Since this is the forums for D&D, I wanted to post this here in order to hear the opinions of both sides of the board. I wish to learn why Technical Players insist on building their characters at their most powerful (usually right from the start of creation and continue on such) and how/why the experience makes them feel more involved with their characters and campaign(s). I also wish to hear the opinions of the Story Players, who invest their attributes based less on optimization and more on the basis that their ability scores represents their characters both physically and mentally. Nice bonuses seem secondary to a Story Player.
---
I have to say right off the mark that; I'm not a Technical Player. Never have been, tried it twice or thrice, but never felt good with a character after wards, and thus have never understood a Technical Player(s). I don't see the appeal in massive statistics right away.
When I build a character, I build them from the mindset that:
8 - Below Average
10 - Average
10+ - 'Above' Average
20 even/+ - 'Superhuman'*
* Which I do find acceptable for creatures who are obviously extremely buffed in more or more ability based on their origin and/or role/class. For instance, a Minotaur with 20+ strength seems fine because Minotaurs are massive, bulky creatures. And while this is a loose example (I know) its the best I can think of for my own personal reasoning at the moment. Epic characters and Hero/Villains make sense having a few or more (depending on type) ability scores that even or exceed 20, because they are Hero/Villains and have worked to achieve that status.
---
With this in mind, I build my characters from a mold that makes sense to me from a 'realistic fantasy' point of view. And yes, I know I just said the 'R' word when it comes to discussing something completely fantastical. I know. And I'm sure I'll hear a few more opinions about using 'R' word. It's a touchy subject, but if we can avoid it in lieu of the actual discussion, it would no doubt improve the ideas and opinions instead of flame wars, trolls or insults. Whew.
Anyway, as an example, I present my Tiefling Rogue;
STR - 12
CON - 12
DEX - 16
INT - 14
WIS - 13
CHA - 14
Str - The character is stronger then average, but only just so.
Con - The character is tougher then average, but only just so.
Dex - The character is much faster and agile then average, by many bounds.
Int - The character is much smarter then the average by a good leap.
Wis - The character is wiser then most, almost by a good leap, but not quite.
Cha - The character is much more charismatic then the average by a good leap.
From here on I'll optimization my characters statistics by planning them out before hand so I know which attributes to invest in at which level, but it is done based less on the technical and more on the actual character itself. I'll make DEX and CHA my two biggest focuses, based on the character idea that my Tiefling is fast and charismatic, but rarely will I exceed going over twenty if I can help it. ((In lieu of the Trickster Paragon Path, I'll invest in the character's DEX to 22 or even 24, based on the idea that he's trained and honed himself to a level beyond the typical)). His Str and Con would usually end up at 16, representing the fact the he's stronger and hardier then the average person, but less so then say a barbaric warrior or fighter who excels in those kind of things. His Wis will end up at 15, which shows he's wiser then most, by a good leap, but he's not some philosopher either.
---
Technical Players, in my experience, build their characters less on a 'justifiable means of character' and more on 'justifiable means of character within mechanical superiority'. Yes? I'm not to sure, I don't really understand the motivations of Technical Players outside of their desire to be the single best and crush everything. So I'm curious, about the opinions of both sides (even though I'm a Story Player), and I would be most interested to read the why's, the means, the reasoning's, the likes/dislikes from both side of the board.
Thanks!
When it comes to Ability Scores, even a Story Player will naturally choose scores that augment what they need most. After all, a PC will naturally gravitate to a class that he is best at. That's what we all do in real life--we choose professions that we are good at. It's not the only factor in why we choose to do whatever it is we do, but it's a very big one. This is no difference for PCs--a fighter will have a high strength, a wizard will have a high intelligence, etc.
But I think what you're getting at with 'Technical Players ' is people who pour everything into just two abilities for the sole reason of making that character a technical bad-ass. However, I think the game has a built-in system to discourage this, mainly through Feats. A Technical Player will plan what future Feats they want to become the best at whatever it is they do, and some of the best Feats require decent scores in abilities that don't tend to be the "primary" abilities for whichever class they are meant for. These requirements also make sense, from a role-players perspective. For example, "Dark Fury" is a good Feat for a wizard, and it requires decent scores in both Constitution and Wisdom, only one of which is considered a "primary" ability for the wizard (same for a warlock, just flip-flopped). And when you think of how that Feat works in a role-playing perspective, it makes sense!
So I think even Technical Players will end up with moderately diverse ability scores, since they will have to if they want access to some of the better Feats (which will make them better technically).
Given that, for my campaign personally, we are certainly Story Players, and tend to beef up some abilities purely for the character concept, technical aspects aside. For example, in our first campaign we played (which lasted about 15+ years real-time!) one of the characters became the king of a land. He was a fighter, but he beefed up his Charisma since what king worth his weight in kobold-poop has a Charisma of 10 or 12?
Technical Players, in my experience, build their characters less on a 'justifiable means of character' and more on 'justifiable means of character within mechanical superiority'. Yes?
Optimizers will do their best to make their characters as efficient as possible within their self imposed limits. I don't like playing characters with a negative ability modifier (er unless it's strength, or I've got a specific character in mind). Thus I do my best to make my characters as good as possible without dropping any score below 10. Even if that is better mechanically. Limitless optimization is very rarely practiced.
As a side note, you seem to build your characters then try to assign numbers. Others assign numbers then decide what that character must be like. Amusingly that choice has nothing to do with optimization habits.
I'm not to sure, I don't really understand the motivations of Technical Players outside of their desire to be the single best and crush everything.
It's actually not a technical thing. It's a story thing. The average optimizaers goal is to fill a basic character type, one that's been the center of fantasy for ages. Specifically "The most awesome X ever." If you're trying to make the future prince of theives you want to make your character as good at his job as possible. The question is can the player take the role out of that steriotype and make it intresting (the same question that all RPers face).
As a personal note, I consider most scores to have a +/-2 from what I think of the character, especially in the mid ranges, where the bell curve is highest. D&D stats always seemed very vauge in terms of what they actually meant.
Personally I feel that making a balanced character starting with abilities and then developing a personality is a perfectly justifiable way of going about it. This is a game, not a screeplay, and I have very little interest in playing the comically bumbling thief who trips over himself and can't hit a monster.
I feel the same way about those useless characters as I do about characters like Joey on Friends. If you're literally too inept to live, then I really have no interest in spending any time with you. Because you will shortly be dead.
If a person wants to RP comic relief, let them do so while also contributing in a reasonable fashion to the gameplay part of the game. There are some players who I respect who have tried characters who were not actually especially efficient in their chosen class. Not as bad as the 11 DEX rogue I mentioned above, but nonetheless with scores that clearly could have been better distributed and probably would be more appropriate for another class. I found it very tiresome to play with them. "Here's Tim's turn. Tim takes 15 minutes describing something really awesome he wants to do. Tim attempts and in the end does nothing of any value whatsoever. Tim should probably just hang by the sidelines and play NPCs from now on."
I don't consider RP value to be a good excuse for such uselessness. A character who is good at what he does can be RP'd just as effectively as a character who is not. You don't have to be a dumb wizard or a flaccid fighter in order to RP.
If I want to play a really smart character, I will pick a class and abilities that are appropriate for a really smart character, just as I imagine that character would if he wanted to go off risking his life fighting monsters.
Even in video games like NWN when a charisma score is irrelevant to a class I will have at least a 12. Sometimes that may mean a lower dex or wisdom. Simply I like my characters to be better looking than average, even though I myself probably have a 9 charisma. My wife thinks it is 13 or 14 but I managed to succeed in my roll against her I guess. Bless her heart she is so deluded.
I am a story player, but when the RPG element is irrelevant like in wargaming I am extremely technical.
Strength 16
Constitution 12
Dexterity 10
Intelligence 18
Wisdom 8
Charisma 12
The negative wisdom modifier hurts my Perception and Insight, but Jack of All Trades helps to mitigate it. Besides, my character is a magical tactician, not a scout. He leaves scouting to the pros.
8st
13dex
16con
16int
10wis
16chr
That was at lv1 at lv4 con and chr have been boosted.
As for ability scores, I go for optimization through diversity. Every score can be useful to every class. It's just a matter of how useful. I rank the scores in order of how important they are to my class and concept, then assign points based on that. If there is an ability that is of limited use to my class and there is no story reason for my character to have a good score, then I'll generally leave it as a dump stat at an 8 or a 10. On the flip side, I'll rarely start a character off with a 20 in an ability score. I find that it leaves too many weak spots on the character for example, maybe a low initiative modifier, or one or two low defenses.
In your classification, I guess I'm somewhere between a technical player and a story player, as I take into account what works best mechanically and thematically for my characters.
I have no objection to people who want to play RP-heavy characters as long as they maintain their effectiveness. If Tim the Turd wants to play a Fighter with 12 Str in 4th Ed, I'd slap him silly. I'd rather not have him play in the first place if he intends to build crap like that since my gaming time is limited. I like to sit down and play with people who know what they're doing, thank you very much.
It's never an either/or concept.
Your problem is you fell into the Stormwind Fallacy trap. Why can one not be both a Story Player and a Technical Player? Why am I not allowed to min/max my scores to be the best I could possibly be for the way I want my character yet still have the most fascination backstory, roleplaying personality, and have engaging conversations with NPCs during play?
It's never an either/or concept.
What he said.
But, i beleive that the limitations that the mechanics impose on the charecter create better roleplay than i could come up with without the stats and it allows me to take classes and feats that have rp restrictions and still be able to play the original concept of the charecter.
I roll it out, and play it. Or if the sheet is handed to me, I play it.
In a 2e campaign I am in, I Play a dwarf fighter in a caverns of Tjosganth mini campaign.
Stats:
Dwarf Level 5 fighter
hp 56
AC -2, magical plate & Magic shield.
STR 18/65
DEX 12
CON 12
INT 9
WIS 8
CHA 7
He fights with a handaxe & shield. His first approach is bluster, and threaten.
He has an abrasive, opinionated personality, charges in, doesn't make good decisions, gets fooled a lot, Loaned out his crossbow when the wizard broke his, calls his horse "Ya dumb horse", misidentifies Wyverns as "Dragons", is more than mildly insulting, reads the mage's tome over his shoulder, while making suggestions about what to cast next, does a lot of things that a wiser being wouldn't, and will defend any member of the party till death.
His latest act was getting a critical hit on a wyvern, lopping off it's foot, and being buried under foresaid wyvern, as it hit the ground, bleeding. The party mock debated saving the dwarf from suffocation, and finally, helped to free him.
The DM and players in the group (Male DM, 2 female and 4 male players, ages 30ish) have all said he's a real pain in the butt (literally he got shot by a stray party member arrow some weeks ago), but a great person to have at your side in a scrap.
That's what I saw from those stats, so that's how I play him.
in the line of work your typical D&D character does, danger and sharp, pointy, pointy teeth are always around the next corner. always.
more importantly, you're in a small group of 5 where each person plays a key part, with their own area of expertise and everyone pulls their own weight.
now the problem lies when you have the one guy who plays a character very far under the curve. when everyone has to pull a little but more weight and this character fails most undertakings... why is he adventuring instead of becoming a baker?
the weak fighter, the clumsy rogue with low dex, the idiot mage... these characters are fun to read about, sure, but they have the author making sure they survive.
in D&D those characters tend to become goblin chow... especially since the DM isn't as lenient as Mr.Lucas with lackluster goofy characters or the other players aren't willing to put up with the buffoon who nearly killed them yet another time.
After 1st level, I'll put every single ability boost into the 15 and 16 because that's what the game's balance philosophy assumes that I will do. I don't think of those boosts as 'getting more talented' or an increase in raw ability, but as my character simply learning new tricks to augment his base talent. So if I have a 30th level fighter with a 26 Strength, it doesn't necessarily mean he looks like Hercules. More likely, he looks like an everyday muscle-builder who knows how to get the most of his muscles with positioning and leverage.
Anyway, no offense to anyone here, but I think a lot of players over-think their numbers -- both as crunch (CharOp) and fluff (every 'how do I play X score?' thread ever posted).
TS
I think the problem I have is with people who optimize in the manner that a particular race should never be a particular class because another race would be better at it.
Optimizing should never get in the way of concept on that level. If you decide to be a Dragonborn wizard, then play a Dragonborn wizard. Once you make that decision, then for sure try to stat the character in a way that works. But don't give up on a concept ONLY because it's not the best optimally.
Just because you can't be as good at wizarding as, say, an Eladrin or a Human, doesn't mean you can't be an effective wizard. And then make your strengths work for you as best you can.
I play a scorcerer/wild soul half-elf with a really in depth backstory.
Her ability scores were placed with the technical side of me speaking. I dont want to gimp myself or the rest of the party . But when it comes to picking spells and skills I dont neccisarally pick the things that would make my charecter the most powerfull. I tend to think "What would my char. actually learn" I put ranks in Escape Artist and Move Silently and Survival even though they are not "typical" Scorceress skills because it fit well with my backstory (my char. ran away from home and survived on the streets from age 13-20) same with spells. I took torrent of tears and bothersome babble just because of a fighter in our group that got on my chars nerves by saying stupid things and making fun of her. So she wanted to get back at him, not by seriously harming him but emmbarasing the heck out of him (hes pridefull)
But we have a deep roleplay group too. We can go a whole session on just roleplay alot of the time.
On the other hand we do have a player who breaks our campaign... alot. He is always char. hopping and always building insanely OP chars with no regaurd 2 storyline or roleplaying. It annoys the heck outta me.
As for the question at hand, I optimize for the story. I have a character I like alot, and have played in several game systems. He hits as hard as is humanly possible, or maybe a little harder, with a large blunt object (that isn't the entire character though). I can't play the character if I don't maximize his ability to cause damage, because then it isn't the character I want to play. My dwarf hexhammer warlock is a sort of Spawn character- a beast in combat with an arsenal of deadly arcane tricks. I could choose things that sound cool, or could make the dwarf more utilitarian, but I want to play a certain character so I choose only the feats and powers that make him good at his job. I will min/max every aspect of a character if and only if it fits the character.
Why can't we be both Technical Players and Story Players?
I think the name of this thread should be, "Ability Scores & Rollplaying" or "Roleplaying Ability Scores"...