we can call it something else." "Did I not just say NO! You might as well leave, because all of your characters are going to be targetted by all monsters and NPCs." Wow, way to put words in my mouth. Also, way to use the lighting to make me look bad. Might I ask why you'd assume all these things of me? If a garbage man and a waste disposal engineer are equivalent, why wouldn't a paladin and a LG fighter/cleric be as well? Again, I would point out, the names that the books use for the classes are at some level arbitrary. They could have called the paladin class, the templar class, and it could have been exactly the same. I'm assuming they stayed away from the templar name for quite a while due to the historical significance of it. Even the Pious Templar prestige class has the addage of "pious" just to get away from it. Basically if you're calling your paladins templars, then they'd better be able to choose a neutral or evil alignment. Funny how a name can earn a reputation like that, and funny how it sticks. Just because they are called prestige classes doesn't mean they have to be prestigious. Again, call them prestige classes is on some level an arbitrary classification. They could have instead have called them "Advanced classes" and had them function exactly the same. Well, if you look up the definition of "prestige" then you'll find that prestige classes (not the actual class names) must infact carry a bit more prestige than a regular class. What you mean is famous. It would have been quite simple for Harry to keep his nose down and not get involved in all the things he did. It was those decisions that lead to him becoming more than just the kid that survived. *sigh* (didn't want to discuss Harry Potter, but...) so Voldemort was able to find the Philosopher's stone without needing Harry's help? It was coinscidence that Sirius broke free of prison, or that Lupin went to the school just to teach the dark arts? Hows' about the link between Harry and Voldemort? Just fame? I think not. Well since you can only advance in any fashion at all by leveling up, this doesn't quite sound very meaningful. Actually, with skills you don't have to put any ranks in them. They remain the same no matter what level you are; it is with level advancement though that you can choose to increase them. Same goes with weapons. That is why there is a weapon focus feat; to say, "I am better with this one weapon than any other". Lay-on hands does not have those options; it's "take a level in this class, or the ability does not increase. If you do take a level in this class, then the ability will increase even if you didn't want it to". *Emphasis mine. Ah, I catch the point now. So there are no coaches in your world. You know, the old adage "Those that can't, teach." There are coaches, but they cover things that are general to all classes. I will conceed that you do not have to get a trainer that has the exact ability in my setting, only that he have sufficient level to have aquired it, and the ability to aquire it(for instance, you only need an 18th level fighter, or a 20th level warblade to learn weapon supremacy, though the trainer must still have atleast the feats leading up to it. meanwhile, you can't learn spells from a spell-less paladin variant, though you could learn spells from a paladin with a wisdom of 10) That is why using training and mentor rules is often a pretty dumb thing to do, if you want the players to have fun. Getting **** about meaningless issues (a duskblade can only learn from a duskblade, no a fighter/wizard gish won't work!), is a total fun-kill. Actually, I'd like to have atleast one game where having a mentor was a big part of it. I'm a player too, and I'd find training and mentorship very enthralling and fun. I'd be like I was building relationships and the world I played in without having it involve killing this monster or foiling that plot, or even dashing from place to place saving the world from impending doom. It is yet another side to the game you clearly haven't fully explored with comments like that. Tongues and comprehend language can get over that problem. Also in the book it doesn't say that you can't learn the druidic language, it says the typical speakers are druids only. There may be atypical speakers out there (someone with high ranks of decipher script and comprehend language and tongues should be able to create a translation for it from some written text). So now they must be casters? No fighters, rogues, or spell-less rangers? You missed the point that was made here. Which seems to be blurring the lines between classes and roles. It was a comment made in jest to lighten the mood. It was a point of hilarity with my group back when 3rd ED. first came out. 80 year old Wizard boxes three 19 year old fighters in a bar and gives them young'ns a good lickin'! Well, it must not be too hard to avoid since half of the metagame stuff is ingame material in your games apparently. Is this how you talk to everyone that has different views than you? What 'cha talking about Willis? (congrats to Gary on the marriage) Sense motive in the core rules does not do that. So now I must appease the core only people as well? I didn't see these comments be made when Radical_Taoist mentioned warblades. So every Tom in your world can identify a Holy Sword without detect magic or anything huh? Wow, identify must be pretty worthless in your games. Your quick, short responses really betray your hatred and clouded judgement of me. I never said "a" holy sword. Paladins get a spell called holy sword, which anyone with ranks in spellcraft can identify when cast. I also mentioned that it would be a class with likely high ranks in said skill that would be the identifier. Also, a tidbit for you; unlike most DM's (who often just say what loot is right away, negating the perpose of the spell) I don't even give my players a number when I hand out coins. It gives them value when you have to actually spend time counting them; no adventurer's charge cards in my games. I think it was more of, "No, that is stupid!" feedback. Ah, your true feelings. I think this is the last post in the thread I'll respond to here, seeing as how you only want to hear what you already agree with. Well, given pres_man's seemingly uncanny ability to speak for everyone in opposition to me, I'll keep my opinions for only those who ask me directly.
pres_man 02-14-08, 11:47 PM	Wow, way to put words in my mouth. Also, way to use the lighting to make me look bad. Might I ask why you'd assume all these things of me? I wasn't saying that was you. But you seem to "protest too much", feeling guilty? I'm assuming they stayed away from the templar name for quite a while due to the historical significance of it. Even the Pious Templar prestige class has the addage of "pious" just to get away from it. Basically if you're calling your paladins templars, then they'd better be able to choose a neutral or evil alignment. Funny how a name can earn a reputation like that, and funny how it sticks. From Merriam-Webster Online: paladin 1 : a trusted military leader (as for a medieval prince) 2 : a leading champion of a cause templar 1 : a knight of a religious military order established in the early 12th century in Jerusalem for the protection of pilgrims and the Holy Sepulcher 2 : knight templar Paladin seems to be the more general term and does not have any required religious meaning. I think you are confusing the two terms. Well, if you look up the definition of "prestige" then you'll find that prestige classes (not the actual class names) must infact carry a bit more prestige than a regular class. We can play the definitions game (see above), but the point is there is nothing that says that characters, in general, with prestige classes are anyway more prestigious. The only thing related at all is the mention in the Legend Lore spell about being 11th level or above (or was it 10th, whatever). And there was no mention of it having anything to do with "prestige classes". It is a game term, it only has the meaning related to the game. *sigh* (didn't want to discuss Harry Potter, but...) so Voldemort was able to find the Philosopher's stone without needing Harry's help? Right, good job Harry, if you would have minded your own business then old Voldie wouldn't have had the chance to get it. Stupid kid poking his nose where it didn't belong. It was coinscidence that Sirius broke free of prison, or that Lupin went to the school just to teach the dark arts? Gay lovers? Hows' about the link between Harry and Voldemort? Just fame? I think not. He survived his curse. If he had just kept his head down, old Voldie would have ignored him, at least until the point he started just killing random people. No, Harry had to keep putting his nose in. meanwhile, you can't learn spells from a spell-less paladin variant, though you could learn spells from a paladin with a wisdom of 10) Paladins don't learn spells, those are wizards. Weren't you just talking about how some things can't be picked/trained. Actually, I'd like to have atleast one game where having a mentor was a big part of it. I'm a player too, and I'd find training and mentorship very enthralling and fun. I'd be like I was building relationships and the world I played in without having it involve killing this monster or foiling that plot, or even dashing from place to place saving the world from impending doom. It is yet another side to the game you clearly haven't fully explored with comments like that. Yes, and some people I'm sure would have fun running a potato farm (boil 'em, mash 'em, stick 'em in a stew) in game. But not many folks are going to go an entire session where they sit there and train with their mentor. That is why there are training montages. So now they must be casters? No fighters, rogues, or spell-less rangers? You missed the point that was made here. As did you. My point was that the druid language can be broken. It is easier for some certain spell casters to do it, but once it is broken, then anyone could learn it. Basically the first person generates a "rosetta stone" for others to learn from. As I said, in the book it talks about the typical speakers, one can be an atypical speaker. Is this how you talk to everyone that has different views than you? It was a simple observation. You seem to be making alot of game mechanics things in game things. With that going on to the degree you seem to be doing it, there isn't a whole lot more from a mechanics perspective that you are leaving out of the game. So now I must appease the core only people as well? I didn't see these comments be made when Radical_Taoist mentioned warblades. Well it would be nice to know when you are deviating from the core. Last time I check there wasn't a warblade class in it, so that is pretty self evident. Yet there is standard uses for the Sense Motive Skill in the core. If you plan to discuss variant/expansion rules, please give some indication otherwise some people might think you are just pulling houserules out, instead of using rules from the CAdv. Your quick, short responses really betray your hatred and clouded judgement of me. :rofl: I don't hate you, you are not nearly important enough to me for me to feel an emotion that strongly. Ah, your true feelings. I think this is the last post in the thread I'll respond to here, seeing as how you only want to hear what you already agree with. Oh, now don't do that, nobody likes someone playing the martyer card. Well, given pres_man's seemingly uncanny ability to speak for everyone in opposition to me, I'll keep my opinions for only those who ask me directly. Sorry you got your feelings hurt. Tough it up fella, life's a pain, get a helmet.
ORC_Chaos 02-15-08, 12:17 AM	Ok, keep the personal attacks off the forums. You can disagree or dislike ideas, but do not bring personal insults and bashings into the thread. Thank you, WizO_Chaos
calronmoonflower 02-15-08, 03:16 AM	Anyways, I offer that some things here can be in-game knowledge instead of metagame; but in return I'm getting a "no, it's impossible!" feedback. I've never seen it along that line. It doesn't have to be. You're position seems to be "no, it's impossible!" when it is said that flavoring is mutable. I doubt that this is the case, but that is how it looks. I've shown you how it's not, but I'm unclear on your positions. Can ≠ will. I have agreed that my way isn't the only way, but I've shown that neither is yours. OK, just keep in mind that it doesn't have to be that way when you respond to posts. It really doesn't seem that you have been doing this. We both can see how building can negatively impact RPing; it doesn't have to, but it can. This is the point of contention between some players; they probably only get the most negative aspects of building, leading to the belief that builders cannot RP. I believe it holds some truth; for instance, building does not help you in a purely role-based game (DM gives you a filled-out sheet, and tells you that this character you will play has a pre-destined level plan, based on ingame actions). Yes, this is generally true. But the highlighted part I disagree with. A build is a tool and can be used to improve roleplaying. Pulling a learned ability out of nowhere doesn't really make sense. You can retroactively insert training and present it as downtime, but that isn't the best way to do it. However, with a build you can roleplay ahead according to that build. This the build itself becomes a catalyst for roleplaying. Each of RadicalTaoist's four techniques and the Fifth technique that I put forth can be used solely to improve roleplaying without any thought being given to the power of your character. I offer an addition to the Stormwind Fallacy; building does not have to impact RP, but can. I put that forth as well. If you have trouble blending the two you should try to develop your "third skill" or your ability to blend roleplaying and powergaming together. Using the five techniques you can minimize or even negate the impact of one on the other. I'm sure their are other way to blend them together as well.
calronmoonflower 02-21-08, 05:23 PM	Crossed over from here. Reading through that linked thread, I honestly agree with Nemo's statement that the idea of a 'build' is in of itself counter to the idea of roleplaying. If you think ahead with the build then you could start roleplaying the training to get the Improved Trip feat. Without the build it would be more difficult to do this. See the four techniques that RadicalTaoist listed in the first post and the fifth technique that I put forth on on the first post of page 8. I think characters should choose feats based on their experiences, IE a character who wishes to take Improved Trip should have made at least a few trip attempts since his last feat selection, a character who wishes to take a weapon focus/spec should have used the weapon, etc. The catch is that you get to shape your characters experiences. Combining a build with roleplaying requires forethought. In the end a build is a tool. If you truly wish you can use it to enhance roleplaying alone. You guys have this idea that a character can't possibly be effective if he's not optimized and if he just chooses his feats based on what seems reasonable at the moment of level up. Truly it really depends on the game whether you must optimize to be effective. Also take note that adventuring is inherently dangerous and therefor you should logically try to be as effective as possible at each level in order to increase your survival chances. I can't speak for your DMs, but this isn't true in my games. One, I don't think I'm ever going to throw a 'optimized' character at them. I'm quite content with using Wizards, Sorcerers, Druids, and Clerics for BBEG enemies, and various martial classes for fodd-lieutenants. Truly Codzilla can be break the power curve in an average game just by reorganizing spells. Also, basically you just put forth that the NPCs really are not concerned with their survival. That is as much metagaming as having a build. As I doubt that you would say that is hindering roleplaying, it should follow that builds do not have to do so either. Of course, you all might say "I'm optimizing" because, for example, not all of my casters have taken item creation feats! <gasp> I don't agree that that is optimizing. Occasionally, you'll get a wizard with just Improved Toughness or something, to toss a little extra HP on him without making the fight really harder, as perhaps Spell Focus:Enchant or Trans would do. Either way, I'm wandering from my point, which is the more you focus on how 'effective' you're character is, I agree with the statement that you will roleplay less and less, and think of them more and more like some video game character, a floating collection of stats that occasionally exhibits personality traits. First off that is the Stormwind Fallacy. If you read as good way into this thread you will notice the concept of the "third skill" or the ability to believably blend roleplaying and powergaming. By the use of the five techniques you can minimize or even negate the effects of one on the other. On further reading, I pretty agree with everything that Nemo's said that I've read so far. OK.
tjhairball 02-21-08, 07:35 PM	First off that is the Stormwind Fallacy. If you read as good way into this thread you will notice the concept of the "third skill" or the ability to believably blend roleplaying and powergaming. By the use of the five techniques you can minimize or even negate the effects of one on the other. In my opinion, most of the references I have read so far citing the "Stormwind Fallacy" have introduced a false dilemma, namely: Either powergaming and roleplaying have no relationship, or powergaming and roleplaying are mutually exclusive. The general point being made - and this point, in this weaker form, is correct - is that there is an inverse correlation between the amount of attention spent to mechanics and the amount of attention spent on roleplaying. This is not something that can be disputed through isolated examples. Moreover, it is a point which can be expounded upon beyond the domain of a single system, and which you yourself already find yourself supporting through your own statements. Sure, there are players who are good at neither, and players who are good at both - I like to think that I'm a good roleplayer as a PC in spite of having played characters that were clearly more powerful than their party mates - but unavoidably, every moment spent pondering mechanics is a moment not spent pondering your character's background and motivations. The only confounding factor is that the more interest someone develop in either, the more time they are willing to spend on the game in general. The very fact that you speak of a "third skill" on how to integrate powerplay and roleplay successfully speaks to not only the correlation, but the causal nature of the effect. Attention to mechanics can - and in an indeterminate but significant fraction of cases, will - reduce attention to flavor. This relationship holds in constructing a system/game, in constructing a character within a game, and within the gameplay of a gaming session, and it's very rare for increased attention to mechanics to result in better roleplay... and all too often, an inexperienced tabletop player will not know that there is any distinction between improving skills with gameplay mechanics, and improving role-playing skills.
calronmoonflower 02-21-08, 09:12 PM	tjhairball, If you put it in inductive form and say that powergaming can interfere with roleplaying then you are right as the possibility exists. See this for details: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Problem_of_induction If you put in a deductive form and say they will interfere you have committed a logical fallacy. In this form the possibility of the coexisting is left out, thus you have the false dilemma (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_dilemma) that you spoke of. A relation does exist between to two, through it is not "an inverse correlation" as that would mean that the link is solid and that playing the least powergamed character possible would insure the best possible roleplaying. The link is a variable factor instead of a fixed one. Also note that contemplating your background will reach the point of diminishing returns. That is you must put more and more effort into it and still get less and less. At some point it just isn't worth it. Also working on your background and/or motivations need not improve your roleplaying a lick. They are tools that you can use to enhance your roleplaying, but if you do not use them properly you get no or little reward for your work. The same of the five techniques. Each are roleplaying tools. By using them you can better define your background and/or motivations and improve your roleplaying. You don't even have to powergame to use any of them. Thus you can use powergaming as a jump off point for roleplaying. Another point is that you roleplay in the game. Good tactics can be considered powergaming, but that is something a character should logically worry about any way. Powergaming is done out of game and need not take a huge amount of time.
JancariusSeiryujinn 02-21-08, 11:13 PM	If you think ahead with the build then you could start roleplaying the training to get the Improved Trip feat. Without the build it would be more difficult to do this. See the four techniques that RadicalTaoist listed in the first post and the fifth technique that I put forth on on the first post of page 8. Indeed, but it doesn't have to be "okay, at L3 I'm gonna take Combat Expertise, then at L6 Imp Trip, and then.." so on and so forth. Now, I'm not saying that it's necessarily a bad thing in THAT degree. A lot of this optimization versus role play argument comes from the degree of one or the other. But the guy (and this has been me once or twice), who has made a chart with what class and feat he's taking from L1-20 before the game even starts kind of bothers me. I'm not even saying it's very overpowered, or even a little overpowered, or that power has anything to do with why I don't like it. I simply feel that it contradicts the spirit in which the game is meant to be played. A build as a "I want to make a spiked chain fighter, who uses his chain to control the battlefield" is different than "I want to make a spike chain trip monkey, load him up with potions of enlarge person, and just pown face" They may refer to the same character, but the difference is the attitude behind them. A lot of powergamers don't seem to understand why DMs sometimes arbitrarily allow things for some players that they had been previously refused on. For example: I integrate new books generally one at a time to my campaign, and usually in sections (IE, Feats from PHB2 are now open... spells from pHB2 are now open... Classes from pHB2 are now open, etc). And one of my players has been wanting to play a Dragon Shaman. Now this player tends to have somewhat suboptimal for the game characters that have excellent and interesting personalities. They are rarely OMG LOOK AT WTF HE JUST DID kind of characters, but aren't ineffectual either. For example, he rolled a Beguiler for my run of Expedition to Castle Ravenloft, a campaign with very heavy undead presence. He however, has made himself near critical to the party's success by counterspelling Strahd during confrontations with him, forcing Strahd to use his much inferior melee capabilities. However, if another player at my table had said "Let me play a beguiler" I would have been hesitant (though I like pool casters like Dread Nec, Warmage, and Beguiler, so I probably would have allowed it), because I think of him as a power gamer. Never does he put his character together without browsing the CO boards, and he likes going by RAW whenever it lets him do what he wants, and 'spirit of the rule' whenever the spirit of the rule is in his favor. For example, I hold that any class that grants you a benefit to spellcasting as part of a class feature (and this isn't 100% universal, numerous PrCs mess with this broad assignment, but as a general guideline... consider this my standard disclaimer), such as Warmage's edge, apply only to spellcasting gained from that class. This includes: Cleric domains which grant you bonuses to caster level or DC, Master Specialist esoterica, and other similar features. This does not apply to feats, only to class features. Therefore, a bard/cleric with the healing domain only gets her healing domain power benefit when casting her cleric spells, not when curing as a bard. My powergaming player argues that it does specify in the domain power that it only applies to cleric spells, merely to all 'healing spells.' I hold that domains were clearly not intended to enhance the power of non-cleric classes (which is why Strength domain got altered to cleric level in 3.5 instead of character level), and simply make that clear in my ruling. The catch is that you get to shape your characters experiences. Combining a build with roleplaying requires forethought. In the end a build is a tool. If you truly wish you can use it to enhance roleplaying alone. The problem from builds arises from when people begin to treat them as a requirement. The people who say a 16th level fighter can't be effective without a very specific build are an obvious product of this line of thought. Truly it really depends on the game whether you must optimize to be effective. Also take note that adventuring is inherently dangerous and therefor you should logically try to be as effective as possible at each level in order to increase your survival chances.Indeed, but especially at earlier levels I look happily upon feats chosen for roleplay in preference for optimization. Fighters with Imp Unarmed Strike and no further feats in that chain just to say "Well, I'm pretty handy without my sword too" earn my approval. Truly Codzilla can be break the power curve in an average game just by reorganizing spells.Not really sure what this means, but yeah, spells have gotten pretty crazy. Also, basically you just put forth that the NPCs really are not concerned with their survival. That is as much metagaming as having a build. As I doubt that you would say that is hindering roleplaying, it should follow that builds do not have to do so either. Not true, in my games NPCs (other than non-intelligent or suicidal mobs) retreat frequently when reduced to half or quarter HPs. First off that is the Stormwind Fallacy. If you read as good way into this thread you will notice the concept of the "third skill" or the ability to believably blend roleplaying and powergaming. By the use of the five techniques you can minimize or even negate the effects of one on the other.I can agree this third skill exists, but the builds and concepts I argue against are usually the ones that I see as being too heavy on the side of optimization. A build too heavy on the role play side. I don't see a lot of the third skill manifesting in my experience.
RadicalTaoist 02-21-08, 11:31 PM	Ah, okay; I think I get it now. We've been agreeing all this time then; I was saying that I didn't mind anyone who was there to play, but that I am often vindictive towards those who came with demands. Requests I can handle (and enjoy endulging). This is often the case. (<See that sentence there? Applies to just about every sentence quoted above.) I RP with friends, and unfortunately I don't have the luxury of a neutral location. This means I have to lay down the law ahead of time to prevent the attitude problems with characters. Basically I need a pre-game strategy before we even begin to play. This can get taxing. I agree though with your quote of a quote (how ever mis-quoted it is). Whatever works for you. I had prepared a very long response a few days ago to Tempest's reply, but I ended up deleting it because it all boiled down to a couple of things; I don't have that luxury as my players want what's reliable, established, and mechanically sound. Also, I have asked them to do this and they simply would say, "Okay" and then develop nothing (opting to play a concept from the book, such as paladin or wizard), or they flat-out refused. I trust my players (well, half of them), but I also know my players. My world must look like it has a green sky and purple grass to you guys right now; completely alien in comparison to the games you've played in. Not really as different. This paragraph confirms what I suspected; your playstyle actually doesn't threaten reflavoring or the cycle hypothesis at all. So I don't need to worry about arguing with most of it. Keep in mind: I'm not saying your playstyle is wrong. I merely say that nothing about your playstyle can prove my theories about the game wrong. Skip it if you want to see me defend what I feel is most important. I see it differently though. As I had said in a previous post, class is like a job title; Not to us. we don't go about making up new jobs all the time. Sure, we might spice up a title - from "garbage man" to "waste disposal engineer", but this rarely inspires more than a smirk; we know they are the same, but the second guy either thinks he's funny, or simply ashamed of his job. Often the concept a player desires already fits something established. I don't care what they call their abilities, but the one thing in the game that matters (because it has mechanics linked to it, beyond just the class) does. Would it really matter that people in-game referred to your "paladin"(crusader class) as a crusader? Especially so if the class is already established as something unique from the paladin? Emphasis mine. "Just fine" isn't the same as "easy to insert" though. Everyone has an easier time with predefined concepts than creating an entirely new one. Some of us have the easiest time defining the concepts themselves. This takes away from your class though if you had any manuever that required a good alignment. You'd need to then talk to your DM OOG just to regain the effectiveness you lost in game. You basically had to metagame your class because there was not other option. Not really. Particularly since I could switch that maneuver out for a different one at Crusader 12, and there's a very good chance I wouldn't have any such maneuvers as there are only 8 alignment-dependent maneuvers in the whole ToB (or, say, I keep my Stance of Perfect Order going from LG to LE). The point remains: it doesn't have to take anything from my class if I employ the third skill, and it doesn't take enough from my class (mathematically; it can't affect more than two of my maneuvers at that level IIRC) to make the name variation problematic. The tenets of reflavoring are not violated. The psionic naruto threads lacked....luster. They offered reflavoring, but nothing offered came close to anything that the actual show offered. It was like a "Naruto, Kids!" version, where everything was weak. Oh? How so? Are there any builds you felt didn't meet their character? That aside, your reflavoring still doesn't cover the prestige of the dragon disciple alone. What exactly do you mean by prestige? The mounted Knight, also known as the Cavalier. This was the most lofty goal of many countless noblemen. To them, Cavaliers were superheroes - offering a prestige the common man could never hope to attain. Master of the Nine is another; only multiclassing into a ToB class, or pure levels in swordsage, or warblade (with martial study taken a few times) can allow access. This class perports access to abilities that is not easy to obtain for most characters. Another is the Blood Magus; it's so special you have to die just to become one. Since life is generally pretty special, risking the one you have in a gamble to become one specific class seems pretty prestigeous to me. Hell, you literally have proof you died and came back to life. Our own RL history tells us "that's pretty special". I agree though that there are many "prestige classes" that are less than deserving of the name, but it should not detract from the fact that some actually are deserving of the title, and that it is prestigeous to become one. (I would like to add that I really hate how many players treat these classes. But that is more of a personal point of irritation for me; they make achieving something that was supposed to be grand into something trivial). Emphasis on "some", and "personal". None of your examples are disproving counterexamples, simply valid but individual takes on each prestige class. My cavalier can be an unsung knight errant loner, my Master of Nine a focused reclusive, and my Blood Magus a paranoid hedge wizard. What I think is the case is that you'd like to see some characters who made their PrCs into something big (a perfectly valid approach) and you're players aren't coming along for the ride. Now, I think it should only be fair that you get one player who does this if you've put up with being denied so long. But more relevant to me, none of that proves my point wrong.;) Actually, a player has little to no control on how prestigeous his character becomes. Take *sigh* Harry Potter, for instance. From birth he had more prestige than the average person will get in their entire life; he had no control over this. That just provided the setting. His actions did have some effect. Barring that, though, you wouldn't let a player's actions determine his standing in the world? I can't act to try and give my self a valorous (or infamous) reputation? I can't seek a low profile? I let my players do that... What classes are on your sheet are also relevant; No one becomes an Archmage without some kind of qualification, and when you compare that to a wizard it actually means something to become one. He may be just a wizard one moment, but when you utter the name, "Archmagus Ferrus" and it conjuers something a tad more grand than "Wizard Ferrus". Prestige equals more than just fame; it's like the difference between Marshal and Deputy. They're relevant, but player and DM choose *how* they are relevant. Which is my whole point. Besides "capable of growing a child, and not capable of growing a child"? Sorry, I missed the rules in the PHB on childbearing. :P Also, I was offering that titles meaning one thing (and one thing only) actually does impact the game. So? It doesn't have to. Actually, being a paladin offers a code of conduct that only impacts one class for having it. Being a crusader that calls himself a paladin has no impact if that crusader goes against the paladin's code of conduct. So what, as long as the crusader follows that code of conduct anyways? I'm assuming the player puts in effort behind the reflavoring. (it feels wierd responding in full-sized letters to this, so...)But you can't though, as the only "training" you can adjudicate this with is class level. With a sword, you can take other stuff to modify and actually get better with it if you so choose to. Skills are the same way, but lay on hands is one of those "devotion is required to advance" things. Since you can't quantify devotion with anything beyond levels, you can't "skill up" in things that are devotion based. :P If you can imagine a world where class names exist in game, I can imagine a world where you get better at being devoted. So Pun-Pun is a pure chance thing? (this sounds rude, but I don't know how else to word that; I assure you I don't mean it in an insulting manner). Pun-Pun is irrelevant. He's a game glitch. He exists outside the context of abilities gained from levelling, as you don't *level* into Pun-Pun: you perform the Pun-Pun ritual and then The Destroyer Is Manifest. While this is just one extreme example, it still says differently than what you're quoted here as saying. Besides, ability acquisition goes beyond just class abilities; you can't get stuff like weapon supremacy without conscious training, and only one class can get it before epic levels. Weapon Supremacy is a textbook example of where Technique Four can lead to. No conscious knowledge of anything besides "get better with this weapon" is necessary. Now back to the important stuff. Your approach though (while extremely flexable) does not offer any way for certain concepts to exist (well, without ruining versimilitude). But it doesn't ruin verisimilitude. What I have been trying to argue the whole time is that you've defined verisimilitude in a way that is opposed to reflavoring by making the class flavor as written part of the perception of reality; thus, your argument is circular in that respect. An example of this is if I went to train with an established character; a Fighter (Ranger class). I learn everything from him, including stuff like weapon supremacy, but it is later reveiled that he couldn't possibly have the feat. How then did he train me in it? The student surpasses the master. Easy. This doesn't lend to my character not getting it, or to the fact that the Ranger isn't a Fighter, but to the concept of training via mentor itself. If you look at the feats leadership, or apprentice/mentor (from the DMGII) you can only advance or glean benefits if your actual class is the same. It is hard to find a mentor of the same actual class if there is absolutely no indicators of what class is in game. You quite literally have to metagame it with your approach. Now we're getting into the third skill territory. If you want to learn from a mentor as the specific rules in that book provide (instead of from a school, or being self-taught, of from inspiration from what you see, or from easier training rules that allow the Fighter with Whirlwind Attack to 'teach' the Warblade Mithral Tornado) then you have to provide for that by roleplaying the connection to a possible mentor before it causes mechanical problems, or else you're metagaming. Let me rephrase that: If you want to engage a specific mechanical exercise reflecting ability acquisition (that is not in any way the only means to reflect your ability acquisition) then you must foresee how to work this into the game in a manner that preserves verisimilitude, or else you're metagaming. Well, sure. I can agree with that, as it's been what I've been saying all along. But it only applies to a specific circumstance dependent on player and DM choice, and is no counter to my approach as a whole. Here's another thought for you; not every bard is a travelling musician, just as every travelling musician is not a bard; this puts a severe dampener on the definition you listed. Not really. That's cool. This is true for many things, so we have to seek out other definers for the classes. Also, you even noted that you have to down-play the mechanical significance of the druidic language just to allow other classes in (without having to multiclass). Technically, not even if Adepts and Clerics teach other Adepts and Clerics Druidic. I agree though that not every fur-covered man will be a barbarian, but it would be a decent indicator of an outdoors type; couple that with massive arms and the inability to read and you've got a reasonable indication that this guy might be the kind who can flip out and lift you off the ground with a single arm. See what you're doing here? You're moving away from 'single trait predicts ability package (i.e. class)' to 'multiple traits predict ability set (i.e. character)'. I like that movement. you too can see how the process of elimination could narrow a character down to a specific class or classes. It's a matter of where we draw the lines. I would be cool with any old commoner realizing blunt weapons are the way to fight skeletons. I don't think it would be cool for you to say "Oh, he spun around and hit a lot of guys! That's the Desert Tempest maneuver!" without Martial Lore rolls and acknowledgement of the possibility that it's a Dervish or a Binder who made a pact with Paimon or just a reflavored Swordsage who'll look at you funny. Back to stuff that isn't central to what I was trying to argue (also, my 20th level wizard with improved unarmed strike will fight your third level fighter in the tavern any day of the week. 1 - 2 punch!) It's the eye of the tiger, it's the cream of the fight Risin' up to the challenge of our rival... Maybe, but the measures I've taken have turned metagame knowledge into a double-edged poisoned sword. Better to just not use. S'one approach. It could also be any location as well; I put fur-wearing onto a lifestyle. Since a lifestyle is more indicative of a class's origin than the fur alone, in no direct way have I given away a class, but instead offered a "most likely" scenario (A-> B-> C sorta deal). That's acceptable. Now it's not deductive (as in, it means the PCs should still be wary of illiterate city thugs with bad tempers who don't dress in furs but are still Barbarians on the character sheet). I was speaking of assumed stereotypes; when a game lacks them, it's harder to feel immersed IMO. Agreed. But as it lacks mechanical impact, and doesn't have any effect on PCs who are permitted to play against stereotype if they so wish, it's not too relevant to my point. A sense motive check would allow me to assess how challenging this foe is. After a couple rounds of combat, I could also determine his skill with a blade, and if he were combining magic with his swordsmanship, a wizard or cleric can easily assess what spells list he's pulling from. I never said pegging a character down to a class was easy, I said that it was possible though. I mean if this guy is using Holy Sword on me, it might not be an absolute, but it would be safe to say he is a paladin. See how all this was an inferential process building up his ability set from what you see him do? I like that. See how it doesn't offer guarantees as to the character's mechanical arrangement out of game (doesn't pin down that paladins feats or Prestige Classes)? I like that. See how it isn't a "check his abilities off against the lists in the PHB, and we can assume he's this!"? I really like that. Again, this is a stereotype that offers more accurate assurances than doubts. You might run into one wizard wearing fullplate (proficiently) in your entire career. At that point your assumption was inacurate; but what about the rest of the time? The rest of the time you run into psions who call themselves wizards in full plate. :P Just kidding. That someone who doesn't train in armor and is hampered by armor won't wear it makes sense. That's an individual detail. I want players to build up, from individual details, a rough inference of the NPC's array of abilities (which may come from multiclassing or reflavored classes or whatever). That's how we judge people's abilities in real life, not by looking in a book. You're inflating my example to encompass more than it did. I did say that it would be safe to assume the fur-clad person could be a barbarian (I used medium armour in my example), more so than a wizard, rogue, or bard, and I'm hardly wrong. But you're taking it to a level I never did. Besides, who says barbarians can't fight in a cautious, opportunistic fighting style? Depends on what you mean by barbarian. ;) But hey, if it doesn't go that far, then fine, I've no need to argue the point further. Anyways, I offer that some things here can be in-game knowledge instead of metagame; but in return I'm getting a "no, it's impossible!" feedback. I've shown you how it's not, but I'm unclear on your positions. Emphasis mine. You're getting that feedback from others; I'm specifically trying to defend reflavoring from any claim that it sacrifices verisimilitude (since it doesn't have to). I think cal is trying to clarify the positions on the debate; read his posts. I have agreed that my way isn't the only way, but I've shown that neither is yours. We both can see how building can negatively impact RPing; it doesn't have to, but it can. This is the point of contention between some players; they probably only get the most negative aspects of building, leading to the belief that builders cannot RP. I believe it holds some truth; for instance, building does not help you in a purely role-based game (DM gives you a filled-out sheet, and tells you that this character you will play has a pre-destined level plan, based on ingame actions). I offer an addition to the Stormwind Fallacy; building does not have to impact RP, but can. The reverse is true as well, given the amount of RP/building a particular game requires. As your point disagrees neither with the original SWF nor the position I put forth in the OP, that's cool. The logical extension of a soft correlation is that element X, if it can affect Y more negatively, must also be able to affect Y more positively. I tried to formulate the idea of the third skill to explain the variation. EDIT: And I found the quote!:D I don't care if you're a Half-Giant superman with 800 strength or a lame leprous human bard with the highest stat as a 3, if you disrupt the game and ruin the fun of the other players you're a problem and you go. Being a jerk and a spoiler transcends playstyles.
Cuindless 02-21-08, 11:36 PM	Indeed, but it doesn't have to be "okay, at L3 I'm gonna take Combat Expertise, then at L6 Imp Trip, and then.." so on and so forth. Now, I'm not saying that it's necessarily a bad thing in THAT degree. A lot of this optimization versus role play argument comes from the degree of one or the other. But the guy (and this has been me once or twice), who has made a chart with what class and feat he's taking from L1-20 before the game even starts kind of bothers me. I'm not even saying it's very overpowered, or even a little overpowered, or that power has anything to do with why I don't like it. I simply feel that it contradicts the spirit in which the game is meant to be played. A build as a "I want to make a spiked chain fighter, who uses his chain to control the battlefield" is different than "I want to make a spike chain trip monkey, load him up with potions of enlarge person, and just pown face" They may refer to the same character, but the difference is the attitude behind them. A lot of powergamers don't seem to understand why DMs sometimes arbitrarily allow things for some players that they had been previously refused on. For example: I integrate new books generally one at a time to my campaign, and usually in sections (IE, Feats from PHB2 are now open... spells from pHB2 are now open... Classes from pHB2 are now open, etc). And one of my players has been wanting to play a Dragon Shaman. Now this player tends to have somewhat suboptimal for the game characters that have excellent and interesting personalities. They are rarely OMG LOOK AT WTF HE JUST DID kind of characters, but aren't ineffectual either. For example, he rolled a Beguiler for my run of Expedition to Castle Ravenloft, a campaign with very heavy undead presence. He however, has made himself near critical to the party's success by counterspelling Strahd during confrontations with him, forcing Strahd to use his much inferior melee capabilities. However, if another player at my table had said "Let me play a beguiler" I would have been hesitant (though I like pool casters like Dread Nec, Warmage, and Beguiler, so I probably would have allowed it), because I think of him as a power gamer. Never does he put his character together without browsing the CO boards, and he likes going by RAW whenever it lets him do what he wants, and 'spirit of the rule' whenever the spirit of the rule is in his favor. For example, I hold that any class that grants you a benefit to spellcasting as part of a class feature (and this isn't 100% universal, numerous PrCs mess with this broad assignment, but as a general guideline... consider this my standard disclaimer), such as Warmage's edge, apply only to spellcasting gained from that class. This includes: Cleric domains which grant you bonuses to caster level or DC, Master Specialist esoterica, and other similar features. This does not apply to feats, only to class features. Therefore, a bard/cleric with the healing domain only gets her healing domain power benefit when casting her cleric spells, not when curing as a bard. My powergaming player argues that it does specify in the domain power that it only applies to cleric spells, merely to all 'healing spells.' I hold that domains were clearly not intended to enhance the power of non-cleric classes (which is why Strength domain got altered to cleric level in 3.5 instead of character level), and simply make that clear in my ruling. The problem from builds arises from when people begin to treat them as a requirement. The people who say a 16th level fighter can't be effective without a very specific build are an obvious product of this line of thought. I think this mentality comes from the fact that a straight fighter is fairly difficult to optimize for combat. Take a character who has been developed in what was once the standard fashion, i.e. the character achieves enough experience to earn the next level, rolls hit points, buys skills then takes a look at the feats and selects the one he likes best at the moment. We'll call these types of characters "holistically generated". Compare that character to the 16th level bodyguard of the BBEG that I can sit down and design right before the adventure with an eye toward making them a very difficult encounter. If I have even a modicum of optimization skill, the holistically generated fighter is probably going to be defeated, especially if I play to his weaknesses. If the player in question had started out with a build to maximize the effectiveness of his core concept then the combat will be much more even. This isn't a hard and fast rule either, but more of a commonality. Indeed, but especially at earlier levels I look happily upon feats chosen for roleplay in preference for optimization. Fighters with Imp Unarmed Strike and no further feats in that chain just to say "Well, I'm pretty handy without my sword too" earn my approval. But wouldn't a melee class be pretty handy without a sword no matter what? Feats represent specialized training, not being "fairly good at" something. Any fighter is going to be able to beat up your average commoner with his bare fists, which would allow any fighter to be justified in thinking that he's "pretty handy" without his sword. Improved Unarmed Strike indicates that he's a master of using his fists just as well as a weapon. He's learned to maximize their effectiveness in combat so as to avoid sword and spear blows when getting up close. I can super-optimize a Barbarian/Rogue/Fighter/Frenzied Berserker who's "pretty handy without a sword" without ever taking Improved Unarmed Strike. I can agree this third skill exists, but the builds and concepts I argue against are usually the ones that I see as being too heavy on the side of optimization. A build too heavy on the role play side. I don't see a lot of the third skill manifesting in my experience. I'm glad that you seem to have accepted the premise that roleplay and optimization aren't mutually exclusive. I've met a number of people who were good at one, the other, both and neither. If I ever show up at your gaming table with a character constructed from level 1 to 20 with various feats, skills, classes and prestige classes, I don't want you to automatically jump to the conclusion that I must be a bad roleplayer.
tjhairball 02-22-08, 09:02 AM	tjhairball, If you put it in inductive form and say that powergaming can interfere with roleplaying then you are right as the possibility exists. See this for details: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Problem_of_induction If you put in a deductive form and say they will interfere you have committed a logical fallacy. In this form the possibility of the coexisting is left out, thus you have the false dilemma (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_dilemma) that you spoke of. What's happening that I see is incorrect parsing. Saying that two things do interfere is not the same as saying they always interfere. Getting shot at interferes with living longer. That is not to say that one's life is always shortened by getting shot at, and it can promote caution later in life, but the relationship exists. A relation does exist between to two, through it is not "an inverse correlation" as that would mean that the link is solid and that playing the least powergamed character possible would insure the best possible roleplaying. The link is a variable factor instead of a fixed one. A correlation being an inverse correlation simply refers to the negative sign of the correlation. It does not refer to the strength of the correlation. (Read up a little more on data analysis/statistics if you don't understand that.) Also note that contemplating your background will reach the point of diminishing returns. That is you must put more and more effort into it and still get less and less. At some point it just isn't worth it. Ask a fantasy author what the diminishing point of return in investing time in roleplaying development - not just character background, but motivations, relationships, goals, ethos, pathologies, et cetera, and further attention to party dynamic of players, not just characters - is. Gamers rarely reach the point of limiting returns in terms of developing their characters, let alone roleplaying skills. Also working on your background and/or motivations need not improve your roleplaying a lick. They are tools that you can use to enhance your roleplaying, but if you do not use them properly you get no or little reward for your work. Just as when you optimize poorly, it fails to improve your powerplay a lick. The same of the five techniques. Each are roleplaying tools. By using them you can better define your background and/or motivations and improve your roleplaying. You don't even have to powergame to use any of them. Thus you can use powergaming as a jump off point for roleplaying. Can. More often, if you haven't invested effort in understanding how mechanics can help you develop a character, you will most likely not be thus aided. Another point is that you roleplay in the game. Good tactics can be considered powergaming, but that is something a character should logically worry about any way. Powergaming is done out of game and need not take a huge amount of time. Need not - provided one is already competent within the system, and knows all the tricks already. Learning the tricks and counters for a system as complex as 3.5 takes some time.
JancariusSeiryujinn 02-22-08, 01:41 PM	I think this mentality comes from the fact that a straight fighter is fairly difficult to optimize for combat. Take a character who has been developed in what was once the standard fashion, i.e. the character achieves enough experience to earn the next level, rolls hit points, buys skills then takes a look at the feats and selects the one he likes best at the moment. We'll call these types of characters "holistically generated". Compare that character to the 16th level bodyguard of the BBEG that I can sit down and design right before the adventure with an eye toward making them a very difficult encounter. If I have even a modicum of optimization skill, the holistically generated fighter is probably going to be defeated, especially if I play to his weaknesses. If the player in question had started out with a build to maximize the effectiveness of his core concept then the combat will be much more even. This isn't a hard and fast rule either, but more of a commonality. Personally I don't think it's that difficult to 'optimize' a fighter to playability. He may be relatively backseat depending on which books the game is using and the party's composition (it would be difficult to feel cool as a high level fighter in a party with a cleric, a druid, a wizard, and a ToB mix, for example), and on what the party is facing (optimized NPCs with class levels? Probably not so good for the fighter). Certainly, Monster manual creatures taken straight out of the book who are more designed to be an appropriate opponent for less than optimized characters should give him plenty of spotlight time, perhaps ones with high spell and energy resistances. Course, that doesn't help with the druid and his wild shape, but that's a problem more with the druid class. And of course, any DM with even a passing experience of character building should be able to easily design a character that can trounce the party. That's not a challenge. Hell, if you want, you can always set down your Colossal Red Dragon and go "You see that. Roll initiative." and cheerfully beat the snot out of them (unless they're high enough level that that is a real fight). I generally try and design NPC groups (no serious NPC fights alone in my games in any fight the PCs are meant to have a chance to win or lose, except in 1 v 1 duels) to put pressure on the party, making them have to work for it, so after the fight is done they think "whew, glad we made it through that one" and get that sense of accomplishment, and the accompanying treasure. It's my opinion NPCs should be balanced to the party and players styles when possible (Status quo encounters, as in almost all modules, are an exception, or status quo encounters involving major world figures. If the party decides to assault Elminster, Xvass Tam, Jaela or Vol, they deserve what they get). But wouldn't a melee class be pretty handy without a sword no matter what? Feats represent specialized training, not being "fairly good at" something. Any fighter is going to be able to beat up your average commoner with his bare fists, which would allow any fighter to be justified in thinking that he's "pretty handy" without his sword. Improved Unarmed Strike indicates that he's a master of using his fists just as well as a weapon. He's learned to maximize their effectiveness in combat so as to avoid sword and spear blows when getting up close. I can super-optimize a Barbarian/Rogue/Fighter/Frenzied Berserker who's "pretty handy without a sword" without ever taking Improved Unarmed Strike.I see what you're saying, especially in world's like Eberron where the majority of the population is L1-3, even a L10 Wizard appears 'pretty handy with a sword' if they have the proficency. However, I've always though of the Focus/Spec chain as representing more grace and mastery than just BAB and to hit and damage values. When I was thinking 'pretty handy', I was thinking of a character like Saito Hajime in Rurouni Kenshin, whose a master swordsman. In his first appearence, however, he breaks the flimsy concealed sword he had with him off in a 'fist' fighters shoulder. The fist fighter stands up and says essentially don't think this fight's over, now that you're sword is broken I can beat you easily. Saito turns around and promptly destroys him in unarmed combat. While Saito and Sanosuke have a pretty clear level gap in D&D terms, even Kenshin who is Saito's 'level' equal, doesn't stand a chance against Saito in unarmed combat, in game terms because Kenshin has taken all feats related to the use of his katana, particularly in Iajitsu, and Saito has at least one feat in the Imp Unarmed Strike chain, possibly more. That is more the difference I think of it as. I'm glad that you seem to have accepted the premise that roleplay and optimization aren't mutually exclusive. I've met a number of people who were good at one, the other, both and neither. If I ever show up at your gaming table with a character constructed from level 1 to 20 with various feats, skills, classes and prestige classes, I don't want you to automatically jump to the conclusion that I must be a bad roleplayer. Well the possibility that they can both exist simultaneously can't be discounted obviously, because I'm sure there are a reasonable number of people on this board that exist as living proof. At the same time, I do think it's VERY easy to slip into a greater focus on optimization and the strength of a character's build as opposed to role play. Again, I understand the line between playability and roleplay has to exist. If someone wanted to roll a straight class Samurai (or really, a Samurai at all), I would probably council them not to, simply because they would likely not enjoy having almost every other straight to 20 build completely outshine them. I'd ask you to provide examples as to why you think that a build is counterproductive to good roleplaying, but calronmoonflower has already pointed out that this isn't the appropriate thread. Perhaps I can look forward to you posting on the Stormwind Fallacy Debate?Punpun off the top of my head, though if someone were to even attempt Pun Pun, I'd simply invoke divine intervention and kill the character. The gods act pre-emptively to protect their power, advantage of seeing into the future that greater deities have. A more reasonable build... well, it's difficult to come up with a build that is entirely role play exclusive without reaching the realm of ridiculous. I mentioned in the other thread that I generally feel builds involving 4 or more classes tend to fall under this guideline, and had a reasonable build and role play counter presented to me. Many multi-class mixes CAN be adequetly explained in role play, so it largely boils down to my personal feelings on whether the character designed his role play around the build (which I feel is not the spirit in which character design should be done), or thought out his role play first, and designed the build around it. Obviously, it's fairly subjective, because I can't read my players minds.
Dog_O_War 02-22-08, 02:38 PM	Keep in mind: I'm not saying your playstyle is wrong. I merely say that nothing about your playstyle can prove my theories about the game wrong. Look inside for replies Skip it if you want to see me defend what I feel is most important. Not to us. What I'm saying is that is can be in your games. I my own, it is more adamant to "job title". While people don't go to a labor board and look for wizards to hire for cleaning the gutters, but people will seek out those adept at the arcane magic for various tasks. These classes (the PC variety) are akin to being a professional adventurer or other suitably special occupation. Those that fail to live up to such a potential are NPC's or victims of bad luck. Emphasis mine. Not sure what you mean by this. Maybe that I'm speaking of established classes? This is where reflavoring doesn't work then. Kinda hard to be a paladin(crusader) if the title and concept of paladin is already established as Paladin. While it may seem like you're adding to the definition, I see it as detracting from the original. It's like gaining fame and popularity off of a famous person because people have mistaken you for him. Some of us have the easiest time defining the concepts themselves. Seriously think about that; if the concept is defined, then it cannot possibly get any easier. Not really. Particularly since I could switch that maneuver out for a different one at Crusader 12, and there's a very good chance I wouldn't have any such maneuvers as there are only 8 alignment-dependent maneuvers in the whole ToB (or, say, I keep my Stance of Perfect Order going from LG to LE). What if that shift though was from LG to CE? While the basic mechanics of the ToB class has allowed a fairly easy transition to LE, you can see how it doesn't work for all examples available. The point remains: it doesn't have to take anything from my class if I employ the third skill, and it doesn't take enough from my class (mathematically; it can't affect more than two of my maneuvers at that level IIRC) to make the name variation problematic. The tenets of reflavoring are not violated. This (the five skills) are required though for what you deem "simple reflavoring". You require rules outside of the game just to build a character in advance to play. RP could establish everything in game, though you probably wouldn't get what you wanted (right away). You're needing additional rules and redundancies just to keep build viable. These rules cannot help with things like cursed items, plague, unfortunate events (like the loss of an arm for a character built to TWF), and other mitgating cercumstances beyond a DM char-block. Oh? How so? Are there any builds you felt didn't meet their character? Most of the super-summons, the animal-element attacks, shadow-clone juitsu (even if it's an advanced technique), etc... Most of these offer character destroying things but still do not account of power level and attack bonus. I don't remember if gestalt was offered as an option, but that was as close as it got. Naruto is WAY better suited to a points-to-buy things advancement like BESM offers. What exactly do you mean by prestige? pres·tige –noun 1. reputation or influence arising from success, achievement, rank, or other favorable attributes. 2. distinction or reputation attaching to a person or thing and thus possessing a cachet for others or for the public: The new discothèque has great prestige with the jet set. –adjective 3. having or showing success, rank, wealth, etc. Now, what did you think prestige meant? Emphasis on "some", and "personal". None of your examples are disproving counterexamples, simply valid but individual takes on each prestige class. My cavalier can be an unsung knight errant loner, my Master of Nine a focused reclusive, and my Blood Magus a paranoid hedge wizard. What I think is the case is that you'd like to see some characters who made their PrCs into something big (a perfectly valid approach) and you're players aren't coming along for the ride. Now, I think it should only be fair that you get one player who does this if you've put up with being denied so long. But more relevant to me, none of that proves my point wrong.;) Actually my examples follow the definition of the word, which is not open for debate, as prestige means and implies "better than the norm". How ever "loner-esque" your Knight is, the class itself still carries the same fame; that said knight is apart of the class meant that he had a desire for that prowess at some point. The Master of Nine hermit would be famous; people would talk of a reclusive swordsman that had knowledge of all the techniques - a point of intrigue for other martial adepts. As for the paranoid Hedge wizard, Someone had to have ressurected him; that alone meant that people out there felt as if he was deserving of life thanks to past deeds, or that he had quite the destiny still to be full-filled. That just provided the setting. His actions did have some effect. Barring that, though, you wouldn't let a player's actions determine his standing in the world? I can't act to try and give my self a valorous (or infamous) reputation? I can't seek a low profile? I let my players do that... Well, it wasn't fame that led Voldemort to seek him out, and it wasn't Harry who sought out fame; those things came to him because of his destiny and importance; his prestige. Even if Harry hadn't carried out all those crazy events he'd still be in the lime-light as the worlds' most scary villain is after him. They're relevant, but player and DM choose *how* they are relevant. Which is my whole point. If you're down-playing the definition of prestige, then you need to call those classes something else. Being prestigeous lends its importance and fame as much as the named definition will allow, to the maximum area the fame could reasonably be gained. If a character didn't want to become famous amoungst certain crowds then he should choose classes without the pre-title "prestige". Sorry, I missed the rules in the PHB on childbearing. :P So? It doesn't have to. It often does have to though; that was the point of the "men and women" comment. Also, those rules are on page 270, third paragraph right before the bathroom rules. You looked didn't you?:P So what, as long as the crusader follows that code of conduct anyways? I'm assuming the player puts in effort behind the reflavoring. What I'm saying is that because this mechanic is not a consciquence for him if he does not, he may discard and resume when it becomes convenient. What he'd be doing is treating mechanics as flavor. Last I remembered, mechanical things didn't taste very good, where as fluffy things often did. :P If you can imagine a world where class names exist in game, I can imagine a world where you get better at being devoted. Mechanically you cannot "skill up" though, which is what you proposed. Thematically it is acceptable and apropriate to call yourself a wizard and have people generally know what that implies (even if your wizard is a reflavored psion). Weapon Supremacy is a textbook example of where Technique Four can lead to. No conscious knowledge of anything besides "get better with this weapon" is necessary. This knowledge though cannot extend to the ranger, rogue, wizard, etc... You can't maintain both - you can't have your cake and eat it too, so to speak. A warblade can do this but clearly this technique cannot apply every class. As I had said previous, you're requiring additional rules and redundancies just to allow for a build to happen, when a simple in-game solution would be to know what type of class this option was open to. You don't need to metagame; a simple, "well I heard that Fighters and the like have that kinda training needed to master a weapon to such a degree!" is enough without breaking versimilitude or requiring rules above and beyond what is presented in the books. Now back to the important stuff. But it doesn't ruin verisimilitude. What I have been trying to argue the whole time is that you've defined verisimilitude in a way that is opposed to reflavoring by making the class flavor as written part of the perception of reality; thus, your argument is circular in that respect. It's circular because you're proposing that two things can be the same in a world where things are more clearly defined. The paladin(crusader) is a good example of this. Clearly titles are as important to players as they are to me, otherwise you and others wouldn't want to interpose on the established ones. What I've been saying is that a title is important, and that it means one thing (whether tied to a class, profession, or man) and shouldn't be left as flexable as concept. The student surpasses the master. Easy. 15 levels ago; why was he training with the guy for 15 levels?! Now we're getting into the third skill territory. If you want to learn from a mentor as the specific rules in that book provide (instead of from a school, or being self-taught, of from inspiration from what you see, or from easier training rules that allow the Fighter with Whirlwind Attack to 'teach' the Warblade Mithral Tornado) then you have to provide for that by roleplaying the connection to a possible mentor before it causes mechanical problems, or else you're metagaming. Let me rephrase that: If you want to engage a specific mechanical exercise reflecting ability acquisition (that is not in any way the only means to reflect your ability acquisition) then you must foresee how to work this into the game in a manner that preserves verisimilitude, or else you're metagaming. See, now you are needing to predict the future just to have a build work. When did playing D&D become so complicated? What I am saying is that for a person wanting to learn something he's seen he'll want seek a proper trainer to be able to progress at a reasonable rate of time. The other options (self-training, etc...) aren't exactly the most efficient methods. If you've established that training takes X amount of time with a trainer, and that without one it requires additional time - how do you relagate this without reneging on the original agreement? People take the path of least resistance; if you offered spontaineous classism, then this is what people will choose 9 times out of 10. That method is the one that breaks versimilitude (for me) every time. Well, sure. I can agree with that, as it's been what I've been saying all along. But it only applies to a specific circumstance dependent on player and DM choice, and is no counter to my approach as a whole. You call it specific, but I see the reflavoring as the specific circumstance. Leveling will happen multiple times across a character's career (hopefully), while the reflavoring is dealt with once. If you are doing level-training, then it is not such a specific circumstance. Not really. That's cool. One the one you gave it does (as you did say that bards were wandering minstrals). Technically, not even if Adepts and Clerics teach other Adepts and Clerics Druidic. :confused: See what you're doing here? You're moving away from 'single trait predicts ability package (i.e. class)' to 'multiple traits predict ability set (i.e. character)'. I like that movement. As I had said before, what I gave was just an example. A title is not a trait, and I had offered multiple times in this thread that by the process of elimination you can determine character class in-game. It's a matter of where we draw the lines. I would be cool with any old commoner realizing blunt weapons are the way to fight skeletons. I don't think it would be cool for you to say "Oh, he spun around and hit a lot of guys! That's the Desert Tempest maneuver!" without Martial Lore rolls and acknowledgement of the possibility that it's a Dervish or a Binder who made a pact with Paimon or just a reflavored Swordsage who'll look at you funny. I generally draw the line at "fear my <insert attack name here>!" then attack roll. I believe in the subtle aspects of identification as I hate the whole Dragonball Z scouter-thing. If my players are fighting a paladin, I won't tell them, but if they inquire and make the appropriate rolls and deductions, then what they peg the man is will not be clouded by "(crusaders) are paladins too!" It's the eye of the tiger, it's the cream of the fight Risin' up to the challenge of our rival... King Hippo is a Sorcerer! S'one approach. I had an example of how this is so, but I cannot remember it at the moment. I'll edit it in at the bottom if I do. That's acceptable. Now it's not deductive (as in, it means the PCs should still be wary of illiterate city thugs with bad tempers who don't dress in furs but are still Barbarians on the character sheet). But it is immersive. They might run into a group of fur-wearing peoples that they might think are barbaric or primative. Then they learn that they are not, and the after-school special lession is learned. They learn something in-game and it makes them feel as if they are growing in the game as well - breaking the mold, so to speak. Agreed. But as it lacks mechanical impact, and doesn't have any effect on PCs who are permitted to play against stereotype if they so wish, it's not too relevant to my point. Not if those stereotypes are mechanically based. For instance, elves are short people - except in my setting (and in dragonlance). Here they are tall, and while height doesn't have a direct effect on the game, it can have one if mechanics are inserted for it. an example of this is a low-ceiling dwarven hallway; built 5ft tall (and 5ft wide)for medium creatures, non-dwarves - like humans, halk-orcs, and my elves all have to stoop, often near a foot. This provides a type of difficult terrain for them, and quite obviously won't allow certain weapons the advantage of their type (like a spiked chain for example). There are no direct mechanics that adjudicate this, but clearly the problem is mechanical in nature. See how all this was an inferential process building up his ability set from what you see him do? I like that. See how it doesn't offer guarantees as to the character's mechanical arrangement out of game (doesn't pin down that paladins feats or Prestige Classes)? I like that. See how it isn't a "check his abilities off against the lists in the PHB, and we can assume he's this!"? I really like that. This is what I've been implying the entire time. Unless a person said to you, "I am a King", or in the case of classes, "I am a Paladin", you wouldn't know without some type of investigation or probe. I wasn't saying "he uses lay-on hands on you because he is a paladin". I was saying " he lays his hands on you, and your wounds heal. Your spellcraft check reveals no spell was cast". That type of inference. The rest of the time you run into psions who call themselves wizards in full plate. :P Just kidding. That someone who doesn't train in armor and is hampered by armor won't wear it makes sense. That's an individual detail. I want players to build up, from individual details, a rough inference of the NPC's array of abilities (which may come from multiclassing or reflavored classes or whatever). That's how we judge people's abilities in real life, not by looking in a book. Actually, we judge people by cover first, then by further examination afterwards. The saying "don't judge a book by it's cover" stems from people doing exactly the opposite. If a guy looks like a fighter, talks tough, and has the gear to back it up you're going to assume he is martially inclined and talk to him first (if you're looking for a fighter). The guy in the dirty shirt, drinking at the bar with only a cheap knife by his side is the guy you'll push outta the way to talk to said fighter-looking guy (even if he is the better fighter). Appearances can be decieving, but it is the first step to finding the truth. Emphasis mine. You're getting that feedback from others; I'm specifically trying to defend reflavoring from any claim that it sacrifices verisimilitude (since it doesn't have to). I think cal is trying to clarify the positions on the debate; read his posts. Righto, I'll look at his posts. As your point disagrees neither with the original SWF nor the position I put forth in the OP, that's cool. The logical extension of a soft correlation is that element X, if it can affect Y more negatively, must also be able to affect Y more positively. I tried to formulate the idea of the third skill to explain the variation. It isn't (soft) though. Building and RPing are two seperate skills; if you focus more on one than the other, then the other will lack. A true balance can only ever be an even mix; That it is more likely to ruin one or the other if the focus shifts to favor a side. Being good at RP can only be attained by focusing on RP; focusing on building cannot make you a better RPer, so an over-abundance of building can cause a deficiency in RP. You can have varying degrees of both, but their percentages must be equal in order to balance each other. And example of this is if you only had enough time to put forth an effort of 100%; the mix then would have to be 50% RP, and 50% build. If you gleaned additional time somehow, then you can put forth 60% RP and 50% build (or vice-versa) as it becomes greater than the whole. But when you are offering 65% RP and 35% build, only to put forth 75% RP and 35% build with extra time, the problem becomes apparent. This is assuming that you can put forth 200% effort (spending time, perhaps alot of time outside of the game itself crafting your character, possibly getting a person that applies 100% building effort to help if you focused 100% on the RP). Those that offer a good mix of both we call good players. Those that go above and beyond in an aspect without sacrificing or comprimising the other we call great players. EDIT: And I found the quote!:D Originally Posted by Archangel62 I don't care if you're a Half-Giant superman with 800 strength or a lame leprous human bard with the highest stat as a 3, if you disrupt the game and ruin the fun of the other players you're a problem and you go. Being a jerk and a spoiler transcends playstyles. Wise words.
Mock26 02-22-08, 03:43 PM	at L3 I'm gonna take Combat Expertise, then at L6 Imp Trip Granted, tripping an Imp could be a good tactic, but is it worth spending the slot on such a narrowly focussed ability? How often do you really face imps? :D
calronmoonflower 02-22-08, 05:55 PM	One last rewrite. Still it doesn't seem that time will be a major factor if you plain ahead. It did take a couple tries and rewrites, but I think I got it to the highest point this build can reach. 1. Core +the SRD 2. Expanded Psionics Handbook 3. Complete Psionic 4. Oriental Adventures for the Iaijutsu Focus skill. 5. Champions of Valor for the Celestial-Attended Birth 6. Player’s Guide to Faerun for the Otherworldly feat 6. [Complete Adventurer[/i] for the Leap Attack feat 7. Complete Warrior for the Shock Trooper feat 8. Eberron Campaign Setter for the Powerful Charge feat 9. Complete Champion for the lion spiritual totem variant 10. The Cityscape web enhancement 1 for ferocity variant Looks like with enough splat books anything is possible. I’m looking to build a character that fights evil with “spirit energy”. I removed the spirit weapon concept in the rewrite as the end result didn’t turn out well. Of course this raises the question what is spirit energy. It is known by several name such as ki, reiki, chakra, aura, hado, and many more names. What is basically is, is a form of energy that flows through nearly all living things. As it is no class with Dungeons & Dragons matched the visualization that I have for spirit energy, so I will have to change something that already exists or make something new. My Soul Warrior can do some of it but still doesn’t quite match. So I have chosen psionics for the base. Powers shall be changed to spirit incantations. You incant an incantation instead of manifesting a power. Often an incantation is used with hand signs and/or a spoken chant, often called a cantra. However these are tools used to focus the mind when training and are not strictly necessary to incant once you learn the incantation. Knowledge (spirit lore), Mysticism, and Use Spirit Device will replace knowledge (psionics), psicraft, and Use Psionic Device. Autohypnosis shall be renamed to Rondo. Iaijutsu Focus: the skill itself refers to ki, one of the alternate words for spirit energy that I listed. So in this case reflavoring shouldn’t be needed. Psionic feats shall be reflavored into spirit feats. The psionic focus will be called the spirit focus. When you gain your spirit focus you alter the natural flow of spirit energy in your body causing the flow to gather in a tight whirlpool like knot around the charka in your stomach. When you expend your spirit focus you create a wave of energy that surges briefly outward. Urim was born in a village hidden with a collapsed cone of an extinct volcano. His birth was attended secretly by a small group of followers of a servant of the heavens. Not long after a subdued evil spirit was sealed within him. This was both a great honor and burden. The bonding caused Urim’s spiritual power to naturally well up with no training and set him apart from the rest of the village. The servants of Tamara secretly watch and helped guided him. In time he took up the path as warrior against the foul spirits that plagued not only his village but the world around him. In time he set out into the world to advance his training in his own way. Fractional base attack bonus: It is not necessary for this build, but it helps early on. Later it really will not make a difference. I would personally allow human paragon will be allowed to work with manifester levels. This is within the original intent of the flexibility of the class, but not allowed by a strict reading of the rules. Do to this I have worked around this instead of house ruling it. Race: Silverbrow human. The spirit within bonded to him has changed his very nature. The racial traits that he has are a result of the bonding, making him more like the spirit within. Level 1: Human Paragon 1: Urim’s strange nature makes him less human and in some ways more. He, in time, has learned to depend on himself and has a fierce independent streak. At this point Urim has chaffed under the more traditional ways of training and set out on his own to learn cantra. Adaptive learning: Iaijutsu focus Urim’s most basic expression of his spirit energy is in this skill. He alters the flow in his body and causes it to collect in his sword allowing for devastating strikes. So far this is the only way that he has managed to express his spirit energy. 1st human bonus feat: Otherworldly This is a further extension of the bonding with the subdued spirit. He qualifies by the unusual events at his birth. 1st level feat: Track Urim made his way for quite some time by hunting and selling the spoils. Level 2 Fighter 1: Urim hasn’t had much luck learning to tap into his spirit energy on his own at this point, so he has decided to focus more on a martial path, though he is still practicing his cantra. Fighter feat: Quick Draw Level 3 Fighter 2: Still not much luck with learning to tap his spirit energy. Fighter feat: Power Attack 3rd level feat: Improved Initiative Bonus feat Level 4 Barbarian 1: At this point Urim’s spirit energy is on the verge of welling up. I suggest using the sudden mutation technique to unveil the reflavored ferocity. Lion spirit totem variant from Complete Champion: This can represent the spirit that he is bonded to or a spirit that he befriended while training in the wild. It also represents his fighting style that he is developing, strike first and strike hard. Ferocity variant from the Cityscape web enhancement 1: Rename spirit flare, This ability is more in line with the nature of spirit energy. This is the fist overt expression of spirit energy for Urim. It is a basic raw welling up of the energy within. It gives him quite a boost, but also numbs his control. Level 5 Egoist, this class best represents the use of spirit energy to me. At this time Urim has managed to master a few cantra and thus knows a few incantations. Psion feat: Practiced Manifester Rename Practiced Incantor. Level 6 Ghostbreaker prestige class from Hyperconscious. If you have any brains and have fought an undead you will qualify. Only basic changes need to be made in the wording of the powers of that class you match previous reflavoring. 6th level feat: Leap Attack from the Complete Adventurer. Level 7 The SRD Slayer prestige class. You should be logically be fighting evil “spirits”. Undead make a good choose for this as you should already be fighting them, but that need not be the only thing that goes under the title evil spirits. Evil outsiders make a good choice for the SRD slayer. Some of the abilities will not translate, but they are the ones that are not likely to come up. Level 8 Ghostbreaker 2 Level 9 SRD slayer 2 Brain nausea: A tough one. Repelling aura, it radiates from your third eye charka, so generally it applies when something would eat you brain. This should include attempts to swallow you whole 9th level feat: Improved Bull Rush Level 10 Ghostbreaker 3 Level 11 SRD slayer 3 Lucid Buffer: rename spirit ward. Level 12 Ghostbreaker 4 12th level feat: Shock Trooper Level 13 SRD slayer 4 Level 14 Ghostbreaker 5 Level 15 SRD slayer 5 15th level feat: Powerful Charge Level 16 SRD slayer 6 Cerebral Blind: rename walk as a ghost Level 17 SRD slayer 7 Level 18 SRD slayer 8 Breach Power Resistance: rename breach spirit resistance 18th level feat: Greater Powerful Charge Level 19 SRD slayer 9 Cerebral Immunity: rename indomitable spirit. Level 20 SRD slayer 10 Blast Feedback: rename spirit rebound. I’m at a loss to explain why it works only on that one ability though. As this build depends on the SRD slayer to work properly it is best to get permission before hand. If you are not allowed the SRD slayer then you need a new build. In the end this allows 8th level powers at manifester level 19, a good charge synergy line, and a base attack bonus of 19. Not to mention proficiency with all armor types shields (except tower shield) martial and simple weapons. Also the build is epic ready. It also can be used to generate many plot hooks and has a lot of roleplaying potential. More reflavoring will be needed for the individual powers that you choose, but I couldn't possibly include them all. A correlation being an inverse correlation simply refers to the negative sign of the correlation. It does not refer to the strength of the correlation. (Read up a little more on data analysis/statistics if you don't understand that.) Well I look the term up here (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Correlation) as well as other places and didn't find a direct term. I then applied the standard use of inverse to correlation. I think I misread it a bit, but the link need not be strong enough to even say that a correlation of any type well occur. So you end up at "It can happen, but it depends on the person." Ask a fantasy author what the diminishing point of return in investing time in roleplaying development - not just character background, but motivations, relationships, goals, ethos, pathologies, et cetera, and further attention to party dynamic of players, not just characters - is. Gamers rarely reach the point of limiting returns in terms of developing their characters, let alone roleplaying skills. Given the time factor argument the point of diminishing returns or a lack of time will be the only way to really back it up. We tend to find time for those thing that are important to us, so you it is important enough to you you will find the time somehow. Just as when you optimize poorly, it fails to improve your powerplay a lick. Yep. Can. More often, if you haven't invested effort in understanding how mechanics can help you develop a character, you will most likely not be thus aided. Yes, if you don't bother to learn to use any technique right it will not help. I really don't see this as a counter argument as it can be applied to directly to roleplaying itself. If you don't invest effort in understanding roleplaying you are not likely to roleplay well. The same would go for powergaming, the third skill, and well... just about every skill that can be improved through learning. Need not - provided one is already competent within the system, and knows all the tricks already. Or you could ask help from someone that is competent. You can also learn the tricks bit by bit as you go along. Basically this argument is that if you are not good at powergaming you will have trouble combining it with roleplaying. Learning the tricks and counters for a system as complex as 3.5 takes some time. Learning through practice is fine. After you learn these tricks and counters you will not likely need to learn them again. Also you can choose to limit your powergaming to the point where it doesn't have a big impact on your roleplaying development time. In the end it is clear, the more effect you put into preventing conflict the less likely it will happen.
Jaxgaret 02-22-08, 06:38 PM	Granted, tripping an Imp could be a good tactic, but is it worth spending the slot on such a narrowly focussed ability? How often do you really face imps? :D :rimshot:
tjhairball 02-22-08, 06:43 PM	I came up with a example of reflavoring and a build to go along with it. The total process took only 2 1/2 hours, including the time that it took to type it up which took longer that all the rest. I keep the character development to the minimum that I though was necessary to explain the build. It should really show how little time mixing the two can take, and I'll not well practiced at either. Two and a half hours is a great deal of time to just create a character and get the basic character development in. For many players, rounding that out (and finding all the sources, and looking things up, because like it or not, most aren't as well versed with the mechanics as you or most of those posting in this thread), we're talking an entire gaming session spent to do what you just did - "minimum" character development and a good reflavor of the abilities. You could easily spend another several hours on background if you wanted at this point, without having started the game - come up with a family background for Urim. Did his mother worry a lot? Was his brother jealous? Supportive? Did he fall in love? Did he have a pet growing up? Character development doesn't end there. Just as you may want to reconsider the build after the first several levels of actual gameplay, Urim's personality may change. Perhaps he becomes power-mad and corrupt; perhaps he gets vindictive. All that adds up to a lot of time that you could spend building up Urim as a character in between sessions - or you could worry about the tactical problems. How is Urim going to handle the cursed pyramid next week? Does this affect feat selection for the level he just got? Well I look the term up here (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Correlation) as well as other places and didn't find a direct term. I then applied the standard use of inverse to correlation. I think I misread it a bit, but the link need not be strong enough to even say that a correlation of any type well occur. So you end up at "It can happen, but it depends on the person." More strongly, "It will happen in a certain noticeable fraction of cases, although we can't always be sure it was this and not some other effect in any given case." Given the time factor argument the point of diminishing returns or a lack of time will be the only way to really back it up. We tend to find time for those thing that are important to us, so you it is important enough to you you will find the time somehow. We tend to, but we can't always. My group is launching a new 3.5 campaign, and I've been going through character creation, [re]learning everything about developing the PC - but I have next to no time I can spare on it. So do I make sure I have all the right equipment and skills and plans for the future laid out and cleared with the current errata, or do I spend some time coming up with a really good (and detailed) backstory that will help my character come alive? I'm good at this; I've been playing D&D since my brother and I cleared Zanzer Tem's dungeon; by this point, I know how to let the mechanics and backstory build on each other; still, I only have so much time I can invest in putting together this character before gameplay actually starts, and if I had a slightly busier week, or didn't know what I already knew about mechanics, I would have to come to the table with either an unclear build, or zero character development. Basil the Unchained will be barely be ready to play when the game actually launches. In other campaigns, I might find myself launching a character with basically no development. Some of this is dependent on system. I used to cook up mechanically complete competent starting characters in AD&D in 5 minutes, which is pretty much impossible in 3.5 - and that meant that all I had to concentrate on was roleplaying development. Yes, if you don't bother to learn to use any technique right it will not help. I really don't see this as a counter argument as it can be applied to directly to roleplaying itself. If you don't invest effort in understanding roleplaying you are not likely to roleplay well. The same would go for powergaming, the third skill, and well... just about every skill that can be improved through learning. Most beginning players aren't aware that those are separate skills that need to be learned - and who is teaching them this? Or you could ask help from someone that is competent. You can also learn the tricks bit by bit as you go along. Basically this argument is that if you are not good at powergaming you will have trouble combining it with roleplaying. Not quite what I was saying, but true. If you don't know the system yourself, it's going to be an uphill struggle to get your character concept translated into a mechanically effective character and then play it effectively. You have to master both of those before you can get good at integrating them. Learning through practice is fine. After you learn these tricks and counters you will not likely need to learn them again. Also you can choose to limit your powergaming to the point where it doesn't have a big impact on your roleplaying development time. In the end it is clear, the more effect you put into preventing conflict the less likely it will happen. And in the end, most players have either limited interest or limited time, or both, which is why only a handful of players find themselves exempt from the conflict.
calronmoonflower 02-22-08, 08:25 PM	Two and a half hours is a great deal of time to just create a character and get the basic character development in. For many players, rounding that out (and finding all the sources, and looking things up, because like it or not, most aren't as well versed with the mechanics as you or most of those posting in this thread), we're talking an entire gaming session spent to do what you just did - "minimum" character development and a good reflavor of the abilities. Most of that time was taken up with actually typing it all out. If you cut out that it would probability been around 30 minutes. Much of that 30 minute could be separated out into stages and done at other times. So with about 5 minute I could stat him out at level 1 and then cooked up the rest later. I've got allot more of his personality and background in my head, but as it is I didn't really want to type all that out. Also if you want to blend the character into a campaign you need to first know something about that campaign. As it is it is general enough to work into quite a few different situations. You could easily spend another several hours on background if you wanted at this point, without having started the game - come up with a family background for Urim. Did his mother worry a lot? Was his brother jealous? Supportive? Did he fall in love? Did he have a pet growing up? I could, but it really isn't necessary to do all that to roleplay. I remember a questionnaire on the mature boards that would be perfect for hammering out the details like that. A questionarre DMs may find useful to give their players.. Remember I did it as an example, the lack of development means that someone else can adapt it to their liking. The power of the character in that case should in no way interfere with their roleplaying. Character development doesn't end there. Just as you may want to reconsider the build after the first several levels of actual gameplay, Urim's personality may change. Perhaps he becomes power-mad and corrupt; perhaps he gets vindictive. All that adds up to a lot of time that you could spend building up Urim as a character in between sessions - or you could worry about the tactical problems. Ah... But this things should develop along with the game. Hammering them out before hand will require a large number of possibilities and take a huge amount of typing, and in the end you will using only a fraction of that. How is Urim going to handle the cursed pyramid next week? Does this affect feat selection for the level he just got? Does he know of the cursed pyramid? Anything can be countered with a "what if?". However this may be something that he would look into. Doing something like joining a group of adventures with a array of different abilities would likely be enough. We tend to, but we can't always. My group is launching a new 3.5 campaign, and I've been going through character creation, [re]learning everything about developing the PC - but I have next to no time I can spare on it. So do I make sure I have all the right equipment and skills and plans for the future laid out and cleared with the current errata, or do I spend some time coming up with a really good (and detailed) backstory that will help my character come alive? Well first the back story being so detailed is a personal preference. You can do well with little detail. If you really want to can develop such a background in game when the opportunity arises. As for keeping up on the rules if you take the time to stay acquainted then it really shouldn't be such a problem. I'm good at this; I've been playing D&D since my brother and I cleared Zanzer Tem's dungeon; by this point, I know how to let the mechanics and backstory build on each other; still, I only have so much time I can invest in putting together this character before gameplay actually starts, and if I had a slightly busier week, or didn't know what I already knew about mechanics, I would have to come to the table with either an unclear build, or zero character development. Basil the Unchained will be barely be ready to play when the game actually launches. In other campaigns, I might find myself launching a character with basically no development. You know that you can start with no build, background, or idea what your character is going to be. This has happened to me a couple of times in 2nd Ed. It should be allot easier at 1st level than higher levels. For a generic build that is strong that may take 10 minutes (without magic items, I prefer low magic settings) if you don't get fancy about it. It really isn't the strong builds that take allot of time, but the unique ones. Some of this is dependent on system. I used to cook up mechanically complete competent starting characters in AD&D in 5 minutes, which is pretty much impossible in 3.5 - and that meant that all I had to concentrate on was roleplaying development. You can still manage a build quickly without magic item dependence. With it it is allot harder unless you start at low levels. Most beginning players aren't aware that those are separate skills that need to be learned - and who is teaching them this? The rest of the group. See the confounding circle theory on page 1. If a group perfers one skill over the other then naturally the new players in the group will develop that skill more. If they use and try to teach all three then the newer player will naturally develop all three. Not quite what I was saying, but true. If you don't know the system yourself, it's going to be an uphill struggle to get your character concept translated into a mechanically effective character and then play it effectively. You have to master both of those before you can get good at integrating them. But as you struggle you learn. In time you will learn to do both and integrate them. And in the end, most players have either limited interest or limited time, or both, which is why only a handful of players find themselves exempt from the conflict. Time is most likely the biggest problem. But you can get around it somewhat if you are interested in doing so. Like asking for help. There are even boards on this site for this. Interest however is different. If you do not really want to mix the two roleplaying and powergaming together or don't want to to develop them then of course you will natural only do one or the other. In this case it isn't one interfering with the other, but personal preference.
pres_man 02-22-08, 08:38 PM	Not quite what I was saying, but true. If you don't know the system yourself, it's going to be an uphill struggle to get your character concept translated into a mechanically effective character and then play it effectively. You have to master both of those before you can get good at integrating them. If a player doesn't know how to make the mechanics fit the character, their concept is going to fall flat on its face. Player 1: What is your character like? Player 2: He is a smooth talker, he talk women out of their clothes, a king to hand over his kingdom, even a Satan to ask for forgiveness and be redeemed. Player 1: Cool, what is his diplomacy skill at right now? Pretty high right? Player 2: No. I didn't put any points in it and my charisma is my dump stat. Player 1: How is your character going to be a smooth talker then? Player 2: I'm a "roleplayer" not a "rollplayer". Yeah, until the DM asks him to roll a diplomacy check and the peaceful elf village now wants to kill him. Smooth move McFly.
calronmoonflower 02-22-08, 09:15 PM	Oh, and I would like to add. If you put forth that when you do not have enough time then you will not have the resources to blend roleplaying and powergaming then you must include the extra factor in the statement. If you do not then you make an unwarranted assumption when that you will not have the time. Thus you put forth something other that what you mean and straw man (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strawman) your own argument. In all the cases that I have seen when a Stormwind Fallacy this is not mentioned.
tjhairball 02-22-08, 10:18 PM	Oh, and I would like to add. If you put forth that when you do not have enough time then you will not have the resources to blend roleplaying and powergaming then you must include the extra factor in the statement. If you do not then you make an unwarranted assumption when that you will not have the time. Thus you put forth something other that what you mean and straw man (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strawman) your own argument. In all the cases that I have seen when a Stormwind Fallacy this is not mentioned. Here's the thing: It's not an unwarranted assumption in the general case, which is what we're talking about when we generalize. Reading through this thread, I've seen very few cases - including those which someone has cried "Stormwind Fallacy!" - in which someone was setting forth the proposition that you can't play a strong character and roleplay well at the same time. So no, I do not think I am strawmanning. Most people have limited time, and in most cases, more time spent on one facet will mean the other facet gets less time. Some people have more, some have less; but in most cases, the amount of time you spend on the game remains roughly fixed. If you will review here, the post which you were replying to which I quoted to question your claim of fallacy: Of course, you all might say "I'm optimizing" because, for example, not all of my casters have taken item creation feats! <gasp> I don't agree that that is optimizing. Occasionally, you'll get a wizard with just Improved Toughness or something, to toss a little extra HP on him without making the fight really harder, as perhaps Spell Focus:Enchant or Trans would do. Either way, I'm wandering from my point, which is the more you focus on how 'effective' you're character is, I agree with the statement that you will roleplay less and less, and think of them more and more like some video game character, a floating collection of stats that occasionally exhibits personality traits. Do you see? This poster was not describing something absolute, but something varying; as you pay more attention to the powerplay - that is, D&D as a tactical game - you end up paying less attention to the roleplay. Did he propose that it was impossible to min/max and roleplay? Not that I saw. Did he say that purposely making a character weak means it is better roleplayed? No. As I said above, the sole point of invoking that seems to be to imply the false dilemma - either there is no relationship, or you can't roleplay and min/max at the same time. On limited time, while I appreciate the care you have spent in replying to me, I'm afraid I can't spare enough to speak too much more on the topic until Monday at the earliest, and that's if I have a good Monday...
calronmoonflower 02-22-08, 10:30 PM	If you will review here, the post which you were replying to which I quoted to question your claim of fallacy: Do you see? This poster was not describing something absolute, but something varying; as you pay more attention to the powerplay - that is, D&D as a tactical game - you end up paying less attention to the roleplay. In other words powergaming interferes with roleplaying. The quote used the word "will" as in a solid statement. Using might or can would have been OK. I'm wandering from my point, which is the more you focus on how 'effective' you're character is, I agree with the statement that you will roleplay less and less, and think of them more and more like some video game character, a floating collection of stats that occasionally exhibits personality traits.
pres_man 02-23-08, 12:02 AM	Actually builds would make more time for developing a character than designing on the fly. In a build all the mechanical decisions are front loaded. You make them all at the beginning. This frees up time as you go on to develop the details of the character, without the mechanical decisions taking up valuable time. And designing the mechanics of the character all at once is much more efficient than doing so bit by bit. Frankly, if time is a problem with developing mechanics versus background/flavor, then one should be all for full developed builds over making decisions as you go along.
calronmoonflower 02-23-08, 12:20 AM	That's a good point. Using a build can effectively free up the time for roleplaying later in the actual game. [edit] Another related point. A mini/maxed character is less likely to die than a character created without for thought. That means it is more likely that you will have to recreate the character and thus the chance that your free time will be eaten up increases. [edit=2] I'm surprised that no one has mentioned that the build I posted is a has low end powergaming aspects instead of the higher end things that you would see on the co ops board. It was meant to be an example of reflavoring and a build rather that both with powergaming included. I have already though of a few ways to improve it. [edit=3] I rewrote my example.
SupaTalka 02-25-08, 12:04 AM	I wonder why no one EVER seems to mention timing regarding all of this silly talk? Example #1: Before play even begins, I plan out from 1-20 my character's stat development. Example #2: During and After play, I plan out my next level or levels of my character's stat development. Example #1 is pure power gaming. I can't see how that can be contested. One simply has a stat sheet they are attempting to RP. Example #2 is where you can mesh both role-play with character optimization, and not have them conflict. In any other case, it's one or the other. So that's my contribution: Timing. The timing of the optimization is what settles this in my mind. Pre-game is Power Gaming, During or Post Game can easily be Role-Playing+Optimization without any interference of the two. I see no problem with deciding both after and during play "Hey, this feat would work really well CONSIDERING WHAT HAPPENED IN OUR STORY." But before play "Well this combination of feats/classes/stats etc produced the optimal healing/spells/damage etc." therefore that is what I am playing - clear Power Gaming prioritized OVER RP.
Cuindless 02-25-08, 12:37 AM	I wonder why no one EVER seems to mention timing regarding all of this silly talk? Example #1: Before play even begins, I plan out from 1-20 my character's stat development. Example #2: During and After play, I plan out my next level or levels of my character's stat development. Example #1 is pure power gaming. I can't see how that can be contested. One simply has a stat sheet they are attempting to RP. Example #2 is where you can mesh both role-play with character optimization, and not have them conflict. In any other case, it's one or the other. So that's my contribution: Timing. The timing of the optimization is what settles this in my mind. Pre-game is Power Gaming, During or Post Game can easily be Role-Playing+Optimization without any interference of the two. I see no problem with deciding both after and during play "Hey, this feat would work really well CONSIDERING WHAT HAPPENED IN OUR STORY." But before play "Well this combination of feats/classes/stats etc produced the optimal healing/spells/damage etc." therefore that is what I am playing - clear Power Gaming prioritized OVER RP. I'm having difficulty understanding the premise of your argument here, but I'll give refuting it a shot. First, you are arguing from the presumption that power gaming inherently causes bad roleplay (i.e. "one simply has a stat sheet"). What you fail to see is that you always have "simply a stat sheet". Mechanically speaking, that's all a character is. All other aspects of roleplay are added by the player. Therefore, the amount and type of information on the stat sheet is moot. Second, you argue from the presumption that power gaming is a bad thing when no concrete definition is given. This will necessarily devolve into a semantic argument because one man's optimizer is another man's munchkin. This argument fails because "power gamer" is a purely subjective term. Third, your argument assumes that pre-planning necessarily interferes with roleplay. Taking real life as an example, I am a "Power Liver" because I plan out my day, my education schedule, my workload, what skills I want to learn and classes I want to take and how to optimize those areas of my life that are important to me. My personality doesn't suffer because I make wise decisions about my life. Neither does roleplaying necessarily suffer because wise optimization decisions are made. Fourth your argument creates a false dichotomy dilemma between roleplay and optimization. You haven't shown in any case how roleplay and optimization are inherently at odds or require the "prioritization" of one over the other.
calronmoonflower 02-25-08, 01:42 AM	Well first off having a build doesn't actually mean that you are powergaming. A build is a tool, generally used to help powergame, but just because you have a long term plan doesn't mean that you are using it to increase your power. Second, having a build help work changes into roleplaying, as per the five techniques. These are all roleplaying techniques and it makes more sense for many abilities to foreshadow their happening. You shouldn't awake one day and say "I'm a wizard." and start casting spells. That would be poor roleplaying, but with the first technique, the long term goal, you can start studying magic before that level. Thirdly I have put forth a definition of powergaming before, and RadicalTaoist posted the silverware argument way back on page one to show what powergaming isn't. Once again definitions. Roleplaying/Powergaming Trap A situation designed to force a choice between powergaming and roleplaying. METAGAMING 1. Using out of game logic in character. 2. Using out of game knowledge in character. 3. Failure of the willful suspension of disbelief. ROLEPLAYING 1. Playing a role. 2. Attempting to emulate a characters thoughts and actions. From Dictionary of Terminology Power Gamer (noun), 1: A player whose primary focus in a RPG is the increase of his character’s power, usually defined in combat terms. 2: A Min/Maxer.
Cuindless 02-25-08, 02:54 AM	Well first off having a build doesn't actually mean that you are powergaming. A build is a tool, generally used to help powergame, but just because you have a long term plan doesn't mean that you are using it to increase your power. Very true. There are far more sub-optimal builds than optimal builds. Second, having a build help work changes into roleplaying, as per the five techniques. These are all roleplaying techniques and it makes more sense for many abilities to foreshadow their happening. You shouldn't awake one day and say "I'm a wizard." and start casting spells. That would be poor roleplaying, but with the first technique, the long term goal, you can start studying magic before that level. I completely agree. I wanted to play a Rogue/Wizard/Arcane Trickster. From the beginning I was reading over the shoulder of the party's main wizard, even though it didn't give me any mechanical benefit. Thirdly I have put forth a definition of powergaming before, and RadicalTaoist posted the silverware argument way back on page one to show what powergaming isn't. Once again definitions. Roleplaying/Powergaming Trap A situation designed to force a choice between powergaming and roleplaying. METAGAMING 1. Using out of game logic in character. 2. Using out of game knowledge in character. 3. Failure of the willful suspension of disbelief. ROLEPLAYING 1. Playing a role. 2. Attempting to emulate a characters thoughts and actions. From Dictionary of Terminology Thanks, Calron. I agree with all these definitions.
SupaTalka 02-26-08, 01:41 PM	<snip> Fourth your argument creates a false dichotomy dilemma between roleplay and optimization. You haven't shown in any case how roleplay and optimization are inherently at odds or require the "prioritization" of one over the other. I don't believe it's a false dichotomy. I'll give you some examples here, and we'll see if you agree or not. Example #1: I have a pre-planned character from 1-20. This is a solo campaign. He is optimized in such a way that he is a superior numerical character, in all game-mechanic aspects, to any other similar 1-20 builds. However, some of the specific mechanic features I have, need requirements to be fulfilled. The build is superior in all aspects. It has the best saves, the most skill points, the most class skills, the best BAB and all applicable class-features. Pun-Punesque sans nigh infinity/infinity loops. Ok, let's make sure we're all on the same page BEFORE I continue. As I'm sure people can now see, I've made NO VALUE JUDGMENT. I don't care if it's "good" or "bad", all I'm trying to show is that Role-Play and Optimization are indeed AT ODDS with one another. Even by a tiny (or large) amount. Continued Example #1: Some of these requirements might include: Alignment, Race, Feats, Class Features, Religious Requirements, BAB, Affiliation to Certain In Game Groups, etc. Ok, hopefully we're still on the same page sans arguments about definitions, because that would be pretty silly; we're covering the basic steps of character building that I would assume everyone here is very familiar with. Final Part To Example #1: During gameplay, it is revealed that something is not as it seemed, specifically regarding something a PC must do to achieve their next step in fulfilling their character build, the one they made pre-game, pre-role play that was numerically superior to ALL other builds. Ok, once again, I hope we're all on the same page with how the example is flowing. Someone makes a pre-planned character, pre-game. Now they've actually been playing for some time. They find out that as per the story something significant has changed. I am not giving specifics because people will merely try and nit-pick the assumed scenarios INSTEAD of addressing the main-point which is... Conclusion to Example #1: The player must now make a choice: continue their numerically superior build, OR not do so for RP reasons. Ok, I lied about not giving a specific example. Let me toss out one for all you nit-pickers just to tear apart, it will only help me on example #2: You've got a Lawful Good character as per #1. You find out that as you get deeper and deeper into the initiation rites of a specific Class or PrC that grants you many of your character's central abilities, that something is not right. You find out that they are in fact Evil demons and are committing heinous and unspeakable acts, and they are asking your character to join them, body, mind and soul. There are two distinct possibilities(nitpicks aside): 1) Join Them, retaining your class features and furthering your character's initial build. 2) Not joining them. This results in a loss of all class abilities you were granted from this organization. Ok. I hope you're still following, I've really tried to make this step-by-step and easy to follow. Assuming the character picked #2, WHY is the question? Picking #2 ONLY HURTS THE CHARACTER from an optimization perspective, so why would an optimizer ever pick it? Therefore, the ONLY reason a player would ever nominate their character into choosing #2 would be a for a role-play reason; it is EXACTLY an anti-optimization, pro-role play decision. That's example one.
pres_man 02-26-08, 02:30 PM	I wonder why no one EVER seems to mention timing regarding all of this silly talk? Example #1: Before play even begins, I plan out from 1-20 my character's stat development. Example #2: During and After play, I plan out my next level or levels of my character's stat development. Example #1 is pure power gaming. I can't see how that can be contested. One simply has a stat sheet they are attempting to RP. Example #2 is where you can mesh both role-play with character optimization, and not have them conflict. In any other case, it's one or the other. So that's my contribution: Timing. The timing of the optimization is what settles this in my mind. Pre-game is Power Gaming, During or Post Game can easily be Role-Playing+Optimization without any interference of the two. I see no problem with deciding both after and during play "Hey, this feat would work really well CONSIDERING WHAT HAPPENED IN OUR STORY." But before play "Well this combination of feats/classes/stats etc produced the optimal healing/spells/damage etc." therefore that is what I am playing - clear Power Gaming prioritized OVER RP. So if someone decides when they reach sixth level to take improved toughness, instead of having decided before the game started to take improved toughness at sixth level, they are not powergaming?
RadicalTaoist 02-26-08, 02:34 PM	Hahahah, I love how SupaTalka's example runs straight into the Pun-Pun as Super Actor Argument. Dog, I'll respond to your post sometime around Friday.
Dog_O_War 02-26-08, 02:44 PM	Hahahah, I love how SupaTalka's example runs straight into the Pun-Pun as Super Actor Argument. Dog, I'll respond to your post sometime around Friday. Righto, looking forward to it. Also, despite his rudness, he poses a valid point though; Why are there the 5 rules for optimization, and yet there are no rules for RPing? Flexability and adaptability are always at the forefront of my character designs; I've bailed from prestige classes before just to take something else offered in-game. I'd work later to salvage what could be a bad build, and not lose an ounce of effectiveness in the end.
RadicalTaoist 02-26-08, 03:55 PM	:confused: Wait, which five rules? Are you referring to the Silverware Arguments? Or the Techniques?
Dog_O_War 02-26-08, 05:02 PM	:confused: Wait, which five rules? Are you referring to the Silverware Arguments? Or the Techniques? I meant techniques. (Silverware Arguements:confused: )
Cuindless 02-26-08, 05:16 PM	Thank god you're having trouble understanding the definition of the word "Timing"? There's a subjective definition of "Timing"? I'm glad a single thing you replied with had to do with the examples I gave regarding Timing. Forget it. "Take real life as an example" That has absolutely nothing to do with things even somewhat related to what the thread is about. Forget it. I don't need to define "power gaming" when you do not understand what "Timing" means. I'm not going to spend my time defining absolutely every single word I type on these forums for your benefit. If you can't figure out exactly what I mean by reading it, then you're just looking to play semantic games with yourself. You know what playing with yourself is called? Forget it. You know what? Let's not forget it. Let's take 10 minutes to show everyone that you do not know how to read. No. You're wrong. Please re-read what I said. There was absolutely no mention of "bad roleplay". None. Zero. I say once again, learn how to read. I gave no indication of values such as "good" or "bad". Read. Again. With your eyes. I never once say something is "good" or "bad". Read. Again. Not with your mind, with your eyeballs. Now that that is out of the way. Second, LEARN HOW TO READ. Again. You're WRONG. I have in no way given a VALUE JUDGEMENT on this. I never said something was "good" "bad" "right" "wrong". Wow you're terrible at reading. Get your eyes checked. No wonder this is taking so long to finalize, if no one can READ what is going on. Thank goodness! Something that actually in some way is related to something I actually did in fact say. Pre-planning NECESSARILY interferes with role-playing. Yes, I am making that statement again. The amount of interference might be small, it might be large, but it certainly does interfere. I could give you a dozen examples, but I'm not sure you would read them. But let's save that for this... I don't believe it's a false dichotomy. I'll give you some examples here, and we'll see if you agree or not. Example #1: I have a pre-planned character from 1-20. This is a solo campaign. He is optimized in such a way that he is a superior numerical character, in all game-mechanic aspects, to any other similar 1-20 builds. However, some of the specific mechanic features I have, need requirements to be fulfilled. The build is superior in all aspects. It has the best saves, the most skill points, the most class skills, the best BAB and all applicable class-features. Pun-Punesque sans nigh infinity/infinity loops. Ok, let's make sure we're all on the same page BEFORE I continue. As I'm sure people can now see, I've made NO VALUE JUDGMENT. I don't care if it's "good" or "bad", all I'm trying to show is that Role-Play and Optimization are indeed AT ODDS with one another. Even by a tiny (or large) amount. Continued Example #1: Some of these requirements might include: Alignment, Race, Feats, Class Features, Religious Requirements, BAB, Affiliation to Certain In Game Groups, etc. Ok, hopefully we're still on the same page sans arguments about definitions, because that would be pretty silly; we're covering the basic steps of character building that I would assume everyone here is very familiar with. Final Part To Example #1: During gameplay, it is revealed that something is not as it seemed, specifically regarding something a PC must do to achieve their next step in fulfilling their character build, the one they made pre-game, pre-role play that was numerically superior to ALL other builds. Ok, once again, I hope we're all on the same page with how the example is flowing. Someone makes a pre-planned character, pre-game. Now they've actually been playing for some time. They find out that as per the story something significant has changed. I am not giving specifics because people will merely try and nit-pick the assumed scenarios INSTEAD of addressing the main-point which is... Conclusion to Example #1: The player must now make a choice: continue their numerically superior build, OR not do so for RP reasons. Ok, I lied about not giving a specific example. Let me toss out one for all you nit-pickers just to tear apart, it will only help me on example #2: You've got a Lawful Good character as per #1. You find out that as you get deeper and deeper into the initiation rites of a specific Class or PrC that grants you many of your character's central abilities, that something is not right. You find out that they are in fact Evil demons and are committing heinous and unspeakable acts, and they are asking your character to join them, body, mind and soul. There are two distinct possibilities(nitpicks aside): 1) Join Them, retaining your class features and furthering your character's initial build. 2) Not joining them. This results in a loss of all class abilities you were granted from this organization. Ok. I hope you're still following, I've really tried to make this step-by-step and easy to follow. Assuming the character picked #2, WHY is the question? Picking #2 ONLY HURTS THE CHARACTER from an optimization perspective, so why would an optimizer ever pick it? Therefore, the ONLY reason a player would ever nominate their character into choosing #2 would be a for a role-play reason; it is EXACTLY an anti-optimization, pro-role play decision. That's example one. Firstly, there's no reason to be rude. If I've mistaken parts of your argument, that's fine. Simple correction is all that's required, not repeated impunement of my ability to read or consistent downtalking to insure we're "on the same page". I made what I considered were logical and valid negation of your argument and it turns out I was mistaken because I misunderstood your argument. Your tone was unnecessary. So, your example is that the build you've created requires a LG alignment to enter a specific PrC for reasons of optimizing the build, but the DM has altered the PrC so that the prerequisites are now evil? Am I understanding this correctly?
pres_man 02-26-08, 05:43 PM	Firstly, there's no reason to be rude. If I've mistaken parts of your argument, that's fine. Simple correction is all that's required, not repeated impunement of my ability to read or consistent downtalking to insure we're "on the same page". I made what I considered were logical and valid negation of your argument and it turns out I was mistaken because I misunderstood your argument. Your tone was unnecessary. So, your example is that the build you've created requires a LG alignment to enter a specific PrC for reasons of optimizing the build, but the DM has altered the PrC so that the prerequisites are now evil? Am I understanding this correctly? Sounded like they were suppose to already be in the PrC, but they learned that the flavor of the PrC was different then what it was initially and if they "leave" the PrC (I am assuming it is a PrC where you have to have membership in a group), they will lose the abilities they already got from the PrC. I will agree it sounds like either (a) the player didn't do a good job researching the PrC in the first place to see if their character was a good fit for it or (b) the DM is doing some adjustments that, at least seems to be, screwed the player. One thing I might say is, it seems as if some people confuse what the players see and what the characters see. For example, the characters (probably) don't know anything about classes or their levels, so the characters aren't thinking about "When I level again I am going to take a level of fighter and get the bonus feat and ..." Now the player may be thinking that, but the character (probably) shouldn't be. So a 20 level plan is the player making out the "destiny" of how the character will develop, to which the character may not have any idea about.
Vaelan 02-26-08, 06:02 PM	Picking #2 ONLY HURTS THE CHARACTER from an optimization perspective, so why would an optimizer ever pick it? Therefore, the ONLY reason a player would ever nominate their character into choosing #2 would be a for a role-play reason; it is EXACTLY an anti-optimization, pro-role play decision. You're assuming that the first option cannot have any value from a roleplaying perspective. The issue does not stem from the reality of the situation, it stems from your desire to see this as a black-and-white matter. I do find your contention that a roleplayer wouldn't possibly choose to change humorous, though, since that is the main reason that people use to claim that builds discourage roleplaying: they discourage change. Also, as the required reading for posting in this thread suggests: there is a third option. There is an option that compromises neither the build nor the roleplay. The fact that the player can't think of one can be attributed to a lack of skill. The fact that the DM can't accept one can be attributed to the desire to create a conflict or the lack of desire to prevent a conflict.
Cuindless 02-26-08, 06:05 PM	Sounded like they were suppose to already be in the PrC, but they learned that the flavor of the PrC was different then what it was initially and if they "leave" the PrC (I am assuming it is a PrC where you have to have membership in a group), they will lose the abilities they already got from the PrC. I will agree it sounds like either (a) the player didn't do a good job researching the PrC in the first place to see if their character was a good fit for it or (b) the DM is doing some adjustments that, at least seems to be, screwed the player. If that's the case, then this isn't an example of optimization leading to poor roleplaying, this is a case of poor optimization and/or houseruling. One thing I might say is, it seems as if some people confuse what the players see and what the characters see. For example, the characters (probably) don't know anything about classes or their levels, so the characters aren't thinking about "When I level again I am going to take a level of fighter and get the bonus feat and ..." Now the player may be thinking that, but the character (probably) shouldn't be. So a 20 level plan is the player making out the "destiny" of how the character will develop, to which the character may not have any idea about. I concur. You're assuming that the first option cannot have any value from a roleplaying perspective. The issue does not stem from the reality of the situation, it stems from your desire to see this as a black-and-white matter. I do find your contention that a roleplayer wouldn't possibly choose to change humorous, though, since that is the main reason that people use to claim that builds discourage roleplaying: they discourage change. Also, as the required reading for posting in this thread suggests: there is a third option. There is an option that compromises neither the build nor the roleplay. The fact that the player can't think of one can be attributed to a lack of skill. The fact that the DM can't accept one can be attributed to the desire to create a conflict or the lack of desire to prevent a conflict. The third option is actually pretty obvious: Roleplay an alignment change. It keeps the optimization of the build and allows for good roleplay. No dilemma.
Cuindless 02-26-08, 06:08 PM	DELETED
pres_man 02-26-08, 06:13 PM	The third option is actually pretty obvious: Roleplay an alignment change. It keeps the optimization and allows for good roleplay. No dilemma. I guess if you wanted to be total strict, his example wasn't saying that option 1 was bad from a roleplaying standpoint (or optimizing), just that option 2 was bad from an optimization standpoint but could be good from a roleplaying standpoint. So I guess what we can say is that roleplaying and optimization MAY be at odds but are not necessarily at odds (1 could have both, while 2 is really only valid from one perspective, roleplaying).
Cuindless 02-26-08, 06:19 PM	I guess if you wanted to be total strict, his example wasn't saying that option 1 was bad from a roleplaying standpoint (or optimizing), just that option 2 was bad from an optimization standpoint but could be good from a roleplaying standpoint. So I guess what we can say is that roleplaying and optimization MAY be at odds but are not necessarily at odds (1 could have both, while 2 is really only valid from one perspective, roleplaying). Which is what the Stormwind Fallacy is all about. Roleplay and Optimization are not necessarily at odds. But that isn't what SupaTalka is saying: Pre-planning NECESSARILY interferes with role-playing. That's just patently untrue. There may be specific examples where pre-planning might interfere with roleplaying (I've yet to see one), but in almost all cases they seem unrelated. Most of the times I've used a build the pre-planning actually helped.
UAMDB 02-26-08, 06:55 PM	OK I have a question for everyone. If roleplaying and optimization is at such great odds with each other, to the point that if you optimize you can not roleplay, and if you roleplay you can not optimize... How come more people don't play fighters? The general view is that fighters are the less optimized class in the whole game. Therefor they should be the best classes for roleplaying.
Cuindless 02-26-08, 07:02 PM	OK I have a question for everyone. If roleplaying and optimization is at such great odds with each other, to the point that if you optimize you can not roleplay, and if you roleplay you can not optimize... How come more people don't play fighters? The general view is that fighters are the less optimized class in the whole game. Therefor they should be the best classes for roleplaying. 1. Any class can be optimized, since optimization doesn't mean "the most powerful character" it means "the best version of the character you want to play". If you want to play a straight fighter, you can optimize that character. 2. The reason more people don't play fighters is because they're largely considered boring mechanics-wise. 3. There's a big argument about which straight class is the weakest/most difficult to optimize. Front runners so far as I've seen are fighter, bard and monk. 4. The only logical answer to your question is that roleplay and optimization aren't diametrically opposed as some believe.
RadicalTaoist 02-26-08, 10:03 PM	I meant techniques. Oh, those? They're not *for* optimization or roleplay; they are meant to make the two work together smoothly and thus refer closer to the third skill I invoke regularly. I don't see where SupaTalka discussed that though. As for adaptability, that's certainly a value in optimization. You can approach this in a number of ways in building - leaving 'open slots' for feats or levels or stuff like that is one method. I like designing builds that are intentionally versatile so that they can be optimal in many situations, and also try to keep my builds viable at all levels of play. Builds that wait and suck early for a bigger benefit later are not at all my style. :yuck: (Silverware Arguements:confused: ) (Don't worry about them. I pull them on people who say the definition of optimization is too subjective and then proceed to carry on with the fallacy anyways.)
Cuindless 02-27-08, 12:03 AM	I like designing builds that are intentionally versatile so that they can be optimal in many situations, and also try to keep my builds viable at all levels of play. I like this approach as well. Take a look at a build constructed like this: Levels 1-9: X classes, PrCs, feats and skills Levels 10-11: X classes, PrCs and skills Level 12: Take X class and skills, feat left open Level 13-14: Take X class and skills Level 15: Take X class and skills, feat left open Et cetera. I'm not using a specific example, I'm just showcasing the fact that the build has the level 12 feat open. Regardless, I find this kind of build to be far more open to adaption for the situation. I generally begin with a roadmap and guidelines, while adjusting the build as necessary to meet with the style of the DM.
pres_man 02-27-08, 12:17 AM	Given the fact that some feats have "trees" that you have to start on early to get, does it mean that planning on taking those feats eventually (and thus taking the prerequist feats in the mean time) are always examples of "powergaming"?
Cuindless 02-27-08, 12:22 AM	Given the fact that some feats have "trees" that you have to start on early to get, does it mean that planning on taking those feats eventually (and thus taking the prerequist feats in the mean time) are always examples of "powergaming"? That's a very good point. If I'm "planning" on playing a straight fighter and "planning" on taking Weapon Supremacy, therefore assuming I've "planned" to take Weapon Focus, Weapon Specialization, Greater Weapon Focus, Greater Weapon Specialization, et cetera... Along with Great Cleave (therefore Power Attack, Cleave, et cetera), is this power gaming by default, simply because I've taken the time to decide what a Two-handed Sword Master should have for feats? Note that this build is completely sub-optimal as far as damage output ad et cetera is concerned... have I sacrificed roleplay? If I have, doesn't this prove that optimization and roleplay are not linked? The inferences are legion...
ORC_Chaos 02-27-08, 01:30 AM	Remember to keep all posts civil and polite. No personal attacks.
WizO_Zanton 02-27-08, 01:46 AM	I've brought this thread to the attention of the Community Management team
calronmoonflower 02-27-08, 04:49 AM	Pre-planning NECESSARILY interferes with role-playing. Yes, I am making that statement again. The amount of interference might be small, it might be large, but it certainly does interfere. Please lay out a logical reason why it interferes. You've got a Lawful Good character as per #1. You find out that as you get deeper and deeper into the initiation rites of a specific Class or PrC that grants you many of your character's central abilities, that something is not right. You find out that they are in fact Evil demons and are committing heinous and unspeakable acts, and they are asking your character to join them, body, mind and soul. There are two distinct possibilities(nitpicks aside): 1) Join Them, retaining your class features and furthering your character's initial build. 2) Not joining them. This results in a loss of all class abilities you were granted from this organization. Ok. I hope you're still following, I've really tried to make this step-by-step and easy to follow. Assuming the character picked #2, WHY is the question? Picking #2 ONLY HURTS THE CHARACTER from an optimization perspective, so why would an optimizer ever pick it? Therefore, the ONLY reason a player would ever nominate their character into choosing #2 would be a for a role-play reason; it is EXACTLY an anti-optimization, pro-role play decision. That's example one. What The player didn't read the requirements for the character or prestige class? That isn't a example of roleplaying Vs. Powergaming. That is an example of either a surprise rule or an incompetent builder. Either way this is not a true example of a build interfering with roleplaying. Also I updated my example again. This will be the last one, well hopefully.
Shadowhowler 02-27-08, 08:57 AM	4. The only logical answer to your question is that roleplay and optimization aren't diametrically opposed as some believe. Thats not the ONLY logical answer. Another would be that there are a lot more optimizers currently playing the game then roleplayers... and thus, since the fighter is a poor choice mechanicly, it has seen a decline in play as of late. :P I'm not saying this is, in fact, the case... I'm just putting it out there as an example of another logical option.
Dog_O_War 02-27-08, 10:56 AM	Thats not the ONLY logical answer. Another would be that there are a lot more optimizers currently playing the game then roleplayers... and thus, since the fighter is a poor choice mechanicly, it has seen a decline in play as of late. :P I'm not saying this is, in fact, the case... I'm just putting it out there as an example of another logical option. (I hate to bring this off-topic, but leave your opinions on class out of the thread. Fighter is a great choice mechanically as it offers choices the entire progression, and if you read what you are taking at a given level - which you should do anyways - then no choice will screw you over unless you are unable to make a character without WotC holding your hand the entire way).
Shadowhowler 02-27-08, 02:34 PM	(I hate to bring this off-topic, but leave your opinions on class out of the thread. Fighter is a great choice mechanically as it offers choices the entire progression, and if you read what you are taking at a given level - which you should do anyways - then no choice will screw you over unless you are unable to make a character without WotC holding your hand the entire way). No offence... but I did not bring it up. I was only presenting an alternate theory to someone who said 'x is the only logical answer for y' not trying to pee in your cheerios.
Vaelan 02-27-08, 03:43 PM	Thats not the ONLY logical answer. Another would be that there are a lot more optimizers currently playing the game then roleplayers... and thus, since the fighter is a poor choice mechanicly, it has seen a decline in play as of late. :P I'm not saying this is, in fact, the case... I'm just putting it out there as an example of another logical option. I would argue that people are simply taking a skewed sample and that the perceptions of this sample have largely been defined by powergamers (not even optimizers, just plain powermongers). Or at least people that are, for the moment they are using to define the aforementioned perceptions, acting as powergamers.
RadicalTaoist 02-27-08, 04:21 PM	I've brought this thread to the attention of the Community Management team:confused: Why, if I may ask?
Shadowhowler 02-28-08, 11:09 PM	I would argue that people are simply taking a skewed sample and that the perceptions of this sample have largely been defined by powergamers (not even optimizers, just plain powermongers). Or at least people that are, for the moment they are using to define the aforementioned perceptions, acting as powergamers. I'm not trying to say the theroy I put forward *IS* in fact the truth of the matter... mearly that it is another alternative logical expliantion. I was only trying to jokingly point out that there is, in fact, more then ONE possible answer to the origina point made. *I* still like fighters... but then again, I am not worried about: 1. Balance. 2. Optimization. 3. Powergaming I play what ever best fits the character concept I have at the time... and I always try to design a character concept that fits in well with the group I am playing with, and complements but does not overshadow their abilities.
RadicalTaoist 02-29-08, 02:21 PM	What I'm saying is that is can be in your games.So? It certainly can. It probably won't, due to a dislike of the approach. The same goes for my take in your games. My only concern is the defense or reflavoring and preplanned optimization, namely proving that it does not conflict with roleplaying (barring a circular or nonsensical definition of roleplaying). Not sure what you mean by this. Maybe that I'm speaking of established classes? Precisely. For those who do not establish classes so in-game, there is no problem. Seriously think about that; if the concept is defined, then it cannot possibly get any easier. Technically the task doesn't get easier, but if the concept is defined in a bothersome way (like, why the hell can't my crusader call himself a paladin if he acts like one?), it may be far easier overall to set it your own definition. What if that shift though was from LG to CE? While the basic mechanics of the ToB class has allowed a fairly easy transition to LE, you can see how it doesn't work for all examples available. Not a disproving example. The fact that you can come up with single circumstances where it doesn't work perfectly doesn't mean that it can't work. In fact, my entire hypothesis regarding the third skill, as far as it is relevant to our debate, is that there's a point of skill where it never doesn't work. This (the five skills) are required though for what you deem "simple reflavoring". You require rules outside of the game just to build a character in advance to play. Not quite. These are heuristics dealing with a tricky part of reflavoring. They're simply a helpful description of how it works. RP could establish everything in game, though you probably wouldn't get what you wanted (right away). The third skill is basically your skill at getting this result without having to wait. Reflavoring does not entail not RPing to make your character who you want them to be. You're needing additional rules and redundancies just to keep build viable. Don't see any. These rules cannot help with things like cursed items, plague, unfortunate events (like the loss of an arm for a character built to TWF), and other mitgating cercumstances beyond a DM char-block. What's the effective difference between a DM char-block and mitigating circumstances the DM doesn't give you a chance to compensate for? In neither case does the fault lie with optimization or reflavoring. Most of the super-summons, the animal-element attacks, shadow-clone juitsu (even if it's an advanced technique), etc... Most of these offer character destroying things but still do not account of power level and attack bonus. How so? Do you feel Gamabunta wasn't big and epic enough? By animal-element attacks, do you mean henge transformations or elements such as katon and suiton? All the stuff you mention was represented (shadow-clone fits really well as the mini astral construct clones). I don't know about other systems fitting it better, but I can't find any characters I don't see represented fairly faithfully. pres·tige –noun 1. reputation or influence arising from success, achievement, rank, or other favorable attributes. 2. distinction or reputation attaching to a person or thing and thus possessing a cachet for others or for the public: The new discothèque has great prestige with the jet set. –adjective 3. having or showing success, rank, wealth, etc. I don't see where realizing your potential as an heir to a draconic bloodline makes you wealthy or gives you influence unless your game demands that it does, in which hypothetically, there could be games with the same consequences for being an arcane mutant. I don't see how it makes you famous (or infamous) in a manner different from how becoming an arcane mutant makes you so. Now, what did you think prestige meant? That's a good definition. Actually my examples follow the definition of the word, which is not open for debate, as prestige means and implies "better than the norm". 'Better than the norm' can work. How ever "loner-esque" your Knight is, the class itself still carries the same fame; that said knight is apart of the class meant that he had a desire for that prowess at some point. Does it? (Hint: you're still viewing it from the established-class perspective I don't hold). The Master of Nine hermit would be famous; people would talk of a reclusive swordsman that had knowledge of all the techniques - a point of intrigue for other martial adepts. Could be. As for the paranoid Hedge wizard, Someone had to have ressurected him; that alone meant that people out there felt as if he was deserving of life thanks to past deeds, or that he had quite the destiny still to be full-filled. 'Deserving of life thanks to past deeds' could include just being the little brother of someone wealthy. To return to point: You've demonstrated you can view prestige in any formulation of a character with a PrC. I've demonstrated I don't have to. Your demonstration, while apt, doesn't disprove mine. If you're down-playing the definition of prestige, then you need to call those classes something else. Being prestigeous lends its importance and fame as much as the named definition will allow, to the maximum area the fame could reasonably be gained. If a character didn't want to become famous amoungst certain crowds then he should choose classes without the pre-title "prestige". So, if we call them 'advanced classes' then it's okay? Done. It often does have to though; that was the point of the "men and women" comment. Let's clarify something. If person A demonstrates that something is possible in situation X, and person B demonstrates that something is not essential or guaranteed in situation X, then person A has not disproved B should B assert that the something isn't an essential. B hasn't disproved A's assertion either, but he doesn't have to in order to make his own assertion. Also, those rules are on page 270, third paragraph right before the bathroom rules. You looked didn't you?:P ...I admit nothing. What I'm saying is that because this mechanic is not a consciquence for him if he does not, he may discard and resume when it becomes convenient.So what? If he does, he's roleplaying poorly. A failure of roleplaying and the third skill. Not some innate failure of reflavoring as a concept or optimization as an approach to the game. If he doesn't discard it whenever he feels like, he's roleplaying appropriately. What's the problem? Mechanically you cannot "skill up" though, which is what you proposed. I dunno, getting new levels of divine spells seems pretty much like "skill ups" to me, but we might be arguing semantics. This knowledge though cannot extend to the ranger, rogue, wizard, etc... It doesn't, in that form. The feats are just a relative, abstract degree to which you're really good with a weapon. Not everybody gets that good. You can't maintain both - you can't have your cake and eat it too, so to speak. A warblade can do this but clearly this technique cannot apply every class. As I had said previous, you're requiring additional rules and redundancies just to allow for a build to happen, when a simple in-game solution would be to know what type of class this option was open to. What rules and redundacies? You don't need to metagame; a simple, "well I heard that Fighters and the like have that kinda training needed to master a weapon to such a degree!" is enough without breaking versimilitude or requiring rules above and beyond what is presented in the books. Unless you get weird stares because in-character, a Fighter is "anyone who fights". A simple "only those most focused in weapon skill can master a weapon to such a degree!" works fine. It's circular because you're proposing that two things can be the same in a world where things are more clearly defined. The paladin(crusader) is a good example of this. Clearly titles are as important to players as they are to me, otherwise you and others wouldn't want to interpose on the established ones. What I've been saying is that a title is important, and that it means one thing (whether tied to a class, profession, or man) and shouldn't be left as flexable as concept. You see where the argument is circular, then; it depends on me accepting your premise that title and class should be treated in the way that you treat them. I don't. My intent is to demonstrate that reflavoring (and more importantly optimization) don't compromise roleplaying. I can roleplay without playing like you. So, I'm ultimately not concerned. 15 levels ago; why was he training with the guy for 15 levels?! For how many levels does he have a lower BAB and HD than Teach? The student surpasses the master gradually, in some areas (like weapon mastery) faster than others. See, now you are needing to predict the future just to have a build work. When did playing D&D become so complicated? No you don't need to, and it hasn't become so. All those are the conditions necessary to roleplay training under a master in the manner you described. It's simpler for me not to. What I am saying is that for a person wanting to learn something he's seen he'll want seek a proper trainer to be able to progress at a reasonable rate of time. Not necessarily. Some people don't learn well from trainers. That doesn't matter though, because you can have a master/student relationship that doesn't work like those outlined in the DMG2 and thus doesn't require the master having the exact ability imparted to the student. For example: in my Eberron game, the party psion explained her learning of the Faint Memory power (a telepathy trick that convinces people that their encounter with you was a dream, blurring and dissipating their memories of the experience) as due to the influence of my kalashtar ardent. My kalashtar doesn't know the Faint Memory power. What he does have is an innate racial connection to dreams, a lot of influence over the psion (his good friend), and frequent opportunity to discuss philosophy and psionic technique in a manner that could inspire the psion. The other options (self-training, etc...) aren't exactly the most efficient methods. If you've established that training takes X amount of time with a trainer, and that without one it requires additional time - how do you relagate this without reneging on the original agreement? Emphasis mine. You note how it's your approach that's adding all the conditions and rules? Who's making D&D more complicated here, and who's just winging it? People take the path of least resistance; if you offered spontaineous classism, then this is what people will choose 9 times out of 10. That method is the one that breaks versimilitude (for me) every time. If they don't justify it in some way, then sure. It would break my verisimilitude to, because they're not engaging the third skill and trying to reflavor their choice to make sense. You call it specific, but I see the reflavoring as the specific circumstance. Leveling will happen multiple times across a character's career (hopefully), while the reflavoring is dealt with once. If you are doing level-training, then it is not such a specific circumstance. Actually, reflavoring happens as often as you need to make a character consistent with the game world. One the one you gave it does (as you did say that bards were wandering minstrals). No, what I said is that in the game world, a character will only call someone a bard if that someone is a wandering minstrel, regardless of their abilities. (They're expected to have ability with music, but there is such a thing as bad bards.) Take the wife of the ambassador from a magocratic country. She's got talent with magic as befits her national background, and music as that's a common hobby for ladies of her pedigree (spellcasting, bardic music). She's as sociable and polite as can be expected of a diplomat's spouse, and from her conversations in the embassy and on her travels she's always picking up interesting information and new tongues (social class skills, Bardic Knowledge, Speak Language as class skill). Her character sheet says she's a pure, straight-levelled Bard. But in the game world, no PC or NPC will call her a bard because she's not a wandering minstrel. Capiche? :confused: (If an Adept or Cleric or any nonDruid knows Druidic, they can teach it to any other character and face no penalties because mechanically they're not Druids as class. If you're willing to expand the druidic order and language outside of that one class, then it may make sense for penalties to sharing that language to apply to nonDruids within the order who break that taboo too. YMMV.) As I had said before, what I gave was just an example. A title is not a trait, and I had offered multiple times in this thread that by the process of elimination you can determine character class in-game. It's how you go by the process of elimination that is my point of contention. I generally draw the line at "fear my <insert attack name here>!" then attack roll. I believe in the subtle aspects of identification as I hate the whole Dragonball Z scouter-thing. If my players are fighting a paladin, I won't tell them, but if they inquire and make the appropriate rolls and deductions, then what they peg the man is will not be clouded by "(crusaders) are paladins too!" I have no contention here. Agreed. But it is immersive. They might run into a group of fur-wearing peoples that they might think are barbaric or primative. Then they learn that they are not, and the after-school special lession is learned. They learn something in-game and it makes them feel as if they are growing in the game as well - breaking the mold, so to speak. Also no contention. Not if those stereotypes are mechanically based. For instance, elves are short people - except in my setting (and in dragonlance). Here they are tall, and while height doesn't have a direct effect on the game, it can have one if mechanics are inserted for it. an example of this is a low-ceiling dwarven hallway; built 5ft tall (and 5ft wide)for medium creatures, non-dwarves - like humans, halk-orcs, and my elves all have to stoop, often near a foot. This provides a type of difficult terrain for them, and quite obviously won't allow certain weapons the advantage of their type (like a spiked chain for example). There are no direct mechanics that adjudicate this, but clearly the problem is mechanical in nature. To clarify, I don't believe in stereotypes=mechanical class boundaries. That's just not how I play, as you're doubtless now aware. This is what I've been implying the entire time. Unless a person said to you, "I am a King", or in the case of classes, "I am a Paladin", you wouldn't know without some type of investigation or probe. I wasn't saying "he uses lay-on hands on you because he is a paladin". I was saying " he lays his hands on you, and your wounds heal. Your spellcraft check reveals no spell was cast". That type of inference. This I can accept. Actually, we judge people by cover first, then by further examination afterwards. :bored:Maybe you do. Sure I make snap judgements, everyone does, but my snap judgements look more like a GURPS-esque "where did he put his points" than a D&D-esque "in what box does he fall". The saying "don't judge a book by it's cover" stems from people doing exactly the opposite. If a guy looks like a fighter, talks tough, and has the gear to back it up you're going to assume he is martially inclined and talk to him first (if you're looking for a fighter). The guy in the dirty shirt, drinking at the bar with only a cheap knife by his side is the guy you'll push outta the way to talk to said fighter-looking guy (even if he is the better fighter). Appearances can be decieving, but it is the first step to finding the truth. Doubtless. That doesn't make for any reason why an element on the character sheet needs to translate invariably into a big neon sign in-game. It isn't (soft) though. Building and RPing are two seperate skills; if you focus more on one than the other, then the other will lack. A true balance can only ever be an even mix; That it is more likely to ruin one or the other if the focus shifts to favor a side. And as I've said before, that's as senseless as saying that I have to choose between skill in chewing gum and walking my dog. To hold the opinion that trying to become good at both dancing and Muay Thai, or anthropology and cognitive science, is ignoring the fact that study in one may produce insights helpful in the other (concentration from Muay Thai to dance, posture and balance from dance to Muay Thai, so on so forth). It's a soft correlation. Both synergy and negative interference is possible. Being good at RP can only be attained by focusing on RP; focusing on building cannot make you a better RPer, so an over-abundance of building can cause a deficiency in RP. You can have varying degrees of both, but their percentages must be equal in order to balance each other. How deeply have you read through the rest of the thread, may I ask? This zero-sum game has been outed as a very incongruent way of looking at things numerous times. We don't hold this standard for integrating different activities in our home lives or at work. I don't see why we should do so in D&D. And example of this is if you only had enough time to put forth an effort of 100%; the mix then would have to be 50% RP, and 50% build. If you gleaned additional time somehow, then you can put forth 60% RP and 50% build (or vice-versa) as it becomes greater than the whole. But when you are offering 65% RP and 35% build, only to put forth 75% RP and 35% build with extra time, the problem becomes apparent. This is assuming that you can put forth 200% effort (spending time, perhaps alot of time outside of the game itself crafting your character, possibly getting a person that applies 100% building effort to help if you focused 100% on the RP). That's the other thing I dislike about the zero-sum game model. Where the hell is the Gameometer that measures how much of our effort we're splitting between RP and op? It makes no sense. I am a skilled COer; in about thirty minutes of work I can tighten a character to a level of optimization that would take others hours. This in turn gives me time to come up with a cool concept and flavor it to my mechanical planning. These duelling percentages bear little to no relation to how real-life dynamic play and preparation happen. Those that offer a good mix of both we call good players. Those that go above and beyond in an aspect without sacrificing or comprimising the other we call great players. Here's the standard difference. I think that if we stop pretending that they must be in opposition and recognize the value of the third skill in reconciling them, most players could be what you call "great players". I think your "great players" should be the standard for "normal players", and I don't think that's as hard as it sounds if we change the way we think about gaming.
Reality_Czech 03-17-08, 12:32 PM	Removing this because my tone didn't meet my intent. Hopefully the edit hits before anyone gets irritated.
Reality_Czech 03-19-08, 12:09 PM	I wonder why no one EVER seems to mention timing regarding all of this silly talk? Example #1: Before play even begins, I plan out from 1-20 my character's stat development. Example #2: During and After play, I plan out my next level or levels of my character's stat development. Example #1 is pure power gaming. I can't see how that can be contested. One simply has a stat sheet they are attempting to RP. Example #2 is where you can mesh both role-play with character optimization, and not have them conflict. In any other case, it's one or the other. So that's my contribution: Timing. The timing of the optimization is what settles this in my mind. Pre-game is Power Gaming, During or Post Game can easily be Role-Playing+Optimization without any interference of the two. I see no problem with deciding both after and during play "Hey, this feat would work really well CONSIDERING WHAT HAPPENED IN OUR STORY." But before play "Well this combination of feats/classes/stats etc produced the optimal healing/spells/damage etc." therefore that is what I am playing - clear Power Gaming prioritized OVER RP. Emphasis mine. I don't want to be excessively argumentative or appear sarcastic here, but I find it fallacious to assume that a level 1-20 "planned career path" is certain proof of power-gaming. What follows is an extreme example to illustrate this point: I want a really tough human Barbarian, who will be level 20 someday (I hope). I roll one 18 and decide that in keeping with this I'll put that 18 in my Constitution Score, granting me 4 additional hitpoints every time I level. I plan out my feats in advance thusly: Human Bonus Feat: Tougness Level 1 Feat: Toughness Level 3 Feat: Toughness Level 6 Feat: Toughness Level 9 Feat: Toughness Level 12 Feat: Toughness Level 15 Feat: Toughness Level 18 Feat: Toughness Now- Did I powergame? Your statement that any pre-arranged progression path is power-gaming does not stand to reason. I've gained 24 extra hitpoints by the time I hit level 18, which equals what I've gotten from CON bonuses by level 6 (Assuming I have no items that grant CON). My character has LOTS of hitpoints because he has d12 HD, high CON, and the Toughness Feat 8 times. I can take the Toughness Feat with minimal justification, since every time I get hit in combat I can say I'm learning to cope with the trauma better, thus making a case for the feat purchase regardless of campaign events (barring lack of combat for 3 consecutive levels.) Unfortunately, his WIS is only 12, making his (unbuffed) Will save an 8. He's one "Will save or die" away from dying for his whole career. In my opinion, you don't have to be a power-gamer to believe that this is a poor choice of Feats, but based on your statement it's always power-gaming so long as the decision is made in advance to follow this rediculous progression of Feats. If power-gaming is generating a character for mechanically superior ability, don't you have to show that every pre-planned build is excessively powerful when compared to an organically generated character for your statement to stand?
Dog_O_War 03-19-08, 12:48 PM	Emphasis mine. I don't want to be excessively argumentative or appear sarcastic here, but I find it fallacious to assume that a level 1-20 "planned career path" is certain proof of power-gaming. What follows is an extreme example to illustrate this point: I want a really tough human Barbarian, who will be level 20 someday (I hope). I roll one 18 and decide that in keeping with this I'll put that 18 in my Constitution Score, granting me 4 additional hitpoints every time I level. I plan out my feats in advance thusly: Human Bonus Feat: Tougness Level 1 Feat: Toughness Level 3 Feat: Toughness Level 6 Feat: Toughness Level 9 Feat: Toughness Level 12 Feat: Toughness Level 15 Feat: Toughness Level 18 Feat: Toughness Now- Did I powergame? Your statement that any pre-arranged progression path is power-gaming does not stand to reason. No, but say you ended up in a Japanese setting where very little conflict took place. You continued to advance as barbarian, yet were almost always in a court style setting. Here they make fun of your speech and mannerisms - this makes you angry and maybe a couple times you punch out a particularily rude and foppish noble. While you advance as barbarian (perhaps to represent your constant physical training you do while others are seeking more scholarly paths), you have a couple of choices here; you can put points into CC skills like diplomacy to save yourself some mounting embarassment, or you can fight the setting presented and only do barbarian class skills, like survival. While I wouldn't tell you what class you had to be, I find it incredibly counter-productive to work only for an apparently small aspect of the game at hand. You'd be focusing on one element - combat - and completely ignoring the rest of the game in favor of a specific type of power. It might seem like you are not power-gaming, due to setting constraints - but you know there will be combat, and it is only this you've cared about and focused on. This is what a pre-planned and inflexible build does. It assumes a specific story-line, and has no flexibility for change. What I don't understand is that people will argue that fluff is mutable, but will never be mutable themselves as far as game and setting goes. Why should a DM have to tell you what the game will be like 20 levels from now, just so you don't make an inappropriate build? What if he didn't know? Why should you demand to read the end of the book before the beginning to know what will work out in-game? This is all "classes aside" (I know I will never convince anyone here that immutible fluff for a class is why builds suck - people just don't like a solid fluff-based world anymore it seems). This means that you're continually advancing as per build specs instead of campaign specs - If you played a game and it continued to advance with zero combat, would you not have more fun changing a build (built to powergame in combat) to a diplomatic focus (one fitting the setting)? Instead of being sour that your "DM screwed your character because he didn't include element X", is it not appropriate to bend in the breeze instead of breaking in the gail? I believe this is what SupaTalka so uncouthly said. I've gained 24 extra hitpoints by the time I hit level 18, which equals what I've gotten from CON bonuses by level 6 (Assuming I have no items that grant CON). My character has LOTS of hitpoints because he has d12 HD, high CON, and the Toughness Feat 8 times. I can take the Toughness Feat with minimal justification, since every time I get hit in combat I can say I'm learning to cope with the trauma better, thus making a case for the feat purchase regardless of campaign events (barring lack of combat for 3 consecutive levels.) Unfortunately, his WIS is only 12, making his (unbuffed) Will save an 8. He's one "Will save or die" away from dying for his whole career. In my opinion, you don't have to be a power-gamer to believe that this is a poor choice of Feats, but based on your statement it's always power-gaming so long as the decision is made in advance to follow this rediculous progression of Feats. Congradulations - you've powergamed for combat. You just did it really badly. If power-gaming is generating a character for mechanically superior ability, don't you have to show that every pre-planned build is excessively powerful when compared to an organically generated character for your statement to stand? Maybe a build isn't power-gaming exactly. But it is counter-intuitive to setting - when with a bit of flexability applied becomes synergistic with the gameworld, offering a better mesh with versimilitude instead of a possibly brazen and grating "build" made (often) for only one aspect of a game.
Reality_Czech 03-19-08, 02:04 PM	No, but say you ended up in a Japanese setting where very little conflict took place. You continued to advance as barbarian, yet were almost always in a court style setting. Here they make fun of your speech and mannerisms - this makes you angry and maybe a couple times you punch out a particularily rude and foppish noble. I'd view punching a noble as poor role-play in many cases. If you're in court, you succeed by convincing others your view is valid. Punching someone in a throne room isn't persuasive, it's stupid. In the case of a big, strong Barbarian, I'd be more likely to use class skills like Intimidate or cross-class skills like Diplomacy or Sense Motive to make myself understood than beating people up. That's not playing a barbarian, that's playing a fool. Alternately, he could quietly believe the nobles are simply wrong or misunderstand his way (as he does not understand them) and remain silent. "My father told me never to try to understand your kind, or to make them understand me. That is because you are a breed apart and make no sense." If you say staying a Barbarian in this setting is poor role-play, I would offer that perhaps the character's ties to his heritage, oath to become a champion of (insert valued concept here), or desire to bind more closely with his animal totem could supersede his desire to convince the Japanese nobles that his way is right. A 12 Wisdom is enough for him to know that his beliefs can be valid even if those around him laugh at them. While you advance as barbarian (perhaps to represent your constant physical training you do while others are seeking more scholarly paths), you have a couple of choices here; you can put points into CC skills like diplomacy to save yourself some mounting embarassment, or you can fight the setting presented and only do barbarian class skills, like survival. I'd say that the Feats I pick aren't my character; they're just a small part, ditto on his skills. Also, if my character concept is one of "bond with nature and the totem of the raging bear", I could easily role-play that he understands that the Japanese Nobles don't like him or understand him, but that his quest to attain perfect harmony with Bear supersede that. I don't view this as "fighting against the setting" so much as I do "having personal values at odds with one's surroundings". He might feel that the whole country was full of heathen, foppish, hypocrites, but that doesn’t mean he'd be forced to beat up anyone he didn't agree with. While I wouldn't tell you what class you had to be, I find it incredibly counter-productive to work only for an apparently small aspect of the game at hand. You'd be focusing on one element - combat - ... If I really wanted to be great in combat I'd make a Druid, Cleric, or Wizard. ...and completely ignoring the rest of the game in favor of a specific type of power. It might seem like you are not power-gaming, due to setting constraints - but you know there will be combat, and it is only this you've cared about and focused on. Maybe I only care about character development, so selecting Toughness 8 times is fine by me. Maybe I planned in advance to make a suboptimal character so I could forget about it for the rest of the game and focus on role-playing to the exclusion of all else. My point is planning in advance is not positive proof of power gaming, nor is it fundamentally counter to role-play. This is what a pre-planned and inflexible build does. It assumes a specific story-line, and has no flexibility for change. What I don't understand is that people will argue that fluff is mutable, but will never be mutable themselves as far as game and setting goes. Why should a DM have to tell you what the game will be like 20 levels from now, just so you don't make an inappropriate build? What if he didn't know? Why should you demand to read the end of the book before the beginning to know what will work out in-game? I'll offer two counter-examples that I think illustrate that a 20 level planned path are not necessarily restricted by events, based on in character decisions: First Example: My Barbarian has a spiritual link with "Raging Bear". This link is innate and has the potential to make him as strong and dangerous as a level 20 barbarian, if only he can fully establish his link with the totem. Every day he prays to Bear (unless extreme events prevent this), and therefore further realizes his link with bear every time he levels. Regardless of external events, he gains power solely by not adding power, but realizing it was there the whole time. Even if he spends 6 months gaining experience ONLY from non-combat interaction, he continues to buy levels of Barbarian. To him, the path is a religion, and ignoring his religion because people question its validity would be weak, capricious, and not consistent with his character background. Second Example: A wizard has wanted to be the greatest scholar and shaper of arcane power since he apprenticed at a wizard's guild since he was eight years old. He studied hard every day and pursued greater knowledge of arcane power every chance he got. He is highly intelligent, bookish, and not exceptionally talented at social interaction, since most of his time is spent reading rather than interacting with others. He suffers from a semi-stereotypical problem: he's been bad at talking to others for so long that he's convinced himself it's unimportant. He shrugs off his shortcomings and continues to study magic, lore, and arcane secrets. Since this character will be virtually impossible to convince that magic is less important than social interaction, I can plot his Feats in advance, selecting those that show a progression of magical enlightenment. I won't care what the Japanese nobles talk about enough to change my life's work, unless something really dramatic occurs. In both of these cases, the character concept drives the progression of class levels and Feats, not the external events. The point I'm showing here is both of these characters progress in a predictable path because their personal values, desires, and interests are paramount. In neither case have I created a "powergamed" character concept (in my opinion). However, by the original statement that I contested: Originally Posted by SupaTalka: Example #1 is pure power gaming. I can't see how that can be contested. One simply has a stat sheet they are attempting to RP. I have powergamed by planning in advance what my character cared about. My post was created to refute this statement as logically as I could. This is all "classes aside" (I know I will never convince anyone here that immutible fluff for a class is why builds suck - people just don't like a solid fluff-based world anymore it seems). You'll convince some. If you were alone in your opinion this would have been a much shorter thread. This means that you're continually advancing as per build specs instead of campaign specs - If you played a game and it continued to advance with zero combat, would you not have more fun changing a build (built to powergame in combat) to a diplomatic focus (one fitting the setting)? I might, but if my goal is to role-play a character with a specific goal in mind, I would prefer to make changing an option, not be accused of being a powergamer if I didn't submit. I can see a Cleric changing his religion in-game due to external events, but it'd take a pretty good reason. If the player dropped his religion because noone believed as he did and he was being persecuted, I'd actually be more inclined to call that a metagame decision, inasmuch as he's dropping character values in exchange for mechanical value. (In this case the value is not being chased by angry mobs of infidels.) In history and fantasy, heros stick by their beliefs to the death in many cases, and it's cast as more heroic than bending to the vagaries of fate. If the player sees his character changing alignments, religions, or classes, I personally am more inclined to be forgiving of this, but if the DM dictates that failure to change character concept = bad role-play, no matter what, I predict I will have less fun, because I feel that I'm being forced to abandon my concept. I don't need a horrendously munchkin build to value the original character concept I came up with, I just have to care enough to play it for 20 levels. Instead of being sour that your "DM screwed your character because he didn't include element X", is it not appropriate to bend in the breeze instead of breaking in the gail? I believe this is what SupaTalka so uncouthly said. As I said, it's only appropriate if it appropriate in character. If I have to make a decision not consistent with my character's belief's values in order to "bend like a reed" then I'm going to feel dissatisfied with the gaming experience. Congradulations - you've powergamed for combat. You just did it really badly. As I said before, maybe I just did this to get the mechanics out of the way and get into character. That's not powergaming, IMO. Selecting 8 terrible feats can show indifference just as easily as it can show incompetence. Maybe a build isn't power-gaming exactly. But it is counter-intuitive to setting - when with a bit of flexability applied becomes synergistic with the gameworld, offering a better mesh with versimilitude instead of a possibly brazen and grating "build" made (often) for only one aspect of a game. Not everyone wants to fit in with their surroundings. If my Bear totem Barbarian suddenly decided to ignore his father's teaching, his cultural values, and the very real bond (to him) with the Raging bear, I'd view that as loss of verisimilitude. If I as the player decide to be swayed by differing cultural values, that's ok. If you say my failure to be swayed is poor role-play, I disagree. A Christian can live in India for 35 years and not come back a Hindu. EDIT: More thoughts: First point- I think it seems narrow-minded to suggest a 1-20 Barbarian with nothing but Toughness Feats can't be role-played satisfactorily in a Japanese Court Setting. He may not fit in, but that dosen't mean he can't be role-played to be a character of depth while contributing meaningfully to events in the plot. Second point- A character without a pre-planned Feat list can still have a game event "ruin" his character. Player: I want to be a Dragon Slayer! GM: That class dosen't exist. Player: Right, I know, I just want to play a guy whose greatest hero was a dragon slayer and he wants to do that himself. GM: How do you see making him? Player: I dunno, even a Fighter could do that if I played him right, couldn't he? Let's just say Fighter for now and work out the details as I level, ok? GM: Sure thing. You know you probably won't kill any dragon until you're at least level 10, right? Player: Sure, right, of course. I'll work my way up to it. I'm not trying to make some minimax level 1 dragon slayer <laughs> GM: Ok, so you're a level 1 Fighter and you want to be a Dragon Slayer someday. Player: Yeah, I wrote this 5-page backstory and drew a picture of him. Well, two actually, because I also drew on of him later in his career standing on the corpse of a Dragon. GM: I'll look this over, but sounds ok to me. --Three Months Later--- Player: OK! I'm level 12, and I've taken a lot of time finding out where this dragon lives. <Addressing the party> Would you guys come and help me kill this dragon? I'd be realizing a lifetime dream! GM: Oh, the king has decreed killing Dragons is now illegal and punishable by death. Player: What?! That ruins my whole character concept. GM: Sorry, this is my world and the king has perfectly reasonable justifications for passing the law. Why not just change your character concept? Player: The whole reason this guy was adventuring in the first place was to hone his skills and one day kill a dragon! GM: You don't always get what you want. Player: I'm going to my office. They don't give me what I want either, but they pay me to be there. If I wanted disappointing experiences after work I'd have gotten a second job. I know this is heavy-handed, but the player had a very specific goal, but in no way powergamed (by any definition I can find in this thread). A random event ruined his character concept regardless. Ergo, while making a 1-20 build progression could ruin your plans in light of in-game events, the 1-20 build does not guarantee that disappointment, nor does the lack of prior plan and organic build style prevent it. Planned growth 1-20 is not equal to disappointing gaming. Avoiding planning you character is not equal to guaranteed rewarding gaming.
Vaelan 03-19-08, 02:12 PM	You can only refute one side of a "can vs. will" argument with specific examples, Dog. Considering that this is about the seventeenth time in this topic that someone has tried to refute the wrong side of the argument with an example, I'd imagine you would have picked up on this by now. No, but say you ended up in a Japanese setting where very little conflict took place. If you're playing such a game, you shouldn't be playing D&D. There are many systems that are far more suited towards such games. Maybe a build isn't power-gaming exactly. But it is counter-intuitive to setting This is one of those points that gets bandied about but is never really supported. Here's a hint: when you have to propose a campaign that would be better served by practically any other roleplaying game on the market, you aren't supporting your argument well.
Dog_O_War 03-19-08, 03:07 PM	You can only refute one side of a "can vs. will" argument with specific examples, Dog. Considering that this is about the seventeenth time in this topic that someone has tried to refute the wrong side of the argument with an example, I'd imagine you would have picked up on this by now. I never refuted anything - no "can vs. will" was offered at all. I gave a clarification, and offered a generic example with an easily identifiable theme (Japanese court) so a person could better grasp the example without having to go into extreme detail. Also, this is boardering on 'attack' here with that bottom sentence. If you're playing such a game, you shouldn't be playing D&D. There are many systems that are far more suited towards such games. This is a smoke-screen that has nothing to do with the matter at hand. Offer a proper example next time instead of tactics that are evasive to the questions and statements presented. Also, I have to ask; who are you to tell people what games they should play? This is one of those points that gets bandied about but is never really supported. Here's a hint: when you have to propose a campaign that would be better served by practically any other roleplaying game on the market, you aren't supporting your argument well. Birthwright anyone? Or is that not D&D enough? There are other examples I could have presented, such as a setting that was a war-torn, undead apocolypse style game - yet a player (after learning this in-game) stills wants an all traps/diplomacy rogue. Build = counter-intuitive to setting. Yet you'll find that not having a build is never counter-intuitive to the setting, as it allows the flexability to adapt right from the start. Basically if one way offers no problems, and the other offers a myrad of potential problems - why then do people insist of picking the potentially disasterous route? I'm not saying a person shouldn't have goals, I'm just saying that telling the DM what you'd like to be, while retaining an open mind and flexable concept incase of future problems is akin to honey; as opposed to any of the above examples I have offered, which is vinegar as far as us flies are concerned. One offers something sweet in the end, while the other offers a possible sour-face.
Alpha_Moose 03-19-08, 04:06 PM	No, but say you ended up in a Japanese setting where very little conflict took place. Mind if I stop you there? I don't think anyone is really arguing that making a 20 level build ignoring setting is good roleplaying. Really it is just as bad as having a character's background not match up to the setting. Whether or not the guy has made a 20th level build for his Dragon Slayer, if there are no dragons in this world it's a bad concept. Also I notice that we are only dwelling on the PC side of things. Wouldn't it be just as bad for a DM to 'build' his whole campaign in advance with no regard toward the players or setting? Shouldn't the DM and players work together to create the campaign that fits the setting (or a setting that fits the campaign)? This is all "classes aside" (I know I will never convince anyone here that immutible fluff for a class is why builds suck - people just don't like a solid fluff-based world anymore it seems). I think you might want to rethink the highlighted text. I hate immutable fluff for class not because I don't have a fluff-based world, but because I hate the idea that a class is more important than a character. In my mind a class is only a collection of abilities and an in-game title is different than an out-of-game title. Just because a character's called a wizard or witch in game doesn't mean they are called that on their stat block. Of course it seems we are passed that argument, so you can ignore what I've just said.
RobbyPants 03-19-08, 04:15 PM	I think you might want to rethink the highlighted text. I hate immutable fluff for class not because I don't have a fluff-based world, but because I hate the idea that a class is more important than a character. In my mind a class is only a collection of abilities and an in-game title is different than an out-of-game title. Just because a character's called a wizard or witch in game doesn't mean they are called that on their stat block. +1 Nicely put.
Dog_O_War 03-19-08, 04:21 PM	Just a brief note here; I just realized how hypocritical I'm being here. I offered that I wouldn't respond unless specifically asked to, yet here I am with my big mouth wide open. Oh well; in for a penny, in for a pound I guess. I'd view punching a noble as poor role-play in many cases. If you're in court, you succeed by convincing others your view is valid. Punching someone in a throne room isn't persuasive, it's stupid. In the case of a big, strong Barbarian, I'd be more likely to use class skills like Intimidate or cross-class skills like Diplomacy or Sense Motive to make myself understood than beating people up. That's not playing a barbarian, that's playing a fool. This didn't have anything to do with RP - I offered that the build in question is at odds with the setting because the builder felt he couldn't give up class skills for cross-class ones to better fit into the game (or this particular aspect there of). Alternately, he could quietly believe the nobles are simply wrong or misunderstand his way (as he does not understand them) and remain silent. "My father told me never to try to understand your kind, or to make them understand me. That is because you are a breed apart and make no sense." I have a feeling he'll be silent quite a bit - which is what I was saying in the first place. Like going to the pool but refusing to swim because you don't want to borrow some trunks (that may sound gross, but assume they're clean, adjustable fit trunks made for your gender). If you say staying a Barbarian in this setting is poor role-play, I would offer that perhaps the character's ties to his heritage, oath to become a champion of (insert valued concept here), or desire to bind more closely with his animal totem could supersede his desire to convince the Japanese nobles that his way is right. A 12 Wisdom is enough for him to know that his beliefs can be valid even if those around him laugh at them. You need no stat to tell you your beliefs are valid. Infact, the lower the stat the more valid your beliefs become. Seriously though, the barbarian isn't poor RP as class does not give you a persona (though it may add to it - outlook and all, "why barbarian over fighter?" and all that). Offering to take ranks in diplomacy over just dumping them into jump/climb/swim/survival shows that the character is growing in-game (atleast from the mechanical perspective). Instead of doing the same stuff he's done for the last ten levels, maybe he begins to feel that being the toughest person around isn't all there is to life. Maybe he begins to feel the spiritual end of that totem of his, and begins to take feats like educated, persuasive, and skill focus(diplomacy). While he hasn't given up his old life style (perhaps he still decorates himself with furs and charms and pigfat-greased hair), he may have adopted other things to show culturalization - like a kimono, and daisho - as apposed to the greataxe he previously carried (or what ever weapon; not important). I'd say that the Feats I pick aren't my character; they're just a small part, ditto on his skills. Also, if my character concept is one of "bond with nature and the totem of the raging bear", I could easily role-play that he understands that the Japanese Nobles don't like him or understand him, but that his quest to attain perfect harmony with Bear supersede that. I don't view this as "fighting against the setting" so much as I do "having personal values at odds with one's surroundings". He might feel that the whole country was full of heathen, foppish, hypocrites, but that doesn’t mean he'd be forced to beat up anyone he didn't agree with. I agree that feats are not the character - niether are skills, class, or race; but they all add to it. Not one thing of the previous subtracts. The "punching out the nobles" bit was just background filler for the example - I just offered that as an example of how a person at odds with his surroundings might react. But when the surroundings become familiar, transforming into setting - this is when a person begins to fight the setting. He might seek out certain locales to better feel at one with nature, but there will come a point when he clues in that this is his new home. Maybe I only care about character development, so selecting Toughness 8 times is fine by me. Maybe I planned in advance to make a suboptimal character so I could forget about it for the rest of the game and focus on role-playing to the exclusion of all else. My point is planning in advance is not positive proof of power gaming, nor is it fundamentally counter to role-play. Just because a person can "build poorly" does not change the fact that he built instead of grew in the first place. Everyone requires a bit of a build (first level, or whatever the starting level is), and I agree whole-heartedly that a person benefits from a leveling guideline, but when that guideline is set in stone - this is where problems arise. I'll offer two counter-examples that I think illustrate that a 20 level planned path are not necessarily restricted by events, based on in character decisions: First Example: My Barbarian has a spiritual link with "Raging Bear". This link is innate and has the potential to make him as strong and dangerous as a level 20 barbarian, if only he can fully establish his link with the totem. Every day he prays to Bear (unless extreme events prevent this), and therefore further realizes his link with bear every time he levels. Regardless of external events, he gains power solely by not adding power, but realizing it was there the whole time. Even if he spends 6 months gaining experience ONLY from non-combat interaction, he continues to buy levels of Barbarian. To him, the path is a religion, and ignoring his religion because people question its validity would be weak, capricious, and not consistent with his character background. Second Example: A wizard has wanted to be the greatest scholar and shaper of arcane power since he apprenticed at a wizard's guild since he was eight years old. He studied hard every day and pursued greater knowledge of arcane power every chance he got. He is highly intelligent, bookish, and not exceptionally talented at social interaction, since most of his time is spent reading rather than interacting with others. He suffers from a semi-stereotypical problem: he's been bad at talking to others for so long that he's convinced himself it's unimportant. He shrugs off his shortcomings and continues to study magic, lore, and arcane secrets. Since this character will be virtually impossible to convince that magic is less important than social interaction, I can plot his Feats in advance, selecting those that show a progression of magical enlightenment. I won't care what the Japanese nobles talk about enough to change my life's work, unless something really dramatic occurs. Now say at 12th level you got ahold of a scroll of Disjunction, and used it on an artifact - knowing full well the price. You fail the will save and lose all your magic. This would qualify as a dramatic event obviously, but I hope you see how a build is counter to what the current reality of a character's situation might be. In both of these cases, the character concept drives the progression of class levels and Feats, not the external events. The point I'm showing here is both of these characters progress in a predictable path because their personal values, desires, and interests are paramount. In neither case have I created a "powergamed" character concept (in my opinion). I suppose it depends on the setting and the actual builds to determine "powergaming". But a build is the first step towards this path; it also comes with its own problems (re: spellcaster disjunction as above). However, by the original statement that I contested: I have powergamed by planning in advance what my character cared about. My post was created to refute this statement as logically as I could. No arguement here; though as SupaTalka put it; RPing a stat-sheet is a rather flat character if he never reacts to the setting around him. You'll convince some. If you were alone in your opinion this would have been a much shorter thread. Once in a while I do I suppose. But I come from a alien gaming environment (apparently) where my views on things differ quite a bit from both sides of the spectrum. I might, but if my goal is to role-play a character with a specific goal in mind, I would prefer to make changing an option, not be accused of being a powergamer if I didn't submit. I can see a Cleric changing his religion in-game due to external events, but it'd take a pretty good reason. If the player sees his character changing alignments, religions, or classes, I personally am more inclined to be forgiving of this, but if the DM dictates that failure to change character concept = bad role-play, no matter what, I predict I will have less fun, because I feel that I'm being forced to abandon my concept. I don't need a horrendously munchkin build to value the original character concept I came up with, I just have to care enough to play it for 20 levels. That's all I'm saying people should do; keep options open as far as character stats are concerned, not feel the character is ruined because prestige class X couldn't be taken at level 10, having to wait until level 11. As I said, it's only appropriate if it appropriate in character. If I have to make a decision not consistent with my character's belief's values in order to "bend like a reed" then I'm going to feel dissatisfied with the gaming experience. Beliefs are for extremists. This is off-topic here, but unwavering beliefs people have are why we humans war with eachother every day. No one is willing to bend - only break eachother.[/off-topic] I'd never require a cleric worship something he didn't want to (defeats the purpose of the class's concept), but a person has to realize that marching down the street with a banner saying "HEXTOR RULEZ" in a town that worships Heironeous is going to invite conflict. As I said before, maybe I just did this to get the mechanics out of the way and get into character. That's not powergaming, IMO. Selecting 8 terrible feats can show indifference just as easily as it can show incompetence. Feats aside - it really depends on the concept; do you see your well RPed character as competent at what he does, or an object of embarassment? How would you react if you were in a foreign country with customs so alien to your own? Basically it comes down to "how stubborn is your character, and all your other characters? - if it's just the one character I'd call it good RP, but if it is a common theme, I call that player stagnation - it's like always trying to play batman or having characters with the same name over and over again." Not everyone wants to fit in with their surroundings. If my Bear totem Barbarian suddenly decided to ignore his father's teaching, his cultural values, and the very real bond (to him) with the Raging bear, I'd view that as loss of verisimilitude. If I as the player decide to be swayed by differing cultural values, that's ok. If you say my failure to be swayed is poor role-play, I disagree. A Christian can live in India for 35 years and not come back a Hindu. A christian cannot live in India for 35 years though and not eat Indian quizine. They tend to die after a few months (heh). Religion (as akin to class) needn't change, but I'd offer that other aspects should. It's not like he'll be eating beef while he's there. Alternatively if he was trying to join the Canadian or American army while in India, I'd find that alittle hard to believe (as some builds would propose). And I'd hardly say that reworking the "fluff" of a class to allow for the same mechcanics of "soldier" across the globe - quality of the training and all that.
Dog_O_War 03-19-08, 04:50 PM	Mind if I stop you there? I don't think anyone is really arguing that making a 20 level build ignoring setting is good roleplaying. Really it is just as bad as having a character's background not match up to the setting. Whether or not the guy has made a 20th level build for his Dragon Slayer, if there are no dragons in this world it's a bad concept. Also I notice that we are only dwelling on the PC side of things. Wouldn't it be just as bad for a DM to 'build' his whole campaign in advance with no regard toward the players or setting? Shouldn't the DM and players work together to create the campaign that fits the setting (or a setting that fits the campaign)? World. Campaign. Setting. All different things here - the world is the DM's creation that the players live and breathe in. It is changed in-play, so no players should have no say in what it is to be like initially - they are not playing gods after all, and we don't choose the place we are born into. The campaign is what the two of them (players and DM) end up with - this is what the game accumulates into, so neither get a choice in how it is to happen. Player X dies due to bad rolls in a "boss" fight. Not his choice, so the players deal with it - this is an event in the campaign. Setting - this is where the only colaberation need take place. Players want a gritty setting based around an occupying army of evil clerics - one that would let them full-fill a rogue style game. DM wants more brazen conflicts with dragons and such. This is where they comprimize - occupying army are draconic in nature, and to help the rogue-style characters he gives them a 20 HP campaign bonus to begin with, so that they might better survive a brazen and brutal conflict between his NPC's and the PC's. But hey, I might be crazy.
Alpha_Moose 03-19-08, 07:19 PM	World. Campaign. Setting. All different things here - the world is the DM's creation that the players live and breathe in. It is changed in-play, so no players should have no say in what it is to be like initially - they are not playing gods after all, and we don't choose the place we are born into. But isn't a character's background in a way changing the world initially? They usually do get to choose where they are born in the world, what their race is, who there family is, etc. Players already get some control over the DM's world, even if they shouldn't make all the choices.The campaign is what the two of them (players and DM) end up with - this is what the game accumulates into, so neither get a choice in how it is to happen. Player X dies due to bad rolls in a "boss" fight. Not his choice, so the players deal with it - this is an event in the campaign. However many times the DM does know how the campaign will resolve, especially DMs who use premade adventures. Many DMs map out an entire campaign. Of course this could be as bad as a player having a build that's counter to the campaign. Do you think that a DM railroading his players is the same as a player insisting on a certain build? Setting - this is where the only colaberation need take place. Players want a gritty setting based around an occupying army of evil clerics - one that would let them full-fill a rogue style game. DM wants more brazen conflicts with dragons and such. This is where they comprimize - occupying army are draconic in nature, and to help the rogue-style characters he gives them a 20 HP campaign bonus to begin with, so that they might better survive a brazen and brutal conflict between his NPC's and the PC's. But hey, I might be crazy. Not at all. I think we might just be switching up the words. I am glad that we agree that the DM and players should compromise on the setting. However that could end up changing the world, which is in a way just the DM's character. To make my point clearer; a build for a character is in my view the same as a DM having a premade campaign. As long as both are flexible and do not inhibit the fun of others in the group they are fine. I've always seen builds more as guidelines so I don't have to worry about my character's advancement during the game, but I don't follow it blindly. I do the same for a campaign. I'll make a guideline for how it will go so I'm not struggling to make up stuff on the spot, but I try to be flexible on its events. Hopefully that clarifies some things. @RobbyPants: Thanks.
Reality_Czech 03-20-08, 08:05 AM	Just a brief note here; I just realized how hypocritical I'm being here. I offered that I wouldn't respond unless specifically asked to, yet here I am with my big mouth wide open. Oh well; in for a penny, in for a pound I guess. It happens, I made a promise to myself I wouldn't get into this debate because I already know how I feel... I guess articulating my views may help me understand them better. This didn't have anything to do with RP - I offered that the build in question is at odds with the setting because the builder felt he couldn't give up class skills for cross-class ones to better fit into the game (or this particular aspect there of). I hate to quibble, but I made no mention of skill at any point in the skeletal build I used as an example, so you're only able to assume that all my skill points would be spent in Class Skills. All I did was select suboptimal feats to demonstrate that "having a plan" does not guarantee "powergaming". This was my thesis statement. Again, the purpose of this fragmentary "build" was to prove a point, not be an example of a character I intended (or indeed wanted) to play. I have a feeling he'll be silent quite a bit - which is what I was saying in the first place. Like going to the pool but refusing to swim because you don't want to borrow some trunks (that may sound gross, but assume they're clean, adjustable fit trunks made for your gender). Don't worry, I wasn't offended by the idea of borrowing trunks. If my character can be quiet sometimes and still contribute meaningfully to the campaign, I don't see an issue here. Also, I'd expect to be told in advance "Expect to go for whole levels of experience without any combat" before entering the campaign. I'd plan out a different path, or resign myself in advance to having a marginal role. You need no stat to tell you your beliefs are valid. Infact, the lower the stat the more valid your beliefs become. I'm not sure what you mean by this, could you restate and/or elaborate? I'm not going o respond unless I'm more convinced I know what you mean. Seriously though, the barbarian isn't poor RP as class does not give you a persona (though it may add to it - outlook and all, "why barbarian over fighter?" and all that). Offering to take ranks in diplomacy over just dumping them into jump/climb/swim/survival shows that the character is growing in-game (atleast from the mechanical perspective). Instead of doing the same stuff he's done for the last ten levels, maybe he begins to feel that being the toughest person around isn't all there is to life. Maybe he begins to feel the spiritual end of that totem of his, and begins to take feats like educated, persuasive, and skill focus(diplomacy). I'd think that selecting feats specifically to make him more effective in the event of challenge, even if they are "feats like educated, persuasive, and skill focus(diplomacy)" could be more aptly described as powergaming, since I am looking at the challenges I expect to run into and mechanically adjusting my character to "win" next time around. I'm not suggesting that these feats are actually powergaming, but they are arguably more so than (Toughness X3). I hope I'm clear with what I'm saying here... assuming powergaming is generating a character for mechanically superior ability, your suggestion that I adjust my feats to excel in the court are actually (technically) powergaming. This becomes doubly true if I depart from my character concept to do it. While he hasn't given up his old life style (perhaps he still decorates himself with furs and charms and pigfat-greased hair), he may have adopted other things to show culturalization - like a kimono, and daisho - as apposed to the greataxe he previously carried (or what ever weapon; not important). I'm going to assume this is just a general example, dropping armor for a silk robe and completely changing his choice of weapon seems extreme in my opinion. Actually, since we've been talking about this hypothetical character for a few days now, I'm starting to get an image in my mind, and I pictured him being a grappler, maybe using knives in addition. At any rate, I think you're just saying he would change as a result of his environment, but I content that most the changes that are necessary to suspend disbelief won't wind up on his character sheet, but rather will be expressed though my role-playing. I agree that feats are not the character - niether are skills, class, or race; but they all add to it. Not one thing of the previous subtracts. The "punching out the nobles" bit was just background filler for the example - I just offered that as an example of how a person at odds with his surroundings might react. But when the surroundings become familiar, transforming into setting - this is when a person begins to fight the setting. He might seek out certain locales to better feel at one with nature, but there will come a point when he clues in that this is his new home. One can always find things about their surroundings that speak to their desires, values and goals. The only question I see here from a roleplay perspective is will my character change his goals in response to the change in environment? He might decide bonding with Raging Bear is no longer worthwhile, effectively changing his religion. He might redefine his spriritual goal to get along with the local nobles. He might get to know commoners that seem more like "his people" and maybe even try to open a church to Raging Bear. The point is all of these are player decisions, and the foremost factor should be his character concept. Not to the exclusion of environment and setting, but character concept should come first, IMO. Just because a person can "build poorly" does not change the fact that he built instead of grew in the first place. Everyone requires a bit of a build (first level, or whatever the starting level is), and I agree whole-heartedly that a person benefits from a leveling guideline, but when that guideline is set in stone - this is where problems arise. Building poorly was an intentional example given specifically to show that not all preplanned building is powergaming. That's all it was for. As to being built instead of grown, sure he is. Most of the time when I have a character concept I have at least a rough idea of how he'll look at high levels. Planning out Feats, Spells, Invocations, Powers, or other salient abilities ahead of time are my way of making sure that the idea I came up with is mechanically possible. I'd hate to play a guy to level 15 and then realize I forgot a prerequisite and missed out on what I was trying for. Think of it as writing down directions for a drive across the country... or better yet, a backpacking trip across the country. A little preparedness is not only beneficial, but helps you to prepare for the unexpected through backward planning. Many authors backward plan their plots, and whether I'm a player or a DM I like to feel as if I'm helping to write the story... cooperatively. Now say at 12th level you got ahold of a scroll of Disjunction, and used it on an artifact - knowing full well the price. You fail the will save and lose all your magic. This would qualify as a dramatic event obviously, but I hope you see how a build is counter to what the current reality of a character's situation might be. If I hadn't plotted out the Wizard's Feats would his inability to use magic be less vexing? I'd have to say any character who now has 12 levels of non-casting wizard is going to have a hard time contributing to the party, whether he had a list of feats in mind from level 1 or not. I don't think this proves the point that planning ahead is more likely to result in an unsatisfactory gaming experience. I suppose it depends on the setting and the actual builds to determine "powergaming". But a build is the first step towards this path; it also comes with its own problems (re: spellcaster disjunction as above). Ok, so what is considered is powergaming is variable based on the tastes of a specific individual. I think I've reached the point I intended if you concede that. Again, the only way a build is a step on the path to losing all a wizard's magic is if the DM wants that to occur. As a DM I'd happily fudge whatever dice roll indicated the Wizard lost their Spells, the Fighter lost his legs, or something equally crippling to a character concept. Don't blind your player's character unless it's consistent with the story to do so. I hate to make a movie reference, but at the end of the Matrix 3 (I don't remember the name), Neo got blinded, but that allowed the revelation of his vision having transcended normal sight. Also, he wasn’t long for the earth when this happened anyhow. No arguement here; though as SupaTalka put it; RPing a stat-sheet is a rather flat character if he never reacts to the setting around him. I can react to my environment without consulting my character sheet. Especially out of combat. If most of the game session is dialogue, I'll probably leave my binder closed most of the night. I won't be "RPing a state sheet." If you, SupaTalka, or others have had bad experiences with people whose play styles are superficially similar to people like me, don't assume we're the same. Also, don't assume your bad experience was the only way it could have panned out. I've played with groups that valued role-play to the exclusion of nearly all else, and I've played with people that treated D&D as a tactical combat simulation. I've enjoyed both. I'll withhold my personal opinions about which "part of the game" is better, save to say that you can RP in combat and mechanically and mathematically evaluate noncombat interaction. In the end what matters is the gaming experience, not specifically what's going on in each person's head to produce the experience. Once in a while I do I suppose. But I come from a alien gaming environment (apparently) where my views on things differ quite a bit from both sides of the spectrum. It's fine to have your own opinion. So long as you realize that: 1) I might not always agree, and 2) Who cares? I'm just some guy, you know? It's not a problem. If you have a group of players who see things your way and enjoy playing in your games, go to town! I won't accuse you of having badfun, being a drama queen, or crushing the creativity of your players. In return I ask you to trust me when I tell you that I can plan my character in advance and enjoy playing him, no matter what. (so far, I suppose this might change one day.) That's all I'm saying people should do; keep options open as far as character stats are concerned, not feel the character is ruined because prestige class X couldn't be taken at level 10, having to wait until level 11. Emphasis mine. I see what you're saying, but you'll have to accept that some people will always disregard your preferences on what "people should do." Some people are all about the build and they're not wrong. Others are all about the RP and they're not wrong either. In my personal opinion, the only ones that are truly wrong are those that look at others and say "No! you're wrong! Stop having fun that way!" Beliefs are for extremists. This is off-topic here, but unwavering beliefs people have are why we humans war with eachother every day. No one is willing to bend - only break eachother.[/off-topic] I'm a 14-year Army Veteran. I know what you're saying. In that spirit, be very careful about saying or even thinking anything that starts with "everyone should do this like I do..." That way lies holy war. Yes, I'm serious. I'd never require a cleric worship something he didn't want to (defeats the purpose of the class's concept), but a person has to realize that marching down the street with a banner saying "HEXTOR RULEZ" in a town that worships Heironeous is going to invite conflict. If the Cleric feels he should try to convert people, he's going to try it. If he's got any sense, he'll do it in a way that'll improve his chances of having another go at it the following day. Feats aside - it really depends on the concept; do you see your well RPed character as competent at what he does, or an object of embarassment? How would you react if you were in a foreign country with customs so alien to your own? Basically it comes down to "how stubborn is your character, and all your other characters? - if it's just the one character I'd call it good RP, but if it is a common theme, I call that player stagnation - it's like always trying to play batman or having characters with the same name over and over again." It'd depend on the character concept and the environment. A christian cannot live in India for 35 years though and not eat Indian quizine. They tend to die after a few months (heh). I'm sorry but I have to say it... Not if he kept taking ranks in survival! :D Religion (as akin to class) needn't change, but I'd offer that other aspects should. It's not like he'll be eating beef while he's there. I'd say that what a player considers his core concept may or may not be defined by religion, class, or whatever. It's up to the player to decide how to change in response to his environment and why. Alternatively if he was trying to join the Canadian or American army while in India, I'd find that alittle hard to believe (as some builds would propose). And I'd hardly say that reworking the "fluff" of a class to allow for the same mechcanics of "soldier" across the globe - quality of the training and all that. No argument here. If a build concept is inconsistent with the campaign, that's all there is to it. As a DM I have had to tell players "no" before... I just made really sure a compromise was impossible before discarding a player's idea.
pres_man 03-20-08, 12:12 PM	Frankly as a DM, and I am not claiming to be a "good" DM, if I felt that the environment would have a significant effect on the PCs, I would give them free skill points in a skill that was related to that effect. For example, I had a game where the players spent a significant amount of time on board a ship. Those that volunteered to help the crew, eventually got a free rank in Profession (Sailor), they didn't know that beforehand. Things like that a DM can do to help the setting feel like it is helping the PCs develop but also respecting a player's wishes to develop their character in their own way as well. So for the barbarian in the court of the Shogun (Sho'nuff!), I could see a DM giving him a rank or two of diplomacy and/or knowledge (nobility and royalty) after a couple of levels.
Reality_Czech 03-20-08, 12:23 PM	I've done the same. I think it's definitely a vaild option, and has the benefiet of not appearing dictatorial to players who have very little "wiggle room" in their concept. I'm not saying I think it is dictatorial, but if the players see it that way it will curtail their fun.
Dog_O_War 03-20-08, 12:50 PM	Frankly as a DM, and I am not claiming to be a "good" DM, if I felt that the environment would have a significant effect on the PCs, I would give them free skill points in a skill that was related to that effect. For example, I had a game where the players spent a significant amount of time on board a ship. Those that volunteered to help the crew, eventually got a free rank in Profession (Sailor), they didn't know that beforehand. See, it's this kind of stuff that can make a campaign really personable and fun. That is most certainly one way of having the PC's get a reaction from environment - I'd find that it would be more rewarding (as a PC) to even throw myself into the role of the sailor - buying ranks in the skill in addition to the free one. Things like that a DM can do to help the setting feel like it is helping the PCs develop but also respecting a player's wishes to develop their character in their own way as well. So for the barbarian in the court of the Shogun (Sho'nuff!), I could see a DM giving him a rank or two of diplomacy and/or knowledge (nobility and royalty) after a couple of levels. I'd probably go more with a competency bonus - either way is good though.
calronmoonflower 03-21-08, 03:37 AM	I took some time to think of a proper response. World. Campaign. Setting. All different things here - the world is the DM's creation that the players live and breathe in. It is changed in-play, so no players should have no say in what it is to be like initially - they are not playing gods after all, and we don't choose the place we are born into. Actually they have the as much say as the dungeon master allows. Any statement beyond that falls to the Jell_Moo Principle. Oh and player ≠ character. The campaign is what the two of them (players and DM) end up with - this is what the game accumulates into, so neither get a choice in how it is to happen. Player X dies due to bad rolls in a "boss" fight. Not his choice, so the players deal with it - this is an event in the campaign. Actually both have a say. The dungeon master can go to overkill or nerf the boss into the ground. They can also fudge rolls if they so choose. The player can shift the odds of this happening by using better tactics and optimizing their character. However, if the dungeon master really wants the character dead it will happen. Setting - this is where the only colaberation need take place. Players want a gritty setting based around an occupying army of evil clerics - one that would let them full-fill a rogue style game. DM wants more brazen conflicts with dragons and such. Actually the above is world dependent. I'll just assume this doesn't conflict however. At this point is where the character development should start. This is where they comprimize - occupying army are draconic in nature, and to help the rogue-style characters he gives them a 20 HP campaign bonus to begin with, so that they might better survive a brazen and brutal conflict between his NPC's and the PC's. At this point you would have enough idea of the generalities of the campaign to make a build that doesn't conflict. But hey, I might be crazy. Being crazy does necessary mean that you are wrong. ;) Builds can come in conflict with the world . At that time you have a choice between a short term benefits and long term benefits. In the conflict is long term the build isn't right for the campaign. If it is short you should way the consequences of going either way. If you allow retraining then the conflict could cease to be just from that.
Dog_O_War 03-21-08, 10:47 AM	I took some time to think of a proper response. Actually they have the as much say as the dungeon master allows. Any statement beyond that falls to the Jell_Moo Principle. Oh and player ≠ character. Okay, I see this all the time, but have been embarassed to ask until now; what the hell is " ≠ "? Also, what you just said, "having as much say as the dungeon master allows" means what they say carries no actual weight - which offers that it doesn't matter. They might offer an idea that the DM likes, but a person with actual "say" on what does or does not make the cut for the world only includes the DM. Even if they had some say, but the DM didn't like it later on, he has the power to reverse and toss any decision he doesn't like. That said, I stand by my original statement. Actually both have a say. The dungeon master can go to overkill or nerf the boss into the ground. They can also fudge rolls if they so choose. The player can shift the odds of this happening by using better tactics and optimizing their character. However, if the dungeon master really wants the character dead it will happen. I'm not sure what you mean by "Actually, they both have a say". I offered that the campaign is the effect that the DM and players cause. They both imput data and out comes the finished product. Your statement is as if you are correcting me or disagreeing with me. Yet strangely all you've done here is offer what I said in different words. Also, no amount of tactics will save a player from a string of bad dice rolls. As per the scenario offered, they won in the end, it was the dice that killed the player (maybe he failed several climb checks and fell to his doom or something). Actually the above is world dependent. I'll just assume this doesn't conflict however. At this point is where the character development should start. At this point you would have enough idea of the generalities of the campaign to make a build that doesn't conflict. Except for this factor; this end of the campaign ended at level 10. The players have become so entwined with the politics of the game that when they over-threw the tyranical regime, they took its place as well. Now their sneaky, gritty assassin game turned into "How to run a kingdom: From Street to Throne in only 5 years". Obviously the above is just an example; what I'm saying with it though is there are some things you just cannot plan for. You can build a character all you like, but as I offered to Reality_Czech, this does not help you if your wizard bombs his disjunction attempt. Being crazy does necessary mean that you are wrong. ;) No, but it gives you eyes like this! :crazy: Builds can come in conflict with the world . At that time you have a choice between a short term benefits and long term benefits. In the conflict is long term the build isn't right for the campaign. If it is short you should way the consequences of going either way. If you allow retraining then the conflict could cease to be just from that. This brings up another question here - why are the players allowed to be unadaptable and unchangeable in the game, while the DM's world must bend to their whim? I can see consessions on both sides being appropriate, but when the players build, they offer that their character is a permanent fixture and cannot be changed by outside forces. Seems.....fake.
pres_man 03-21-08, 11:39 AM	Okay, I see this all the time, but have been embarassed to ask until now; what the hell is " ≠ "? "Not equal to". It is an equal sign with a slash through it. Sometimes you see "<>" or "/=" or something as well. This brings up another question here - why are the players allowed to be unadaptable and unchangeable in the game, while the DM's world must bend to their whim? I can see consessions on both sides being appropriate, but when the players build, they offer that their character is a permanent fixture and cannot be changed by outside forces. Seems.....fake. I would say that is a bit misleading. A DM's world doesn't HAVE to bend to their whim and players don't HAVE to stick with a set build. As the game focus changes, many players are going to change their ideas of what would optimize their build. I think part of the problem is that there is not equal amounts of ability between the DM and the player. A PC can't be everything to match all features of the game world. I mean do we really expect a character that visited the waste lands to take knowledge (nature) or survival and when they visit a mage's guild they take knowledge (arcana) and if they are made ethereal they take knowledge (planes) and if they visit a court they take knowledge (nobility) and ... At some point it becomes silly to suggest the characters must adapt to everything. As long as the campaign and the character can coexist, there shouldn't be any need to do too much adaptation either way. If a barbarian is in a shogun's court all the time, one has to ask, why did they play a barbarian. Was it because they thought that it was one type of a game and turned into another, or because they are trying to be disruptive. Then again maybe the shogun wanted the barbarian around for his fighting skill to deal with oni attacks. If the barbarian then does take things like diplomacy the shogun may say to him, "I did not call you here for your sweet tongue, but to crush the foes of the empire." But the easiest way if you really want to make an issue out of it as a DM, make the player make rolls. You want to be diplomatic, roll a diplomacy check, oh didn't put any ranks in it and CHA is your dump stat, well it sucks to be you. Perhaps you should retire this character, start taking cross-class skills or multiclassing.
ORC_Sinister 03-21-08, 01:49 PM	I've just now gotten around to reading some materials a friend has pointed me to regarding stormwind and all that. Here are my thoughts: Truth be told there's two componets of roleplaying, the in character moments and the moments engaged in the mechanics of the games. You can prove to me that skill checks are in fact a form of roleplaying but not the actual mechanics. As humans we say we multitask but really what we are doing is one thing quickly then another. We roll a dice, then jump back to the character, look up a feat, then jump back to a character, do the math, then jump back to our character. A role playing game that has lots of rules, dice rolls, and mechanics does take your focus away from being in character. It's true you could argue that some of those mechanics such as skill checks are adding to role playing experience by what they symbolized but not the actual rolling, or looking over your character sheet, or adding numbers, or questioning battlefield rule conditions. All these things are done as a player attempting to better understand the game not "in character" moments. Just like stopping for pizza, going to the bathroom, grabbing mountain dew, these actions are taken by the player. I've seen the difference after 20 years of role playing playing all sorts of systems but the two I compare here are DnD and Call of Cthulhu BRP, and without a doubt, I can say everyone I have ever played with spends more time "in character" in a game like Cthulhu. I'm not saying Call of Cthulhu is more fun, or more enjoyable, but it's VERY clear the players are acting from their character's perspective more and trying to "be that character" Why is this? Because there is a great ease to the BRP system of simply rolling under your skill with a d100. By complexity standards it's no where near as complex as DnD and it affords the players time to stay "in character", and make less dice rolls, question rules less, look up rules less, , etc... in fact the game is plain dullsville to approach it from a player perspective and trying to figure out the mechanics, after about 10 minutes you know them all. Granted the flip side is the awful and horrible way combat works in the game. It's probably the worst combat system I know of, luckly you aren't going to kill any of the great old ones anyone so combat is avoided. The debate creates two camps. Camp A. Who says I don't need a skill for something I'm quite capable of doing in the normal course of character interaction and camp. B. Who says "I don't want to be penalized for not thinking of something clever to say at the right moment". Since roleplaying is essentially about having fun I don't see how either camp is wrong. However I do see a problem with using player "crunch" as a crutch to not having actually having to act. Therefore I would love to see purposely written into the rules bonuses given to saying and doing things in character. Problem with that is that some (certainly not all) from camp b then very well claim the bonuses are unfair, since they will use the "I can't talk good" excuse. In all fairness, however, DnD players with a lot of free time looking for the perfect build (which is great majority of players) already have an advantage spending time looking over books, feat supplements, prestige classes, and message board info on constructing a better player than the actors and storytellers of the world would care to spend in such a tedious pursuit. So why not print these "played in character" bonuses and let the storytellers and actors have a turn to shine? If you are in it for the storytelling and acting experience I doubt your character is anywhere as good a power munchkin timmy's optimal character of death bashing. Furthermore if the arguement is that anyone can "build a perfect character" then I also must conclude with "anyone can learn how to talk and walk in character."
Alpha_Moose 03-21-08, 02:37 PM	I may have to unfortunately disagree, though I could be misinterpreting your meaning. What I mean by that is, if you mean to give bonuses to a player based on how they said something, I would disagree. However, if you were to give someone a bonus based on what they said, I would probably agree. For example; it would be easier for a PC to convince an NPC to open a door if they said something like, "My little kitty is stuck in that barn," then if they said, "I'm actually a tornado, and I'll turn back by sunrise if I don't get the Jewel of Osbge that's in your barn". However the way in which they said such a thing does not matter. They could be stuttering constantly because of turrets or be Morgan Freeman blended with Thomas Jefferson and it wouldn't change anything. Similarly, a PC gets a bonus on their attacks if they flank an enemy. But they do not get a bonus if the player is actually trained in martial arts or can best me in a duel. A character's talents and skills are separate from the player's, but a player's cunning and tactics will help the character. Another thing; I can not make someone better at speaking, but I can help them make their character stronger. Being good at optimizing automatically means you can help anyone with their character, simply by saying, "this feat is better". However being good at speaking doesn't give you the ability to grant another that same gift. In other words, while anyone can become good at either, you need not be good at optimizing to reap it's benefits. In a way a good optimizer is of more benefit to a group than a good actor or speaker, provided both are willing to help others. Again, I might have misinterpreted your words, in which case you can just ignore my random jabbering.
ORC_Sinister 03-21-08, 03:30 PM	To clarify... I don't mean how you said it, I mean come up with a good story, excuse, etc.... So I think we agree here. However, I am amazed at how many people think that creative storytelling and oratory can't be taught. Honestly it's very possible or else colleges and universities would have given up on such classes long ago. As it is these are some of the oldest courses for colleges and universities. Also how does one address Larps to all these role playing doctrines. After all most larps are reduced to a simply luck (rock paper sissors contest) and it's the players skills at storytelling that define their character.
Alpha_Moose 03-21-08, 04:58 PM	To clarify... I don't mean how you said it, I mean come up with a good story, excuse, etc.... So I think we agree here. That's good. Clarity always helps.:) However, I am amazed at how many people think that creative storytelling and oratory can't be taught. Honestly it's very possible or else colleges and universities would have given up on such classes long ago. As it is these are some of the oldest courses for colleges and universities. It's not that it can't be taught, but that it takes quite a while for someone to become good at it (long enough that it wouldn't happen in one session). When I said that I can't help someone become good at speaking, I mean instantaneously. However telling them that Combat Expertise is better than Dodge happens quite quickly (and in that case basically fills the same flavor requirement). Even though it is true that I could maybe give them some tips on storytelling, it still requires personal skill whereas switching out their feats doesn't. Also how does one address Larps to all these role playing doctrines. After all most larps are reduced to a simply luck (rock paper sissors contest) and it's the players skills at storytelling that define their character. LARPing's a whole different breed that I'm not prepared to discuss (really because I have no experience at it). But in such a scenario where the only option is to be good at storytelling the Stormwind Fallacy doesn't exist as there is no way to optimize. But your character is still not defined by your skill while LARPing. You use luck to determine who wins at a fight, ignoring who could actually win. Likewise just because someone has a lisp when they speak doesn't mean that their character does. Of course the line between the player's skill and the character's is pretty vague, so after a while we'd just be discussion specific situations. But I do think that we both generally agree on the same thing.
calronmoonflower 03-22-08, 02:58 AM	Okay, I see this all the time, but have been embarassed to ask until now; what the hell is " ≠ "? Already covered. Also, what you just said, "having as much say as the dungeon master allows" means what they say carries no actual weight - which offers that it doesn't matter. They might offer an idea that the DM likes, but a person with actual "say" on what does or does not make the cut for the world only includes the DM. Even if they had some say, but the DM didn't like it later on, he has the power to reverse and toss any decision he doesn't like. That said, I stand by my original statement. The logic doesn't follow to your original statement. I'm not sure what you mean by "Actually, they both have a say". I offered that the campaign is the effect that the DM and players cause. They both imput data and out comes the finished product. Your statement is as if you are correcting me or disagreeing with me. Yet strangely all you've done here is offer what I said in different words. Also, no amount of tactics will save a player from a string of bad dice rolls. As per the scenario offered, they won in the end, it was the dice that killed the player (maybe he failed several climb checks and fell to his doom or something). There is a % of control that each has. It isn't 100% (except a railroading DM), but it is not 0% either. Except for this factor; this end of the campaign ended at level 10. The players have become so entwined with the politics of the game that when they over-threw the tyranical regime, they took its place as well. Now their sneaky, gritty assassin game turned into "How to run a kingdom: From Street to Throne in only 5 years". Obviously the above is just an example; what I'm saying with it though is there are some things you just cannot plan for. You can build a character all you like, but as I offered to Reality_Czech, this does not help you if your wizard bombs his disjunction attempt. There are always things that you cannot plan for. It doesn't follow that you shouldn't plan. Tactics and teamwork do not always work, but that doesn't mean that you shouldn't use either. No, but it gives you eyes like this! :crazy: Except then you get :mymy: or :twitch:. This brings up another question here - why are the players allowed to be unadaptable and unchangeable in the game, while the DM's world must bend to their whim? Unthinking rigidness is actually part of the lawful alignment. If they are stupidly rigid let them suffer the consequences. I can see consessions on both sides being appropriate, but when the players build, they offer that their character is a permanent fixture and cannot be changed by outside forces. Seems.....fake. Build ≠ character. Characters are more than a bunch of stats. A character can adapt quite a bit without a mechanical change. silver brow human 1 level monk Kung fu Genius 1 level beguiler 3 levels human paragon, take search as the permanent class skill. Take Combat Casting 10 levels enlightened fist Take Arcane Strike along the way. 5 levels abjurant champion The character concept (spellcasting ninja) really wouldn't work without the build. It allows flexibility and isn't the strongest way to do the concept.
Vaelan 03-22-08, 03:13 AM	I never refuted anything - I agree! ;) ...no "can vs. will" was offered at all. Then I don't think you understand the conversation you decided to get involved in. One person said that builds compromise roleplaying (general sense, will). The person you responded to said that it isn't always the case (can). You responded by bringing up a case in which a build does compromise roleplay and posting a good amount of rhetoric that indicates that you're disagreeing with him in the general sense. You disagreed with the "can" position and presented an example to support your disagreement. Also, I have to ask; who are you to tell people what games they should play? A being capable of observation. If I see you trying to pound a nail with a screwdriver, I'll tell you that you should be using a hammer. I'm not going to say that I'm sorry if this offends you, but I will say that I'm sorry if the fact that I'm going to derive great amusement from this offending you offends you. And who are you to accuse me of attempting to dictate people's actions when I did nothing more than make a suggestion based upon a simple and undeniable observation? :nonono: That's mostly a joke. You shouldn't take it too seriously. Basically if one way offers no problems, and the other offers a myrad of potential problems - why then do people insist of picking the potentially disasterous route? First of all, weren't you just attempting to chide me for criticizing wholly irrational courses of action? :) Secondly, it isn't an irrational course of action. The potentially disasterous route, when navigated with a modicum of skill and awareness, yields greater rewards while avoiding all of the problems. Do you find the fact that it all comes back to the original post as amusing as I do?
Dog_O_War 03-22-08, 09:17 AM	Secondly, it isn't an irrational course of action. The potentially disasterous route, when navigated with a modicum of skill and awareness, yields greater rewards while avoiding all of the problems. Do you find the fact that it all comes back to the original post as amusing as I do? Maybe we define build differently then. I'll offer this clarification and you can decide how closely we are actually in agreement here. Build is the rigid, unchanging projection of a character, while the level-plan offers an ideal but flexable projection of a character. One won't be changed while the other can be changed - it's really just there as a guideline. I tend to get very particular with how words are used btw, and often forget that not everyone defines things as I do, or sometimes as exacting, so I'm sorry if this might've caused a misunderstanding.
calronmoonflower 03-23-08, 02:17 AM	Well, that does explain allot.
Cuindless 03-23-08, 03:26 PM	An interesting example to shore-up the Stormwind Fallacy: I run a game that is currently sitting around 13th level. I decided to throw an NPC at the PCs who was fairly heavily optimized (since I had the time). I made him a specialist Necromancer 5 / Incantatrix 7 with a focus on metamagic ray debuffing. I consulted the CO boards along with Treantmonk and Dictum Mortuus to make him as min/maxed as I could get while remaining within a concept. I also had a personality in mind. The character was a grey elf raised in a tightly controlled scholastic environment. He was a vegetarian and a bit of a coward. He was also fairly effete. The PCs only met him for a brief roleplay before combat began, and then because there's six 13th level PCs to contend with, he lost pretty badly. Still, he was tough for his level and fun to fight. After the battle, the players all commented how tough he was, and how interesting a character he was. He had quirks and mannerisms along with a core personality. If I were to bring the character back as a recurring villain, they'd recognize him instantly. Highly optimized = check High roleplaying = check Continuum disproved.
Reality_Czech 03-23-08, 08:52 PM	I'm still hoping you'll tell me how this statement... ... Now say at 12th level you got ahold of a scroll of Disjunction, and used it on an artifact - knowing full well the price. You fail the will save and lose all your magic. This would qualify as a dramatic event obviously, but I hope you see how a build is counter to what the current reality of a character's situation might be. ...does anything to demonstrate that planning your character from 1-20 will hinder your play... does any character with 12 levels of wizard and no casting stand a chance of not being hindered? The path this wizard took to this point isn't relevant. Adventuring is dangerous and he just lost everything that protects him. I honestly think the proper application of flexibility in this case would be to retire before he gets beaten up. I'd roleplay this with a bunch of levels of Expert, Aristocrat, or some other applicable NPC class that lets him get a decent job and live in a city where his arcane knowledge will put food on the table. I understand this is an extreme example to prove your opinion: Preplanned build is contrary to the vagaries of chance. (I think) However, you haven't showed where being flexible here would prevent a total loss for the caster in question. I feel your example is incomplete as you have stated it and fails to illustrate your point because of it. Asking this another way, if I started at level 1 and played a wizard all the way to 12, never once considering what feats, skills, and ability score increases I might want until the moment I level, in what way have I insulated myself against having 12 levels of d4 hit dice, few skills, little or no proficiency with weapons and armor, and no spellcasting to make up for it?
Dog_O_War 03-24-08, 11:15 AM	I'm still hoping you'll tell me how this statement... ...does anything to demonstrate that planning your character from 1-20 will hinder your play... does any character with 12 levels of wizard and no casting stand a chance of not being hindered? The path this wizard took to this point isn't relevant. Adventuring is dangerous and he just lost everything that protects him. I honestly think the proper application of flexibility in this case would be to retire before he gets beaten up. I'd roleplay this with a bunch of levels of Expert, Aristocrat, or some other applicable NPC class that lets him get a decent job and live in a city where his arcane knowledge will put food on the table. I understand this is an extreme example to prove your opinion: Preplanned build is contrary to the vagaries of chance. (I think) However, you haven't showed where being flexible here would prevent a total loss for the caster in question. I feel your example is incomplete as you have stated it and fails to illustrate your point because of it. Asking this another way, if I started at level 1 and played a wizard all the way to 12, never once considering what feats, skills, and ability score increases I might want until the moment I level, in what way have I insulated myself against having 12 levels of d4 hit dice, few skills, little or no proficiency with weapons and armor, and no spellcasting to make up for it? You are still incredibly intelligent, can use magic items (hell, I think you can still craft some as well), and maybe if you stuck it out, you could meet a non-mortal being that could restore your magic. That's right - you can get your spell-casting back. Very cool to do, especially if you advanced as the one class where that high int and lack of spellcasting could benefit you; rogue. As a highly skilled character, you can do what rogues do best - use skills. If you stuck it out, then you also have the makings of a book-worthy character (wizard loses spellcasting, but continues to adventure - finding some ancient demi-god, he makes a bargain to get back the most important aspect of his life back; his spells. He's stronger for it though, having found out how to get by without magic). And when all is said and done, you have a much better story than, "I lost my ability to cast spells, so I became a barkeeper". You'd figure losing a limb would be just as devastating for a character that was a fighter-type, someone who relied on mobility (like a ranger). But he carried on, and sought a higher power for the answers - I continued to play a ranger that lost a leg, taking a penalty to dexterity, mobility, etc... multiclassed into cleric, and was gifted an amulet (after 5 levels of being leg-less) that grew a leg out of natural features around me (tree-roots, leaves, plants, rocks, etc...). When you roll with the punches and stick it out for all 15 rounds, people think more highly of you. I never wanted to lose a leg, or even multiclass into cleric, but I saw what was required to keep some effectiveness, and to keep the character. I really think he's far more interesting because of it.
pres_man 03-24-08, 02:57 PM	You'd figure losing a limb would be just as devastating for a character that was a fighter-type, someone who relied on mobility (like a ranger). But he carried on, and sought a higher power for the answers - I continued to play a ranger that lost a leg, taking a penalty to dexterity, mobility, etc... multiclassed into cleric, and was gifted an amulet (after 5 levels of being leg-less) that grew a leg out of natural features around me (tree-roots, leaves, plants, rocks, etc...). Well I don't think hoping for DM-fiat is a very good argument (of course the loss of the limb probably was as well). Though for a ranger, the loss might be less if he picked an animal companion that he could be mounted on.
Dog_O_War 03-24-08, 05:04 PM	Well I don't think hoping for DM-fiat is a very good argument (of course the loss of the limb probably was as well). Though for a ranger, the loss might be less if he picked an animal companion that he could be mounted on. The DM "gift" was minor really. I was still good at ranged combat, and I did use a light warhorse for an animal companion - I was just offering some reasons why a devistating event needn't be the end of a character. I actually started that particular guy in second edition, and the original penalty was that my dexterity score was cut in half - Some people might think that was devistating, but I had a 14 dex, and it went to 7. The difference between 14 and 7 was nothing..... Anyways, when 3.0 came out, I multiclassed into cleric, and was afforded the item (which was literally a replacement leg); I got to keep playing a character I liked and didn't feel like I was given special treatment because that piece of "treasure" was still applied against my wealth by level. All that aside, I hope some people can see that even a drastic event like the above two I mentioned are reasons why builds can make a character seem unplayable, while a simple level-guide keeps a beloved character viable in even the most adverse conditions.
Cuindless 03-24-08, 05:07 PM	Well I don't think hoping for DM-fiat is a very good argument (of course the loss of the limb probably was as well). Though for a ranger, the loss might be less if he picked an animal companion that he could be mounted on. I don't think this was DM fiat as much as refusing to retire a character that others would perceive as "useless". That being said, though, his example doesn't invalidate the Stormwind fallacy at all, and in fact goes toward proving it. His first example, the high Int wizard that lost all spellcasting ability becoming a rogue. That's a perfect example of optimization. The character is minimizing his penalties (no spellcasting) and maximizing his existing attributes (high Int and probably high Dex). Same with the ranger. After losing a leg, he multi-classed into Cleric, where his penalties would be minimized and his extant abilities would be maximized. All those decisions didn't negatively impact roleplay at all. Stormwind Fallacy FTW!
Reality_Czech 03-25-08, 12:19 PM	You are still incredibly intelligent, can use magic items (hell, I think you can still craft some as well), and maybe if you stuck it out, you could meet a non-mortal being that could restore your magic. That's right - you can get your spell-casting back. Very cool to do, especially if you advanced as the one class where that high int and lack of spellcasting could benefit you; rogue. As a highly skilled character, you can do what rogues do best - use skills. If you stuck it out, then you also have the makings of a book-worthy character (wizard loses spellcasting, but continues to adventure - finding some ancient demi-god, he makes a bargain to get back the most important aspect of his life back; his spells. He's stronger for it though, having found out how to get by without magic). And when all is said and done, you have a much better story than, "I lost my ability to cast spells, so I became a barkeeper". You'd figure losing a limb would be just as devastating for a character that was a fighter-type, someone who relied on mobility (like a ranger). But he carried on, and sought a higher power for the answers - I continued to play a ranger that lost a leg, taking a penalty to dexterity, mobility, etc... multiclassed into cleric, and was gifted an amulet (after 5 levels of being leg-less) that grew a leg out of natural features around me (tree-roots, leaves, plants, rocks, etc...). When you roll with the punches and stick it out for all 15 rounds, people think more highly of you. I never wanted to lose a leg, or even multiclass into cleric, but I saw what was required to keep some effectiveness, and to keep the character. I really think he's far more interesting because of it. I see where you're coming from, but I'd have a problem with being the weakest link and by being such, putting myself and my other party members at increased risk. I don't demand that I'm the most powerful person in the party, but "Incredibly intelligent and can use magic items" sounds to me like a bard or rogue, minus the sneak attack, skills, bardic music, etc. I hold myself to the standard that I ought to contribute to the group meaningfully, and I think a wizard with no spells would fall under that. Also, expecting DM fiat to reverse my loss of spells smacks of the "sense of entitlement" that you decried earlier.
ORC_Sinister 03-25-08, 01:24 PM	An interesting example to shore-up the Stormwind Fallacy: I run a game that is currently sitting around 13th level. I decided to throw an NPC at the PCs who was fairly heavily optimized (since I had the time). I made him a specialist Necromancer 5 / Incantatrix 7 with a focus on metamagic ray debuffing. I consulted the CO boards along with Treantmonk and Dictum Mortuus to make him as min/maxed as I could get while remaining within a concept. I also had a personality in mind. The character was a grey elf raised in a tightly controlled scholastic environment. He was a vegetarian and a bit of a coward. He was also fairly effete. The PCs only met him for a brief roleplay before combat began, and then because there's six 13th level PCs to contend with, he lost pretty badly. Still, he was tough for his level and fun to fight. After the battle, the players all commented how tough he was, and how interesting a character he was. He had quirks and mannerisms along with a core personality. If I were to bring the character back as a recurring villain, they'd recognize him instantly. Highly optimized = check High roleplaying = check Continuum disproved. This proves that both CAN be done but I think it also proves the theory of crunch having such an impact on a system that some major work is required to mesh the two. There's quite a bit of work that you need to do and even more remembering, denoting, or referring to this character's crunch during the game. This is why I think that while, you can consider skills and abilities role playing, rolling dice, crunching characters, consulting boards, making notes, referring to notes, questioning battlefield conditions, and having lots of rules vs. less rules (or crunch) effects the player's mind and takes them outside their character more than lighter systems. That said, I think a GREAT deal of players that like to be outside their character doing those things. I think there's a great appeal to engage the rules as a player more than think "in character". I'm very happy that this DM took the time to add role playing elements and this would be the kind of game I would like, as opposed to not considering any elements of the npc's personality. I'm hoping that 4E moves the rules to more of a background noise, than a constant primary concern and I think that can be achieved very simply by never having to look up rules.
pres_man 03-25-08, 01:48 PM	This proves that both CAN be done but I think it also proves the theory of crunch having such an impact on a system that some major work is required to mesh the two. There's quite a bit of work that you need to do and even more remembering, denoting, or referring to this character's crunch during the game. This is why I think that while, you can consider skills and abilities role playing, rolling dice, crunching characters, consulting boards, making notes, referring to notes, questioning battlefield conditions, and having lots of rules vs. less rules (or crunch) effects the player's mind and takes them outside their character more than lighter systems. That said, I think a GREAT deal of players that like to be outside their character doing those things. I think there's a great appeal to engage the rules as a player more than think "in character". I'm very happy that this DM took the time to add role playing elements and this would be the kind of game I would like, as opposed to not considering any elements of the npc's personality. I'm hoping that 4E moves the rules to more of a background noise, than a constant primary concern and I think that can be achieved very simply by never having to look up rules. And if one is going to really "roleplay" they are going to develop guidelines and details of the character they are playing. They should then refer back to them on a regular basis to make sure they are staying true to the character and not (accidentally) drifting to some other idea. Since players don't live the life of the character, you can't always play it off the cuff and stay true to the character, instead you are more likely to play yourself in place of the character's persona.
Etarnon 03-25-08, 02:32 PM	What strikes me as odd / funny in this whole thing is the fact that roleplaying existed in systems before optimization existed. The crux of the matter is does optimization add to the roleplaying. For some characters, yes. For those that are focussed, driven to the peak of their chosen profession, that have planned out their goals, with a sense of unerring destiny. In our world, These are the major film actors, political leaders, and CEOs of major corporations. The rest, take what comes, deciding as they go...like the majority of the population.
ORC_Sinister 03-25-08, 03:24 PM	And if one is going to really "roleplay" they are going to develop guidelines and details of the character they are playing. They should then refer back to them on a regular basis to make sure they are staying true to the character and not (accidentally) drifting to some other idea. Since players don't live the life of the character, you can't always play it off the cuff and stay true to the character, instead you are more likely to play yourself in place of the character's persona. Probably, When faced with a situation that you don't know how your character will act you will certainly put some of yourself into that. I typically play characters that have opposite personality traits than I do but yes I can't say I could ever play a character 100% devoid of myself.
Dog_O_War 03-26-08, 02:04 AM	I see where you're coming from, but I'd have a problem with being the weakest link and by being such, putting myself and my other party members at increased risk. I don't demand that I'm the most powerful person in the party, but "Incredibly intelligent and can use magic items" sounds to me like a bard or rogue, minus the sneak attack, skills, bardic music, etc. I hold myself to the standard that I ought to contribute to the group meaningfully, and I think a wizard with no spells would fall under that. Also, expecting DM fiat to reverse my loss of spells smacks of the "sense of entitlement" that you decried earlier. This is all paranoia and fear-mongering. Do you know what the average encounter should be like? I don't - there isn't a single entry in any of the books that states you must continually fight or encounter stuff equal to your parties' proposed level. Being "weak" interms of combat is but one aspect of the game. My character showed strength of will and determination, as well as unrefined "character". This is worth 10 times that of combat effectiveness as far as the game as a whole is concerned. Weak? Weak is not knowing what to do when a situation like one of the two I recounted occurs. Weak is giving up when a set-back happens to you. Weak is failing to adapt and percivere when the chips are down. Weak is when you have to change characters because the one you have is "ruined" because class X is unavailable, or weapon Y can't be gotten. Don't take this the wrong way - the above isn't a rant or anything; I am just stating what "weak" truely is. Remember, the DM sets challenges for the players and characters, not the builds and tactical information available. As for the ability to contribute; I could still hide and move silently very well, had the best spot and listen in the party (by almost double that of the rogue's no less), and was still relied apon for the groups' survival in getting along in the wilderness. Hell, if someone couldn't find food or actuallu brought rations with them, my team would starve to death or die of thirst (the more likely of the two) if I hadn't been there. Missing a leg also did not hinder my ability to negotiate with everything we came across (at the time I thought that diplomacy was a good investment since charisma was my highest attribute), and I could speak more languages than the wizard - this made me vital, even if my combat ability was slightly hindered. You find strengths in other aspects of your life when the ones you rely apon for so very long are taken away. As for expecting the "reverse of loss of spells" - I never said he had to. I said that it is possible, and that if you worked towards that goal, then perhaps you may be rewarded. Atleast it'd be an interesting journey finding out; something you'd never know if you took the "I lost my spellcasting ability and now I'm a barkeeper" outlook. I figure a character I spent 12 levels with, that destroyed an artifact with to prevent some awful event from happening - deserves a little more than that. Infact, the only thing a person should have an adamant sense of entitlement for is that they be allowed to continue on, despite the other players whining that his character is "weak".
Dog_O_War 03-26-08, 02:21 AM	What strikes me as odd / funny in this whole thing is the fact that roleplaying existed in systems before optimization existed. The crux of the matter is does optimization add to the roleplaying. For some characters, yes. For those that are focussed, driven to the peak of their chosen profession, that have planned out their goals, with a sense of unerring destiny. In our world, These are the major film actors, political leaders, and CEOs of major corporations. The rest, take what comes, deciding as they go...like the majority of the population. Lies. These people are the writers of their own adventure rather than swath-cutters as you so propose. People like them and are drawn to them not because they are focused and driven in their chosen profession; they are charismatic, plain and simple. If you look at President Bush's "focus", you'll find that in his "long and illustreous history" that he has very little to account for anything you've listed. Infact, you'll find that very few focused and driven individuals in a democracy qualify for what you proposed. You'll find that only the hated and the dubeous infact fall under what you've said. Dictators, the extremely wealthy and powerful, the royalty, serial killers - they are single-focused and driven to be at the peak of their "professions", but we never hear about them until the fall. These types are so single-focused that nothing can and will stand in their way. The rest of us "current-drifters" paddle about, only fighting the stream when we see something - usually one thing that we want above all others - and go for it. Until that moment, we have the guys that get the smooth-sailing, and we get the guys that end up in white-caps; both are still just going with the flow, but one is simply a bit more lucky than the other.
calronmoonflower 03-26-08, 03:12 AM	I was going to post this yesterday, but the boards crashed. Also note that this argument was brought up on page 3 to 5 somewhere. Counter was basic. The character concept was greatly changed by the circumstances. That in turn can reduce the enjoyment you get from playing the character. As the point of the game is to have fun, rolling up a new character might make sense You are still incredibly intelligent, can use magic items (hell, I think you can still craft some as well), and maybe if you stuck it out, you could meet a non-mortal being that could restore your magic. That's right - you can get your spell-casting back. Very cool to do, especially if you advanced as the one class where that high int and lack of spellcasting could benefit you; rogue. As a highly skilled character, you can do what rogues do best - use skills. If you stuck it out, then you also have the makings of a book-worthy character (wizard loses spellcasting, but continues to adventure - finding some ancient demi-god, he makes a bargain to get back the most important aspect of his life back; his spells. He's stronger for it though, having found out how to get by without magic). And when all is said and done, you have a much better story than, "I lost my ability to cast spells, so I became a barkeeper". Well not try a planar expedition to meet a non-mortal being and get you spellcasting back. Until that point you would be a burden on your party and that might result in casualties. For many character continuing on in this condition would actually be bad roleplaying if they have no good in character reason to do it and a good in character reason not to do it. You'd figure losing a limb would be just as devastating for a character that was a fighter-type, someone who relied on mobility (like a ranger). But he carried on, and sought a higher power for the answers - I continued to play a ranger that lost a leg, taking a penalty to dexterity, mobility, etc... multiclassed into cleric, and was gifted an amulet (after 5 levels of being leg-less) that grew a leg out of natural features around me (tree-roots, leaves, plants, rocks, etc...). When you roll with the punches and stick it out for all 15 rounds, people think more highly of you. I never wanted to lose a leg, or even multiclass into cleric, but I saw what was required to keep some effectiveness, and to keep the character. I really think he's far more interesting because of it. :gah: Rule 0 isn't good to bring up in arguments. However you can get a Arm of Nyr or similar item. If you strip off the abilities and alignment restriction it should cost 1,000 gp. Also you have failed to show that retiring is bad roleplaying, or that continuing to adventure is good roleplaying.
pres_man 03-26-08, 10:32 AM	As for expecting the "reverse of loss of spells" - I never said he had to. I said that it is possible, and that if you worked towards that goal, then perhaps you may be rewarded. Atleast it'd be an interesting journey finding out; something you'd never know if you took the "I lost my spellcasting ability and now I'm a barkeeper" outlook. I figure a character I spent 12 levels with, that destroyed an artifact with to prevent some awful event from happening - deserves a little more than that. Infact, the only thing a person should have an adamant sense of entitlement for is that they be allowed to continue on, despite the other players whining that his character is "weak". While that might be all fine and dandy for the character, it is often harmful to the party. Usually it is better to just have the character leave the party to either retire or seek out a way to improve their situation and bring in a new character in their stead so the party can move on with their overall quest. As Spock said, "The needs of the many out weigh the needs of the few." "Or the one."
Dog_O_War 03-26-08, 11:00 AM	I was going to post this yesterday, but the boards crashed. Also note that this argument was brought up on page 3 to 5 somewhere. Counter was basic. The character concept was greatly changed by the circumstances. That in turn can reduce the enjoyment you get from playing the character. As the point of the game is to have fun, rolling up a new character might make sense And if that character dies next session? If you find yourself at odds or overlapping with another player's character? I think that can does not equal will in this situation. Hell, for all you know, sticking with your character as is might infact benefit the party via some unseen event - really, neither you nor I can tell until the game comes to an end. If I were having fun still being able to keep my character, why should I not continue to play? Well not try a planar expedition to meet a non-mortal being and get you spellcasting back. Until that point you would be a burden on your party and that might result in casualties. For many character continuing on in this condition would actually be bad roleplaying if they have no good in character reason to do it and a good in character reason not to do it. And there are direct mechanics stating that not being able to cast spells is a burden on the party? Are there direct mechanics somewhere in a 3.5 book that states that all encounters must be combat, or that require a character be able to use his primary ability all the time? Am I any worst off than another wizard who is in an anti-magic field? Please, show me where it says these things. :gah: Rule 0 isn't good to bring up in arguments. However you can get a Arm of Nyr or similar item. If you strip off the abilities and alignment restriction it should cost 1,000 gp. Also you have failed to show that retiring is bad roleplaying, or that continuing to adventure is good roleplaying. If retiring at a level where you could live off of your gold indefinately were good role-playing, we'd all call it quits at level 10. Seems to me that retiring mid campaign is counter-productive to the continuation of the game itself. Also, getting a replacement leg wasn't something that I had asked for - it was a gift from the "gods" (DM) because he saw that I was willing to go on and to play it out despite what most players would consider a devistating set-back. I did survive 5 levels after I lost the leg; that's 5 levels before a replacement was gained as well. It is one of those rewards you get for enduring where others would give in. The best kind of reward - the kind you can't find in the books.
Dog_O_War 03-26-08, 11:12 AM	While that might be all fine and dandy for the character, it is often harmful to the party. Usually it is better to just have the character leave the party to either retire or seek out a way to improve their situation and bring in a new character in their stead so the party can move on with their overall quest. As Spock said, "The needs of the many out weigh the needs of the few." "Or the one." As I have stated multiple times to other posters now, show me where it says that a party of adventurers must engage in combat situations. That being said, we did engage in combat situations - no punches where pulled either. Infact before we made the jump to 3.0, I was already "useless" as far as combat went; I had no attack bonus, the highest AC (in 2nd ED. that's a bad thing) in the party (even when my dex was cut in half it didn't change), and had a really bad habit of rolling 1's in combat - throwing away my weapons. I survived off of my other skills - which proved more than invalueble to the party. Besides, I never adventured with a contracted group of mercs; I adventured with friends who were more than willing to help me achieve my goals, and not quite willing to abandon me either. I'll add that there is also no mechanic for in-game friendship, and it's not exactly something you can "build" either - yet we can all see the mechanical advantage of having them.
pres_man 03-26-08, 11:27 AM	As I have stated multiple times to other posters now, show me where it says that a party of adventurers must engage in combat situations. That being said, we did engage in combat situations - no punches where pulled either. Infact before we made the jump to 3.0, I was already "useless" as far as combat went; I had no attack bonus, the highest AC (in 2nd ED. that's a bad thing) in the party (even when my dex was cut in half it didn't change), and had a really bad habit of rolling 1's in combat - throwing away my weapons. I survived off of my other skills - which proved more than invalueble to the party. Besides, I never adventured with a contracted group of mercs; I adventured with friends who were more than willing to help me achieve my goals, and not quite willing to abandon me either. I'll add that there is also no mechanic for in-game friendship, and it's not exactly something you can "build" either - yet we can all see the mechanical advantage of having them. And please show me where "harmful" means it has to be combat related. If the party is on a quest and a character becomes essentially dead weight and asks, "Hey can you guys quit the quest we are on and help me find a way to get my abilities back?" Well depending on the nature of the quest that may or may not be possible without serious harm (not necessarily physical only). Some campaigns are about a group of adventures randomly roaming and run into stuff, other campaigns though have specific goals that must be achieved, in those cases a now defunct character leaving the party to achieve some other goal would be best for everyone involved.
Reality_Czech 03-26-08, 11:42 AM	A rogue missing a leg loses mobility. A wizard missing his spells is left with nothing but a sparse skill list, high intelligence, and whatever creativity and problem-solving skills the player had. I understand problem solving and creativity go a long way toward making a meaningful contribution in combat and out (Actually, some of the most helpful wizard spells are non-combat utility.) But... the player had those qualities and the magic, now he has just the ability to "think ouside the box." It helps, but he had it already. Anyhow, all I really wanted to have answered is this: If this hypothetical wizard did not have a level 1-20 plan for his character and lost his magic, what benefiet has he realized over having the 1-20 plan? The "Plan vs. organic play" topic is what sparked my interest in this, and I feel as if you're straying into an area that feels more like an attempt at delivering a moral message. I understand the importance of tenacity and overcoming challenges, I'm a 14-year Army vet with a lot of pretty taxing experiences behind me. I get that part. I just feel as if you're saying that a pre-planned character will almost certainly jeopardize the enjoyment of the game. I disagree with this and think you're genuinely bright enough to express a rebuttal in a way that illustrates this. The wizard with no magic example (In my opinion) fails to do this. Can you?
Shadowhowler 03-26-08, 12:38 PM	"My father told me never to try to understand your kind, or to make them understand me. That is because you are a breed apart and make no sense." [/COLOR] :bow: Last of the Mohicans quote for the win... I'm having a grumpy day, and seeing this just cheered me up a bit. Thanks. ;)
Reality_Czech 03-26-08, 12:48 PM	Good to know it brightened things for you. (I was wondering if anyone recognized that, lol)
Shadowhowler 03-26-08, 12:48 PM	Also how does one address Larps to all these role playing doctrines. After all most larps are reduced to a simply luck (rock paper sissors contest) and it's the players skills at storytelling that define their character. Which is why I loved (and deeply miss) LARP games... :weep: Moving across country away from all your friends and gaming buddies sucks the big one, let me tell you.
RadicalTaoist 03-26-08, 03:23 PM	And if that character dies next session? Could happen to any character, regardless of whether they're planned or not, regardless of whether they lost a limb or not. Not relevant to the discussion. If you find yourself at odds or overlapping with another player's character? Could be any character, regardless of whether they're planned or not, regardless of whether they lost a limb or not (I know and have played many characters who would be at odds with carrying along such a teammate into dangerous situations). Not relevant to the discussion. I think that can does not equal will in this situation. Hell, for all you know, sticking with your character as is might infact benefit the party via some unseen event - really, neither you nor I can tell until the game comes to an end. If I were having fun still being able to keep my character, why should I not continue to play? Then do what is fun for you. Let the guy who wants to roll up a new character do what's fun for him. Sure it can be more fun to keep with it, but as you said, 'can' ≠ 'will'. Are there direct mechanics somewhere in a 3.5 book that states that all encounters must be combat, or that require a character be able to use his primary ability all the time? Am I any worst off than another wizard who is in an anti-magic field? Please, show me where it says these things. There are no such mechanics. Are you conceding that those of us who do enjoy games with such encounters frequently appearing should not let their characters be a burden? Note that for many character types, being a burden would be contrary to such a character's motivations and thus pressing on in such a manner would be bad roleplaying. It's not just combat. In, say, a stealthy crime-based campaign where the characters run heists and pull off cons, having the lookout guy be struck deaf and blind, or the second-story man rendered paraplegic, would be an analogous problem. Just for the record; this isn't for or against either argument. If retiring at a level where you could live off of your gold indefinately were good role-playing, we'd all call it quits at level 10. Seems to me that retiring mid campaign is counter-productive to the continuation of the game itself. So? Retiring from a career when you're no longer able is different from retiring when you have enough money. Arguably, roleplaying a crippled hero against type instead of inserting new life into a campaign with a fully capable character can be better for many games. Also, getting a replacement leg wasn't something that I had asked for - it was a gift from the "gods" (DM) because he saw that I was willing to go on and to play it out despite what most players would consider a devistating set-back. I did survive 5 levels after I lost the leg; that's 5 levels before a replacement was gained as well. It is one of those rewards you get for enduring where others would give in. The best kind of reward - the kind you can't find in the books.Well, sure, that's good. Like a lot of your examples, it's good. However, it does nothing to weaken the Fallacy or the principles behind it. Many players don't need the kind of reward you can't find in the books to roleplay well or have fun. Just like, in the prior arguments, many players don't need a solidly defined set of class-to-concept relationships or to play someone who learns to get by with his central class features missing because that "makes his character stronger" in order to roleplay well and have fun. Anyone can roleplay well and have fun without any of the above elements. You raise valid examples of good play experience, Dog, but it seems to me that again and again people are only disagreeing with you because the points that you raise don't disprove theirs. I was reluctant to stick my oar into this particular stretch of water, but it's a pattern that seems to keep returning to haunt your debates.
Reality_Czech 03-26-08, 03:36 PM	RT- I don't say this lightly. You communicate more clearly through the written word than anyone I've "met" in recent memory. I've been writing reports, briefs, opinion papers, and essays for nearly 20 years and I feel that you've surpased me. Bravo.
Cuindless 03-26-08, 04:53 PM	You raise valid examples of good play experience, Dog, but it seems to me that again and again people are only disagreeing with you because the points that you raise don't disprove theirs. This right here is the crux of the argument regarding the Stormwind fallacy. So many people come here with either the statement, "I've seen bad optimizers and/or bad optimization choices lead to some great roleplaying opportunities," or it's opposing statement, "I knew this one optimizer who was a total munchkin and a horrible roleplayer." What those arguments fail to do is prove that roleplaying and optimization are mutually exclusive ends of a continuum. The closest argument I've seen is the "placed focus" argument, i.e. that by focusing on one aspect of the game (optimization) you are spending less time focusing on the other aspect (roleplaying). However, the logical refutation to this is that the optimization aspect typically takes place "off the table", while the roleplaying aspects take place "on the table". As such, the two separate elements remain mutually inexclusive, which can be proved by the existence of good optimizers who are simultaneously good roleplayers.
Dog_O_War 03-26-08, 05:03 PM	Whoa, "weaken" the Fallacy? I guess things are so clouded in here that the "lines" presented are just a mess of dirt and sweat. I agree with the SW fallacy. I just don't like it. Infact, most of my posts usually have very little to do with the fallacy itself, but rather are in defence of critiques on what I've said. Take for example my view on characters and classes within the game; I mentioned it, and it brought about a turd tornado around me. It dragged this thread off course, and to right it, I moved the discussion to another thread entirely. I agree that what Stormwind posted holds a fundimental truth to it, but at the same time I don't think that it will always be true 100% of the time, as there are too many factors to say what can and cannot "fly" in terms of builds, optimization, RP, and roll-play. An example of this is how many DMs will ban DMM and persistent meta-magic, but are whole-heartedly for the 5 techniques (I'm the opposite as far as this is concerned. I kept DMM and persistent meta-magic, but do not use the 5 techniques very often). Instead of blocking mechanical options via mechanical means, I kept them but restricted them with RP and flavor. Is it perfect? No. Neither is the fallacy, as we've all seen it abused to the Nth degree. RadicalTaoist As for your responses to... Originally Posted by calronmoonflower I was going to post this yesterday, but the boards crashed. Also note that this argument was brought up on page 3 to 5 somewhere. Counter was basic. The character concept was greatly changed by the circumstances. That in turn can reduce the enjoyment you get from playing the character. As the point of the game is to have fun, rolling up a new character might make sense And if that character dies next session? If you find yourself at odds or overlapping with another player's character? I think that can does not equal will in this situation. Hell, for all you know, sticking with your character as is might infact benefit the party via some unseen event - really, neither you nor I can tell until the game comes to an end. If I were having fun still being able to keep my character, why should I not continue to play? I know that it had nothing to do with the discussion at hand. I posted such because what calronmoonflower offered also had nothing to do with the discussion. I offered that while what he said can detract, it can also add - and thus was a non-issue and not relevant. There are no such mechanics. Are you conceding that those of us who do enjoy games with such encounters frequently appearing should not let their characters be a burden? Note that for many character types, being a burden would be contrary to such a character's motivations and thus pressing on in such a manner would be bad roleplaying. Are you conceding that all your characters carry the same motivation? That you will never play a "weak" character because there is some kind of non-existent "taboo" you and your group have associated with it? This is what I speak of when I say that I don't like the SW fallacy; you end up with characters that have no greater motivation than to be effective all the time in their given field of expertise. So? Retiring from a career when you're no longer able is different from retiring when you have enough money. Arguably, roleplaying a crippled hero against type instead of inserting new life into a campaign with a fully capable character can be better for many games. Except when you end up with the revolving door effect - as many of those campaigns will perport. You raise valid examples of good play experience, Dog, but it seems to me that again and again people are only disagreeing with you because the points that you raise don't disprove theirs. I was reluctant to stick my oar into this particular stretch of water, but it's a pattern that seems to keep returning to haunt your debates. The points I raise somehow get misconstrude as unwavering litany that all should follow. I hold no one but my own players and myself to such standards. I offer examples and situations on how or why some things cause problems, and how supposed problems could be fixed if only someone were willing to be just a little bit flexable - but no one likes to give in. I say what I post because I see a problem that people have because they do not understand the word "comprimise", "grit", or "role" in the sense of there is such a thing as a party of 4 fighters, and that not every group should be rogue/fighter/wizard/cleric. That last one is more to the point that such a role is that of the character, not of what class abilities he brings to the table.
Cuindless 03-26-08, 05:13 PM	Are you conceding that all your characters carry the same motivation? That you will never play a "weak" character because there is some kind of non-existent "taboo" you and your group have associated with it? This is what I speak of when I say that I don't like the SW fallacy; you end up with characters that have no greater motivation than to be effective all the time in their given field of expertise. If optimizers never played weak characters, then every optimizer would play one of the following: 1. A Focused Specialist Conjurer with 3 PrCs. 2. A DDM Cleric with Nightsticks a plenty. 3. A Druid EDIT 4. A Kobold paragon/druid/master of many forms with 1000+ levels of "bad ass". We don't. Now, I'm a baby optimizer. I've still got a lot to learn, but I've jumped in with both feet. Optimization doesn't exist in a vaccuum. It's not about creating the most powerful, uber leet character in the game. Optimization and min/maxing occurs in context. I sit down and say, "Hmm... I'd like to play a dextrous melee warrior. I'll probably need levels of rogue and swashbuckler, perhaps some swordsage or the like, and definitely some of the more specialized PrCs later on. I think I'll take a trip down to the CO boards and see how optimal a build I can make within this concept." The Stormwind Fallacy doesn't get abused, it simply exists. If anything, it gets abused the opposite way. People automatically assume that an optimizer is either a munch-kin or a horrible roleplayer. THat's why you get people saying things like, "I don't min/max. I'm a roleplayer." All Stormwind and the others are pointing out is that the logic behind that statement is fallacious.
RadicalTaoist 03-26-08, 08:38 PM	Cuindless: Pun-Pun can now be realized in any 1st level character of any race that doesn't have an Int penalty. Kobold paladin 1 is the easiest 1st level character method, for the record. Whoa, "weaken" the Fallacy? I guess things are so clouded in here that the "lines" presented are just a mess of dirt and sweat. Undoubtedly, a lot of this is probably us just not realizing what we aim to defend and talking past each other as a result. I agree with the SW fallacy. I just don't like it. Infact, most of my posts usually have very little to do with the fallacy itself, but rather are in defence of critiques on what I've said. Yeah, these things tend to spiral out of control. Take for example my view on characters and classes within the game; I mentioned it, and it brought about a turd tornado around me. It dragged this thread off course, and to right it, I moved the discussion to another thread entirely. That discussion was a pristine example of 'sides' talking past each other. I agree that what Stormwind posted holds a fundimental truth to it, but at the same time I don't think that it will always be true 100% of the time, as there are too many factors to say what can and cannot "fly" in terms of builds, optimization, RP, and roll-play. Well, the thing is that the SWF stands 100% of the time kind of like Bernoulli's Principle (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bernoulli%27s_principle) stands 100% of the time. I understand it's the height of hubris for a gaming geek to espouse part of his personal philosophy as being as inviolable as a scientific law, but natural ramifications of a priori logical necessities are just like that. This ramification (that optimization and roleplay can be coexistent to great degree, or that fluid speed changes in conjunction with fluid pressure or gravitational energy) is just so because the dynamics of the underlying phenomenon (roleplaying game styles, or the mechanics of fluid matter) must act that way. You are correct that individual mileage may vary. I aimed to explain how that mileage varied with my third skill. That doesn't violate the principle itself. An example of this is how many DMs will ban DMM and persistent meta-magic, but are whole-heartedly for the 5 techniques (I'm the opposite as far as this is concerned. I kept DMM and persistent meta-magic, but do not use the 5 techniques very often). Instead of blocking mechanical options via mechanical means, I kept them but restricted them with RP and flavor. Note that I'm sure it's possible to roleplay and optimize within the same character in your game to a strong degree, and that no loss of roleplaying potential in your game can be specifically attributed to optimization or vice versa. (For example: if my optimized acrobatic duelist is rendered paraplegic, his character concept wasn't compromised by the build or vice versa, they were compromised because he lost the use of his arms and legs.) This is what I mean by stating that the principle remains inviolable, and committing the Fallacy remains a logical fallacy. Note that in no way is this statement a criticism of your playstyle or the way you build your campaigns and games - those are fine. Is it perfect? No. Neither is the fallacy, as we've all seen it abused to the Nth degree. I've honestly never seen that. I know that it had nothing to do with the discussion at hand. I posted such because what calronmoonflower offered also had nothing to do with the discussion. I offered that while what he said can detract, it can also add - and thus was a non-issue and not relevant. We are in agreement then. Are you conceding that all your characters carry the same motivation? That you will never play a "weak" character because there is some kind of non-existent "taboo" you and your group have associated with it? This is what I speak of when I say that I don't like the SW fallacy; you end up with characters that have no greater motivation than to be effective all the time in their given field of expertise. That's not a ramification of the SWF at all. As Cuindless pointed out, a character's power level is relative to the game environment. The only 'taboo' against characters that are 'weaker' than they could be is that we'd have more fun playing strong, optimized PCs. That's it. Moreover, you're simplifying this all to the motivation to improve. There are many reasons why a PC may want to become stronger and more capable, and they may end up becoming stronger even without wanting to depending on what techniques you use to describe the progression (Technique 2: The Random Mutation is pretty much guaranteed to surprise your character). Except when you end up with the revolving door effect - as many of those campaigns will purport. Now, this has nothing to do with the SWF. That's just a matter of player preference and campaign lethality. An optimized replacement character may not be touching any revolving doors at all. And the revolving door may in some groups not be in any conflict with roleplaying; we may just want to play a high-difficulty heavy optimization game and don't feel any need to stop breathing life into our characters even though they're not likely to last half a session. Think of it as the D&D equivalent of playing Ninja Gaiden on the hardest difficulty. I'm in a MythWeavers game full of CO regulars. Party of 5, level 14. The DM's got to take a break, so he asked a co-DM to run some "trial" encounters to see how tough we are. Our first trial encounter? The Tarrasque. Yeah, some of us are going to get owned. We're okay with that. The points I raise somehow get misconstrued as unwavering litany that all should follow. I hold no one but my own players and myself to such standards. I offer examples and situations on how or why some things cause problems, and how supposed problems could be fixed if only someone were willing to be just a little bit flexable - but no one likes to give in. I think it my just be logical quibbling. If we can disentangle your personal experience from the logical demands of the SWF in a way that makes sense, we'd be fine. I say what I post because I see a problem that people have because they do not understand the word "comprimise", "grit", or "role" in the sense of there is such a thing as a party of 4 fighters, and that not every group should be rogue/fighter/wizard/cleric. That last one is more to the point that such a role is that of the character, not of what class abilities he brings to the table.Here's the thing: to make that distinction and then place value on the importance of the character concept requires the admission that it doesn't matter how much the player optimizes. Which means he can play a gimp or he can be unto a small god as long as he treats the concept well. That's all the SWF demands anyways. I don't believe that every group should be rogue/fighter/wizard/cleric (really, I don't). I do like the idea of games being story and character driven. I just don't see any good reason why that should get in the way of me putting together uber builds and bringing them to the table.
Cuindless 03-26-08, 08:52 PM	Cuindless: Pun-Pun can now be realized in any 1st level character of any race that doesn't have an Int penalty. Kobold paladin 1 is the easiest 1st level character method, for the record. PM me how please.
calronmoonflower 03-27-08, 03:02 AM	And if that character dies next session? If you find yourself at odds or overlapping with another player's character? I think that can does not equal will in this situation. Hell, for all you know, sticking with your character as is might infact benefit the party via some unseen event - really, neither you nor I can tell until the game comes to an end. If I were having fun still being able to keep my character, why should I not continue to play? I used can not will. Some might find enjoyment with that character. Others might not. And there are direct mechanics stating that not being able to cast spells is a burden on the party? Not having much of anything else to offer makes you a burden on the party. Are there direct mechanics somewhere in a 3.5 book that states that all encounters must be combat, or that require a character be able to use his primary ability all the time? Am I any worst off than another wizard who is in an anti-magic field? Please, show me where it says these things. [:rolleyes:]Yes, let's change the entire focus of a campaign for one character. [/:rolleyes:] Seriously issue is dependent on play style, the campaign that you are playing in, and you character. Whether in combat or outside of such I really wouldn't enjoy a character that cannot add much to the effort. My personal solution would be to try to undo the damage or split paths until you can contribute. Also an Anti-Magic Field is temporary and you can even find ways to work around it. It also protects you from magic casts by others. These two situations are not comparable. If retiring at a level where you could live off of your gold indefinately were good role-playing, we'd all call it quits at level 10. Seems to me that retiring mid campaign is counter-productive to the continuation of the game itself. So is other player getting killed trying to cover you. A spelless wizard isn't much better of than a NPC expert with max ranks in Use Magic Device. In my personal view the wealth is not the reason to adventure. Doing something worth while is. A severely gimped character might not be able to add enough to make it worth while and be a burden on the rest of the party. At that point retiring the character makes sense to me. Also, getting a replacement leg wasn't something that I had asked for - it was a gift from the "gods" (DM) because he saw that I was willing to go on and to play it out despite what most players would consider a devistating set-back. I did survive 5 levels after I lost the leg; that's 5 levels before a replacement was gained as well. It is one of those rewards you get for enduring where others would give in. The best kind of reward - the kind you can't find in the books. Again Rule 0 to the rescue. Finding a replacement does make sense in game. Waiting for Rule 0 doesn't. Again not all would enjoy playing such a character and not all characters would stick it out. Also you can get into things like multiclassing penalties and other such hardships that are permanent. Again you have failed to show that retiring with a good reason is poor roleplaying and that sticking the course is good roleplaying. Each can be but can ≠ will. I know that it had nothing to do with the discussion at hand. I posted such because what calronmoonflower offered also had nothing to do with the discussion. I offered that while what he said can detract, it can also add - and thus was a non-issue and not relevant. You're the one that put forth the bad roleplaying angle. I just put forth a reason that such could happen that is independent from roleplaying. Remember Your Mileage My Very. Each of these responses depends on the campaign, character, and player.
RadicalTaoist 03-27-08, 09:53 AM	Cuindless - Might as well link it here. The original thread's OP isn't updated, but you can find the method in there too if you look hard enough. We're trying to find ways for him to ascend before being born. Czech - I don't think I'm *that* good, but I'm trying to find the words to downplay your compliment without making someone who has worked 20 years in a writing position look bad. Obviously, if I was so eloquent, I'd have thought of it by now. ;)
Reality_Czech 03-27-08, 10:23 AM	RT- I don't feel that you've made me look bad, I'm just saying your clarity of expression is laudable (If I'm not mistaken you're 21 years old, making it more impressive. Sorry if I). My main job is analysis, I just have to make sure I make myself understood, or what I figure out is of little use to those that need information. I'm good at figuring things out; I view my written communication skills as above average but (like everything in life that matters) in need of constant improvement. On that topic, the reason I enjoy playing a well-optimized character is because I like being good at things, and improving at everything I can. I can play any character, but the ones I get the greatest enjoyment from are those that excel and improve at whatever role I designed them for and/or find them in.
RadicalTaoist 03-27-08, 10:50 AM	If I'm not mistaken you're 21 years old, making it more impressive.Correct. I graduate with my BA in an English/Cognitive Science double major this June. Hence my sheepishness in the face of praise from a professional.
Reality_Czech 03-27-08, 10:55 AM	I'm a professional in "Help the big guys with the guns kill the bad guys", and I'm good at it. It's probably why I gravitate toward wizard characters. I don't mind saying you're a better written communicator that I am (you are). Law of averages says I exceed you in other areas.
ORC_Sinister 03-27-08, 11:23 AM	The Stormwind Fallacy doesn't get abused, it simply exists. If anything, it gets abused the opposite way. People automatically assume that an optimizer is either a munch-kin or a horrible roleplayer. THat's why you get people saying things like, "I don't min/max. I'm a roleplayer." All Stormwind and the others are pointing out is that the logic behind that statement is fallacious. What's interesting is to compare the Fallacy to other systems that actually have weaknesses and flaws. I fault no one for playing an optimal character and sure it can be roleplayed. That said would players who play DnD like or embrace another RPG system the contained flaws and disadvantages as part of the core system? I think maybe right there is the role playing aspect. In DnD character don't have to role play weakness so it's sort of a moot point, but WOULD they if they had to? Or will these players stamp their feet and take disadvantages and write them on the back on their character sheet and never use them unless reminded by the Game Master? I think that's an interesting question. All characters in fiction (and non fiction for that matter) have drawbacks, so would the butt kickers build experts play those if forced to? Would they like them or hate them? Is it that lack of "hey here's something your character is known for doing poorly" that leads to the perception that build experts don't roleplay? I'm not just speaking of general disadvantages like the fighter not getting enough skill points, I'm talking about specific to the character, not the class, weaknesses.
Cuindless 03-27-08, 11:58 AM	What's interesting is to compare the Fallacy to other systems that actually have weaknesses and flaws. I fault no one for playing an optimal character and sure it can be roleplayed. That said would players who play DnD like or embrace another RPG system the contained flaws and disadvantages as part of the core system? I think maybe right there is the role playing aspect. In DnD character don't have to role play weakness so it's sort of a moot point, but WOULD they if they had to? Or will these players stamp their feet and take disadvantages and write them on the back on their character sheet and never use them unless reminded by the Game Master? I think that's an interesting question. All characters in fiction (and non fiction for that matter) have drawbacks, so would the butt kickers build experts play those if forced to? Would they like them or hate them? Is it that lack of "hey here's something your character is known for doing poorly" that leads to the perception that build experts don't roleplay? I'm not just speaking of general disadvantages like the fighter not getting enough skill points, I'm talking about specific to the character, not the class, weaknesses. Actually, a lot of melee builds have 8 Wis and Cha, which is a weakness in my mind. In other words, the character lacks common sense and interacts poorly with others. In non-combat situations, those can be major disadvantages, and a good roleplayer will play his character with those disadvantages. I've occasionally had to tell a min/maxer that his characters tries to say what the player just said, but isn't eloquent enough to put it in those words. Do some of them stomp their foot and whine... sure... but the more mature ones sit back and let the 18 Cha Sorcerer or Bard talk to the NPC king. One player in my current group is an awesome example. He's playing a fairly well optimized Arcane Archer with an 8 Cha. He almost never talks. Once at a dinner party he was asked what he thought of the meal. In a very direct, simple tone he said, "It's good." The nobleman just sort of shrugged and turned back to the paladin/marshall/crusader with the 20 charisma. He plays his character well, and that means he has disadvantages. Just because they're represted numerically by mechanics doesn't mean they aren't present in an RP scenario. The systems you're hinting at, such as White Wolf's D10 system with it's built in flaws, actually have more of a tendency to munchkinism in my experience. Most Vampire: The Masquerade games I've seen have players taking 7 points of flaws for the mechanical benefits and having to be reminded repeatedly that their character even has the flaw. Once again, I don't think the system necessitates it, but I am saying I've experienced it a lot more.
Mock26 03-27-08, 12:53 PM	What's interesting is to compare the Fallacy to other systems that actually have weaknesses and flaws. I fault no one for playing an optimal character and sure it can be roleplayed. That said would players who play DnD like or embrace another RPG system the contained flaws and disadvantages as part of the core system? I think maybe right there is the role playing aspect. In DnD character don't have to role play weakness so it's sort of a moot point, but WOULD they if they had to? Or will these players stamp their feet and take disadvantages and write them on the back on their character sheet and never use them unless reminded by the Game Master? I think that's an interesting question. All characters in fiction (and non fiction for that matter) have drawbacks, so would the butt kickers build experts play those if forced to? Would they like them or hate them? Is it that lack of "hey here's something your character is known for doing poorly" that leads to the perception that build experts don't roleplay? I'm not just speaking of general disadvantages like the fighter not getting enough skill points, I'm talking about specific to the character, not the class, weaknesses. In my current campaign one of the characters, a fighter/thief who is also the best fighter in the group, has a severe fear of spiders. Before the character was even created or conceived I had planned out a fair number of adventures against the drow. In fact, the drow were set up as a major power force behind the BBEG! It has led to some really fun encounters. It has also led to the rest of the group having to turn tail and flee for their lives because without that dwarf they weren't powerful enough to take down their opponents. And, the entire group doesn't mind! They all love the idea of phobias. Sure, less than half of the characters in the group have a phobia, but they willingly except the phobias that are present in the group and the willingly accept the consequences of said phobias.
Mock26 03-27-08, 01:09 PM	One player in my current group is an awesome example. He's playing a fairly well optimized Arcane Archer with an 8 Cha. He almost never talks. Once at a dinner party he was asked what he thought of the meal. In a very direct, simple tone he said, "It's good." The nobleman just sort of shrugged and turned back to the paladin/marshall/crusader with the 20 charisma. He plays his character well, and that means he has disadvantages. Just because they're represted numerically by mechanics doesn't mean they aren't present in an RP scenario. That doesn't sound like much of a weakness.
ORC_Sinister 03-27-08, 01:21 PM	Actually, a lot of melee builds have 8 Wis and Cha, which is a weakness in my mind. In other words, the character lacks common sense and interacts poorly with others. In non-combat situations, those can be major disadvantages, and a good roleplayer will play his character with those disadvantages. I've occasionally had to tell a min/maxer that his characters tries to say what the player just said, but isn't eloquent enough to put it in those words. Do some of them stomp their foot and whine... sure... but the more mature ones sit back and let the 18 Cha Sorcerer or Bard talk to the NPC king. I'd consider a system like that if it was VERY clear and specific what my low score meant, like "lack of class and grace at social functions" or "doesn't know traditions and constantly walks on people's customs" or "doesn't understand science" but without mapping it out to specific situations known ahead of time the game master is role playing the character not the player. If you decide how someone says something there's no real point to speaking. I'm not saying that YOU always make that determination but that kind of general guideline in the hands of a partial game master could be trouble. The systems you're hinting at, such as White Wolf's D10 system with it's built in flaws, actually have more of a tendency to munchkinism in my experience. Most Vampire: The Masquerade games I've seen have players taking 7 points of flaws for the mechanical benefits and having to be reminded repeatedly that their character even has the flaw. Once again, I don't think the system necessitates it, but I am saying I've experienced it a lot more. I think that's dependent on the method of picking flaws. For instance I always have players balance flaws and merit points (or advantages/disadvantages in other system). I think it can lead to munchkinism but I find flaws are constantly brought up in our games unlike DnD where a low score is just a behind the scenes low or slightly negative modifier.
ORC_Sinister 03-27-08, 01:34 PM	In my current campaign one of the characters, a fighter/thief who is also the best fighter in the group, has a severe fear of spiders. Before the character was even created or conceived I had planned out a fair number of adventures against the drow. In fact, the drow were set up as a major power force behind the BBEG! It has led to some really fun encounters. It has also led to the rest of the group having to turn tail and flee for their lives because without that dwarf they weren't powerful enough to take down their opponents. And, the entire group doesn't mind! They all love the idea of phobias. Sure, less than half of the characters in the group have a phobia, but they willingly except the phobias that are present in the group and the willingly accept the consequences of said phobias. Awesome. Do you give the players anything for taking a phobia?
Mock26 03-27-08, 01:42 PM	Awesome. Do you give the players anything for taking a phobia? Actually, nothing official. I had never really thought of phobias/weaknesses in D&D until that one player joined my group and he said that 90-some% of all of his characters have had a phobia of some sort, and he was responsible for other players picking up on the idea. I do try to be a little bit more forgiving when the phobias creep up (such as when the spider running turns tail and exits stage left I'll make sure that he doesn't run into anything that he couldn't handle), but only a little. I run a very hard, deadly, campaign with monsters that act in a "realistic" manner. (My players don't know this, but my BBEG and some of his lieutenants have a few phobias!) My players have never hinted at any beneficial compensation for their phobias so I haven't volunteered anything. I kind of look at it that they are doing this of their own free will for the sake of fleshing out their characters and making them more real. If I gave any tangible and "official" benefits for a phobia then some people might just take a phobia for the benefit involved, and to me that would cheapen their character.
ORC_Sinister 03-27-08, 02:10 PM	Actually, nothing official. I had never really thought of phobias/weaknesses in D&D until that one player joined my group and he said that 90-some% of all of his characters have had a phobia of some sort, and he was responsible for other players picking up on the idea. I do try to be a little bit more forgiving when the phobias creep up (such as when the spider running turns tail and exits stage left I'll make sure that he doesn't run into anything that he couldn't handle), but only a little. I run a very hard, deadly, campaign with monsters that act in a "realistic" manner. (My players don't know this, but my BBEG and some of his lieutenants have a few phobias!) My players have never hinted at any beneficial compensation for their phobias so I haven't volunteered anything. I kind of look at it that they are doing this of their own free will for the sake of fleshing out their characters and making them more real. If I gave any tangible and "official" benefits for a phobia then some people might just take a phobia for the benefit involved, and to me that would cheapen their character. eh...Character receive bonus from feats so why not from taking phobias. I'm not suggesting life altering bonus but perhaps something on the same power level as a couple skill points or something like that (would be funny for a spider phobia character to be able to identify almost any kind of spider.) "AHHHH it's a black widow, let's get out of here"
Mock26 03-27-08, 02:14 PM	eh...Characters receive bonus from feats so why not from taking phobias. I'm not suggesting life altering bonus but perhaps something on the same power level as a couple skill points or something like that (would be funny for a spider phobia character to be able to identify almost any kind of spider.) "AHHHH it's a black widow, let's get out of here" I understand your point, but as I said if I do something like that I run the risk players taking a weakness just for the sake of gaining a benefit, even a very small one. I like the idea that the players who do take them do so purely for the flavor of it and do it of their own accord.
Tempest Stormwind 03-27-08, 02:21 PM	For the record, RP weaknesses like that -- defining but not self-crippling -- are excellent examples of such weaknesses that don't necessarily lead to drama-queening earlier. For instance, I have a mage in one game who is phenominally powerful -- he's a shadowcraft mage, capable of spontaneously casting two schools of magic at a far higher caster level than he would normally cast at, with insane DCs to boot. In spite of this power, he isn't without a "classic" RP-flaw: he appears to be afraid of heights. (I say "appears" because he's a Chaotic Neutral Gnome Illusionist and plays with perceptions as naturally as breathing. No one in the party knows what his natural accent is, not even me -- it's entirely possible he's faking the fear of heights.). He's got other flaws, too, such as poor eyesight (mechanically, the min-maxer's dream flaw, Murky-Eyed; he wears glasses to reflect this RP-wise, but they have no mechanical effect -- he compensates by refining his other senses (that is, his bonus feat from the flaw was Earth Sense, he's aiming toward Mindsight, and has Permanencied the Arcane Sight spell)) and an apparent lack of empathy, but I'm focusing on the fear of heights here. This acrophobia does, however, factor into: his backstory (he's a gnome, with a strong connection to the ground), his RP and tactics (for instance, although he's used Fly spells before, he mentally convinces himself that "down" is subjective (illusionists play with perceptions, recall; I have him question basic perceptions all the time), and keeps his feet pointed toward a wall or ceiling), and his mechanics (he has the Earth Spell feat, which empowers his spells significantly if he's in contact with the ground -- and since that's a huge amount of his offensive oomph, leaving the ground would put him at a tactical disadvantage, simliar to dropping a weapon as a fighter. On the rare times he uses Fly spells, he makes sure his feet touch the walls or cielings as well, which not only simulates ground under his feet, but (if the terrain complies, i.e. if we're in a cave) keeps his Earth Spell feat active). I reaffirm this whenever climbing or flying comes up in-game -- but I don't monopolize time. Usually, it's something along the lines of just grumbling, or mentioning that he's helped up the rope slowly amidst much complaining, or similar. It's a defining weakness, and a definite weakness, that has an impact on his tactics -- but doesn't necessarily cripple him in combat (mechanically or tactically) or steal the party's time. Just as it's quite possible to have an optimized character that doesn't degenerate into Pun-Pun, it's quite possible to have flaws like this without degenerating into drama-queening. And, look: Neither the min/maxing nor the RP cost the other side anything, due to clever mechanical construction and acting that are designed to compliment one another.
RadicalTaoist 03-27-08, 02:42 PM	(Psst. Tempest. You mean 'complement'. Unless you're arguing that mechanical construction and acting can say nice things about each other.:P)[/English major] Mock26 - Nice example; I like to work drawbacks like phobias into my character solely for the hell of fleshing the character out too. That said, I don't see why Cuindless' example isn't much of a weakness. Just because the PC doesn't expose himself to the drawbacks of his weakness very often doesn't mean it's not a weakness. Characters will always have 'weaknesses' based on what they just can't do. Is a wizard*'s inability to go toe to toe with a gigantic melee monster of doom 'not much of a weakness' if the wizard stays far away and lets the tanks do the melee business? *assuming a non-buffed melee wizard of cheese
pres_man 03-27-08, 03:00 PM	eh...Character receive bonus from feats so why not from taking phobias. I'm not suggesting life altering bonus but perhaps something on the same power level as a couple skill points or something like that (would be funny for a spider phobia character to be able to identify almost any kind of spider.) "AHHHH it's a black widow, let's get out of here" There is just something wrong with: P1: Why are able to do X? P2: Because I am afraid of spiders! P1: :looloo:
calronmoonflower 03-28-08, 03:05 AM	TEAMWORK teamwork (http://www.merriam-webster.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?book=Dictionary&va=teamwork) : work done by several associates with each doing a part but all subordinating personal prominence to the efficiency of the whole teamwork (http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/teamwork) 1. the cooperative effort of a team of people for a common end "We're stronger together than you could ever hope to be alone." Dita to Hibiki from Vandread: The Second Stage episode 13. "United we stand, divided we fall." Good teamwork in and of itself is a form of min/maxing. In a team each character need not try to be everything at once or cover all situations. This allows specialization toward specific ends that increase the strength in that area. You will also have teammates to cover your weak spots. If teamwork is used to increase your combat effectiveness then it is also powergaming. heck by some definitions you don't even need to apply it to combat for it to be powergaming. TACTICS tactics (http://www.merriam-webster.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?book=Dictionary&va=tactics) 1 a: the science and art of disposing and maneuvering forces in combat b: the art or skill of employing available means to accomplish an end 2: a system or mode of procedure 3: the study of the grammatical relations within a language including morphology and syntax tactics (http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/tactics) 1. (military) plural The military science that deals with achieving the objectives set by strategy. 2. (military) plural Manoeuvres used against an enemy. 3. (military) plural The employment and ordered arrangement of forces in relation to each other[1]. Proper tactics are a form of optimization. Using tactics increase the effect and/or reduces the effort put forth toward a task. If you use proper tactics to aid in battle then you are powergaming. Again by some definition the combat part is unnecessary for this to be powergaming. If the Stormwind Fallacy is false then you must come to the conclusion that using good teamwork and proper tactics in combat must interfere with roleplaying. This of course is nonsensical. They can be bad roleplaying, but in no way must it be so. Therefor the Stormwind Fallacy is confirmed.
ORC_Sinister 03-28-08, 01:59 PM	There is just something wrong with: P1: Why are able to do X? P2: Because I am afraid of spiders! P1: :looloo: Nothing wrong with it, but I'd prefer mechanics to have addressed phobias, perhaps not spelled them out but given a few options? yes!
ORC_Sinister 03-28-08, 02:08 PM	I understand your point, but as I said if I do something like that I run the risk players taking a weakness just for the sake of gaining a benefit, even a very small one. I like the idea that the players who do take them do so purely for the flavor of it and do it of their own accord. I guess I have a problem with the stormwind thing working for everything but acting. Since it's defining min/maxing as rp then why can't we min/max acting as well? It seems that the fallacy wants to prove that min/maxing optimal build characters is role playing, and also freely admits that acting is role playing, so what's wrong with min/max acting in the case of merits and flaw systems? Ah it's just because some people are good at acting and some people aren't! So why not make character act out flaws and merits, if they were mechanical they would take away the edge good actors have.
Zombie_Babies 03-28-08, 02:20 PM	...Since it's defining min/maxing as rp then why can't we min/max acting as well? It seems that the fallacy wants to prove that min/maxing optimal build characters is role playing... No. The fallacy in no way defines min-maxing* as roleplaying. It merely states that the two different things are not mutually exclusive. You can min-max and RP. Min-maxing does not make you a bad roleplayer. Just as being a good roleplayer doesn't mean you're a bad min-maxer. That's it. *You may substitute "Optimizer", "Powergamer" or "Builder" and variants of those terms as you see fit.
Zombie_Babies 03-28-08, 03:02 PM	Now for a more general reply to the thread. I want to begin by stating that I agree with the fallacy. I have seen and played optimized characters that were RPd well. So, in my experience, this holds up. Now- onto the meat of the post: Though the fallacy is true, IMO, it is also quite unneeded. Why? The opinions it is meant to influence come from people that are thinking in absolutes. Absolute opinions on a fluid game and the human personality. They have already shown that their opinions cannot be changed by making the generalization that Optimizers/etc cannot RP well. Such an absolute opinion on something as nebulous as D&D and the human personality should indicate to the reader that the opinion cannot be changed no matter how technically eloquent the rebuttal may be. What we end up with is people quoting the fallacy instead of actually explaining why their Optimized character is also well RPd. How many times have we seen the "Nuh uh! Stormwind Fallacy!" reply? And how many times has it worked? We get less creative and collaborative discussion because it's far easier to quote this than it is to explain why we fit into it. Though, to be honest, I doubt that the discussion quality would improve without it. In these cases it may be best to simply state your case and then agree to disagree.
Tempest Stormwind 03-28-08, 10:35 PM	Now for a more general reply to the thread. I want to begin by stating that I agree with the fallacy. I have seen and played optimized characters that were RPd well. So, in my experience, this holds up. Now- onto the meat of the post: Though the fallacy is true, IMO, it is also quite unneeded. Why? The opinions it is meant to influence come from people that are thinking in absolutes. Absolute opinions on a fluid game and the human personality. They have already shown that their opinions cannot be changed by making the generalization that Optimizers/etc cannot RP well. Such an absolute opinion on something as nebulous as D&D and the human personality should indicate to the reader that the opinion cannot be changed no matter how technically eloquent the rebuttal may be. What we end up with is people quoting the fallacy instead of actually explaining why their Optimized character is also well RPd. How many times have we seen the "Nuh uh! Stormwind Fallacy!" reply? And how many times has it worked? We get less creative and collaborative discussion because it's far easier to quote this than it is to explain why we fit into it. Though, to be honest, I doubt that the discussion quality would improve without it. In these cases it may be best to simply state your case and then agree to disagree. Well said. Your other reply is also quite sound, but I'll stick to this one for now. Consider this "straight from the horse's mouth" and cite this if you want to. I've maintained from the very beginning (well, not the very, very beginning -- I was pretty irate when I typed the original SWF. But as soon as I'd calmed down afterward) that I think the SWF should be unnecessary. The idea is fairly self-evident, I thought, and it was only because people didn't see the false dilemma they were setting up that I felt the need to rephrase it in terms they'd recognize. (I also regret naming it after myself, but that's another issue.) If you encounter anyone just citing the SWF instead of giving the reason why, agree with the statement of the fallacy but ask for WHY. If people can't explain why, then they're hiding, and call them on it -- because the SWF, like all fallacies, is not justification *for* anything: it's merely a tool to counter faulty reasoning. Some people who misuse it need to realize that holding a different opinion doesn't mean the other guy's at fault. At the risk of sounding political (since it's easy to understand here; I'll try to be neutral for politeness' sake), the same arguments can be used against both radical liberals and radical conservatives, arguing that we should do something because (it's something new) or (we've always done it this way) respectively. Just like the statement of the SWF in your example above, all of these are statements of personal opinion and outlook, not reasons to actually do something. What you have to do is explain *why* -- if something's new, why is it better than the old; if something's tradition, why is it the best possible choice; or, indeed, if your character is optimized mechanically, what makes him distinctive and finely played personality-wise? Without that reason, any statement in these lines is completely baseless. (And continuing that analogy, sometimes they're right -- a conservative's traditional methods may be used because they're the most economical, a liberal's new idea may be good because it fixes a flaw with the old system, and a min/maxed character may have a distinctive and popular personality quirk. However, unless they can give you that reason why -- and verify that the reason why has some basis in fact -- they're trying to prove something with an opinion, which doesn't hold in arguments, and is downright disingenuous.) Mind you, I, personally, have seen only ONE "nuh-uh, Stormwind fallacy!" post, ever -- and it was someone well-spoken and mature, of all things, despite providing no supporting evidence. All the other short-form replies that mention the fallacy I've seen have been proper applications -- using it to counter people who think that min/maxing and roleplaying are zero-sum.
Optimator 03-29-08, 04:08 AM	Remember Your Mileage My Very. :confused:
calronmoonflower 03-29-08, 03:39 PM	There is just something wrong with: P1: Why are able to do X? P2: Because I am afraid of spiders! P1: :looloo: Well, I've thought it over and a +2 to search checks can be thematically aligned with the fear of spiders as you never know where those hairy eight legged demons could be hiding. :confused: Having trouble with the phrase or why I used it?
twad 03-29-08, 11:11 PM	wow.. long thread.. kinda pointless.. But IMHO it should go down to this: Are you having fun? Are your friends having fun? If yes to both. Then everything is fine. Optimized or not, min-maxed or not, RP or not. Its all about the fun.
Optimator 03-30-08, 12:32 AM	Having trouble with the phrase or why I used it? I must've missed something.
Shadowhowler 03-30-08, 01:14 AM	I must've missed something. Is are you making fun therefor of his using of the "my" instead of 'may' in the use the phrase thereof? :P Sorry... I'm feeling a bit silly at the moment.
ORC_Sinister 03-30-08, 02:23 AM	wow.. long thread.. kinda pointless.. But IMHO it should go down to this: Are you having fun? Are your friends having fun? If yes to both. Then everything is fine. Optimized or not, min-maxed or not, RP or not. Its all about the fun. Sure ....but it's important I think when understanding game design to understand what all goes into a game and why it works. Some games are very rules light, some are rules heaving, why do people prefer one or the other? There's two major camps on this the artistic method actors and storytellers vs. power gamers and tacticians and butt kickers. The truth is everyone has an "itch" a reason why they game and that reason varies from person to person. It also what gravitates us to "kinds" of players because if you itch is power gaming and mine is method acting it's going to take a great GM or system to cater to both our itches. Sure it's possible, but it aint as easy as having a room full of power gamers, or a room full of method actors whose itch is almost the same thing.
ORC_Sinister 03-30-08, 02:27 AM	No. The fallacy in no way defines min-maxing* as roleplaying. It merely states that the two different things are not mutually exclusive. You can min-max and RP. Min-maxing does not make you a bad roleplayer. Just as being a good roleplayer doesn't mean you're a bad min-maxer. That's it. *You may substitute "Optimizer", "Powergamer" or "Builder" and variants of those terms as you see fit. Ah.. I think I understand better then.
Tempest Stormwind 03-30-08, 01:59 PM	There's two major camps on this the artistic method actors and storytellers vs. power gamers and tacticians and butt kickers. That, right there, is guilty of the faulty reasoning the Fallacy identified. You present an argument related to this one: http://telusplanet.net/~sdupuis/Tempest/StormwindFalse.gif When in truth it's something more like this: http://telusplanet.net/~sdupuis/Tempest/StormwindTrue.gif You're throwing "storytellers" in the upper-left and "power gamers" in the lower right, when really all that matters is that storytellers are high on the RP side (presumably) and powergamers are high on the min/max side. Tell me: What of those in the upper-right or lower-left? We all know people in the lower-left: I'd wager that most of us started out there to begin with, and that several beer & pretzel games fall in there as well (not at the extreme corner, mind you, but in that quadrant). Similarly, I provided examples of people in the upper-right: My gaming group is almost entirely composed of this type of player (there's examples of two of our games in this thread (http://forums.gleemax.com/showthread.php?t=842568); I'd highly suggest checking it out), for instance. So clearly, these people exist. Where do they fall on your "storyteller vs. power gamer" model? By ignoring 50% of the playing field, you pidgeonhole people into a false dilemma, suggesting that storytelling and powergaming are opponent-processes (that is, the more of one you have, then necessarily the less you have of the other) -- which is textbook SWF. EDIT: I look at your sig and I see some of these distinctions. Would it instead help to think of one axis as Storyteller/Method Actor and the other as Power Gamer/Butt-kicker? That's a decent summary using terms you probably relate more to -- and I know you've seen people who have high scores in all four of those areas. (Note that a butt-kicker isn't necessarily bad on the RP. I would argue that A Paladin in Hell (http://www.cayzle.com/screeds/lion009b.jpg) (assuming the guy is actually following the paladin code, which he probably would have been when that drawing was done) is a pretty good example of this. Similarly, a method actor isn't necessarily low on the butt-kicking. As RadicalTaoist can attest, I play my favorite character purely through method acting -- but she's still extremely capable of kicking serious butt when her family/friends are threatened. See this thread (http://forums.gleemax.com/showthread.php?t=842568) for an example.) EDIT-2: Case in point: I just looked up that quiz. I'm a CO board regular with my paws on many builds, from average optimized characters all the way up to Pun-Pun... and yet I scored 100% Method Actor, and higher on Storyteller than Power Gamer. You scored as a Tactician You're probably a military buff who wants to have the chance to think through complex problems. You want the rules, and your GM's interpretation of them, to match up what happens in the real world or at least be consistant. You want challenging yet logical obstacles to overcome. Method Actor 100% Tactician 100% Storyteller 92% Specialist 67% Power Gamer 67% Butt-Kicker 58% Casual Gamer 25% Commentary: I'm not a military buff, but I am a physicist. I very much like knowing the rules that the world works by, and I'd prefer that those rules map up with reality. Once I know the rules, though, I master them, and see what I can and can't do while operating under them. One might say this is exactly what I do when I optimize characters -- I apply the optimal rules in a given situation to accomplish the task efficiently and effectively. ...But at the same time, I'm also a method actor, and not deficient on the storyteller aspect (don't take my word on it: RT, if you're reading this, feel free to describe how I RP Angela, perhaps including your Flow state hypothesis and how she fits into the theory presented in this thread.). In fact, if you lump storyteller/method actor together and power gamer/butt kicker together, I actually scored higher in the first group than the second, despite my CO regularity and downright joy of tactics. (I don't lump Tactician with the min/maxers -- if you've never seen an RP-heavy tactician, get involved in an intrigue game.) This isn't odd to me -- it's just textbook upper-right -- but it presents problems if you think min/maxing and RP are opposed to each other. This doesn't fit with your "storyteller vs power gamer" model -- I'm very clearly an optimizer by my track record, but under your model, I can't also be a good roleplayer. And that, right there, is the reasoning the SWF is written to counter. Between this and Zombie_Babies' brief summary, that should make it clear. I thought the "official" definition (linked in my sig, and what spawned this entire discussion) was clear enough, and I haven't said anything here that wasn't in that post (even the pictures are there). WizO_Sinister, if this is clear and the "official" definition isn't, please tell me why, so I can update it for maximum clarity.
Cuindless 03-30-08, 06:07 PM	Sure ....but it's important I think when understanding game design to understand what all goes into a game and why it works. Some games are very rules light, some are rules heaving, why do people prefer one or the other? There's two major camps on this the artistic method actors and storytellers vs. power gamers and tacticians and butt kickers. The truth is everyone has an "itch" a reason why they game and that reason varies from person to person. It also what gravitates us to "kinds" of players because if you itch is power gaming and mine is method acting it's going to take a great GM or system to cater to both our itches. Sure it's possible, but it aint as easy as having a room full of power gamers, or a room full of method actors whose itch is almost the same thing. 1. Classic SWF. SW himself provided the best rebuttal, so I'll not add to it. 2. I think that those two "camps" don't actually exist in a large majority. Just like American politics, there's a very vocal left, a very vocal right and a silent majority who agree with both sides and don't understand why anyone's arguing to begin with (though in American politics, most of the dilemmas aren't false). On these boards it seems like we have a very loud minority saying "Method acting and good storytelling are far more important than how many bonuses you can acrue," and another loud minority saying, "aLL i WaNts iS HAX PWER! RP iS for stOOpId NoObS!!1!" The vast silent majority say, "Umm... we can min/max and roleplay at the same time. Why is everyone yelling?"
RadicalTaoist 03-30-08, 09:37 PM	Tempest - describe how you roleplay? You kept a friggin' character journal for Angela! You're roleplaying Dayvid so fricking sneaky you can't even tell if he's bull******** you, and you (supposedly) control his decisions! I regularly have to keep asking you where your opinions and your character's differ whenever we get to tricky ethical questions. I suppose for my next magic trick I should "feel free" to describe, oh, how Terry Pratchett makes his novels funny or how Tony Jaa knees people in the face. :P That said, I should write up a clearer idea of how I think intrinsic motivation factors into the best roleplaying; Angela would be a stellar example.
Cuindless 03-31-08, 12:59 PM	Tempest - describe how you roleplay? Did someone ask Tempest to describe how he roleplays as if it were a process to be codified? I must have missed that post.
Reality_Czech 03-31-08, 01:11 PM	Three posts up, in Tempest's Spoiler. "Tempest's results".
ORC_Sinister 03-31-08, 01:26 PM	You present an argument related to this one: http://telusplanet.net/~sdupuis/Tempest/StormwindFalse.gif When in truth it's something more like this: http://telusplanet.net/~sdupuis/Tempest/StormwindTrue.gif You're throwing "storytellers" in the upper-left and "power gamers" in the lower right, when really all that matters is that storytellers are high on the RP side (presumably) and powergamers are high on the min/max side. Tell me: What of those in the upper-right or lower-left? We all know people in the lower-left: I'd wager that most of us started out there to begin with, and that several beer & pretzel games fall in there as well (not at the extreme corner, mind you, but in that quadrant). Similarly, I provided examples of people in the upper-right: My gaming group is almost entirely composed of this type of player (there's examples of two of our games in this thread (http://forums.gleemax.com/showthread.php?t=842568); I'd highly suggest checking it out), for instance. So clearly, these people exist. Where do they fall on your "storyteller vs. power gamer" model? By ignoring 50% of the playing field, you pidgeonhole people into a false dilemma, suggesting that storytelling and powergaming are opponent-processes (that is, the more of one you have, then necessarily the less you have of the other) -- which is textbook SWF. This isn't odd to me -- it's just textbook upper-right -- but it presents problems if you think min/maxing and RP are opposed to each other.[/i][/sblock] This doesn't fit with your "storyteller vs power gamer" model -- I'm very clearly an optimizer by my track record, but under your model, I can't also be a good roleplayer. And that, right there, is the reasoning the SWF is written to counter. actually that chart is not correct, Nor do I imply things such as good or evil. Min/max may not be an issue, however, rules crunch in relation to the min/max rules heavy system is. Like I said before there are many many tasks during a roleplaying game that you take as a player. It could be rolling dice, it could be going to the restroom. Crunchier systems do require more player attention that character attention. We as humans don't multitask, we do one thing, then another, then another quickly and call it multitasking. You can't be a character looking up a rule, you can't be the character asking the GM a battefield question, anymore than you can be the character running to get a mountain dew. As such min/maxers are engaging in role playing but the system being rule (player) heavy is causing more stress to be placed on a player to resolve game, not story, complexities instead of the player focusing on engaging the story "as the character". So while min/max players aren't necessarily the problem systems with a high amount of rules dedicated to the min/max process DO require many more intensive fact finding rule answering player moments over other lighter systems that don't have that amount of rules complexity. That could be reflected in building your characters, adding levels, finding all your bonuses, looking up rules, making dice rolls (more than other systems), looking for synergy, finding combos etc... So a system that creates more "player" moments than "character" moments does in fact impact role-playing. Every system has min/maxing but those systems that dwell on it (or have large amounts of rules dedicated to it) do force more player moments than character moments. As evidence I compare d20 to BRP call of cthulhu. D20 is very crunchy very min/max oriented. Call of Cthulhu doesn't have feats, general no special abilities, and all skills are rolled against a d100 with no adding or subtracting of modifiers. There are no classes or prestige classes. In fact the game is just plain and simple not crunchy compared to d20. Because of this rules are hardly ever looked up, battlefield questions rarely asked, character sheets barely referred to, and planing advancement of the character unheard of. This creates an atmosphere of a great ease of high role play compared to a system that requires such a great deal of player time. That's not to say a system such as D20 can't be high role played, that's not true, but the crunch time spent on elements, such as the min/max do in fact make it more difficult or less easy than other systems. In conclusion perhaps a diagonal line going in that chart indicating the ease in which lighter systems facilitate high role-playing is needed. I'm not out to bash min/maxing, I'm out to prove that systems that are rule heavy and spend pages upon pages of producing min/max content, as well as pages and pages of other rules can impede high roleplaying by causing such a complexity of rules and sheer number of rules that players engage the game engine, way more than give high roleplaying performances. As further evidence of this I point to Robin Laws of Good Game Mastering where systems are clearly pointed out as good Method Actor systems or Good Storytelling systems. Clearly while min/Max is role-playing, high amounts of min/max crunch mean crunchier rules(and more rules) which also means systems that impede or make difficult high roleplay. It's not that crunchier systems can't be high role-played it's just that it's much much more difficult. Therefore an average player putting in the same amount of time and effort will generally have a high level of role play in a less crunchier system. Is it possible to min/max a low crunch game? Sure, and it might not impact high roleplay one bit, but rest assured that a system that writes tons and tons of rules for min/max (and other rules), WILL be more difficult to high roleplay.
Reality_Czech 03-31-08, 01:42 PM	I don't agree that mechanical play and RP must take time from one another, but I'm going to set that aside a little to try and couch my response to this in a way that hopefully more closely gels with your frame of reference. I'll repeat what many have said here; mechanical familiarity gives more time for roleplay, as players won't be using as much time looking up rules, calculating the interaction between game effects, and the like. If Min/Maxing = spending time not thinking about your character, then one method (not the only one) for avoiding it is greater familiarity with the ruleset. A simple example of this would be memorizing your multiplication tables so you can more rapidly work out portions needed to cater a 150-person dinner. Hopefully you're more concerned with how the meal tastes, but the math will facilitate your desired result.
Shadowhowler 03-31-08, 02:05 PM	2. I think that those two "camps" don't actually exist in a large majority. Just like American politics, there's a very vocal left, a very vocal right and a silent majority who agree with both sides and don't understand why anyone's arguing to begin with (though in American politics, most of the dilemmas aren't false). On these boards it seems like we have a very loud minority saying "Method acting and good storytelling are far more important than how many bonuses you can acrue," and another loud minority saying, "aLL i WaNts iS HAX PWER! RP iS for stOOpId NoObS!!1!" The vast silent majority say, "Umm... we can min/max and roleplay at the same time. Why is everyone yelling?" See, I agree 100% with the SWF. To me, it's a non-arguable fact. There is nothing I can think of the prevents someone from Roleplaying well and making Optimized characters at the same time. Period. I dissagree with your 2nd point tho. Setting the boards aside for a moment... because here people TALK about what they do in game, but I do not actualy SEE what they do in game... what I have to draw on to make my distictions between the sort of players that mostly are into Min/max, Optimization, Powergaming, or whatever you want to label the Crunch-Heavy aspect... and the sort of player that prefers heavy roleplaying, story immersion, character depth and background... whatever terms you want to lable the Fluff-heavy aspect... is the following: My personal experince. The truth of the matter is, when it comes down to it, it does not matter HOW many people on the boards TELL me they like to do both... if I have never gamed with them, I do not know for a fact that they really do, or are capable of, doing both. However, people lable this as 'Anecdotal evidence', which I guess it is... but it is the only thing I truly have to form my opinions on. I have been playing and running RPG's for over 17 years now. I've Run everything from small one-on-one tabletop games to LARP's with over 100 players. I've used systems as varried as Rifts, CoC, Elfquest, many versions of D&D, White Wolf games, Cyberpunk... and on and on. I have played with a LOT of differant people, over 3k miles of America. The basic fact of the matter, in my experince, has been that tho the SWF is 100% true, most players I have meet and played with *DO* tend to fall on one side or the other of the 'Crunch-Fluff' devide. Most of the players I know who are very focused on making powerfull, effective characters... care very little for being 'in character' or roleplaying in any fassion that would suggest 'in character'. Some of them write VERY interisting and detailed backgrounds about their characters... but come time to actualy PLAY the game... their actions and behavour bare little resemblecne to what their backgrounds suggests, and is no differant then their own normal way of being. They care little for non-combat encounters and don't like to talk with other players characters 'in character' at all. I would say about 80-90% in my experince are like this. The reverse is also true. Most of the players I know who are focused on creating characters they can act out and portray in character in a story are hardly interisted at all in optimizing or making their characters perticularly effective beyond the basics. They don't alwways (or even often) try to purpassly make their characters WEAK, (an argument I've heard throw around on the boards a lot when people are talking about what they call 'drama queens') but they don't comb through books looking for the killer combos of feats or spells, and they don't tend to make character 'builds' that flesh out the characters mechanics from levels 1-20. I would say the percentages on this side are similar to those on the other side, about 80-90% that are in this style of play don't have much interist in the aspects of the other style of play. So... the SWF *HAS* to be true... becuase players who embody both styles of play *DO* exist. I have played with some... and in my opinion, those that are really good at both aspects of the game... the crunchy side of optimization AND the fluffy side of character development... those are the BEST players (Certainly for D&D and often for other games as well) I have ever gamed with, bar none, hands down. However... those sorts of players are WAY in the minority in my experince. My experince may not be 'Mathmatical proof' of anything beyond my own experince... but I think it's fair to say my exposoure to RPG's has been pretty vast. I've been playing and DMing/Storytelling longer then some posters on these boards have been alive, and I have a lot of experinces in many differant sorts of RPG's, not just D&D and not just table-top pen and papper gaming. So, to be taken with a grian of salt, thats my opinion and why I have it. ;)
ORC_Sinister 03-31-08, 02:18 PM	I don't agree that mechanical play and RP must take time from one another, but I'm going to set that aside a little to try and couch my response to this in a way that hopefully more closely gels with your frame of reference. I'll repeat what many have said here; mechanical familiarity gives more time for roleplay, as players won't be using as much time looking up rules, calculating the interaction between game effects, and the like. If Min/Maxing = spending time not thinking about your character, then one method (not the only one) for avoiding it is greater familiarity with the ruleset. A simple example of this would be memorizing your multiplication tables so you can more rapidly work out portions needed to cater a 150-person dinner. Hopefully you're more concerned with how the meal tastes, but the math will facilitate your desired result. I don't agree with this. It's possible if you want to memorize the rules, only play DnD, and quiz yourself constantly sure the game will go quicker (in fact that's great advice), it does nothing to refute that the game is DESIGNED to have more player (rule) moments than other systems. And finally, it still presents the problem of needing to address the issues of planing a big formal meal with all sorts of forks and knives, wine glasses, fancy napkins, the seating chart, all the courses of meal, what dessert will be served to whom.... while some systems just say, grab a paper plate, take a drumstick from the bucket and let's get eating. It also means while trying to figure out what the heck a salad fork is in some systems or perhaps where to put their napkin, in other systems people are eating and focusing on eating instead of worrying about other considerations that takes their focus from eating.
Reality_Czech 03-31-08, 02:48 PM	I don't agree with this. It's possible if you want to memorize the rules, only play DnD, and quiz yourself constantly sure the game will go quicker (in fact that's great advice), it does nothing to refute that the game is DESIGNED to have more player (rule) moments than other systems. All I can say to this is that if you feel this way about D&D, I'd reccomend a system less rules-intensive. I'm not trying to be glib, I really mean this, if the crunch seems excessive, you're left with ignoring it, re-writing it via houserules, or just disliking the game. I think in this case you're saying that you can't RP and track mechanical aspects in harmony, not that it's generically impossible. It's your fun, have whatever type you're in the mood for. And finally, it still presents the problem of needing to address the issues of planing a big formal meal with all sorts of forks and knives, wine glasses, fancy napkins, the seating chart, all the courses of meal, what dessert will be served to whom.... while some systems just say, grab a paper plate, take a drumstick from the bucket and let's get eating. It also means while trying to figure out what the heck a salad fork is in some systems or perhaps where to put their napkin, in other systems people are eating without those cares. If all of your players are happy with fried chicken it's a non-issue. If you value simplicity, find a way to attain it. I think what you're arguing is that some systems are more supportive of roleplay, not that the Stormwind Fallacy is inherently flawed.
ORC_Sinister 03-31-08, 03:03 PM	1. Classic SWF. SW himself provided the best rebuttal, so I'll not add to it. 2. I think that those two "camps" don't actually exist in a large majority. Just like American politics, there's a very vocal left, a very vocal right and a silent majority who agree with both sides and don't understand why anyone's arguing to begin with (though in American politics, most of the dilemmas aren't false). On these boards it seems like we have a very loud minority saying "Method acting and good storytelling are far more important than how many bonuses you can acrue," and another loud minority saying, "aLL i WaNts iS HAX PWER! RP iS for stOOpId NoObS!!1!" The vast silent majority say, "Umm... we can min/max and roleplay at the same time. Why is everyone yelling?" Well I think the problem is the "can't we all get along arguement" doesn't work, at least on some level. I run games at stores and conventions all the time, sure I occasionally have fun, but I admit that their are many, many, many, many, (I can say many enough) players that I just can't stand the clunky mechanical way they role play. Many of them can go whole sessions without saying one word from the perspective of their character but yet spend the whole sessions planning a character progression of levels and not paying attention any attention until a fight breaks out. It's fine if they want to do that. And we've all heard the one liner spouted off, "it's all about fun...so let them do what they want" Thing is, their style of role playing isn't FUN for me. Sure I tolerate it in a public setting because it's promoting the hobby, meeting new gamers, and sharing ideas but that's a far cry for what I consider my idea of fun, as a result my personal gaming group is made up of about 10 like minded individuals. As I'm sure the clunky mech squad has a group that spends hours upon hours discussing why that prestige class is a stupid choice. I appreciate the debate with you guys here and I don't refute that DnD is a good system, it is. That said, I have seen evidence to support the theory, after sooo many years playing sooo many systems, that less crunch = more roleplay for the same expenditure of energy. Yes ANY system can overcome crunch to add roleplay, but that takes effort, and the average gamer doesn't like the word effort...it's to close to the word exercise. Hehe.
ORC_Sinister 03-31-08, 03:08 PM	All I can say to this is that if you feel this way about D&D, I'd reccomend a system less rules-intensive. I'm not trying to be glib, I really mean this, if the crunch seems excessive, you're left with ignoring it, re-writing it via houserules, or just disliking the game. I think in this case you're saying that you can't RP and track mechanical aspects in harmony, not that it's generically impossible. It's your fun, have whatever type you're in the mood for. If all of your players are happy with fried chicken it's a non-issue. If you value simplicity, find a way to attain it. I think what you're arguing is that some systems are more supportive of roleplay, not that the Stormwind Fallacy is inherently flawed. Good points. I DO love the fact that Dnd answers alot of questions. I mean sometimes you like to play knowing that 5 foot steps are mapped out. Sometime I like do have 100 weapon choices. DnD is a great game for a higher level of simulation. Call of Cthulhu has a horrible combat system. It's especially bad when compared with DnD. So it's hard for me to leave such a system because it has so many strengths. What might be very interesting is some sort of rules set that would allow you to pick a level of rule detail in the system? So one system offers less crunch, some crunch, or more crunch. What's everyone's opinion about that idea?
Reality_Czech 03-31-08, 03:11 PM	The big issue I see is that the Fallacy isn't based on averages. It simply exists to show that the Roleplayer =/= MinMaxer belief isn't a fundamental truism. If you want to argue that some, many, or most people you've gamed with support this view, that's absolutely fine. The Fallacy is only there to demonstrate the you should not say all people must fall into on group or the other. The Third Skill and the Five Techniques are (IMO) perceptual frameworks to help those that'd like to expand in both directions.
calronmoonflower 03-31-08, 03:11 PM	Like I said before there are many many tasks during a roleplaying game that you take as a player. It could be rolling dice, it could be going to the restroom. Crunchier systems do require more player attention that character attention. We as humans don't multitask, we do one thing, then another, then another quickly and call it multitasking. You can't be a character looking up a rule, you can't be the character asking the GM a battefield question, anymore than you can be the character running to get a mountain dew. As such min/maxers are engaging in role playing but the system being rule (player) heavy is causing more stress to be placed on a player to resolve game, not story, complexities instead of the player focusing on engaging the story "as the character". So while min/max players aren't necessarily the problem systems with a high amount of rules dedicated to the min/max process DO require many more intensive fact finding rule answering player moments over other lighter systems that don't have that amount of rules complexity. That could be reflected in building your characters, adding levels, finding all your bonuses, looking up rules, making dice rolls (more than other systems), looking for synergy, finding combos etc... Min/maxing and optimization generally occur out of game and roleplaying in game. The only min/maxing and optimization that should really go on in game is teamwork and tactics. You check the rules for how your build works out of game and run it by the DM if something needs interpretation. In you wait to do this in the game you are needlessly adding complication and eating up time for something that could have been done out of game. Such behavior should be discouraged.
Reality_Czech 03-31-08, 03:18 PM	Good points. I DO love the fact that Dnd answers alot of questions. I mean sometimes you like to play knowing that 5 foot steps are mapped out. Sometime I like do have 100 weapon choices. DnD is a great game for a higher level of simulation. Call of Cthulhu has a horrible combat system. It's especially bad when compared with DnD. So it's hard for me to leave such a system because it has so many strengths. What might be very interesting is some sort of rules set that would allow you to pick a level of rule detail in the system? So one system offers less crunch, some crunch, or more crunch. What's everyone's opinion about that idea? I think the idea of "tuneable crunch" is great, both as a general concept and probably the name of a band... :D The potential problem I see with it is the likelihood you'd need even more mechanical understanding in advance to avoid getting bogged down later. Linux users brag about how flexible their computers are, but seldom mention how long they spend making them work that way. For now, maybe you could just hire a rules lawyer you trust to adjudicate your game while you DM? I know this is sort of wonky but seriously, it could work if you developed the right interpersonal dynamic with your co-DM. (A storyteller and a referee?)
Reality_Czech 03-31-08, 03:23 PM	Min/maxing and optimization generally occur out of game and roleplaying in game. The only min/maxing and optimization that should really go on in game is teamwork and tactics. You check the rules for how your build works out of game and run it by the DM if something needs interpretation. In you wait to do this in the game you are needlessly adding complication and eating up time for something that could have been done out of game. Seconded. Plan mechanics ahead of time and take notes, so you can actually play when it's time to sit at the table. Such behavior should be discouraged. If you taser the first offender, everyone tends to fall into line. If this is too harsh for your DM style, I suggest pepper spray. Not as effective a deterrent, but less likely to result in long-term medical problems (heart problems, amnesia, incontinence, etc).
Tempest Stormwind 03-31-08, 03:36 PM	The big issue I see is that the Fallacy isn't based on averages. It simply exists to show that the Roleplayer =/= MinMaxer belief isn't a fundamental truism. If you want to argue that some, many, or most people you've gamed with support this view, that's absolutely fine. The Fallacy is only there to demonstrate the you should not say all people must fall into on group or the other. The Third Skill and the Five Techniques are (IMO) perceptual frameworks to help those that'd like to expand in both directions. Agreed wholeheartedly (particularly about RT's Third Skill / Five Techniques work, but that's not what I'll elaborate on here). I didn't ever say anything about the distributions. That's because trying to do that would require far more effort and many times the resources that I have at my disposal, and to be honest, it wouldn't serve any purpose that the logic wouldn't do on its own. Here's an odd tidbit. In my personal experience, more people fall in the upper-right and lower-left -- yes, you read that right. Generally, new players I meet are in the lower-left (rarely in the upper-left and lower-right; generally those types of people are drawn to free-form or computer games, respectively), and as I train them to play, they move towards the upper-right, learning the joys of the game's acting and mechanical components. However, their routes are NOT directly there -- some people naturally enjoy the mechanics more than the RP, and vice versa. I cultivate this, actually -- I make sure they love what they're doing before I try to expand their horizons, which is inherently more difficult. On these boards, the distribution seems very much towards the upper-left and lower-right, with players in the other two quadrants apparently rather rare. I see this as an opportunity to teach people the other side of the game, rather than teaching that you can't have both -- it seems just that much more productive to me, and it results in fewer conflicts overall (even if people never shift their views, they can at least respect 'the other side' if they understand it.) Note that I'm not saying the upper-right is the "best" -- each person prefers a different position on that "compass". I'm merely using it as that's where I stand on the compass, so it's what I can easily teach -- and since it encompasses both high RP and high mechanics, if I meet someone high on mechanics, I'm capable of both relating to him about mechanics and teaching him about RP (and vice versa). I recognize that not everyone prefers this, and I'm not trying to tell you how to play your game (and if people use the SWF to try to get you to change your ways, they're doing something wrong themselves -- that's why the definition references the Jell_Moo Principle). All I tried to do with it was point out the faulty line of reasoning that prevents people from understanding that there are different playstyles. I should also note that three out of the five people in my gaming group are CO board regulars (or semiregulars; one has had connection trouble for a while. However, his background includes nova builds that fire off over fifty thousand spells in a single round, so...). One of the five came to D&D after years of free-form RP. I'm not familiar with the background of the last fellow, but he's related to one of the CO regulars (and the two of them are also semicompetitive M:tG players, with all the rules-lawyering that comes from that). And yet, each of us has taken to enjoying the high/high games we run -- and of all people, it's the former free-former who enjoys the mechanics the most (to the point of playing "strong, silent" characters with portable cans of whoopass, and truly shining in combat with the biggest damage output by far), and one of the CO regulars (RadicalTaoist) who's the most ambitious, active, and distinctive RP-wise (being a bit of a joke in one group, because his private-eye absolutely must use Object Reading on everything...). So in other words, my personal experience is one that encourages me to be optimistic about both methods, and to encourage people to teach others about their techniques, rather than encouraging conflict -- and make no mistake: Continually distinguishing between "storytellers" and "powergamers" is definitely encouraging conflict, in the same way that bipartisian political systems work. Interestingly, both bipartisian politics and this silly debate rely on THE classic False Dilemma of "You're either for us or against us". And when you come down to it, all the Stormwind Fallacy does is expose that shoddy reasoning for what it is, by expressing the False Dilemma fallacy in terms that gamers seem to understand.
ORC_Sinister 03-31-08, 03:36 PM	I think the idea of "tuneable crunch" is great, both as a general concept and probably the name of a band... :D The potential problem I see with it is the likelihood you'd need even more mechanical understanding in advance to avoid getting bogged down later. Linux users brag about how flexible their computers are, but seldom mention how long they spend making them work that way. For now, maybe you could just hire a rules lawyer you trust to adjudicate your game while you DM? I know this is sort of wonky but seriously, it could work if you developed the right interpersonal dynamic with your co-DM. (A storyteller and a referee?) Wow. I never considered that idea. Maybe roleplaying has developed in such a way that game systems could use a benefit from two DMs both a story and a mechanics dm. Thats a really interesting basis for writing a system. In theory such a system would provide both a great rules set and a great story without giving up either.
Reality_Czech 03-31-08, 03:41 PM	I'd set fire to a bus full of nuns to get into your gaming group, Tempest. (Cookie for the reference, btw.) I like my players a lot, but we all have widely varying views on play, balance, crunch, and roleplay, so it's hard for me to objectively judge each person's talent. I will say we have a lower-left person in the group and it's... not rewarding as a DM to cope a lot of the time. EDIT: The quote in question is more accurately "Go find it before it melts down a busload of nuns."
Lokiyn 03-31-08, 09:11 PM	here's an open secret Characters can't roleplay Once you figure that out it all should fall into place.
Shadowhowler 03-31-08, 11:09 PM	I'd set fire to a bus full of nuns Ooooo.... I KNOW I know this... but I can not bring it forth from the depths of my quote filled mind just now. :(
Tempest Stormwind 04-01-08, 12:11 AM	I'd set fire to a bus full of nuns to get into your gaming group, Tempest. (Cookie for the reference, btw.) I like my players a lot, but we all have widely varying views on play, balance, crunch, and roleplay, so it's hard for me to objectively judge each person's talent. I don't recognize the quote. There's just too many "bus full of nuns" jokes out there. Three of the five of us are members on this forum: Me (I GM a Star Wars: Saga Edition game and play in two others), RadicalTaoist (all around player, helps a lot on planning in games I play in and serves as good GM feedback if I'm running it), and DisposableHero_ (who DMs one of the games and plays in two others). The others haven't registered here. I linked summaries of the two D&D game groups earlier. When I find time, I'll put up a website for our group and link it in my sig; there'll be logs there (since we game over OpenRPG). I will say we have a lower-left person in the group and it's... not rewarding as a DM to cope a lot of the time. Interesting tidbit: While they can be difficult to cope with, that's only if you're not into the same playstyle. This is a general rule of thumb too, not just applicable to lower-left players. If you had a lower-left GM, you'd have problems playing under him. If you're a lower-right GM with a group of upper-left players (as was my first DM experience -- yes, I openly admit I started lower-right), you're not in for a fun time either. In fact, hop on What's a DM to Do and look around for ANYONE complaining about powergamers -- these are, almost invariably, upper-left DMs with at least one lower-right player. Conflict emerges when playstyles don't mesh. (This is why I'm quite glad to be in the upper-right as a player -- it's basically a universal-donor, fits in anywhere. In fact, now that I think about it, blood type is actually a stellar analogy for this model...except that people can't change their blood type.) Remember that lower-left isn't just "your player's kid sister". It also reflects the extremely casual beer-and-pretzels gamer who doesn't care how strong he is (he'd have a blast with his friends no matter what he was; I've sat in on such a game where one guy was literally the pratfalling jester in a group of heroes and loved every moment of it, mostly because his character was reminiscent of Sir Robin the Not-Quite-So-Brave-As-Sir-Lancelot... not to mention everyone was tipsy) and doesn't give two winks about story depth. He just wants to, as D&D's sales line was at one point, "Get together, roll some dice, and have fun" -- and he's lower-left. (That said, free-form actors (upper-left) and kick-in-the-door types (lower-right) can also easily be casual gamers; it's hardly a lower-left monopoly. In fact, my own brother is a kick-in-the-door casual gamer. I can also concieve of an upper-right casual gamer, but it's harder to imagine.) If you're a Star Wars fan (you may have gathered from the whole "I run a Saga game" thing that I am), an interesting read on conflicting playstyles, and a general good laugh, can be found here (http://www.irregularwebcomic.net/darthsanddroids/cast/). For extra credit, read a bit of the archive and see if you can guess where each player and the GM fits on the grid. Hint: There's not much overlap, and at least two of the players are extreme examples, which is why hijinks ensue -- the conflict between playstyles. The really interesting point of this exercise is seeing where Ben and the GM fit in.
pres_man 04-01-08, 03:21 PM	Just to add to the dogpile. The comments about how running the game interfers with roleplaying in the game, well that doesn't really have anything to do with optimization or min-maxing or anything of that kind. In that case, the game mechanics, whether being used optimally or not, are just taking time away from roleplaying. For example, some people complain that grapple is too complicated. Well that is an issue of the mechanic, it will be just as complicated if someone's character is built around grappling effectively versus someone else's character that is not built to grapple effectively. Optimization doesn't change the complexity of the grapple mechanic.
Cuindless 04-01-08, 07:14 PM	I'd set fire to a bus full of nuns to get into your gaming group, Tempest. (Cookie for the reference, btw.) I like my players a lot, but we all have widely varying views on play, balance, crunch, and roleplay, so it's hard for me to objectively judge each person's talent. I will say we have a lower-left person in the group and it's... not rewarding as a DM to cope a lot of the time. EDIT: The quote in question is more accurately "Go find it before it melts down a busload of nuns." Howard Marner. Short Circuit. Gimme my cookie. PS> I'd do the same to get into one of Tempest's games.
Lokiyn 04-01-08, 10:16 PM	(I can also concieve of an upper-right casual gamer, but it's harder to imagine.) Designers, People who like to design characters, backstories, plothooks, items, all the components of a good game, but outside of that just relax and go with the flow in whatever game they're in. Anyway to clarify an earlier comment, the execution of mechanics interferes with the execution of roleplaying only if the game is executed in "real time". Which is to say dnd is a game that is essentially turn based. players take turns acting thier characters or declating thier action. In theory in real life game time only 1/X ("X" being the players) of the time is you roleplaying, the rest is, in theory, devoted to you making sure about your next actions. Another point is that characters cannot roleplay, players roleplay. You can't mechanically force roleplay because there is no way to "force" players. you can force characters to do things with mechanics, you can't force players to roleplay. Mechanics is entirely character based, on the other hand roleplay is limited by mechanics, you as a player are limited in roleplay to the boundaries from which the characters cannot exceed. If your mechanics are say Int 4, you can't (and maintain verisimilitude) roleplay an elegant and insightful speech (unless of course it's a script the party Int+Cha master wrote for the occasion. (not an uncommon tactic in our group, having the low charisma and int characters memorize canned speeches prepared in advance) But anyway, the point is its inaccurate to declare that mechanics hinder roleplay, because mechanics only affect the character, while roleplay is 100% originated from the player. If mechanics truly determined roleplay then i could hand a character sheet to a poor roleplayer and show a measurable difference in the players roleplaying skills as a direct result of that sheet's mechanics.
Reality_Czech 04-02-08, 10:58 AM	Howard Marner. Short Circuit. Gimme my cookie. PS> I'd do the same to get into one of Tempest's games. Well done. :cookie:
Subedei 04-03-08, 02:03 PM	unless of course it's a script the party Int+Cha master wrote for the occasion. (not an uncommon tactic in our group, having the low charisma and int characters memorize canned speeches prepared in advance) "We applied the cortical electrodes, but were unable to get a neural reaction from either patient"
pres_man 04-03-08, 03:45 PM	"We applied the cortical electrodes, but were unable to get a neural reaction from either patient" Jayne :nonono:
Mock26 04-03-08, 09:00 PM	For instance, I have a mage in one game who is phenominally powerful -- he's a shadowcraft mage, capable of spontaneously casting two schools of magic at a far higher caster level than he would normally cast at, with insane DCs to boot. In spite of this power, he isn't without a "classic" RP-flaw: he appears to be afraid of heights. (I say "appears" because he's a Chaotic Neutral Gnome Illusionist and plays with perceptions as naturally as breathing. No one in the party knows what his natural accent is, not even me -- it's entirely possible he's faking the fear of heights.). He's got other flaws, too, such as poor eyesight (mechanically, the min-maxer's dream flaw, Murky-Eyed; he wears glasses to reflect this RP-wise, but they have no mechanical effect -- he compensates by refining his other senses (that is, his bonus feat from the flaw was Earth Sense, he's aiming toward Mindsight, and has Permanencied the Arcane Sight spell)) and an apparent lack of empathy, but I'm focusing on the fear of heights here. Is there a reason as to why you haven't yet decided on his real accent or whether or not his fear of heights is real?
pres_man 04-04-08, 01:31 AM	Is there a reason as to why you haven't yet decided on his real accent or whether or not his fear of heights is real? I once ran an NPC orc cleric of Kord that had a varying accent. The players asked me why sometimes he sounds like Rocky and others like Arnold, I told them, "Thog is too stupid to have a consistent accent." Chuckles all around.
Cuindless 04-04-08, 01:39 AM	Is there a reason as to why you haven't yet decided on his real accent or whether or not his fear of heights is real? Actually, what I think Tempest is hinting at here is that he gets so immersed into the character that even he, the player, doesn't know the full motivations of his character. Not unless he's in character does he fully understand.
RadicalTaoist 04-04-08, 08:48 AM	Hell, even in character he's not sure. I don't think that crazy gnome knows what his own accent is. Sneakiness to the max, man.
Corian_Aerdeth 06-07-08, 10:46 AM	I do not understand this idea that knowing where one is going is bad roleplay. I quite think that the average person that goes to college and takes a specific class (pun intended) path quite expects to get a specific degree and a specific type of career. In fact, I would say a certain degree of 'optimization' is far more normal for a 'realistic' person than waking up every morning and picking what to do for that day. I would say doubly so for anyone who's day-to-day activities involve life-threatening situations as often as not. In my group (down to 7 from 10 players) I have the entire gamut. I have the archetypical 'powergamer' that chooses a backstory solely as an excuse to justify his insane builds up to a character with a multipage history and a thesis on the philosophy of every feat, skill point and power they will select up to 20th level. Both are completely valid (and above all compatible if handled properly) play styles, and neither detract from the game as long as everyone's clear on what we're doing. In fact, having a 'roll player' in the group has had a positive effect overall, since I have channeled my optimizer's energy into helping others empower their roleplay concepts with mechanics to make it happen, via the creative lateral thinking process and separation of mechanics from fluff. This idea that 'planning ahead is the Wr0ng Wai' is about as silly as the Alignment Debate. The only 'right way' or 'wrong way' to play is whatever does or does not work for your group. Oh, and RadicalTaoist: I have been following your topics, in particular the Stormwind Fallacy, with great interest. Since I really can't put it in better or more succinct terms, at this point I think I am going to just agree with you as my default position.