It seems that all I read about on the discussion boards is how to optimize your character. Does anyone make a character with a concept in mind and try to play that character, even though it isn't a death dealer
I have played RPG's for 30+ years and the most memorable characters haven't been the death dealers, but the fun characters that actually have some personality. Try playing a character with a lower than average Int,Wis, or cha. Sure people might use them as dump stats, but how many people role-play it? Play a clumsy cleric with a low dex. I had player with a cleric in 2nd edition that made it to 12th level. He couldn't fight to save his life, he was horribly disfigured in the few adventure of the campaign, but he was fun.
Even the greatest heroes have a weakness, why not play it. More role-play and less roll play!
Death dealers can be memorable characters with personality.
Roleplaying and having an effective character aren't mutually exclusive.
Death dealers can be memorable characters with personality.
This.
Mechanically daunting modules create a necessity for mechanically sound PC builds.
I agree with you that it doesn't have to be that way. I'm not saying build weak characters, but build characters with style that have weaknesses.
Honestly, I find a lot of the time that the player of a character with one abysmally low score tends to use it as a roleplaying crutch. Sure, your character can have low intelligence, but when your entire RP shtick is that you're a drooling moron, you really haven't achieved anything RP-wise with your character. You're just another stereotype.
- No one needs advice on how to make an ineffective character, so we see very few threads like, "How can I make rogue that misses a lot?" or "What are the best stats for a fighter who is sort of OK at everything?" :P
- Playing a character with weaknesses doesn't rule out optimization. A dumb brute of a fighter who botches social encounters unless bound and gagged can be optimized for other tasks. A crippled cleric with a wretched Str, Con, and Dex can still be powerful because of his faith.
- People generally enjoy playing competent characters. Don't confused optimized for a few tasks for good at *everything*, however. My "optimal" warlord can't spot ambushes very well or attack distant foes or deal a lot of damage directly. But he has a few focuses that work out pretty well when the dice don't betray me (this rarely happens:raincloud ).
Still, I get your point about more organic characters. I see people play them all the time in real life, but they don't find a need to ask for help on the forums (which is kind of my first point).
But as others said it is possible to role play and still have a power character.
Marco Mead had gone to Morgrave university to learn magic and doge the draft. He was lazy, partied a little too hard, and was on the verge of flunking out. So he sought out a way to cheat, and found pact magic (from Tome Of Magic). When his professor discovered him cheating, he was tossed out. He was also blacklisted from the mage guilds for using pact magic.
After that, he spent time wandering around the less war-torn parts of Breland, dodging the the big battles, doing what he could to survive, and writing home diligently. After being unfortunate to witness a major battle, he wrote home about it, and his father sold letter to a newspaper. In this way Marco became a roving war corespondent, always skirting the bloodiest of battles, and writing in every gory detail in the name of profit and truth.
That is just his back story.
I rolled incredibly well for Marco's ability scores. He had, IIRC, 18, 16, 16, 14, 14, 13. The vestiges he bound with pacts could make him an undying font of healing, a melee monster, or give him a wide variety of problem solving powers (though not as powerful as a druid/cleric).
Marco was a death dealer. After the war ended, he was left with a significantly lower opinion on the value of life. He wasn't sadistic, but he was vindictive (when House Orien tried to bribe him to help them cover up a train robbery scandal, he took their money and published the article anyway using the name of a train robber he had killed). He also didn't particularly care if someone suffered before dying.
It seems that all I read about on the discussion boards is how to optimize your character.
Really?
Wow, you should lurk more. :P
Does anyone make a character with a concept in mind and try to play that character, even though it isn't a death dealer
Sure. I would wager most people do that, as a matter of fact...
More role-play and less roll play!
That's a logical fallacy, dear. Characters can be both mechanically powerful and memorably role-played. Likewise, characters can both be a mechanical liability to the party and abysmally role-played.
Two of my most mechanically optimized characters is actually ended up being two of my most memorable and fun to role-play.
I'm not saying build weak characters, but build characters with style that have weaknesses.
It's impossible to build a character that doesn't have some kind of weakness.
When people optimize a character, they usually optimize it for a certain style. "An eladrin swordsman who teleports around as easily as walking" is what my current character is optimized for. So I took swordmage for his class (swordmages get a lot of teleports), and grabbed up as many teleport powers as possible. He's optimized for teleportation mobility, but he still has weaknesses. His HP is low, he doesn't deal much damage, and he isn't particularly persuasive.
There's an entire board for discussing how to develop interesting personalities and back stories for D&D characters. Most character build threads in other boards are along the vein of "my character has this sort of personality/style, how do I reflect that in his/her build?" Building characters with personality and style in mind is extremely popular.
If you want your character to survive long enough to develop their personality and play them it is a good idea to optimize them.
True in previous editions, but in this edition PCs are surprisingly hardy, and the difference between non-optimized and optimized is small.
InkBlot,
I agree with you that it doesn't have to be that way. I'm not saying build weak characters, but build characters with style that have weaknesses.
And now that CoDZilla (and his 3e Wizard sidekick) is dead, all characters have weaknesses; no character can do everything.
In 1E and 2E, optimized characters were given an automatic 10% head start in xp from encounters.
Perhaps it should be just the opposite but that isn't how DnD has been set up.
I personally miss the random rolls for ability scores. If DnD mechanics focused more on roleplaying and less on combat perhaps you would see a wider variety of PCs. DMs could certainly emphasize combat less but with 95% of a characters stat sheet devoted to combat, it would seem a little strange.
If you want your character to survive long enough to develop their personality and play them it is a good idea to optimize them.
There's a difference between making an effective character and making a character that is the best pile of numbers possible.
InkBlot,
I agree with you that it doesn't have to be that way. I'm not saying build weak characters, but build characters with style that have weaknesses.
Yeah, it's interesting to build characters with weaknesses, or even ones that aren't optimal. As others have said, though, the choice isn't mutually exclusive.
The problem with building a character with major weaknesses is that you run into the "gimped character" problem. I played in a 3.5 group where one of the players decided to create a Rogue 2/Bard 2/Druid 2. The character was very interesting, and had a ton of skills, but was worse than useless in combat. This can be a problem in a game that emphasizes combat, especially if the rest of the party is more optimized for combat - either the 'weak' character gets killed by challenges that are appropriate for the rest of the party, or the rest of the party finds challenges too easy.
For some players and groups, this is OK, but WotC has made the assumption that most groups have more fun when the characters are reasonably close in combat effectiveness.
That said, there's no reason you can't make a character whose main stat is 16+, but who is seriously deficient in a secondary stat, like a Paladin with a high Str but a terrible Cha and a low Wis - maybe he's a loud, brash, foolish Paladin of Kord or something.
Personally, I see "optimized" as having every number in a place to maximize ass kicking. The numbers come before the character concept. "Well, if Cha is my dump stat, then I'm just a hard-core ass kicker who's silent, probably with a dark past, doesn't 'play well with others'"
While "non-optimized" would probably be.. well, I want a warlock who's leg was mauled when he was a child and he walks around with a limp.. so, to emulate via the numbers, I should take a low Dex. (low could be 12, or 10, or 8, or any number you consider to be "low" really). In this aspect.. the character came first, and the numbers fit around the person.
I think people make the "role-play" vs. "roll-play" statement because they've watched players make an 8 Int. character and then come up with every reason under the sun why the character would have every answer during RP. "Well, having an 8 Int doesn't mean I'm stupid.. it means, I think long and hard before I answer." ((Even when the NPC JUST asked the question.))
As far as the boards, it's not all that's around. I'd recommend staying away from the Character Class boards. They're full of "Best race/class combo" and stuff like that.
I find the "What's a DM/PC to do?" boards to be full of a lot more of the story aspect of D&D. Hope that helps.
Disclaimer: There is nothing wrong with any way of playing the game. All versions of the game are valid. The poster in no way intends to invalidate your game experience with words, phrases, paragraphs, or entire posts.
Longtime lurker and first time poster.
It seems that all I read about on the discussion boards is how to optimize your character. Does anyone make a character with a concept in mind and try to play that character, even though it isn't a death dealer
I have played RPG's for 30+ years and the most memorable characters haven't been the death dealers, but the fun characters that actually have some personality. Try playing a character with a lower than average Int,Wis, or cha. Sure people might use them as dump stats, but how many people role-play it? Play a clumsy cleric with a low dex. I had player with a cleric in 2nd edition that made it to 12th level. He couldn't fight to save his life, he was horribly disfigured in the few adventure of the campaign, but he was fun.
Even the greatest heroes have a weakness, why not play it. More role-play and less roll play!
If you're talking 8 or lower, meh - I would if it were part of the campaign point buy or in rolling a character I ended up with such stats, but I wouldn't likely be happy about it. However I'm always lean towards the more interesting characters than a min/maxed character.
Your explanation is exactly what I mean about character design and opitization.
I appreciate all the other input as well.
thank you
I'd recommend defining "non-optimized" in the OP.
Personally, I see "optimized" as having every number in a place to maximize ass kicking. The numbers come before the character concept. "Well, if Cha is my dump stat, then I'm just a hard-core ass kicker who's silent, probably with a dark past, doesn't 'play well with others'"
While "non-optimized" would probably be.. well, I want a warlock who's leg was mauled when he was a child and he walks around with a limp.. so, to emulate via the numbers, I should take a low Dex. (low could be 12, or 10, or 8, or any number you consider to be "low" really). In this aspect.. the character came first, and the numbers fit around the person.
I think people make the "role-play" vs. "roll-play" statement because they've watched players make an 8 Int. character and then come up with every reason under the sun why the character would have every answer during RP. "Well, having an 8 Int doesn't mean I'm stupid.. it means, I think long and hard before I answer." ((Even when the NPC JUST asked the question.))
As far as the boards, it's not all that's around. I'd recommend staying away from the Character Class boards. They're full of "Best race/class combo" and stuff like that.
I find the "What's a DM/PC to do?" boards to be full of a lot more of the story aspect of D&D. Hope that helps.
Disclaimer: There is nothing wrong with any way of playing the game. All versions of the game are valid. The poster in no way intends to invalidate your game experience with words, phrases, paragraphs, or entire posts.
A lot of the time, I don't think it's as clear-cut as this. Sometimes, your character's personality will spring out of the stats you give him, other times, it's the other way around. I think it's just as valid to start out with a mechanical concept for a character (eg. "I want to play a human paladin that fights with a greataxe) and develop a personality from there ("why does he fight with a greataxe? He was raised by dwarves. Why was he raised by dwarves? His parents were killed by goblins. etc.")
I dunno, maybe I'm in the minority here, but for me, character creation has always been a rather organic process. I'll have an idea of what I want to play, and I'll develop a personality based on that, although that could be subject to change depending on my stats. In our paladin example, maybe I originally wanted him to be in poor health, and constantly coughing, but I realized he needed high con for axe mastery. Instead I might decide that he's clumsy, since his dump stat will be dex.
I don't see anything wrong with having your backstory and playstyle adapt to the stats you want, any more than I see a problem with adapting your stats and playstyle to match your backstory.
Does anyone make a character with a concept in mind and try to play that character?
Often. And I suspect so have many of the members of these Boards. It's just that non-optimized characters don't tend to be the subject of the forums. They tend not to push rules to the limit, making them less-than-likely to appear on the Rules Q&A Boards. They inherently don't fit the Character Optimization Boards. And the other Boards rarely have a topic structure that would warrant them. So instead, we get a thread like this every couple of months (okay, maybe twice a year) and it sparks brief interest. But in the end, most of us have done what you mentioned.
A lot of the time, I don't think it's as clear-cut as this. Sometimes, your character's personality will spring out of the stats you give him, other times, it's the other way around. I think it's just as valid to start out with a mechanical concept for a character (eg. "I want to play a human paladin that fights with a greataxe) and develop a personality from there ("why does he fight with a greataxe? He was raised by dwarves. Why was he raised by dwarves? His parents were killed by goblins. etc.")
I dunno, maybe I'm in the minority here, but for me, character creation has always been a rather organic process. I'll have an idea of what I want to play, and I'll develop a personality based on that, although that could be subject to change depending on my stats. In our paladin example, maybe I originally wanted him to be in poor health, and constantly coughing, but I realized he needed high con for axe mastery. Instead I might decide that he's clumsy, since his dump stat will be dex.
I don't see anything wrong with having your backstory and playstyle adapt to the stats you want, any more than I see a problem with adapting your stats and playstyle to match your backstory.
QFT
For a one-shot, in which the possibility of an all-out PvP brawl was present, I created a dwarven paladin that would be likely to come out of the top of any scrap. From there, I justified why he was like he was and why he was working on a ship.
The result was Grimgaj Rocktooth, ship's cook, paladin of Sekolah and unapologetic cannibal (although he wouldn't call himself that. He never ate other dwarves after all).
Just as personality and concept can be a springboard for builds, builds can be a springboard for personality.
It's either All 20s in the stats with every damage boasting feat possible or all 8s in the stats and every situational feat possible.
Why can't you play a character who is competent in his field, but not (MinMaxed)? Why does this concept seem so foreign to people?
QFT
For a one-shot, in which the possibility of an all-out PvP brawl was present, I created a dwarven paladin that would be likely to come out of the top of any scrap. From there, I justified why he was like he was and why he was working on a ship.
The result was Grimgaj Rocktooth, ship's cook, paladin of Sekolah and unapologetic cannibal (although he wouldn't call himself that. He never ate other dwarves after all).
Just as personality and concept can be a springboard for builds, builds can be a springboard for personality.
Sorry but if you ever have to 'justify' a character, you did it wrong
I would be curious to find out this: For the people who gravitate toward the mechanics aspects of the game. How many of you, more often than not, find yourselves playing with groups of strangers?
Likewise, for those that gravitate toward the non-mechanical (any other word is likely to spark a defensive campaign) aspects of the game, how many of you play with a constant group of friends?
After my highschool group broke up and we went our seperate ways I tried to game with a group of strangers (plus some of said friends). This only occured once as I found it completely unenjoyable. There was a girl who wanted to play a nymph and a guy who played a wizard who cheated incessantly. SO, I quit roleplaying until I could find a group of friends again (and, had it not happened, I likely wouldn't be into 4th Edition except for a passing interest).
I've played Free Form Online (best possible RPing experience I've ever had), and I've played in a persistant world on Neverwinter Nights (also pretty amazing). But the Free Form has to be story driven, and the server I played on story and heavy RP were enforced.
I would be curious to find out this: For the people who gravitate toward the mechanics aspects of the game. How many of you, more often than not, find yourselves playing with groups of strangers?
Likewise, for those that gravitate toward the non-mechanical (any other word is likely to spark a defensive campaign) aspects of the game, how many of you play with a constant group of friends?
Just responding to your questions for now, I consider myself primarily a roleplayer, but I will optimize my character concept (in the sense that if I'm wielding a greatsword, I'm going to make sure my character has the dexterity to take Heavy Blade feats). I only play with my friends, never strangers. Of course, I spend probably 90% of my gaming time DMing, so I might not be the best person to ask as I very rarely get to play a character at all.
Eladrin Paladin and Dragonborn Wizard: GO!
I got your Eladrin paladin right here.
DO I try to make my character useful? Do I try to avoid hobbling him? Yes. It is unlikely that you will ever see me try to make a merman in a desert based campaign or make a wizard with a 12 Int and an 18 Strength.
But do I go out of my way to crunch the numbers and find ways to squeeze every last bonus out of my character that I can get or combine things togther that are just plain silly in order to make my character uber optimized. No.
I try to hit a balance somewhere between the two extremes. So do most players, I think.
Does anyone make a character with a concept in mind and try to play that character, even though it isn't a death dealer
Of course, I'd wager most characters made fit this description. For example-
I want to play an elven noble, he is a fencer, and a master of swordplay. he went to ___ academy until his 18th birthday, when his parents were murdered. Now he uses his wealth and considerable sword skill to fight injustice all over the world.
Can you help me make him the best swordsman I can? I went with the following stats. What are some good feats to help me fill this concept?
In 3.5 specific terms, no one actually sat around and played Pun-Pun in every game. People come up with a concept that sounds fun, and then they attempt to make the most effective character that fits this concept.
In 3.5 specific terms, no one actually sat around and played Pun-Pun in every game. People come up with a concept that sounds fun, and then they attempt to make the most effective character that fits this concept.
Well put.
What I was trying to say, only better. ANd it works the other way too. I (and most players I know) have sometimes thumbed through the book and said "Ooooh that Feat/Prestige Class/Power/Paragon Path/Whatever looks fun! What kind of concept can I make that fit into?" and that is just as valid as working it from the other direction.
I develop a concept and personality for a character and then take feats/options to suit.
Often I play a race that "isn't suited" for a particular class. In some cases it is for variety some cases just for fun.
Usually I don't max stats for best advantage, I often go for more general all round stats if possible. I also don't go for options that don't make sense for the character
I try and emphasis a character with personality who is fun to play and can do a few things, I don't crunch things to ensure I can be the most effective at things.
It seems that all I read about on the discussion boards is how to optimize your character. Does anyone make a character with a concept in mind and try to play that character, even though it isn't a death dealer
Depends on how non-optimal you have in mind.
My 4e rogue character is not optimal in the sense I didn't take Backstabber at 1st level and probably won't pick it up for a while because I'm going rapier and parrying dagger so I need quite a few feats to build that up. But I did weight out various options for his dexterity and charisma to find the right balance mechanically.
There are really a lot of different ways to arrive at a character concept. In 3e, I often simply rolled stats and went where it took me. In other cases, I started with a class (or in 4e a role) because the party was missing a particular one. Sometimes I start with a particular mechanical concept, a character background or a personality and work from there.
How optimized they are varies. The more combat oriented a campaign, the more I tend to build the character to be good in combat. If the character doesn't need to be good in combat, I can pick powers just because they are interesting or fun.
Jay
In 3.5 specific terms, no one actually sat around and played Pun-Pun in every game. People come up with a concept that sounds fun, and then they attempt to make the most effective character that fits this concept.
nice.I think some people have this misconception that the CO boards sits around all day thinking up ways to wreck other people's games.
I think some people have this misconception that the CO boards sits around all day thinking up ways to wreck other people's games.
I know, seriously! We only do that theoretically, every now and then, for fun!
I tend to create characters first, and add numbers last to fit that concept. I 'optimize' to a degree, such as at least taking a 16 in my Primary, and a 14 in my Secondary, and if I have a third, either another 14 if I can swing it, or 12. ((My ideal matches are 16 in Primary, 16 in Secondary and 14 in Third, but that only happens once in a while.))
From there on, within the concept design and levels gained, I always invest a single point into my Primary at every level and spread out my Secondary to be useful, but nothing extreme, while my Third stat usually falters behind, or if I can managed it, comes out level with my secondary. Any 'extra' attribute levels I gain go towards spreading out the character further to cover potential weaknesses within the concept itself. Rarely will I ever push a Secondary or a Third stat beyond 20, which gives me more room to flush out the character design itself. Though I have gone the full-on Optimization route myself before, starting a character with 18-20 in their Primary, though I tend to only do this with Wizards, Artificers or like-wise similar characters. 18-20 takes a lot of attribute points from a character, even if you have a racial bonus, in my view anyway.
I play D&D as an Actor, Explorer and Storyteller. I'm here to enjoy the game within the social experience, and meet the challenges (both social and battling) to the best of my characters ability, irregardless of whether or not the character is completely optimized for combat encounters. If not, that just means it takes a little more strategy, a little more patience, a little more skill and a bit more luck. But I still have fun, my group still has fun; everybody wins!
:D
The quick blurb on my LFR characters are:
Infernal Warforged Paladin of Sune
Eladrin Artificer/Swordmage "Librarian"
Paranoid Woodelf Crossbow Sniper
Aspiring Eladrin Purple Dragon Knight
Dwarven Infernal Warlock Forgeworker
Self-Involved Swashbuckling Human Pikeman
Decide for yourself.
Longtime lurker and first time poster.
Welcome to the madhouse. 8o)
It seems that all I read about on the discussion boards is how to optimize your character. Does anyone make a character with a concept in mind and try to play that character, even though it isn't a death dealer
I have played RPG's for 30+ years and the most memorable characters haven't been the death dealers, but the fun characters that actually have some personality. Try playing a character with a lower than average Int,Wis, or cha. Sure people might use them as dump stats, but how many people role-play it? Play a clumsy cleric with a low dex. I had player with a cleric in 2nd edition that made it to 12th level. He couldn't fight to save his life, he was horribly disfigured in the few adventure of the campaign, but he was fun.
Even the greatest heroes have a weakness, why not play it. More role-play and less roll play!
I'm one of those weird people that usually makes character decisions for primarily roleplaying reasons -- sometimes even in video games. However, I do see the need for mechanical effectiveness and take that into account.
My eladrin feylock, Shyui Arethusa, is optimized for rp rather than power. Since she's a character in the short story anthology I'm writing, her background is well flushed out in my mind which makes it both easier and more difficult to make her in rpgs.
Her racial stat bonuses don't help her class at all but I chose the combination, in part, because it reminds me of new Changeling. Also, Shyui was a grey elf when I made her in HackMaster and the Eladrin are basically grey elves.
Her lowest stat is Wis to represent her philosophies of "leap before you look" and "no problem is unsolvable to those with enough explosives" (which is also why she was a Wild Mage in HackMaster). Her Con is high only because we rolled stats and I got lucky.
So while I do appreciate the lure of powergaming, it's just not for me (not in TRPGS at any rate). And while some of the people I play with craft their characters like I do and others build their characters and add the flavor later, it doesn't seem to matter since most of us have been roleplaying together for years.
Or rather, I could say that with pride, if it were on purpose.
But it's not. I just suck at optimization.
There's a difference between making an effective character and making a character that is the best pile of numbers possible.
True in previous editions, but in this edition PCs are surprisingly hardy, and the difference between non-optimized and optimized is small
I won't disagree with either of these quotes. But, at the same time I don't feel it's necessary to build a character to be intentionally weak mechanically when one can be show weakness through role play. Any time I've had a memorable character the things that made them memorable was their personality. They were able to have their personality show because I created them to stay alive long enough to get a chance to develop their personality.
While a character doesn't need to be terminator rambo and all four ninja turtles wrapped up into supermans body one also does not need to build Mr. Glass to have a good time outside of combat.
Does anyone make a character with a concept in mind and try to play that character, even though it isn't a death dealer
Every time. But, I feel that if a character is going to persue an exotic concept, he'd want to try to perfect his chosen path. Learn all the ins and outs and find ways to apply his ideas to the challenges ahead of him. If your playing a fighter whom feel that the best way to end a fight is to rush in, swinging hard and heavy to end the combat quick and pick the best skills, equipment and feats to represent this, then I see nothing wrong with that. however, if one's character was to have said outlook on combat (in this case, that the charge is the most key tactic in a battle), but take nothing or do nothing to show that he wishes to perfect his craft, I'd call foul and question his choices.
Why does everyone go from one extreme to the other?
Hyperbole alert.
It's either All 20s in the stats with every damage boasting feat possible or all 8s in the stats and every situational feat possible.
Evidence?
Why can't you play a character who is competent in his field, but not (MinMaxed)?
Who besides you has said that we can't?
Why does this concept seem so foreign to people?
It doesn't.
Sorry but if you ever have to 'justify' a character, you did it wrong.
Perhaps your definition of the term justify is ignoring the context in which it was used in this thread.
My most recent character is an elven orb wizard (yes, THAT build)...
He's a cross between Steve Irwin and Bill Nye. Highly enthusiastic about the creatures we meet.
His mechanics have little to do with his personality (that is, optimized or no). I just prefer my characters fulfill the role they're supposed to in a party as best as I am able. If I'm a defender, then I'm going to be the best gosh darn defender ever for the sake of the rest of the party.
In other words, I optimize to ensure I pull my weight. I once had a party (in 3.5) with an incompetent Rogue who did not keep essential skills like Disable Device maxed. That was... painful.
Bold text quoted from posts by Quiterjon.
Why does everyone go from one extreme to the other?
Hyperbole alert.
It's either All 20s in the stats with every damage boasting feat possible or all 8s in the stats and every situational feat possible.
Evidence?
You want evidence of my hyperbole?
Well look at any thread where this topics is discussed.
Why can't you play a character who is competent in his field, but not (MinMaxed)?
Who besides you has said that we can't?
Hyperbole.
Why does this concept seem so foreign to people?
It doesn't.
Hyperbole
Sorry but if you ever have to 'justify' a character, you did it wrong.
Perhaps your definition of the term justify is ignoring the context in which it was used in this thread.
No it wasn't.
And now that CoDZilla (and his 3e Wizard sidekick) is dead, all characters have weaknesses; no character can do everything.
Not everyone plays 4th , so your arguement is mute at best.
On a side note I have had far more powerful characters in 2nd ed then I have had in 3.x..
Sorry but if you ever have to 'justify' a character, you did it wrong
Dude, you focused on a single, easily synonymed (is that an actual verb? Let's be lazy and say it is) word and used it to draw a false conclusion from my entire post?
Substitute "reasoned", "thought about", "created some form of consistent internal logic". The point is , my mechanics reflected my background and vice versa.
"More role play, less roll play"...
How does one do less roll play? If you're rolling less, you're clearly not playing the game right. Most talking in D&D still involves rolling.
As far as optimization, well... I think of it as a duty. And I think of optimization as "If I'm gonna make a Tactical Warlord, I'm gonna be the BEST Tactical Warlord I can be allotted." Why would I think like that? If you don't do that, you're bruising your team. It'd be rude to make a sub-optimal (again, not power-gamed, just optimal) character for a party when the group may rely on the aid of this Warlord. This is, of course, me sounding like I'm assuming that if you're not "optimized", you suck. That's not true of course, but you will lag sufficiently so as to make it noticeable. And those of you who have examples against this... well, then your character is sufficiently optimized, and this doesn't apply to you. I'm talking about the ugly Bard or the plate-armored Druid.
And I make characters from many different tactics. I made my first character, a Warmage, because I thought they were simple yet caster-y. I made Caeric Derrokin because I wanted someone who sort of epitomized the good-hearted side of Jack Sparrow, yet held in him the darker parts of Jack (with smaller focus on self-sufficient greed). I made Jak the Minotaur when I saw how awesome Barbarians are in 4th Edition D&D. As you can see, these three characters come from three very different angles; fun gameplay, fun personality, and of course the powergaming. If you don't look for characters and account for all three of these (the fun, the art, the numbers), then you're probably not going to be fulfilled.
So I guess I play non-optimized characters. If I was to optimize Jak, he'd have started with 20 in both Strength and Constitution. He started with 18, and that was enough. I did no number calculations between various evocations to see which would be most powerful all in all, I just picked what seemed appropriate and effective. I'll admit that my character is a powerhouse (averaging 15 - 23 damage per hit at level 5). But he is a character. A Lawful Good barbarian (yes, there are no alignment restrictions as such in 4th Edition). He is an exile who struggles with the morality he knows he should pursue and the instincts and logic he craddles from his old life in his tribe. If you ask him why he's adventuring, he'll tell you he left of his own volition. He's a personality and a PC that packs a punch.
I would be curious to find out this: For the people who gravitate toward the mechanics aspects of the game. How many of you, more often than not, find yourselves playing with groups of strangers?
Likewise, for those that gravitate toward the non-mechanical (any other word is likely to spark a defensive campaign) aspects of the game, how many of you play with a constant group of friends?
I am a little offended by the implication that people who enjoy the mechanical aspects of the game end up alienating friends and playing with strangers. Also, people who enjoy the mechanical aspects of the game and people who enjoy the non-mechanical aspects of the game are mutually exclusive.
I happen to enjoy both aspects of D&D. I happen to be better than average when it comes to the mechanical aspects of the game amongst the people I have played with over the years on a regular basis. Although I am better at the the mechanical aspects, it does not mean that I do not enjoy the non-mechanical aspects of the game. I may be below average on the non-mechanical aspect side, but I do enjoy it as much as the mechanical aspects of the game. I really appreciate the design of the 4E system and how balanced it is and how cool the various powers and other abilities each character has. I also appreciate good stories, plots and character development.
To answer your question I primarily play with friends. I play with friends not because of the fact that I enjoy the role play aspect of the game. I play with friends not because I do not enjoy the mechanical aspects of the game. I play with friends because I enjoy D&D and I enjoy being with the people with whom I play D&D. The only time I every played D&D with strangers is when I wanted to play D&D and none of my friends at the time were actively playing.
It seems that all I read about on the discussion boards is how to optimize your character.
There is the Character Development board you can check out.
Does anyone make a character with a concept in mind and try to play that character, even though it isn't a death dealer
Yes. I pick a concept first even if it isn't a death dealer. Then I optimise it with the parameters of the character concept. If I can tweak a few numbers around to make him either fit my concept better or be a little better, I will do it. However, it may not necessarily be the best overall character compared to someone who builds a character to be the best at a singular function rather than a character concept.
Pretending to be somehow morally superior in how you play make-believe is ridiculous. We need to be players rather than role-players or roleplayers.
I personally like to come up with a cool concept, optimize it, then fill out the rest of the backstory, personality, motives and goals, using the stats as a guide. "Justifying" it, in effect. I have fun doing that, so should I do it a different way because it is not "right?"
Please remember, we are all in this together. Have fun, and have a nice day.
It now seems to mean "I optimize therefore I roleplay well, and game well. If you don't optimize then you should not play."
At least whenever someone bring it up it seems that way.
As to the OP, about half my group plays optimized characters, the other half play fairly balanced characters (with no stat lower than an 11 or 12). And I haven't seen any problems amongst them. So yes you can play without having to optimize every detail.
People are saying, "I have a cool character in mind, and I want him to be the best he can be within the set parameters I've made when I came up with the idea for him. To do that, I optimize all the numbers so that he's not only cool, he's also really, really effective." Then, someone comes in and says, "Oh, but that obviously means you don't care about the roleplaying anymore, and you're just a bunch of munchkins. Maybe if you picked your stats blindly, you'd be as good a roleplayer as I am!"
Yes, that's an exaggeration, but they're hurting people's feelings to make themselves feel superior. They deserve to be made out as asshats, and they deserve to be force-fed the Stormwind Fallacy, because they're committing to it heart and soul.
It isn't being used that way.
People are saying, "I have a cool character in mind, and I want him to be the best he can be within the set parameters I've made when I came up with the idea for him. To do that, I optimize all the numbers so that he's not only cool, he's also really, really effective." Then, someone comes in and says, "Oh, but that obviously means you don't care about the roleplaying anymore, and you're just a bunch of munchkins. Maybe if you picked your stats blindly, you'd be as good a roleplayer as I am!"
Yes, that's an exaggeration, but they're hurting people's feelings to make themselves feel superior. They deserve to be made out as asshats, and they deserve to be force-fed the Stormwind Fallacy, because they're committing to it heart and soul.
I don't buy it.
Generalization 1: One is not automatically a worse roleplayer if he optimizes, and vice versa.
Generalization 2: A non-optimized character is not automatically roleplayed better than an optimized one, and vice versa.
The problem with the Stormwind Fallacy is it is a fallacy itself.
I don't buy it.
Generalization 1: One is not automatically a worse roleplayer if he optimizes, and vice versa.
Generalization 2: A non-optimized character is not automatically roleplayed better than an optimized one, and vice versa.
The problem with the Stormwind Fallacy is it is a fallacy itself.
No, you don't understand it.
The Stormwind Fallacy acknowledges that roleplaying and optimization are not mutually exclusive (and not even part of the same equation), like it is frequently portrayed on these boards.
In your own posts, unfortunately, you don't seem to understand this at all:
[...]
MinMaxing forces players to play stereotyped characters.
[...]
Why can't I play a competent character who is more than just his plus to hit and plus to damage?
[...]
... a MinMaxer can't also roleplay
[...]
... the more MinMaxed a character is the less roleplaying the player does.
[...]
I'm not going to say that you wont find MinMaxers who roleplay. I will say you will be looking for a long time before you actually find one.
In summary, I'd recommend you read up on the SWF.
Str 12
Con 15 (13+2)
Dex 18 (17+1 for level)
Int 10
Wis 8
Cha 16 (14+2)
Rogue is not ideal for half elves. I am using every dex+cha combo I can find to play to half elf's strength. I am using Eyebite for dilletante to make my prone attacks better. This will be effective? Yes. Is it the most effective rogue I can make, no. Is it the most effective rogue I can make within the concept, arguably yes.
As far as optimization, well... I think of it as a duty. And I think of optimization as "If I'm gonna make a Tactical Warlord, I'm gonna be the BEST Tactical Warlord I can be allotted." Why would I think like that? If you don't do that, you're bruising your team. It'd be rude to make a sub-optimal (again, not power-gamed, just optimal) character for a party when the group may rely on the aid of this Warlord. This is, of course, me sounding like I'm assuming that if you're not "optimized", you suck. That's not true of course, but you will lag sufficiently so as to make it noticeable.
I agree!
Not everyone plays 4th , so your arguement is mute at best.
On a side note I have had far more powerful characters in 2nd ed then I have had in 3.x..
I don't think the most optimized 2e Fighter will have anything against a some-what decent Wizard at higher levels. :D
In my regular campaign, I'm playing a character who is from a wealthy trading family from a culture analogous to the Orient. He comes from a long and storied Samurai tradition, but his family had fallen into dishonor when their sworn lord was defeated by a rival warlord and fled to a foreign land to become merchants.
He now travels the world with his ancestral sword seeking to regain his families lost honor by righting wrongs and performing great acts of valor according to his code of samurai honor (he's Lawful Good) And he is a model of congeniality and etiquette.
The trouble is, that he lacks the training, skill and poise of a true Samurai, so instead he fights with guts and passion, going balls out in every fight he finds himself in.
He's a 3rd level Human Barbarian. I got the idea from the character of Katsushiro in the anime Samurai 7; someone who looks, talks and acts like a samurai, but goes absolutely apesh** when he finds himself in battle.
While still an effective character, for thematic purposes he wears chain mail and wields a bastard sword, instead of opting for light armor and weapons that make use of his high CON score.
Generalization 1: One is not automatically a worse roleplayer if he optimizes, and vice versa.
Generalization 2: A non-optimized character is not automatically roleplayed better than an optimized one, and vice versa.
Wait, what?
The problem with the Stormwind Fallacy is it is a fallacy itself.
Only one of these can be true, so I take it to mean you are unaware what the stormwind fallacy is.
The only place I could find an intact version in the 3 min i was willing to devote was on a MTG website. http://mtgsalvation.com/928-at-the-gathering-the-stormwind-fallacy-teflon-redux.html
Almost always... When creating a character, I first come up with the idea of who I want him to be. For example, playing a druid now... started with his background: grew up on a farm... got ill as a child... local druid met him and taught him herbalism... got him back to health... ok.... because he was sick, he tried to work out a lot on the farm to keep himself healthy and strong... he didn't get a proper education, so he doesn't have an exceptional intelligence... but he did talk a lot with traders, so he has a decent charisma... I roll up my stats, and get 16/16/15/11/9/9... I all ready determined he was unhealthy (so I put the lowest score in CON), and not a genius (second lowest in INT)... put the highest in WIS and STR (he worked out a lot), the next in CHA... the leftover in Dex... end up with
STR: 16
DEX: 11
CON: 9
INT: 9
WIS: 16
CHA: 15
From there, I work on the rest and flesh him out to be a well rounded character.
Typically, that is how I go about it (I figure out the order of my stats BEFORE I roll them), then just plug them in. I never do point buy, prefer the randomness.
Never got into the concept of serious optimization/powergaming, just not my thing. Never intentionally "gimp" a character for the sake of RP, but dont optimize either. Prefer to take a moderate "number wise" sheet and make an interesting character, and take the challenge of keeping him alive...
Then there was the time I tried to pull off a sorcerer / favored soul combo in 3e. Yeah...
I'd recommend defining "non-optimized" in the OP.
While "non-optimized" would probably be.. well, I want a warlock who's leg was mauled when he was a child and he walks around with a limp.. so, to emulate via the numbers, I should take a low Dex. (low could be 12, or 10, or 8, or any number you consider to be "low" really). In this aspect.. the character came first, and the numbers fit around the person.
Thats how i built my beguiler, shes spoiled and vain. (17/18 apperance, we roll our apperance scores) shes got high int, dex and cha but low wis and str. Shes only 115lbs of elf so shes really weak and shes really good at talking to people but comes up with the stupidist ideas. I chose my personality before choosing my stats and even before choosing my class. ;)
My character right now is a 26 year old male human rogue 1/ wizard (Diviner) 5/ Unseen seer 8, named Dimitri. With DM approval, his familiar is none other than his 10 year old daughter, Freya. His daughter uses refluffed raven familiar stats, (She looks perfectly human) small instead of tiny with no changes, walking 40 feet instead of flying 40 feet. (the familiar is a bigger target) i played him in his first session, pretty well, Hiding and eavesdropping on an electoral meeting, His Daughter's charisma score of 6 is not even 1% ugliness related, rather it is shyness, social awkwardness, and the act of being "inside Her own world" mentally. she could bump into someone and not know, in fact, she made the mistake of not defensively delivering one of daddy's spells. Dimitri himself is hard to notice, he is comepletely "invisible to the social radar". Freya even more so. thier actual appearance are nothing like the anime steriotypical features associated with thier names.
Dimitri Dresses like a wraith or cultist.
His daughter/Familiar Freya Dresses up for below freezing cold winter weather, in the middle of a dormant volcano.
the two are basically a father/daughter team of adventuring misfits, they fought off the demons of the demon scar, before returning to cauldron to join the adventuring party known as "Heavens Blades" (Used to be dwarf majority with human minority, now it's human majority with a token dwarf, elf and half orc.)
this is a fun experience (More so Than Meryl Moonsong "The Sonic Shredder" who was a Copy And Paste of her 3rd step cousin in law, Kira Moonsong "The Thundering Slayer" both of which were elf sorcereress. Kira Died at 9th level, Meryl died at 12th, in between the two, We had Sylvie Schwartz "Of The Twin Knives" with her Raven "Bruder" who dissapeared in the middle of a destert never to be found, due to thier sheets being lost,[Sylvie was a human rogue 1 wizard 5 daggerspellmage 4] the Hitomi Shuisei "The Scorpion Rainmaker" who was an elf air shugenja 11 when she was tempted by evil, [she was trying to be the concept of an Ame Warashi] [ an evil fallen deity ofere to spare the party if she served him] Before Kira's joining, was a 13 year old female 7th level human rogue named "Shuriken Nekogami" who was a rokuganese orphan refugee who spent the second 7 years of her life in the city of cauldron. she joined the party at 12, and died her 13th birthday, she was legally emancipated at the age of 9, due to self suffieciency, she supplied herslef with basic neccessities, and found facy animeish ways to work polyester and nylon. her favorite colors were black and reallly dark shades of green. instead of goggles of minute seeing, she had a cat eared hairband with the same effect. worn over a cloak)
all of these characters were somewhat suboptimal (lack of decent equipment) (and wrongly invested feats.)
only one of the females was a lolita (underage girl) (before dimitri's familiar/daughter). ( a character of mine dies every module) (the loli lived the longest number of modules, she stated 3rd, before her was an executed after 3rd level male illegitimate dwarf 2handed weapon fighter named Ulgar "The Horrid")
I decided on strength, war, destruction and my 3 ideal domains and found that gruumsh gives strength and war so i decided to be half orc spear cleric(its a core only game btw) and i took toughness as my feat. Now i out fight the fighter, i rolled a lucky 20 on my first intimidate check and even though i have the lowest intimidate modifier I am known as the scariest in the party
Converting my current paladin to 3e (my current character who I adapt to different systems :P ), he would be Paladin 6/Monk 6/(either Fighter or Purple Dragon Knight) 2 in a nicely low-magic setting (read: full casters are Adepts only).
My reasons for not playing an optimised build...
- What I enjoy, some of his abilities are more fun to play than effective. I like playing a warrior with clever tactical options over huge damage or save-or-suck spells.
- Level gap. My paladin is considerably more experienced than most of his companions (level 14 with level 6-8 companions) so a low-powered build helps keep him from outshining the others too much.
- Options. Everything I want the character to do is expensive, and frankly if I want to optimise the character I can't buy all the abilities I feel are key to his concept. He's a gothic knight, so needs to be able to fight from horseback (Mounted Combat, Trample), wrestle well (Improved Trip, Improved Grapple, Ascetic Knight unarmed damage), lead troops into battle (Leadership, Purple Dragon ally boosts) and being effective with a two-handed sword (Power Attack, Cleave).
- Boosting allies. Another way of making the power gap between him and his less experienced comrades smaller in practice.
- More accurately reflecting his experiences. Some of the people he was defending started basically undermining him and betraying him, so he ended up defending them more from a sense of resigned duty than enthusiasm ("I must" vs "I want to") and I do not feel comfortable with him taking paladin levels while in that state of mind.
So yes... those are my reasons.
Edit; thinking about it, I think his converted build would be Paladin 6/Monk 2/Purple Dragon Knight 5.
It seems your thread resonates with a lot of people. I wanted to chime in and say that I play sub-optimal characters as well. My favourite character is sub-optimal because he has two (arguably "useless") feats in Linguist. It fits his character, but I confess that it is sometimes frustrating to have low damage output, even from high rolls.
In my opinion, it is a weakness of many DMs that their games only revolve around the combat aspects of the game and thereby encourage the type of behavior that not only rewards "optimization" but requires it.
There are a handful of things I love in 4th Edition that really promote creativity. 1) Skill Challenges. Hands down a brilliant addition to the system. It provides a combat feel, with a threat of loss, without requiring combat talents. 2) When in combat, the ability to improvise if necissary. It's to a much smaller extent, but an average die for improv. weapons is a great "new" addition.
I was just part of a 4th Edition campaign where, all in the course of a single session, we: 1) Stopped some assassins from killing the king. 2) Skill Challenge: Interrogation. 3) Skill Challenge: Chase through the streets. 4) Riddle. 5) Dungeon Crawl.
The DM involved those interested in battle, those interested in skills, and those interested in problem solving. It was a complete success.
I've been in hectic groups where it's min/max or chunks to you. I can get into that but I tend to burn out quickly, so I prefer a more laid back approach to PCing.
No, you don't understand it.
The Stormwind Fallacy acknowledges that roleplaying and optimization are not mutually exclusive (and not even part of the same equation), like it is frequently portrayed on these boards.
In your own posts, unfortunately, you don't seem to understand this at all:
In summary, I'd recommend you read up on the SWF.
I do understand it.
It is nothing but generalization weighed so heavily towards Optimization that it commits a fallacy of it's own.
Citation of the stormwind fallacy, and how you believe these things to be true.
Wait, what?
Only one of these can be true, so I take it to mean you are unaware what the stormwind fallacy is.
The only place I could find an intact version in the 3 min i was willing to devote was on a MTG website. http://mtgsalvation.com/928-at-the-gathering-the-stormwind-fallacy-teflon-redux.html
Did you not notice that I quoted part of the stormwind fallacy?
Experience is a far better teacher. Experience leads to 'stereotypes'.
Why do you think people say Statgamerz don't roleplay? Did you ever think it may be from people's experiences with Statgamerz?
The major problem with the Stormwind Fallacy is the absoluteness is portrays.
I can show you another 'fallacy' that makes my point
The Malesonly Fallacy, aka the Females Fear Us Fallacy
Just because rpgs are played by males does not mean that females do not play.
Corollary: Playing an RPG does not preclude, nor infringe upon, the ability to be of either sex.
Generalization 1: One is not automatically a male if they play RPGs, and vice versa.
Generalization 2: A female player is not automatically trying to be a male, and vice versa.
Well duh. Right?
What is the actuality of gamers? 1 in 10 are female? Maybe 1 in 9?
I can write another fallacy about handiness, yes there are people who are left-handed, but what is the actuality again? Yeah the human race is vastly right-handed.
As for the fallacy(s) that the Stormwind commits
Ignoring a Common Cause
Relativist Fallacy
Biased Sample
You are making a false assumption, that the Stormwind Fallacy's statement is stating "blahblahblah roleplaying blah optimizing, therefore if someone is optimizing, they are a good roleplayer." This is simply incorrect.
It helps to broaden the arguement to the following possibilities: either All optimizers are bad at roleplaying, SOME optimizers are bad at roleplaying, or No optimizers are bad at roleplaying. SW is denying the first one. It is a rejection of a False Dilemma, "Either you optimize, or you roleplay. Therefore, all optimizers are bad rollplayers."
There's another twist to it, of course. Just because your character is unoptimized does not mean you are good at roleplaying. It is quite possible to have a character that contributes nothing to the group, in RP or combat, be it from generally bad form, system mastery as terrible as table manners, or perhaps an honest error. Nonetheless, they exist, just as good optimizers who are terrible roleplayers exist, as do good RPers with terrible optimizing skills.
In short, rather than a linear relationship, with optimization on one side and roleplaying on the other, you could view it as a sort of grid.
Good at RP and Optimizing.............Bad at RP, Good at Optimizing
Good at RP, Bad at Optimizing........Bad at both RP and Optimizing
There will be examples of all four across gaming, as a recreational hobby.
I do not choose feats, options and powers based on how powerful they make my character - I choose options that best represent my character concept in game
In my current game I'm playing a dragonborn cleric who represents a venerable dragon hengeyokai in our oriental adventures game. I've taken skill training (nature) because I felt it was important for my nature spirit to know that "bears attack with their claws" (DC 15 knowledge), I have chosen skill training and focus (acrobatics) because its an asian game and he's made of wire-fu, and I've chosen some cold related feats because he's an icy river spirit
I don't feel the need to max out his cold damage nor do I have to pimp his clerical abilities because
1) As a standard PC class character, he's more than powerful enough to take on appropriate challenges with an appropriate level of difficulty
2) I'm happy with him not being defined by his "uber cold damage" or his "unstoppable healing" - he's defined by his character background, his behaviour, and how I play him
Note that I didn't intentionally make him weak (like playing a combat cleric with dump stat strength or wis, and claiming it makes him better in RP) - I created him with a fun character in mind - not a damage per second target goal
I do understand it.
It is nothing but generalization weighed so heavily towards Optimization that it commits a fallacy of it's own.
Did you not notice that I quoted part of the stormwind fallacy?
Experience is a far better teacher. Experience leads to 'stereotypes'.
Why do you think people say Statgamerz don't roleplay? Did you ever think it may be from people's experiences with Statgamerz?
The major problem with the Stormwind Fallacy is the absoluteness is portrays.
There isn't a lot of absoluteness there. The Stormwind Fallacy can be shown to be valid if one person in all the world is good at both optimizing and RPing (and looking around the boards, far more than one person is.)
I can show you another 'fallacy' that makes my point
The Malesonly Fallacy, aka the Females Fear Us Fallacy
Just because rpgs are played by males does not mean that females do not play.
Corollary: Playing an RPG does not preclude, nor infringe upon, the ability to be of either sex.
Generalization 1: One is not automatically a male if they play RPGs, and vice versa.
Generalization 2: A female player is not automatically trying to be a male, and vice versa.
Well duh. Right?
What is the actuality of gamers? 1 in 10 are female? Maybe 1 in 9?
The fallacy isn't making a claim that there are an equal number of male and female gamers. It's saying that there are females who play RPGs, which is strictly true, as evidenced by various females I've played D&D with.
I can write another fallacy about handiness, yes there are people who are left-handed, but what is the actuality again? Yeah the human race is vastly right-handed.
A Stormwind-esque fallacy about handedness would state that not everyone is left-handed. Again, this is true.
As for the fallacy(s) that the Stormwind commits
Ignoring a Common Cause
Correlation does not imply causality. Unless you can prove that giving my Orb Wizard a high WIS score magically decreases my ability to roleplay him, this doesn't apply.
Relativist Fallacy
I'm not seeing this one. The Stormwind Fallacy claims to be an objective truth.
Biased Sample
It's not making a statistical sample to be biased in the first place.
Back in 2nd edition I played a short lived and very unoptimized Druid who had two stats at a 5 and one more at a 7. Though interesting and amusing to play I just don't game enough anymore to spend my time running characters I'm not satisfied with.
Btw: the druid was eaten by wolves.
So no, while my Ranger will never be the uber-archer of an elven OptStat archer character, with major bonuses to hit and damage, my character can hold his own and support the party without becoming wasteful or unneeded. Any feats, skills and powers I choose best reflect the character and how s/he likes to handle different situations. I do work around the motto of Group Synergy and choose many feats and whatnot on how the group itself preforms, but within the aspects of the character I'm trying to play. Currently I'm working on a human bard, who's highest stat (CHA) is only sixteen, and while I'm sure there are plenty of awesome stat builds out there, I want a character who can preform (no pun intended) within the rules of the game, yet still be the character I created him to be. :D
Well, on both games I'm involved in at the moment, neither my Half-Elf Ranger or Warforged Fighter would really fit into optimization. At level 1, my highest stats for my primaries where only sixteen (with or without racial bonuses) and my secondaries at fourteen, (again w/wo) and my third's generally at twelve or fourteen (w/wo). And I'm having a blast! :D
With some classes, particulary Rangers and some Rogues this tends to work rather well. You have more bonuses in secondary stats which translate into a more hps, better AC, more skill points or healing surges (depending on edition) and in general, more versatility. In return your at a minus -1 to hit or -1 on spell resistance realitive to someone who has gone all out in one thing. This is particularly true in point buy.
All the Best,
Nani?
Longtime lurker and first time poster.
It seems that all I read about on the discussion boards is how to optimize your character. Does anyone make a character with a concept in mind and try to play that character, even though it isn't a death dealer
I have played RPG's for 30+ years and the most memorable characters haven't been the death dealers, but the fun characters that actually have some personality. Try playing a character with a lower than average Int,Wis, or cha. Sure people might use them as dump stats, but how many people role-play it? Play a clumsy cleric with a low dex. I had player with a cleric in 2nd edition that made it to 12th level. He couldn't fight to save his life, he was horribly disfigured in the few adventure of the campaign, but he was fun.
Even the greatest heroes have a weakness, why not play it. More role-play and less roll play!
Quite regularly my players do that. They also play optimized because sometime it's just fun to put all the pieces together for a big can of whoopass but that gets boring really quick. So they often come up with concepts then build a PC around the concept by picking a class and the right powers. It works best in 3e but can be done in 4th with a bit of work but 4th seems to kind of expects to you optimize. At least that's what I found.
I do understand it.
It is nothing but generalization weighed so heavily towards Optimization that it commits a fallacy of it's own.
Your post makes it clear that you either don't understand the SWF, or fallacies in general. Fortunately, spectralphoenix did a good job of explaining the issue.
Quite regularly my players do that. They also play optimized because sometime it's just fun to put all the pieces together for a big can of whoopass but that gets boring really quick. So they often come up with concepts then build a PC around the concept by picking a class and the right powers. It works best in 3e but can be done in 4th with a bit of work but 4th seems to kind of expects to you optimize. At least that's what I found.
Back in early 3e, one of the main reasons for playing a sorcerer over a wizard was because of the less book-keeping, and the more spells per day meant there was more fun of being able to use your spells there and then rather than hoping you had prepared the right magic.
As for the fallacy(s) that the Stormwind commits
Ignoring a Common Cause
Relativist Fallacy
Biased Sample
Fallacies you Commit:
Equivocation Fallacy
Either-or Fallacy
False Dichotomy
To begin, you are equivocating "possible" with "always" or "possible" with "usually." The Stormwind Fallacy simply says that there is no reason that it is impossible to be both optimized and have an interesting character. It only states that it is possible, and if even one such person exists, it is true. I am such a person, there for the Fallacy is true. If the Fallacy said "all people who optimize can roleplay," it would be false, but it doesn't. Without this false equivocation, you cannot deny the Stormwind Fallacy.
After you outright deny Stormwind's conclusion, you set up an either-or fallacy. Either he is right, or you are, and since Stormwind is "wrong" you are de facto right. This is false, and even the conclusion you posit in place of the Stormwind fallacy is fallacious in and of itself. You position is simply a false dichotomy. Either you suck and combat and are an awesome roleplayer, or you are a terrible roleplayer and are awesome mechnically. I once again present myself as evidence. As I exist as both a competent min-maxer and fun rolepalyer, I prove your dichotomy false and re-affirm the Stormwind Fallacy.
In non-rhetortician speak: Your just stick your fingers in your ears and shouting at us the same tired diatrabe which the Stormwind Fallacy refutes. In your refutation of the fallacy, you commit it.
Have a nice day.
Not optimised for combat, but lots of fun all the same
Good RP, Good Optimization
Bad RP, Good Optimization
Good RP, Bad Optimization
Bad RP, Bad Optimization
Cannot RP unless they have optimized. Can only RP the master of the universe, never a less than optimal person
I think there are many people who fall into this last category. Granted you can roleplay an uber maxed out character... But can you play someone who's just decent at his job?
There is nothing wrong with any playstyle, its mainly that Optimization isn't everything. Optimization might be your style, but others find a balanced character more their style. On the forums, there's little else to talk about other than optimization (critquing character stories is alot more subjective, personally I hate sparkly vampires). But I don't think ideas should be shot down just because somebody put a 15 or 16 into their primary attribute.
I like to roleplay and not rollplay, and we've only had about 5 fights in the game he's in right now (which began almost 6 months ago). So far, we've gone to the 8th Circle of Hell, the Plane of Illmatir, an island run almost exclusively by adult, elder, and ancient dragons and NOT been eaten yet, fought and killed a CE goddess who was trying to ressurrect herself (twice) and been exposed to more Warptouch that it's turned my normal (male) Half-Elf Rogue into a peach-skinned, white scaled, pink-eyed female with working bat wings and could pass herself off as a half-dragon.
Really, I don't think he's optimized, but others might disagree with me. I try to pick what my game calls for, and right now we're dealing with a lot of magic, so if I can help (or hinder) that process through being a Spellthief I will.
Paladin Multiclass Warlock (Star) wearing scale armor and wielding two-katars.
I'd say I'm not optimized.
Fallacies you Commit:
Equivocation Fallacy
Either-or Fallacy
False Dichotomy
To begin, you are equivocating "possible" with "always" or "possible" with "usually." The Stormwind Fallacy simply says that there is no reason that it is impossible to be both optimized and have an interesting character. It only states that it is possible, and if even one such person exists, it is true. I am such a person, there for the Fallacy is true. If the Fallacy said "all people who optimize can roleplay," it would be false, but it doesn't. Without this false equivocation, you cannot deny the Stormwind Fallacy.
After you outright deny Stormwind's conclusion, you set up an either-or fallacy. Either he is right, or you are, and since Stormwind is "wrong" you are de facto right. This is false, and even the conclusion you posit in place of the Stormwind fallacy is fallacious in and of itself. You position is simply a false dichotomy. Either you suck and combat and are an awesome roleplayer, or you are a terrible roleplayer and are awesome mechnically. I once again present myself as evidence. As I exist as both a competent min-maxer and fun rolepalyer, I prove your dichotomy false and re-affirm the Stormwind Fallacy.
In non-rhetortician speak: Your just stick your fingers in your ears and shouting at us the same tired diatrabe which the Stormwind Fallacy refutes. In your refutation of the fallacy, you commit it.
Have a nice day.
Stormwind Fallacy commits the Fallacy fallacy.
I never said that the stormwind fallacy was wrong. I said I didn't buy it. It is a grand generalization that can't be proven wrong, so it ends up being right by default. I have actually gamed with a couple of people who were very good at optimization and roleplaying, but lets be completely honest with everyone and actually admit that someone being good at both are in the very small minority. I have met and gamed with a number of 'known' optimizers on these forums, 3/4 of which all claimed to be excellent roleplayers. What they felt was excellent roleplaying skillz, well lets just say I've seen kids playing cops and robbers who were more in character. That's the point. Roleplaying is a very subjective term used. It means so many different things to people that just how do you quantify it? Unlike roleplaying, optimization can be easily seen.
The issue I have with it is all the statgamerz who come rushing in waving the Stormwind Fallacy Shield of Deflection when this topic is brought up. Because as you say there only needs to be one, just one person who can optimize and roleplay to justify the fallacy.
Stormwind Fallacy commits the Fallacy fallacy.
A fallacy can't commit a fallacy.
The Fallacy fallacy in this case would mean that people deem that any conclusions drawn from a SWF-fallacious argument must also be wrong. In that case, it's (as always) the people who commit the FF, not the SWF itself.
I never said that the stormwind fallacy was wrong. I said I didn't buy it. It is a grand generalization that can't be proven wrong, so it ends up being right by default.
Fallacies aren't for people to "buy", they merely point out flawed arguments.
Using the assumption that role-playing and optimization are mutually exclusive results in a flawed argument.
The SWF is not a generalization at all. And the issue is not that it can or can't be proven wrong, for it can simply be proven right: as long as there is at least a single person who can role-play an optimized character, it's proven. Given the sheer amount of anecdotal evidence on these boards (and you even admit to meeting such people yourself), I think it is safe to assume that such a person exists. Ergo, the SWF is correct.
What you are having problems with is an entirely different issue: that in your experience, there seems to be a correlation between the ability to role-play and optimized characters. That's fair. The SWF doesn't preclude that, either.
Poster A: "Does anyone prefer games focuses on roleplay and not mechanics?"
Poster B: "I call Stormwind!!!!"
It seems to happen every single time... it is called in so many situations where it is not applicable to the discussion at hand that it has lost it's relevance. Originally, it was meant to point out that it is possible for roleplay and heavy mechanics focus to exist in the same game (or in the same player). However, it is often called up whenever someone mentions they prefer low mechanics focus and high RP focus, even when the validity of mechanics/roleplay compatibility was not called into question.
Personally, I do not enjoy mechanics heavy games and would not want to play with a min-maxer/powergamer, no matter how good a RP player they were. (at the same time, uber roleplayers put me off as well, I want to play a game, not do improv theater).
If someone comes out and says "it's impossible to have roleplay and powergaming together", of course it's a false statement. If someone says "powergaming makes roleplay more difficult", the stormwind falacy does not apply. It's a debatable argument, but separate from stormwind. If someone says "I prefer roleplay over rollplay", then stormwind isn't even in the ballpark.
A fallacy can't commit a fallacy.
The Fallacy fallacy in this case would mean that people deem that any conclusions drawn from a SWF-fallacious argument must also be wrong. In that case, it's (as always) the people who commit the FF, not the SWF itself.
Fallacies aren't for people to "buy", they merely point out flawed arguments.
Using the assumption that role-playing and optimization are mutually exclusive results in a flawed argument.
The SWF is not a generalization at all. And the issue is not that it can or can't be proven wrong, for it can simply be proven right: as long as there is at least a single person who can role-play an optimized character, it's proven. Given the sheer amount of anecdotal evidence on these boards (and you even admit to meeting such people yourself), I think it is safe to assume that such a person exists. Ergo, the SWF is correct.
What you are having problems with is an entirely different issue: that in your experience, there seems to be a correlation between the ability to role-play and optimized characters. That's fair. The SWF doesn't preclude that, either.
As I said and which seems to be bouncing off every stormwind fallacy protectors head is, of course it can be true.
Duh.
However we don't play in logic arguements land we play in reality. It is rare to find people who are both exquisite optimizers and profound roleplayers, extremely rare.
I have said before, my experiences playing rpgs, is very different from the 'norm' Through my jobs I have had the opportunity to move around quite a bit. I have played with, most likely, well over a thousand different people. The vast majority of people try to make a competent character and attempt to roleplay that character. It is the extremes that people seem to want to either bash or praise that I have never understood.
Fallacy Fallacy
Alias:
* Argumentum ad Logicam
* Fallacist's Fallacy
Type: Bad Reasons Fallacy
Form:
Argument A for the conclusion C is fallacious.
Therefore, C is false.
The problem isn't the fallacy, it's the people who call upon it... Every time a topic on roleplay comes up, it's usually 2-3 posts before someone comes in waving the stormwind banner for unneeded causes, which just makes min-maxers look bad..
Poster A: "Does anyone prefer games focuses on roleplay and not mechanics?"
Poster B: "I call Stormwind!!!!"
It seems to happen every single time... it is called in so many situations where it is not applicable to the discussion at hand that it has lost it's relevance. Originally, it was meant to point out that it is possible for roleplay and heavy mechanics focus to exist in the same game (or in the same player). However, it is often called up whenever someone mentions they prefer low mechanics focus and high RP focus, even when the validity of mechanics/roleplay compatibility was not called into question.
Personally, I do not enjoy mechanics heavy games and would not want to play with a min-maxer/powergamer, no matter how good a RP player they were. (at the same time, uber roleplayers put me off as well, I want to play a game, not do improv theater).
If someone comes out and says "it's impossible to have roleplay and powergaming together", of course it's a false statement. If someone says "powergaming makes roleplay more difficult", the stormwind falacy does not apply. It's a debatable argument, but separate from stormwind. If someone says "I prefer roleplay over rollplay", then stormwind isn't even in the ballpark.
Precisely.
I really like reading all sorts of these fallacies that gamers put up. It doesn't matter if X happens 999,999,999/1,000,000,000 times because X Fallacy only needs 1/1,000,000,000 to be true.
The "I'm just roleplaying my character!" reasoning can justify a lot of behavior which actually isn't fun at all. Perhaps its the hyperpaladin slaying the merchant for having an evil aura, the thief for screwing over the party for his own selfishness, or the noncombatant wandering into battlefields with an active team of dungeon delvers. It might disrupt gameplay when the attitude is too opposed to the party viewpoint, it might bog down gameplay if the player wants to role play every single detail of their character's life, or choke the game table humor as jokes, side comments, or other out-of-character conversations are forbidden or punished.
(at the same time, uber roleplayers put me off as well, I want to play a game, not do improv theater).
You don't see this attitude enough. Roleplaying is often hailed as a high art which can do no wrong, will optimizing and its ilk are deemed silly, inconsequential, or downright self-flattering tomfoolery. If you RP, you are a great actor, a brilliant performer, a wonder at the table. If you optimize, you just want to feel powerful as your little miniature fights tiny orc figures.
Problem is, most of the time, moderation is best. You can optimize too much and too little. You can roleplay too much and too little.
If your character outshines the rest of the party and makes the game difficult for the GM to balance, you have a problem. If no one feels effective next to your monstrosity, or the story is being destroyed because you cannot be challenged, you need to tone it down.
Conversely, if your party is so much stronger than you that every single member is annoyed with saving you and the GM literally cannot attack you with a single monster, lest you die instantly, you have a problem. The weak character can be interesting, but shouldn't be overdone, lest the party not have a legitimate in-character reason to actually take you along.
You can roleplay too little. I'm not very good at the RP, I must admit, on account of being rather shy. Sadly, I'm in the middle of my gaming group in terms of RP ability, so I've seen the "For all X, I fight/loot/get quest from X" mentality, which doesn't contribute to the group too much in terms of story or fun.
You can, however, roleplay too much, otherise known as the RP Is Serious Business viewpoint. Trying to have lengthy conversations with every passerby, going into monologues about your character's religious convictions at every campfire, or bogging down the game with tedious mundane activity can be equally damaging to the atmosphere.
Be it RP or optimization, one should concentrate on keeping the game fun and interesting. Keep you character level near the rest of the party for both, and you should avoid trouble(With huge margin for error. You can have one guy who's weaker or stronger than the party, but not terribly so, and have no trouble. You can also have one guy who's the strong and silent type, or one party face who provides a fun and interesting conversation center. If you're cramping the fun, however, it's time to shift a bit.).
It's okay to optimize, to a degree.
It's okay to RP, to a degree.
The degree, of course, depends completely on your group, and its sole criteria is fun for one and all.
moderation is best
Key to a long and happy life right there :D
Sure; I've taken advice and tips on what a good feat is or what spells are really usefull. However I've never sat down and figured "ok what feats work best together with this particular class and style" or "what spell combos are super awesome" or "which spell effects stack and how can I stack up as much stuff as possible with out cheating" or mapped out the progression of a character before even playing it. I just picked races, classes, spells, feats, whatever that sounded like a lot of fun to play. To me that was fun. I just dont geek out about numbers and power; some people do and that's fine too. Just not how I build a character.
What you are having problems with is an entirely different issue: that in your experience, there seems to be a correlation between the ability to role-play and optimized characters. That's fair. The SWF doesn't preclude that, either.
My problem with the "Stormwind Fallacy" is that almost everyone who waves it around on these boards (including Stormwind occassionally, if I remember correctly) DOES intend it to mean "There's absolutely no correlation between the ability to role-play and the optimization of a character." And there's nothing "logical" about that. Saying there is a correlation is not a "fallacy", and saying there's no correlation is not a "logical truth". You can't just declare that something is a false correlation because you feel like it. Sometimes there are clouds and it doesn't rain, but that doesn't mean I can say that "Clouds often cause rain" or "It's raining because of the clouds" are fallacies.
I liked my common class farmer and his PITCHFORK of JUSTICE!! against Evil crop stealing kobalds of EVIL!
Nicknamed the crop paladin. He died. but not before i attained my first lv. of paladin. It was awsome. No searching through spell lists, no pulling out my portable black hole none of that crap. Just me my character sheet and the other players in the small town acting like normal people.
now im gonna quote father Jenkins the crop paladin, " Get off my land! You filthy little- *coughs (catches self not to lose powers.) !"
To be fair, yes we all know you can optimize and role-play and yada yada yada. It's just, not many can peform the juggling act and do the 2 at once believably and w/ conviction.
Think of it like sex. There's role-playing in that too, if you are of a mind, literally & figuratively. But you can also optimize the experience to tailor fit your degree of lust and or love. They are not mutually exclusive in otherwords. In fact, actually, that's a good example as they both flirt w/ each other and synch up nicely w/out it being the "in-game" quandry of on/off, one or the other for a lot of people (not all though). You can make love to your wife & be in the mode (good RP, etc.), but you want to optimize the loveplay to maximize the pleasure principle more often than not. Why settle, you know? "RP-only" might be emotionally satisfying but fails to get the parties, um, "off". The other alone is purely hedonistic and asthetically unfulfilling. But both, togther? Yeah, that's nice.
Anyway, moving "on" ;).
It's also a lot like art vs. science. You can, and do, have both in many spheres of influence. Photography is a perfect one. The talent and creative vision (RP) must be there in the field & during dark room time, however, if you can't optimize conditions by having good math, correct water temperatures, decent chemicals, etc., it's all for naught. They are dependent on each other.
In game though, it's easier to teach someone to optimize (quantity) as that is static and not likely to change. Finite, fixed, proven theorems, whatever. RP though (quality), well, you gotta' really work at that, fight through shyness, speak w/ aknowledgement of the situation from PC 'x', not player 'x', keep it real, and so on. Dramatic improvisation. Some people just have it, some don't, though it can be learned or mimicked at times, it's just very difficult to make someone suspend disbelief and immerse themselves ACCURATELY in another persona w/out knowing out of game mechanical fare that will surely influence their "convenient" RP descisions.
It's easier to groom a new player to optimize and master the mechanical aspects of the game, that's easy. It's hard to instill acting talent, creativity, and imagination though in a dead fish. In fact, I'd wager it's often harder to make an optimizer-only type into a good RP'er as they've been so indoctrinated by the numbers and statistics/formulas, that it impedes that other half of their brain that engenders artistry, etc. Institutionalized kinda'.
Same thing if you were to take a Fine Arts major and switch them to PreMed.
Well Said! :D
NOT well-said. Opinion, bias, and sad attempts at making said opinions and bias look like objective fact.
Now MY opinion: Im actually personally offended by this pile of drivel; i optimize within my character concepts, while keeping in mind that D&D is a game where combat happens, and that any adventurer worth the title will do his best to be his best, because his very lfie depends on it. Anything less, is essentially suicide and selfish too, because when you fail, you run the risk of taking your allies with you.
Hows THAT for some realistic in-character thinking?
Powergaming works different where it is opted about the power of the PC in mind.
There are good and bad path in both. So the question is has anyone played a PC and made Character choices the type of character you are "roleplaying" instead of what are the Best possible choices for the PC of that Concept?
He's as optimized as he can get considering this particular race/class combo, but 16/14 with not one single 16 I would call non-optimized overall compared to everyone else.
On the plus side this lets me have much more well-rounded-out stats.
*snip*
Dude, as both a dedicated roleplayer and a history/cultural studies major, I have to ask what you're smoking. Way to put your interests on a pedestal they don't necessarily deserve.
A good roleplayer can optimise and vice versa, just like a person who can wrap their heads around scientific methodology can grasp liberal artistic theory. On the opposite side of the coin, I've met plenty of "true roleplayers" who throw their hands up in frustration at the simplest aspects of character construction and they are just as childish and annoying to deal with as the guys who build death machines but have to be reminded to give their character a name.
There is nothing more inherently rewarding about creating a well-rolepayed character than a well built one. Sure, your fighter might have a well rounded personality and be involved in elaborate political schemes that decide the fate of continents, but the other dude's fighter crushes gods beneath his feet and makes titans squeal. You might find drawn out combats boring, but he doesn't exactly find your half-hour long conversation with the inkeeper as to the welfare of his daughter exactly scintillating either.
To suggest that your method of playing your imaginary elf is better than the other guy's method of playing an imaginary elf is a form of elitism that, while amusing for me to watch, has no place within our hobby. Comparing them with sex or academic pursuits is not only more than a bit laughable but wil probably insult many people.
Fallacy Fallacy
I didn't comment it last time, but since you bring it up again: The SWF does not "commit" the Fallacy Fallacy. People who use it might.
You can't just declare that something is a false correlation because you feel like it. Sometimes there are clouds and it doesn't rain, but that doesn't mean I can say that "Clouds often cause rain" or "It's raining because of the clouds" are fallacies.
Strawman.
The example you give has nothing to do with the situation at hand. There's a clear, proven relationship between clouds and rain. In fact, one could argue that you can not have rain without clouds.
My problem with the "Stormwind Fallacy" is that almost everyone who waves it around on these boards (including Stormwind occassionally, if I remember correctly) DOES intend it to mean "There's absolutely no correlation between the ability to role-play and the optimization of a character."
The OP didn't say it directly, but clearly implied that you can either have role-playing or optimization (a "death-dealer"). That's bullocks and SWF material.
Strawman.
The example you give has nothing to do with the situation at hand. There's a clear, proven relationship between clouds and rain. In fact, one could argue that you can not have rain without clouds.
How about giving people proper credit for their post? I did not post: "You can't just declare that something is a false correlation because you feel like it. Sometimes there are clouds and it doesn't rain, but that doesn't mean I can say that "Clouds often cause rain" or "It's raining because of the clouds" are fallacies."
I really like reading all sorts of these fallacies that gamers put up. It doesn't matter if X happens 999,999,999/1,000,000,000 times because X Fallacy only needs 1/1,000,000,000 to be true.
Yes stormwind fallacy commits the fallacy fallacy.
Dude, as both a dedicated roleplayer and a history/cultural studies major, I have to ask what you're smoking. Way to put your interests on a pedestal they don't necessarily deserve.
Relavance please?
I'm sorry, but I hate seeing stuff like this thrown in as thoughit actually adds credibility to a topic. When I was earning my degree, there were plenty of people who were dumb as bricks in the history program along with me. They just took 6 or 7 years to finish if they finished at all.
Dude, as both a dedicated roleplayer and a history/cultural studies major, I have to ask what you're smoking.
Dedicated role-player might lend credibility I suppose to this, hard to verify you know? You scholastic pursuits, not so much in this sphere of influence. That's not good/bad, just a thing, no more no less. Were you to say drama major (RP) or statistics (optimize) for example, I'd differ to you largely.
What I'm smoking, last I checked, Camel Lights. Yes, I'm paying someone to kill me
. Kinda' like surfing the forums from time to time.Way to put your interests on a pedestal they don't necessarily deserve.
Perhaps from your POV, but I must respectfully disagree even in the face of more personal bitterness and disrespect. Never claimed by methodology or play style/DM'ing was better or any loftier than 'x'. Your assumption that my design was to put it in that light is incorrect. Should I elect to share that opinion on matters is of no consequence and not worth getting all riled up about.
A good roleplayer can optimise and vice versa, just like a person who can wrap their heads around scientific methodology can grasp liberal artistic theory.
I think pretty much the entire community feels that way. What's your point?
A good player, not role-player, can optimize and role-play proficiently. I, as well as a host of many others, already illustrated that concept fully and tried to put it in simpler terms that might make it easier for others to relate to. It wasn't a dissertation on "correct gaming" or anything, just my $.02, nothing more.
Where I must differ is that someone, most, more endowed to role-play very well initially are easier to groom for optimization later. Optimization being easier to learn as it is largely quantifiable and systematic. It isn't subject to a lot of debate (out of builds?), and fairly static, etc. Stop me if I'm wrong. Hell, you play long enough, you learn to optimize on your own usually as one sorta' adapts, if you will. It's kinda' Darwinian I guess. Fail to adapt, more PCs die.
An optimizing mindset trying to increase his/her role-play only skills will typically have a harder time as there isn't a lot of "how-to's" and book upon book of character design in that capacity. It's more qualifiable and to indoctrinate, educate, whatever w/ that is kinda' difficult.
It's like teaching an art media. Yes, there is the technical (optimizing) aspects (Roy G Biv, f:stop solutions, firing temperatures), but how do you necessarilly teach talent (RP)? You may help to inspire the pupil, but it's difficult to say, "Do this and you'll find creative vision 'x' for this project (character)." Doesn't really work that way but varying possibilities to engender better role-playing do exist, it's just implementing them is hard sometimes. Thusly, IMO, it's harder to get a hardcore optimizer to become a better RP'er than vice versa is all.
On the opposite side of the coin, I've met plenty of "true roleplayers" who throw their hands up in frustration at the simplest aspects of character construction and they are just as childish and annoying to deal with as the guys who build death machines but have to be reminded to give their character a name.
I think that's pretty much true of any gaming household. A balance is sought after but far too many look at it in its simplest of terms (for them) in that there's more polarity than what you stipulate; RP or optimize only which is BS and kills "good gaming" IMO. They want to "win" at D&D or "be that PC", never the 2 shall meet, which is not only wrong, but disrespectful to the other players as it puts them in a compromising position to deal w/ that player's lack of RPG flexibility, single-mindedness, and failure to adapt/grow.
There is nothing more inherently rewarding about creating a well-rolepayed character than a well built one.
I would not apply that to the entire community, only to some. To each his/her own. I prefer a higher nod to RP as gaming for so long has fostered decades of optimization that just "comes easilly" depending on the game. That's just me though. IMO, good RP will drive a story and make it more enjoyable (fun is the the premise of D&D, right?) than just ignoring it to favor optimization only. But a degree of optimization is preferable/essential at times to insure group cohesion and facilitate conflict resolution.
Best Supporting Actors don't live long when built retardedly and ubermensch god PCs w/ no lifespark are boring and egocentric often. I guess, just like the rules/flow of the game for DM, balance is the key. It's just what % of each of these qualities is "a good balance?"
To suggest that your method of playing your imaginary elf is better than the other guy's method of playing an imaginary elf is a form of elitism that, while amusing for me to watch, has no place within our hobby.
You lost me. Never claimed it was. I may RP & optimize better than others, but there's no real way to graph that. It can only be learned at the gaming table itself, and even then, that's subject to a lot of independent variables that might make session 1 stagnant but the 2nd really good.
Comparing them with sex or academic pursuits is not only more than a bit laughable but wil probably insult many people.
Mentioning that is laughable in turn -> Academic? Didn't you just mention your major(s) in the very beginning as though it gave you more credibility? How was that beneficial to your position or this thread? Just mentioning it alone hurt your platform. Had you mentioned it and explained why, you would've done yourself a great service and avoided this bit of irony here.
Sex? Like I even care. It wasn't mentioned to make the have's vs. the have nots feel good/bad. If they have an issue, they can PM and I will respectfully concede, but I do not kowtow to sneak attacks and speculation/whining. It was/is a universal concept, and thusly, easier to identify w/ for many demographics IMO. Nothing more. Scroll down, ignore, whatever, if one must find fault w/ an example that was designed to simplify & help an otherwise convuluted situation.
*snip*
Firstly, if my post was offensive, I apologise. Responding to already charged topics in the early hours of the morning suffering from the heat. I will point out, however, that your posts do have a slight imperious tone to them that will get people like myself, in a bad mood, to jump on them and attempt to savage.
It was fairly clear from where I was sitting that you were trying to suggest that roleplaying was some form of fine art and while you didn't outright say optimisation as inferior you painted it as being the "simple" route. You used your analogies, both in terms of sex and academia to portray optimisation as the less fulfilling route, with proficiency at roleplaying requiring some strange hidden talent that not everyone has.
The fact of the matter is that both roleplaying and optimisation requires talents that in my opinion everyone possesses more than they think. It's no easier to simply look at a series of feats and items and understand which combinations will work the best than it is to created a unique and interesting backstory for one's character. I have a friend who has a talent for optimisation that is something awe-inspiring to behold. It's really not something you can teach, it requires a talent for a certain kind of thinking very few possess.
The only reason I mentioned my majors was that I presumed at first you were referring to arts/humanities rather than creative arts. As a humanities student I'm very familiar with the arguments between students of various academic disciplines as to which is superior and/or easier to learn. I'm not sure if you realise this, but suggesting the ease at which someone can learn something carries a certain stigma of being for the simple minded and has often been used in such a fashion on these very boards. Combine that with the difficulty of gauging intention over the internet and you really shouldn't be suprised when people take your words the wrong way.
I still stand by my point that using real-world analogies for gaming styles is detrimental to ones argument because it's very easy to come across as "you're doing it wrong" as you did.
Yes stormwind fallacy commits the fallacy fallacy.
No. You might want to read up on fallacies. A fallacy is part of an argument that is logically flawed.
SWF doesn't make an argument. It points out a certain class of arguments as logically flawed - and demonstrably so.
In either case, going with min-maxing, you are selecting what you feel are the best advantages, while trying to minimize the greatest weaknesses. However, no matter what you do, you will always have a weakness. You may be able to create a character which is a hellion with a sword, but take that sword from him and hes a wet-noodle. Meanwhile, a well rounded character may not be as great at his peak, but can survive many more situations.
It all depends on what type of game you are playing. If you are given challenges designed against your strong points, then a min-max character will tend to do better. If you are given challenges that attack your weak points, then he will fail faster. If, like some DMs, you aim to challenge the player, not the character, then it doesn't matter if it's a min-maxed character or not. A min-maxed character played poorly is killed off just as easily as a straight 8 level 0 peasant.
Firstly, if my post was offensive, I apologise. Responding to already charged topics in the early hours of the morning suffering from the heat.
It's cool man, no worries. Didn't know your real world burden & time was an issue. I guess, maybe preface logs w/ those things and more leeway will be forthcoming? I'll give you the benefit of the doubt.
I will point out, however, that your posts do have a slight imperious tone to them that will get people like myself, in a bad mood, to jump on them and attempt to savage.
Um, ok? I try to exercise a degree of humility when I can given all the million dollar egos floating around on here, but if the tone suggests otherwise, I beg your pardon then. Tone, in this case, isn't indicative of intent, I promise. I don't need to make any more enemies, you know? I'll try and pull it back though for what it's worth.
...you were trying to suggest that roleplaying was some form of fine art
Not exactly high art IMO, but it definetly traffics w/ drama, no? That's an art media. It's kind of a culmination of psych, drama, sociology, stand-up comedy, reserves of will power and self-restraint, and many many more things. I couldn't really cut to the core and ID it exactly. Best no one does.
...and while you didn't outright say optimisation as inferior you painted it as being the "simple" route.
Simpler to learn and master over RP, yes, that was my position, but that is not true of all gaming parties though. Just the ones I keep in my social circles. To be fair, I've seen masterful RP'ers that simply couldn't wrap their heads around simple concepts like AC, stacking cover, defense as a whole. I guess, there's more text, definetive advice in them & here (forums) and a wealth of info that helps ppl optimize better, but there's just not a lot of resources out there that can make RP'ers gain veterancy. IDK, it's hard.
You used your analogies, both in terms of sex and academia to portray optimisation as the less fulfilling route, with proficiency at roleplaying requiring some strange hidden talent that not everyone has.
Not exactly. I have found, for myself & friends again, as I don't speak for anyone outside my gaming history, that authentic and compelling RP helps drive a game further which benefits the entire household (those participating in the game). Also makes DM'ing much much easier.
Alternatively, PC optimization is kinda' implied to benefit the lone PC, though it can, and often does, benefit the team as a whole too depending on the user. But, neither component works well w/out the other IMO.
Never implied RP takes a "strange hidden talent". It's latent in all of us. More easilly accessed for some, repressed in others. This is why I often subscribe to minor XP awards to "bring out that initiative" and use positive reinforcement frequently to push that end. Anyone can do it, it's just some environments, social background, etc. can malign it often.
The fact of the matter is that both roleplaying and optimisation requires talents that in my opinion everyone possesses more than they think.
I feel RP requires some talent (confidence mostly) & creativity. Some are more capable than others, but various deficiencies can be overcome or adjusted. Optimization though, I do not credit to much talent at all. Better left-brain thinking, problem solving skills, critical reading, whatever, not talent (IMO). It can be learned more readilly as it is quantifiable and just as easilly accessed for all parties. Better footing I guess.
RP has way more gray area & harder to implement IMO. No one is sure, just an opinion.
The only reason I mentioned my majors was that I presumed at first you were referring to arts/humanities rather than creative arts.
Then that is well then, at least for RP I suppose. Easy to immerse yourself in a persona (PC) I suppose that has some bearing on the past (history) and arts. I suppose the misunderstanding could've been avoided had we both illustrated that factor better.
I still stand by my point that using real-world analogies for gaming styles is detrimental to ones argument because it's very easy to come across as "you're doing it wrong" as you did.
I assure you, my intentions were genuine and meant to simplify an otherwise complex, and typically, very misunderstood problem. Just trying to make it easier to relate to/identify w/ is all. I can't anticipate hair-triggers and those that may or may not read and digest the text correctly. Those that feel a "you're doing it wrong" message perhaps should often inquire firstly before assuming malicious intent & condescension as was the case. Protocol I guess.
I choose to use real life examples as that's what we use to define ourselves, Hell, even our PCs in many applications. Simulationist in a way but bound by RAW/RAI as the measure for balance and accuracy. Works for me, maybe others.
Strawman.
The example you give has nothing to do with the situation at hand. There's a clear, proven relationship between clouds and rain. In fact, one could argue that you can not have rain without clouds.
That was me, and no, it's not a strawman, it's just an analogy. Christ, people read a little bit on wikipedia about fallacies and suddenly no one is allowed to say anything on the internet.
You don't need a "clear, proven relationship" in order to say there might be a correlation. And the lack of a "clear, proven relationship" does not mean there is no correlation.
People (maybe not you in particular, and I wasn't singling you out in my original post) generally use the Stormwind Fallacy as follows: "I can optimize and roleplay, therefore, there's no correlation between optimization and bad roleplay." That's faulty logic, and that's what I'm trying to point out with the whole clouds/rain thing.
Quick question within a question thread. What is optimization really?
This is how I see it. I'm sure others have their own definitions...
Optimization - Choosing a race & class combo, then building it as strong as possible.
Min/Maxing - Choosing a role, then generating as strong a character as possible.
Munchkin - System abuser and rules loophole-detector.
I think optimizing is a fine practice, though I often come up with character concepts that don't lend themselves to it.
What is optimization really? I mean wouldn't that totally depend on the story/DM/party? So wouldn't there be advantages for going outside the "norm" if your game session so dictated? I mean rationally I think I understand your questions and responces but aren't there always loop holes since no one character can be the most awsomest at everything? Just a silly question.
No, that's it totally spot-on and cuts to the heart of the matter, at least in terms of optimization. So, nj/respect. It's very apt IMO.
Always a catch or countermeasure somewhere. I mean, that's pretty much the premise of tearmwork adveventuring for the most part; conflict resolution. There's a problem (conflict) where RAW/RAI determines 'x' and the PCs gotta' overcome it, often w/ 'Y'; their feats, spells, (Ex)'s, (Su)'s, (Sp)'s, gear, everything. This is not to preclude creative strategies and the like that aren't necessarilly listed, but for immediate problem solving, yeah, just about any trap, CR, enviornmental hazard, spell, etc. can be overcome w/ a judicious application of some sort of countermeasure via optimization.
They're just PC mechanics that defie rule or convention 'x'. Spells too. A cold-based enemy -> use a fire-based spell. Missing plot device 'y' -> Divinations might be in order. Even death is overcome by 3 different venues.
But, as you stated, most things, in game that is, are largely situational. Now, one can optimize for a variety of situations and be prepared to meet a wide cross section thereof. A conservative measure I guess prefering preparedness for many conflicts rather than excelling incredibly in just 1 or so.
But far too many optimize for rather specific conditions claiming accolades of badassery, it's just they are...in that 1 specific venue. A hulk of a tank dominates in melee. Well, he won't shine so much in ranged vs. a flying dragon necessarilly. Archmage super caster is totally crippled w/out his components often, same w/ divine types bereft of their holy symbols. High Fort? Target the Will. High speed? Tanglefoot bag/Slow/Entangle. It's all situational and largely contingent on the DM and wherever their creative direction might take them.
I guess this is why I prefer builds (optimization wise) that cover a wider birth rather than 1 that's awesome in few spheres of influence. Still, if you know ahead of time (do your homework, divine or Gather Info, etc.) about problem 'Z', you can push that end and optimize w/ more precision forgoing other venues that aren't likely to come up. An once of prevention is worth a pound of cure is basically what I'm rambling on about. Sorry.
sblaxman:...going with min-maxing, you are selecting what you feel are the best advantages, while trying to minimize the greatest weaknesses. However, no matter what you do, you will always have a weakness. You may be able to create a character which is a hellion with a sword, but take that sword from him and hes a wet-noodle. Meanwhile, a well rounded character may not be as great at his peak, but can survive many more situations.
Ideally, this is what I should've said (more concise). Nj here. Totally agree.
It all depends on what type of game you are playing.
Or DM or situation I suppose, but yeah, I concur w/ this as well overall.
If you are given challenges designed against your strong points, then a min-max character will tend to do better. If you are given challenges that attack your weak points, then he will fail faster. If, like some DMs, you aim to challenge the player, not the character, then it doesn't matter if it's a min-maxed character or not.
The entirety is a very good summary of the root problem. Again, nj.
Bolded: this is an exceptional point that is not addressed so well in the DMG and other "how-to's" as it were. Glad you mentioned this.
A min-maxed character played poorly is killed off just as easily as a straight 8 level 0 peasant.
Truly. Smart decisions typically carry a PC father than just relying on superior stats to save the day. Hence, the basic "teamwork helper" of doing one's homework, not just brute forcing it. Min/max can help, obviously, but if you zig when you should've zagged (wrong player decision), well, your super high bonus in 'x' didn't force your hand, you know?
I'd liek to cite the Stormwind Fallacy here. Having a mechanically sound character does not preclude roleplay. Neither does having a poorly built character enhance roleplay.
Honestly, I find a lot of the time that the player of a character with one abysmally low score tends to use it as a roleplaying crutch. Sure, your character can have low intelligence, but when your entire RP shtick is that you're a drooling moron, you really haven't achieved anything RP-wise with your character. You're just another stereotype.
I'm so sick of hearing "Oh Stormwind Fallacy!", yes we all know that it is possible to be OP and roleplay, but HONESTLY, how often does it really happen? Most of the time, it's just a "build" that they work some history around. Anyone with half a brain could make some uber build, and then some lame history/ explanation as to why their character is powerful. It should be the other way around. Concept > Mechanics.
Now before some of you come on and say "I don't do that" or "my group" doesn't do that! so you must be wrong".... really, really think about it. I don't care about you and your 10 buddies that are "Effective" and can still RP. Every gamer with any experience with gamers, gamer shops, and conventions knows that a vast majority of them just want to see big numbers and do "kewl stuff".
So yeah, is the Stormwind Fallacy logistically sound? sure. But it's application is almost never used, at least in the quantity some of you claim.
...HONESTLY, how often does it really happen? Most of the time, it's just a "build" that they work some history around.
Honestly? In my XP, people who optimize are already accomplished RPers.
Also, what is inherently wrong with creating the mechanics, and then fleshing out the fluff? I do that, optimized or not, with *all* my D&D characters. Some other players I know mix the fluff with the mechanics at other stages (before mechanics, or half into mechanical generation); I didn't know there was a 'proper' way to make a character. :P
I'm so sick of hearing "Oh Stormwind Fallacy!", yes we all know that it is possible to be OP and roleplay, but HONESTLY, how often does it really happen? Most of the time, it's just a "build" that they work some history around. Anyone with half a brain could make some uber build, and then some lame history/ explanation as to why their character is powerful. It should be the other way around. Concept > Mechanics.
Now before some of you come on and say "I don't do that" or "my group" doesn't do that! so you must be wrong".... really, really think about it. I don't care about you and your 10 buddies that are "Effective" and can still RP. Every gamer with any experience with gamers, gamer shops, and conventions knows that a vast majority of them just want to see big numbers and do "kewl stuff".
So yeah, is the Stormwind Fallacy logistically sound? sure. But it's application is almost never used, at least in the quantity some of you claim.
It happens quite a lot. The fallacy is valid. You've just proven it is absolutely necessary in the quantity we claim.
I think that the OP was trying to ask if anyone has play a character and made the choices based on what they thought the character would choose as opposed to what is the best possible choice in an opted point of view.
Are they necessarily different, though? You're a warrior who risks his life every day, delving into dungeons in search of treasure while hounded by vile beasts of all descriptions. Before becoming an adventurer, you were a simple village blacksmith, who first took up a sword to defend his village from harm.
Would you focus on improving your smithing in your spare time (take Skill Focus (Profession: Blacksmith)) or your combat skill (take Power Attack)? If I were in that situation, I'd go for something that would keep me alive long enough to get back to smithing, thanks.
Now, if you have a choice between two equally powerful options, rather than one useful option and one "mechanically sucks, but very flavorful" option, then whichever one you choose, you're still optimizing. If Joe Smith from above decides to wield a warhammer with both hands in battle rather than using a hammer in each hand, that's a perfectly good in-character decision as well as a perfectly good mechanical decision.
So again, mechanical choices and character choices are not at all mutually exclusive.
Example: Kobold barbarian just because you think it would fun to try something like that. This races would never be choosen in a opted view.
One thing that rarely gets mentioned is that there appears to be the view that making sub- optimal choices makes you a better roleplayer.
I can sort of understand the other direction: When I make a character I'll try to take a moderately solid mechanical concept and throw in some curveballs and oddities to fit a character in mind (strange race/ class combo, spell choices, feats, item preferences). People with a strong tendency to roleplay may be more likely to throw in such oddities to fit a character, as opposed to taking more "optimised" choices.
This can lead to the idea that taking more subpar mechanical choices define a character, and lead, through reasoning and association, to the connection that a poorly statted character= a better character. And inversely better statted character= Poor character.
But those choices don't make the character, and they don't make the player a better roleplayer by doing them. Your skill at roleplaying will remain grounded in your ability and the depth of the character, not in the quality of the stats. Playing a gimped character won't turn me into Kenneth Branagh, any more than using a concept from the Optimisation Board will turn me into a innarticulate dice-rolling smacktard. If you're a good roleplayer, with a fun and vibrant character you'll be good no matter what you're stats are.
Now a NON opted character can use opted views when making choices. But there main concern is for the for the choice to be made based on what the PC would choose.
The opted PC makes choices based on what is the best choices mechanically for the build they want. Most of the good types tie in those to a concepts and to their background. Some don't.
So they may use some of the same views but they are different types. Hope this helps. Sorry about the rant above.
I under stand what you are saying. But there is the other side of the coin. There is the general view on the boards that non opted characters are almost worthless Compared to opted PCs. I find these types annoying. I find the view that opted PCs are better then non opted is a joke to me. It is the DMs job to make the game a challenge for the players. If the character/s are subpar he/she lowers the challenge to their level. If they are more powerfull then the DM ups the challenge.
What happens if some of the characters are seriously optimized, and others are seriously sub-optimal?
Roleplaying, Optimising and negative.
One thing that rarely gets mentioned is that there appears to be the view that making sub- optimal choices makes you a better roleplayer.
I can sort of understand the other direction: When I make a character I'll try to take a moderately solid mechanical concept and throw in some curveballs and oddities to fit a character in mind (strange race/ class combo, spell choices, feats, item preferences). People with a strong tendency to roleplay may be more likely to throw in such oddities to fit a character, as opposed to taking more "optimised" choices.
This can lead to the idea that taking more subpar mechanical choices define a character, and lead, through reasoning and association, to the connection that a poorly statted character= a better character. And inversely better statted character= Poor character.
But those choices don't make the character, and they don't make the player a better roleplayer by doing them. Your skill at roleplaying will remain grounded in your ability and the depth of the character, not in the quality of the stats. Playing a gimped character won't turn me into Kenneth Branagh, any more than using a concept from the Optimisation Board will turn me into a innarticulate dice-rolling smacktard. If you're a good roleplayer, with a fun and vibrant character you'll be good no matter what you're stats are.
I agree with what you're saying, and I do hate the attitude that some people have where a poorly statted character is considered "good RP" just because he's poorly optimized.
However, I would say that a willingness to sacrifice optimization in order to create a character with personality is important. It's true that you can take a cookie-cutter build from the Char Op forum and roleplay it well, but in the long term, you are limiting your roleplay options by only being willing to play from that small pool of pregenerated Char Op characters. Over time, I feel like it's better for roleplay to have a variety of non-standard race/class combos and different ability/skill/feat choices to get a look at how different races and personalities act in different roles, rather than having a constant stream of the same basic character/personality in each game (regardless of whether or not they're roleplayed well).
I do hate the attitude that some people have where a poorly statted character is considered "good RP" just because he's poorly optimized.
That's often the case w/ simpletons (read, bad gamers) that must see things in terms of dynamic opposites. It's good OR evil. Strong OR weak. Useful OR useless. It's a player issue IMO fostered by degrees of absolutes, failure to think abstractly, and a penchant for defining things in their simplest of terms as, once again, they are simple themselves. You'd think that extensive imaginary scenarios and conceptualization, gaming as a whole, would break ppl out of these rigid lines of thinking, but sometimes, it only reinforces them, and they, in turn, pass that on to other gamers as "the correct (their) way" to game. There is often more than 1 right answer.
This isn't always the case as there are many gamers that are, for lack of a better word, "institutionalized" to one school of thought or another by virtue of other RP only/op only friends at their tables, scholastic background, envirornment in general, a million variables. Hard to stop a train in other words. Often, the only solution is to traffic w/ other gamers of varying background, try DM'ing themselves, lurk the forums more, etc. In short, to keep an open mind to dispel a lot of those misfounded convictions.
However, I would say that a willingness to sacrifice optimization in order to create a character with personality is important.
Well said. Doesn't mean you necessarilly have to in order to give a lifespark. It's just, very often, in the fervor to optimize, one neglects a realisitic and compelling background, concept, or foundation for RP. The same can often be said vice versa I suppose; those too driven to meet some specific image in their mind that they forget useful feats, gear, etc., that might not hinder the persona at all per optimization. Often, it would even help the RP prototype but is overlooked altogether given the mandate for "better RP".
Tunnelvision-ish? Who knows. You fixate on 1 endgame long enough, you neglect other venues that might help you in that light.
Over time, I feel like it's better for roleplay to have a variety of non-standard race/class combos and different ability/skill/feat choices to get a look at how different races and personalities act in different roles, rather than having a constant stream of the same basic character/personality in each game (regardless of whether or not they're roleplayed well).
I believe the term is "innovation", and yes, I totally agree w/ you overall, nj. That's why I like pen & paper over video, it's not static. As long as you innovate, and even if you don't often, it'll never be the same. Helps increase critical thinking as well as imagination. Gaming, to me, if done properly, is a good left brain and right brain work out. DM'ing, moreso.
One is unlikely to discover a new mode of brilliance in game, or break new ground if you will, by playing previously opt'ed PCs. That well has been largely tapped out. Variations work, I use them often, but the same ole' same ole' is basically swimming in someone else's wake. But this is not to say you cannot optimize on your own, it's just it often breaks down to how humans typically do things, trial & error. As you've said, trying out new and unexplored territory is how new optimization comes to fruition, and, as a side bonus, it helps to engender more RP-like thinking as you, in a way, are pioneering into uncharted territory. Gets those juices flowing so to speak.
examples:
-G/f's largely a better RP'er than opt'er. Around 6th lvl, everyone is jazzed, "We get feats time!" She's being hassled to get the usual cleric standbys from the opt'ers, but settles for Spirit Sense (Heroes of Horror), claiming it fits her motif better (death/fate) ala RP. Mechanically, it looked fairly bland, but enlisted endless RP possibilities as, thematically, it's the sh-t. In the long run, it has proved invaluable and more than beneficial from a mechanical standpoint as well as RP; saved PC lives on more than one occaision, provided valuable intel, etc. Point is, no one has ever taken it in my gaming history as it didn't look very "optimization worthy" but turned out to be very much so. Innovation bred success; she just bit the bullet to find out, and accidentally too, which makes it all the sweeter. It's just, she doesn't get the angst many hardcore opt'ers do @ decision making time cuz' it's more about the RP for her. Karmic in a way. Weird.
-Young couple, finally gets to play together. Settle on Red Wizard of Thay and Thayan Knight in kitchsy, "aw shucks" fashion
. Not the best optimization mode, but I'll be damned if it wasn't a smart match in game. They only picked those as there wasn't much time @ character generation, and they wanted to stress the bond and integrity bit via RP. They didn't realize that some of their class abilities would inadvertantly keep them from a TPK (everyone else died). They just wanted to RP out their "lovers on an adventure" shtick. Hoaky, but the RP inadvertantly pushed them unwittingly into good optimization. They innovated, again, by accident, for a standard, plain vanilla campaign, and it worked like a charm.And, like all things, there are the reverses too. Hardcore optimizers that find a certain "comfort level" <?> and start thinking more abstractly, making more realistic decisions, and suspending disbelief to breathe life into their PCs. That's an awesome moment at a gaming table too and gives faith in that, yes, you can have it both ways, it's just hard getting there depending on the support of your friends, gaming history, mentality, etc.
What happens if some of the characters are seriously optimized, and others are seriously sub-optimal?
Normally it would mean it is a new group.
People tend to gravitate to their preferred playstyles.
16 Str, 17 Con, 13 Dex, 8 Int, 13 Wis, 10 Cha
Feats: Staff Fighting, Dwarven Blooded (+1 Endurance/Dungeoneering, qualify for Dwarven feats)
Flaws: No extra language, Illiterate, 40g starting
Bonus: +5 Str for determining loads and drag
For level 2, DM has approved me getting Two-Weapon Defense, without Two-Weapon Fighting
I'm hoping I get as much time to RP him (as thats my reason for creating him), as I do in combat. Is he optimized, I don't think so, but I'm the primary defender for our small party. Luckily I have a DM who's giving me some leeway for me to play the character I want. A simple large peasant with a quarterstaff.