I hate those player who believe that there is a right way and a good way to play DnD. I hate those people who believe that their way to play the game is the ONLY fun way to play the game. I hate those people saying: I hate min/maxer because they did a half orc barbarian wielding a greatsword and he took the great weapon master feat so he can do more damage, so automatically that player is a min/maxer and do not do any RP, and he know that he at level 6 he will dip 3 level in fighter to gain some fighter ability to become even stronger etc....
Hey wake up, "min/maxing" your character IS DOING REALISTIC RP. RP mean ROLE PLAYING, role playing mean you act like your character would act in that situation. Ok so let analyse a min/max character and a "RP character" and see who got the most realistic ROLEPLAY between the 2
First Charcter creation: Before creating the character the DM should give us an overview of the world, ok we are in forgotten realm, a world with many different races, magic everywhere, and danger in every corner especially if you get outside the town wall. The DM ask you to create a character that will be ask to adventure outside the town. OK so I min/max making my half orc barbarian, putting my highest stat in Strenght and Constitution and taking the greatsword because it deal on average 0.5 damage more then a greataxe. Why would my character take a inferior weapon, he's putting his life on the line, if I'm to go fight a dragon I want the best equipement that I can afford.
Now the RPer create a barbarian with 8 strenght, 8 dex and 8 Constitution "because it's a fun concept" and decide that his barbarian will be a pacifist and read a lot of book, and record the adventure of the party so he can write books. Well that barbarian will die when he face teh first goblin in the adventure and he should know it, so why are you going on an adventure? can't you sent you strong friend to do the adventure, and ask that friend to tell you all about the story so you can write your book?. That barbarian would NEVER go on an adventure, he would NEVER have become a babarian in the first place and would join the library and study with the other physically impaired people. This RP character make NO SENSE and would NEVER exist.
The min/max Character want to SURVIVE, he want to LIVE. He is a strong solid barbarian and he receive (willingly or not) the mission to go save the princess from the dragon and he expect that if he succeed, he will probably go (or be force to go) on an other mission. So what should he train? How to better use his big sword (so planning to take the great weapon master feat), do a lot of push up to become stronger (so planning to take +2 Strenght) or because he met a gnome, a elf and he's going to face a dragon, he shoudl learn 3 new language (linguist feat)? which of those choice make more sense. Yes I am planning to use a greatsword and I'm plannning to take great weapon fighter, but this is JUST A PLAN, my plan can still change, if during the adventure I find a legendary polearm, them my character might start leanring how to use polearm instead (polearm master) if he receive a divine revelation, he might start worshipping a god, BUT THIS DO NOT MEAN HE NEED TO BECOME A CLERIC, a lot of people worship dieity in DnD without being a cleric or a paladin. My character knwo that he got 8 Intellect that he was never interested in school and never interested in study, so WHY would he become a wizard become he meet a wizard and was impress by it's prowess?
you are playing DUNGEON AND DRAGON, a game where you GIVE LIFE to a HERO, to someone who will receive (willingly or not) missions and must succeed those mission or die. Sorry but if I'm a king and I'm looking for adventurer to save my daughter (the princess) from the dragon I'll seek great wizard, strong fighter, cunnign rogue, not a sickly wimp barbarian, and if he's forced to go in the adventure he will most probably die VERY QUICKLY, so why do I want to play that guys, I want to PLAY DnD, not sit on a chair and look at my friend play because my stupid RP conceptual character die when he got ambush by the goblins.
If you want to play a linguistic fighter go ahead, but if you want to ROLEPLAY that linguist fighter, you will become a town guard at the town gate to interview merchants from far far away. If your guard captain tell you to go save the princess fromt the dragon you will tell him that in the barrack there is that guys who really know how to weild his weapon and he should send the fighter with great weapon master instead. And while you have fun being a town guard I'll play that fighter who can weild a sword, I'll play my strenght based greatsword weilding half orc who will go slay the dragon terrorizing the village, while i do this make sure the merchant do not bring any illegal merchandise in the village.
Yes when I present myself to my group I will present myself as being a strenght bases greatsword weilding fighter, that way the new player know that I will go in melee combat and deal good damage, they know what to expect from my character and they can play with that. I hate it when I join a new table and ask if everyone can present himself and the "RPer" tell me : I am a noble from house XYZ I can speak 5 languages and can cook a very good T-Rex steak... wow great so why are you coming with me on this mission? stay home and I'll bring you some dragon meat so you can cook my supper.
I hate even more those RPer who feel the need to stop EVERYONE, and stop the game and take 30 mintue expalining how they prepare their ration during the short rest, then ask the DM if he can find some wild parsley near the camp etc... then when the DM say no, he argu with the group that he want to make the camp a little bit further where he can find parsley because he absolutle need parsley for his rations. Those are 30 minute where ABSOLUTLE NOTHING HAPPEN, it's BORING for EVERYONE except that RPer guys.
The DM is there to tell us a story, and we are the main character of that story and we have to make the story advance. The DM is just there to tell the story, but it's US PLAYER who make the story go foward. and DnD is suppose to be an epic tell filled with magic, wounder and action, not a recipe book on how to cook T-Rex steak.
I do agree that if all the player at the table agree they want to do a fun adventure (Monthy Python style), they want to tell a parody of an epic tell, with a Gnome barbarian, a half orc Wizard and a dwarven rogue, and they want the barbarian to talk the dragon to sleep because it will be so funny, then go ahead, but all the player at the table (DM included) need to agree with this concept, this will be a silly game, where funny stuff work. If you play at a public game (like Adventure League) the module that are played are make for a more serious game, yes a little joke here and there can be fun, but we are playing an Indiana Jone style envrionement, 3 musketteers, etc... a setting where if someone shoot you with a gun, it will hurt and it might kill you, so you cannot simply plug the gun barrel with your finger like in Bug Bunny to be funny, you need to dodge and kill the shooter, if you try to speak the dragon to death, the dragon will breath on you and kill you, so please play a character able to weild a weapon and attack the dragon, or play a character able to inspire the other team member and help them kill the dragon.
RP do not mean to do the most ridiculous concept possible, RP do not mean to take the weakest option. RP mean to take the best option, since you are a hero, you are the best, if you are not the best, then why would your sponsor ask you to go do his mission, he'll go ask tot the best. True the little town who got a goblin problem won't ask Elminster to solve the problem, since Elmisnter is busy doing greater things, but they won't ask to the idiotic wizard, and the wimpy fighter, they are going to ask to the top of the class recruit from the fighter academy, ask the new cleric who want to show the world how great his god is by showing the miracle he can accomplish in hhis name and tell to the sorcerer who recently burn his room by mistake because he cannot control his magical power yet, might as well burn the goblin hovel instead of the village and if that sorcerer want to survive the mission (and further mission) he will need to learn how to control those spells. Then that thief will follow them becasue the goblin stole his mom ring and he want to get it back, but he's not strong enough to fight in melee, he cannot cast spell, he can use a bow and know how to make each arrow count, but he prefer to stay hidden.
You, good sir, get a 
Good thing most players exist in the middle of each extreme. It is when this middle is made to feel inadequate by these elitest extremes that I generally have trouble. Of course, I tell most my new players to ignore the internet and just have fun making the characters they want to play.
QwertyAzerty wrote:
QwertyAzerty wrote:
Also, if a rant is supposed to be "General", how can you also target what you call "RP players"? Philosoraptor is confused. :D
QwertyAzerty wrote:
Synjin wrote:
First, your language barrier isn't a problem. It's all good there man.
Second. Why would a sub-optimal PC want to be an adventurer, knowing they might be killed easier? Why not? Learn to separate your character from your own views. You think every soldier in any military is Special Forces Grade-A material? No. But they still go out and do their jobs regardless. Sure some are cooks or mechanics, but if called upon for front line work, they'd still do what they could. In your example of why the king would ask something of a sub-par PC...maybe he's part of the best of what's left? Maybe there's no other volunteers. Maybe he didn't get picked, but tagged along following the group and his adventurer's heart? Who knows. There's any number of reasons.
Third. You never once in your OP mentioned organized play and AL. Yeah I'd play something differently in AL than I would at home. AL is a different atmosphere altogether.
A heroic character isn't made because of mechanics. It's made due to their actions in the unfolding story. A sub-optimal character will of course want to better themselves along the way. (Which could make for some juicy RP sessions, depending on how far they are willing to go to become better. See your Raistlin comments, for example.), but even a good-aligned PC that wants to better themselves, can find ways of doing it along the way.
QwertyAzerty wrote:
CCS wrote:
ANGRY RANTS: POWERGAMERS AND METHOD ACTORS
http://www.madadventurers.com/angry-rants-powergamers-and-method-actors/
Synjin wrote:
QwertyAzerty wrote:
Synjin wrote:
Rastapopoulos wrote:
QwertyAzerty wrote:
Having an IQ of 200 would be the optimum score for reading this thread. To give one the best possible chance of understanding the arguments. Lets me out. I'm not optimal. I guess I'll have to stick to role-playing.
You start by declaring how you hate others who think there is only one way to play D&D. Especially RPers who do not min/ max. Then argue how your way is the only right way and those not min/ max are doing it wrong.
IMO the right way to play and make a pc is the way each player desires. MIn/ maxers are right and Rpers are doing it right. Each to thier own desires, Thats what is great about DND, the only right way to do it, is the way you enjoy it.
Synjin wrote:
QwertyAzerty wrote:
I'd recommend not wasting your time hating other gamers. Instead, play with gamers you enjoy playing with. What about that concept is so hard? What's the purpose of denigrating someone for playing the game a different way? Even if you "win" the argument, what is gained? Is more division within the gaming community desirable to any one here?
Brimleydower wrote:
Brimleydower wrote:
arnwolf666 wrote:
Soooooooooo...people that don't min/max, aren't RPing realistically? You just negated your opening sentences.
QwertyAzerty wrote:
Kangodo wrote:
You know, this is another thing that annoys me about this whole RP v. Min-Max argument. Every class, by default, gives you the necessary skills and tools to succeed at the job. Min-maxing is being the absolute best at the job.
Kangodo wrote:
Captain_Kobold wrote:
Kangodo wrote:
Also, just as I wouldn't do a Seal Team Six mission, I don't think Seal Team Six would tap me to join them, even if one of them was lifelong friends with me. I'd be a liability. I recognize that, and so do they.
The Lanterns don't normally pick random 1st-level adventurers when they need to pull a deep-insertion and extraction in Darguun either.
There is a middle ground between "only capable of clubbing rats in a cellar" and "elite of a nation's personnel resources".
Captain_Kobold wrote:
QwertyAzerty wrote:
Tempest_Stormwind wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
Vahnyu wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
A fellow "makes the news" by taking a dump on people's cars.
A fellow "leaves their mark on history / pop culture" by developing new scientific theories, discovering the remains of ancient civilizations, inventing technology that enhances our lives, or leading their people through crises and on to glory.
Not saying you can't have people in the latter camp who were of humble origins and products of circumstance, but I'd wager that the majority of that second camp aren't "skaters".
Similarly, I wager that the majority of our world is not composed of individuals with PC classes, or individuals higher than the lowest levels. It's not hard to show (in 3e, which at the low levels is actually very similar to 5e numerically) that level 5 individuals are the spectacular scientists, Olympic athletes, and master craftsmen that are at or very near the upper limits of human ability.
All of this has been known for a long time. The AD&D DMGs of earlier editions discussed the assumptions about their worlds, whether PCs were rare and a cut above the population by virtue of being PCs (i.e., the defintion of a PC is an exceptional individual), or whether anyone could be an adventurer and it's entirely a product of circumstance.
Now, as I've said at length, there is no One True Way To Play - so just because you assume that your world is completely populated by individuals with PC-grade ability scores and at least one level in an adventuring class (meaning any average individual can, given the right circumstances, rise to becoming the next Miyamoto Musashi), don't assume that other worlds must follow that same assumption or be full of BadWrongFun. (Especially when the world in question is quite explicit that it follows the other assumption. Eberron, very frequently, and often in its introductory pages, will include the phrase "The PCs are special" and discuss how much of an impact even low-level adventurers can have in the world.)
Vahnyu wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
Vahnyu wrote:
Tempest_Stormwind wrote:
Tempest_Stormwind wrote:
Vahnyu wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
Vahnyu wrote:
I'm not a hater, but I generally don't care for ranting, regardless of the topic or my views thereon.
The whole rant/argument just fell apart for me once intelligence scores got involved and what the meaning of a 6 INT. But wow, was this even neccerary as anything beyond an example of every table/group is different and I am glad I do not have to interact with the original poster in any way outside of a forum on occassion.
I'd rather not deal with someone like that either, which is also why I stopped posting in the other "rant" thread (this is not referring to that thread's OP, naturally - he and I differ on a lot of things but were quite civil. It's other DMs in that thread who go out of their way to make people who think different from them feel unwelcome, don't you know.)
langal wrote:
langal wrote:
langal wrote:
langal wrote:
QwertyAzerty wrote:
Vahnyu wrote:
MechaPilot wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
Tempest_Stormwind wrote:
Vahnyu wrote:
How exactly does one min-max in real life?
There are no points-buy, no deliberate assigning of stats. Working to effectively increase one stat doesn't preclude increasing others. There aren't many set rules on how a person develops that can be manipulated to deliberately trade off capabilities.
In fact many famous figures in history and science were impressive in their capabilities outside their field of fame. Well-rounded, rather than optimised towards a single purpose.
Can there not be some sort of happy medium?
Puposefully making a character utterly rubbish stat-wise is probably not a sensible move, but equally it doesn't mean that you have to take the most optimal build every time in order to play properly, does it?
Can a character not have small flaws? I think that just because a character you've created doesn't start off as the ultimate hero, doesn't mean that they are precluded from being allowed to go adventuring (they can still be good if not the ultimate best, right?), and they can develop into something more than they started as they go along.
I am currently playing a wizard who has a very low constitution due to a magical mistake early on in his wizarding career. Mechanics wise this is sub-optimal. Story wise, he is still a magic user and his mindset is such that he seeks great magical power - story wise I believe he is still a perfectly fine character to be out adventuring.
Maybe in a line-up of adventuring wizards, he's not the 1 particular wizard who the King would choose to be his hero for a particular task, but thats not necessarily how adventures start - there can be adventures starting through chance encounters of characters for example who go on to bond and become close allies despite not all having the optimal feat for their weapon proficiency, etc.
So I have a character who's out in the world, his base stats are sub-optimal, that can't be changed now. But I can play him to the best of my ability and develop him as I believe he would develop, indluding developments depending on events happening in game. Mechanically I can still try to compensate for his low constitution: maybe using mage armour or false life for a survivability boost, saving that all-important spell slot for 'shield' when needed, being cunning and simply not wandering into un-winnable fights. He can still progress in level and become a very strong magic user, incredibly heroic-seeming to the average NPC. Maybe his weakness ends up getting him killed, but on the other hand maybe he still does become a hero of great deeds and legends, in which case hurrah for the underdog!
Or perhaps I'm doing it wrong :D
But regardless, if I'm happy developing this character, my co-players are happy that I contribute to the party, and my DM is happy with what I want my character to do, then isn't that just fine?
At the end of the day, some people will be happier playing at some tables than others and with people creating particular types of characters than others, but that doesn't mean people who have different goals in their play are wrong, it just means they're different! Embrace the fact that D&D enables many people with all sorts of different play styles to play the same game and still have fun, albeit probably at different tables ;)
Malovaan wrote:
Gunthar wrote:
Gunthar wrote:
Yeah, as I said in the other thread: if the Fighter with the Standard Array does not put the 15 into Str or Dex, is he an a-hole anchor?
Captain_Kobold wrote:
Shasarak wrote:
Brock_Landers wrote:
Synjin wrote:
Brock_Landers wrote:
Synjin wrote:
Is this too late to say “I liked the way 4e did”? I mean, I do understand that 4e is right now the “heretic”/”apostate” edition for many D&D players, but DMG had a great work about different player preferences. Of course, the book uses idealized icons while saying that most people are a little mix or two. Really good advice.
cassi_brazuca wrote:
Azzy1974 wrote:
Is that like a dissapearing pencil trick?
Reius wrote:
Noon wrote:
grendel111111 wrote:
randl wrote:
Reius wrote:
Reius wrote:
arnwolf666 wrote:
Brock_Landers wrote:
Further a character with no back story but with some goals in life is perfectly roleplayable. Just by playing it, you'd be roleplaying.
randl wrote: