PDA

View Full Version : Stormwind Fallacy - Classes != Careers?



Endarire
2010-07-22, 11:30 PM
I've heard this mentioned, but I'm unsure where. What is this about classes (especially prestige classes) not necessarily being character careers?

Tavar
2010-07-22, 11:36 PM
That's not the Stormwind Fallacy. The Stormwind fallacy is when you say that optimizing leads to poor roleplaying, or the reverse. There's a proper Logical Fallacy based on it's general form, but despite my logic classes I can't remember what it is.

Classes not being careers is trickier, but stems from they way that 3rd edition heavily suggests altering flavor, and the fact that most classes are generic. Plus, well, most of the classes have many, many careers that they could be, and these lists often overlap.

true_shinken
2010-07-22, 11:39 PM
This has got nothing to do with Stormwind.

Kylarra
2010-07-22, 11:46 PM
That's not the Stormwind Fallacy. The Stormwind fallacy is when you say that optimizing leads to poor roleplaying, or the reverse. There's a proper Logical Fallacy based on it's general form, but despite my logic classes I can't remember what it is.

Classes not being careers is trickier, but stems from they way that 3rd edition heavily suggests altering flavor, and the fact that most classes are generic. Plus, well, most of the classes have many, many careers that they could be, and these lists often overlap.The Stormwind Fallacy is simply a specific application of the False Dilemma fallacy, that states that Optimization does not necessarily lead to poor roleplaying. Nothing more, it is often misapplied in forums such as this as if it implied that optimization never leads to poor roleplaying in any situation.

Keld Denar
2010-07-22, 11:50 PM
See this thread for debate on classes vs careers. (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=160952)

Thrice Dead Cat
2010-07-23, 12:05 AM
Adding to what Keld mentioned, someone (too lazy to find the link at the moment) mentioned how in either 1E or 2E for certain classes to gain use of certain abilities, they actually had to either study, do guard duty, protect a grove, or so on.

However, as has been shown in both that thread and numerous 3.5 books (both PHBs, any book with ACFs, Hero Builder's Guide, probably more), classes need not and often do not equal careers.

Rixx
2010-07-23, 12:19 AM
"Stormwind Fallacy" has to be my least favorite phrase of all time.

In any case, some classes (Fighter, Rogue, Barbarian) are more generic, while others (Druid, Paladin, Monk) are meant to be specific career / life paths. Most prestige classes are also flavored as exclusive paths of training, which is why they have prerequisites. Many of them, like Assassin, imply membership with entry.

Kylarra
2010-07-23, 12:24 AM
I prefer D20 modern's "generic hero" base classes that branch into prestige classes with their own fluff.

Greenish
2010-07-23, 12:24 AM
In any case, some classes (Fighter, Rogue, Barbarian) are more generic, while others (Druid, Paladin, Monk) are meant to be specific career / life paths.Not that you couldn't take a few monk levels to help your swordsman deal with losing his sword. :smallamused:

Rixx
2010-07-23, 12:26 AM
Not that you couldn't take a few monk levels to help your swordsman deal with losing his sword. :smallamused:

If you go up to a monastery and train for a few months, yeah. At least, that's what they heavy alignment and multiclassing restrictions seem to imply.

(Surprising: the role of nonmagical, unarmed brawler hasn't been officially filled as a base class. Disappointing!)

Gorgondantess
2010-07-23, 12:34 AM
What I hate about the whole system is that, while 3rd edition recognizes and even explicitly states that classes are not careers, you have stuff like monk alignment requirements and even stricter stuff on PrCs like the master thrower that really, really don't need to be there.

Greenish
2010-07-23, 12:34 AM
If you go up to a monastery and train for a few months, yeah. At least, that's what they heavy alignment and multiclassing restrictions seem to imply.And my stance on such implications: to hell with them!
(Surprising: the role of nonmagical, unarmed brawler hasn't been officially filled as a base class. Disappointing!)Barbarian, fighter, warblade and swordsage could all take a shot at it.

Then there are a few PrCs such as Fist of the Forest, which unfortunately has it's way too specific fluff actually tied to it's rules. Otherwise it'd be perfect for a ruthless brawler looking for a fight in the taverns of ground-level Sharn… Well, yay for the Ashbound, I guess.

Draz74
2010-07-23, 12:45 AM
This has got nothing to do with Stormwind.

Well, it is an underline assumption that the Stormwind Fallacy essay was based on. So it's definitely related.


I've heard this mentioned, but I'm unsure where. What is this about classes (especially prestige classes) not necessarily being character careers?

Honestly I think this comic (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0209.html) explains it better, by example, than I could hope to do on my own.

Greenish
2010-07-23, 12:49 AM
Honestly I think this comic (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0209.html) explains it better, by example, than I could hope to do on my own.Though it takes place in a setting where "class" is an in-game concept, interestingly. Also, "hierarchy". :smallsigh:

Rixx
2010-07-23, 12:53 AM
The problem is this:

On one end, you can't have a barbarian take a level in fighter without first studying for months at a war college on the mainland. And if you want to be a monk, your training and discipline ends up setting yourself down one path of advancement for the rest of your adventuring life.

On the other end, an adventurer will take brief stints as a paladin, monk, barbarian, psychic warrior, and any other dubious compound-word-named classes on their pursuit of ultimate power, with little to no explanation as to how they learned these abilities.

Ajadea
2010-07-23, 01:01 AM
Class != career. Even for paladins, in the case of one of my characters. Will to stab a demon+subconcious acceptance of the call =Smite Evil. Self-taught after that.

He/she/it (my character, like Vaarsuvius is of indeterminate gender) walked around for about five years in the backstory, able to use paladin abilities, but without knowing he/she was even a paladin.
----
Monk, druid, paladin, samurai, binder maybe...these are the base classes I think have the most complicated, strict, fluff. Most of the other stuff can be freely smashed and refluffed.

I'm fine with PrC=Career-type thing. It's something you work to get. Base class however, never equals career. It's just a mechanical representations of the abilities your character possesses.

Greenish
2010-07-23, 01:11 AM
The problem is this:

On one end, you can't have a barbarian take a level in fighter without first studying for months at a war college on the mainland.I can see how that'd be a problem. A barbarian taking a level of fighter just gets a feat a bit earlier than he'd do otherwise. Levels are an abstraction. Fighting should make you better at fighting.
And if you want to be a monk, your training and discipline ends up setting yourself down one path of advancement for the rest of your adventuring life.But what if you don't want to be a "Monk", you just want your character to be decent at good ol' fisticuffs.

On the other end, an adventurer will take brief stints as a paladin, monk, barbarian, psychic warrior, and any other dubious compound-word-named classes on their pursuit of ultimate power, with little to no explanation as to how they learned these abilities.Do you have strawberries on that field, or what do you need that strawman for?

A "paladin/monk/barbarian/psywarr" (there's alignment conflict there though) is a holy warrior who awakes suddenly awakes the powers of her mind due to an [RP event]. How she learned these abilities? Through her devotion and her experiences. Paladin/monk/barbarian doesn't need much explanation anyway: that's a holy warrior who learns to fight better (and with different styles) as she practices.

[Edit]: Not to mention, excessive multiclassing rarely is the road to ultimate power.

awa
2010-07-23, 01:24 AM
see thats one intepretation of the class system but it's not the only one for example a man could be a "barbarian" but have the ranger clas at the same time a man born into a city who happens to have tendency to enter a berserk rage could be a barbarian. A highly skilled warrior does not need to get a special degre from a fighter college to be a fighter.

The other end of this thing is that some classes are built as if that were the case the monk and druid for example as well as many prestige clases.

The thing is while some class combinations wich aim for some bizare combo might make little sense others make playing certain charecter concepts possible in a way that would be less effective with a single class.

Lets say you want to play a warrior whos generaly skilled in many ways
A fighter/rouge or fighter/ranger might be a good way to do it. the fighter gives the feats to pick multiple combat styles and the other class give the fighter enough skill points so he can climb and jump and swimb ect.

edit
I agree generaly stacking base clases is the exact opposite of power gaming

Keld Denar
2010-07-23, 01:38 AM
On one end, you can't have a barbarian take a level in fighter without first studying for months at a war college on the mainland.
Says who? War college is for fools who want to be generals and lead armies. I just wanna stab a sucker with my sword. The fastest way to a man's heart is through the ribcage, I always say. Luckily, I never miss, but it wasn't always so. Me and my little brother used to spar all the time with wooden swords down by the river behind the old shed where Mom couldn't see us. She always got so worried.


And if you want to be a monk, your training and discipline ends up setting yourself down one path of advancement for the rest of your adventuring life.
I invented my own martial arts. Its called Keld-jitsu. How'd I do it? I just did what works. Sure, I got beat up a lot, but eventually I learned how to anticipate and block attacks, and punch people so hard their eyes light up like candles. After all, Mr. Kung must have developed his Fu somehow, and Mr. Tae figured out how to Kwan Do someone in the head at some point so he could teach others.

On the other end, an adventurer will take brief stints as a paladin, monk, barbarian, psychic warrior, and any other dubious compound-word-named classes on their pursuit of ultimate power, with little to no explanation as to how they learned these abilities.
Some things you just kinda figure out. Or come from within. Or you learn from watching others. Or you've been studying the whole time, but only just recently have you become sufficiently skilled to be able to cast a spell or manifest a power. Or whatever. Stop trying to pigeonhole people into what YOU want the game to be. Not everyone who punches people learned how to punch people in a monestary while waxing Mr. Miyagi's car.

The problem is this:
I don't see a problem. If you have fun using things straight out of the box, great. I just hope you are not impinging on the fun of others in your zeal. Because then there might be a problem.

Devils_Advocate
2010-07-23, 01:50 AM
What is this about classes (especially prestige classes) not necessarily being character careers?
Well, see, on the one hand, um, character classes are character classes, and on the other hand, careers are, um, careers.

... Let me try an example.

One wizard goes into underground complexes with a bunch of other violent lunatics, and uses his spells to help them kill the inhabitants and take all of their treasure. Another wizard sits at home and studies his spellbooks while he waits for someone to show up and pay him to cast a spell for them, at which point he casts the spell. They both have the Wizard class, but the first wizard is an "adventurer", and the second wizard is a professional spellcaster.


On the other end, an adventurer will take brief stints as a paladin, monk, barbarian, psychic warrior, and any other dubious compound-word-named classes on their pursuit of ultimate power, with little to no explanation as to how they learned these abilities.
"Stints" is begging the question, obviously.

There's no explanation of how murderin' enough monsters gives single-classed characters their crazy superpowers, either. There is no reason why practicing his archery enough should give a woodsman an animal companion and the ability to cast nature-themed divine spells, like a druid.

Leveling up is pretty near to one hundred percent unrealistic one way or the other, so far as I can see. The second of the two wizards above should by all rights be better at spellcasting. There is no causal relationship between fighting kobolds and the illicit manipulation of locking mechanisms!

chiasaur11
2010-07-23, 02:16 AM
And now I'm remembering The Way of Mrs. Cosmopolite, and hordes of monks descending on a middle class Ankh Morpork business.

Enlightenment is where you find it, they say.

Ozymandias9
2010-07-23, 02:46 AM
[Your base class is] just a mechanical representations of the abilities your character possesses.

See, while I generally prefer position for non-setting specific play*, I can't see it as a justifiable position for system design.

If the base classes only represents the abilities, there is little to no reason to justify a class-based system. Designing around that assumption would lead to an ability buy system (cf. E6 after the cap). That's a good option: in many respects, it has the potential to be a better system.

But it doesn't change the implicit assumption of a class-based system-- that your class represents some archetype that your character fits in.


*The disclaimer here is because I often find it useful to tie the classes to some setting element as a world-building tool.

Coidzor
2010-07-23, 02:52 AM
If the base classes only represents the abilities, there is little to no reason to justify a class-based system.

D&D 3.5 is a class-based system because they made it a class-based system due to it being constructed out of the tradition of the prior class-based systems known as D&D. :smalltongue: Ascribing purpose to whether or not D&D is class-based is...being needlessly existential. Now, for other systems, there might be an argument there, depending upon circumstances.

As it stands... D&D isn't the game for you then if you object to class-based systems that much that aren't so inter-woven with fluff as to necessitate home-brewing to get a combination of fluff and abilities that could have existed easily but was denied due to the fluff restricting mechanics.

Kurald Galain
2010-07-23, 03:16 AM
That's not the Stormwind Fallacy. The Stormwind fallacy is when you say that optimizing leads to poor roleplaying, or the reverse. There's a proper Logical Fallacy based on it's general form, but despite my logic classes I can't remember what it is.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_dichotomy

Rixx
2010-07-23, 04:45 AM
What I was trying to say is that both extreme ends of the "Classes are Careers" versus "Classes are Abstractions" can be problematic.

grautry
2010-07-23, 05:04 AM
Nothing more, it is often misapplied in forums such as this as if it implied that optimization never leads to poor roleplaying in any situation.

No, its you who misunderstands.

Optimization and roleplaying are completely independent of each other. Optimization can no more lead to poor roleplaying than being chaotic can lead to being more evil. They're independent concepts.

Even if there's a correlation of poor roleplaying with optimization - and frankly, good freaking luck proving that - correlation does not imply causation.

Greenish
2010-07-23, 06:23 AM
What I was trying to say is that both extreme ends of the "Classes are Careers" versus "Classes are Abstractions" can be problematic.And you managed to display why "classes are careers" is problematic.

The "extreme end" of "Classes are Abstractions" isn't "no reason given for character's abilities". Better examples would be using a warlock to represent an archer, or a fighter to represent a caster. Both could easily be done.

Yora
2010-07-23, 06:58 AM
What I was trying to say is that both extreme ends of the "Classes are Careers" versus "Classes are Abstractions" can be problematic.
As it is usually when chosing between two extremes. There was once this guy in India who among other things thought that its usually the best idea to chose a middle way. Seems to have known quite a bit about fallacies, and his followers became really huge!

Jayabalard
2010-07-23, 07:10 AM
That's not the Stormwind Fallacy. The Stormwind fallacy is when you say that optimizing leads to poor roleplaying, or the reverse. There's a proper Logical Fallacy based on it's general form, but despite my logic classes I can't remember what it is.It's an application of the false dilemma fallacy, and it's actually bit more specific than what you're saying: "Just because one optimizes his characters mechanically does not mean that they cannot also roleplay, and vice versa." ... it doesn't actually refute the idea that doing one can cause to being bad at the other, it just refutes the idea that doing one always causes you to be bad at the other.


Optimization and roleplaying are completely independent of each other. Optimization can no more lead to poor roleplaying than being chaotic can lead to being more evil. They're independent concepts.You are free to make arguments to that effect, but that has nothing to do with the stormwind fallacy; it might have something to do with other arguments made by some individual named stormwind, but not the actual fallacy part, which only shows the falseness of the statement "Just because one optimizes his characters mechanically does not mean that they cannot also roleplay, and vice versa." ... showing that statement is false (especially using the methodology he did) does not show that they're actually independent.

Sometimes roleplaying does not affect a person's optimizing, and some times it does; sometimes optimization affects person's roleplaying and some times it does not.

Personally I'm rather convinced that someone who only makes characters who have always made the optimal choices in life tends to be a poorer roleplayer than someone who makes characters who have made a mix of optimal and sub-optimal choices in life. Real people make sub optimal choices. People who focus on making their characters "real people" are better roleplayers than people who focus on getting their characters the most pluses.

Again, note that all I'm talking about is a tendency... not that one always causes the other, and not even that it's usually the case. Just that it's often enough to be noticable

PairO'Dice Lost
2010-07-23, 07:13 AM
Seems to have known quite a bit about fallacies, and his followers became really huge!

Wait, there was some Indian guy who could manifest expansion? :smallconfused:

lesser_minion
2010-07-23, 07:24 AM
No, its you who misunderstands.

Optimization and roleplaying are completely independent of each other. Optimization can no more lead to poor roleplaying than being chaotic can lead to being more evil. They're independent concepts.

No. She doesn't misunderstand anything.

It's wrong to assume that you must always choose between roleplaying and optimisation. It's at least as wrong to believe that such a situation never comes up.

Theoretical optimisation is just the tip of the iceberg here -- Pun-Pun makes no sense in the game world (it exploits a game sculpting ability). The infinite wish loop works the same way.

Anything that damages the assumptions underlying the game world also damages the ability to roleplay within those assumptions. There is an alternative -- you can re-write the world around the changed assumptions -- but if you can not or will not do so, then there can be a conflict.

As for correlation and causation, it's wrong to infer that there must be a direct, causal relationship between two things that are related. It doesn't mean it isn't usable as evidence.

As for classes and careers, it varies.

The simple answer is that classes are tied to their meanings in the game world, and they do carry fluff trappings that might be worth preserving.

However, base classes are supposed to be designed with the possibility of players applying the 'counts as' principle in mind (exceptions are still present).

In essence, while the meaning of a character class isn't set in stone, it's still there. Classes are intended to be significantly more than just a package of abilities.

Psyx
2010-07-23, 07:33 AM
Personally I'm rather convinced that someone who only makes characters who have always made the optimal choices in life tends to be a poorer roleplayer than someone who makes characters who have made a mix of optimal and sub-optimal choices in life. Real people make sub optimal choices.

^This.

Trotting out the tired SF line whenever encountering any resistance to optimisation, or in defence in it is tired, dull, and one of those logical truths that completely misses the point.

PairO'Dice Lost
2010-07-23, 07:40 AM
Personally I'm rather convinced that someone who only makes characters who have always made the optimal choices in life tends to be a poorer roleplayer than someone who makes characters who have made a mix of optimal and sub-optimal choices in life. Real people make sub optimal choices.

And what sort of decisions have you made in real life recently that deal with the d20 mechanics secretly underpinning the world?

In real life, making a "suboptimal decision" means you missed out on a great job offer, flunked a test, or whatever. In D&D, making a suboptimal decision means you're generally worse at what you do; the real-life equivalent of that sort of character (e.g. a fighter who decides to take Skill Focus [Basketweaving] instead of Power Attack) would be someone who really wants to go to law school but decides "I don't think I'll prepare myself for the bar exam, 'cause I don't know anything about that yet, I think I'll learn how to bake instead." The two scenarios are completely different.

pasko77
2010-07-23, 07:51 AM
Even if there's a correlation of poor roleplaying with optimization - and frankly, good freaking luck proving that - correlation does not imply causation.

http://imgs.xkcd.com/comics/correlation.png

Somebody had to quote it.

lesser_minion
2010-07-23, 08:04 AM
Somebody had to quote it.

Yes, yes they did.

A correlation between two things still supports the hypothesis that there is a relationship between them. It's just not absolute proof (for the sporting analogy, it won't get you a try, but it will get you a lineout on the 22).

The fallacy is to ignore that:

Whether through error or simple noise, it may be possible for correlation to appear between things that aren't related at all.
Two factors may be related through a third factor that underlies both.


So, for example, an apparent correlation between ice cream sales and drownings may arise because people spend more time in the water when it's hot, which is also when ice creams sell the most.

Greenish
2010-07-23, 08:11 AM
Personally I'm rather convinced that someone who only makes characters who have always made the optimal choices in life tends to be a poorer roleplayer than someone who makes characters who have made a mix of optimal and sub-optimal choices in life.A character does not knowingly select it's feats, classes or skills. A character's poor choices usually lead him to wander around with a bunch of other violent and filthy rich hobos, to lose his money to cardsharks or ladies of ill repute, to unwittingly serve his enemies' ends, to tell the shifty-looking guy that he "shouldn't worry, surely this door is not trapped", and so forth. Those are character's choices.

Wait, there was some Indian guy who could manifest expansion? :smallconfused:You misread that. "His followers become really big" obviously means that he grants the Strength Domain.

Optimystik
2010-07-23, 08:12 AM
Personally I'm rather convinced that someone who only makes characters who have always made the optimal choices in life tends to be a poorer roleplayer than someone who makes characters who have made a mix of optimal and sub-optimal choices in life. Real people make sub optimal choices. People who focus on making their characters "real people" are better roleplayers than people who focus on getting their characters the most pluses.

PCs aren't "real people." They're superheroes.

What suboptimal choices have Batman, Superman and Iron Man made?

Jayabalard
2010-07-23, 08:15 AM
And what sort of decisions have you made in real life recently that deal with the d20 mechanics secretly underpinning the world?I chose to invest points in perform: french horn, instead of spending more points in Profession: software engineer.


In real life, making a "suboptimal decision" means you missed out on a great job offer, flunked a test, or whatever. I fail to see your point. In real life, making a suboptimal decision means that you are generally worse at doing what you do. In game, making a suboptimal decision means that you are generally worse at doing what you do.


In D&D, making a suboptimal decision means you're generally worse at what you do; the real-life equivalent of that sort of character (e.g. a fighter who decides to take Skill Focus [Basketweaving] instead of Power Attack) would be someone who really wants to go to law school but decides "I don't think I'll prepare myself for the bar exam, 'cause I don't know anything about that yet, I think I'll learn how to bake instead." The two scenarios are completely different.They're completely different because it's a terrible analogy. A fighter who takes skill focus basketweaving instead of power attack is equivelant to a law student who takes basketweaving (or interpretive dance, or choir, etc) as an elective instead of a law-related elective that would make him more effective in his law career.

hamishspence
2010-07-23, 08:15 AM
PCs aren't "real people." They're superheroes.

What suboptimal choices have Batman, Superman and Iron Man made?

Taking the flaw "Vulnerability to Meteor Rocks" when you know you will be playing in a village full of meteor rocks, might be a suboptimal choice :smallwink:

Though that's more "Smallville" than "Superman".

Optimystik
2010-07-23, 08:16 AM
Taking the flaw "Vulnerability to Meteor Rocks" when you know you will be playing in a village full of meteor rocks, might be a suboptimal choice :smallwink:

Though that's more "Smallville" than "Superman".

Hush, you :smalltongue:

Zovc
2010-07-23, 08:17 AM
Trotting out the tired SF line whenever encountering any resistance to optimisation, or in defence in it is tired, dull, and one of those logical truths that completely misses the point.

Nah, people 'trot out the tired Stormwind Fallacy' when people say, "I don't want to powergame, I just want to do [this] well."

The problem is, people who say that sort of thing generally don't seem aware of the Stormwind Fallacy.

Amphetryon
2010-07-23, 08:18 AM
PCs aren't "real people." They're superheroes.

What suboptimal choices have Batman, Superman and Iron Man made?

Iron Man had a drinking problem.

Superman, in one small story arc, made an NC-17 movie.

Batman trained Robin so well that Robin has defeated him as Nightwing on two separate occasions.

None of the above means it makes a character more interesting to make bad choices, in my opinion.

hamishspence
2010-07-23, 08:18 AM
Reminds me of the Mr Welch List:

"My dark, brooding superhero cannot take the flaw "Dark Secret: Well Adjusted to Society" :smallbiggrin:

Greenish
2010-07-23, 08:20 AM
What suboptimal choices have Batman, Superman and Iron Man made?In order: the 60's TV-series, being boring invincible hero (and superman museum with authentic kryptonite!) and… Well, I'm not so familiar Iron Man.

lesser_minion
2010-07-23, 08:22 AM
None of the above means it makes a character more interesting to make bad choices, in my opinion.

Nobody's saying that it has to be more interesting to make a bad choice, just that it can be.

And roleplaying can create weaknesses for a character that can be exploited.

A character with a romantic partner, for example, is more vulnerable to certain spells, and would be expected to stop behaving 100% rationally if something happens to said partner. It also makes the character more interesting to play and more interesting as a person.

Invincible characters are boring.

Zovc
2010-07-23, 08:23 AM
Iron Man had a drinking problem.

Iron Man's player didn't expect to come across a lot of alcohol over the course of the game, his DM wasn't old enough to drink. It was a decent metagame choice based on knowledge beforehand, but the DM 'properly' took advantage of the flaw.


Superman, in one small story arc, made an NC-17 movie.

"Made an NC-17 movie" was likely not a mechanical aspect of whatever system you are trying to stat out Superman in.


Batman trained Robin so well that Robin has defeated him as Nightwing on two separate occasions.

How on earth is this a suboptimal choice? Robin just powergamed harder than Batman. Also, Batman probably stopped leveling up, but Nightwing kept going.


None of the above means it makes a character more interesting to make bad choices, in my opinion.

A character roleplaying bad choices doesn't necessarily mean the character was poorly optimized. Perhaps his roleplaying was poorly optimized, but I suppose that depends on how you look at it. :smallwink:

taltamir
2010-07-23, 08:26 AM
classes != careers is true, a class is an abstract metagame... you don't even have to excuse it with "i learned some neat tricks form the barbarian tribes" really.

Stormwind fallacy: the stormwind fallacy is the claim that an optimized character CAN NOT be roleplayed well... that the ONLY way to roleplay "correctly" is to build an intentionally badly built character... that is, optimize your character to be weak.
Examples include taking "Craft (basketweaving)" because your background is that of a basketweaver. You are perfectly capable of having the backstory of being raised as a basketweaver without wasting skillpoints on it.... remember, the characters do not know their skillpoints, and besides, you roll D20s...

Kylarra
2010-07-23, 08:29 AM
See, while I generally prefer position for non-setting specific play*, I can't see it as a justifiable position for system design.

If the base classes only represents the abilities, there is little to no reason to justify a class-based system. Designing around that assumption would lead to an ability buy system (cf. E6 after the cap). That's a good option: in many respects, it has the potential to be a better system.

But it doesn't change the implicit assumption of a class-based system-- that your class represents some archetype that your character fits in.


*The disclaimer here is because I often find it useful to tie the classes to some setting element as a world-building tool.3.X isn't a class-based system. That's a common misconception. It's a point-buy system masquerading as a class-based system.

Psyx
2010-07-23, 08:49 AM
PCs aren't "real people." They're superheroes.

What suboptimal choices have Batman, Superman and Iron Man made?

Hampering themselves with alignment restrictions and codes of conduct?

Clearly, we both play characters for different reasons. I don't subscribe to the 'I'm perfect / a superhero' school of characterisation, because I find it dull both narratively and from a challenge point of view. I *like* playing real people [because I enjoy the escapism of not being perfect in games :smallwink: ]. On a separate point, I also prefer to 'win' from a disadvantaged position with a slightly flawed character: Tactically rather than strategically, if you will.



The problem is, people who say that sort of thing generally don't seem aware of the Stormwind Fallacy.

But at least a dozen people willing to shout it always come running to their defence... although I'm not too sure why!

taltamir
2010-07-23, 08:54 AM
Hampering themselves with alignment restrictions and codes of conduct?

Clearly, we both play characters for different reasons. I don't subscribe to the 'I'm perfect / a superhero' school of characterisation, because I find it dull both narratively and from a challenge point of view. I *like* playing real people [because I enjoy the escapism of not being perfect in games :smallwink: ].

you find it realistic for average joes with no extraordinary skill or power to single handedly face extra ordinary threats?
If you are not playing a super character then the only sane response to most crisis' would be "call the ARMY" or "run for your life!"

now, you COULD be playing a string of disposable insane individuals, who lack the skills to get the job done, get in over their head, and die horribly one by one... if that is what you are in to.

Coplantor
2010-07-23, 08:55 AM
3.X isn't a class-based system. That's a common misconception. It's a point-buy system masquerading as a class-based system.

I think I'm having a forum deja vu

Jayabalard
2010-07-23, 08:55 AM
3.X isn't a class-based system. That's a common misconception. It's a point-buy system masquerading as a class-based system.It really is still a class-based system. All of your points that you can spend (levels, feats) have the same cost.

I mean, if you're going to call 3.x a point based system, you can use the same argument that 1e AD&D is a point based system, which is just silly.

Certainly, it's not as rigid of a class based system as OD&D, or palladium, but it's still a class-based system.


PCs aren't "real people." They're superheroesThis is not a true statement. Some PC's are superheroes; some are not. It depends a lot on the game system that's involved, and the people who are playing.

If you only capable of playing superheroes, then I don't believe that you are as good of a roleplayer as someone who is capable of playing both superheroes and non-superheroes.


Those are character's choices..They have other ones. They also make choice like: work on athletic skills (tumble, jump, climb, balance, etc) vs learn to play a musical instrument effectively (performe: balance), vs practice being more effective at making money via gambling (profession: gabmler), vs work on their interpersonal communication skills(diplomacy), vs learn to be a better animal handler.

They make choices like "practice hitting things harder with a stick" (feat: power attack) vs "learn to make magical wands (feat: Craft Wands) vs "becoming better at basketweaving" (feat: Skill focus: basket weaving), vs "study how to fight with two weapons at the same time more effectively", etc.

They make choices like "Study Arcane magic" or "Study divine magic" or "sell your soul to that demon now that the light has forsaken me" (trade in paladin levels for blackguard levels), etc.


you find it realistic for average joes with no extraordinary skill or power to single handedly face extra ordinary threats?It happens in real life; that's how we get real world heroes.

Personally, I kind of prefer the realistically above average joes facing extra-ordinary threats as a team with other realistically above average joes over the strictly average Joes.

Optimystik
2010-07-23, 09:04 AM
This is not a true statement. Some PC's are superheroes; some are not. It depends a lot on the game system that's involved, and the people who are playing.

In D&D, they are. I can't speak about other systems (though I suspect Exalted is similarly superlative.) Granted the OP did not specify a system, but I am specifying D&D with that response.


Hampering themselves with alignment restrictions and codes of conduct?

Those qualities actually serve to make them less realistic. How many "real people" would have just shot the Joker (http://www.escapistmagazine.com/articles/view/comics/stolen-pixels/7220-Stolen-Pixels-172-Gothams-Latest-Superhero) by now?

taltamir
2010-07-23, 09:10 AM
Level 3 is where a dagger (1d4+STR/20x2) to a vital organ from an average person (str 10) CAN NOT even endanger your life (critical hit is defined as hitting your vital organs; creatures without vital organs are immune to it, even if they have structural weak points like joints and the like, its the internal organs that must be hit)... fighters and the like can take it at level 1. (max damage being 8)
... unless its a coup de grace (which also is a hit to vital organs, and an auto crit, but requires a fort save or death).

Amphetryon
2010-07-23, 09:11 AM
Iron Man's player didn't expect to come across a lot of alcohol over the course of the game, his DM wasn't old enough to drink. It was a decent metagame choice based on knowledge beforehand, but the DM 'properly' took advantage of the flaw.Either I missed that issue of Iron Man, I've missed your point entirely, or...?




"Made an NC-17 movie" was likely not a mechanical aspect of whatever system you are trying to stat out Superman in.Call it 'took ranks in the cross-class Skill 'Perform: Adult movie,' and it's a minor mechanical aspect. Does it make him significantly worse? Nope. It's still extremely improbable that his experiences on that particular movie set made him a more effective crime-fighter.




How on earth is this a suboptimal choice? Robin just powergamed harder than Batman. Also, Batman probably stopped leveling up, but Nightwing kept going.
Teaching someone how to defeat - even potentially kill you(in a campaign setting) - is rarely the hallmark of a wise career move. If you're using the Apprentice/Mentor Feats from DMG2 to emulate this, the general consensus is the benefits are all in the Apprentice side, rather than the Mentor side. Ergo, the Mentor feat is 'suboptimal.'

lesser_minion
2010-07-23, 09:13 AM
In D&D, they are. I can't speak about other systems (though I suspect Exalted is similarly superlative.) Granted the OP did not specify a system, but I am specifying D&D with that response.

No, In D&D they grow to become superheroes. There is a difference.

And heroes are inherently unrealistic in the respect that they will go off and attempt something that no 'realistic' person would even consider.


Level 3 is where a dagger (1d4+STR/20x2) to a vital organ from an average person (str 10) CAN NOT even endanger your life (critical hit is defined as hitting your vital organs; creatures without vital organs are immune to it, even if they have structural weak points like joints and the like, its the internal organs that must be hit)... fighters and the like can take it at level 1. (max damage being 8)

"Life threatening" != "able to one-shot on a lucky roll."

If it can deal hitpoint damage, it's a potentially life-threatening attack.

Jayabalard
2010-07-23, 09:14 AM
In D&D, they are. I can't speak about other systems (though I suspect Exalted is similarly superlative.) Granted the OP did not specify a system, but I am specifying D&D with that response.Well, your statement is in response to something I said (you quoted me, not the OP), and I am NOT talking strictly D&D. It's kind of silly to try and counter someone's general remarks with a statement that is specific to a particular game system.

And really, I'm not sure it even would cover all editions of D&D; you'd be hard pressed to call 0-level characters in 1e AD&D superheroes. Even the most supernatural (a 0-level wizard for example, since they can cast a cantrip or 3) would have trouble qualifying as a superhero's sidekick.

Beyond that, many Superheroes are "real people"... I mean, if your super power is "I Shovel well!" or you can turn invisible when noone is looking at you then you have more in common with an "ordinary Joe" than you do with, say, Superman or Goku. And you don't even have to go to that extreme to start finding superheroes who are "real people"

Coplantor
2010-07-23, 09:15 AM
Yeah, but as stated before, by level 3 things start to get weird and by level 6 you are superhuman, it means that, if you go from level 1 to 20, 3/4ths of the game you'll be a superhero.

Jayabalard
2010-07-23, 09:16 AM
Yeah, but as stated before, by level 3 things start to get weird and by level 6 you are superhuman, it means that, if you go from level 1 to 20, 3/4ths of the game you'll be a superhero.And if you never level past 5th level, then you're never a superhero?


Level 3 is where a dagger (1d4+STR/20x2) to a vital organ from an average person (str 10) CAN NOT even endanger your life (critical hit is defined as hitting your vital organs; creatures without vital organs are immune to it, even if they have structural weak points like joints and the like, its the internal organs that must be hit)... fighters and the like can take it at level 1. (max damage being 8)
... unless its a coup de grace (which also is a hit to vital organs, and an auto crit, but requires a fort save or death).People have survived stab wounds to the heart in real life, including doctor's who have tried to suicide this way and should be VERY good at stabbing themselves in the heart to kill themselves (that'd be the equivalent of a couple of dice of sneak attack damage, or even a coup de grace). Keep in mind that hit points explicitly do not only represent wounds, they also represent luck, fatigue, turning a blow, etc so surviving a "critical hit from a dagger" is not, in and of itself, a superhuman feat any more than surviving a fall from 1000+ feet in the air is. It just means that you stabbed the fighter in the spleen instead of the heart due to his luck/skill at turning the blow.

lesser_minion
2010-07-23, 09:19 AM
Yeah, but as stated before, by level 3 things start to get weird and by level 6 you are superhuman, it means that, if you go from level 1 to 20, 3/4ths of the game you'll be a superhero.

No, at level 11 or so you begin to gain capabilities that are beyond what anyone in the setting has ever seen.

A 6th level character is larger-than-life. A 7th level character can, with a lot of luck, occasionally do something beyond what a real human could ever hope to accomplish.

6th - 10th level are traditional action-hero types, not superheroes. Jumping off a 100ft cliff and surviving, for example (and respecting that it hurt and that you might have died).

Optimystik
2010-07-23, 09:22 AM
Either I missed that issue of Iron Man, I've missed your point entirely, or...?

In other words, his flaw is only relevant to his abilities when the DM (i.e. the writers) specifically take advantage of it.


Call it 'took ranks in the cross-class Skill 'Perform: Adult movie,' and it's a minor mechanical aspect. Does it make him significantly worse? Nope. It's still extremely improbable that his experiences on that particular movie set made him a more effective crime-fighter.

The question is not whether it made him more effective, but whether it made him less effective.

It's only a suboptimal choice if it... you know, makes him suboptimal in some way. He's still Supes.


Teaching someone how to defeat - even potentially kill you(in a campaign setting) - is rarely the hallmark of a wise career move. If you're using the Apprentice/Mentor Feats from DMG2 to emulate this, the general consensus is the benefits are all in the Apprentice side, rather than the Mentor side. Ergo, the Mentor feat is 'suboptimal.'

Poor analogy. DG spent a lot of time out from under Batman's wing (particularly in the Teen Titans), becoming Nightwing a significant time after parting ways with Batman - in short, leveling up on his own, just like Zovc said.

Your analogies have no bearing on my point - D&D characters are not meant to be average joes who stumble into saving the world.


No, In D&D they grow to become superheroes. There is a difference.

Why yes, many games do start at level 1. This is nothing new.


And if you never level past 5th level, then you're never a superhero?

No, you're not - you can be a hero, but you're at the same level of competence as the rest of the population. A firefighter or policeman can be a hero too, but not a superhero.

Agrippa
2010-07-23, 09:22 AM
Those qualities actually serve to make them less realistic. How many "real people" would have just shot the Joker (http://www.escapistmagazine.com/articles/view/comics/stolen-pixels/7220-Stolen-Pixels-172-Gothams-Latest-Superhero) by now?

I would have. Hell, most proper D&D paladins would have just killed the Joker by now. And without any angst or risk of jumpping off the slippery slope into evil.

Optimystik
2010-07-23, 09:25 AM
I would have. Hell, most proper D&D paladins would have just killed the Joker by now. And without any angst or risk of jumpping off the slippery slope into evil.

My point exactly.

taltamir
2010-07-23, 09:27 AM
People have survived stab wounds to the heart in real life, including doctor's who have tried to suicide this way and should be VERY good at stabbing themselves in the heart to kill themselves (that'd be the equivalent of a couple of dice of sneak attack damage, or even a coup de grace). Keep in mind that hit points explicitly do not only represent wounds, they also represent luck, fatigue, turning a blow, etc so surviving a "critical hit from a dagger" is not, in and of itself, a superhuman feat any more than surviving a fall from 1000+ feet in the air is. It just means that you stabbed the fighter in the spleen instead of the heart due to his luck/skill at turning the blow.

there is a huge massive difference between "can survive" and "cannot be killed".
the situation in DnD is where you cannot be killed by a a stab to the heart... not where you can survive it.

lesser_minion
2010-07-23, 09:28 AM
Those qualities actually serve to make them less realistic. How many "real people" would have just shot the Joker (http://www.escapistmagazine.com/articles/view/comics/stolen-pixels/7220-Stolen-Pixels-172-Gothams-Latest-Superhero) by now?

And truer to who they are trying to play.

Realism != roleplaying.


the situation in DnD is where you cannot be killed by a a stab to the heart... not where you can survive it.

A critical hit is a particularly nasty hit that may have hit the vitals. It's not a definite catastrophic injury.

In essence, the situation is that you don't get stabbed in the heart.

A hit with a dagger, at 3rd level, can potentially deal at least 20 points of damage, which is pretty damned nasty.

You're missing the point of hitpoints: they reflect that it isn't fair to roll percentile dice every time you get hit. Not anything in the game world.

Optimystik
2010-07-23, 09:31 AM
Yet truer to who they are trying to play.

Realism != roleplaying.

Jaya's point was that PCs are "real people." The fact that many hold themselves to codes of conduct that are preposterous to real people flies in the face of that assertion.

taltamir
2010-07-23, 09:34 AM
here is the thing... only someone as badass powerful as superman or batman can hold himself to such ridiculous codes of conduct... I would argue that the type of roleplaying you preach is IMPOSSIBLE without SERIOUS charOp...

Batman REFUSES to just kill the joker... anyone else would be dead as a result, batman, being the mother****ing batman, can survive such insanity.
Superman, also, has a child friendly and utterly retarded code of conduct that would get anyone but himself killed (and even he gets close to dying quite often).


A critical hit is a particularly nasty hit that may have hit the vitals. It's not a definite catastrophic injury.
By its definition in DnD, a critical hit hits the vitals... it could be your heart, or kidneys, or lungs... but it is your vitals.


A hit with a dagger, at 3rd level, can potentially deal at least 20 points of damage, which is pretty damned nasty.
I said by someone with average human strength (aka, strength 10)...


As usual, you're missing the point
Please, no personal attacks.

Also, I am not missing the point, the whole point is that DnD is NOT realistic... its very much heroic fantasy.

Powerfamiliar
2010-07-23, 09:36 AM
I think Stormwind, as ussually used anyway, fails some when it comes to time commitment particularly for character creation. For most of the posters here, who have time and willingness to post on a dnd forum, this won't be much of an issue but for many other players focusing on the characters crunch WILL leave less time to focus on the fluff. If a player has 2 hours to make a character, he can just say fighter and spend half an hour making the character, or decide to be optimized and spend much more leaving muhc less time to focus on the fluff.

I do agree that optimization does not mean poor roleplaying, but I do think many players seem to focus on one over the other.

taltamir
2010-07-23, 09:39 AM
I think Stormwind, as ussually used anyway, fails some when it comes to time commitment particularly for character creation. For most of the posters here, who have time and willingness to post on a dnd forum, this won't be much of an issue but for many other players focusing on the characters crunch WILL leave less time to focus on the fluff. If a player has 2 hours to make a character, he can just say fighter and spend half an hour making the character, or decide to be optimized and spend much more leaving muhc less time to focus on the fluff.

I do agree that optimization does not mean poor roleplaying, but I do think many players seem to focus on one over the other.

the problem with that assumption, is that without serious optimization your character will die and need replacing. This means that there is no incentive to spend hours writing a backstory.

The notion that people have exactly X hours to work on a character, which will go either into fluff or crunch is outragously wrong. If you don't care much for the fluff (for example), then you will spend the same 5 minutes on it whether you spend 1 or 20 hours on crunch...
And for me at least, spending more hours on crunch gives me confidence to invest time into fluff that isn't going to be ruined right away.

Greenish
2010-07-23, 09:42 AM
Batman REFUSES to just kill the joker... anyone else would be dead as a result, batman, being the mother****ing batman, can survive such insanity.Ah, yes. Collateral damage hardly matters, IN AMERICA!

Superman, also, has a child friendly and utterly retarded code of conduct that would get anyone but himself killed (and even he gets close to dying quite often).Supes is pretty poor fighter, I seem to recall. He just has supersenses/superspeed/superstrength/superinvulnerbility/superflight/supereyelasers/superintelligence
/superregeneration/superbreath/supermemory/superface and so forth.

taltamir
2010-07-23, 09:44 AM
Ah, yes. Collateral damage hardly matters, IN AMERICA!

That actually really bothered me... I don't see batman as a hero, just some prick who is enjoying the limelight... a hero would have killed the joker, every time batman doesn't straight out kills the joker, he is choosing the joker's life over that of the countless innocents the joker will kill.


Supes is pretty poor fighter, I seem to recall. He just has supersenses/superspeed/superstrength/superinvulnerbility/superflight/supereyelasers/superintelligence
/superregeneration/superbreath/supermemory/superface and so forth.

yes, but I was referring more to his "moral code" then his fighting skills. it doesn't matter if his powers come from unnaturally amazing abilities (superman), or from skill (batman)... both have amazing power, and they chose to follow a code of conduct that involves not killing or even crippling mass murderers so that they could go around killing more innocents.

but besides the innocents, there is also their OWN life that is at risk... that is, my very point was that an average joe with skill points in basket weaving and 8 con, would be dead if he faced those opponents.

Optimystik
2010-07-23, 09:44 AM
here is the thing... only someone as badass powerful as superman or batman can hold himself to such ridiculous codes of conduct... I would argue that the type of roleplaying you preach is IMPOSSIBLE without SERIES charOp...

But you don't need "serious CharOp" to become a superhero in D&D. You just need to be a higher level than the people around you, which happens somewhere around level 7 in most settings, and persists into epic.

Even a level 10 fighter or monk is capable of very superhuman feats - never mind an actual casting class.

Tyndmyr
2010-07-23, 09:46 AM
Either I missed that issue of Iron Man, I've missed your point entirely, or...?

It's a series known as "Demon in a Bottle", and it's probably the single most defining series for Iron man. It's also referenced heavily elsewhere, even in the Ultimate series, etc.

It's kinda like missing the fact that Wolverine doesn't remember his past.

lesser_minion
2010-07-23, 09:47 AM
here is the thing... only someone as badass powerful as superman or batman can hold himself to such ridiculous codes of conduct... I would argue that the type of roleplaying you preach is IMPOSSIBLE without SERIES charOp...

Has he or has he not acquired a crippling weakness in the name of the story?

That you can optimise a character to work with a weakness is besides the point.

The issue here (at least, as far as I care about it) is that there exist places in the game where roleplaying and optimisation can conflict.

I'm not saying that an optimised character must be less well-roleplayed, I'm saying that it is possible to sacrifice some of your character's power in the name of a more interesting character and/or story.

You also don't have to.


By its definition in DnD, a critical hit hits the vitals... it could be your heart, or kidneys, or lungs... but it is your vitals.

No, it's just particularly nasty.

"When a critical hit is achieved, a vital spot on the creature was hit."

Doesn't require the attack to be a stab to the heart, or even an organ.
Here's the next thing it says:


This is an opportunity for you to give the players some vivid description to keep the excitement level high: "The mace blow hits the orc squarely on the side of the head. He lets out a groan, and his knees buckle..."

So... yeah. Not a stab directly to the vitals. Just a hit somewhere fairly important. A critical hit to the chest is a few cracked ribs, not a dagger blow straight to the heart.



I said by someone with average human strength (aka, strength 10)...

You do not have a damage reduction of 8 or better, ergo it's a hit that can kill you.


Please, no personal attacks.

Also, I am not missing the point, the whole point is that DnD is NOT realistic... its very much heroic fantasy.

You missed the point of hitpoints. The 'as usual' wasn't directed at you (it was just poorly written, and I apologise). This particular argument gets on my nerves.


Jaya's point was that PCs are "real people." The fact that many hold themselves to codes of conduct that are preposterous to real people flies in the face of that assertion.

Here's what you were trying to dismiss, actually:


Hampering themselves with alignment restrictions and codes of conduct?

Clearly, we both play characters for different reasons. I don't subscribe to the 'I'm perfect / a superhero' school of characterisation, because I find it dull both narratively and from a challenge point of view. I *like* playing real people [because I enjoy the escapism of not being perfect in games :smallwink: ]. On a separate point, I also prefer to 'win' from a disadvantaged position with a slightly flawed character: Tactically rather than strategically, if you will.

One off-hand comment that is clearly marked as an aside is barely worth the effort, imho.


the problem with that assumption, is that without serious optimization your character will die and need replacing. This means that there is no incentive to spend hours writing a backstory.

The game was playtested with unoptimised characters. If this was true... well, it would basically mandate that people died every thirteen seconds.

taltamir
2010-07-23, 09:48 AM
But you don't need "serious CharOp" to become a superhero in D&D. You just need to be a higher level than the people around you, which happens somewhere around level 7 in most settings, and persists into epic.

Even a level 10 fighter or monk is capable of very superhuman feats - never mind an actual casting class.

That is an alternative to char op... but good luck surviving to that level with a badly built character and an insane code of conduct.


So... yeah. Not a stab directly to the vitals. Just a hit somewhere fairly important. A critical hit to the chest is a few cracked ribs, not a dagger blow straight to the heart.
there are a variety of sources that deal with it, including rogue backstabbing, smaller characters, etc... the 'direct source' does specify that it has to be, but the others do...

besides which, a serious hit to a serious spot, deals max damage, and CAN NOT endanger your life... you CAN NOT DIE from a knife stab by a person of average human strength unless he is coup de gracing you.


You do not have a damage reduction of 8 or better, ergo it's a hit that can kill you.
Sigh... only if you are already heavily injured... I obviously meant an uninjured person...

Zovc
2010-07-23, 09:49 AM
Either I missed that issue of Iron Man, I've missed your point entirely, or...?

In the context of D&D 3.5, for the sake of an example, Iron Man's character took the Flaw "Drinking Problem" to get the feat "Craft Iron Man Suit". If, throughout the entire time that someone was playing Iron Man he never came into contact with alcohol, the feat would have been an optimal choice. Nevertheless, getting drunk in a few bars doesn't really stop you from being freaking Iron Man, despite what the movies tell you. A drinking problem is nothing more than a mechanical flaw, as far as 3.5 is concerned, which powergamers will liberally use, although they usually choose ones that will have no impact on their character at all.

My point was, "Iron Man wasn't necessarily not powergaming by having a dinking problem." (Sorry, the double negative was important for making that statement make sense in context.) As a matter of fact, he is probably better than characters who didn't take any flaws. :smallamused:

Regardless, optimizing isn't binary. You can be more optimized than someone who is optimized, and someone can be more optamized than that. Similarly, you can build a worse character than most bad characters.



Call it 'took ranks in the cross-class Skill 'Perform: Adult movie,' and it's a minor mechanical aspect. Does it make him significantly worse? Nope. It's still extremely improbable that his experiences on that particular movie set made him a more effective crime-fighter.

As Optimystik said, if Superman has already maxed out every skill he needs to, putting ranks in Perform (Adult Movie) will be just as useful to him as ranks in Perform (Vuvuzela).

Again, the point is, just by doing suboptimal doesn't mean you are 'necessarily not powergaming'.


Teaching someone how to defeat - even potentially kill you(in a campaign setting) - is rarely the hallmark of a wise career move. If you're using the Apprentice/Mentor Feats from DMG2 to emulate this, the general consensus is the benefits are all in the Apprentice side, rather than the Mentor side. Ergo, the Mentor feat is 'suboptimal.'

Well, perhaps there was a reason Batman trained Robin to be able to defeat him? I mean, if I know I'm not going to be able to prevent myself from doing something I don't want to do (I.E. I'm going to be possessed by something), it might be a good idea to get someone else to prevent me from doing it.

Regardless, Batman and Robin eventually adventured separately. Sure Nightwing wouldn't have been able to become who he is without Batman's training, but that doesn't automatically mean Batman, while training Robin said, "Hey, this is what I do. You can beat it by doing this. I also like to do this, but you can beat it by doing that."

Tiki Snakes
2010-07-23, 09:49 AM
Batman is a comic book / Story about people who are Insane. Some of them fight for different teams, but they are all nuts.

Also, a lot of the comments on this thread seem to come rather close to being along the lines of "I agree with Stormwind. Except I don't, it's actually wrong."
Which kind of amuses me.

People who roleplay will roleplay. People who do not roleplay so much will not roleplay so much. Optimisation really doesn't factor into it, in my experience.

I also support the seperation of Class and Career. :smallsmile:

Fax Celestis
2010-07-23, 09:50 AM
No, at level 11 or so you begin to gain capabilities that are beyond what anyone in the setting has ever seen.

...what setting are you playing in?

Optimystik
2010-07-23, 09:53 AM
That is an alternative to char op... but good luck surviving to that level with a badly built character and an insane code of conduct.

"Some are born great, some achieve greatness, and others have greatness thrust upon them."

Not all games start at level 1. Even for those that do, there are other ways to gain levels besides combat.

lesser_minion
2010-07-23, 09:53 AM
...what setting are you playing in?

Don't ask. That was meant to be 'normal people' or 'mundanes', rather than 'anyone'.

Coplantor
2010-07-23, 09:55 AM
Don't ask. That was meant to be 'normal people' or 'mundanes', rather than 'anyone'.

I think the question still stands, most classes can do things mundanes and normal people has never seen in their lives around 6th or 7th level

taltamir
2010-07-23, 09:56 AM
Not all games start at level 1. Even for those that do, there are other ways to gain levels besides combat.

ah, of course, the cheating method... just arbitrarily build a 10th level character with an insane code of conduct..

besides which, as levels increase challenges become very deadly and your choices matter more. Good luck fighting that epic dragon with a terribly built character and surviving.

CharOp, it allows you the luxury of roleplaying.

Optimystik
2010-07-23, 10:04 AM
ah, of course, the cheating method... just arbitrarily build a 10th level character with an insane code of conduct..

You're being facetious, but this does actually happen. Superman didn't start at level 1 - or if he did, his race should have a hefty LA.


besides which, as levels increase challenges become very deadly and your choices matter more. Good luck fighting that epic dragon with a terribly built character and surviving.

The question was never whether characters could take on certain monsters, but whether they became more capable than the average populace as they gained levels. Epic dragons have nothing to do with this thread.


CharOp, it allows you the luxury of roleplaying.

While I personally feel that planning your character out in advance can assist in roleplaying it (you can weave story milestones into key points of your build, such as when you enter a PrC), there is really no hard connection between the two concepts.

lesser_minion
2010-07-23, 10:05 AM
Sigh... only if you are already heavily injured... I obviously meant an uninjured person...

Why would a superficially injured person be appreciably more likely to die from any given injury than an uninjured one?

The point is that hitpoints represent the designers saying "I think it would be fairer if we give players the benefit of the doubt the first few times they get hit, and leave explanations to the narrator." not "characters have a magic ability that means the first few hits they take are always superficial".


I think the question still stands, most classes can do things mundanes and normal people has never seen in their lives around 6th or 7th level

Through 7th to 10th level, characters are larger than life, and certainly beyond the bounds of what a normal person can actually achieve, but not egregiously so.

That's the essence of it.

5th level is approximately the peak of 'real' human achievement.

7th level is when you begin to go beyond what any real human could do. Very rarely, you can accomplish a feat that would be beyond any mundane, no matter how accomplished (having 10 ranks in a skill is explicitly a prerequisite for this).

At 9th level, you consistently achieve the spectacular, but it's not so much what you do as how often, and how well you do it.

By 11th level, nobody could describe you as a 'mundane' with a straight face.

Jayabalard
2010-07-23, 10:09 AM
By its definition in DnD, a critical hit hits the vitals... it could be your heart, or kidneys, or lungs... but it is your vitals.I'm just curious, where is that from? It's not in the SRD entry for Critical hit. The only pages in the srd that have the word vitals are talking about rogue and epic infiltrator sneak attack, and it doesn't actually say that a sneak attack is a hit to the vitals, just that the vitals have to be reachable by the rogue. Also, where in the D&D terminology is the term "vitals" defined?

I don't have the books handly, so I can't check them... but it really looks you're hanging all of this on very inspecific terminology, and then trying to twist that into "the rules clearly say X" when that's not really the case.


Jaya's point was that PCs are "real people." The fact that many hold themselves to codes of conduct that are preposterous to real people flies in the face of that assertion.None of your counter examples are PC's. Nor is my point that PC's are "real people" ... some PCs are and some aren't, depending on the system and the people involved in the game.

If you really are looking for some sort of point it was that someone who only makes characters who have always made the optimal choices in life tends to be a poorer roleplayer than someone who makes characters who have made a mix of optimal and sub-optimal choices in life.

The idea is that sub-optimal choices can be the more real, more believable choice, because that's what happens in real life, and real life tends to be fairly ... real. It's not that making sub-optimal choices makes you a better roleplayer... it's that taking the sub-optimal choice because it's the choice that is more true to the character is in indication that you are a better roleplayer than someone who just blindly picks things based on the number of plusses.

Likewise, taking the optimal choice because it's the choice that is more true to the character is in indication that you are a better roleplayer than someone who just blindly picks weak choices.

So people who pick a mix of both optimal and suboptimal choices tend to be better roleplayers than people who only pick optimal choices. Again, this is TEND, not always, Do X = better roleplayer.


here is the thing... only someone as badass powerful as superman or batman can hold himself to such ridiculous codes of conduct... I would argue that the type of roleplaying you preach is IMPOSSIBLE without SERIOUS charOp...I'm not sure who you're replying to here, but... no, the type of roleplaying that I preach does not require any charop at all. In fact, it's kind of hampered by having any sort rigid build plan.

Amphetryon
2010-07-23, 10:10 AM
Your analogies have no bearing on my point - D&D characters are not meant to be average joes who stumble into saving the world.

Given that my analogies weren't responding to or referencing your posts at all, I'm not surprised they had no bearing on your particular point. I'd be much more surprised if they did.

Amphetryon
2010-07-23, 10:11 AM
It's a series known as "Demon in a Bottle", and it's probably the single most defining series for Iron man. It's also referenced heavily elsewhere, even in the Ultimate series, etc.

It's kinda like missing the fact that Wolverine doesn't remember his past.
Ah. So there's an issue of Iron Man - or, apparently, a series - where Iron Man is acknowledged to be a character in a Mutants and Masterminds or other Comic Superheroes-type RPG campaign? I'll look for it... :smallwink:

Powerfamiliar
2010-07-23, 10:12 AM
the problem with that assumption, is that without serious optimization your character will die and need replacing. This means that there is no incentive to spend hours writing a backstory.

The notion that people have exactly X hours to work on a character, which will go either into fluff or crunch is outragously wrong. If you don't care much for the fluff (for example), then you will spend the same 5 minutes on it whether you spend 1 or 20 hours on crunch...
And for me at least, spending more hours on crunch gives me confidence to invest time into fluff that isn't going to be ruined right away.

This makes a lot of assumptions on the type of game beign played. In my experience as long as the whole party si palying around the same optimization level character death rate is very stable. DMs jsut up the challenge for more powerful parties.

My assumeption from time comes from annecdotal experience, so of course not very reliable. But in my local games I'd say about half the players come into the first session with no idea of what character they expect to play, and about half or so of this first session if spent on character creation, so a time limit is very real. I've had palyers spent those 2-3 hours just on their backstory and character's perosnality and when asked what class are they playing they just say "umm fighter I guess?" and take a default starting package with very few changes. As well as many players who spend the whole time going over a huge pile of books and when the game is about to start they don;t even have a name.

I do tend to play very casual pick up and play type of games, where many players do it purely for the social aspect of hanging out while playing a fun game. Which surprisingly has led to much longer and cohsive games that the games where the focus is mostly the game and playesr get tired of their builds after a couple of sessions.

Greenish
2010-07-23, 10:16 AM
…which powergamers will liberally use, although they usually choose ones that will have no impact on their character at all.I once took the flaw Meager Fortitude so I could get a feat to take Great Fortitude. Can't say it had much impact on the character.

Optimystik
2010-07-23, 10:20 AM
None of your counter examples are PC's.

How aren't they? If you need the BBEG defeated - in this analogy, Joker, or Darkseid - you don't send in the boys in blue, you send the frakkin' Justice League. Those are the PCs.


The idea is that sub-optimal choices can be the more real, more believable choice, because that's what happens in real life, and real life tends to be fairly ... real. It's not that making sub-optimal choices makes you a better roleplayer... it's that taking the sub-optimal choice because it's the choice that is more true to the character is in indication that you are a better roleplayer than someone who just blindly picks things based on the number of plusses.

Likewise, taking the optimal choice because it's the choice that is more true to the character is in indication that you are a better roleplayer than someone who just blindly picks weak choices.

So people who pick a mix of both optimal and suboptimal choices tend to be better roleplayers than people who only pick optimal choices. Again, this is TEND, not always, Do X = better roleplayer.

I agree with both of your observations, but not your conclusion - I've seen no evidence of such a trend. The only indicator of being a good roleplayer... is being a good roleplayer. The choices made for the character are a separate consideration and can't be used to judge roleplaying ability.

Keld Denar
2010-07-23, 10:32 AM
...what setting are you playing in?

You know you're doing it wrong right when a barmaid regularly uses Evard's Black Tentacles and Baleful Polymorph to break up bar fights, and the bartender leap attacks over the bar to shocktrooper you with a barrel tap for triple digit damage.

In other news, try the lamb, its recycled fresh.

Agrippa
2010-07-23, 10:47 AM
How aren't they? If you need the BBEG defeated - in this analogy, Joker, or Darkseid - you don't send in the boys in blue, you send the frakkin' Justice League. Those are the PCs.

I'd say the Avengers, the X-Men and the Authority are also PCs. Along with the BPRD and both Hellsing and Iscariot. In the 16th to 28th level reange to be more exact. And paladins are more like Solomon Kane (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solomon_Kane) or Cpatain America (who will kill in limited circumstances) than the Dark Knight.

Jayabalard
2010-07-23, 10:47 AM
How aren't they? If you need the BBEG defeated - in this analogy, Joker, or Darkseid - you don't send in the boys in blue, you send the frakkin' Justice League. Those are the PCs.Lack of players for one; not being played in an an RPG at all for another. They're just protagonists in a story; they have, at best, a passing likeness to PC's in an RPG.

Nor do you necessarily have to send in the Justice League in such a situation; they may not exist. You might send in the mystery men instead (who's powers range from getting angry to "shoveling well" to throwing a magic blowing ball). Or you send in the boys in blue (Special Investigations, a la Dresden files). Or maybe a group of investigators and scholars get involved (a la Cthullu). Many of those protagonists are on pretty firmly on the "real people" side rather than anywhere near the "perfect superhero" side of the spectrum.


The notion that people have exactly X hours to work on a character, which will go either into fluff or crunch is outragously wrong.No, that's absolutely the case for some people.

If you're serious about having time to spend 20 hours on a gaming outside of the actual game.... well, I'm not sure we're going to be able to reach any sort of understanding on this.

Optimystik
2010-07-23, 10:54 AM
Lack of players for one; not being played in an an RPG at all for another.

This is an in-universe analogy - physical players were never part of the equation.


Nor do you necessarily have to send in the Justice League in such a situation; they may not exist. You might send in the mystery men instead (who's powers range from getting angry to "shoveling well" to throwing a magic blowing ball). Or you send in the boys in blue (Special Investigations, a la Dresden files). Or maybe a group of investigators and scholars get involved (a la Cthullu). Many of those protagonists are on pretty firmly on the "real people" side rather than anywhere near the "perfect superhero" side of the spectrum.

1) I already established I was specifically talking about D&D. I'm already aware that CoC PCs are not superheroes.

2) The Mystery Men are indeed superheroes, unlikely though they might be. How many normal people do you know with magic bowling balls?

3) You don't have to be a "perfect superhero" to be a superhero.

Psyx
2010-07-23, 11:12 AM
Anyone who claims to 'have' to optimise to survive clearly needs a new GM, because theirs is missing the point. Or they are. One or the other.

Difficulty scales to the characters, not to some arbitrary line in the sand. D&D is a roleplaying game that requires cooperation between players and GM. It's not a competition.

And...personally, if there's a player round the table with an optimised-to-hell-and-outshining-everyone-else character that lacks any shred of credibility as a living character and is treated like a bunch of numbers, they frankly aren't getting the benefit of the doubt or any slack when it comes to SoDs or bad dice rolls. How 'optimum' is that for them?

As regards the whole 'D&D characters aren't supposed to be accidentally saving the world' thing... Why not? Why can't that be EXACTLY my character background. It works. It's good. It was good enough for those hobbits.

Optimystik
2010-07-23, 11:27 AM
As regards the whole 'D&D characters aren't supposed to be accidentally saving the world' thing... Why not? Why can't that be EXACTLY my character background. It works. It's good. It was good enough for those hobbits.

Having the Big Bad's artifact handy, some of the most optimized characters in the setting as backup and an entire army as a distraction helped somewhat. Not the same thing.

For that matter, it wasn't really an accident either.

Boci
2010-07-23, 11:27 AM
And...personally, if there's a player round the table with an optimised-to-hell-and-outshining-everyone-else character that lacks any shred of credibility as a living character and is treated like a bunch of numbers, they frankly aren't getting the benefit of the doubt or any slack when it comes to SoDs or bad dice rolls. How 'optimum' is that for them?

1. DM fiant kills players. We all know that.

2. Why are you assuming that if said player was using a less optimal build they would win an oscar for their roleplaying performance.

Guancyto
2010-07-23, 11:46 AM
As regards the whole 'D&D characters aren't supposed to be accidentally saving the world' thing... Why not? Why can't that be EXACTLY my character background. It works. It's good. It was good enough for those hobbits.

As a matter of fact, Frodo and Sam were super-optimized for the one thing that mattered for their part in the quest: they were very, very good at resisting magical compulsions.

The fact that the one of the most knowledgeable beings in Middle-Earth specifically chose the Hobbits for this property means they were probably better than anyone else in the world at it. Fluffwise it was mostly an accident, sure, but they were optimal at exactly one aspect that happened to be their role.

Likewise, an optimized character doesn't necessarily need to be the best at fighting or spellcasting or what-have-you. I once played a character that was optimized for getting into bar fights. Only sort of suited to adventuring (and never outshone anyone in that arena), but give the man a chair to swing and a mug to swill and he could fend off an army of semi-drunk thugs.

Tyndmyr
2010-07-23, 11:56 AM
If you're serious about having time to spend 20 hours on a gaming outside of the actual game.... well, I'm not sure we're going to be able to reach any sort of understanding on this.

I don't think I've ever spent 20 hrs generating a character. As I get better with optimization and roleplaying, both attributes of my characters have gotten vastly better, but I still actually make my character in the first hour of the first session of any game. If level one, change that to ten minutes.

Ozymandias9
2010-07-23, 12:00 PM
No, its you who misunderstands.

Optimization and roleplaying are completely independent of each other. Optimization can no more lead to poor roleplaying than being chaotic can lead to being more evil. They're independent concepts.

Even if there's a correlation of poor roleplaying with optimization - and frankly, good freaking luck proving that - correlation does not imply causation.

That was actually TS's corollary to his argument: he never attempted to demonstrate that, much less with rigor. The Stormwind Fallacy is an example of false dichotomy. The presence of false dichotomy doesn't mean that the elements are fully independent.

The only formulation of the Stormwind Fallacy which has been argued (to my knowledge) with any logical rigor is (briefly) "Excepting the extreme cases where the single goal is the pursuit of only one of the two, there is no demonstrable negative causal relationship between roleplaying and charop." I've not seen any attempt, ever, to justify his corollary that there is not correlation between the two.
Nor, in fact, have I ever seen anyone attempt to demonstrate that there isn't positive causation. Likely because, in some cases, there is.

Tyndmyr
2010-07-23, 12:04 PM
Nor do you necessarily have to send in the Justice League in such a situation; they may not exist. You might send in the mystery men instead (who's powers range from getting angry to "shoveling well" to throwing a magic blowing ball). Or you send in the boys in blue (Special Investigations, a la Dresden files).

Dude, as soon as you start discussing "powers" or magic, you've left the real world. Those are not the boys in blue, as known in our reality.

pasko77
2010-07-23, 12:06 PM
Yes, yes they did.

A correlation between two things still supports the hypothesis that there is a relationship between them. It's just not absolute proof (for the sporting analogy, it won't get you a try, but it will get you a lineout on the 22).

The fallacy is to ignore that:

Whether through error or simple noise, it may be possible for correlation to appear between things that aren't related at all.
Two factors may be related through a third factor that underlies both.


So, for example, an apparent correlation between ice cream sales and drownings may arise because people spend more time in the water when it's hot, which is also when ice creams sell the most.

Ehy, pssst. It was just a joke :)

Tyndmyr
2010-07-23, 12:06 PM
That was actually TS's corollary to his argument: he never attempted to demonstrate that, much less with rigor. The Stormwind Fallacy is an example of false dichotomy. The presence of false dichotomy doesn't mean that the elements are fully independent.

The only formulation of the Stormwind Fallacy which has been argued (to my knowledge) with any logical rigor is (briefly) "Excepting the extreme cases where the single goal is the pursuit of only one of the two, there is no demonstrable negative causal relationship between roleplaying and charop." I've not seen any attempt, ever, to justify his corollary that there is not correlation between the two.
Nor, in fact, have I ever seen anyone attempt to demonstrate that there isn't positive causation. Likely because, in some cases, there is.

I would say that in the general D&D playing population, those who are better at one skill are also better at the other.

Why? Because skill at both are honed by practice. You play a game for five years, you're better than the nubs at it, both in roleplaying and in optimization skill. Now, you probably increased more in one than another, but both have almost certainly improved.

lesser_minion
2010-07-23, 12:11 PM
Nor, in fact, have I ever seen anyone attempt to demonstrate that there isn't positive causation. Likely because, in some cases, there is.

That actually is true. A lot of people simply become better gamers, and improve in both as they do so.

Psyx
2010-07-23, 12:16 PM
Why are you assuming that if said player was using a less optimal build they would win an oscar for their roleplaying performance.

I'm not; but at least he wouldn't be deliberately outshining the people who are participating as a team, or are making efforts.



some of the most optimized characters in the setting

I didn't see the stat blocks that came with the novel. There is absolutely no basis for your statement at all. In fact, most of them looked pretty flawed to me. Who takes more than a dip in ranger anyway?!

Boci
2010-07-23, 12:19 PM
I'm not; but at least he wouldn't be deliberately outshining the people who are participating as a team, or are making efforts.

Maybe, maybe not. If he refuses to curb his power level to fit in which the party, he might just be a jerk, and if he could not optimize, maybe he would find another way to disrupt your game.

Jayabalard
2010-07-23, 12:31 PM
Dude, as soon as you start discussing "powers" or magic, you've left the real world. Those are not the boys in blue, as known in our reality.Special investigations from the Dresden are indeed the boys in blue. They might know that you should load up a shotgun with salt to deal with certain creatures from the never never, but they don't have any powers or magic.

Lots of PC's that fit into the Cthullu mythos are mundanes in the know ( or even not in the know ).

The Shoveler shovels well... that's his "superpower". Note the quotes.

Mr. Furious' has super-strength, activated only when he becomes incredibly angry; however, this claim is only verified by an unsubstantiated report of him having once lifted a city bus (later described by Mr. Furious as "more of a push," aided by the bus driver who "kind of had his foot on the gas, just in the beginning").

Mostly the people I mentioned are plain vanilla humans, no powers or magic. Even the ones that have some sort of power or magic (invisible boy, the sphinx, the spleen, the bowler) are much closer to the boys in blue than they are to the justice league.

Fax Celestis
2010-07-23, 12:38 PM
I'm not; but at least he wouldn't be deliberately outshining the people who are participating as a team, or are making efforts.

Optimization != outshining.

You can be very well optimized and take a back role in the party.

You can be very poorly optimized and be a leader.

FOR INSTANCE: I am currently in a game as a druid, going into the stonespeaker guardian prestige class. Druids are pretty widely regarded to be one of the strongest classes in the game. Also in my party are two (TWO) single-classed fighters, a rogue/temple raider of Olidammara, a single-classed artificer (focusing on wands), a single-classed spellthief, and a single-classed dread necromancer.

I have a very well optimized character. I have a low Charisma, high Con and Wis. I have wilding gear and grafts. I went with an earth theme, so I'm an Earth Dwarf, took the Earth domain for my druid domain, and use Stone Form for my wildshapes exclusively.

I play in a fashion that supports the party, not one that surmounts it: I prepare a number of party-buff spells (girallon's blessing is popular with my fighters, animalistic power is popular with the rogues, and everyone loves snake's swiftness and mass snake's swiftness). I control the battlefield with spells like bones of the earth, wall of stone, sudden stalagmite, and spike stones, funneling or pinning foes for my party to kill.

The rest of the players at the table (bar one of the fighters) probably can't optimize as well as I can, but they know this. They also know that I deliberately try to not outshine them except when I have to pull out all the stops to prevent a player death. No one has died yet, but several times people have come close and I (or others) have rescued them.

I can guarantee that no one feels outshone by my dwarf's presence. If anything, I am consistently outdone by one of the party's fighters, by the artificer, and by the rogue. And yet, I am better optimized than all of them.

Also note when I say "optimized", I mean "selecting the best options in a thematic fashion". Stonespeaker Guardian is far and away not "the best" druid prestige class, but it has 10/10 casting, progresses wildshape, makes Stone Form a lot better, and fits with my character's theme of slowly transforming into an earth elemental.

Grafts, similarly, have the drawback of being an item you can never remove, but I have a bunch of earth elemental grafts to equally fit that theme, as they bring to life the best option to an intended end for the character.

Optimystik
2010-07-23, 12:42 PM
Again, we need to clarify setting here. Are we talking D&D, or RPGs in general?

There are many RPGs where the PCs are intended to spend an entire campaign progressing without ever becoming extraordinary or rising above simple chance. I was just pointing out that D&D is not one of those RPGs. CoC and Iron Heroes may very well be, but I don't know enough about those settings to comment one way or the other.

JoshuaZ
2010-07-23, 12:43 PM
And what sort of decisions have you made in real life recently that deal with the d20 mechanics secretly underpinning the world?

In real life, making a "suboptimal decision" means you missed out on a great job offer, flunked a test, or whatever. In D&D, making a suboptimal decision means you're generally worse at what you do; the real-life equivalent of that sort of character (e.g. a fighter who decides to take Skill Focus [Basketweaving] instead of Power Attack) would be someone who really wants to go to law school but decides "I don't think I'll prepare myself for the bar exam, 'cause I don't know anything about that yet, I think I'll learn how to bake instead." The two scenarios are completely different.

But people make suboptimal decisions in real life all the time. I for example am posting this rather than finishing reading up on P-adic L functions. If I were a D&D character, I'd probably be Expert 2 or Expert 3 but with the skill points all over the place. Similarly, consider people who change career paths in a way where the prior career doesn't matter much. Someone who is a lawyer and then becomes a highschool teacher is suboptimized. Heck, even people who make life and death decisions aren't fully optimized. For example, many people in the army spend much of their free time not shooting targets or working out more but playing videogames and doing other silly stuff. Pretty much no one is fully optimized. That said, I think your overall point is correct. Most humans try to optimize a lot. So your basic point holds. I'd say that having a few skill points though in say Profession(baking) or the like doesn't mean you aren't roleplaying well.

DragoonWraith
2010-07-23, 12:49 PM
Optimal characters are not assumed to have spent every waking moment optimally. Spending skill points, or even more so class levels or feats, signifies a very significant investiture into a given thing. You don't put a rank in Perform (Guitar) just because you played one in high school. You put a rank in Perform (Guitar) if you played one in an inde rock band that actually lived off of their playing, yours included. You put several ranks in if you're widely recognized as one of the best guitarists in the world.

But just because someone only has skills points in "optimal" choices does not mean their character is restricted from having hobbies!

Boci
2010-07-23, 12:54 PM
Optimal characters are not assumed to have spent every waking moment optimally. Spending skill points, or even more so class levels or feats, signifies a very significant investiture into a given thing. You don't put a rank in Perform (Guitar) just because you played one in high school. You put a rank in Perform (Guitar) if you played one in an inde rock band that actually lived off of their playing, yours included. You put several ranks in if you're widely recognized as one of the best guitarists in the world.

But just because someone only has skills points in "optimal" choices does not mean their character is restricted from having hobbies!

I made the same argument in another thead a while back. I got so annoyed of people saying "You're a munchkin. You're trying to get free stuff!"

The first time I admit I worded my argument wrong. But once I clarified for the third time that I did not want free stuff you'd think they could have gotten the message.

Coplantor
2010-07-23, 01:01 PM
Optimal characters are not assumed to have spent every waking moment optimally. Spending skill points, or even more so class levels or feats, signifies a very significant investiture into a given thing. You don't put a rank in Perform (Guitar) just because you played one in high school. You put a rank in Perform (Guitar) if you played one in an inde rock band that actually lived off of their playing, yours included. You put several ranks in if you're widely recognized as one of the best guitarists in the world.

But just because someone only has skills points in "optimal" choices does not mean their character is restricted from having hobbies!

Even if I agree with you here, and I see thing the same way, mechanically, this doesnt work since, rules wise, you cannot play a freaking guitar if you have no ranks on perform. The problem here is with the rules.

Besides, you cannot blame the players for not spending points on skills that they wont use too often, given that the system encourages combat more than other styles of play, if you want to buy e beter guitar, you'd get more money from raiding an ancient tomb (wich in this game is OK because you get rid of the abominations within) than actually playing your guitar and making skill checks. The most you can get per day with a perform check is 3d6 gp, and that's after dedicating a lot of ranks into it.

PairO'Dice Lost
2010-07-23, 01:04 PM
Even if I agree with you here, and I see thing the same way, mechanically, this doesnt work since, rules wise, you cannot play a freaking guitar if you have no ranks on perform. The problem here is with the rules.

You can use Perform untrained, you know.

Coplantor
2010-07-23, 01:05 PM
You can use Perform untrained, you know.

Huh, memory failed me then, I was sure it was one of those that needed at least one rank.

Wich is weird since my all time favourite character was one was all about getting as many pluses on perform (interpretative dance) as possible.

Optimystik
2010-07-23, 01:06 PM
Even if I agree with you here, and I see thing the same way, mechanically, this doesnt work since, rules wise, you cannot play a freaking guitar if you have no ranks on perform. The problem here is with the rules.

I think it was like that in 3.0, but certainly not 3.5.

Jayabalard
2010-07-23, 01:07 PM
Optimal characters are not assumed to have spent every waking moment optimally. Spending skill points, or even more so class levels or feats, signifies a very significant investiture into a given thing. You don't put a rank in Perform (Guitar) just because you played one in high school. You put a rank in Perform (Guitar) if you played one in an inde rock band that actually lived off of their playing, yours included. You put several ranks in if you're widely recognized as one of the best guitarists in the world.

But just because someone only has skills points in "optimal" choices does not mean their character is restricted from having hobbies!I'd say that if you've invested more than 1000 hours on an instrument you probably have at least one rank in it (I'm trying to guesstimate mine but coming up with a number more like 4k). Say for example, you played trumped in middle and high school, continued in college and played in the holiday bands out at Disney World (ie, Toy Soldiers, Christmas Brass, etc), and then continued playing for several years after that. Of the people that I know did that, about half are still in music as a career but a lot of them are doing other things with their life.

Probably most of the people DCI Championship ring have at least 1 rank in perform; I don't know how many of them continue to have a career in music, but most of the ones that I know are not (engineering, math education, Computer science working on PhD).

For College with a juggling club, most of the better jugglers in the club would have 1 rank or 2 (at least) in perform juggling. Some of those guys are amazingly good.


1) I already established I was specifically talking about D&D. That's great, but I'm not; you responded to me. So it's kind of absurd to demand that I limit myself to talking about D&D when you try and argue against what I said when not talking about D&D.


2) The Mystery Men are indeed superheroes, unlikely though they might be. How many normal people do you know with magic bowling balls?I know lots of people who are good at throwing things, shoveling, and could probably pick up a bus when angry (if by pick up a bus you mean give it it a bit of a push when the driver had his foot on the gas at the beginning). And the bowler
I might be misremembering, but the end of the movie, the bowler doesn't have the bowling ball anymore; wasn't it destroyed? It's been a while since I've seen it..

So that just leaves the spleen, and invisible boy as the only ones with any actual powers.

I mention mystery men because one of the campaigns that I remember fondly was a mystery men-esque one... it was GURPS with 100 point characters superheroes with no super powers.

lesser_minion
2010-07-23, 01:09 PM
I think it was like that in 3.0, but certainly not 3.5.

No, 3.0 Perform could be untrained as well. The only difference was that every rank in perform in 3.0 meant you were trained in a different instrument.

Optimystik
2010-07-23, 01:10 PM
That's great, but I'm not; you responded to me, not the other way around. So it's kind of absurd to demand that I limit myself to talking about D&D.

I'm not "demanding" you to do anything. If your claim is "PCs are real people, not superheroes" then it sounds like you're the one who needs to specify the settings your assertion applies to - since in D&D, Exalted, M&M etc. they very much are.

nightwyrm
2010-07-23, 01:11 PM
People in real life makes sub-optimal choices all the time. But they aren't the type of choices you make when building your PC. Let's say you're picking a feat. Your human PC gets a maximum of 8 feats at lv 20. This isn't choosing to go out drinking instead of studying the night before a test. This is making a decision that only come 8 times in your life if you live long enough to become a demi-god.

In terms of the 3.x system, a mundane person gets 1 or 2 feats his whole life. A fighter picking skill focus instead of power attack is not a lawyer going into teaching a related field after getting his law degree, it's like choosing to go to a trade school instead of a university if you want to become a doctor or going into acting after being a professional athlete all your life :smallwink:.

Jayabalard
2010-07-23, 01:23 PM
People in real life makes sub-optimal choices all the time. But they aren't the type of choices you make when building your PC.Yes they are.
Let's say you're picking a feat. Your human PC gets a maximum of 8 feats at lv 20. This isn't choosing to go out drinking instead of studying the night before a test. This is making a decision that only come 8 times in your life if you live long enough to become a demi-god. It's like choosing to go to a trade school instead of a university if you want to become a doctor.Yes, people really do decide to stay home play video games and smoke pot instead of studying to become a doctor. Or they drop out of high school.

Or they go get a degree from a theological college, then burn their ordination card in the parking lot when they are working as a youth minister and can't get anything done about allegations of sexual advances toward some of the church's youth and currently make leather fetish gear for various clients, leather/metal armor for SCA people , and basically convert to paganism/wicca (I'm not really sure what his beliefs are now, I haven't talked with him much)

Of they could graduate with a 4 year degree in computer science, get married and have kids, decide they didn't like the field after all, go back for a 4 year degree in Music education, not be able to get a job as a band director because of the education based layoffs and hiring freezes in florida (which hit music ed very hard) and then go back into school for a masters in computer science and work in simulation.

Or, they might decline an offer for working in a government funded undergraduate research program in computer science where they'd get a pretty decent stipend and where they stand a pretty decent chance of being published as a result (giving them a very good chance at getting a spot in a good research labs as a graduate student) so that they could spend a bunch of money, give up 1-2 weekends a month over the course of the spring and spend two weeks practicing marching and music for 14-16 hours a day, then spend the rest of the summer sleeping on buses and gym floors, communal showers that aren't even always hot, marching/music practice 4+ hours a day, performing in the evening and moving on to the next city for the next day (ie, march drum corps for their age out year) .

Coplantor
2010-07-23, 01:27 PM
Yes they are.Yes, people really do decide to stay home play video games and smoke pot instead of studying to become a doctor.


Call me a munchkin, but I would play the doctor in most games.

Tohron
2010-07-23, 01:36 PM
That's not the Stormwind Fallacy. The Stormwind fallacy is when you say that optimizing leads to poor roleplaying, or the reverse. There's a proper Logical Fallacy based on it's general form, but despite my logic classes I can't remember what it is.

I believe it's called False Dichotomy - the Stormwind Fallacy would have you believe that you can have either optimization or roleplaying, but not both, when that is not in fact the cast.

Caphi
2010-07-23, 01:40 PM
Yes they are.Yes, people really do decide to stay home play video games and smoke pot instead of studying to become a doctor. Or they drop out of high school.

These people generally don't become PCs, though.

PairO'Dice Lost
2010-07-23, 01:40 PM
Yes they are.Yes, people really do decide to stay home play video games and smoke pot instead of studying to become a doctor. Or they drop out of high school.

Or they go get a degree from a theological college, then burn their ordination card in the parking lot [...]

Okay, so those examples are of people who've used up a bunch of skill ranks and maybe some feats with bad decisions. Great. Now, why would you make one of those as a PC, misspent feats and all? You can represent someone vacillating between CS and music without putting max ranks in Knowledge (CompSci) and Perform, picking up the relevant Skill Focus feats, and going Bard X/Rogue (or Wizard) X. You can make that former minister without sinking every rank into Knowledge (Religion) and Craft skills and being a fallen cleric.

Jayabalard
2010-07-23, 01:58 PM
Okay, so those examples are of people who've used up a bunch of skill ranks and maybe some feats with bad decisions. Great.That was kind of the point... you know, to present it as a counter argument that "People in real life makes sub-optimal choices all the time. But they aren't the type of choices you make when building your PC."

Those examples were to show that people do make sub-optimal decisions, and sometimes they are indeed they type of choices that you make when building a PC... life changing choices equivalent to choosing feats.


Now, why would you make one of those as a PC, misspent feats and all?Why wouldn't I? Some times you come up with a back story for a character that isn't all stars and glitter. Sometimes they've made bad decisions, terrible decisions... sometimes they give you great role-playing opportunities.

For example: a modern day person who dropped out of college to take care of an ill parent who later made a terrible deal with (and in the end was double crossed by ) the powers of darkness, and became fledgling sorcerer. There were certainly points that were far from optimally spent... but they represented who that character was, where he had been. He wasn't gimped enough to be an undue burden on the party but he certainly was less effective than most of the other characters since he was less specialized.


You can represent someone vacillating between CS and music without putting max ranks in Knowledge (CompSci) and Perform, picking up the relevant Skill Focus feats, and going Bard X/Rogue (or Wizard) X. You can make that former minister without sinking every rank into Knowledge (Religion) and Craft skills and being a fallen cleric.Certainly... I'm not saying you have to make characters be bad in order to roleplay. But there's a huge range of possibilities between bad and optimal... all of which fall into the category of "sub-optimal"

PairO'Dice Lost
2010-07-23, 02:04 PM
Those examples were to show that people do make sub-optimal decisions, and sometimes they are indeed they type of choices that you make when building a PC... life changing choices equivalent to choosing feats.

Why wouldn't I? Some times you come up with a back story for a character that isn't all stars and glitter. Sometimes they've made bad decisions, terrible decisions... sometimes they give you great role-playing opportunities.

Again, the sort of suboptimal RL decisions you can make and mechanical D&D ones are completely different; the RL ones essentially backstory while the D&D ones are essentially a build. You can have a person in D&D who dropped out of wizard academy, traveled the world for a year, worked as a short order cook at the Prancing Pony, and played the ukulele before picking up a sword and going out to right wrongs...but mechanically he can just as easily be a Fighter 1 with Power Attack and Weapon Focus (Longsword) as he can be a Wizard 1/Cleric of Fharlangn 1/Bard 1 with Perform, two Knowledges, and Survival maxed out. That's gone beyond the range of suboptimal to the level of "choosing abilities based on backstory while completely ignoring mechanical effectiveness" and you don't have to make suboptimal mechanical choices to make suboptimal background choices.

nightwyrm
2010-07-23, 02:09 PM
@ Jayabalard

yes, the examples you've brought up are certainly life changing decisions. And following the logic of your examples, a PC who takes skill focus (bread making) settles down and raises a family instead of going out and molesting dragons. That's my point.

Powerfamiliar
2010-07-23, 02:20 PM
@ Jayabalard

yes, the examples you've brought up are certainly life changing decisions. And following the logic of your examples, a PC who takes skill focus (bread making) settles down and raises a family instead of going out and molesting dragons. That's my point.

What if he really really likes delicious bread, and thinks focusing on making better bread is work the increased risk of a dragon fighting accidnet? Or maybe he was a world renown bread maker before a dragon burnt his restaurant, and now he wants revenge.

For most characters in most campaigns I've palyed, that would be a choice that makes them subotimal, but not unplayably so. If he decides to spend every feat and skill point supporting his breadmaking over dragon fighting then it is unlikely he would lead a life that would be any fun to play, but even then if the player enjoys that and manages to survive more power to him.

Jayabalard
2010-07-23, 02:39 PM
Again, the sort of suboptimal RL decisions you can make and mechanical D&D ones are completely different; the RL ones essentially backstory while the D&D ones are essentially a build.If your backstory has no effect on who you are, what you know, and what you can do, then I think you're not as good of a roleplayer as someone who's character actually matches their backstory. There's room for a certain amount of fudging but at some point it just breaks the suspension of disbelief for me (which is a prime indicator that you're doing something wrong on the roleplaying front).

In the example that I gave there... not all of it is back story. There's a point in it where it goes from back story to current game. At the start of the game he was pretty useless in a fight, moderately less so in academic situations.


And following the logic of your examples, a PC who takes skill focus (bread making) settles down and raises a family instead of going out and molesting dragons. That's my point.Not generally; if it's a PC, and you're talking D&D, then they mostly likely going to still go out and molest dragons. See Powerfamiliar's comments.

Though it's molesting dragons is highly optional in some games, and it's funny that you give that example: I did have a character who had been apprenticed to a wizard for a short time, then wound up being a baker. He had a level in magery, and a couple of spell skills, and was VERY good at baking, politics, diplomacy, and buisiness. The game was set in Tredroy (which is part of the GURPS Banestorm setting). He had picked up a couple spells during his apprenticeship but couldn't use them for 2 reasons. One: he had holdings in the al-haz quarter and openly using magic could be extremly dangerous (both because of the risk of getting stoned to death and having his property confiscated); Two: he didn't have sufficient skill to use safely magic in low mana areas.


For most characters in most campaigns I've palyed, that would be a choice that makes them subotimal, but not unplayably so. If he decides to spend every feat and skill point supporting his breadmaking over dragon fighting then it is unlikely he would lead a life that would be any fun to play, but even then if the player enjoys that and manages to survive more power to him.I agree.

Caphi
2010-07-23, 02:57 PM
For some - I daresay many - of us, the concept includes, or perhaps a better word would be "contains", a clause that either says or implies "is good at fighting in X way". If not fighting, it may be stealth, or manipulation. I'm going to condense and repeat that, because it's critical to just about everything I'll be saying next.

Competence in the character's field of expertise is part, but not all, of character concept.

Just for a second, stop thinking of it as "do I want my character to kill better or do I want to stat up his baking skills", and recognize the people who think of it as "which part of my character is more important, his magic or his baking?" There is a difference.

Draz74
2010-07-23, 02:58 PM
Anyone who claims to 'have' to optimise to survive clearly needs a new GM, because theirs is missing the point. Or they are. One or the other.
I dare you to read Saph's Seven Kingdoms campaign journal and say that again. That campaign was AWESOME ... because the DM was throwing challenges at the (pretty optimized) party that he had no idea how they were going to survive. Yet they just knew the game well enough, and thought creatively enough, that they were able to escape his death sentence time and time again, without doing anything lame that would ruin the game.


As regards the whole 'D&D characters aren't supposed to be accidentally saving the world' thing... Why not? Why can't that be EXACTLY my character background. It works. It's good. It was good enough for those hobbits.
Now, that I agree with. I think the "characters above Level 2 are practically superheroes" mentality doesn't really fit a lot of the best heroes of fantasy literature, who were just regular blokes who had to answer a tougher call than most.

Coplantor
2010-07-23, 03:01 PM
Now, that I agree with. I think the "characters above Level 2 are practically superheroes" mentality doesn't really fit a lot of the best heroes of fantasy literature, who were just regular blokes who had to answer a tougher call than most.

Yeah, but they were hardly higher level than 5

PairO'Dice Lost
2010-07-23, 03:07 PM
If your backstory has no effect on who you are, what you know, and what you can do, then I think you're not as good of a roleplayer as someone who's character actually matches their backstory. There's room for a certain amount of fudging but at some point it just breaks the suspension of disbelief for me (which is a prime indicator that you're doing something wrong on the roleplaying front).

It definitely has an effect on who you are and what you know, and less so on what you can do. It seems we just have a difference of opinion as to what varying amounts of investment mean. To me, the bread-maker in your first example makes good bread because...he makes good bread. That's it. You can bake just fine, and even do it well, without Craft or Profession ranks; those would represent someone who makes a living from it.

Taking your second example, where he was a world-class baker before adventuring, that's only worth a rank or two at most--taking 10 with 2 ranks nets him 6 gp in profit per week, meaning he makes at least 300 loaves of bread or the equivalent per week, meaning he's accomplished enough to run a very good, very popular bakery...and all that with 2 ranks. Spending less than 4 ranks in a Craft, Profession, or Perform skill is an absolutely miniscule investment. Given that the title of this thread involves careers, and it seems some entire careers can be summed up with around half your skill points at first level, I don't think a mechanical investment in your background to the point of taking levels in classes matching your careers is necessary or desirable.


Now, that I agree with. I think the "characters above Level 2 are practically superheroes" mentality doesn't really fit a lot of the best heroes of fantasy literature, who were just regular blokes who had to answer a tougher call than most.

Above level 7 or 8, actually; most of the creatures and challenges Hercules faced, for instance, are CR 7 or so.

taltamir
2010-07-23, 03:39 PM
Above level 7 or 8, actually; most of the creatures and challenges Hercules faced, for instance, are CR 7 or so.

Hercules, as the son of a mortal and a god, had divine rank 0.

DragoonWraith
2010-07-23, 04:32 PM
Hercules wasn't playing D&D, though. The best D&D analogue of Hercules is about ECL 7 with some bonus Str (from a Template, presumably).

Kylarra
2010-07-23, 04:44 PM
DvR 0 isn't really all that powerful anyway.



I think I'm having a forum deja vuI am consistent, if nothing else.

Tyndmyr
2010-07-23, 05:14 PM
That was kind of the point... you know, to present it as a counter argument that "People in real life makes sub-optimal choices all the time. But they aren't the type of choices you make when building your PC."

Those examples were to show that people do make sub-optimal decisions, and sometimes they are indeed they type of choices that you make when building a PC... life changing choices equivalent to choosing feats.

Why wouldn't I? Some times you come up with a back story for a character that isn't all stars and glitter. Sometimes they've made bad decisions, terrible decisions... sometimes they give you great role-playing opportunities.

Knock yourself out. But that doesn't make your character inherently better, or more interesting. The guy who stayed home and smoked pot instead of getting an education is not guaranteed a more interesting life story.

So, I don't see how this is a problem w regards to Stormwind. It's certainly not impossible to roleplay well with a suboptimal character. I don't think many people seriously contend that's the case.

Gametime
2010-07-23, 05:58 PM
DvR 0 isn't really all that powerful anyway.



It does grant pretty high damage reduction, immunity to mind-affecting, ability damage, ability drain, and shape-changing, good spell resistance, and a few other incidentals. Raises some questions about why Hercules could be affected by a poisoned arrow - beating his DR would be a hefty task.

oxybe
2010-07-23, 06:02 PM
you know, after reading this thread something struck me... you people are quite literally discussing how to optimize roleplaying.

seriously. next character i'm making is a tragic, guitar playing, dragon slaying pot-head who dropped out of of law school and became a baker who got his house got wrecked by a dragon after he crossbow'd a clown in the face and had to do hard time in the hoosegow because of some sort of anthropomorphic bat wizard with his bird familiar caught him.

and he fights by dual-wielding and throwing cookbooks at people.

or something.

totally OP'd my RP.

EDIT: also, he's an alcoholic who's parents were killed in a dark ally.

Fax Celestis
2010-07-23, 06:47 PM
seriously. next character i'm making is a tragic, guitar playing, dragon slaying pot-head who dropped out of of law school and became a baker who got his house got wrecked by a dragon after he crossbow'd a clown in the face and had to do hard time in the hoosegow because of some sort of anthropomorphic bat wizard with his bird familiar caught him.

and he fights by dual-wielding and throwing cookbooks at people.

or something.

totally OP'd my RP.

EDIT: also, he's an alcoholic who's parents were killed in a dark ally.

I c wut u did thar

oxybe
2010-07-23, 07:01 PM
I c wut u did thar

most awexome char evar. srsly.

but yeah, backstory is good and all, but when it comes to RP, no matter how well crafted your backstory is, be it a marvel that would make the poet weep or a hideous fanfiction that caused the madness of picasso, when it comes to RP you need to step up or shut up during game time (which is when it counts).

mechanics have little impact at this point other then giving you options on what you can and cannot do and how well you do it.

not how you RP your character.