Am I an optimizer or a roleplayer? [Archive] - Wizards Community

Am I an optimizer or a roleplayer? [Archive] - Wizards Community

Post/Author/DateTime Post
thecasualoblivion
04-14-07, 04:44 PM I've actually never been accused of being a powergamer, and I consider myself to be a roleplayer more than an optimizer.

But here's my story:

During character creation and design, I optimize my character and I'm good at it. I have a knack for producing the most effective character in the party, especially in a fight. I have never been anything less than the most dangerous PC in combat, even when playing things like a Bard or a Ventrue(Vampire: The Masquerade).

The thing is, my character concept roleplaying wise is always of an effective and violent person. I'm an agressive person by nature, and am fascinated by the concept of violence. The moral questions it asks, and how putting yourself in harms way risks one's life. I prefer to play characters who are decisive and good at what they do.

Where I am not an optimizer is during game play. Character creation and leveling up is only half of optimizing. The other half is using optimized tactics in combat/problem solving/social situations and in gathering treasure and experience to build your character. In game, I'm a violent pure thesbian. I play to my character's personal motivations, and if necessary against the party's success if that is what my character would do. In this, I drive other optimizers I play with crazy at times by not cooperating with their plans/ideas. They may be right, but "Turgitz the Merciless" prefers to kill people and break things, and charge right in.

Does my behavior during character creation and leveling up make me an optimizer, or does my behavior during game play matter more?
daggeroflath
04-14-07, 05:03 PM Who cares?
KillerGM
04-14-07, 05:08 PM Who cares?

Seconded.

The OP has already said that he thrives on conflict, so this is probably just an extension of that.
Toloran
04-14-07, 05:17 PM Seconded.

The OP has already said that he thrives on conflict, so this is probably just an extension of that.

Motion carried.

You can be an optimizer and a roleplayer. A person can be one, the other, or both in varying degrees.

Now, I have to say, that you might want to try and branch out into other things.
AnonymousInternets
04-14-07, 05:37 PM "Am I an optimizer or a roleplayer?"
Either/or logical fallacy: all players are a combination of the two.
Evil DM Mk3
04-14-07, 05:42 PM Am I an optimizer or a roleplayerYes.
Greg K
04-14-07, 09:06 PM I've actually never been accused of being a powergamer, and I consider myself to be a roleplayer more than an optimizer.

Well, to begin with, powergaming and optimizing are not the same thing..
Clawhound
04-14-07, 09:53 PM I think that you have a justification, not a reason.
Bopple
04-14-07, 10:17 PM Either/or logical fallacy: all players are a combination of the two.
While it is indeed a fallacy, the real meaning he is talking about is not what it literally means.
It's rather, "Does my optimization impede my roleplaying?"
In this case, his urge to make an efficient character limited his character concept.
And yes, his optimization is impeding his roleplaying.
Deacon Liadon
04-14-07, 11:48 PM Now you've done it Bopple. Tempest Stormwind will descend upon this thread and smite us with his fallacy.

In all seriousness though, a person may be both an optimiser and a role-player. The former does not effect the latter nor the latter the former. The OP is playing a violent type because that's what he likes doing. It's not a by-product of his optimisation or min-maxing.
Bopple
04-15-07, 12:04 AM No, it's not the same thing.
You can be both an optimizer and a role-player.
But it does not mean 'optimization' and 'roleplaying' can never affect each other.

While the OP did not say he plays a violent type because it is efficient, but he seems to play such a character partially because it is efficient - "an effective and violent person".
His roleplaying is limited, partially due to his optimization(and mainly due to his preferance).

Of course, it does not mean he is a bad roleplayer.
Perhaps he can be the best roleplayer(well, he can roleplay one specific character type better than anyone else can) in his party.
But he is limited in roleplaying part, still.

Let's look at a different case(though it's not about optimization vs roleplaying) - think of those who play only one type of stereotypical character - like Drizzt clone. A lot of fantasy comics make fun of them. Perhaps they might roleplay Drizzt very well, even better than the creator of Drizzt himself.
But certainly they are limiting themselves, roleplaying-wise.
bartleby42
04-15-07, 12:27 AM Here here Bopple, let's overthrow the Stormwind fallacy!

Though it is true that you can be a good roleplayer and a good optimizer, in many situations being a good optimizer implies that you are a poor roleplayer, and vise versa. (Note: implies, not means).

And the biggest problem with the Stormwind fallacy is the fact that optimization can get in the way of good roleplaying.

Sure clerics and druids are "optimized" charecter choices, but a player who wishes to play a live by his wits, daring fighter, shouldn't belong to those classes. He probally should be a rogue, swashbuckler or fighter. Yes you can build in elements for the PC to be a druid, but it doesn't help your roleplaying, and even hinders its.

In the case of the OP, no you are not a good roleplayer. You might be good a playing one particular type of charecter, but that does not make you a roleplayer. It's the same as saying, I'm really good at making waffles, and I have a technique where the syrup gets to all of the right spots, so am I a chef or really good at placing syrup? The fact that you have to slather syrup on everything means your limited to making waffles or pancakes. In the same way optimizing can hinder roleplaying, and vice versa. This doesn't mean you can't do both, but one does imply the other.
IceFractal
04-15-07, 01:22 AM Actually, if anything, his roleplaying is hindering his optimizing. :P

Diplomancers, illusionists, and summoner types can all be very optimized characters, but his desire to roleplay a violent character prevents him from playing as those types.

And just to note - being effective was part of his character concept. Therefore, being non-optimized might actually hinder his roleplaying.
Bopple
04-15-07, 01:32 AM Well, that depends on how we define optimization.
But in general, we don't say choosing to play a certain character type(eg. an illusionist) is an optimization. It's rather a roleplay part.
We call it an optimization if we build an efficient Shadowcraft Mage character as an illusionist. :P
PwnageLlama
04-15-07, 01:42 AM To the real question:

Who cares?
Bopple
04-15-07, 01:58 AM Well, OP cares, it seems.
Or perhaps his friends do, because they are tired of seeing one particular type of character, everytime they start a campaign.
bartleby42
04-15-07, 02:03 AM Actually, if anything, his roleplaying is hindering his optimizing. :P

Diplomancers, illusionists, and summoner types can all be very optimized characters, but his desire to roleplay a violent character prevents him from playing as those types.

Ends to a means. You can use diplomacy and still be a very violent charecter. Same goes with an illusionist. Just because you trick people doesn't mean you can't be violent. His example of a Ventrue is very true of this, you basically use "diplomacy" to distract people long enough to kill them. You can play those types, but your not playing a different charecter. A broad stroke of "I'm violent and efficent" doesn't imply any class or race or feats, it mearly gives a roleplaying guide. Regardless as to wheter or not he is good at optimizing, this does not make waffles and pancakes so radicaly different from each other that you can have a varied diet from just those two. (please, please, don't get pendantic on crepes, or fillings, you get the point. If nothing else think peanut butter and grape jelly, vs peanut butter and strawberry jelly)

But his roleplaying doesn't hinder his optimization, his resolve to play the same charecter over and over again hinders his roleplaying.

And just to note - being effective was part of his character concept. Therefore, being non-optimized might actually hinder his roleplaying.

Really? So an effective, violent, master of arms should be a druid? Optimization should have nothing to do with playing a charecter, but sadly when you have a hodgepodge of PrCs, and every charecter you build has some sort of divine casting power, not only do your charecters start to look alike, but you must make ridiculous choices and explinations in order to justify your classes, whereas more times then not a less optimal class would make more sense.

Take the fighter, commonly considered to be a "bad choice" past level 2. If you are playing a charecter who is an effective killer who is the unparalled master of the longsword, common sense and all things obvious say you should be a fighter and maybe go into a PrC like Kensai, Warrior of darkness or Anointed Warrior. This is not optimal, and even though numbers and statistics back up the arguement that "Well, my Cleric/Rogue/list of PrCs, is way better at hitting things, and dealing damage, with a longsword then the non-optimized fighter!" Doesn't mean that it makes sense or is good roleplaying. Your average PC doesn't know that the weapon specialization feat is sub-optimal in the face of divine metamagic, nor would anyone assume in order to become a melee powerhouse you have to plant trees (Druid).

Even if your charecter is concerned with efficency, that doesn't mean that you have carte blanche to optimize your charecter and no longer have to jump through hoops developing a reason for your scout, who up to this point was using ranged weapons, has taken the dervish PrC and now uses a scimitar. The answer of "He wants to be effective." is just as lame as "I do more damage this way."

The second problem is that alot of COers tend to use simmilar builds so that they can use tricks that they know well. This causes all thier charecters to look alike. The OP had peanut butter and jelly sandwiches all of the time because he demanded peanut butter, many COers have P&J sandwiches because they demand jelly.

That being said, it is possible to be both an optimizer and a roleplayer, but there are situations where they can be at odds with each other, and you are forced to decide between efficency and "realisim".
kelvinaw273
04-15-07, 03:11 AM During character creation and design, I optimize my character and I'm good at it. I have a knack for producing the most effective character in the party, especially in a fight. I have never been anything less than the most dangerous PC in combat, even when playing things like a Bard or a Ventrue(Vampire: The Masquerade).

Nothing intrinsically wrong with that, as long as you aren't producing cookie-cutter characters.

The thing is, my character concept roleplaying wise is always of an effective and violent person. I'm an agressive person by nature, and am fascinated by the concept of violence. The moral questions it asks, and how putting yourself in harms way risks one's life. I prefer to play characters who are decisive and good at what they do.

Have you ever tried a character that isn't a violent effective person? You might be good at role-playing that one type of character very well, but do you ever play anything else? A "good role-player" can run most any kind of character, not just the same type, so I would say that you are a limited role-player - you are good at what you like to do, but you don't do anything else.

Where I am not an optimizer is during game play. Character creation and leveling up is only half of optimizing. The other half is using optimized tactics in combat/problem solving/social situations and in gathering treasure and experience to build your character. In game, I'm a violent pure thesbian. I play to my character's personal motivations, and if necessary against the party's success if that is what my character would do. In this, I drive other optimizers I play with crazy at times by not cooperating with their plans/ideas. They may be right, but "Turgitz the Merciless" prefers to kill people and break things, and charge right in.

That will drive everybody nuts, not just the optimizers. In fact, that kind of character/player is what gives optimizers a bad name. Let me explain why: You prefer the front door approach because that is 'in character' for you, and you insist on that being the party plan because that's what Turgitz the Merciless does, right? OK, well as a well optimized character you can afford to do this and survive. By railroading the rest of the party into this you are endangering their lives when they may need those optimized tactics to avoid harm. The people who don't optimize so much in character creation and role-play clever tactics (and these do exist, I'm one) have exactly the opposite style to you. Insisting on banging in the front door isn't necessarily good role-playing, but it is bad team playing.

Does my behavior during character creation and leveling up make me an optimizer, or does my behavior during game play matter more?

Many non-optimizers employ clever tactics, you are actually an example of an optimizer who forces your style of play onto others - if they don't optimize in character creation, they don't get to live long with you around. Can I ask, do you threaten the rest of the party when they don't want to do things your way, or do you just bash in regardless of what they have planned? It's clear that your style of play is something you enjoy, but how does it effect the rest of your group?

When optimizers and non-optimizers mix, the friction often lies not in the power imbalance but by the way the party tactics handle it: if the optimizer accepts the needs of the rest of the party and does things their way, the power imbalance hardly matters at all. It's when they say "My way or the highway - charge!" that the problems become most apparent. I'm not trying to attack your game style or say you shouldn't have fun - it may well be that your group are fine with this, I don't know - I am just pointing out the pitfalls inherent in this style.
Meems
04-15-07, 05:04 AM I'm with some of the others: your optimization should not hinder your role playing, but your insistance on playing the same character type may do so.
That said, we have a player in our group who quite frequently RPs violent types, and he is, IMO, quite a good RPer. (Of course, he's also very bad at optimizing.)
daggeroflath
04-15-07, 07:05 AM Damn, I thought I had stopped this thread's evil from spreading.

Need to work on my forum abjuration...

When I say "who cares", what I'm getting at is that the OP shouldn't care. They should just roleplay, as much as they can because it's an awful lot of fun.

If your fellow gamers have a problem with you, they'll tell you or they deserve to suffer. If not, then clearly you're doing fine and don't need to push yourself down with an extra expletive label.

You shouldn't care what we think about your roleplaying style. You don't play with us. If you really want to improve your roleplaying it can be done, there are thousands of articles across the internet and books about it. Read the DMG II it has some great advice at the beginning, try running games a few times to get a better feel for the DM's position, find real world activities that you can draw on to add richness to your gaming...

Don't try improving yourself by adding another label. It doesn't bloody work.

Post/Author/DateTime	Post
thecasualoblivion 04-14-07, 04:44 PM	I've actually never been accused of being a powergamer, and I consider myself to be a roleplayer more than an optimizer. But here's my story: During character creation and design, I optimize my character and I'm good at it. I have a knack for producing the most effective character in the party, especially in a fight. I have never been anything less than the most dangerous PC in combat, even when playing things like a Bard or a Ventrue(Vampire: The Masquerade). The thing is, my character concept roleplaying wise is always of an effective and violent person. I'm an agressive person by nature, and am fascinated by the concept of violence. The moral questions it asks, and how putting yourself in harms way risks one's life. I prefer to play characters who are decisive and good at what they do. Where I am not an optimizer is during game play. Character creation and leveling up is only half of optimizing. The other half is using optimized tactics in combat/problem solving/social situations and in gathering treasure and experience to build your character. In game, I'm a violent pure thesbian. I play to my character's personal motivations, and if necessary against the party's success if that is what my character would do. In this, I drive other optimizers I play with crazy at times by not cooperating with their plans/ideas. They may be right, but "Turgitz the Merciless" prefers to kill people and break things, and charge right in. Does my behavior during character creation and leveling up make me an optimizer, or does my behavior during game play matter more?
daggeroflath 04-14-07, 05:03 PM	Who cares?
KillerGM 04-14-07, 05:08 PM	Who cares? Seconded. The OP has already said that he thrives on conflict, so this is probably just an extension of that.
Toloran 04-14-07, 05:17 PM	Seconded. The OP has already said that he thrives on conflict, so this is probably just an extension of that. Motion carried. You can be an optimizer and a roleplayer. A person can be one, the other, or both in varying degrees. Now, I have to say, that you might want to try and branch out into other things.
AnonymousInternets 04-14-07, 05:37 PM	"Am I an optimizer or a roleplayer?" Either/or logical fallacy: all players are a combination of the two.
Evil DM Mk3 04-14-07, 05:42 PM	Am I an optimizer or a roleplayerYes.
Greg K 04-14-07, 09:06 PM	I've actually never been accused of being a powergamer, and I consider myself to be a roleplayer more than an optimizer. Well, to begin with, powergaming and optimizing are not the same thing..
Clawhound 04-14-07, 09:53 PM	I think that you have a justification, not a reason.
Bopple 04-14-07, 10:17 PM	Either/or logical fallacy: all players are a combination of the two. While it is indeed a fallacy, the real meaning he is talking about is not what it literally means. It's rather, "Does my optimization impede my roleplaying?" In this case, his urge to make an efficient character limited his character concept. And yes, his optimization is impeding his roleplaying.
Deacon Liadon 04-14-07, 11:48 PM	Now you've done it Bopple. Tempest Stormwind will descend upon this thread and smite us with his fallacy. In all seriousness though, a person may be both an optimiser and a role-player. The former does not effect the latter nor the latter the former. The OP is playing a violent type because that's what he likes doing. It's not a by-product of his optimisation or min-maxing.
Bopple 04-15-07, 12:04 AM	No, it's not the same thing. You can be both an optimizer and a role-player. But it does not mean 'optimization' and 'roleplaying' can never affect each other. While the OP did not say he plays a violent type because it is efficient, but he seems to play such a character partially because it is efficient - "an effective and violent person". His roleplaying is limited, partially due to his optimization(and mainly due to his preferance). Of course, it does not mean he is a bad roleplayer. Perhaps he can be the best roleplayer(well, he can roleplay one specific character type better than anyone else can) in his party. But he is limited in roleplaying part, still. Let's look at a different case(though it's not about optimization vs roleplaying) - think of those who play only one type of stereotypical character - like Drizzt clone. A lot of fantasy comics make fun of them. Perhaps they might roleplay Drizzt very well, even better than the creator of Drizzt himself. But certainly they are limiting themselves, roleplaying-wise.
bartleby42 04-15-07, 12:27 AM	Here here Bopple, let's overthrow the Stormwind fallacy! Though it is true that you can be a good roleplayer and a good optimizer, in many situations being a good optimizer implies that you are a poor roleplayer, and vise versa. (Note: implies, not means). And the biggest problem with the Stormwind fallacy is the fact that optimization can get in the way of good roleplaying. Sure clerics and druids are "optimized" charecter choices, but a player who wishes to play a live by his wits, daring fighter, shouldn't belong to those classes. He probally should be a rogue, swashbuckler or fighter. Yes you can build in elements for the PC to be a druid, but it doesn't help your roleplaying, and even hinders its. In the case of the OP, no you are not a good roleplayer. You might be good a playing one particular type of charecter, but that does not make you a roleplayer. It's the same as saying, I'm really good at making waffles, and I have a technique where the syrup gets to all of the right spots, so am I a chef or really good at placing syrup? The fact that you have to slather syrup on everything means your limited to making waffles or pancakes. In the same way optimizing can hinder roleplaying, and vice versa. This doesn't mean you can't do both, but one does imply the other.
IceFractal 04-15-07, 01:22 AM	Actually, if anything, his roleplaying is hindering his optimizing. :P Diplomancers, illusionists, and summoner types can all be very optimized characters, but his desire to roleplay a violent character prevents him from playing as those types. And just to note - being effective was part of his character concept. Therefore, being non-optimized might actually hinder his roleplaying.
Bopple 04-15-07, 01:32 AM	Well, that depends on how we define optimization. But in general, we don't say choosing to play a certain character type(eg. an illusionist) is an optimization. It's rather a roleplay part. We call it an optimization if we build an efficient Shadowcraft Mage character as an illusionist. :P
PwnageLlama 04-15-07, 01:42 AM	To the real question: Who cares?
Bopple 04-15-07, 01:58 AM	Well, OP cares, it seems. Or perhaps his friends do, because they are tired of seeing one particular type of character, everytime they start a campaign.
bartleby42 04-15-07, 02:03 AM	Actually, if anything, his roleplaying is hindering his optimizing. :P Diplomancers, illusionists, and summoner types can all be very optimized characters, but his desire to roleplay a violent character prevents him from playing as those types. Ends to a means. You can use diplomacy and still be a very violent charecter. Same goes with an illusionist. Just because you trick people doesn't mean you can't be violent. His example of a Ventrue is very true of this, you basically use "diplomacy" to distract people long enough to kill them. You can play those types, but your not playing a different charecter. A broad stroke of "I'm violent and efficent" doesn't imply any class or race or feats, it mearly gives a roleplaying guide. Regardless as to wheter or not he is good at optimizing, this does not make waffles and pancakes so radicaly different from each other that you can have a varied diet from just those two. (please, please, don't get pendantic on crepes, or fillings, you get the point. If nothing else think peanut butter and grape jelly, vs peanut butter and strawberry jelly) But his roleplaying doesn't hinder his optimization, his resolve to play the same charecter over and over again hinders his roleplaying. And just to note - being effective was part of his character concept. Therefore, being non-optimized might actually hinder his roleplaying. Really? So an effective, violent, master of arms should be a druid? Optimization should have nothing to do with playing a charecter, but sadly when you have a hodgepodge of PrCs, and every charecter you build has some sort of divine casting power, not only do your charecters start to look alike, but you must make ridiculous choices and explinations in order to justify your classes, whereas more times then not a less optimal class would make more sense. Take the fighter, commonly considered to be a "bad choice" past level 2. If you are playing a charecter who is an effective killer who is the unparalled master of the longsword, common sense and all things obvious say you should be a fighter and maybe go into a PrC like Kensai, Warrior of darkness or Anointed Warrior. This is not optimal, and even though numbers and statistics back up the arguement that "Well, my Cleric/Rogue/list of PrCs, is way better at hitting things, and dealing damage, with a longsword then the non-optimized fighter!" Doesn't mean that it makes sense or is good roleplaying. Your average PC doesn't know that the weapon specialization feat is sub-optimal in the face of divine metamagic, nor would anyone assume in order to become a melee powerhouse you have to plant trees (Druid). Even if your charecter is concerned with efficency, that doesn't mean that you have carte blanche to optimize your charecter and no longer have to jump through hoops developing a reason for your scout, who up to this point was using ranged weapons, has taken the dervish PrC and now uses a scimitar. The answer of "He wants to be effective." is just as lame as "I do more damage this way." The second problem is that alot of COers tend to use simmilar builds so that they can use tricks that they know well. This causes all thier charecters to look alike. The OP had peanut butter and jelly sandwiches all of the time because he demanded peanut butter, many COers have P&J sandwiches because they demand jelly. That being said, it is possible to be both an optimizer and a roleplayer, but there are situations where they can be at odds with each other, and you are forced to decide between efficency and "realisim".
kelvinaw273 04-15-07, 03:11 AM	During character creation and design, I optimize my character and I'm good at it. I have a knack for producing the most effective character in the party, especially in a fight. I have never been anything less than the most dangerous PC in combat, even when playing things like a Bard or a Ventrue(Vampire: The Masquerade). Nothing intrinsically wrong with that, as long as you aren't producing cookie-cutter characters. The thing is, my character concept roleplaying wise is always of an effective and violent person. I'm an agressive person by nature, and am fascinated by the concept of violence. The moral questions it asks, and how putting yourself in harms way risks one's life. I prefer to play characters who are decisive and good at what they do. Have you ever tried a character that isn't a violent effective person? You might be good at role-playing that one type of character very well, but do you ever play anything else? A "good role-player" can run most any kind of character, not just the same type, so I would say that you are a limited role-player - you are good at what you like to do, but you don't do anything else. Where I am not an optimizer is during game play. Character creation and leveling up is only half of optimizing. The other half is using optimized tactics in combat/problem solving/social situations and in gathering treasure and experience to build your character. In game, I'm a violent pure thesbian. I play to my character's personal motivations, and if necessary against the party's success if that is what my character would do. In this, I drive other optimizers I play with crazy at times by not cooperating with their plans/ideas. They may be right, but "Turgitz the Merciless" prefers to kill people and break things, and charge right in. That will drive everybody nuts, not just the optimizers. In fact, that kind of character/player is what gives optimizers a bad name. Let me explain why: You prefer the front door approach because that is 'in character' for you, and you insist on that being the party plan because that's what Turgitz the Merciless does, right? OK, well as a well optimized character you can afford to do this and survive. By railroading the rest of the party into this you are endangering their lives when they may need those optimized tactics to avoid harm. The people who don't optimize so much in character creation and role-play clever tactics (and these do exist, I'm one) have exactly the opposite style to you. Insisting on banging in the front door isn't necessarily good role-playing, but it is bad team playing. Does my behavior during character creation and leveling up make me an optimizer, or does my behavior during game play matter more? Many non-optimizers employ clever tactics, you are actually an example of an optimizer who forces your style of play onto others - if they don't optimize in character creation, they don't get to live long with you around. Can I ask, do you threaten the rest of the party when they don't want to do things your way, or do you just bash in regardless of what they have planned? It's clear that your style of play is something you enjoy, but how does it effect the rest of your group? When optimizers and non-optimizers mix, the friction often lies not in the power imbalance but by the way the party tactics handle it: if the optimizer accepts the needs of the rest of the party and does things their way, the power imbalance hardly matters at all. It's when they say "My way or the highway - charge!" that the problems become most apparent. I'm not trying to attack your game style or say you shouldn't have fun - it may well be that your group are fine with this, I don't know - I am just pointing out the pitfalls inherent in this style.
Meems 04-15-07, 05:04 AM	I'm with some of the others: your optimization should not hinder your role playing, but your insistance on playing the same character type may do so. That said, we have a player in our group who quite frequently RPs violent types, and he is, IMO, quite a good RPer. (Of course, he's also very bad at optimizing.)
daggeroflath 04-15-07, 07:05 AM	Damn, I thought I had stopped this thread's evil from spreading. Need to work on my forum abjuration... When I say "who cares", what I'm getting at is that the OP shouldn't care. They should just roleplay, as much as they can because it's an awful lot of fun. If your fellow gamers have a problem with you, they'll tell you or they deserve to suffer. If not, then clearly you're doing fine and don't need to push yourself down with an extra expletive label. You shouldn't care what we think about your roleplaying style. You don't play with us. If you really want to improve your roleplaying it can be done, there are thousands of articles across the internet and books about it. Read the DMG II it has some great advice at the beginning, try running games a few times to get a better feel for the DM's position, find real world activities that you can draw on to add richness to your gaming... Don't try improving yourself by adding another label. It doesn't bloody work.