Through my experiences I have come across many various players and situations, characters and plots over a sea of games and systems (D&D still my favorite ;)). What I have gathered collectively in my assessments as I look back upon it all is a very distinguishable difference between those who seek the experience of indulging the game through immersion of the plot, the depths of their character, and the intricacies and relationships that develop as a result of their devotion to the true aspects of 'Role-playing', and those who seek to mechanically and methodically find either the ultimate balance for every situation to be faced or a powerful character with little weakness through dissolving any from their characters. Some people refer to the latter as 'Min/Max'ing.
While I give kudos to those who master the system and truly come up with outstanding revelations of a particular game in relation to maximizing the benefits and relative power of their characters, I would have to say that those who seek to flesh out the core of their characters beyond the statistics and attributes tend to, in my own experiences, become more powerful in their own right and it their own way.
Role-players of either kin can relate to something that many others do not understand or care to understand outside of our hobby. It is the power and creativity of our own imaginations. Awe-inspiring characters and stories that we have fell in love with had not come at the expense of maximizing the statistical power of that character, rather it was the experiences we shared with that given character; the in-depth history and emotions we could relate to, and the descriptions that tantalized our own senses. These characters amass to greatness and will be remembered for far longer than those who came up with a clever arrangement of skills, feats, spells, etc...
My point: My point is just this. You are far more apt to be rewarded through exceptional role-playing and fleshing out of your character than to sit idle behind your pieces of paper that give your character face. Learn to adapt a moral code for your character and play true to the character rather than to the situation or game. People will notice... they always do. Capture the heart and mind of the game instead of the potential benefits of the other road.
-Matthew B. James
~Tzu-Theory
Do you really believe that because your character has a thirty page back story, and has opened trade routes between the elves and orcs through word-play alone, he is any better than my character, who has wrestled dragons to the ground with his bare hands? Do you believe that because your character has an accent and a troubled past, it makes him better than mine, who has slit the throats of kings and commoners alike?
Tell me, whom shall be remembered longer; The hero who stood against the enemy alone. The hero who would slay one foul creature, and be ready to slay another. He who was a master of his blade, for whom killing was second nature. He, who though died, died with piles of the enemy at his feet. He whom saved the innocent by sacrificing his own life to do so.
Or the commoner who stood up above his fellow man, and stop the war. The man, whom though he was terrified, rose up and was heard. The man that stopped a kingdom in its tracks, and changed it for the better, through his will and words alone.
I think they are both equally memorable. The first was a Roll-play character, and the second a Role-play character. They both do great things, and they are both heroes. One wasn't better than the other, just different.
I'm not attacking you, if it at all seemed that way I apologize, I'm saying that if you can Role-play, that's great, wonderful, more power too you! My point is thus: don't look down at us who make combat characters and say your way is better. It's not. Nor is it worse. It's another way to play the game.
So the next time you see guys at a table with tricked out characters rolling dice and having fun don't think to yourself and think that they're playing the game wrong, they're not.
...
"I think my way of playing is better, and it excludes your way of playing"
Neither of which are true.
I'm pretty sure the original creators didn't care if "My build deals XXX damage in X rounds"
However some people get off on that sort of thing, which isn't necessarily bad, however I've had some very very bad experiences with a pair of min/maxers in the past. I almost knew it from the start, but let it slide until partway through they the other players were complaining they were overpowered and the non-min/maxers contributed nothing to combat. I asked them to let the others have a chance and the first person threw a fit. He said it was their fault that their character wasn't optimized. The fight went on for a while and he "agreed" to let them have a chance. The next session all he did was brag in character about everything he's done and let them "learn" by letting them charge and the next action he tore through them. The min/maxing wizard said I was being unfair to the min/maxing ftr/bbn because I wanted him to deal less damage. They kept on arguing that the other characters were worse for a reason.
Eventually I got so fed up I made a min/maxed a dragon (Awesome blow, combat reflexes, hold the line, mageslayer with a higher dex score) They said the only reason they died was because I didn't like how powerful they got and called me jealous. We restarted and I've had no problems since then. The "role" players had a great time with the plot which the other ones ruined and I've been very happy since then! :D
However if the whole group min/maxes and the plot is just as good I do not see what's so wrong... the only difference is the numbers will be higher. I think the role vs. roll depends on your group, though I've never heard of a person enjoy a truly epic plot with powergamers.
If you're min/maxing (roll-playing), you're playing with a very explicit goal. Your goal is to develop the "perfect" character. To the roll-player, a character is essentially a collection of numbers to be finessed into the perfect alignment. Make no mistake - this can be extremely fun. However, this kind of fun has a pretty clear finish line. The fun comes from getting the numbers down perfect. Once you get there (or hit a rules snag that won't let you get there), you're done. The fun stops and the only way to have more fun is to min/max another character class.
If you're role-playing, the fun comes from weaving the story and immersing yourself in the character. Ultimately there isn't an endpoint. The goal is the journey. The journey could be short or epic in scale. You might have two different rogues with effectively similar stats in two different campaigns that are completely different characters. There's no limit to the replay value here...
Roll-playing is about the chase and has a clear (and anti-climactic) finish line.
Role-playing is about the journey and is never over.
For me, the combat crunch serves as a framework. I start out with a goal in mind: party needs a tank, I whip up the best min/max tank I can. Then I look at the build and see if it suggests any kind of personality, and build from there. If I've already got a personality knocking around in my head (and believe me, there are plenty) that works, I'll try slapping that onto the framework. Then it all gets fine-tuned in the background stage. And finally, it all shines in glorious synchronicity at the table, when I get to play an awesome character and kick copious amounts of ass.
There's a great feeling that comes from that kind of synergy. There's playing with style, there's playing to win, and then there's winning with style. That's the fun stuff.
Note: if you're the only PC who's doing anything you aren't part of the party. You are the party and the other PCs are tagging along. This is NOT a good way to roll-play since it antagonizes all the players and the DM.
The two styles aren't opposites and often can be combined into better characters than either option alone. It's all about balance and being part of the group rather than the be all end all "last man standing."
I play my low stat characters with pride due to despising rollplayers. It only makes my victories sweeter. If the aim of dungeons and dragons was to master the system, then why is the DM on the players side? Shouldn't they just be building the best antiparty npc monster they can within 2cr of the party level to win the game and collect 200 dollars? Of course not. It's about fantasy, and fantasy is about storyline. Powergaming is irrelevant to storyline, and irrelevant to fantasy.
Coolness - What it sounds like
Tactical Optimization - Overall effectiveness in and out of combat
Social Interaction - RPing out interaction, solving things by it
Power Optimization - Maxing out a particular trick (doing 1k damage, 9th level arcane & divine spellcasting, diplomacy +150, etc)
Weirdness - Playing a strange character, whether Thri-Kreen, Pseudonatural Feral Anthropormorphic Giant Squid of Legend, or Commoner 20 with maxed out Craft(basketweaving)).
Drama - What it sounds like, sometimes taken too far into excessive melodrama.
And you can be more than one of these categories at once, possibly all of them even. If anything, good roleplaying makes it easier to optimize a character because you can get a better picture of your character's goals and you're not limited to "if I want to fight, I have to be a fighter".
Think about it ... very few characters have a goal of "I want to be weak and mock those who are, in my opinion, too focused on being effective." If you're character is an arrogant mage, then they should have the power to back up their arrogance (unless the whole point is that they're a braggart). People who go on nearly fatal adventures on a weekly basis tend to stop doing stuff that doesn't work and start doing stuff that does.
A lot of people think "roll" versus "role" playing is very immature. However, when this game was created "roll"-playing was NOT the intent, the intent was to create fantasy characters in a world full of all the stuff we've read in the books like dragons, giants.
Yeah, right. Gygax and Arneson made D&D as a spin-off of their favorite wargames. In wargames you do nothing but kill the other guy and brag about it. Heck, the reason we have magic in D&D is because Arneson stuck a phaser on his Celtic druid after too much Star Trek!
Roleplaying is awesome. But the die roll's central to the game, and you'll pry my dice out of my cold dead fingers. I figure the hatred of "roll"-play comes largely from people who a) have terrible luck, and b) suck at making uber characters. I sympathize, guys - I'm both. :D
But besides from that, roll playing is not better than roleplaying, as roleplaying isn't better than roll playing. It's all up to your personal style.
Myself, I play in a heavy "Roll" playing group and a heavy "Role" playing group. Here are my observations:
Good "roll" playing in the "role" playing group results in powerful characters who's abilities tend to overshadow the others. It's easy to step on others toes. Everybody has a right to have fun.
Good "role" playing in the "roll" playing group results in the most memorable encounters. The argument between the female characters over going to the beach or the abyss. The (male) paladin leading a mounted charge off an airship, later scourging himself for helping to kill a gold dragon, using a wish to save an NPC's soul, and being seduced by the (male) druid. Yikes! The list goes on...
Great "roll" playing characters tended to use their abilities once or twice before they became obsolete. The wizard who casts 32D6 fireballs with a save DC29. The monk who dealt 120+ points of damage a round. Min/maxing lends itself to having weaknesses. DM's exploit those weaknesses.
Great "role" playing characters tended to not be that much less powerful, but had far fewer weaknesses.
Memorable "roll" playing games tended to focus on combat and tactics. Monsters just got tougher and tougher. We tended to forget what it was we were trying to accomplish the third week of being trapped in the elven tomb.
Memorable "role" playing games focused on the goals and had only as much combat as was necessary. Puzzles were common, and it was easy to get frustrated being a Int22 wizard and being completely out of ideas. Mechanics became a get-out-of-jail-free card.
Campaigns can be either "roll" heavy or "role" heavy. They can also be balanced between both. Some will have the spotlight part of the time, others the rest. Both are viable. However, it is important to note that a good "role" player will be welcome at almost any table. Mechanical deficiencies can be ironed out. But unless he had a positive team attitude, a good "roll" player might find himself, well, arguing mechanics and builds on the D&D boards instead of playing the game. Might.
I'm not sure why the two are always discussed as polar opposites. Maybe I'm an exception, not sure, but I have a very in depth character and I love rping, however I still make sure I get the best mechanically out of my character as well as emotionally. So the two don't always have to be at odds with each other.
I agree. I would venture to say that most games have a place for both playing styles (and few characters are exclusively one or the other). I currently play a powerful character, but he has a highly developed personality that helps me have a great in-depth roleplaying experience when I play. It's easily possible to do both.
Of course I optimize my character. It makes no sense not to under normal circumstances. However, I also allow for 'character relevant' influences to affect his development. Feat choices, for instance, or ability scores, are not always exclusively picked because of their statistical value, but also because they reflect the character's personality and desired skill set.
Some people prefer playing a more statistically oriented character - and that's fine. Sometimes it means that storytelling and visible character development seem to take a back seat, but even that's not always bad. If a player gains more enjoyment from min/maxing than they do from plot, let them have their fun - others will pick up the slack and step up to drive the story forward if their friend doesn't want to. Of course, the silent, powerful warrior can also do a great part in driving the plot forward, just by his presence.
That said, I do believe that if a player makes the effort to involve themselves more in the story and their character's personality development, that they will find the rewards gained through the effort can be extremely satisfying as well, which I believe is a point Tzu-Theory was trying to make.
As an example, this guy in my group has been playing this archer character and he wanted to specialize even further, AKA a prestige class. So he honestly roleplayed his way into the elven community in my game, and he convinced this master to train him. When they were done training I said something like "Good job, Elven Treetop Archer (RoS Craigtop Archer conversion) is now open to you." and he was like "Dude, I don't even meet the prereqs." but I was like, "No man, you roleplayed that so well I'm waiving the requirements." and he responds, "No man, it's cool, I'll just keep going as a fighter. I really wanted Deepwood Sniper."
But hey, if you are combining the two styles of play, I'll give you props no matter which style is more important to you, because I've played with a lot of people who were only capable of one type of play or the other.
Is one style better than the other? YES, but it depends completely on the DM and what style of game they are trying to run. There will be situations that no game mechanic will be able to get you through, and there will be monsters that no amount of roleplaying will kill.
As a GM who sometimes gets to play, I am one of the worst for "optimizing" their characters. But that is because I make it a point to know what kind of world my character lives in and my GM's style of play. And because of the gift that all Irish have, I can Role play with the best of them. I do both, because your mouth is not going to get you out of every situation.
When I create a character, I plan his entire non-epic level advancement (taking into account whether or not the campaign may go epic). I choose a combination of class levels and feats that make the character really good with at least one thing (and often quite good at several other things). I then present the character plan to the DM (whether he asks me to or not) and say, "I want to play a character with these abilities." . I don't let the DM nerf the character; I either play it as I created him or (if it's vetoed by the DM) save him for a future campaign. I make an agreement with the DM that there will be a relatively seamless way for my character to enter into the prestige class(es) that I've chosen (i.e. if I want my character to be a Harper Mage starting at character level 6, he should be a Harper by then). I create a character personality and backstory that I find interesting that also fit the stats on paper. I then proceed to role-play the character as much as well as I can.
Am I roll-playing or role-playing? I certainly optimized his stats when I created him, but does that mean I PLAY him "roll-play" style? No. The style with which a character is created does not determine the manner in which he is played.
In my opinion, a player needs skill in both character creation and roleplaying (with the latter being more important). If a player fails to role-play, it doesn't make him a min/maxer; it makes him a poor role-player. If a player neglects to optimize his character's class and feat selections, it doesn't make him a role-player; it means he dropped the ball during character creation. Role-playing makes an interesting character, and min/maxing a character makes a valuable team member; BOTH are crucial to most campaigns.
If you disagree, please tell me what I'm not getting.
I would think that anyone who counts themselves as a seasoned roleplayer would realize that the character's build really has very little effect on the way you roleplay them. Therefore, having an optimized build surely doesn't have a detrimental effect on roleplaying. Of course, some people who do optimize their builds also don't roleplay much, but that's nothing intrinsic to optimized builds. For that matter, someone can have a very anti-optimized character, say a Commoner/Barbarian/Wizard, and still not roleplay very much or well.
Think of a D&D character as having two components:
Build - The game statistics, specific to D&D.
Character - The concept, backstory, personality, etc. Basically the roleplaying part, not to the D&D rules.
The parts only affect each other to a limited extent. Basically, the build should support the character, and that's it. There should be some correspondence, having a paladin character who's built as an evil mindbender doesn't really make sense, and if your character is a mage your build should include some spellcasting ability. Beyond that though, you can pretty much set up the build aspect separate from the character aspect.
For instance, say your character is a martial artist. You might assume you need to be a monk. However, that's not true; if for mechanical reasons you prefer a barbarian, then hey, that's no problem. Describe your rages as focusing on the pure essence of battle and "striking without thought". Can't fight unarmed? Well not all martial arts styles stress that, and besides, you can still grapple, trip, and disarm, just not punch or kick that well - maybe your style is more about grappling and leverage. Your DR fits very as part of an "Iron Robe" style, where you can withstand swords unarmored. Want to use a two-handed weapon? That's not unreasonable - different martial arts styles use a variety of weapons. Give your strikes, grapples, and other combat moves names appropriate to your style, and you're ready to go. There, you've just created a character where you roleplaying it the way you wanted to and optimized it the way you wanted to - and neither interfered with the other.
I eventually shut down the game. Not because their characters were too powerful, but because even though each character had a great reason to adventure, when it came right down to it, the players felt that adventuring should be as combat free as possible, and I had much better things to do then to 'listen' to them spend several hrs bemoaning their problems. The players (except my husband) thought that their way (heavy immersive role-playing to the exclusion of everything else) was the only way to go.
I don't mind those wanting to role-play; I don't mind those wanting to 'roll-play'. I do mind those that feel that their way is better. I did learn from that experience however. I now make it clear what my game style is (a cross between 'roleplaying' and 'roll-playing').
Some people play their characters somewhat independently of their skills, stats and abilties. They pick a personality and background, and these aren't tied or related to their abilities. This is the style that Ice Fractal describes. Using this style, the whole rollplaying/roleplaying problem simply doesn't exist.
This style does have some problems. Several abilities or progressions in AD&D are explicitly tied to personality traits or parts of the gameworld. Occult slayers are supposed to hate spellcasters, Purple Dragon Knights should really only be those who the members of the Purple Dragons would choose to help them further their goals and ambitions. Playing in this way assumes that you are willing to have your character do things he otherwise wouldn't think to do in order to qualify, and that the DM is willing to bend the gameworld to accommodate your character's desires for development. Neither of these are much of a problem in most games, may be far less than the suspension of disbelief needed to, for example, keep the party as loyal friends.
In other words, both the players and the GM are expected to metagame, within moderation.
Other people base their character's abilities on their personality, or their personality on the abilities of their character (as described in the PHB for example). They don't feel they have an entirely free choice of what abilities to choose when developing their characters, because they are limited by what the character, with their personality, would actually choose to do. They wouldn't join the Purple Dragon Knights unless their character actually liked the purple dragon knights, and approved of their goals.
Such players often end up with what are, statistically, sub-optimal characters, because their choices are reduced by personality and circumstance. They might well rebel at the idea of joining a prestige class for the bonuses, or at a character whose personality was sufficiently flexible to join a prestige class no matter what beliefs or values would have to be upheld. They might even go so far as to draw a distinction between roleplaying a character, (ie playing them as a person with real depth), and roleplaying a set of stats, however entertaining or detailed that portrayal might be.
As one player of mine memorably said - "The problem with Devrin is not that he doesn't have a personality, but that it's such a convenient one. He has a fondness for greatswords because they do the most damage, and if that were to change, and a better weapon were to turn up in the game, his personality would instantly change to match it."
In other words, they reject metagaming for players, reserving it for DMs. The obvious problem with this style is keeping the party together. In the absence of the DM providing a compelling reason to keep them acting as a party, they may well drift apart. This style often depends on the DM making the necessary opportunities crop up in the game for the characters to develop in the ways the players find interesting.
In other words, the DM is the only one who metagames, and players try to avoid it.
Then there is wargaming. People generally treating the game as a tactical wargame, where personality is largely limited to computer-game style quotes, and may even be actively avoided as 'self-indulgent'. This is what most people would refer to as 'rollplaying', and is reasonably common.
The tricky thing is, how to avoid rollplaying, (assuming you don't want it). If you're used to the first style, then you just put more emphasis on character, and blame the DM if all you end up doing is rolling dice. If you are used to the second style, then you can cut out metagaming altogether, and stick strictly to playing a believable character.
The trouble comes when you try and mix the two styles. Anyone playing the first ends up with a systematic advantage over the rest, because he can optimise his character for effectiveness, and because he can adapt his character to game events and NPCs as and when they occur. He is used to doing this as part of keeping the game moving. Meanwhile the other players may see their characters lose out on opportunities or glory, all because they are sticking more carefully to the original concept.
Hence you get one side deriding the other as rollplaying, and thus spoiling the game, while the other think they are both role-playing, and supporting the game more than their detractors. In practice they are simply used to different styles of play, and different levels of metagaming
In essence both sides are right. Those who claim that a certain amount of metagaming helps the game, and that it's a perfectly valid form of roleplaying, may well be right. Those who resist any attempt at metagaming, and claim that metagaming spoils the portrayal of a character are also right. The character experience is different.
Which way is better is a matter of preference. I would suggest, however, that if you haven't experienced both, you are almost certainly missing out.
Personally, I have no idea what to consider my campaign in terms of this argument. On the one hand, the players always seem to end up creaming whatever monsters I throw at them in two rounds (give or take a turn), yet on the other hand, I limit actual combat to about one in every three sessions, and without any complaints. Do I have some freaky hybrid on my hands, or is it something else entirely?
What you have, my friend, is experienced players who are able to work together. This is a good thing. I am sure that if you experiment with your monsters and have them try all sorts of tactics such as quaffing potions, setting ambushes, using spells in advance and fighting from advantageous positions you could give your party a good challenge.
I'm just starting D&D, and my orientation is toward the roleplaying aspect. However, I'm not going to do very well if I'm not good at fighting monsters and dealing with other encounters in the game. I've been poring over the 3.5 core books to learn the nature and details of D&D. I want to improve my characters the best I can, and do the most with them given what choice and fortune have created. Sure, even my first (and current) character has a backstory, but she's also been facing and fighting vile creatures. She's a hunger for glittery things, and the will and capability to take them.
There is nothing wrong with playing strong characters with strong backgrounds. There's nothing wrong with playing weak characters with strong backgrounds. There IS something wrong with making other players feel bad about the way their characters are made, or played. There is also something wrong about "in game" going on power trips over other "PCs." Those things are direct insults to the players who play the characters, and that shouldn't be done. For those of you who enjoy tweaking numbers, yes, I do too. But, please, don't let pride destroy a game.
Part II - Why are you playing the game?
The second problem in the role/roll argument is not the character that is min/maxed, or the powergamer, and the damage per round, etc. The problem is when a player isn't playing the game unless it's in initiative order, and when it is their turn, they start to take over, even to the point of directing other characters. This is also not a good thing to do. It makes the game less fun for other players.
There is the opposite problem of this as well. That is where one player does literally all the role-playing by themselves. The DM's attention is on them whenever combat is not going on. Sometimes those characters are very weak in combat, and therefore, they ignore the combat, and don't really participate, because they don't know what they can do to help. This is also not very good to do, because it makes other characters more susceptible to the traps, monsters, etc. that the DM or module throws at the characters.
So, I guess my point is that there are many different styles of play. I'll add some to this list:
Coolness - What it sounds like
Tactical Optimization - Overall effectiveness in and out of combat
Social Interaction - RPing out interaction, solving things by it
Power Optimization - Maxing out a particular trick (doing 1k damage, 9th level arcane & divine spellcasting, diplomacy +150, etc)
Weirdness - Playing a strange character, whether Thri-Kreen, Pseudonatural Feral Anthropormorphic Giant Squid of Legend, or Commoner 20 with maxed out Craft (basketweaving)).
Drama - What it sounds like, sometimes taken too far into excessive melodrama
I will add to this list:
Combat Player - ignores the RP part of the game, perks up when initiative is rolled. Extreme examples include players telling others what to do.
Non-Combat Player - ignores the combat portion of the game, usually weak in combat knowledge, and "lets battles happen, instead of participating". Extreme examples include letting the "Battle characters" die trying to save their life.
The game takes all types of players, including interesting mixes.
Sometimes, I play the Power Optimized Weird character that can hold their own grappling a huge gold dragon.
Sometimes, I play a Non-combat Drama player that annoys everyone -- a lot
Sometimes, I play a Social Tactical player that talks themselves into a better position to kill the enemy.
It takes all kinds of players. The only thing to make sure you do is keep the game fun for the other players. The DM who asks you to "down-play" your power is not usually asking you to do less damage, the usually mean, don't make the other players feel left out.